Friday, April 18, 2008

Laci's Walk

In spite of the prosecution’s insistence that Laci Peterson had stopped walking her dog McKenzie about 2 months prior to her disappearance, there is information in testimony and in police, media, and medical reports to prove otherwise:

From Larry King Live, January 3, 2003

S. ROCHA: Yes. Yes. She always took her dog for a walk. Not necessarily every single morning. Because she is far along in her pregnancy, but yes, that was her normal routine, to take the dog for a walk in the park.

From Amy Rocha’s testimony (Preliminary hearing)

Q. Okay. And you know that within that last couple of days that she'd also been to the -- been to the park walking the dog or walking McKenzie; isn't that correct?
A. I don't know for sure if she walked to the park, but I knew that she'd been walking frequently, yes.

From medical records and from Brocchini’s interview with Kristen Reed:

GERAGOS: If I were to tell you that Laci had called the OBGYN and had indicated that she was concerned about weight gain, even after the doctor had recommended that she stop, and that she was walking again even though the doctor had asked her to stop. And then you get Kristen Reed's statement that she made to you that she had started walking again because of weight gain, would that change your opinion or your belief that she had been walking on the 24th?

Numerous tips were called into the Modesto Police Department after Laci disappeared about women seen walking dogs in the park and in the Covena neighborhood on December 24 (Prosecution Exhibit 267). Some of the sightings could not have been Laci because of the time, the description, or the location. Many other sightings may have been credible, but there is no information available about them. There were other women who regularly walked their dogs in the area.

However, we do have information from 4 very credible witnesses who were sure they saw Laci and McKenzie in the same area on the morning of December 24 around 10 a.m.-- Homer Maldonado, Tony Freitas, Martha Aguilar, and Gene Pedrioli. These sightings suggest a route for Laci on that morning: leaving home, going south on Covena, west on Miller to La Loma and then northwest along La Loma. It doesn't seem likely that four people independently were imagining this. These sightings support the theory that Laci left home around 10 a.m. and headed south, not north to the park.
Laci had become fearful about walking in the park shortly before her disappearance because of reported attacks in that area. She still walked with Scott and McK in the park, but she insisted that Scott carry pepper spray when they did. Given her fear of walking in the park, it would make sense that she would choose to walk in the neighborhood when she was by herself.

Maldonado, Freitas, Aguilar and Pedrioli called the MPD tipline to report that they had seen Laci on the morning of the 24th. None of their calls were returned by MPD. The initial investigation of these tips was done by defense investigators, not by the Modesto police. Not until the trial were investigators sent by the District Attorney to interview Maldonado and Freitas. Aguilar and Pedrioli were never interviewed by police or by prosecutors.

These were their stories:

Homer Maldonado:

He and his wife had stopped to buy gas at the USA station on the corner of Miller Avenue and Camellia Way between 9:45 and 10:00 a.m. on December 24. After leaving the gas station they drove west on Miller. At the corner of Covena and Miller, Maldonado saw Laci and McK in front of the second house from the corner on the west side of the street (211 Covena). He described her as very pregnant and having trouble controlling the dog. When he checked his rearview mirror, he saw that Laci did not cross Miller but evidently turned the corner and continued walking west on the north side of Miller.

Maldonado reported this to the MPD tipline on January 1, 2003. When he was not contacted by the Modesto Police, he went to the Command Post at the Park where he reported his sighting and spoke to the chaplain. He was never interviewed by the Modesto Police. In July 2004, during the trial, he was interviewed by an investigator from the DA’s office.

Tony Freitas:

Around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24, Freitas was driving his regular delivery route northwest on La Loma Avenue when he saw Laci and McK near the intersection where there is a small, grassy triangular park, located on La Loma between Santa Barbara and N. Santa Ana.

Freitas reported this to the MPD tipline on December 30, 2002. The woman who took his call said he would be contacted by a detective. Freitas was never contacted by anyone from the Modesto Police Department. On July 29, 2004, during the trial, he was interviewed by a DA Investigator.

Martha Aguilar:

Around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24, Aguilar saw Laci and McK walking on La Loma Avenue in the same general area that Freitas saw her. She was sure it was Laci. Aguilar lived 2 blocks south of Laci on Covena and they went to the same doctor.

Aguilar’s call to the MPD tipline was never returned. She was never interviewed by anyone from MPD or from the DA’s office.

Gene Pedrioli:

Gene Pedrioli saw Laci and McK around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24 around the time he picked up a prescription at a pharmacy. He saw them on La Loma Avenue in the same area where they had been seen by Aguilar. He noticed McK because he has a dog the same color. He said that the woman and the dog had to walk around some branches that were on the sidewalk.

Pedrioli made 2 calls to the MPD tip line. He was told that he would have to prove his whereabouts. He thought the police were not interested in his tip. He was never contacted by them or by the DA’s office.

We do not know how far Laci walked on La Loma Avenue after she was seen by Maldonado, Freitas, Aguilar and Pedrioli. She may have gone all the way to Kewin Park before she turned northeast on Buena Vista up to Encina, or she may have turned north to Encina on one of the streets before that. We do believe that she arrived back on her block on Covena around 10:38 a.m. where she was abducted, and where McK was heard barking aggressively by the Krigbaums and was seen in the park at the north end of Covena by Mike Chiavetta.

These sightings prove beyond a doubt that Laci Peterson was alive on the morning of December 24 after Scott Peterson left home and that he had nothing at all to do with her disappearance and death.


