Justice for Scott Peterson

Extension of time granted, again

2012-01-31T14:16:00.000-06:00

Scott's direct appeal attorney filed the 7th request for extension of time on January 26, and it was granted yesterday.

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)

Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2012-01-30

Event Description: Extension of time granted

Notes:

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including April 2, 2012.

December 30: Amber's debut

2012-01-22T01:38:00.001-06:00

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.

The chameleon slipper

2012-01-18T00:10:00.002-06:00

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.

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.

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?

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.

Activity on December 28th the MPD didn't want anyone to know about

2012-01-13T03:54:00.001-06:00

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:

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.

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.

Mark Geragos got some corroborating information from Seitz during the Defense Case in Chief:

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.

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:

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.

Catherine Crier in her book, A Deadly Game, identifies Brooks Island as the focus point of the water dog activity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brocchini hastened to get the Berkeley Marina identified as a crime scene

2012-01-10T02:05:00.009-06:00

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?

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.

Did Brocchini compromise the concrete evidence on the flatbed trailer?

2012-01-03T11:46:00.003-06:00

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.

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:

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.

And again:

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.

But then McAllister hands him some rope and he hangs himself:

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?

December 27th search warrant results

2012-01-02T20:57:00.003-06:00

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.

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.

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.

(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?
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.

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."

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?

We interrupt our coverage of the Investigation to wish SII a Happy Birthday

2011-12-30T20:34:00.000-06:00

It's a little belated, the days do tend to get away from me, but on December 26, 2003, SII made its debut on the World Wide Web. Needless to say, I certainly didn't think we'd still be at this 8 years later.

What prompted me to put up SII? Well, to make a long story short, I grew tired of the constant talk among those not at all convinced of Scott's guilt that someone should put up a website to counteract all the misinformation out there about Laci's disappearance and Scott's arrest and hearings. I thought to myself, hey, maybe I can do that. I had a small personal site up so I thought I knew enough to put up an information/opinion website. Well, I was partly right, but I gained what knowledge I needed as I went along.

What surprised me most was the sheer hatred and contempt the site would generate. It took me a long while to develop a thick-enough skin to deal with it. I keep reminding myself that words on paper may espouse stronger feelings than the writer actually feels. But mostly I just ignore the hate. Sincere disagreement, however, I welcome.

SII grew much too large to handle, and that is why I opted to use a blog to keep interested readers updated on the case and to bring new information to light. Had I to do over again, I would have used a blog from the beginning for opinions, trial coverage, and updates, and reserved SII for only the objective information, such as court documents, transcripts, and exhibits. But it would take too much effort to divide the content now and I believe SII readers are intelligent enough to tell the difference between a transcript and an opinion article.

Because of SII, I've learned a lot that I would not otherwise have had the need to learn. It's good for the aging soul to have something new to learn on a daily basis. When I was laid off in 2004, suffered a stroke a few months later, and unable to find work for years, working on SII and a few other wrongful convictions gave me something very worthwhile to fill my time and keep my mind engaged. I love my kids and grand-kids, but the mind needs something challenging to keep aging at bay.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .

December 26 & 27 : The search warrants and the dog trailing

2011-12-28T00:31:00.000-06:00

Convinced that Scott was responsible for Laci's disappearance, Grogan and Brocchini determined it was necessary to do a complete search of the residence, the vehicles, the warehouse, and the boat.

Let me back up and say that the steps the Officers and Brocchini took on the night of the 24th were good police work. They well-documented the condition of the house and visually inspected both vehicles and the boat. Photos were taken of both the house and the boat. If Scott had been responsible, these actions would have prevented him from successfully destroying evidence. And that is the sum total of the praise that I can give for this investigation, for what occurred from the 26th on was nothing short of framing Scott Peterson. Yes, I boldly say this classifies as framing. That's essentially what tunnel vision is. When investigators are so absolutely certain that they know what happened, even without having collected a single piece of evidence or interviewed a single witness, then at some point in time, that certain knowledge hits a stone wall -- there just simply isn't the evidence to defend the conclusion. That is when evidence is manipulated to force it to yield the preconceived results. That's when exonerating evidence is intentionally pushed aside, even destroyed. The only way the ill-conceived pre-judgment of guilt can be sustained is through evidence tampering and evidence suppression. Those are the cold, hard facts.

An important factor peculiar to investigations also breeds severe tunnel vision with its inevitable evidence tampering and evidence suppression. That factor is actually a necessity -- the need for the other officers and individuals to fully support the core investigative team. Only the core team knows all about a case; other officers and investigators only know their part. And the investigators know full well that in the next case, s/he may be the lead investigator, or on the core investigative team, and s/he will be just as dependent on loyalty and just getting the job done with no second-guessing.

The working theory at this point was that Scott murdered Laci in the home and used the truck to transport her to the warehouse and then probably transferred her to the boat at the warehouse and proceeded to where ever he dumped her body. We know that's the working theory because that is the way they manipulated the evidence.

Let me demonstrate. The search warrant for the residence on the 26th and 27th was intended to identify and collect any evidence of a clean-up. They were convinced that Scott used the mop and bucket and vacuum cleaner to clean up any evidence. In a facade of looking for intruders, the entry ways were examined for forced entry and dusted for fingerprints, but not a single one of them believed it was necessary, except to show that they were being "open-minded" and willing to follow all leads. Luminal was used in the house to indicate possible blood and any reddish or brownish stains were scraped as evidence to be tested. The floorboards were checked, as were all the walls and even the ceiling. The carpeting was vacuumed with a special vacuum cleaner that can pick up trace evidence. Even the crawl space under the house was examined and all the outer sheds were inspected. As was the pool. Lots of evidence was collected - you can see the entire list on SII at these links, which include information not only for this search warrant, but for others. You can follow-through on many of the items to see what the forensic testing showed, but I can spare you the effort by simply telling you that none of the tests supported this initial theory that Scott killed Laci in the house and transported her body using the truck and boat. However, there is lots of useful information on these SII pages, so I highly recommend you spend some time reading them.

the residence http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/523covena.htm
the Land Rover http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/rover.htm
the Ford pickup truck http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/pickup.htm
the warehouse http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/warehouse.htm
the Gamefisher boat http://pwc-sii.com/Research/scenes/boat.htm

In addition to crime scene investigators from the MPD, the DOJ, and the FBI, trailing dogs were also brought in on the night of the 26th. And this is where we see our first evidence tampering by guess who? Yes, of course, our beloved Al Brocchini.

Cindee Valentin testified in the pre-trial hearings on the dog evidence that she knew the MPD officers she met with that night were convinced Scott was responsible, and some of her statements, which were stricken from the record, showed her own bias towards Scott's guilt. Her testimony is at http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Valentin.htm, and a synopsis of that testimony is on the Timeline, which I repeat here:

December 26, 2002 : 1st Trail by Valentin & Merlin--starting at 523 Covena:

She scented Merlin using the sunglasses & case.
From the southern edge of the property at 523 Covena Avenue he headed immediately north on Covena, turned west on Highland Drive, went into a house on 1326 Highland Drive (which is catty-corner and behind the property at 523 Covena Avenue), down driveway and into the backyard, circled the backyard, back through the gate, continued on west on Highland Drive to Santa Barbara Avenue, several areas past that, turned back and headed south on Santa Barbara Avenue, crossed several intersections to the intersection of San Barbara Avenue and La Loma Avenue, southeast on La Loma Avenue to the intersection of La Loma and Yosemite Boulevard, turned west and continued to Santa Rosa Avenue, turned south and headed down Santa Rosa Avenue.
Valentin explained Merlin's interest in the Highland Drive backyard as there likely being a scent pool because of its being catty-corner to the Peterson house.
All the way to and down La Loma, Merlin was going into the middle of the street and checking the bott dotts. He was going back and forth between the yards and the middle of the street.
On Yosemite, Merlin worked up against the buildings. Scent along the sides of buildings can come from a person riding in a car.
Merlin was pulling hard on Yosemite, but LE did not shut it down to traffic so Valentin could see if Merlin would trail down the middle of the street.
Merlin went into a parking lot on the west side of Santa Rosa, did not go into the middle of the street, even though the street had no traffic, but in and out of parking lots.
Valentin stopped him inside of the Gallo property at the end of Santa Rosa Avenue because he wasn't showing all the signs of being on trail, and they hit the dead end into the Gallo property.
Merlin stopped giving a strong pull on the harness at Yosemite Boulevard and Santa Rosa Avenue.
Valentin said other things could have been done to continue the search:

They could have gone into the Gallo property to check for an in-and-out trail
They could have gone back to Yosemite to see if there was scent that continued there
They could have gone back to other intersections

Valentin told the Detectives at command center that Merlin indicated Laci left in a vehicle, not on foot, because Merlin was pretty dedicated to always going back and checking those Bott Dots as they traveled through the neighborhood.
Valentin was not asked to take Merlin to the park to trail for Laci's scent.
From the conversations among the detectives, Valentin concluded that they suspected Scott of being responsible for Laci's disappearance.

Now, if dog trailing is a good science and if Laci went for a walk into the park, Merlin would have gone into the park and then followed her to wherever she ended up. Merlin did not go into the park.

If Scott murdered Laci and transported her in his truck to the warehouse, then Merlin would follow the trail to the warehouse. Maps.Google identifies 3 primary ways to get from Scott's house to the warehouse. Merlin didn't follow any one of the routes to the warehouse. You can click on these maps to enlarge.

They already know about the Medina burglary, because the Medinas have already arrived home and reported it. They do not yet know who did the burglary, but the fact that Merlin did not go to the Park and did not go to the warehouse surely registered in someone's head that, aha, the burglars took her. We'll return to this first trail by Merlin in a few days when we talk more about Todd and Pearce.

But Brocchini was undaunted in his efforts to find some evidence that Scott murdered Laci. Merlin, having failed to trail Laci to the warehouse, was brought to near the warehouse to see if he could be helped a bit, you know, nudged in the right direction. The three routes from Scot's house to the warehouse all have one thing in common, they all arrive at the intersection of Kansas and North Emerald.

December 26, 2002 : Trails to and from the Warehouse

Brocchini asked Valentin to see if Merlin would do a trail to Scott's warehouse.

Valentin told Brocchini to take her and Merlin somewhere near the warehouse and she would see if Merlin picked up a trail that led to a warehouse. She did not want to know where the warehouse was located.
Valentin and Merlin were taken to the intersection of Kansas and North Emerald.
Merlin picked up the trail and headed southbound on North Emerald Ave, in the opposite direction of the warehouse.

Detective Brocchini asked Valentin to stop the trail and to start from the warehouse

Valentin started Merlin at the B1 door of the warehouse,
Merlin went out of the warehouse to the street, North Emerald Ave,
turned south onto North Emerald Ave,
continued on North Emerald across Kansas Ave to Maize Blvd,
turned onto Maize Blvd and headed west

Detective Brocchini stopped Valentin after they had gone about a quarter mile down Maize Blvd, even though Merlin was pulling hard. Valentin made no objection to the search being called off.
Valentin told detectives this was a vehicle trail because Merlin was constantly checking the Bott Dots in the middle of the street.

Brocchini, with Valentin's help, rationalized that Merlin didn't go from the intersection of Kansas and North Emerald to the warehouse because trailing dogs are trained to pick up the newest scent. I'll remind you of that rationalization in a few days when we discuss another dog trail.

It took a bit of work, but Brocchini finally had his evidence that Scott murdered Laci in their home, transported her to the warehouse in his truck, and from the warehouse headed West out of town. As a detective of Brocchini's ilk, Mark Furhman, is quoted as saying, "not everything in a murder case is going to add up. You have to look at the totality of the evidence" (Source). In other words, if it doesn't fit, ignore it or lie about it. Merlin's failure to trail Laci from her home to the warehouse didn't fit with the working theory, so it was first ignored, then blatantly lied about. We still hear people give as one of their evidences that Scott is guilty that the dogs trailed Laci from the house to the warehouse to the Berkeley Marina.

Christmas Day, 2002

2011-12-25T01:42:00.000-06:00

Not a Christmas that anyone would ever want to experience. The MPD made a valiant effort through the night to find Laci. Search parties scoured the park for hours and used every search means available to them. In the next few days, officers went from door-to-door in the neighborhood to see if anyone had seen Laci or knew what had happened to her. One branch of the MPD seemed to be doing everything right in the case of a missing person, while the other branch had already closed the case -- Scott was guilty, and it was their duty to prove it.

The morning started for Scott at the Modesto Police Department as Brocchini wanted to tape record an interview with him. Scott already knew that Brocchini had concluded he was responsible for Laci's disappearance, and so is it any wonder that he didn't trust the man enough to share personal information, especially when Scott didn't believe it had anything at all to do with Laci's disappearance. He was certain Amber Frey didn't know about Laci, that has been her claim all along, and no one has brought forth any reason for Scott to have suspected that Amber was involved in Laci's disappearance. Maybe he was just in denial, but until there is evidence that Amber was involved, Scott can't be faulted for not making his relationship with her known to Brocchini that night. If Amber had any sense, she would appreciate how long Scott kept her out of the hands of the MPD and the media.

