According to Detective Brocchini, the first he heard of Amber was standing behind the person taking the tips on the MPD tip hotline on the morning of December 30, 2002. His story is just not believable. Neither is it believable that Amber didn't know "her Scott Peterson" was the husband of the missing pregnant woman from Modesto.
I lived in Sunnyvale at the time, which is 90 miles from Modesto. I watched very little TV, rarely caught a local newscast, and didn't subscribe to a paper. Yet I knew by the time I sat down with my family for a noon-day Christmas Dinner that a pregnant woman from Modesto was missing. When I returned to work the next day, it was widely talked about. Amber wasn't a hermit -- she had a job, she had friends, she had a very good detective friend with the Fresno PD (alerts were sent to every police department in CA) who had a friend who worked for the CA DOJ (the DOJ was heavily involved in the investigation from day one). Her sister lived in Modesto, just a couple blocks from Sharon Rocha. Amber had sent a photo of the couple in her Christmas cards. And it isn't true that Scott's photo wasn't in the media -- it was. And his name was mentioned in every story. Also, Tradecorp was mentioned as his employer from at least the 27th. Why didn't Shawn Sibley pick up on that?
So, I'm not playing this game anymore that Amber didn't know "her Scott" was the husband of the missing pregnant woman from Modesto. She did; she probably knew he was married and his wife was pregnant before Laci even disappeared. All the evidence at this time points to the Medina burglars as Laci's abductors, so that is not an accusation that she had anything to do with Laci's disappearance.
So what was up the morning she called Brocchini? And why did she first call Brocchini? My theory is that Amber knew Scott was married and knew his wife was pregnant. When she heard about Laci's disappearance on Dec 25th, she immediately called Richard Bird, a detective with the Fresno PD, and asked his advice. She was probably scared to death she was going to be thrown under the bus by Scott, since we know she was having serious trust issues already.
We can tell that Bird was a very good friend because one doesn't spend 30-60 minutes at a time on the phone on several occasions with someone that's not a good friend. And these are only the calls we know about that were placed to Bird from her phone; we don't know how many incoming calls she received from him or their frequency or duration. You can see her phone conversations with Bird here. On Christmas morning, at 8:36 a.m., she called Bird and talked for 24 minutes. She probably had just heard about Laci's disappearance. Bird probably did what he could to protect his friend -- not in an illegal way, but to be sure that she did not become the prime suspect.
What advice did he give her? I conclude from her behavior that it was to be sure to keep in touch with Scott, while not acknowledging that she knew anything, so she could keep tabs on him. She surely knew that if Scott told the police about the affair, they would investigate her. That explains her effort to make contact with Scott on the 25th, even having Shawn Sibley's uncle call Scott to chew him out for not calling Amber as he had promised.
Then on the 26th, she made an astounding number of calls to Scott - 14 in all. She seemed to be in a panic to get hold of him. She first called Richard Bird at 1:38 p.m, and talked to him 5 minutes. Again, we only know what calls she placed to him; we don't know what calls he placed to her. Then she called Scott at 3:04 p.m.; he didn't call back. Then she called at 5:32, 5:37, 5:48, and 5:50. This would be about the time the television stations were showing the house on Covena being cordoned off in preparation for the search warrant. She probably also saw television coverage of Scott leaving the house. Scott did call her at 6:55, but they didn't make contact. Then she called at 6:57, 7:18, 7:19, 7:34, 7:34, 7:36, 8:16, 8:20, and 8:21. No, the two 7:34's is not a mistake. Scott called her at 9:33 and they talked for 17 minutes (her calls to and from Scott were compiled in a chart by Jacobson, click here to view; my analysis of the Amber/Scott phone calls is here.)
My theory is that while Amber was trying frantically to keep in touch with Scott so she would know what he was up to, Bird was working the other end, trying to get an arrangement with the MPD wherein Amber could come forward as a cooperative witness against Scott and essentially have immunity from prosecution for anything they should happen to find out about her in their investigation. Amber had an 18 minute conversation with Bird at 8:09 p.m. on the 28th, and by that time it was absolutely clear that the MPD was singling out Scott as their only suspect. Better to jump on the bandwagon and help catch Scott than risk becoming a suspect. After all, he'd lied to her and her only alibi for the morning of the 24th was her toddler daughter.
In the early morning hours of the 30th she made a call to Bird that lasted 4 minutes. She said Bird had called her earlier on the night of the 29th while she was still at the party. This appears to be his instructions to her on how to contact the MPD so as to take full advantage of the arrangement he had worked out. But somehow the wires got crossed. She called Brocchini, when she was supposed to call the tip line, as I suspect Brocchini wanted it to appear that she was just calling in the tip line on her own, so as not to give away any hint of the agreement they had with her. Then she goofed again and mentioned that she had called Brocchini's number earlier. But that was all swept under the carpet and no one noticed anything strange about it. No one even noticed at the trial when Amber's tip was not produced as evidence -- no, it wasn't. So we don't have the alleged tip that Brocchini said the tipline received from Amber. Heck, for all we know, she didn't even call the tipline, she just called him and he made the rest of the story up. His stories have about as much credibility as Richard Nixon's "I'm not a crook," or Bill Clinton's "I never had sexual relations with that woman."
Richard Bird was at Amber's house on December 30th, but left before Brocchini and Buehler arrived. Or at least, that's the story they gave us.
Now that Amber was known to the MPD, she could help build their case against Scott. Whatever tapes she had made on her own no longer existed, with the exception of the voice message she had saved. They would want her to get certain things from Scott: a confession, of course, and lacking that, to get him entangled in as many contradictory statements as possible. I assume they would also want her to get him to badmouth Laci, run her down, blame everything on her, so they could run to Laci's family and share it with them. Of course, Scott didn't do that.
That's right, through all the conversations you heard between Amber and Scott, did you ever once hear him say anything negative about Laci? When Amber pressed, he would say he wasn't going to talk about that. He never shared anything personal between him and Laci. You might not think that's much to brag about, but adulterers do often make it out to be the wife's fault. In fact, Scott chose the only explanation for not being married that would eliminate any suggestion that his adultery was in any way Laci's fault -- he said he lost his wife. Who can say something bad about a wife that's been "lost."
And if we go back to the record, neither Shawn nor Amber could repeat anything bad that Scott ever said about Laci. No one did; no one could because it just didn't happen. The truth is, and all the Scott-haters just can't admit this, no matter what his personal failings with adultery, Scott loved Laci and had no intention of leaving her for Amber or for anyone else. Even Distaso had to admit that Scott's feelings for Amber were not anywhere significant enough to warrant leaving Laci. Too bad that he couldn't admit he was wrong about everything else, too.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The chameleon slipper
There is no doubt that one of Scott's bedroom slippers was collected on the night of December 26, 2002, to assist in the dog trailing. And Christopher Boyer not only knew it was Scott's slipper, he intentionally asked for an article of Scott's to be collected.
P. HARRIS: Well, what, in actuality when you say she collected another item, the brown slipper, isn't it true that you asked, you specifically asked for one article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson?
BOYER: That could be true, sir. I don't recall that specifically.
P. HARRIS: I'm going to direct you to the report to refresh your recollection. Take a look at the first paragraph.
BOYER: Yes, sir.
P. HARRIS: Does that refresh your recollection?
BOYER: Yes, sir, it does.
P. HARRIS: So you specifically asked for an article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
What is in doubt, however, is the color of Scott's bedroom slipper. As I scanned the various testimonies on the subject, I was surprised to find some difference in the descriptions.
First, the Pre-Trial hearings on the dog evidence. Cindee Valentin, a dog handler, testified first, and the slipper is described as brown 19 times in her testimony. Notice that Dave Harris is doing the direct examination and he is the one to first name the color of the slipper.
D. HARRIS: Did you see her with the scent item from the defendant that you had collected on the 26th?
VALENTIN: Yes, I did.
D. HARRIS: And did you,
VALENTIN: I saw her scent her dog with that article.
D. HARRIS: That was the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
>>>
P. HARRIS: He identified the articles, correct?
VALENTIN: After I collected them and walked out, he stayed in his chair at the table and asked about, well, he stated that the brown slipper was his, twice. And I asked if the other things were Laci's, and he said yes.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Can you describe the tone to me that was so objectionable about the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: I don't think I could imitate Mr. Peterson's tone.
P. HARRIS: Okay. Just seemed like he didn't want to give it up?
VALENTIN: He seemed concerned that I had it, not that he didn't want to give it up.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Concern that he had about the brown slippers, Ms. Valentin, is that you had the right item, wasn't it?
D. HARRIS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE: The right item.
P. HARRIS: The right item to search, the best possible item to search for his wife, correct?
>>>
VALENTIN: He verified that that was him, and I did not use it.
P. HARRIS: Okay. You picked up Mr. Peterson's brown slipper, correct?
VALENTIN: Two slippers.
P. HARRIS: Is that the first article you picked up?
VALENTIN: No. I believe the first article I picked up was the pink slipper. Then the brown slipper. Then the glasses, then the hairbrush.
P. HARRIS: Okay.
VALENTIN: And I was collecting many articles because sometimes you run more than one dog in the search.
P. HARRIS: Uh‑huh. Did you, you wore rubber gloves while you were doing this?
VALENTIN: Yes.P. HARRIS: Okay. And when you first picked up the pink slipper, you were wearing the rubber gloves?
VALENTIN: Uh‑huh.
P. HARRIS: Did you change the rubber gloves before you picked up the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: I don't recall.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So if you were picking up a brown slipper belonging to Scott Peterson, you would definitely want to change rubber gloves beforehand?
VALENTIN: Yes. If I knew that I was collecting something from Scott Peterson, I would have wanted to change gloves, yes.
P. HARRIS: And you didn't do that, did you? Because you didn't know it was an article belonging to Scott Peterson, did you?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: So you didn't change gloves, did you?
