This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," November 19, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Tonight: Former Sergeant Drew Peterson is out and about. He just spoke out to the media gathered outside his home.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're being harassed by the media. Why are you talking to us? I mean, why are you — what is the point of going on TV with Matt Lauer last week and also doing several interviews today?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, what — well, then, what is...

PETERSON: You're going to have to get with him for his thoughts and feelings on his — why he wants to talk to the media.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But why — but originally, you didn't have that attorney last week.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So what point are you trying to get across by talking to us?

PETERSON: Leave me alone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew, anything else you'd like to say about, you know, your feelings as Stacy's husband? Three weeks now she's been missing. As a husband whose wife is missing — granted, you said, you know, she left you for another man. But what are you feeling, that it's still woman you were married to, the mother of your two youngest children?

PETERSON: Right. I'm still in love with Stacy, and I miss her.


VAN SUSTEREN: Earlier, the "Today" show tried to squeeze a few sentences out of Drew, but his new lawyer jumped in and fielded most of the questions. And Dr. Baden performed an autopsy last week on Peterson's wife number three. He concludes wife number three's death was a homicide. Drew Peterson was asked about that.


MATT LAUER, "TODAY": So now that you've heard what Michael Baden, the renowned forensic pathologist, as to say, that it was, in fact, murder, what's your response?

JOEL BRODSKY, PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: Matt, I'd like to answer that, rather than have Drew address it. Dr. Baden, with all due respect to him, is a renowned pathologist, but he had a preexisting opinion before he did the autopsy. His conclusion was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

LAUER: Well, Mr. Brodsky, let me — let me go back. I'm not asking for the facts of the case, but I would like to hear what Mr. Peterson's gut reaction is, from the heart. How does he feel about hearing that his third wife was perhaps murdered?

BRODSKY: Well, once again, talking about anything to do with the facts of the case, I'd like to address it, and I can tell you that...

LAUER: It's not a fact, though. Mr. Brodsky, is — Mr. Peterson, are you upset to learn that she may have been murdered?

BRODSKY: Go ahead.

PETERSON: Yes, I'm upset to hear something like that said, very much so.

LAUER: Do you maintain that it still was an accident? Do you disagree with Dr. Baden's findings?

BRODSKY: Well, once again, now you're asking a fact. And we do disagree with his findings. The first autopsy, from what I understand, was very thorough. They concluded it was an accident. Dr. Baden is a paid commentator for FOX entertainment group. And while we don't — like I said, he's a renowned, an eminent pathologist. On this case, he made comments that simply didn't make sense.


VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us live in Philadelphia is Dr. Baden. Good evening, Dr. Baden.


VAN SUSTEREN: All right, a couple of things. First of all, let me just get one thing straight. When a pathologist does an autopsy, the pathologist turns the findings over to someone else to make the final determination, or do you make the final determination on the cause of death.

BADEN: Well, as a medical examiner...

VAN SUSTEREN: Or manner?

BADEN: A medical examiner makes determinations as to cause of death and issues a death certificate. But in a coroner system, the pathologist did the autopsy and then turned it over to the coroner to make the final decision as to cause and manner of death. And that was done by Coroner O'Neil with the coroner's jury that he impaneled.

And I think whatever my findings are — which I performed the autopsy at the request of the family because they wanted and I wanted to make sure that nothing was overlooked in the first autopsy, gave my opinions to the family members. And it's up to Coroner O'Neil, who will eventually issue the determination as to whether it's an accident or otherwise at this time.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you find it the least bit peculiar — and I admit that I do, having gone to law school, like Drew Peterson's lawyer, who's a lawyer — he says he disagrees with your finding, a man who has studied law, not medicine, and has not done an autopsy and certainly has not examined these remains.

BADEN: Well, he has a right to his opinion. And as a detective, he's seen a lot of cases. But I...

VAN SUSTEREN: He's a lawyer. He's a lawyer.

BADEN: Who? I'm sorry...

VAN SUSTEREN: Drew Peterson's lawyer. Drew Peterson's lawyer.

BADEN: Oh, his lawyer?


BADEN: Yes, his lawyer is defending him, and I disagree with the lawyer. The lawyer has a right to defend his client. But I think that, clearly, after — three-and-a-half years ago, the coroner said he was not happy with the verdict of accident. He didn't think it was an accident. And at least two of the coroner's jurors at that time thought it was a homicide. So this isn't something new. The family has thought it was a homicide all along.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you spoken to — and if you have, can you tell us now the — with the examiner — the state of Illinois had a medical examiner who did an autopsy...


VAN SUSTEREN: ... a couple days before you did. Do you — have you spoken to him? And do you know whether his finding is consistent with yours or not?

BADEN: I've spoken to Dr. Blum, who did the second autopsy for the coroner, O'Neil, and he's a fine forensic pathologist. He told me his findings. I told him my findings. We've shared everything that we know. All I can say is talk to my opinions. He, at some point, when appropriate with the criminal investigation, will provide his opinions.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, one of the things that Drew Peterson's lawyer has said is critical of you (INAUDIBLE) he said that prior to doing the autopsy, you believed it to be homicide. Post doing the homicide, you believe it to be homicide.

BADEN: Right.

VAN SUSTEREN: What's your thought on that?

BADEN: Well, he's right. The reason that I responded to the family's request to do another autopsy was because I felt, after reviewing the first autopsy, that clearly, it should have been called a homicide in the first place. Here was a woman, according to the first autopsy, who'd been beaten up before she drowned. Adults don't drown in bathtubs if they're healthy and don't have drugs on board. And I think that's one flag.

But the other flag is she had all kinds of bruises. She had a bleeding laceration of the head that was present. And so I — she was laying there, according to the rigor mortis and settling of blood, for at least 30 hours before she was found in the bathtub. I think there was enough evidence then to go along with the two jurors who disagreed that it there — it should have been called a homicide.

VAN SUSTEREN: When you examined Kathleen Savio's remains, were you more convinced it was a homicide than before you had seen the remains, less convinced or about the same?

BADEN: No, I was more convinced because one of the reasons to do a second autopsy is to make sure that a mistake wasn't made in the first autopsy. It's amazing how often we can read autopsy reports and then we look at the body, there are differences.

In this instance, I think Dr. Mitchell (ph) did the autopsy, did a fine autopsy. The findings are not a problem. And I was able to reconfirm that there was no other competing cause of death, that the death was drowning, the lungs were present. So I think this further confirms my impression after reading the autopsy that it should not have been listed as an accident but should have been called a homicide back in 2004 and should have been further investigated at that time just on the basis of the autopsy findings, let alone all the other information that the police had about the spousal abuse and orders of protection and threats of violence to her.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, but in spite of that, is it fair to say that having done the autopsy on Kathleen Savio, there is zero way for you to know who would have killed her? You only determined how she died, whether — the manner of death and how she died. You have no idea who could have inflicted anything on her.

BADEN: Greta, you're absolutely right. The pathologist determines cause of death, manner of death and time of death, for example. It's up to the police to determine who done it.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So if someone — if she knew somebody who came into the house and killed her and it's completely unrelated to Sergeant Peterson — you have no way of knowing whether Sergeant Peterson or somebody else or random or whatever. You have no idea.

BADEN: That's correct. I'm not accusing anybody of being the perpetrator, but somebody was the perpetrator.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Dr. Baden, thank you, sir.

BADEN: Thank you, Greta.

Content and Programming Copyright 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.