Other than not telling Brocchini about the affair, Scott told only the truth. People quibble about his times not being exact, but forget that no one else's times were exact, either, and they were given the opportunity to consult receipts and cell phone records to be sure. Scott wasn't given that luxury. If he thought he left home about 9:45, and it was found out it was closer to 10:08, then he was made out to be a liar. Brocchini unrelentingly tried to catch Scott in every little tidbit of inaccuracy, and if he failed, he just made it up.

After Brocchini dropped Scott off at home, Scott discovered his gun was missing from the glove box of the truck. He called Brocchini, who admitted seizing it. One more good reason not to trust the man. Scott had consented to have his home visually inspected during 4 walk-throughs the previous night; he consented to have Brocchini visually inspect the two vehicles and the boat; he consented to have ID Tech Lovell come to the house to take photos -- and Brocchini wasn't honest enough to simply tell Scott he was taking the gun. Brocchini had taken a GSR test at the MPD, to test for gun residue, which Scott consented to, so why not just tell Scott he took the gun? He said he didn't tell Scott because he didn't want to lose Scott's trust, not just yet. The truth is, he didn't want Scott's trust -- he wanted Scott to react, to do something to prove he was guilty. It didn't work, because Scott is not guilty.

Because Scott told Brocchini he would take a polygraph, Agent Doug Mansfield, a polygrapher for the California DOJ, was called in. In the meantime, Scott changed his mind. But what everyone seems to forget is that he still met with Mansfield and Grogan for a 3-hour interview. And Scott told only the truth, except for not admitting the affair. For example, Scott told Grogan that he made the cement anchor in a paint bucket that he bought at Home Depot. However, Grogan and the entire MPD labored for a whole year under the foolish notion that he made it in the plastic pitcher until Grogan was informed by an petrographer that the pitcher was not the mold for the anchor. So Grogan scurried down to Home Depot and purchased a paint bucket and sure enough, it fit.

Mansfield and Grogan grilled Scott on a lot of details from both his and Laci's lives. Scott held nothing back, except the affair.

Earlier that day, Buehler interviewed Karen Servas, who was still reporting 10:30 as the time she found McKenzie. Later that evening, Servas exposed her bias when she interpreted Scott's kindness in inviting her to join him and his parents for Christmas Dinner as something sinister.

Modesto police and firefighters carried out a massive and futile search along Dry Creek. Her family offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to her safe return. Sharon Rocha was in the Covena Home on December 25th, and said she did not notice anything "unusual." Janet Kenworthy saw Scott on Christmas Day, as she was walking her dog in the park. "He reaches in his coat, pulls out a flier and says, 'My wife's missing,'" Kenworthy recalled. "He about broke down in front of me. I did see tears, retain-your-composure efforts." Kenworthy was especially touched, she said, to learn that the missing woman was pregnant. She said she gave Scott a hug. "I would have sworn at that time that he was innocent," Kenworthy said. And she was right, he is innocent.

But some people besides the police were looking for evidence against Scott. Fair-weather friends always turn their backs on someone when the going gets tough, and there aren't many situations tougher than having a best friend and loved one missing on Christmas Day. After passing out flyers, Stacey Boyers went to the Covena home probably after 5:00 p.m. to bring a picture to Renee Tomlinson. Boyers observed Scott vacuuming the area in front of the washer and dryer. She said he was vacuuming that area the whole time she was there. When she reported this to the police, it raised their suspicion that Scott was still doing some clean-up. Of course he was cleaning up. Dozens of people had been in and out of that home all day. Laci was a good housekeeper; he expected her to come home. And what evidence was found from the vacuum cleaner and the vacuum bag? Nothing. No evidence of a clean-up. It was all a figment of their imagination.

And memories began to fade over time to Scott's detriment. Witnesses had different accounts of where Scott was on Christmas morning. Brent Rocha gave three different accounts in his interviews. In the first, he said Scott was unaccounted for from 9:00-12:00 Noon, in the second that he saw Scott around 11 am, and in the third report that he joined with Scott at 10:30 to go hang flyers in the neighborhood. In his trial testimony, he said the latter is the most accurate. He didn't seem aware that his mother saw Scott during that time -- she met Scott coming out of the park with McKenzie and Scott accompanied her to her friend Jane's house around the corner from Laci's, and he was at the house later that morning when Sharon was there. That was one of the problems - Brent didn't see where Scott was every minute, so assumed he must have been up to something very sinister. No one seemed to be able to give Scott the space to be himself and to deal with this traumatic event in his own way. He was the outsider, and they were too quick to become suspicious over the least little thing. Laci's maternal aunt Susan Aquino, who didn't even know Scott, thought it was suspicious because Scott said a sighting wouldn't be Laci because she didn't cross the footbridge in her walks. Everything looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.

At 7:20 p.m., Scott called Brocchini to ask him if they were using cadaver dogs to look for Laci in Dry Creek Park. Brocchini told Scott he hadn't considered her being dead yet, so they hadn't used cadaver dogs. What a lie -- he did already consider that Laci was dead. It's Scott that hadn't considered that she was dead, and that's why he wanted to know if they were using cadaver dogs, as he had heard they were. Brocchini's hubris wouldn't allow him to be wrong about Scott, so he twisted whatever Scott did or said in whatever way he needed to prove Scott had murdered Laci.

Meanwhile, Todd and Pearce had already started to give away some of the Medina jewelry as Christmas gifts to their women-folk, and to sell off some of the jewelry, guns, and other items. Somehow or other, Deanna Renfro ended up with Laci's croton watch. It was probably the nicest piece of jewelry she ever owned.

The only bad thing that happened to Amber on Christmas day is that Scott didn't call her as he had promised. I'm sure that was better than spending the day in hours of grueling interviews with detectives trying to prove she didn't have anything to do with Laci's disappearance, which is surely what would have happened if Scott had revealed he had an affair with her.

That fateful day so many years ago . . .

2011-12-23T23:36:00.005-06:00

December 24, 2002

9:30 a.m., or thereabouts, Scott loaded the umbrellas into the pickup bed. He was seen by Kristen Dempewolf, who said he smiled and said Hello.

9:48 a.m., Scott was in the house with Laci watching Martha Stewart -- long enough to know she and her guest were making cookies and talking about meringue.

Shortly after the meringue mention, Scott left for the warehouse. Somewhere along the way, or even from the warehouse, he checked his voice mail. He had a voice message from his employer. At the warehouse he fiddled around with email, put together a mortiser, and then hooked the boat trailer to his pickup truck and headed for the Berkeley Marina.

Meanwhile, Laci finished her mopping and went for a walk - not in the park, but around the neighborhood. Credible witnesses -- unknown to each other -- identify that walk-route. (http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/2008/04/lacis-walk.html).

Exactly what happened to Laci is still shrouded in mystery. The same people who swallowed hook, line, and sinker the State's theory with its massive gaping holes are quick to reject any other explanation because every single moment can't be accounted for.

But we know that Diane Jackson saw the Medina burglary in progress, at 11:40 a.m. -- she saw a van, 3 men, and the safe being removed from the house.

We know that Steve Todd and Glenn Pearce participated in that burglary, lied about when they did it, and apparently have failed to identify others that were involved. Jackson saw 3 men by the van, and the safe being removed from the house, which requires at least 1 other person; so that's 2 persons still unaccounted for.

We know that Todd's friends, the Tenbrink brothers, were overheard talking about how Laci confronted Todd during the burglary and he threatened her.

We know that when Scott arrived home that evening, Laci was missing.

We know that Scott called Sharon at 5:17 p.m. to ask if Laci was there. She instructed him to check with neighbors and friends. When he called back to report no success, she instructed him to meet her in the park, and Ron Grantski was to stay at home and call 9-1-1 and also call local hospitals. The 9-1-1 call was made at 5:48 p.m.

We know that the Modesto Police Department responded immediately. Officer Evers responded at 5:48, Officers Letsinger and Spurlock soon followed, and Sgt. Duerfeldt was there by 5:58 p.m. They responded to the Park because that is where Scott thought Laci was going to go for her walk.

We know that at 6:15 p.m., Duerfeldt advised Communications Center to notify all local hospitals.

We know that Officers Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock went with Scott to the home at 523 Covena and secured the home, not allowing Scott to enter. They did an initial walk-through, looking for any signs of what may have happened to Laci.

We know that Sgt. Duerfeldt arrived at the Covena home at 6:20 p.m. and spoke for about 5 minutes with Officers Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock. Based on that conversation, Duerfeldt concluded that Scott was responsible for Laci's disappearance and called Sgt. Carter to request a homicide detective.

We know that Officers Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock went with Scott back into the home for a 2nd walk-through.

We know that Ron Grantski asked Scott, in the presence of Evers and other officers, if he had gotten in any golfing that day. When Scot said No, he had gone fishing instead, Grantski remarked that 9:30 or 10:00 was too late in the day to go fishing, which was a very strange comment to make since he himself had been fishing that very afternoon.

We know that about 9:30 Detective Brocchini arrived, and he and the 3 officers did another walk through -- the 3rd that night. Later, he, Evers, and Scott did a 4th walk-through.

We know that the only thing they found suspicious were some dirty white towels on the washing machine, two mops and mop bucket by the door, and a rug out of place. Yet, Brocchini, Evers, Letsinger, Spurlock, and Duerfeldt were absolutely certain that Scot was responsible for Laci's disappearance, and that she was already dead.

We know that later that night, Brocchini visually inspected the Land Rover and the Ford Pickup Truck, seizing a gun that Scott had in the glove box of the truck. Then he asked to see the boat, and Scott took him to the warehouse where Brocchini visually inspected the boat and took some photographs.

We know that Brocchini called for ID Tech Lovell to go to 523 Covena to take photographs of the inside of the house.

Finally, we know that Brocchini took Scott to the police department to tape record an hour long interview.

And so it is that on this fateful day, so many years ago, a beautiful young woman, pregnant with her first child, innocently encountered danger across the street from which she most likely was not allowed to walk away from. It wouldn't be till a few days before people became aware that the Medina home had been burglarized, as they were visiting children in southern California, but by then it was too late, because Evers, Letsinger, Spurlock, and Duerfeldt knew Scott was responsible within 45 minutes of the 9-1-1 call, and Brocchini was just as certain before he even arrived at the Covena home.

In the coming weeks and months, we'll revisit the investigation as it proceeded, to see just what the MPD focused on and how they were able to so completely miss the mark.

Expert bias, continued

2011-12-23T19:26:00.001-06:00

The links in my previous post no longer work, so I am copying the articles in full here. To refresh your memory, these are articles about the cases overturned in North Carolina because of the egregious misconduct by SBI Agent Duane Deaver. One of the cases involved is the infamous Michael Peterson case, and he is getting a new trial. The last of the 3 articles focuses on the District Attorney involved.

Novelist Michael Peterson will get new trial in wife's death
By Joseph Neff
The (Raleigh) News & Observer
By Joseph Neff
Posted: Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011

Michael Peterson reacts after Judge Orlando Hudson ruled that he will get a new trial. Hudson found that former SBI agent Duane Deaver misled the judge and jury in 2003, when his testimony helped convict Peterson in the death of his wife, Kathleen Peterson.

Michael Peterson's daughter Martha Ratliff hugs investigator Ron Guerette after Judge Orlando Hudson ruled that Peterson will get a new trial. Hudson found that former SBI agent Duane Deaver misled the judge and jury in 2003, when his testimony helped convict Peterson in the death of his wife, Kathleen Peterson.

Michael Peterson listens to witness Tom Bevel at his hearing.

Michael Peterson, the former Durham novelist convicted of murder in 2003, will get a new trial, a judge ruled today.

Judge Orlando Hudson found that former SBI agent Duane Deaver misled the judge and jury in 2003, when his testimony helped convict Peterson in the death of his wife, Kathleen Peterson.

Deaver misled the jury about the validity of his experiments at the trial, Hudson said.

Hudson also found that Deaver gave perjured testimony.

"Is a new trial required?" Hudson asked. "The answer is yes."

Peterson put his hand to his forehead and closed his eye as Hudson ruled. His family and friends crowding the court bench behind Peterson hugged each other, with several of his children quietly sobbing.

Clayton Peterson said he has always believed in his father's innocence and was shocked as evidence of Deaver's misconduct accumulated over the six days of the hearing. David Rudolf, Peterson's attorney, presented video clips of Deaver's testimony at trial and then contradicted them with SBI records and expert testimony.

"I became increasingly angry and disgusted," Clayton Peterson said. "Seeing the evidence presented, I am just disgusted."

A bond hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m.

Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline argued that Peterson should be denied a new trial because Rudolf could have discovered all the evidence about Deaver before the 2003 trial.

"The same information was available back in 2001," Cline said. "There is no new evidence that would make the jury reach a different verdict."

Cline declined to discuss whether she would pursue a perjury investigation against Deaver, given Hudson's ruling that Deaver presented "perjured testimony."