VALENTIN: No.
>>>
P. HARRIS: When you left the premises, did you leave with the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: Yes. After Scott identified that the brown slipper was his, they were going to continue on with some other things, and I skirted out because I wanted to, you know, get things organized with the dog.
P. HARRIS: They were going to continue on with some other things. "They" being?
VALENTIN: I guess continuing to, to finish up with, with Scott.
P. HARRIS: But there would be no reason for you to take the brown slipper because you weren't looking to go after anything with Scott Peterson?
VALENTIN: No, I wasn't looking to go after,
P. HARRIS: So the obviously logical thing to do would be to leave the brown slipper at the house?
VALENTIN: Certainly. I certainly could have.
P. HARRIS: But you didn't do that?
VALENTIN: No, I didn't.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Okay. The two articles, scent articles you had, excuse me, there were four, correct?
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: Okay. That included the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: Scott Peterson's?
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: So despite the fact you were still not tracing Scott Peterson, you had the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: And you took that and put it into a Ziploc bag?
VALENTIN: No, I did not take the slipper and repackage it. I believe I was repackaging a pink slipper and glasses. I wasn't given an assignment to drop trail for Scott Peterson.
JUDGE: Let me ask you a question. When Mr. Peterson told you that the brown slipper was his slipper, did you take it anyway, or did you just leave it there at the residence?
VALENTIN: I had it in my hand. I was on my way out the door. I took it anyway.
JUDGE: You took it anyway?
VALENTIN: Right.
<<<
P. HARRIS: Following up on that, you actually do know the brown slipper was used?
VALENTIN: That day, yes.
P. HARRIS: That day.
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: So you were aware when you left the house that day with the brown slipper, well, let me rephrase that. At what point did you give the brown slipper to Detective Brocchini?
VALENTIN: At the end of the first evening, the 26th, when we finished all three trails, I handed him all, everything that I had.
P. HARRIS: Okay. And you told him that, excuse me, strike that. When you came back on January the 4th, the brown slipper was still in the package there?
VALENTIN: Yes.
Eloise Anderson, another dog handler, was second to testify in the Pre-Trial hearings. In her testimony, the color brown is mentioned only once - she generally referred to it as a slipper.
Shephard Kopp: Do you remember the brown slipper that was Scott Peterson's that you were using? Do you remember what that was made out of?
Eloise Anderson: I believe it was made out of on the outside almost a, a wool type of textured material, as I recall. And then maybe like a phony sheep skin on the inside? But I'm not positive about that.
Chris Boyer, Captain of the Search and Rescue team to which Valentin and Anderson belonged, testified last. Brown slipper is mentioned 15 times in his testimony. After reading Valentin's testimony and Boyer's, it's quite apparent that one of Boyer's primary assignments was damage control.
BOYER: She actually collected four items. There was also another slipper that was collected. They were placed in plastic individual plastic bags. I believe that she labeled the bags, and then we walked out to the living room.
P. HARRIS: Well, what, in actuality when you say she collected another item, the brown slipper, isn't it true that you asked, you specifically asked for one article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson?
BOYER: That could be true, sir. I don't recall that specifically.
>>>
P. HARRIS: The brown slipper was collected second?
BOYER: No, sir. I believe it was collected last.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Then it's your testimony that after you collected those three items, you collected the brown slipper fourth?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
>>>
P. HARRIS: And at that point she had already handled the brown slipper, correct?
BOYER: That's not my recollection. That was the last thing we collected.
P. HARRIS: If she testifies, in fact, she had handled the brown slipper first before, would that refresh your recollection?
BOYER: Then one of us is incorrect, sir. My recollection is the brown slippers was last.
P. HARRIS: You did, in fact, see her handle the brown slipper, didn't you.
BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe I did.
P. HARRIS: From your recollection, Miss Valentin didn't search through the purse, didn't pull the sunglasses out of the purse and didn't touch the brown slipper; is that your recollection?
BOYER: She didn't personally search purse. She did not pull the sunglasses case out of the purse. I'm sorry, what was the third part of the question?
P. HARRIS: She never touched the brown slipper?
BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe she ever touched the slipper.
>>>
P. HARRIS: He didn't ask you to take the brown slipper, for example, that was Scott Peterson's, scent it, and see if the dog would go to the warehouse?
BOYER: No, sir.
>>>
P. HARRIS: I'm referring to the fact that the hairbrush, the brown slipper, and the,
BOYER: Pink slipper.
P. HARRIS: Pink slipper were in your possession when you left that house that day, correct?
BOYER: No, sir.
P. HARRIS: Whose possession were they?
BOYER: We gave them to the, I believe it was Detective Brocchini.
P. HARRIS: You gave the items to Detective Brocchini, including brown slipper, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir. All, everything except for the glasses case that Miss Valentin used.
P. HARRIS: Miss Valentin purposely kept away from the brown slipper because of the contamination problem, correct? They would not have wanted to have the brown slipper, because that would have possibly contaminated with the items from Laci Peterson, correct?
BOYER: I don't know what you are referring to that she kept away from it.
P. HARRIS: She did not have possession over, excuse me. She did not have possession, specifically, of the brown slipper, because that scented to Scott Peterson, correct?
BOYER: She didn't have possession of,
P. HARRIS: She didn't walk out of the house with it, did she?
BOYER: I don't believe she walked out with that in her hands, no.
P. HARRIS: Detective Brocchini walked out, didn't he, with it?
BOYER: I believe we gave it to him while he was inside the house, yes, sir.
Now let's revisit the trial testimony. Valentin didn't testify at the trial because her dog trailings were ruled inadmissible by Judge Delucchi, and for good cause. Anderson testified, but her dog trailing on January 4, 2003, using the brown slipper was likewise ruled inadmissible, so the subject of the brown slipper never came up. Boyer also testified, but now the slipper is "green and brown."
D. HARRIS: What were the items that were collected.
BOYER: We collected a hairbrush, we collected a pink slipper, we collected a sunglasses case with a pair of sunglasses on the inside, and we collected a green and brown slipper.
>>>
P. HARRIS: And how many scent articles were collected?
BOYER: I covered that with Mr. Harris. It was a hairbrush, that would be one of the articles, the sunglasses and case, which would be a second article, a pink slipper, a third article, and a green and brown slipper, a fourth article.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So hairbrush was last, the glasses case, so the two slippers you don't know the order, and the pink slipper, brown slipper?
BOYER: No, sir, they might be in Ms. Valentin's report but I don't recall.
>>>
P. HARRIS: It says I collected a brown slipper off of the front floor in front of the dresser, a sunglass case, I collected a sunglass case containing glasses from inside a Louis Vuitton purse hanging in the closet?
BOYER: That doesn't tell me she reached inside it, sir. It just says she reached inside the purse is the way I interpret that.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So you came to learn at some point that the green and brown slipper was in fact Scott Peterson's?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
P. HARRIS: And you came to learn that in fact this was the item that, the green and brown slipper was an item that in fact you did want to take from the house, correct?
BOYER: You'd have to characterize that question differently.
P. HARRIS: You choose to take the item even after you found it was Scott Peterson's, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
P. HARRIS: Well, what, in actuality when you say she collected another item, the brown slipper, isn't it true that you asked, you specifically asked for one article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson?
BOYER: That could be true, sir. I don't recall that specifically.
P. HARRIS: I'm going to direct you to the report to refresh your recollection. Take a look at the first paragraph.
BOYER: Yes, sir.
P. HARRIS: Does that refresh your recollection?
BOYER: Yes, sir, it does.
P. HARRIS: So you specifically asked for an article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
What is in doubt, however, is the color of Scott's bedroom slipper. As I scanned the various testimonies on the subject, I was surprised to find some difference in the descriptions.
First, the Pre-Trial hearings on the dog evidence. Cindee Valentin, a dog handler, testified first, and the slipper is described as brown 19 times in her testimony. Notice that Dave Harris is doing the direct examination and he is the one to first name the color of the slipper.
D. HARRIS: Did you see her with the scent item from the defendant that you had collected on the 26th?
VALENTIN: Yes, I did.
D. HARRIS: And did you,
VALENTIN: I saw her scent her dog with that article.
D. HARRIS: That was the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
>>>
P. HARRIS: He identified the articles, correct?
VALENTIN: After I collected them and walked out, he stayed in his chair at the table and asked about, well, he stated that the brown slipper was his, twice. And I asked if the other things were Laci's, and he said yes.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Can you describe the tone to me that was so objectionable about the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: I don't think I could imitate Mr. Peterson's tone.
P. HARRIS: Okay. Just seemed like he didn't want to give it up?
VALENTIN: He seemed concerned that I had it, not that he didn't want to give it up.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Concern that he had about the brown slippers, Ms. Valentin, is that you had the right item, wasn't it?
D. HARRIS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE: The right item.
P. HARRIS: The right item to search, the best possible item to search for his wife, correct?
>>>
VALENTIN: He verified that that was him, and I did not use it.
P. HARRIS: Okay. You picked up Mr. Peterson's brown slipper, correct?
VALENTIN: Two slippers.
P. HARRIS: Is that the first article you picked up?
VALENTIN: No. I believe the first article I picked up was the pink slipper. Then the brown slipper. Then the glasses, then the hairbrush.
P. HARRIS: Okay.
VALENTIN: And I was collecting many articles because sometimes you run more than one dog in the search.
P. HARRIS: Uh‑huh. Did you, you wore rubber gloves while you were doing this?
VALENTIN: Yes.P. HARRIS: Okay. And when you first picked up the pink slipper, you were wearing the rubber gloves?
VALENTIN: Uh‑huh.
P. HARRIS: Did you change the rubber gloves before you picked up the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: I don't recall.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So if you were picking up a brown slipper belonging to Scott Peterson, you would definitely want to change rubber gloves beforehand?