In general, perjury investigations are difficult, Cline said.

A prosecutor must first establish the truth, Cline said.

"And we have to show that he knew the truth and testified otherwise, and that is difficult," Cline said.

SBI assistant director Erik Hooks said in an interview last year that he could find no instance of an SBI agent being charged with perjury.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12....l#ixzz1gXh6LIlI

*************************************
SBI agents' testimony is critical of Deaver
By Joseph Neff
jneff@newsobserver.com
By Joseph Neff
Posted: Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011

Modified: Friday, Dec. 09, 2011 Michael Peterson had the fourth day of his hearing in quest of a retrial Friday at the Durham County courthouse. CHUCK LIDDY - cliddy@newsobserver.com

The hearing into Michael Peterson's request for a new trial resumes Tuesday morning in the Durham courthouse.
David Rudolf, Peterson's lawyer, said his final two witnesses - an expert and a detective - will testify Tuesday. Rudolf said he does not plan on calling Duane Deaver.

District Attorney Tracey Cline did not specify whether she will call any witnesses.

DURHAM The pro-prosecution bias of former State Bureau of Investigation agent Duane Deaver was so strong that it angered and discomforted fellow agents re-examining evidence in the case of Greg Taylor, a Raleigh man later exonerated in a 1991 murder, two agents testified Friday.

Deaver repeatedly insisted Taylor was guilty, the agents said. Deaver was hostile to their efforts to re-examine evidence, they said. And Deaver was indignant when one agent refused to testify he could identify a stain on a car as blood solely by looking at a picture of the vehicle.

"Could I identify it as blood in the picture without testing?" agent Russell Holley testified Friday. "I can't do that."

The two agents testified at a hearing for Durham novelist Michael Peterson, who is seeking a new trial because of what his lawyer calls a history of misconduct and bias by Deaver, a key expert witness for the prosecution at Peterson's 2003 murder trial. Peterson was convicted of the murder of his wife, Kathleen Peterson, a Nortel Networks executive who was found dead at the bottom of a bloodstained staircase in their Forest Hills mansion.

David Rudolf, Peterson's lawyer, has spent the week tearing into the credibility of Deaver, arguing that Deaver had a pattern of fabricating evidence of guilt, hiding evidence of innocence, and tailoring his testimony to fit the prosecution theory.

The evidence Friday did not come from expert witnesses or defense lawyers, but from inside the SBI, an agency whose inner workings are seldom seen in public.

SBI agent Kristin Hughes, a forensic biologist and DNA expert, was assigned to re-examine the evidence in Taylor's case before a September 2009 meeting of the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission. Deaver had done the original lab work, and Hughes left repeated messages for Deaver asking for help to understand his lab notes.

"He was not willing to come over and help decipher his notes," Hughes said.

'Well, why not?'

Hughes then described a meeting she attended in August 2009 with Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford, Deaver and Holley.

Deaver showed up with "an attitude" and without his case file or notes, even though it is standard practice to bring case files to a meeting with prosecutors, Hughes said.

When Hughes and Holley asked where his case file was, Deaver was dismissive, saying "I don't have these any more."

Ford brought a photo of Taylor's truck, which was stuck in the mud at the crime scene. There was a small reddish-brown stain on the truck.

"Deaver said, 'That's blood,' " Hughes testified.

Holley disagreed. They needed lab tests, not a picture, to identify blood.

Hughes said Deaver quickly shot back condescendingly: "Well, why not? You're a trained analyst. You should have enough experience to say there's blood in the picture."

That stain was crucial in exonerating Taylor. A preliminary test for blood was positive. In his 1993 lab report, Deaver wrote that the stain contained "chemical indications of blood."

Deaver also ran a more specific, confirmatory test for blood that came back negative. He did not mention that negative result in his lab report. At Taylor's trial, police and prosecution referred to the stain as "blood." The stain was the only physical evidence against Taylor, who insisted on his innocence from his first encounter with police.

Ford did not return a phone message left at his home. Deaver and his lawyers have declined to comment.

New tests, different results

Holley, who examines blood and other body fluids, said he ran tests on the same item of evidence where Deaver noted chemical indications of blood. Holley said all preliminary tests came back negative, and he did not run confirmatory tests.

Holley also examined slides taken from a vaginal swab of the murder victim, Jacquetta Thomas. Deaver had written that there was no sperm present. Holley said he identified sperm; so did two lab trainees who looked at the slide at Holley's request. (The sperm was tested, but did not match Taylor, his friend with him the night of the murder or anyone in a national DNA database.)

Holley described the meeting with Deaver and Ford as "strange and uncomfortable."

Holley recalled Deaver was adamant Taylor was guilty, saying "I know he's guilty. Why are they doing this to us? They are dragging us through the mud."

Hughes said she had a similar recollection about a series of comments from Deaver: "He's guilty." "He did it." "He's where he needs to be." "He'd never survive a hearing." "This was all to see if they can get him out."

Neither Hughes nor Holley thought Deaver's comments were appropriate; forensic scientists are tasked with being unbiased, using science to find facts irrespective of whether the truth helps prosecution or defense. "I didn't care if he (Taylor) was innocent or not," Holley said. "If he was guilty, that's fine. If he's innocent, that's fine."

Holley said he wasn't able to say why Deaver found blood but not sperm, or why Deaver was so insistent on Taylor's guilt. But Deaver's behavior made the agents angry and uncomfortable, they testified.

"We got out of there as quick as we could," Holley said.

Confusing the defense

The final witness Friday was Chris Swecker, a former assistant director of the FBI who, following Taylor's exoneration, conducted an audit of blood cases handled by the SBI crime lab at the request of state Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Swecker and another retired FBI assistant director identified more than 200 cases where the official SBI lab reports did not reflect the results obtained in the laboratory. The most serious mistakes, where the official reports and lab bench notes contradicted each other, were contained in reports written by Deaver, Swecker said.

Under cross examination by Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline, Swecker said he found no evidence that any SBI employee had intentionally withheld or fabricated evidence.

The problem, Swecker said, was a cultural bias within the SBI in favor of the prosecution.

Swecker said he asked Deaver for whom he was writing his reports.

Deaver's answer: police and prosecutors. If he reported a negative test result, there may be a misunderstanding because tests can deliver a false negative. A negative test result did not necessarily mean there was no blood, he told the retired FBI agents. Who would misunderstand or be confused by a negative test result? Rudolf asked. The jury?

"I had in my notes that it would confuse the defense," Swecker said. "The defense might say there was not blood."

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12....l#ixzz1gXiXRs5H

******************************

First hearing set on Cline's BY J. ANDREW CURLISS The News and Observer

Lawyers have started attacking arguments that Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline made in a series of court filings late last month as she seeks to prevent Judge Orlando Hudson from handling criminal cases while she pursues a complaint of
misconduct against him.

A first decision point on Cline's efforts to disqualify Hudson has been set: A hearing is scheduled for Monday. Hudson, the senior resident Superior Court judge, will not handle it. He has asked Carl Fox, the senior judge in Orange County and a former district attorney, to handle the arguments.

Cline has alleged in her filings that Hudson cannot be fair to her or her office based on his rulings in several recent cases, including the dismissals of two murder charges in part because he found misconduct by Cline. The district attorney says she has done nothing wrong.

Cline wrote in court documents that Hudson's rulings have "raped" victims and are based in "fictitious findings." Cline disclosed that she has filed a complaint with the state commission that oversees judges' conduct, though her exact complaint is not public. The filings are similar to appeals that are ongoing before the state Court of Appeals in the dismissed murder cases.

Hudson disputes Cline's allegations, and said he welcomes any review.

Cline's writings have garnered national attention and brought criticism from judicial experts who called them an unprecedented attempt to sidestep the appeals or recusal processes.

Upcoming cases

In the meantime, cases that Hudson would be handling are coming up on the court calendar, prompting a new round of filings - and Monday's scheduled hearing.

Cline has filed papers seeking to remove Hudson from deciding an appeal by convicted murderer Michael Peterson, a former novelist whose case has been the subject of documentaries and intense media coverage. Peterson's bid for a new trial is scheduled to be heard next week.

In another, Cline wants Hudson off a post-conviction appeal being advanced by convicted rapist David Yearwood, who was featured in a News & Observer series of articles about Cline in September. The series, "Twisted Truth," reported that Cline had withheld evidence from defendants and had made misstatements to judges in several cases.

Cline said Hudson should be prevented from overseeing the Peterson case because he is commissioned to serve in another county until next year as part of the court system's regular rotation of judges.

Peterson's lawyer, David Rudolf of Charlotte, has responded in a filing that says state law provides wide latitude for appeals to be heard by the judge who presided at a trial, including that the law says a judge can take action "even though he is in another district or even though his commission has expired."

Hudson was the judge on the Peterson trial, which lasted three months.

The reason Hudson should remain, Rudolf wrote, is clear: He oversaw the trial and listened to the testimony. The issue in the Peterson appeal focuses on the work of an SBI agent whom Hudson qualified as an expert.

Rudolf said Hudson is in a "unique position" to assess new evidence he wants to bring forward.

Rudolf wrote also that the conduct of Cline and the district attorney's office is not at issue in Peterson's appeal and that Cline's allegations have no relevance to the case.

In the Yearwood case, Cline alleges that Hudson improperly appointed a lawyer, Heather Rattelade, to work for Yearwood and that Hudson is behind allegations Rattelade made about misconduct by Cline.

Cline and Rattelade have previously exchanged pointed court filings about the case, particularly about documents filed under seal that were obtained by The N&O that Cline has not been able to review.

Lawyer responds

In a response this week to Cline's efforts to remove Hudson, Rattelade wrote that Cline's request to remove the judge should be stricken from the record. She argues that Cline's filings are "unsupported by facts," are based in "inflammatory conclusory statements," and are designed to "shop for a more favorable judge."

The appropriate response, Rattelade wrote, is for the request to be dismissed or for Cline - not the judge - to step out of handling the case if there is some concern about partiality.

"District Attorney Cline's 'Request' should be stricken from the record because it is solely intended to disrepute and to destroy public confidence in the integrity of the Durham County General Court of Justice," Rattelade wrote.

Curliss: 919-829-4840

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/01/1....l#ixzz1gYbVyk3F

A Tribute to Laci and Conner

2011-12-20T17:20:00.000-06:00

Visit the Peterson website to see this beautiful tribute:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/SPA1/Tribute.html

Expert bias

2011-12-14T14:54:00.000-06:00

Many people willingly admit there is expert bias on the part of experts hired by Defense Counsel. They have no problem calling these experts "hired guns" that will tell the Judge and Jury whatever the Defense Counsel wants them to say. I'm sure some experts do in fact sell themselves for profit and gain.

Most people, however, are extremely reluctant to concede that State expert witnesses are just as capable of such immoral and unethical behavior. Once again, however, we have solid evidence that some State experts will not only conceal exonerating evidence in their reports, but provide perjured testimony.

This most recent example comes to light as Michael Peterson is granted a new trial because SBI Duane Deaver "misled the jury about the validity of his experiments" and "gave perjured testimony."

You can read about Deaver's gross misconduct in these two articles, one of which provides information about his gross misconduct in another case.

SBI agents' testimony is critical of Deaver

Novelist Michael Peterson will get new trial in wife's death

This is the proper attitude for all experts to have, be they consulted by the State or by the Defense:

Neither Hughes nor Holley thought Deaver's comments were appropriate; forensic scientists are tasked with being unbiased, using science to find facts irrespective of whether the truth helps prosecution or defense. "I didn't care if he (Taylor) was innocent or not," Holley said. "If he was guilty, that's fine. If he's innocent, that's fine."

California Supreme Court voids two death row convictions!

2011-12-07T16:50:00.000-06:00

California Supreme Court voids two death row convictions
Justices rule that Judge Charles Horan acted improperly in removing a juror who questioned a witness' reliability in gang members' murder trial.

Cleamon "Big Evil" Johnson was charged with ordering the killings of two rival gang members. (Associated Press / December 5, 2011)

December 5, 2011, 10:38 p.m.

After upholding nearly 50 death sentences in a row, the California Supreme Court on Monday broke its pattern by overturning the convictions of a reputed gang leader in Los Angeles and his alleged accomplice in two killings that sent both men to death row for 15 years.

The state high court unanimously ruled that Cleamon Johnson and Michael Allen, convicted of killing rival gang members Peyton Beroit and Donald Loggins in 1991, were denied a fair trial when a judge removed a juror who appeared to be critical of the prosecution's case.

In a ruling written by Justice Carol A. Corrigan, the court cited a lack of evidence to support then-Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charles Horan's decision to remove the juror for prejudging the case and relying on evidence outside the 1997 trial.

Johnson, known as "Big Evil," headed a gang called the 89 Family Bloods during the 1980s and early '90s that authorities contend was responsible for about 60 killings in South Los Angeles.

Johnson was convicted of ordering Allen to kill the two rival gang members with an Uzi. Johnson also was charged with a third killing and two attempted killings but another jury deadlocked on those charges in 1999.

In reversing the convictions that sent Johnson and Allen to death row, the state high court said the juror who was removed was deliberating properly and relying on experience, not bias, to evaluate a prosecution eyewitness.

"It may be argued that Juror No. 11's conclusion was based upon a weak premise or rested upon an over-broad inference," Corrigan wrote. "Jurors, however, are the judges of credibility, and conscientious jurors may come to different conclusions.

"It is not the province of trial or reviewing courts to substitute their logic for that of jurors to whom credibility decisions are entrusted."

Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, said a decision on whether to retry Johnson and Allen would be made after the office reviews the ruling and assesses the case.

Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, said her office is considering a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "We're disappointed but reviewing our options," Gledhill said.

Supervising State Deputy Public Defender Andrew Love, who represented Johnson, said he was thrilled by the ruling but also "angry and frustrated" that it took so many years for the state high court to decide the case.

"This case involved truly outrageous conduct by the trial judge, who kicked a juror off the case in the middle of deliberations because it was reported by another juror that he was not persuaded by the prosecution's case," Love said. "Reversal was a foregone conclusion."

He said Johnson was on death row for five years before getting a lawyer to handle his appeal, and the California Supreme Court waited many more years to decide the case after it had been fully briefed.

"One of the primary reasons these cases take so long is the shortage of competent lawyers willing to handle capital appeals in the California Supreme Court — and a key reason why is the perception that the court does not undertake a careful, meaningful review of these cases," Love said.

Prosecutors said Johnson was a "shot caller" in the street gang and presented a witness who testified that he heard Johnson order Allen to kill the victims.

The juror who was dismissed had expressed doubts about the witness' credibility. After two other jurors complained about him, Horan interviewed the entire panel before discharging the juror.

maura.dolan@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gang-overturn-20111206,0,2865203.story

Click Here to read the Opinion

Extension of Time Granted

2011-12-07T14:10:00.002-06:00

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)

Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2011-12-07

Event Description: Extension of time granted

Notes:

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including January 30, 2012.

Greta's Blog

2011-12-07T11:42:00.001-06:00

Greta Van Susteren has a recent blog article on the Scott Peterson case. You can read it and post a response at http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/12/05/10-years-of-on-the-record-at-10pm-scott-and-laci-peterson/

I have already posted my response.

A Moral Imperative

2011-12-01T21:32:00.000-06:00

For many people, the case of The People vs. Scott Peterson is closed, and rightly so. They are satisfied that he is guilty and justice has been served. They have no moral imperative to do anything more.

But others of us do have a moral imperative. Through our analysis of the evidence and through our own investigations, we have discovered that it's not possible that Scott Peterson committed these murders.

So many want to put criminals behind bars and throw away the key. They want no more than the barest of existence for them. But that is not the attitude Jesus Christ had. He did not want crime to go unpunished, but he did want charity towards prisoners. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 25, we read:

31 ¶When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Christ then went on to say in this parable that those who did not do likewise unto the least of these were cast into everlasting fire.

That's a sobering thought, that we are supposed to care not only for the needy and the sick, but also for the imprisoned. If the Gospel of Jesus Christ has the moral imperative to visit the imprisoned, how much greater is the moral imperative to fight to correct the injustice of a wrongful conviction?

Letting the System run its course is an option for someone who believes Scott is guilty, but not for those who know he is innocent. Christian principles demand that whatever can be done must be done until the injustice is corrected.

Another 'extension of time' request

2011-11-30T10:13:00.000-06:00

I don't know if the docket will indicate when the perfected, complete record is finally received by the California Supreme Court, but I assume it has not yet been, or there has not been sufficient time since it has been for Scott's attorneys to have prepared the first brief. I will post when the Court indicates whether this extension has been approved, and what the new deadline date will be, which should be within a few days.

11/28/2011

Request for extension of time filed

to file appellant's opening brief. (6th request)

Lee and Jackie celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary

2011-11-21T14:32:00.001-06:00

The Peterson family blog has a short note about the Peterson's 40th wedding anniversary and a photo taken at their 25th. I had occasion to meet and visit with the Petersons a few times when I attended the trial. I think the best description is one I found in an anniversary card -- They not only are a great couple, they are a couple of great people.

More information about the Habeas Appeal

2011-11-12T15:12:00.001-06:00

I found this source for information on the habeas appeals in California. It gives the process for non-death penalty habeas appeals, whereas the death penalty habeas appeals are filed in the CA Supreme Court. The substance and structure of the habeas is the same for both death penalty and non-death penalty cases.

"Elements of a Habeas Petition" by Jonathan Grossman

The web page for State Senator Tom Harman, California's 35th District, provides information on SB1025 Habeas Corpus Reform, SCA27 Direct Appeal in Capital Cases, and SB1018 Single Drug Lethal Injection Procedure.

SB1025 proposes that habeas appeals in capital cases begin in the Superior Courts, as they do in non-capital cases.

Because habeas appeals involve extensive fact-finding and investigative duties that appellate courts are ill-equipped to handle, this proposal would both streamline the appellate process and ensure that habeas claims are efficiently and accurately resolved.

SCA27 allows the guaranteed direct appeals for capital cases to be heard by the Courts of Appeal, with review of the appellate opinion by the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Ron George argues that the death penalty jeopardizes the Court's capacity to resolve other statewide legal issues and settle appellate conflicts, which is its primary obligation.

California needs to do something to expedite this appeal process - not just for the victims, but for the wrongfully convicted. Scott has been on death row now for over 6.5 years, and his Court record still has not been perfected. It will probably be well into 2012 before his direct appeal brief is filed. And then another couple of years before it is even considered by the CA Supreme Court.

Len spoke, America listened, and Nancy went home

2011-11-09T21:53:00.003-06:00

On Monday night's Dancing with the Stars, after an instant jive which earned Nancy Grace only 20 out of a possible 30 points, Judge Len Goodman told Nancy:

Nancy, yours is a Cinderella story. You've come to the ball and you've lasted eight weeks, which I commend you for. However, for me, it's midnight and it's time to go home!

And on Tuesday night, Nancy was eliminated from the competition. She's said publicly that she's donating her earnings for being on the show to the Missing and Exploited Children's Center. I googled to see how much the stars earn for their participation in the competition and found this contract for Shawn Johnson in Season 8, which aired during the Fall of 2009, and Gawker dot com also gives these numbers:

Guaranteed $125,000 for appearing on the show
An additional $10,000 per week for weeks 3 and 4
An additional $20,000 per week for weeks 5-7
An additional $30,000 per week for weeks 8-9
An additional $50,000 per week for weeks 10-11

The total for making it to the final 2 is $345,000.

Since Grace made it through week 8, she earned $215,000. If she did indeed give that money to the Missing & Exploited Children's Center, then good for her.

But her dancing leaves a lot to be desired. And her television show even more.

Understanding Scott's Appeal Process

2011-10-26T14:17:00.001-05:00

I previously provided some basic information on how the appeals process works in capital cases in California. Scott Peterson Case: Truth be Told provides some specific information on what is holding up Scott's appeal. I highly recommend readers of this blog to that Facebook page, not only for this article, but for the 100 or so already written.

I'm not at all surprised that it is the prosecutors that are holding up Scott's appeal by inserting themselves into a phase of the appellate process that is supposed to be handled by the Attorney General's office -- they should have been told to butt out. But even then, surely the prosecutors knew that everything that happened in the Prelim and Trial, including all of the exhibits used, would be part of the perfected record? Just exactly what were they trying to keep out?

For that matter, why didn't the two Court Clerks simply include all of that information to begin with? If you are going to be about the job of sending people to prison, then at least be informed on what is needed for the direct appeal and get it all sent in the first time around -- ESPECIALLY in capital cases, where the direct appeal is guaranteed. This isn't rocket science! A simple checklist would do nicely. I think the California Supreme Court should slap monetary penalties on these Courts when they don't send all the necessary documents the first time around.

Will Nancy Grace make it to the Final Four on DWTS?

2011-10-21T14:17:00.000-05:00

It's beginning to look like a real possibility that Nancy Grace will make it to the Final Four. Chaz Bono is by far the worst dancer of the season. Grace is on the bottom side of the middle-of-the pack group that still includes Rob Kardashian, David Arquette, and Hope Solo. The top 2 -- Ricki Lake and J. R. Martinez -- lead the pack by a mile, in my opinion. I don't care who ends up in the final four, as long as it includes both Ricki and J. R. and one of them wins it.

I hated to see Carson Kressley eliminated. No, he wasn't a good dancer, but overall he wasn't any worse than Grace, Rob, David, and Hope, and he certainly was better than Chaz. And he had such a huge personality and was so much fun to watch. It isn't just about dancing; it's about entertainment and connecting to the audience. J. R. and Ricki not only bring some real dance talent, but they also bring personality and they connect to the audience -- at least I feel a real connection to both of them.

I suspect Chaz Bono has the largest support group; but how big is Grace's? I have to agree with Len -- Grace's quick step was by far her best dance, she was actually fun to watch, and she did a fairly good job on that "kiss of death" dance, but her other dances have just not been anything to get excited about. She doesn't dance them badly, she just doesn't bring any personality to them.

My prediction is we may well see the most lopsided final four in DWTS history -- Chaz, Grace, J. R., and Ricki.

What's taking so long, Part 2

2011-10-08T11:55:00.002-05:00

Scott's CA Supreme Court docket has the following two items:

09/03/2009	Received:	notice from superior court that 30,846 pp. record was sent to appellant's counsel on August 31, 2009.
09/08/2009	Date trial court delivered record to appellant's counsel	(30,846 pp. record) (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.600(e)(1); the delivery date is the mailing date plus five days.) (Note: record was sent to appellant's counsel on August 31, 2009.)

Receiving that 30,846 pp record, which includes the trial court clerk's and reporter's transcripts, is just the beginning of the process. The defense counsel now has to augment and complete the record, which means that every single page has to be reviewed to be sure everything that is needed for the appeal is included and then file motions to request anything that is missing.

Richard L. Rubin's Internet article "Update: Augmenting and Completing the Record in Criminal Appeals: A checklist" provides good detail on this process and some of the things the defense counsel has to be sure to get into the record. The defense counsel has to be absolutely certain that everything needed for a successful direct appeal is included in the record -- and that obligation is amplified in a capital case with an inmate sitting on death row.

Scott's docket also has this entry:

01/19/2010

Received:

copy of order from Superior Court of Stanislaus County assigning Judge Scott Steffen on January 15, 2010 for matters related to certification of the record for accuracy. (Order signed by Presiding Judge Jack M. Jacobson.)

This means that any motions for items to be added to the 30,846 pp are filed with and argued before Judge Steffen. All motions approved by Judge Steffen have to be fulfilled by the State. These motions are not listed on Scott's docket, so we don't know what has been involved in this step of the process. I assume at some point we'll see a docket entry that Judge Steffen has certified the record to be accurate and complete.

For those of you so inclined to read the rules governing the appellate process, click here and scroll down to Chapter Ten for rules that govern death penalty cases.

Clarification on what is included in the direct appeal

2011-10-04T18:53:00.000-05:00

ScottPetersonAppeal dot Org has had an article explaining the appellate process up for some time, and includes an explanation of what goes into a direct appeal and what goes into a habeas appeal.

Direct Appeal: Anyone sentenced to death is required to file a direct appeal with the California Supreme Court. This appeal may not be waived. The direct appeal has to do with anything within the court record. It covers things like change of venue, evidentiary issues, juror removal, or any judge's ruling.

Habeas Appeal: While the direct appeal deals with any proceeding that is part of the perfected record, the Habeas is open to almost anything that may challenge a conviction. It may deal with a profound injustice that state law allows, but that our constitution ensures against. Habeas issues would also include new evidence, misconduct by the prosecution, or ineffective counsel for the defendant. Undisclosed bargains or incentives to witnesses can be grounds within this appeal.
The habeas is not automatic. It is filed at the request of the client and the court can deny hearing it without comment.
Click here to read the entire article.

Another extension of time granted for filing appellant's opening brief

2011-10-03T18:53:00.002-05:00

10/03/2011

Extension of time granted

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including November 29, 2011.

This is a jubilant day for Amanda Knox, who has finally received her well-deserved acquittal. Meredith Kercher was murdered on November 1, 2007; Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted in December 2009. It took less than 2 years for Amanda's wrongful conviction to be reversed.

Laci Peterson disappeared on December 24, 2002. Scott was jailed on April 18, 2003, and has remained incarcerated to this day, nearly 8 1/2 years later. His first appellate brief hasn't even been filed, and won't be filed for at least another 2 months. The wheels of justice do indeed grind slow in America. Many people want to speed up executions; I'm sure just as many want to speed up the appeals process so wrongful convictions can be overturned at a much faster pace. Even when Scott's first appeal brief is filed, it will probably be 4 more years before we see the Court's decision. That will be 12 1/2 years compared to 2 years for Amanda Knox.