VALENTIN: Yes. If I knew that I was collecting something from Scott Peterson, I would have wanted to change gloves, yes.
P. HARRIS: And you didn't do that, did you? Because you didn't know it was an article belonging to Scott Peterson, did you?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: So you didn't change gloves, did you?
VALENTIN: No.
>>>
P. HARRIS: When you left the premises, did you leave with the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: Yes. After Scott identified that the brown slipper was his, they were going to continue on with some other things, and I skirted out because I wanted to, you know, get things organized with the dog.
P. HARRIS: They were going to continue on with some other things. "They" being?
VALENTIN: I guess continuing to, to finish up with, with Scott.
P. HARRIS: But there would be no reason for you to take the brown slipper because you weren't looking to go after anything with Scott Peterson?
VALENTIN: No, I wasn't looking to go after,
P. HARRIS: So the obviously logical thing to do would be to leave the brown slipper at the house?
VALENTIN: Certainly. I certainly could have.
P. HARRIS: But you didn't do that?
VALENTIN: No, I didn't.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Okay. The two articles, scent articles you had, excuse me, there were four, correct?
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: Okay. That included the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: Scott Peterson's?
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: So despite the fact you were still not tracing Scott Peterson, you had the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: And you took that and put it into a Ziploc bag?
VALENTIN: No, I did not take the slipper and repackage it. I believe I was repackaging a pink slipper and glasses. I wasn't given an assignment to drop trail for Scott Peterson.
JUDGE: Let me ask you a question. When Mr. Peterson told you that the brown slipper was his slipper, did you take it anyway, or did you just leave it there at the residence?
VALENTIN: I had it in my hand. I was on my way out the door. I took it anyway.
JUDGE: You took it anyway?
VALENTIN: Right.
<<<
P. HARRIS: Following up on that, you actually do know the brown slipper was used?
VALENTIN: That day, yes.
P. HARRIS: That day.
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: So you were aware when you left the house that day with the brown slipper, well, let me rephrase that. At what point did you give the brown slipper to Detective Brocchini?
VALENTIN: At the end of the first evening, the 26th, when we finished all three trails, I handed him all, everything that I had.
P. HARRIS: Okay. And you told him that, excuse me, strike that. When you came back on January the 4th, the brown slipper was still in the package there?
VALENTIN: Yes.
Eloise Anderson, another dog handler, was second to testify in the Pre-Trial hearings. In her testimony, the color brown is mentioned only once - she generally referred to it as a slipper.
Shephard Kopp: Do you remember the brown slipper that was Scott Peterson's that you were using? Do you remember what that was made out of?
Eloise Anderson: I believe it was made out of on the outside almost a, a wool type of textured material, as I recall. And then maybe like a phony sheep skin on the inside? But I'm not positive about that.
Chris Boyer, Captain of the Search and Rescue team to which Valentin and Anderson belonged, testified last. Brown slipper is mentioned 15 times in his testimony. After reading Valentin's testimony and Boyer's, it's quite apparent that one of Boyer's primary assignments was damage control.
BOYER: She actually collected four items. There was also another slipper that was collected. They were placed in plastic individual plastic bags. I believe that she labeled the bags, and then we walked out to the living room.
P. HARRIS: Well, what, in actuality when you say she collected another item, the brown slipper, isn't it true that you asked, you specifically asked for one article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson?
BOYER: That could be true, sir. I don't recall that specifically.
>>>
P. HARRIS: The brown slipper was collected second?
BOYER: No, sir. I believe it was collected last.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Then it's your testimony that after you collected those three items, you collected the brown slipper fourth?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
>>>
P. HARRIS: And at that point she had already handled the brown slipper, correct?
BOYER: That's not my recollection. That was the last thing we collected.
P. HARRIS: If she testifies, in fact, she had handled the brown slipper first before, would that refresh your recollection?
BOYER: Then one of us is incorrect, sir. My recollection is the brown slippers was last.
P. HARRIS: You did, in fact, see her handle the brown slipper, didn't you.
BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe I did.
P. HARRIS: From your recollection, Miss Valentin didn't search through the purse, didn't pull the sunglasses out of the purse and didn't touch the brown slipper; is that your recollection?
BOYER: She didn't personally search purse. She did not pull the sunglasses case out of the purse. I'm sorry, what was the third part of the question?
P. HARRIS: She never touched the brown slipper?
BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe she ever touched the slipper.
>>>
P. HARRIS: He didn't ask you to take the brown slipper, for example, that was Scott Peterson's, scent it, and see if the dog would go to the warehouse?
BOYER: No, sir.
>>>
P. HARRIS: I'm referring to the fact that the hairbrush, the brown slipper, and the,
BOYER: Pink slipper.
P. HARRIS: Pink slipper were in your possession when you left that house that day, correct?
BOYER: No, sir.
P. HARRIS: Whose possession were they?
BOYER: We gave them to the, I believe it was Detective Brocchini.
P. HARRIS: You gave the items to Detective Brocchini, including brown slipper, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir. All, everything except for the glasses case that Miss Valentin used.
P. HARRIS: Miss Valentin purposely kept away from the brown slipper because of the contamination problem, correct? They would not have wanted to have the brown slipper, because that would have possibly contaminated with the items from Laci Peterson, correct?
BOYER: I don't know what you are referring to that she kept away from it.
P. HARRIS: She did not have possession over, excuse me. She did not have possession, specifically, of the brown slipper, because that scented to Scott Peterson, correct?
BOYER: She didn't have possession of,
P. HARRIS: She didn't walk out of the house with it, did she?
BOYER: I don't believe she walked out with that in her hands, no.
P. HARRIS: Detective Brocchini walked out, didn't he, with it?
BOYER: I believe we gave it to him while he was inside the house, yes, sir.
Now let's revisit the trial testimony. Valentin didn't testify at the trial because her dog trailings were ruled inadmissible by Judge Delucchi, and for good cause. Anderson testified, but her dog trailing on January 4, 2003, using the brown slipper was likewise ruled inadmissible, so the subject of the brown slipper never came up. Boyer also testified, but now the slipper is "green and brown."
D. HARRIS: What were the items that were collected.
BOYER: We collected a hairbrush, we collected a pink slipper, we collected a sunglasses case with a pair of sunglasses on the inside, and we collected a green and brown slipper.
>>>
P. HARRIS: And how many scent articles were collected?
BOYER: I covered that with Mr. Harris. It was a hairbrush, that would be one of the articles, the sunglasses and case, which would be a second article, a pink slipper, a third article, and a green and brown slipper, a fourth article.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So hairbrush was last, the glasses case, so the two slippers you don't know the order, and the pink slipper, brown slipper?
BOYER: No, sir, they might be in Ms. Valentin's report but I don't recall.
>>>
P. HARRIS: It says I collected a brown slipper off of the front floor in front of the dresser, a sunglass case, I collected a sunglass case containing glasses from inside a Louis Vuitton purse hanging in the closet?
BOYER: That doesn't tell me she reached inside it, sir. It just says she reached inside the purse is the way I interpret that.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So you came to learn at some point that the green and brown slipper was in fact Scott Peterson's?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
P. HARRIS: And you came to learn that in fact this was the item that, the green and brown slipper was an item that in fact you did want to take from the house, correct?
BOYER: You'd have to characterize that question differently.
P. HARRIS: You choose to take the item even after you found it was Scott Peterson's, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
Perhaps Boyer is a person who pays more attention to detail than Valentin, and he noticed there was some green on the brown slipper, so he called it a "green and brown" slipper.
Detective Brocchini also testified about the scent items collected on the night of December 26th. Here's how he describes Scott's slipper.
DISTASO: And then after Deputy Boyer, you know, collected those items, or whatever, were they given to you?
BROCCHINI: Later.
DISTASO: I mean at some point later in the evening?
BROCCHINI: Yes. Yes.
DISTASO: And what time was that?
BROCCHINI: It was about 9:30 at night.
DISTASO: And what condition did they come to you in?
BROCCHINI: They were in separate Ziplocked like one-gallon plastic bags.
DISTASO: Like one-gallon Ziploc storage bags?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
DISTASO: And was the Ziploc bag closed?
BROCCHINI: Yes, it was.
DISTASO: And what were those items? What physically were they?
BROCCHINI: There was a pink slipper that belonged to Laci, a gray slipper that belonged to Scott, a hairbrush that belonged to Laci, and Laci's sunglasses and a hard sunglass case.
>>>
DISTASO: Yes, your Honor. 75.
JUDGE: What is it?
DISTASO: It is --
JUDGE: Bag and contents. What is it?
DISTASO: It's a gray slipper.
JUDGE: Gray slipper. Okay.
>>>
DISTASO: Detective, let me show you 75. And just say -- we'll do them one at a time. Do you recognize that bag and item?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I do.
DISTASO: And what is that? What's inside there?
BROCCHINI: This is a gray slipper. Inside a Ziploc bag that is zipped.
>>>
DISTASO: And did you give those items to Detective Schmierer who then used them in a further dog tracking event?
BROCCHINI: Not all of them.
DISTASO: Okay. Which ones did you give to Detective Schmierer?
BROCCHINI: Boyer asked me to send the pink slipper, the gray slipper and the sunglasses up with Detective Schmierer and Stough.
DISTASO: And did you give those items to those other detectives?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I did.
DISTASO: And then after Deputy Boyer, you know, collected those items, or whatever, were they given to you?
BROCCHINI: Later.
DISTASO: I mean at some point later in the evening?
BROCCHINI: Yes. Yes.
DISTASO: And what time was that?
BROCCHINI: It was about 9:30 at night.
DISTASO: And what condition did they come to you in?
BROCCHINI: They were in separate Ziplocked like one-gallon plastic bags.