On the agenda for the US Supreme Court

2011-10-03T11:11:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court convened today:

Among the cases involving criminal defendants is one from an inmate awaiting execution in Alabama who missed a deadline to appeal his death sentence because the big-firm lawyers in New York who had been handling his case for free moved on to new jobs, and letters from the court clerk sat in the firm's mailroom before being returned to sender.

The case of Cory Maples, convicted 15 years ago in the shooting deaths of two men, presents the question: "How much poor representation can one criminal defendant receive" before it violates the Constitution? said University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn Ifill.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/03/supreme-court-to-tackle-hot-button-disputes-as-new-term-begins/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZjbCzkPB

If you want to read more about the Maples screw-up, go to Simple Justice blog article Sullivan & Cromwell Gets a Seat At The Execution. The comments are as interesting as the article -- and on both sides of the issue.

What's taking so long?

2011-09-29T21:35:00.000-05:00

Why hasn't the appellate process for Scott gotten started yet? What's the hold up? If you follow the docket using the link at the right, you know that there's not much explanation given for anything. We've seen a couple of requests for extensions of time to file the first brief, but we're not given a reason why the extension was necessary - just that it was for good cause.

Direct appeals in capital cases in California take a very long time. This Internet article explains the problems the California Supreme Court is facing with the way death row appeals are managed. Here is some basic information from the article.

California's death row inmates have two State appellate opportunities: the direct appeal and the habeas appeal.

Review on direct appeal is, of course, limited to the record compiled by trial counsel in the court below. In nearly every death case, the adequacy of performance of the trial counsel will be among the most significant issues to be litigated. Was the case fully investigated, and did counsel make all the efforts that a reasonably competent defense lawyer would make under the circumstances? There may also be issues of prosecutorial misconduct that are not fully illuminated by the trial court record. Was there potentially exculpatory evidence (including evidence which might persuade a jury to opt for life imprisonment rather than death) which was not disclosed to the defense? These issues are normally litigated in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which counsel independently investigates what trial counsel did and did not do, and what was and was not turned over by the prosecution. (pg. 501)

The direct appeal and the habeas appeal can be filed simultaneously; however, that rarely happens.

California's record on reversing death row convictions is very conservative, as the Court gives a lot of deference to the trial judge: "Since 1987, the California Supreme Court has affirmed death judgments at a rate in excess of 90% and denied state habeas relief at an even higher rate" (pg. 503).

Affirming 90% of the death judgments has another side -- 10% had serious enough flaws to reverse the judgments. And if ever a case had serious flaws, it's Scott's case. But I shouldn't presume to know what goes on inside the mind of a Supreme Court Justice. I do know one thing defendants have against them is that each issue is judged separately. Richelle Nice and other jurors often talked about each piece of the puzzle not counting for much, but putting them altogether added up to a lot. Well, that's not the way it is in appeals. Each issue has to stand on its own as to whether it would affect the outcome of the trial. That doesn't seem fair to me - but that's the way it is.

Direct Appeal Timeline
After the defense brief is filed, the State has six months to file a response brief, and the defense counsel has six months to file a reply to the response. "Then the parties wait for the California Supreme Court to schedule oral arguments. As of July 1, 2008, eighty defendants were awaiting oral arguments . . . the Court ordinarily hears twenty to twenty-five of these cases per year . . . death cases usually languish for three years before being scheduled for oral argument" (pg. 499). Once oral arguments are heard, the Court's decision comes within 90 days (pg. 499).

Habeas Appeal Timeline
The habeas brief must be filed within 3 years of the conclusion of the direct appeal. The average delay between the filing of the habeas brief to the decision of the Court is twenty-two months (pg. 502). The habeas appeal is handled a bit differently by the California Supreme Court:

The habeas petitions are routinely decided without a response from the attorney general and without a formal hearing. The court simply issues a summary order, declaring that even if true, the allegations in the petition would not merit relief. Out of 689 state habeas petitions decided by the California Supreme Court in death cases since 1978, the court has issued orders to show cause requiring the attorney general to respond to the petition in only 57 cases, and ordered evidentiary hearings before a pro tem judge in only 31 cases. (pg. 502)

Federal District Court Appeal
Not until after the State's direct and habeas appeals are concluded can the wrongfully convicted file a Federal habeas appeal. This is where most wrongful convictions find relief:

―In California, 70% of habeas petitioners in death cases have achieved relief in the federal courts, even though relief was denied when the same claims were asserted in state courts. In most cases, relief was limited to reversal of the penalty phase. (pg. 503)

The average delay from the filing of an application for federal habeas relief in a California death case until the grant or denial of relief by a federal district judge is 6.2 years. (pg. 504)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Federal District Court decisions are appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court. The average delay in this step of the appellate process is 4.2 years.

Nancy Grace sizes up her chances

2011-09-09T23:44:00.000-05:00

Nancy says she's not the youngest, not the thinnest, not the prettiest, but she has heart and that should count for something. I agree -- if she had a heart, that would count for something. But if she does have one, she certainly doesn't let it get in the way of her job as the all-knowing judge and jury for the American court system.

Interviews with the contestants

Grace's dancing partner is a newbie for the show, Tristan MacManus.

Nancy Grace to be on this season's Dancing with the Stars

2011-08-30T02:08:00.000-05:00

Thank goodness for fast forward.

More . . .

Not smart, just lucky!

2011-08-23T17:33:00.001-05:00

I frequently see the Medina burglars called too stupid to be able to get away with abducting Laci, keeping her hostage, murdering her, and disposing of her in the Bay. Really? Just how smart does one have to be?

Not very smart when the police have their sights steadfastly trained on another suspect. Not very smart at all when the cops don't even check out your made-up alibis when you're arrested for the burglary that precipitated Laci's demise. Not very smart at all when the cops cease all efforts to find your 3 accomplices to the Medina burglary and identify the van used. Not very smart at all when the cops make it clear that people should keep their mouths shut about Todd and Laci. Not very smart at all when the cops don't even check out Laci sightings.

These burglars weren't under surveillance like Scott was -- they didn't have their phones tapped, or their girlfriends taping their calls, or their friends spying on them, or their homes under video surveillance, or teams of undercover agents following them everywhere they went. They didn't have police searching their homes and vehicles with cadaver dogs. They were under the radar; no one was paying any attention to them.

Another thing I frequently see is the claim that burglars don't commit murder. Just what code of ethics do burglars live by that they won't do harm to another person? Certainly not the one that allows them to rob and steal and to use drugs. And I often see, Why would they keep her hostage? Folks, get over the notion that these are nice people.

Where did they keep her hostage? The park and the Covena neighborhood were searched in those early hours and days, but the airport district certainly wasn't. When the cops did go into the airport district, it wasn't until January 2, and they only searched Pearce's shack and trailer and the house across the street where Todd was. What about the homes of the 3 accomplices? What about the homes of friends? What about having moved her already -- ah, maybe Tom Harshman did see Laci after all. Yea, right out in broad daylight, and he reported it, and no one followed up on it for months.

Maybe they moved her to Tracy. We know what effort was put into following up on that tip -- what a joke! The MPD left it up to the San Joaquin Sheriff's deputies, and when Mears wanted to go into the compound, he was told it was too dangerous. And that even after the FLIR sensors detected human life in the out buildings.

They didn't get away with abducting Laci and keeping her hostage because they were smart -- they got away with it because the MPD was too glued on Scott. That's luck, not brains.

As for disposing of her body, How smart do they have to be to know where to put Laci once they offed her? Or perhaps she died of neglect. By that time, as determined by Conner's age at death, they would have had to have been blind, deaf, dumb, and severely challenged mentally to not know where Scott went fishing and where they were searching in the Bay. TV stations regularly carried footage of the cops searching at the Bay; and the Modesto Bee had detailed coverage. They had vehicles -- Pearce had a car and a van was used in the burglary. Anywhere in the vicinity of the Berkeley Marina would have done just fine, and the east shoreline has several places of access by vehicle along the shoreline at nighttime. If you don't believe me, just use maps.google and see for yourself.

So get over the notion that the burglars are too stupid to pull this off -- it didn't take smarts; it just took luck -- the good luck of having the MPD instantaneously fixate on another suspect, Scott Peterson.

The very sad thing about tunnel vision is that it prevents cops from seeing what is right under their nose.

Is Scott Peterson a sociopath?

2011-08-08T15:38:00.002-05:00

Many people throw this label around based on a few observations of Scott's behavior during the affair and after Laci's disappearance. I've found some information on the Internet that puts diagnosing a sociopath in the right framework. I've added some italics, bolds, and underlines to emphasize certain of the information, and of course, my own commentary in red.

How to Diagnose a Sociopath

By Maria Tarallo, eHow Contributor

Read more: How to Diagnose a Sociopath | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5645644_diagnose-sociopath.html#ixzz1UT85adcA

There are a number of mental disorders that affect the personality and antisocial disorders many times present similar characteristics. To diagnose a sociopath; there are a few clear behaviors, mainly, the sociopath's complete disregard for the rights of others. This disdain for others is expressed in a variety of ways throughout the person's life. To medically diagnose a sociopath, three of the following behaviors must be observed since childhood.
This is the part everyone seems to ignore -- these patterns of behavior must be observed since childhood.

Instructions

1
Look for signs that a person does not experience guilt. For most people it is normal to feel guilt or remorse when they have wronged someone. Sociopaths don't experience empathic feelings and therefore feel no guilt. They see their behaviors as justified and will refuse to take responsibility or apologize. During childhood, sociopaths typically engage in behaviors such as hurting helpless animals and show no remorse. Absolutely no evidence that Scott engaged in such behavior during childhood. He was not a problem child, so what occasion would there be for him to feel guilt or remorse for having wronged someone? He didn't cause Laci's disappearance, so how can he feel guilty or remorseful? I do hear guilt and remorse in the phone conversations with Amber -- guilt and remorse for having had the affair, for having lied to Amber, for having dashed her dreams of a future with a wealth, jet-setting executive! He repeatedly took responsibility with Amber for lying to her. And he is very empathic towards Amber's daughter.

2
Look for repeated deceitful behavior. A sociopath generally has a track record of lying and being deceitful. Making up wild stories and deliberately twisting scenarios to hurt someone are also commonly observed in sociopaths. As is the case with other sociopath behaviors, lying begins in childhood. No such track record with Scott from childhood, or with anything in his adult life before Laci's disappearance with the exception of the affairs -- 2 documented affairs, 5 years apart. Sad reality is, lying and deceit are part and parcel with having an affair; not only lying to the spouse, but lying to the mistress.

3
Look for signs of reckless behavior. Sociopaths have no concern for their own safety or for the safety of others. They commonly engage in fights and conflict repeatedly. They also tend to behave in other reckless ways such as driving at outrageous speeds purposely to put their lives and the lives of others in danger. During childhood, bullying and harassing others is common. No evidence of such behavior from Scott -- either during his childhood or adult life.

4
Look for defiant behavior. Sociopaths have a hard time conforming to social norms and regulations. They tend to repeatedly break the law and have a history of stealing and engaging in drug use. It is estimated that eighty percent of the male inmate population has a personality disorder that manifests as antisocial behavior. No evidence of such behavior from Scott -- either during his childhood or adult life.

5
Look for signs of extreme emotions such as anger and rage, or complete indifference. Sociopaths usually display mood swings and manipulative behavior. Anger and violence are common as are extreme frustration when they can't get what they want. Although sociopaths are generally angry people, they are also known to turn on the charm in order to manipulate people to obtain what they want. They can also be aloof and indifferent to things that would upset a normal person. People often cite using charm to manipulate people, but they fail to explain why there is no anger or rage in Scott's life -- none at all. No evidence of violence. Neither is there any evidence that he was completely indifferent to things that would upset a normal person. He wasn't a publicly emotional person, but he did show emotions in public. But we don't hear about those -- we only hear the myth perpetrated by the MPD and the family and friends who soured on Scott after they learned of the affair that Scott didn't show any emotion. Other than Amber, who claimed Scott had manipulated them? Laci certainly had no complaints to make about Scott to her family, or her friends, or her other associates. Whatever problems they had in their marriage were not sufficient for her to feel it necessary to involve other people, and there is no evidence that Laci was the type of personality to stay in a bad marriage.

6
Look at a person's history. Although the exact cause of why an individual becomes a sociopath is not clear, there are a number of things sociopaths have in common. A history of child abuse or having a parent with substance abuse problems is common among sociopaths. Genetics seem to also play a significant role as the children of parents with antisocial personality disorder appear to be at a higher risk of developing an antisocial personality disorder. Ultimately though, this cannot be used as a sure indicator because sociopaths have also been known to come from loving homes.

Scott did not exhibit 3 of the above behaviors from childhood -- he didn't exhibit any of them from childhood. The only category, lying and deceit, involved affairs after he married -- two affairs, 5 years apart. Inexcusable. Despicable. But not evidence of being a sociopath. And certainly not evidence of murder.

This is from another Internet article -- again I've added italics, bold, and underline for emphasis.

Early behavior problems

Most psychopaths begin to exhibit serious behavioral problems at an early age. These might include persistent lying, cheating, theft, fire setting, truancy, class disruption, substance abuse, vandalism, violence, bullying, running away and precocious sexuality. Because many children exhibit some of these behaviors at one time or another, especially children raised in violent neighborhoods or in disrupted or abusive families, it is important to emphasize that the psychopaths's history of such behaviors is more extensive and serious than that of most others, even when compared with those of siblings and friends raised in similar settings.

Early cruelty to animals is usually a sign of serious emotional or behavioral problems. Cruelty to other children—including siblings—is often part of the young psychopaths's inability to experience the sort of empathy that checks normal people's impulses to inflict pain, even when enraged.

> top

Adult antisocial behavior

Psychopaths consider the rules and expectations of society inconvenient and unreasonable, impediments to their inclinations and wishes. They make their own rules, both as children and as adults.

Many of the antisocial acts of psychopaths lead to criminal convictions. Even within prison populations psychopaths stand out, largely because their antisocial and illegal activities are more varied and frequent than are those of other criminals.

Not all psychopaths end up in jail. Many of the things they do escape detection or prosecution, or are on the "shady side of the law." For them, antisocial behavior may consist of phony stock promotions, questionable business and professional practices, spouse or child abuse, and so forth. Many others do things that, although not illegal, are unethical, immoral or harmful to others: philandering, cheating on a spouse, financial or emotional neglect of family members, irresponsible use of company resources or funds, to name but a few. The problem with behaviors of this sort is that they are difficult to document and evaluate without the active cooperation of family, friends, acquaintances and business associates.
The only thing in this list that Scott Peterson is guilty of is cheating on a spouse. No illegal or unethical behavior, no spousal or child abuse; no financial neglect or irresponsible use of company resources or funds; no questionable business or professional practices; and certainly no criminal behavior.

3rd Party Guilt: Nearness in time, place, and circumstances to the alleged crime

2011-08-08T14:11:00.002-05:00

"Third party guilt: The crucial role of defense theory instructions", by Thomas Lundy, discusses the importance of jury instructions that educate the jurors on how they should judge evidence of 3rd party guilt. I only include critical elements to make the point that the Medina Burglary meets the standards of 3rd party guilt established by the Courts.

When the defense relies on a theory of third party guilt, the jury may improperly view the trial as a question of whether or not the third party has been proven guilty. Hence, it is crucial that the instructions caution the jurors against shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

The most important role of a third party guilt instruction is to assure the jurors understand that the defense has no burden to prove that the third party is guilty. The defendant’s third party evidence need not show “substantial proof of a probability that the third person committed the act; it need only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt.” Hall, 41 Cal.3d at 833; see also People v. Madison, 3 Cal.2d 668, 677 (46 P.2d 159) (Cal. 1935) (prosecution must present evidence that no other person committed the crime charged); Mullis v. Commonwealth, 351 S.E.2d 919, 926 (Va. 1987) (“. . . no burden on the defendant to produce any evidence and the defendant does not have to prove who killed her husband.”).

This is a critical distinction -- the defense does not have to prove who else committed the crime, but the State must prove that "no other person committed the crime."

What is the requirement for 3rd party guilt to pass muster and be allowed in Court? The simplest explanation presented by Lundy comes from "Wisconsin v. Sheidell, 595 N.W.2d 661, 673 (Wis. 1999), requiring that third party culpability evidence share 'nearness in time, place, and circumstances to the alleged crime or to the fact or proposition sought to be proved'."

"Nearness in time, place, and circumstances to the alleged crime" -- the Medina burglary certainly meets that burden.

Evidence that Laci was still alive on the morning of December 24

Evidence that Laci used the computer that morning
Corroborating evidence from multiple independent witnesses that Laci went for a walk in the neighborhood

Diane Jackson saw the van and 3 men and the safe being removed from the Medina home at 11:40

That safe was found at the residence of Donald Pearce, who admitted assisting in the burglary
Items stolen from the Medina home were found in the possession of Steve Todd, who admitted casing the neighborhood and committing the burglary

Todd's and Pearce's alleged time for the burglary is easily disproved, as we've shown in previous articles on this blog
Two independent reports linked the burglary to Laci

The confidential informant who ratted out Todd and Pearce reported that he was concerned for Laci Peterson's safety
Phone conversation between Shawn and Adam Tenbrink caused Lt. Aponte to call the tip line and report that Adam told Shawn that Laci walked in on Todd during the burglary and Todd verbally threatened her. Aponte was sufficiently concerned that he called again and put a closer monitor on Shawn Tenbrink's phone calls.

Some will undoubtedly say, burglars don't commit murder. If so, why does California's statute for felony murder include burglary?

Penal Code section 189 provides, in pertinent part: "All murder . . . which is committed in the perpetration of , or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, robbery, burglar y , mayhem, or [lewd acts with a minor], is murder of the first degree; . . ." This statute imposes strict liability for deaths committed in the course of one of the enumerated felonies whether the killing was caused intentionally, negligently, or merely accidentally. Burglary falls expressly within the purview of California's first degree felony-murder rule. Any burglary within Penal Code section 459 is sufficient to invoke the rule. Whether or not the particular burglary was dangerous to human life is of no legal import. (emphasis added)

It doesn't have to be a murder -- just a death. Furthermore, all persons involved in the felony are guilty of the felony murder, not just the one who causes the death. This is very good reason for the ones not responsible for the death to keep their mouths shut.

It is true that some criminals burglarize unoccupied homes because they want to avoid confrontation. But we should not be naive enough to believe it's because they don't want to hurt anyone or are incapable of hurting anyone. Rather, it simply is because they don't want to get caught, and most especially, they don't want to get shot! Source

The most thorough study of burglary patterns was a St. Louis survey of 105 currently active burglars. [FN65] The authors observed, "One of the most serious risks faced by residential burglars is the possibility of being injured or killed by occupants of a target. Many of the offenders we spoke to reported that this was far and away their greatest fear." [FN66]Said one burglar: "I don't think about gettin' caught, I think about gettin' gunned down, shot or somethin'...'cause you get into some people's houses...quick as I come in there, boom, they hit you right there. That's what I think about."

Another burglar explained:

Hey, wouldn't you blow somebody away if someone broke into your house and you don't know them? You hear this noise and they come breakin' in the window tryin' to get into your house, they gon' want to kill you anyway. See, with the police, they gon' say, "Come out with your hands up and don't do nothing foolish!" Okay, you still alive, but you goin' to jail. But you alive. You sneak into somebody's house and they wait til you get in the house and then they shoot you.. . .See what I'm sayin'? You can't explain nothin' to nobody; you layin' down in there dead! [FN67]

Some individuals may choose burglary because they dislike confrontations; however, not all burglars are non-confrontational by nature. According to the Wright-Rossi prisoner survey, sixty-two percent of burglars had also perpetrated robberies.[FN96] The study of currently active burglars in St. Louis observed: "Most offenders in our sample...showed little concern for the well-being of their victims. In fact, several of them said they were prepared to use violence against anyone who got in their way during the commission of an offense." [FN97]

[FN97]. Wright & Decker, supra note 65, at 111.

One burglar explained: When [the victims] come in there, they better have some boxin' gloves on cause I'm gon whip some ass or somethin' and I ain't lyin'. It's gon' be a fight up in there, partner. You ain't callin' nobody. You be callin' somebody, it be 911 for ambulance for your ass 'cause I'm gon' do you. I'm gon' hurt you, I ain't lyin'. Don't come in there and y'all catch me. Hey man, I'm for real.

Constantly Reaching Absurdity

2011-07-29T00:24:00.001-05:00

Poetry lovers will recognize the title of this blog article isn't exactly the one used by Lawrence Ferlinghetti, but in this instance it's to call attention to the absolutely absurd behavior of the prosecutors in the Anthony case -- they intend to file suit to make Casey Anthony pay for the investigation and trial. You can read about this nonsense here.

In civil suits it's customary for the losing side to have to pay for the court costs of the winning side. It's that way in part to prevent a good measure of frivolous suits. Using that long-standing practice, the State of Florida should have to pay for all of Anthony's legal costs, including the experts who had to be consulted.

But instead the prosecutors, who can't admit they simply didn't have a case against Anthony, are trying to punish her in spite of her acquittal. So they are going to spend more of the State's money hounding that woman. Isn't that throwing good money after bad? If they do take it to trial and lose, perhaps the cost of both trials should be taken out of the paychecks of these nincompoops.

Filing deadline extended to September 30, 2011

2011-07-28T16:46:00.000-05:00

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)

Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2011-07-28

Event Description: Extension of time granted

Notes:

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including September 30, 2011.

Correction

2011-07-26T22:49:00.000-05:00

The last extension was only for 2 months -- deadline of May 31 was extended to August 1 -- not 3 months as I stated in the previous article.

Another filing extension request

2011-07-25T17:10:00.000-05:00

I just noticed this on the Appellate Court's docket for Scott's case. I assume this will be another 3 month extension, thus extending the deadline to November 1. I will check daily for approval/disapproval of this extension and let everyone know what the new deadline is. In case someone doesn't know, the link to the Appellate site is in the right column under Links to Related Sites.

07/25/2011

Request for extension of time filed

to file appellant's opening brief (4th request)

Can't prove innocence or guilt!

2011-07-14T21:07:00.000-05:00

Here is a link to another juror interview, Jennifer Ford, Juror #3, and the basic message Ford leaves is "How can you punish someone if you don't know what they did?" She said repeatedly that she didn't know that Casey was innocent, but the State did not prove she was guilty, and whatever bad behavior Casey exhibited, it is not evidence of guilt. Ford also said that George did not help the State's case, and at one point she said he was dishonest.

Nancy Grace predicted that if any jurors speak out, they will do so only in delicately placed situations and will be given only soft-ball questions. No they haven't been the kind of hateful pounding-on-the-table drills that drive people to suicide, so maybe that is what Grace meant by soft-ball questions.

I really feel for jurors in these high profile cases where they don't have solid evidence one way or another -- they truly can't determine if the person is guilty or innocent. But in these situations, the Law and moral justice demands that they acquit. For doing that, this jury has my utmost respect.

Caylee's Law

2011-07-13T17:13:00.000-05:00

Several states are attempting to pass versions of "Caylee's Law," which makes it a felony to not report the disappearance or death of a child. On the surface, the claim is to protect children and to better enable law enforcement to find a missing child and/or determine cause of death. In reality, it's an attempt to punish someone a jury has acquitted.

If Scott Peterson had been acquitted, I imagine there would have been a move to make going fishing on Christmas Eve a felony, or leaving a 7 1/2 month pregnant wife home alone to take care of herself. Or perhaps it should be a felony not to advise the in-laws when you buy a boat. And of course, why not make adultery a felony? I'm sure those are some of the reactions that would have resulted from the public condemnation of an acquittal. As it was, we did get Conner's law, which was a totally unnecessary law in Conner's case but it did make politicians feel like they were doing something useful.

I'll not be surprised if someone suggests professional juries made up of people like Nancy Grace who know how to put circumstantial evidence together, no matter how irrelevant it is, to get that conviction. I'm sure she'd readily accept an appointment as Secretary of Juries, with her cabinet-level agency responsible for appointing jurors who now how to understand evidence. No more idiots who think the earth is flat serving on juries anywhere in America. No sirree.

But I think what the American public wants is to simply do away with the trial -- after all, if the cops say the person is guilty, who are we to doubt? We'd only need Judges to rubber-stamp warrants and subpoenas -- the cops can do all the rest. Or maybe we'd still require them to have a DA sign off on their conclusion; after all, that would be a lot of layoffs, with all those defense attorneys being put out of work to add all the DA's to the unemployment numbers might not be a good idea getting this close to the election.

And no appeals. God forbid anyone question the conclusion of a cop confirmed by a DA. Besides, without appeals, no one would ever know they made a mistake. No mistakes -- that would certainly promote faith in our justice system.

So, let's revise the system by totally doing away with not only juries but all trials, defense attorneys (such a bunch of scumbags, anyway), and appeals.

The Anthony Jury Foreman speaks about suspicions of George

2011-07-12T01:04:00.001-05:00

I had the same reaction when I watched George on the witness stand -- he just wasn't credible to me. I don't know what his involvement was, or if his demeanor was caused by something totally unrelated to Caylee's death, but he definitely sent out some bad vibes.

Greta's interview with the Jury foreman

The Peterson jurors react to the Anthony verdict

2011-07-10T22:30:00.001-05:00

Not surprisingly, a few of the Peterson jurors have a lot to say about the Anthony verdict, none of it complimentary to the Anthony jury. A current ModBee article also has this statement: "He and others were surprised that Anthony jurors deliberated less than 12 hours after a six-week trial. Sequestered Peterson jurors reviewed five months of courtroom notes, argued and spit out two jurors replaced by alternates before proclaiming him guilty nine days after huddling behind closed doors, with 31 hours of actual deliberation." The "he" referred to in the quote is John Guinasso.