DISTASO: Like one-gallon Ziploc storage bags?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
DISTASO: And was the Ziploc bag closed?
BROCCHINI: Yes, it was.
DISTASO: And what were those items? What physically were they?
BROCCHINI: There was a pink slipper that belonged to Laci, a gray slipper that belonged to Scott, a hairbrush that belonged to Laci, and Laci's sunglasses and a hard sunglass case.
>>>
DISTASO: Yes, your Honor. 75.
JUDGE: What is it?
DISTASO: It is --
JUDGE: Bag and contents. What is it?
DISTASO: It's a gray slipper.
JUDGE: Gray slipper. Okay.
>>>
DISTASO: Detective, let me show you 75. And just say -- we'll do them one at a time. Do you recognize that bag and item?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I do.
DISTASO: And what is that? What's inside there?
BROCCHINI: This is a gray slipper. Inside a Ziploc bag that is zipped.
>>>
DISTASO: And did you give those items to Detective Schmierer who then used them in a further dog tracking event?
BROCCHINI: Not all of them.
DISTASO: Okay. Which ones did you give to Detective Schmierer?
BROCCHINI: Boyer asked me to send the pink slipper, the gray slipper and the sunglasses up with Detective Schmierer and Stough.
DISTASO: And did you give those items to those other detectives?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I did.
Just to be sure Brocchini didn't misspeak and say gray when he really meant to say brown, I viewed People's 75, and sure enough, the description on the envelope is "1 GAP grey slipper," and it's Brocchini that booked the slipper as evidence.
Whether you spell it "gray" or "grey," it's not that easily confused with brown, as shown by these photos I found on the Internet:
So who are we to believe?
Valentin says the slipper is brown; Boyer says it is green and brown; Brocchini says it is gray.
Valentin says she collected the brown slipper second; Boyer says she collected it last.
Valentin says she did not change gloves before or after collecting the brown slipper; Boyer says she did.
Valentin says she walked out of the house with the slipper in hand; Boyer says he gave it to Brocchini while they were at the house; Brocchini says Boyer gave it to him later that night after the dog trailing was completed.
Is this an anomaly, or a pattern?
Valentin says the slipper is brown; Boyer says it is green and brown; Brocchini says it is gray.
Valentin says she collected the brown slipper second; Boyer says she collected it last.
Valentin says she did not change gloves before or after collecting the brown slipper; Boyer says she did.
Valentin says she walked out of the house with the slipper in hand; Boyer says he gave it to Brocchini while they were at the house; Brocchini says Boyer gave it to him later that night after the dog trailing was completed.
Is this an anomaly, or a pattern?
More to come on the dog evidence, but in our next article, we turn our attention to Amber Frey, as her debut was the next big event in the investigation.
----------------------------------------------
I mentioned in my last report that we didn't know the names of the two detectives who went to the Berkeley Marina on the 28th to do the dog trailing and water dog searches along the route from Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island. Obviously I was wrong, as Brocchini identified them as Schmierer and Stough, neither of whom testified at anytime -- not at the Prelim, nor the Pre-Trials, nor the Trial.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Activity on December 28th the MPD didn't want anyone to know about
I stated in my previous article that Brocchini had all the evidence he needed to establish the Berkeley Marina as a crime scene -- the point at which Scott entered the Bay waters to dispose of Laci. It didn't matter how "inconclusive" the evidence was -- with one trailing dog not even picking up Laci's scent, and the other trailing dog being nudged by a biased handler and most likely scented with a contaminated article -- it was enough for Brocchini.
The absurdity of Brocchini's conclusion is even more obvious when we discover the other search and rescue dog activity at the Bay on December 28. This was kept a secret, and even now we know only bits and pieces. The big secret is that water cadaver dogs were also brought to the Bay. 3 boats, 2 having a water cadaver dog on board, headed off from the Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island. Yes, the exact same route Scott traveled on his fishing trip, and which the State foisted on the Court, the jurors, and the American public as the exact place where Scott dumped Laci. The cadaver dogs didn't alert at the Berkeley Marina nor at any place along that route. Think of that. Cadaver dogs are able to pick up human decomposition scent, and water cadaver dogs are able to pick up that scent in water.
To be sure everyone gets the point, I'm going to repeat it: 3 boats, 2 with a water cadaver dog on board, headed off from the Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island, the exact same route Scott traveled on his fishing trip, and which the State foisted on the Court, the jurors, and the American public as the exact place where Scott dumped Laci, and not a single one of those 2 water cadaver dogs alerted at the Berkeley Marina, or at any point along the route from the Marina to Brooks Island.
Pat Harris tried to bring this to the attention of the jurors during the testimony of Chris Boyer, but he was not allowed to get into that area of Boyer's activities on December 28, 2002 at the SF Bay because it was "beyond the scope" of the direct examination. That's how the State prevents the Defense from getting critical information out of a witness -- it simply avoids those subjects in the direct examination and then the Defense has to call the witness back. Judge Delucchi allowed a lot of wiggle room in this area because he did not want to have a long trial, so he allowed questioning beyond the scope so the Defense would not have to call the same witness back, but in this instance, he blocked it.
This is all Harris was able to get out of Chris Boyer regarding the water cadaver dogs used on the 28th:
Mark Geragos got some corroborating information from Seitz during the Defense Case in Chief:
Brocchini couldn't have been very happy with those results. How could Anderson's Trimble pick up Laci's scent at the Berkeley Marina, and yet the cadaver dogs not give a single alert at the Berkeley Marina nor at any point along the route from the Marina to Brooks Island -- and they had two opportunities, on the way to Brooks Island and on the way back to the Berkeley Marina? It certainly wouldn't occur to him that Anderson was manipulating Trimble, or that the scent article was contaminated (not when he is the one that had possession of the scent articles from the night of the 26th till the morning of the 28th; why, that would be like accusing himself). And it most certainly wouldn't occur to him that Scott wasn't guilty. No, there had to be another explanation.
Of course, Scott disposed of Laci on the way to the Marina, and enough scent remained in the boat for Trimble to pick up. That would become the next place to look, along Hwy 132. That search began in earnest on December 30, and will be the subject of our next article. Unlike the Bay search on the 28th, which was kept a deep, dark secret, the Hwy 132 search was well-publicized.
The absurdity of Brocchini's conclusion is even more obvious when we discover the other search and rescue dog activity at the Bay on December 28. This was kept a secret, and even now we know only bits and pieces. The big secret is that water cadaver dogs were also brought to the Bay. 3 boats, 2 having a water cadaver dog on board, headed off from the Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island. Yes, the exact same route Scott traveled on his fishing trip, and which the State foisted on the Court, the jurors, and the American public as the exact place where Scott dumped Laci. The cadaver dogs didn't alert at the Berkeley Marina nor at any place along that route. Think of that. Cadaver dogs are able to pick up human decomposition scent, and water cadaver dogs are able to pick up that scent in water.
To be sure everyone gets the point, I'm going to repeat it: 3 boats, 2 with a water cadaver dog on board, headed off from the Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island, the exact same route Scott traveled on his fishing trip, and which the State foisted on the Court, the jurors, and the American public as the exact place where Scott dumped Laci, and not a single one of those 2 water cadaver dogs alerted at the Berkeley Marina, or at any point along the route from the Marina to Brooks Island.
Pat Harris tried to bring this to the attention of the jurors during the testimony of Chris Boyer, but he was not allowed to get into that area of Boyer's activities on December 28, 2002 at the SF Bay because it was "beyond the scope" of the direct examination. That's how the State prevents the Defense from getting critical information out of a witness -- it simply avoids those subjects in the direct examination and then the Defense has to call the witness back. Judge Delucchi allowed a lot of wiggle room in this area because he did not want to have a long trial, so he allowed questioning beyond the scope so the Defense would not have to call the same witness back, but in this instance, he blocked it.
This is all Harris was able to get out of Chris Boyer regarding the water cadaver dogs used on the 28th:
Amazing how much incomplete information can be given in a trial which can send a man to death row. 2 detectives, no names; water dog handlers, no names; water dog mission, no details.P. HARRIS: What's the first thing you did when you arrived?BOYER: Went looking for the dive team and the marine patrol were launching the boats, so I went over to speak to them, made sure we had enough boats to support the water efforts and then I went looking to water dog handlers to make sure they were comfortable with the weather conditions and working on the bay with their dogs.P. HARRIS: Well, you had kind of a dual mission that day, you were handling the boats, water dogs and the trailing dogs, correct?BOYER: I defaulted into multiple missions that day, yes, sir.P. HARRIS: When you say defaulted, how did you default in that position?BOYER: There were two Modesto detectives that were brought onto the boats, and so there wasn't another detective to handle the trailing dog issues so I dealt with that myself.P. HARRIS: So you weren't originally, it wasn't your original plan to go out there and do, you were originally out there to do the water dogs?BOYER: Yes, sir.P. HARRIS: Is that fair?BOYER: (Nods)P. HARRIS: When did you first, when do you recall first seeing Mr. Seitz?BOYER: When we began briefing the water dogs on what their mission would be.P. HARRIS: So Mr. Seitz came up at that point, how did you first get to see him?BOYER: He came up at that point his partner is also a dog handler and he had come with her. And she was one of the water dog handlers so he was standing there at the water dog briefing.P. HARRIS: At this point had he either scented, had he scented the dog at that point on an item?BOYER: No, not at point.P. HARRIS: Was he with his dog at that point?BOYER: No, normally dog handlers, well, I don't recall him having his dog on lead in his hand at that point. Normally dog handlers leave their dogs in their vehicles until they're ready to go on the mission. They discussed it and briefed it. None of the water dog handlers had their dogs with them at that point so I don't believe he had him with him either.