The Peterson jury was behind closed doors for 31 hours, but by law and the Judge's instructions, their deliberations were supposed to start all over again after the replacement of Juror #5 on November 10. According to the times given in the Court minutes, that jury only spent 14 1/2 hours total in deliberation. That was for a 6 month trial. The Anthony trial only lasted 6 weeks.

November 10
10:33 a.m., Juror #5 is replaced, and new jury begins deliberations.
11:40-12:40, lunch break
4:00 p.m., jury retired for the day
4 1/2 hours deliberation

November 11
Assume deliberations start at 8:00 a.m, 1 hour for lunch, and deliberations stop at 4:00 p.m.
7 hours deliberation
CORRECTION: this was a holiday -- no deliberations

November 12
Assume deliberations start at 8:00 a.m.
10:53 a.m, Jury asked for verdict forms, indicating verdict had been reached
Less than 3 hours deliberation

Grand total: 4 1/2 + 7 + 3 = 14 1/2 hours
CORRECTION: grand total 7 1/2 hours deliberation

12 hours deliberation for a 6-week trial.
7 1/2 hours deliberation for a 6-month trial.

"This is an O.J.," said Mike Belmessieri, referring to another headline trial ending in acquittal. "I don't want to beat this jury up. But they're going to be forever known as the jury that made the wrong decision."

Mr. Belmessieri ought to be more concerned about his own reputation and the reputation of his fellow jurors once the truth about what happened to Laci Peterson is revealed.

Thanks to Jane's comment for catching this error.

A Casey Anthony Juror on Greta Van Susteren

2011-07-08T16:00:00.001-05:00

I don't know how much longer this video will be available online, but I did think it warranted some attention from this blog.

Greta's interview with Juror #3

The benefit of sequestering a Jury

2011-07-06T13:01:00.001-05:00

Casey Anthony is very fortunate that the Judge who presided over her trial had the wisdom to sequester the jury -- not just take jurors from a jury pool some distance from Casey's hometown, but to sequester that jury for the duration of the trial. If not for that, Casey Anthony would undoubtedly be en route to death row.

Unfortunately, Judge Delucchi didn't have Judge Perry's wisdom and common sense. Delucchi pretty much laughed off the need to sequester the jury on the pretense that they would have to be sequestered on Mars to do any good. And the DA's office had their dirty hands in the effort to not have the jury sequestered -- with pages and pages of hundreds of witnesses that it never intended to call -- oh, yes, in addition to the 175 or so it did call. The DA's office wanted to be sure the trial would seem to take so long that no one would want to serve on the jury if it was sequestered for that long. The only one I can think of that would have been eliminated for that reason was #8, the teamster, and with what we know of his shenanigans and manipulations during the trial, that would have been a good riddance.

Why sequester a jury? It's just common sense in a high-profile case that commands not only the print media but the airwaves as well. Oh, and let's not forget the Internet. Now, jurors can avoid googling the defendant's name on the Internet, but is it reasonable to expect that not a single juror has a home page that gives headlines of current national and local news? Such as Yahoo, Google, and other home pages thousands of people access every day to retrieve their emails. And how can jurors totally avoid radio announcements of news bulletins about the case -- must they NEVER listen to radio during the entire trial? Same for TV. And what about the newspapers on display at grocery store checkout lines? Or along the sidewalks in front of stores? What about family and friends that know the person is on the jury? Delucchi actually believed that giving the jurors a warning not to discuss the case, not to read or see or hear the news reports about it, would be faithfully, 100% obeyed. That's not naivety -- that's incompetence. That Delucchi laughed off the need to sequester the jury demonstrates more than anything else his incompetence to sit as a judge in a high-profile, capital murder case. Whatever virtue he brought to the bench during his many years of service certainly had vanished by the time he took over Scott's trial.

Surely no one that has followed the Anthony case can deny the immense emotional and financial investment the media has made in this case. Just look at the reactions -- Nancy Grace is beside herself. Just imagine, a jury had the audacity to not ask her opinion, but to make a determination based on the evidence as presented during the trial! What is the world coming to?

What would jurors have been exposed to had they not been sequestered? I didn't watch much of the news coverage -- I've long since lost the ability to stomach such incompetence and malfeasance passed on as "news" -- but I did catch one cable show about the case, and noted that a body language expert was explaining why George Anthony was telling the truth, and Casey Anthony was guilty. And of course, the derision has already begun -- the jurors called idiots who believe the earth is flat.

Let's not forget that in Scott's trial during jury deliberations, the media were so concerned that Scott would be acquitted, or have a hung jury, that they provided lengthy discussions on the evidence the jury didn't see, just to be sure America knew an acquittal or a hung jury was the WRONG verdict.

Sequestering a jury in a high-profile case is a NO-BRAINER. Can I say it any more plainly? How about, DUH!

Ex-detective says he first suspected victim's boyfriend in Modesto murder

2011-06-29T14:35:00.000-05:00

Yes, the relationship with the boyfriend was violent enough to suspect the boyfriend had something to do with Dena's disappearance. But, when a thorough investigation into said suspect produced NO evidence whatsoever, Bertalotto should have been smart enough to figure out that he needed to find a new suspect. Lucky for Mark Keough, Dena's disappearance didn't get the national spotlight, or else he would have been wrongfully convicted. Instead, Dena's case just went into the cold file storage, and Bertalotto advanced to being a detective for the DA's office.

http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/28/1752930/jones-trial-former-detective-says.html#storylink=omni_popular

Be sure to read the comments -- especially the ones that call for an immediate lynching. That's exactly what people would have done with Keough -- just took him to the nearest tree and strung him up, no matter that he wasn't guilty. It's because of people like this that our justice system sucks.

Oh, and don't overlook zitalian's post -- s/he wants to punish Jones's parents, too.

Some serious accusations against the Stanislaus County DAs office

2011-06-26T18:54:00.000-05:00

The following link includes some serious accusations against Steve Jacobson, investigator for the DAs office. Jacobson was very involved in Scott Peterson's case, having handled the wiretaps and making the transcripts for the Amber calls.

http://followajfollowstanford.blogspot.com

Filing Extension granted - New deadline is August 1, 2011

2011-06-15T14:24:00.000-05:00

The email notification provision on the California Appellate Courts website does sometimes work. Just now I received this email notification:

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)

Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2011-06-15

Event Description: Extension of time granted

Notes:

Appellant's request for relief from default is granted.

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including August 1, 2011.

Another filing extension requested

2011-06-09T18:50:00.000-05:00

We finally have information about the opening brief that was due to be filed on June 1.

06/09/2011

Application for relief from default filed

and request for extension of time to file appellant's opening brief. (3rd request)

I believe these requests are pretty liberally granted, so I don't expect the CASC to deny it. I assume it will be a standard 90-day extension.

Happy Mother's Day

2011-05-07T14:56:00.000-05:00

Mother's Day is such a great opportunity to express our love for our own Mothers. It's also a day to reach out in compassion and empathy for those Mothers who suffer seemingly inconsolable grief for the loss of a child.

I've never been the victim of a violent crime, much less one that resulted in the death of a child or a wrongful conviction of a child. My heart goes out to both sets of Mothers.

It is my prayer that all Mothers grieving over the loss of a child through a violent crime, and all Mothers who grieve over the wrongful conviction of a child, will find comfort in the Grace of Jesus Christ.

And for all those Mothers who grieve over a child taking up a life of crime, may you also find comfort in the Grace of Jesus Christ.

When I first learned about Laci and Scott Peterson, they were strangers to me - total strangers. I had never been to Modesto and didn't know a single soul involved. The closest I came to a personal involvement in this case was that I knew who Gary Condit was, and that he was from Modesto CA. That's it.

There is one Mother in particular that I've had some occasion to observe from a distance, and that is Jackie Peterson. This Mother has been vilified and condemned by many people who have never spent a moment in her presence, but have judged her by false and misleading media reports and simply because they hated Scott so much that the logical conclusion was to hate his Mother just as much, if not more.

Jackie is not the woman portrayed on the forums and in the media. She's a very loving, caring, and strong woman. I found this Mother's poem online and I think it speaks directly to Jackie. Even though she is not my Mother, I have learned so much from her Christian example. Thanks, Jackie, for being a Christian.

The Fruit of the Spirit

My mother is a Christian,
In every important way;
The fruit of the Holy Spirit
Is displayed in her every day.

My mother is filled with kindness,
With love and joy and peace;
Her patience and her goodness
Inspire, and never cease.

She follows our Lord Jesus
With faithfulness, and more;
She’s gentle and has self control,
She knows what prayer is for.

Thanks, Mom, for being a Christian,
And showing me how to be;
I’ll follow your example
For all eternity.

By Joanna Fuchs

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Is this Standard being met?

2011-04-30T14:56:00.000-05:00

This is a reprint from the April 15, 2006 Constant Contact Newsletter. Though it's not about Scott's case, it certainly speaks to the prevalent public attitude that contributes to wrongful convictions. Time after time, when various aspects of the State's case have been proven to be wrong, people don't change their minds about Scott's innocence, they just change their theory on how he did it and thus got away with it.

Ray Krone was sentenced to death after being convicted for the 1991 killing of Kim Ancona, a bartender at a Phoenix lounge where he played darts. His conviction was based largely on expert testimony that supposedly matched his teeth with bite marks found on the victim.

That first conviction was overturned on technicality, including the failure of prosecutors to disclose that another dental expert said the bite marks did not match. A second trial resulted in a new conviction. But this time the judge refused to impose the death penalty, saying there were questions about whether Krone was the real killer.

Finally, in April 2002, Krone was freed through DNA evidence. He asked a question that haunts those who are concerned about the rising toll of wrongful convictions.

"I didn't do it, so how could there be unquestionable evidence that I did?"

His question demands an answer -- from those 24 Jurors and from the American people.

Whether we like it or not, the buck for these wrongful convictions stops with the jurors, fellow Americans. I fear that to most Americans, beyond reasonable doubt means the defendant is guilty if there is any doubt at all this he or she is innocent -- just the opposite of what it's supposed to be.

This attitude is not only unconstitutional, it is highly immoral. It's an attitude that must change.

The construction of the south breakwater

2011-04-24T01:42:00.002-05:00

I've previously believed that the south and west breakwaters at the Conner Recovery Site were built to protect that wildlife refuge from wave erosion. I've since learned that the breakwaters were built in 1931 when there was no tidal flat present -- where Conner was found was then an open water environment. I've borrowed this topographic map from pg. 45 of the "Western Stege Marsh Restoration Project Year 5 Hydrologic Monitoring Report" prepared by the Kamman Hydrology and Engineering, Inc., and annotated it to indicate Conner's recovery location and to label open water environments.

To get a better perspective on how the area has changed in appearance, I've annotated a Google Earth map to show the previous layout. The West set of breakwaters consists of A, B, C, and D. The East section consists of E and F. A is no longer visible; it was either removed or has been totally covered with landfill. B is less than half as long as it used to be.

I've not been able to find literature that specifically identifies how these breakwaters were constructed, but during this last trip I did catch a good look at the west end of E, which continues to protrude into the open water environment. It was obvious that this is a rubble mound structure, and the assumption is that the sections of the West breakwaters were built the same way.

You can see how the land fill has covered up the rest of the northern side of the breakwater. That is exactly what has happened with the south breakwater (C) on the Conner Site. I did a little experiment on this visit. At one point on the north side of the breakwater, I tried to drive a scredriver into the ground, and could not penetrate more than a couple of inches. It wasn't just hard to penetrate, it was impossible. It definitely is rock under the mud.

I borrowed a diagram of a rubble mound structure from 2-17-00, Breakwaters and Rubble Mound Structure Design, and annotated it to show the amount of land fill on the northern side. The "sea side" is the southern slope of the breakwater.

On this last trip, I tried to measure the "crest width," but was unable to do so because it is too short a distance for the range finder. Instead I had to measure out to one of the rocks on the southern slope.

This next photo shows the same rocks, but from the backside (or the southern, seaward slope). In this photo, the black arrow points to the rock I was standing in front of to take the measurement, and the yellow arrow to the point of the rock point that I measured to. That rock is 3'6" across at its longest point, and 1"10" tall. The rock above it is 4'5" across its longest point.

In a few days I will post a YouTube video of numerous photos of the southern side of the breakwater, to give you a perspective of what the waves caused by gusty winds would be beating up against.

Sharon Rocha validates Dr. March: It finally came back positive

2011-04-22T15:03:00.002-05:00

I used to publish articles in a Constant Contact Newsletter before using this blog. Since these are no longer available to the general public, I thought it would be wise to repeat some of them here. This particular article was published on January 15, 2006, when the SII forum was still open.

As members of SII's bulletin board have perused Sharon Rocha's book, "For Laci," they have commented on various items of interest. One member noticed that Sharon validates Dr. March. If you remember, Dr. March testified that Conner did not die before December 29, and Laci's home pregnancy test on June 9, 2002, was part of the information he used to draw his conclusions. David Harris attempted to dispute the significance of the June 9 HPT. He succeeded, at least to the jurors, who gave March zero credibility.

However, Sharon validates Dr. March's emphasis on the importance of the June 9 HPT. On page 59, she relates the conversation she had with Laci at 7 a.m. that Sunday morning.