Mark Geragos got some corroborating information from Seitz during the Defense Case in Chief:
Ron Cloward admitted he didn't even know about this search on the 28th, but it's through Geragos' questioning that we find out the area of interest on the 28th was Brooks Island:SEITZ: I have been a mission ready dog handler since 2001. Began training a dog in 1999. Prior to that with CARDA, I was a Tech
Support Person starting in 1996. And I have been with the Alameda County Sheriff's Office in a volunteer position since September of 1976. 28 years.
GERAGOS: Okay. When you were called out, who called you out to the Berkeley Marina?
SEITZ: I responded as CARDA as a mutual aid request for Berkeley Marina to the assist the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office. I responded with two other dog handlers that were dispatched there to do boat searching. I was there in support of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
GERAGOS: Okay. The, specifically the, I guess when you got there, you talked to somebody, is that correct?
SEITZ: I met with, there was a briefing in the morning with the other two dog handlers that were present there for the water searching, which I was there with. We met with the two officers from Modesto Police Department and Chris Boyer, who was there from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office.
GERAGOS: When you met with them, were you told various things, or various scenarios?
SEITZ: There were some. The issue was at first focused on boat searching for two handlers that went out. And I just attended the briefing. There was some discussion about some probable scenarios, and they were going to dispatch the two water search dogs out on boats that morning to try to search some of the area around the marina.
>>>>>>>>>
HARRIS: Okay. So you finished working. Did you leave?
SEITZ: No.
HARRIS: You're not working but you stay around?
SEITZ: I put my dog in. My wife was out on the other boat as a dog canine handler, and I waited for her to arrive back to base after they finished their boat searching.
Catherine Crier in her book, A Deadly Game, identifies Brooks Island as the focus point of the water dog activity.GERAGOS: Could you pull this out for just one second. If I could borrow it. Now, the information that's on here prior to the 8th, did you put that in, for instance, looks like on December 28th, Contra Costa met with two MPD detectives to launch the Berkeley Marina search, Brooks Island. Looks like the U.S. Coast Guard was there.CLOWARD: I didn't create this document, so I haven't seen it until the other day.GERAGOS: Do you know who created this document?CLOWARD: No, I don't.GERAGOS: Were you aware that the Contra Costa was out with the Modesto PD at the Berkeley Marina on the 28th?CLOWARD: No, I was not.
At 10:00 P.M., Detective Brocchini contacted Captain Boyer and asked to have the Brooks Island area of the San Francisco Bay search by cadaver dogs and the marina parking lot searched by tracking dogs. Boyer asked for Laci’s sunglasses and pink slipper to be delivered as scent objects, then scheduled three patrol boats, two cadaver dogs, one dive team, and a helicopter for nine o’clock the next morning. The police also made available a team of specialized cadaver dogs with the ability to smell bodies in the water.
Crier goes into some detail on the results of the trailing dog activity, but gives no details on the results of the water cadaver dog activity. That's because there were no results to report -- zip, nada, nothing.Members of the Contra Costa County Search and Rescue team initiated the search an hour early on December 28. It was a nippy 53 degrees, and the air was thick with moisture as the three orange crafts were launched.
Brocchini couldn't have been very happy with those results. How could Anderson's Trimble pick up Laci's scent at the Berkeley Marina, and yet the cadaver dogs not give a single alert at the Berkeley Marina nor at any point along the route from the Marina to Brooks Island -- and they had two opportunities, on the way to Brooks Island and on the way back to the Berkeley Marina? It certainly wouldn't occur to him that Anderson was manipulating Trimble, or that the scent article was contaminated (not when he is the one that had possession of the scent articles from the night of the 26th till the morning of the 28th; why, that would be like accusing himself). And it most certainly wouldn't occur to him that Scott wasn't guilty. No, there had to be another explanation.
Of course, Scott disposed of Laci on the way to the Marina, and enough scent remained in the boat for Trimble to pick up. That would become the next place to look, along Hwy 132. That search began in earnest on December 30, and will be the subject of our next article. Unlike the Bay search on the 28th, which was kept a deep, dark secret, the Hwy 132 search was well-publicized.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Brocchini hastened to get the Berkeley Marina identified as a crime scene
When we put things in time lines, we can get a better perspective of what happened.
So let's look very closely at other events on December 26th-28th, 2002.
December 26
-----, Ron Grantski told Greta Van Susteren: "I -- I talked to Scott two days after Laci was missing, and I -- I asked him then. I said, you know, if you -- if you had an affair, was seeing somebody, I think this is time to say something because I know the police are going to bug you about your fishing story, and he said, no, no problem. And so I let it drop." Ron testified that it was the afternoon of the 26th when he quizzed Scott. Ron also testified that it was a day or two after the 24th when he first learned Scott had a boat, because someone asked if he knew about the boat. Now isn't that curious? Why didn't Ron tell the police that it was no big deal that Scott went fishing that afternoon because he himself went fishing that same afternoon. Moreover, as we shall see, Brocchini did believe Scott went to the Berkeley Marina, albeit not to fish, but to dump Laci's body. Of course, Brocchini knew he would need a motive -- and an affair would be perfect. Didn't he and Buehler tell Amber Frey when they first met her that they were praying for someone like her to come along?
So let's look very closely at other events on December 26th-28th, 2002.
December 26
-----, Ron Grantski told Greta Van Susteren: "I -- I talked to Scott two days after Laci was missing, and I -- I asked him then. I said, you know, if you -- if you had an affair, was seeing somebody, I think this is time to say something because I know the police are going to bug you about your fishing story, and he said, no, no problem. And so I let it drop." Ron testified that it was the afternoon of the 26th when he quizzed Scott. Ron also testified that it was a day or two after the 24th when he first learned Scott had a boat, because someone asked if he knew about the boat. Now isn't that curious? Why didn't Ron tell the police that it was no big deal that Scott went fishing that afternoon because he himself went fishing that same afternoon. Moreover, as we shall see, Brocchini did believe Scott went to the Berkeley Marina, albeit not to fish, but to dump Laci's body. Of course, Brocchini knew he would need a motive -- and an affair would be perfect. Didn't he and Buehler tell Amber Frey when they first met her that they were praying for someone like her to come along?
4:12 p.m., Susan Medina places a call to her son in Los Angeles. Susan and Rudy were returning to Modesto from Los Angeles and as they drove past the MPD on G street, they noticed the TV cameras; Susan called her son to find out why Modesto was again on the news. When they reached Edgebrook and Covena, the entrance onto Covena was blocked by a police barricade, and they had to show identification to prove they lived on the street. As they drove into their driveway, they noticed the hand truck (dolly) on the front lawn, and when Rudy went into the backyard, he noticed the french doors were wide open, having been kicked open. Susan went out to the street and got the attention of police officers to report they had been burglarized.
4:45-4:50 p.m., Office Wend, on the scene for the Peterson search warrant execution, responded to the Medinas to investigate the burglary. Wend said the dolly was approximately 25 feet from the street, and described the burglary as "a pretty typical door-kick, grab what you can and take off with it. I mean, it wasn't, there was only one room that was really ransacked, and that was the master bedroom. And it wasn't ransacked a lot. Some things were taken off the top shelf in the bedroom, in the bathroom. In the master bedroom a drawer had been opened and a jewelry box had been laid, laid out." The safe was approximately three feet tall by two and a half feet wide by two and a half feet deep. The point of entry was through a gate on the south side of the Medina property. The clue that it was a forced entry was the boot print by the lock, and the door standing open. The boot print was like moist dirt transferred to the door, but Wend couldn't tell from its composition how long it had been on the door. Mr. Medina had placed a chair up against the doorknob, as an extra precaution, and the burglars moved the chair out of their way. A lot of valuables in the house were not touched, such as TVs, VCRs, a vase containing $800 cash and jewelry out on a counter. The keys to the Mercedes parked in the drive were hanging in the kitchen, but the car was undisturbed. Wend left the forms for the Medinas to fill out, documenting everything that had been taken, and then had nothing more to do with the investigation of this burglary.
Wend's description "a pretty typical door-kick, grab what you can and take off with it" doesn't pass the giggle test - one doesn't just grab a 3'x2.5'x2.5' safe and take off with it. But the fact that valuables out in the open, much easier to grab and take off with, were not taken, suggests to me a robbery interrupted.
So, as the search warrant on the Peterson home was being executed, the MPD knew about the burglary right across the street. It's unfathomable that both Brocchini and Grogan, who were at the Peterson home at the time Wend responded to the Medina burglary right across the street, could not have known about the burglary. But they didn't seem to be a bit interested in it. Not a bit. Which isn't strange at all when we remember that Brocchini made up his mind what happened to Laci on the night of the 24th; and Grogan concurred on Christmas Day. So it was just a matter of proving it, and not letting irrelevant stuff like a burglary across the street distract them from their noble cause.
~7:30 p.m.. We don't know exactly what time Cindee Valentin began the dog trailing effort with Merlin, but she did before Skultety arrived at 7:30 to begin the search warrant, which for that night only included a search for forensic evidence and signs of a struggle. A few stains were probably blood and collected, but certainly nothing to compel any reasonable person to believe Laci had been murdered in that house. Unless you already were certain she had been.
~9:30 p.m. The dog trailing that Brocchini manipulated to prove Scott transported Laci's dead body from the house to the warehouse and then headed out of town had already terminated by 9:30 p.m., when Chris Boyer gave the scent items to Brocchini. Brocchini kept these in his possession to be used for later dog trailing.
To get the most traction out of the dog trailing on the 26th, Brocchini ensured that the media received only his interpretation, and thus we read in the ModBee:
When Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department deputies brought in a specially trained bloodhound on Thursday [Dec 26] to help in the search, it didn't head into the park. Instead, it headed to Yosemite Boulevard. Later, the dog led its handler from the Peterson house all the way to Maze Blvd.Which, of course, was a blatant lie. Merlin led Valentin to the Gallo Winery.
December 27
------. Rick Armanderiz was sent to the Berkeley Marina to meet with Berkeley police officers to confirm or refute Scott's alibi. Remember, Scott said he went to the Berkeley Marina and produced a parking receipt. Mark Geragos was not allowed to ask Armanderiz about his interviews at the Marina, or the media presence there, because Distaso objected on the grounds it was beyond the scope of his direct. Delucchi ruled in Distaso's favor. However, we found out from a couple of the Marina people he did interview that there indeed was a media presence at the Berkeley Marina, and they were there because of the Laci Peterson investigation. They hemmed and hawed their way out of saying it was the 27th, but that only confirmed that it was. This is pretty important information to know -- that on the 27th, the MPD's very first field trip to the Berkeley Marina, there was already a media presence at the Berkeley Marina. Folks, it was no secret that Scott Peterson went to the Berkeley Marina on December 24th.
4:10 p.m., Diane Jackson informed Sgt. Ed Steele that she "witnessed the 459 [the California burlgary statute] on Covena on 12-24-02 at 1140 hours. She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house." Some reports are that Jackson, who lived around the corner from the Petersons, saw the police there that morning for the conclusion of the search warrant, and walked over and told some of the officers about what she saw. She obviously told the same thing to Sgt. Steele, perhaps at the Volunteer Center as he was the police liaison there. Surely this should have caught someone's attention and caused someone to re-consider whether they were following the wrong lead in the investigation. If it did raise any concerns or curiosity, that would soon be quashed.
6:30 p.m. , Detective Stough was told about Jackson seeing the Medina burglary and he called her for an interview. For me, I think I'd have gone to her house and had her give me much more information, like the exact location of the van she saw, exactly where she saw the 3 men. Instead, Stough was content to get a description of the 3 men: "three short of stature, dark skinned but not African American guys. . . . When asked to further describe the individuals she stated that that's all she could remember as she wasn't thinking about that and hadn't thought about that until she called the police." The MPD wasn't in much of a hurry to solve this burglary -- it didn't release a description of the 3 men and the van or inform the public about the $1000 reward until the 31st. How did the reporters keep from laughing when Chief Roy Wasden said, on the 31st, "We really feel a compelling need to get the burglary solved to see if that moves us any closer to finding Laci." Compelling need? Really!
What do you do when the media, the public, and even some police officers get distracted in a murder investigaton? You redirect them.
December 28
So it is that Brocchini asked Chris Boyer to take trailing dogs to the Berkeley Marina, and he chose Anderson and her dog Trimble and Seitz and his dog TJ. Brocchini wanted to prove that Laci Peterson was brought to the Berkeley Marina by Scott Peterson. Brocchini sent the scent items with two detectives to give to Boyer -- scent items he'd had in his possession since the night of the 26th.
Boyer gave the glasses/case to Anderson, and the pink slipper to Seitz. Anderson's Trimble allegedly followed Laci's scent to the end of the pier and stood gazing out on the water. Seitz' TJ didn't have any such luck -- he could not pick up Laci's scent at all.
Why the difference? Perhaps because Seitz wasn't already convinced that Scott was guilty, as Anderson was, and thus wasn't leading TJ to smell something that wasn't there. Perhaps because the glasses/case Anderson used was contaminated with Scott's scent. Probably a combination of the two.
What evidence is there of such contamination? The scent items were compromised from the very beginning. Valentin was the person who collected the scent items at 523 Covena Avenue in the late afternoon on December 26. She collected the items in this order: pink slipper, brown slipper, sunglass case with sunglasses inside, and a hairbrush. She did not recall changing gloves between the collection of the items. For this reason, the scent items were compromised from the very beginning. The only exceptions were the pink slipper which was collected first, and the sunglasses inside the case which had not been opened. However, he case itself had been inside Laci’s purse; and a number of people had put their hands inside the purse before the scent items were collected: Boyer, Brocchini, Spurlock and Scott himself when he retrieved Laci’s keys.
All of the scent items were in Brocchini's possession from the night of the 26th to when he gave them to Detectives Stough and Schmierer to take to Boyer at the Berkeley Marina for the dog trailing that was to be done that day. He sent the pink slipper and the sunglasses/case and the brown slipper. The brown slipper is important, because it was Scott's brown slipper, with Scott's scent. Ron Seitz used the pink slipper and found no evidence of Laci’s scent at the Marina. Anderson used the glasses, and allegedly trailed Laci to the end of the pier and out onto the water. Moreover, Anderson didn't take much precaution to prevent Trimble from picking up Scott's scent from the glasses case; she just opened the case and had Trimble smell the glasses.
Noble cause: doing what needs to be done to get the guilty person. So what if you have to nudge the evidence a little, to make it say what you want it to say.
At the trial, the State addressed the issue of contamination by saying that if it had been Scott's scent that Trimble picked up, then Trimble would have followed Scott out of the Berkeley Marina back to Modesto, because trailing dogs are trained to pick up the freshest scent. I'll remind you of this explanation when we get to the trailing that was done on January 4. But there are other things to discuss in the meantime.
The net result is that by the end of the day on the 28th, Brocchini had his evidence that Scott murdered Laci, transported her to the Berkeley Marina, and brought her out into the Bay in his boat. Now all that needed to be done was to get the rest of the investigative team and the media on the same page. The burglars were home free.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Did Brocchini compromise the concrete evidence on the flatbed trailer?
One thing I've noticed about Brocchini is that if you give him enough rope, he'll hang himself. During the Preliminary Hearing, McAllister got Brocchini to admit that he, Brocchini, stood on the flatbed trailer to take most of his photos of the boat on the night of December 24. The flatbed trailer is, of course, where the concrete mess was noted a few days later on December 27, which was used to prove that Scott made more anchors.
And here are the evidence items for the placards 127-141. It's highly unlikely that Scott could avoid the "concrete mess" entirely as he crossed over the trailer, as he likely would have crossed the trailer in the area of items 138 and 139--both identified as "voids" or, in their imaginations, concrete circles. The complete evidence list can be viewed at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/warehouse.htm.
Another indication of Brocchini's duplicity is that he initially lied during the Preliminary hearing when he said he did not touch anything in the boat:
BROCCHINI: It's Number 87, Your Honor. I'll put a one and a circle. I know I was standing -- like right here would be one photo (indicates).
McALLISTER: Okay.
BROCCHINI: I put a two in a circle. Maybe right here and a circle (indicates). I know I took one from out here (indicates) --
McALLISTER: That would be three with a circle?
BROCCHINI: Three and a circle. And I took some more, I might have took one or two, maybe -- I don't know exactly where. I just remember I was on that trailer, and I was taking pictures of the boat. I'm going to put four, because I think I took another one of another area of the front, more front of the boat.
McALLISTER: Okay. So what you've got there, one, two, three and four, those would be the areas where you were standing when you took the various pictures that you took?
BROCCHINI: That's what I recall.
McALLISTER: And so the pictures -- the pictures, other than the one from the foot of the boat, the closeup pictures were taken from the vantage point of standing on the trailer adjacent to the boat itself; is that right?
BROCCHINI: That's what I remember.
McALLISTER: Okay.Not only did Brocchini stand on the flatbed trailer to take his photos, but Scott also was on the trailer, at Brocchini's request.
BROCCHINI: I said, "Scott, I forgot my notebook in the shop. Let's go back and get it." He said, "Okay."
DISTASO: All right. Did you go back to the shop?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
DISTASO: Who opened the door?
BROCCHINI: Scott.
DISTASO: Had the door been -- when you left the shop, was the door locked?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
DISTASO: What happened next?
BROCCHINI: I followed Scott in with my Streamlight. We went in through the office door, through the inner office door. Scott jumped over the trailer, picked up my bifold. It was in the boat. Handed it to me, and we left, came back to the station.I doubt Scott could jump over the trailer in one leap, but from the inner office door, Scott did have to go over the trailer to get to the boat. Here's the diagram of the warehouse that was used at the Trial, People's Exhibit 148, with the evidence placards indicated:
And here are the evidence items for the placards 127-141. It's highly unlikely that Scott could avoid the "concrete mess" entirely as he crossed over the trailer, as he likely would have crossed the trailer in the area of items 138 and 139--both identified as "voids" or, in their imaginations, concrete circles. The complete evidence list can be viewed at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/warehouse.htm.
- Item 128, clear plastic water pitcher
- Item 129, Craftsman sledge hammer with wooden handle
- Item 130, Gray powder sample collected from off the top of the trailer. Included in the power mix were several wood screws
- Item 131, photo only of a possible blood sample, PVC apparatus
- Item 132, ready-mix sample taken from floor
- Item 133, Delta Houser chisel Mortiser, serial #016064Q, collected from on top of the trailer in the warehouse
- Item 134, Cardboard flap for the box in which 133 arrived, including the packaging contents and tracking label
- Item 135, Photo of area on top of the trailer which appears to have a void of cement powder
- Item 136, Photo of area on top of the trailer which appears to have a void of cement powder
- Item 137, Photo of area on top of the trailer which appears to have a void of cement powder
- Item 138, Photo of area on top of the trailer which appears to have a void of cement powder
- Item 139, Photo of area on top of the trailer which appears to have a void of cement powder
- Item 140, A red and blue plastic bucket, both of which have been used and contain some residue on the inside
- Item 140A, a pair of black rubber boots, pair of white socks with red toes, one blue glove, Gore-Tex type, and one black watch cap found in the red tub
- Item 141, A Vaughn hammer with wooden handle
Another indication of Brocchini's duplicity is that he initially lied during the Preliminary hearing when he said he did not touch anything in the boat:
And again:DISTASO: Did you take anything out of the boat?BROCCHINI: No.DISTASO: Did you touch anything in the boat?BROCCHINI: No.DISTASO: So you just looked in the boat and took some pictures?BROCCHINI: Yes.DISTASO: And did you ever -- did you actually get inside the boat?BROCCHINI: No.