"I'm pregnant!" she said. "Mom, I'm pregnant! I can't believe it. I just took the test. I'm pregnant!" "It finally came back positive?" I said. "Ah-ha," she said, thrilled. "I'm pregnant." "That's great news, Laci," I said. "Congratulations!"

Laci "just took the test" proves that she did in fact take it on Sunday morning. "Finally came back positive," proves she had taken previous tests that were negative. Dr. March was absolutely right. Sunday, June 9, was very important in establishing just how old Conner was when Laci disappeared.

Another member of the SII forum, Carey-Ann Sandell, did an excellent two-part analysis of Dr. March's testimony from the perspective of a woman in Laci's situation, trying very hard to get pregnant.

Understanding the Importance of Dr. March's Testimony: The "Trying to Get Pregnant" Culture

Understanding the Importance of Dr. March's Testimony: The Adjusted Due Date

Predicted tides for April 2011 compared to People's 100

2011-04-19T06:00:00.008-05:00

The following tidbits of information come from Tides and Water Levels produced by the NOAA, which is quite an excellent tutorial. Perhaps attorneys who prosecuted this case should read it, so they know a little of the science behind tides.

Tides are based on the lunar day, which is 24 hours and 50 minutes. That's why you can't go to the San Francisco Bay the same time every day to observe a high tide or low tide -- you have to plan ahead.
The moon has the largest affect on the tides, but the sun does play a role (especially at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes and winter and summer solstices).
Neap tides coincide with the 1st Quarter and Last Quarter phases of the lunar cycle.
Spring tides coincide with the New Moon and Full Moon phases.
Spring tides not only produce higher high tides, but also lower low tides, creating a greater tidal range.
The Bay has semi diurnal tides, with two unequal high tides (HH and H) and two unequal low tides (LL and L) each lunar day.

The NOAA publishes its tidal predictions based on the very predictable lunar and solar cycles -- meteorological factors (rain, snow, drought) are not used in the predictions because they cannot be predicted. The meteorological effects on the tides are measured by NOAA and are represented in the preliminary and verified water level data -- they just are not included in predictions.

The water level for the high tide on the morning of April 13, 2011 was predicted to reach 5.11' at 8:06 a.m. and hold steady through 8:18 a.m., dropping to only 5.10 at 8:24 a.m. In the chart, the Accoustc data shows that the actual water level reached 5.16' at 8:06 a.m. and held mostly level, as 8.15' is only 1/8 of an inch lower than 5.16, but did peak at 5.17' at 8:30 a.m.

Station Date            Time   Pred 6   Acoustc  Backup
DCP#:                                   1             1           2
Units:                                  Feet     Feet      Feet
Data%:  MLLW        Local  100.00  100.00  100.00  
Maximum:                             5.21    5.17      5.18  
Minimum:                              0.13    0.23    0.24  
------- -------- ----- ------- ------- -------

9414863 20110413 07:54    5.09    5.08    5.09

9414863 20110413 08:00    5.10    5.12    5.13

9414863 20110413 08:06    5.11    5.16    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:12    5.11    5.15    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:18    5.11    5.15    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:24    5.10    5.16    5.17

9414863 20110413 08:30    5.09    5.17    5.18

9414863 20110413 08:36    5.08    5.15    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:42    5.06    5.12    5.14

9414863 20110413 08:48    5.03    5.11    5.12

Here are the water levels critical to this case:

5.45' MHW (average of all H and HH tides)
5.88' water level from HH tide on morning of April 13, 2003
6.05' MHHW (average of only the HH tides)
6.39' water level for People's 100

As you can see, 5.11' (predicted) and 5.17' (Accoustc) are not anywhere near the 6.39' of People's 100; they aren't even close to the 6.05' MHHW; and even fall short of the 5.45' MHW. So just how common is it to have high tides this low? The answer is in this monthly plot for April 2011. I included the last several days of March to get a more complete lunar cycle, as taken from calendar-365.com, which has a lot of other very interesting information, too.

You can see from the plot that only 5 HH tides of the whole period equal or exceed 6.39', and they are boxed in red. So the real question is, Is it more likely for high tides to be at or below 5.11' or at or above 6.39' in the month of April?

During the month of April 2011, there are 58 high tides. We must include all high tides to determine the frequency of the 6.39' tide of People's 100 because Distaso did so in this broad statement in his Closing Argument: Remember that area where he came ashore is a tidal flat, so at high tide it's covered with water all the way.

Only 20/58 or 34% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to reach or exceed 5.45' MHW

Only 7/58 or 12% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to reach or exceed 6.05' MHHW

Only 5/58 or 9% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to reach or exceed 6.39' People's 100

26/58 or 45% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to be at or below the 5.11' tide predicted for April 13, 2011

That plainly means that more than 5 times as many high tides in April 2011 are at or lower than 5.11' than at or above 6.39'. That makes a 5.11' or lower tide 5 times more common than a 6.39' or higher tide. The tide on April 1, 2011 actually peaked at 5.17', and the photos I posted yesterday prove that the site is definitely not under water at this water level.

Lest you think April 2011 would be much different from April 2003, here is the verified water level vs. predicted water level plot for April 2003. The red + indicates the verified water level, and the blue line the predicted. As you can see, only 4 of the high tides were predicted to reach 6.39' or higher (a 5th one made it with the help of local meteorological factors); and only 6 to reach 6.05' or higher. Moreover, the storm surge that the State talked about so much didn't even raise the water level to the 6.05'.

And here is the verified water level vs. Predicted plot for April 2004, showing the same pattern.

People's 100 was taken on January 10, 2004. The month of January does traditionally produce higher tides than the month of April. That's because January follows the winter solstice when the sun has the greatest effect on the tides, and April follows the vernal equinox, when the sun has the least effect. Following are plots for January 2003, January 2004, and January 2011.

The Conner Recovery site simply is not "under water" at every high tide, and People's 100 does not represent what the site looked like on April 13, 2003.

More evidence that People's 100 is a blatant lie - April 13, 2011

2011-04-18T12:06:00.001-05:00

In his Opening Statement, Rick Distaso told the Jury:

Here's the location where Conner Peterson's body was found. There is a tidal flat. If you are at high tide, it's covered in water. At low tide it's flat ground. You are going to see this is all tidal flat. There is a walking path here. There is nowhere to drive down. You can't drive a car down to this particular location. You can walk along the beach here, at low tide. Then low tide, you can walk out onto the flat. But high tide it's mostly covered in water.>>>>Here is where Conner's body was recovered. The reason that this is dark on this chart is because that's those, it's a tidal flat. That means it's land in low tide, it's water in high tide.>>>>The body is found behind the jetty right here in this particular tidal flat. Next picture. This is a picture [People's 100] that was taken later, not on the day Conner's body was find, was taken to show you what the tidal flat looks like at high tide. You can see the residue line is just barely exposed. Come down, there is no waves breaking over the jetty, but this entire flat is covered with water at about, I think it's about a foot and half, two feet deep.

After he and Dave Harris solicited the same blatantly incorrect information from three witnesses -- Michael Looby, Tod Opdyke, and Brian Gard, none of which are experts on water levels at the Conner Recovery Site, or even frequent visitors to the site -- Distaso said in his Closing Argument:

Remember that area where he came ashore is a tidal flat, so at high tide it's covered with water all the way. At low tide it's ground. He came ashore on a heavy storm surge.

I was again at the Conner Recovery site on April 13, 2011, the 8th anniversary. The photos I took again prove how ridiculously stupid it is for anyone to believe that this site is "covered with water all the way" at "high tide."

I arrived at the site at 7:13 a.m. to view the high tide predicted for that morning. Here are the predicted water levels compared to the preliminary water levels. The Accoustc column is the one to pay attention to, as that has proven to be a very accurate representation of verified water levels. The high tide was predicted to peak at 8:06 a.m. and hold steady at 5.11' until dropping a mere .01' by 8:24. The actual water level was just a bit higher -- 5.17 is .06' or 3/4 of an inch higher than 5.11' -- and peaked a bit later, at 8:30. However, the water level at 8:06, the projected peak high tide, was only .01' lower than the actual peak, and .01' is a mere 1/8 of an inch.

Station Date      Time  Pred 6 Acoustc  Backup
DCP#:                        1       1       2
Units:                    Feet    Feet    Feet
Data%:  MLLW     Local  100.00  100.00  100.00  
Maximum:                  5.21    5.17    5.18  
Minimum:                  0.13    0.23    0.24  
------- -------- ----- ------- ------- -------

9414863 20110413 07:54    5.09    5.08    5.09
9414863 20110413 08:00    5.10    5.12    5.13
9414863 20110413 08:06    5.11    5.16    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:12    5.11    5.15    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:18    5.11    5.15    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:24    5.10    5.16    5.17
9414863 20110413 08:30    5.09    5.17    5.18
9414863 20110413 08:36    5.08    5.15    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:42    5.06    5.12    5.14
9414863 20110413 08:48    5.03    5.11    5.12

For the sake of those that are visiting the blog for the first time, or who, like me, have short memories, here are the water levels of significance to this case:

5.45' MHW (average of all H and HH tides
5.88' water level from HH tide on morning of April 13, 2003
6.05' MHHW (average of only the HH tides)
6.39' water level for People's 100

You can see that 5.17 is below the MHW of 5.45, well below the MHHW of 6.05, and very much below the People's 100 of 6.39.

First, let's view the digital photos taken from 8:16 - 8:18 a.m., with the water level at 5.15'. They are of the south breakwater just in front of the grass section where Conner was found and then moving to the west. You can see that the water from the tide is barely at the front of the rocks.

In the above photo, the rock we believed Gard measured from is in the right forefront. The turtle rock (named so because it has a shell-shape with a protrusion that looks like a turtle head) is to its left and just slightly in front of it.

First People's 100, and then the next set of photos taken at 8:44-8:45 a.m., with the water level falling from 5.12' to 5.11'. Interestingly, this was at the predicted water level for this high tide. The photos take you full circle around the site.

The two faded-red flags you see in the photo above and below are the two possible locations where Conner was found.

The 3rd red flag shown in the photo above, and by itself in the photo below, is the location marked by Gard's GPS readings for the exact location Conner was found.

Some readers may wonder whether this high tide of only 5.17' is a fluke, out of the norm for this site. I will provide objective evidence from the NOAA that this high tide is not a fluke in my next article. And I am pleased to say that I was able to get onto the Bay side of the south breakwater to take photos from that perspective. I also found some interesting debris both on the site and in the rocks -- more to look forward to.

Filing deadline extended to May 31, 2011

2011-04-11T13:31:00.000-05:00

This was just posted this morning on the CA Appellate cases website. The link is in the right column under Links to Related Sites.

4/11/2011

Extension of time granted

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including May 31, 2011.

Justice for Scott Peterson

Extension of time granted, again

December 30: Amber's debut

The chameleon slipper

Activity on December 28th the MPD didn't want anyone to know about

Brocchini hastened to get the Berkeley Marina identified as a crime scene

Did Brocchini compromise the concrete evidence on the flatbed trailer?

December 27th search warrant results

We interrupt our coverage of the Investigation to wish SII a Happy Birthday

December 26 & 27 : The search warrants and the dog trailing

Christmas Day, 2002

That fateful day so many years ago . . .

Expert bias, continued

A Tribute to Laci and Conner

Expert bias

California Supreme Court voids two death row convictions!

Extension of Time Granted

Greta's Blog

A Moral Imperative

Another 'extension of time' request

Lee and Jackie celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary

More information about the Habeas Appeal

Len spoke, America listened, and Nancy went home

Understanding Scott's Appeal Process

Will Nancy Grace make it to the Final Four on DWTS?

What's taking so long, Part 2

Clarification on what is included in the direct appeal

Another extension of time granted for filing appellant's opening brief

On the agenda for the US Supreme Court

What's taking so long?

Nancy Grace sizes up her chances

Nancy Grace to be on this season's Dancing with the Stars

Not smart, just lucky!

Is Scott Peterson a sociopath?

Instructions

3rd Party Guilt: Nearness in time, place, and circumstances to the alleged crime

Constantly Reaching Absurdity

Filing deadline extended to September 30, 2011

Correction

Another filing extension request

Can't prove innocence or guilt!

Caylee's Law

The Anthony Jury Foreman speaks about suspicions of George

The Peterson jurors react to the Anthony verdict

A Casey Anthony Juror on Greta Van Susteren

The benefit of sequestering a Jury

Ex-detective says he first suspected victim's boyfriend in Modesto murder

Some serious accusations against the Stanislaus County DAs office

Filing Extension granted - New deadline is August 1, 2011

Another filing extension requested

Happy Mother's Day

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Is this Standard being met?

The construction of the south breakwater

Sharon Rocha validates Dr. March: It finally came back positive

Predicted tides for April 2011 compared to People's 100

More evidence that People's 100 is a blatant lie - April 13, 2011

Filing deadline extended to May 31, 2011

More problems for Amber . . .