But then McAllister hands him some rope and he hangs himself:DISTASO: When I asked you if you'd touched anything in the boat, did you touch any of the items in the boat?BROCCHINI: I didn't touch anything in the boat. I set my thing on the boat to take pictures, but I never touched anything in the boat.
McALLISTER: Okay. One question on that tackle box. That has some kind of a hasp closing it?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
McALLISTER: Snap or something? All we see is the hinge side of that, don't we? What's your recollection of the other side of that? Is there something, a lip or something that it has to go over?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
McALLISTER: So when you opened it physically, what did you have to do to open it up?
BROCCHINI: I think I had to move a little plastic thing and flop the lid open.
McALLISTER: Okay. Now, was that done before or after the photo was taken?
BROCCHINI: I don't remember.
McALLISTER: Okay. And then you -- to get to that box, you climbed into the boat to be able to open that box up, didn't you?
BROCCHINI: No.
McALLISTER: You did not?
BROCCHINI: I did not.
McALLISTER: So what did you do? Reach over from the trailer into there?
BROCCHINI: No. I was standing on the ground, and I just reached in and opened the lid and looked in it.
McALLISTER: And did you reach into the boat and touch or manipulate or open anything else in the boat?
BROCCHINI: No.Now, seeing him caught in the lie about not touching anything in the boat, do you really believe anything he says?
Monday, January 2, 2012
December 27th search warrant results
On December 25th, while making plans for search warrants to be served on both the Covena residence and the TradeCorp warehouse, Detective Grogan sent a detective to the warehouse to secure it. It remained secured from that time until its search warrant was served on the afternoon of the 27th. That meant that Scott Peterson had absolutely no access to the warehouse from that time on. This was a smart move, since Scott Peterson was their only suspect, to ensure that he didn't destroy evidence. Brocchini had visually inspected the house, the yard, both vehicles, and the boat, and he had been in the warehouse office the night of the 24th, so there was little chance that anything was moved or disrupted or removed that would have escaped Brocchini's notice. And Brocchini was on hand for both search warrant executions to be sure everything that he considered suspicious was accounted for. And it was. Some of it was moved from the truck to other locations, such as sheds or to the warehouse, but since Scott had not been given any instructions not to move anything, and since those items were easily found, it can hardly be argued that moving them in any way constituted an effort to destroy evidence.
Detective Grogan, who by this time had been appointed lead investigator (though why Brocchini stepped aside is a mystery; Grogan's explanation that he was the next in rotation for a murder investigation doesn't fly as Duerfeldt and Carter already suspected a homicide when they called Brocchini in on the night of the 24th and Grogan was also on call that night), testified about the results of the search warrants, what value the evidence seized had for the investigation. I've added some numbers next to the items Grogan identifies for easier reference in my discussion.
(1) the cement mess. That is a good description of the condition of the trailer and the surrounding floor area -- a mess. Grogan said a few lines above the cited lines "it seemed like a tremendous mess for making one eight-pound anchor." Yes, indeed it would be a big mess for one anchor. But it wasn't made from making one anchor. On January 31, they knew that Scott had on the warehouse computer an Excel spreadsheet for the costs of replacing fence posts in the backyard. That's at http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/D-7A.pdf, but here's a quick photo:
This Excel file was created September 13, 2002. Eric Olson testified that he told the MPD that he saw an opened bag of concrete near the flatbed trailer in September. Doug Phelps, one of Scott's competitors, told the MPD on February 20, 2003 that he saw at least 4 bags of concrete, fence posts, and fence boards on Scott's trailer in September 2002. Through the various search warrants, they obtained receipts for bags of concrete purchased at Home Depot. One was even obtained through the search of the warehouse on the 27th (Defense 4K-8, last item), and another through the search of the Ford pickup truck as part of those same search warrants. But the right hand doesn't seem to know what the left hand is doing.
I noted in a previous article that Hendee had to painfully admit on the witness stand that the concrete mess on the flatbed trailer really wasn't in circles, after all, http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/2010/12/circles-on-trailer-ah-hah-moment-that.html. When you read the article, be sure to view the photos to remind yourself just how much of a mess bags of concrete make.
(2) some water in the boat that can be tested. And what did the tests show? Salt water. Just like Scott told them, he took the boat into the Bay. But what is interesting is that many news stories circulated that there wasn't any salt water found in the boat. This was part of a bold headline by the National Enquirer, which seemed to have more than its fair share of sources "close to the investigation," or "close to the case," which simply is another way of saying, the cops. It's hard to read, but the headline is "Cops Rip Hubby Alibi Apart."
Of course, this was all part of the effort to convince the public, especially the jury pool, that Scott was a liar. If you were one of those who believed these headlines, and other fictitious stories, don't you feel a little foolish now?
(3) There is no rope found in the boat to be attached to the anchor. Not true. A rope suitable for attaching to an anchor was found in the boat. It's "Item 146, A red rope and metal clasp on the ends" on the return for the boat search warrant. The rope could be used either to tie to a pier or to attach to an anchor.
(4) One anchor. Which is exactly how many Scott made. Scott told Grogan on the 25th that he purchased a paint bucket to make the anchor, but Grogan didn't believe him. So they labored for a year with the mistaken notion that the pitcher was used as the mold for the anchor.
That's all the items Grogan mentioned for the warehouse. He didn't mention the infamous pair of yellow-handled pliers with the hair. And Fladager didn't remind him. That's not so strange when we recall that no one except Hendee knew about those pliers and the hair until February 11, 2003. However, Hendee said it was a pretty important moment for him to make that discovery, and he even said that others standing around looked at the pliers:
Now let's get to the important evidence that the search of 523 Covena yielded.
(5) small amounts of a substance that could be blood are recovered on the comforter cover. What did the test results show? First, the blood was Scott's. Second, each of the stains amounted to no more than a drop. Third, the stains were so small they wouldn't pick up in photographs, so Pin Kyo had to put sticky-notes by them. Fourth, the position of the stains is not compatible with Scott having killed Laci on the bed, as was suspected. You can see the discussion of these points at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/duvet.htm. And another important but oft overlooked fact is that Grogan knew that Scott only had a scuffed knuckle on the night of the 24th because Brocchini had observed both of Scott's hands when he did the gun powder residue test. Also, on January 3 Grogan obtained blood samples, fingerprints, palm prints, saliva samples and photos of Scott front and back. In the photos Scott was down to his underwear, and Grogan confirmed that he did not have any injuries.
(6) blue tarp is recovered in the shed on the north side of the house. Isn't that what sheds are for, to store this kind of item. And what evidentiary value did the blue tarp have? None. You can read the details at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/tarp.htm, including photos of the shed and its contents.
(7) boat tarp is recovered in a shed on the south side of the house. The details about the boat cover are at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/cover.htm. One of the things Geragos specifically asked Pin Kyo about is if there were any gasoline stains. The MPD described the boat cover as "reeking" with gasoline, and yet there were no stains identified by Kyo. Gasoline does stain, and the MPD did nothing with the boat cover except to drape it across the fence to air it out. Much ado about nothing.
(8) patio umbrellas apparently had been moved from the back of Mr. Peterson's truck to an area that's an overhang between the north shed and the house. He simply put them back where they were. Why didn't he bring them to the warehouse where he said he intended to store them? DUH! His wife was missing, he had more important things on his mind. It was much easier to just remove them from the truck and put them in the back yard.
(9) concrete debris and a tool, I don't know what you call it. It's some sort of gardening tool with three prongs on one side and a hoe blade on the other. Why was the gardener's claw covered with concrete debris? Simple answer, if you can put two and two together. Scott worked with a lot of cement rebuilding the fence along the back yard line, and he needed a tool to mix the concrete with.
(10) at least two pairs of black pants. Grogan is downright deceptive on this one. Yes, there were two pair of black pants found in the house, but neither were the pair that Laci was wearing on the 24th. These 2 pair were found in a white bag in the Nursery, and in Hendee's judgment (he's the one that located the items during the search), they had never been worn. You can see all the details at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/pants.htm. Note specifically that Coyle, who searched the master bedroom, specifically said there were no black maternity pants found in the master bedroom closet or anywhere in the master bedroom, putting to rest the lie that black maternity pants were found hanging up in the master bedroom closet, which lie was circulating in at least one police report.
They did not find the black pants Scott said Laci was wearing, they did not find the white shirt Scott said Laci was wearing, and they did not find Laci's tennis shoes.
Nor did they find Laci's croton watch, which Scott said Laci was wearing, but we'll discuss the watch later.
Nor did they find traces of Laci's blood in Scott's truck. How does it feel, David Wright, to know that you were used to spread such lies?
Detective Grogan, who by this time had been appointed lead investigator (though why Brocchini stepped aside is a mystery; Grogan's explanation that he was the next in rotation for a murder investigation doesn't fly as Duerfeldt and Carter already suspected a homicide when they called Brocchini in on the night of the 24th and Grogan was also on call that night), testified about the results of the search warrants, what value the evidence seized had for the investigation. I've added some numbers next to the items Grogan identifies for easier reference in my discussion.
Fladager is trying to show the Jury the logical manner in which Grogan carried on the investigation. So let's look at them one at a time.FLADAGER: And based upon what you have learned from other officers, and what you have learned from the search warrant being served, what are some of the things that you now know and that you rely on for your next steps in your investigation?GROGAN: Well, we do know at the warehouse (1) there is evidence consistent with something being made with cement, and there is a mess apparently there from something being made. We know there is a boat in the warehouse that there appears to be (2) some water in the boat that can be tested.FLADAGER: In the bottom of the boat?GROGAN: Yes. We know that there is some fishing tackle in the boat and a couple of fishing poles. (3) There is no rope found in the boat to be attached to the anchor. That, initially, at least –FLADAGER: And there is one anchor that's found?GROGAN: (4) One anchor.FLADAGER: Within the boat?GROGAN: Yes.FLADAGER: All right.GROGAN: Also at the house we know that (5) small amounts of a substance that could be blood are recovered on the comforter cover in the master bedroom, and that a (6) blue tarp is recovered in the shed on the north side of the house; and that a (7) boat tarp is recovered in a shed on the south side of the house, with a leaf blower on top of it that appears to be leaking gas.FLADAGER: How about patio umbrellas?GROGAN: The (8) patio umbrellas apparently had been moved from the back of Mr. Peterson's truck to an area that's an overhang between the north shed and the house.FLADAGER: Now, the tarp, the boat cover, and the umbrellas that you mentioned, these were all located in various areas in the backyard?GROGAN: Yes.FLADAGER: And they previously have been seen where?GROGAN: The boat cover was seen in the truck. The blue tarp and umbrellas were in the truck.FLADAGER: All right. As a result of the search warrant, was anything else found in the back of the defendant's truck?GROGAN: Yes.FLADAGER: What was that?GROGAN: Some (9) concrete debris and a tool, I don't know what you call it. It's some sort of gardening tool with three prongs on one side and a hoe blade on the other.FLADAGER: Was there anything unusual about the condition of that gardening tool?GROGAN: Had some, had some cement debris on it, yes.FLADAGER: During the course of the service of the search warrant on in the house, was clothing of, certain types of clothing of Laci Peterson being looked for?GROGAN: Yes.FLADAGER: And, to your knowledge, was any of that found?GROGAN: Yes. I believe there was (10) at least two pairs of black pants that were recovered, and that was something that we were looking for because it was part of the description for Laci Peterson on the morning of December 24th.FLADAGER: What else?GROGAN: We were looking for a white shirt, but we didn't find one in the first search warrant, which would have matched her description on December 24th. We were also looking for white tennis shoes. We did find some white shoes, but they were slip on. They looked like tennis shoes from the front, but they slip on from the back. They don't have a standard back that a tennis shoe would have on them. As far as clothing, that's what I recall we recovered there.FLADAGER: Why is it that you were looking for black pants and a white shirt, and white tennis shoes?GROGAN: Because that was what the defendant said she was last seen wearing on December 24th when he left the home.
(1) the cement mess. That is a good description of the condition of the trailer and the surrounding floor area -- a mess. Grogan said a few lines above the cited lines "it seemed like a tremendous mess for making one eight-pound anchor." Yes, indeed it would be a big mess for one anchor. But it wasn't made from making one anchor. On January 31, they knew that Scott had on the warehouse computer an Excel spreadsheet for the costs of replacing fence posts in the backyard. That's at http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/D-7A.pdf, but here's a quick photo:
This Excel file was created September 13, 2002. Eric Olson testified that he told the MPD that he saw an opened bag of concrete near the flatbed trailer in September. Doug Phelps, one of Scott's competitors, told the MPD on February 20, 2003 that he saw at least 4 bags of concrete, fence posts, and fence boards on Scott's trailer in September 2002. Through the various search warrants, they obtained receipts for bags of concrete purchased at Home Depot. One was even obtained through the search of the warehouse on the 27th (Defense 4K-8, last item), and another through the search of the Ford pickup truck as part of those same search warrants. But the right hand doesn't seem to know what the left hand is doing.
I noted in a previous article that Hendee had to painfully admit on the witness stand that the concrete mess on the flatbed trailer really wasn't in circles, after all, http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/2010/12/circles-on-trailer-ah-hah-moment-that.html. When you read the article, be sure to view the photos to remind yourself just how much of a mess bags of concrete make.
(2) some water in the boat that can be tested. And what did the tests show? Salt water. Just like Scott told them, he took the boat into the Bay. But what is interesting is that many news stories circulated that there wasn't any salt water found in the boat. This was part of a bold headline by the National Enquirer, which seemed to have more than its fair share of sources "close to the investigation," or "close to the case," which simply is another way of saying, the cops. It's hard to read, but the headline is "Cops Rip Hubby Alibi Apart."
Of course, this was all part of the effort to convince the public, especially the jury pool, that Scott was a liar. If you were one of those who believed these headlines, and other fictitious stories, don't you feel a little foolish now?
(3) There is no rope found in the boat to be attached to the anchor. Not true. A rope suitable for attaching to an anchor was found in the boat. It's "Item 146, A red rope and metal clasp on the ends" on the return for the boat search warrant. The rope could be used either to tie to a pier or to attach to an anchor.
(4) One anchor. Which is exactly how many Scott made. Scott told Grogan on the 25th that he purchased a paint bucket to make the anchor, but Grogan didn't believe him. So they labored for a year with the mistaken notion that the pitcher was used as the mold for the anchor.
That's all the items Grogan mentioned for the warehouse. He didn't mention the infamous pair of yellow-handled pliers with the hair. And Fladager didn't remind him. That's not so strange when we recall that no one except Hendee knew about those pliers and the hair until February 11, 2003. However, Hendee said it was a pretty important moment for him to make that discovery, and he even said that others standing around looked at the pliers:
HENDEE: When I picked up the boat, excuse me, when I picked up the pliers, I was standing in the boat and I reached down, I didn't know if this was going to be anything we were going to collect or not, and I noticed what looked like a single hair in the pliers. It was about five to six inches long. It was dark colored. I look at this, I say Hey, there's a hair in here, and everybody else that was standing around the boat at that time stopped and took a look at it.Where were Grogan and Brocchini when Hendee found the pliers? They were both on hand for the examination of the concrete mess and Brocchini even fitted the anchor into the pitcher for that oops-not-so-perfect fit. How could they not have known about the pliers and the hair? Well, let's play a game of scramble. It's two words, first word has 8 letters: b, u, l, i, 2 n's and 2 g's. The second word has 6 letters: d, o, t, s, and 2 i's.
Now let's get to the important evidence that the search of 523 Covena yielded.
(5) small amounts of a substance that could be blood are recovered on the comforter cover. What did the test results show? First, the blood was Scott's. Second, each of the stains amounted to no more than a drop. Third, the stains were so small they wouldn't pick up in photographs, so Pin Kyo had to put sticky-notes by them. Fourth, the position of the stains is not compatible with Scott having killed Laci on the bed, as was suspected. You can see the discussion of these points at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/duvet.htm. And another important but oft overlooked fact is that Grogan knew that Scott only had a scuffed knuckle on the night of the 24th because Brocchini had observed both of Scott's hands when he did the gun powder residue test. Also, on January 3 Grogan obtained blood samples, fingerprints, palm prints, saliva samples and photos of Scott front and back. In the photos Scott was down to his underwear, and Grogan confirmed that he did not have any injuries.
(6) blue tarp is recovered in the shed on the north side of the house. Isn't that what sheds are for, to store this kind of item. And what evidentiary value did the blue tarp have? None. You can read the details at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/tarp.htm, including photos of the shed and its contents.
(7) boat tarp is recovered in a shed on the south side of the house. The details about the boat cover are at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/cover.htm. One of the things Geragos specifically asked Pin Kyo about is if there were any gasoline stains. The MPD described the boat cover as "reeking" with gasoline, and yet there were no stains identified by Kyo. Gasoline does stain, and the MPD did nothing with the boat cover except to drape it across the fence to air it out. Much ado about nothing.
(8) patio umbrellas apparently had been moved from the back of Mr. Peterson's truck to an area that's an overhang between the north shed and the house. He simply put them back where they were. Why didn't he bring them to the warehouse where he said he intended to store them? DUH! His wife was missing, he had more important things on his mind. It was much easier to just remove them from the truck and put them in the back yard.
(9) concrete debris and a tool, I don't know what you call it. It's some sort of gardening tool with three prongs on one side and a hoe blade on the other. Why was the gardener's claw covered with concrete debris? Simple answer, if you can put two and two together. Scott worked with a lot of cement rebuilding the fence along the back yard line, and he needed a tool to mix the concrete with.
(10) at least two pairs of black pants. Grogan is downright deceptive on this one. Yes, there were two pair of black pants found in the house, but neither were the pair that Laci was wearing on the 24th. These 2 pair were found in a white bag in the Nursery, and in Hendee's judgment (he's the one that located the items during the search), they had never been worn. You can see all the details at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/covena/pants.htm. Note specifically that Coyle, who searched the master bedroom, specifically said there were no black maternity pants found in the master bedroom closet or anywhere in the master bedroom, putting to rest the lie that black maternity pants were found hanging up in the master bedroom closet, which lie was circulating in at least one police report.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at some point were you told that you had found some black maternity pants in the closet of the home hanging on a hanger?What was not found during the search of the house? "We were looking for a white shirt, but we didn't find one in the first search warrant, which would have matched her description on December 24th. We were also looking for white tennis shoes. We did find some white shoes, but they were slip on. They looked like tennis shoes from the front, but they slip on from the back. They don't have a standard back that a tennis shoe would have on them."
COYLE: Somebody told me apparently according to that report, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Well, what I'm asking you is, when you went through, did you not see the black maternity pants hanging on a hanger?
COYLE: I did not find any black maternity pants, no, not in the master bedroom.
GERAGOS: Were you later told that there were some that were hanging up?
COYLE: I believe I was told there were some black maternity pants found, I don't know where they were found.
They did not find the black pants Scott said Laci was wearing, they did not find the white shirt Scott said Laci was wearing, and they did not find Laci's tennis shoes.
Nor did they find Laci's croton watch, which Scott said Laci was wearing, but we'll discuss the watch later.
Nor did they find traces of Laci's blood in Scott's truck. How does it feel, David Wright, to know that you were used to spread such lies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)