Anonymous said...


Homer Maldonado never testified!
Tony Freitas never testified!
Martha Aguilar never testified!
Gene Pedrioli nver testified!
Mike Chiavetta never testified!

None of the above ever testified for the defense!

They were all mistaken or just flat out wrong about seeing Laci.

Marlene Newell said...

That they didn't testify says something about Geragos' competence, but not about the truthfulness or accuracy of their statements.

The only evidence you have that "they were all mistaken or just flat out wrong" is your stubborn unwillingness to admit this evidence is credible and it fully exonerates Scott Peterson.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

"He described her as very pregnant and having trouble controlling the dog."

This always troubled me, as goldens are one of the most docile, and loyal dogs i have ever come across(i had one, sadly we just had to put him down just before christmas due to bone cancer) my wife and i have never had a problem controlling him on walks, even when he sees another dog.....i think guy was just mistaken....

Marlene Newell said...

Bruce, Sharon Rocha said McKenzie walked you, you didn't walk McKenzie. I do agree, breeds have a certain personality, but there are always differences in the breeds.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

"We do believe that she arrived back on her block on Covena around 10:38 a.m. where she was abducted, and where McK was heard barking aggressively by the Krigbaums and was seen in the park at the north end of Covena by Mike Chiavetta."

if she got back from her walk, the walk that she was wearing black pants and a white top,that all the witnesses reported her to be wearing, when did she change into the tan pants that her remains were found to be wearing?

Marlene Newell said...

Translations, Bruce. We don't believe she was abducted during the walk, as some have suggested. We believe she arrived home, as did McKenzie. The particular details as to exactly when, or exactly when the abduction occurred are unknown.

We haven't had the benefit of the MPD, Stanislaus County Sheriff's office, multiple other county law enforcement agencies, the CA DOJ, the SDEA, and the FBI to assist us in our investigation. Nor do we have subpoena power or the opportunity to interrogate witnesses. Unfortunately, we are confined to very limited information, but what we do have access to convinces us that: 1) Laci did indeed go on her walk; 2) Laci did indeed arrive home safely, that is, she was not abducted while on her walk; 3) Laci did indeed confront Todd after the burglary started.

As for when she changed clothes -- she may have changed clothes after she got home from the walk. Or she may have been forced to change clothes after her abduction and during her confinement. After all, there was a burglary in mid-January of the Peterson home and articles of clothing were taken.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

so basically, you don't know how/when/or where exactly she was kidnapped by the burglars, but she was....don't you critisize the DA for saying the same thing about her death?

scott reported she was wearing black pants and a white top, all the witnesses see her in the same color outfit...she had on tan pants the night before, and she is found in tan pants.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Marlene Newell said...

Why: Because she interrupted their burlgary

How: 4 men present at the burglary overpowered her. Just in case you can't count, Jackson saw 3 men by the van and in the front yard, and the safe was being removed from the house. Since a safe cannot move itself, there obviously was at least one more person, I assume a man, present at the burglary. So don't waste your time posting a comment asking where I got "4" men, cause I'm telling you in advance.

When: We don't know exactly to the minute, but we do know these facts: 1) Todd was snooping around the Medina home BEFORE the mail was picked up by the mailman at approximately 10:50, and 2) the burglary was in progress by 11:40, when Jackson saw the van, 3 men, and the safe being removed from the house.

Where: DUH, in front of the Medina home, where the van was parked.

Since this is so much more than what the State provided, I most certainly will continue to criticize the State. And if you don't like to read criticisms of the State, then I suggest you cease reading this blog, because there's a whole lot more on the way.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

so, laci comes home after 10:38, go in the house, she changes clothes, looks out the window, sees the burglary,(or sees "suspicious activity" she would have no way of knowing it was an actual burglary) re-leashes the dog and goes over to see what is going on, and interupts the burglary. i guess it must have been after the mailman left the block or he surely would have seen it. they are able to subdue laci without her screaming, or the dog barking again, then the dog leaves the scene to be spotted in the park at approx 10:45 or so...then the dog comes back to be found in the street. then they hold laci in the van while they continue the caper. then later in january they have one of scotts neighbors, kim mcgregor, steal tan pants from the house to put on the corpse(i'm assuming she's dead at this point) so that they can plant her body in order to frame scott for the crime.
just amazes that we have at least 5 people involved now, the 4 burglers, and kim mcgregor, and not one person cracks and spills the beans when interrogated.

so karen servas didnt find him till at least after 11:40, if, in fact, she actually did find him. is there any real proof that she did indeed find him? maybe SHE was just looking for HER 15 minutes. maybe the pooch just went back into his yard on his own. i could surely see my golden doing that if the gate was open. they are smart dogs.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

diane jackson could have saved lacis life had she just called the cops when she drove past and observed them robbing the house...shame...i wonder if that keeps her up at night...the "what ifs"

Lee Kramer said...

Re: Bruce's comment above, it doesn't seem like the police interrogated any of those people very hard.

The state has subpoena power, police authority, access to $$, high tech forensic equipment, everything they needed was at their fingertips to do the investigation. Bruce, if you're really implying that Marlene, who has none of those resources, should be able to prove who killed Laci and when, then not only is that pretty unreasonable, but you are also admitting that the burden of proof is actually on the defendant, which is where it should not be.

Of course, in real life we've seen that's pretty much where it is, whether our legal system is based on the opposite premise, or not.
I assume you believe Peterson did it, so may I ask, as I have asked others---what is the evidence that makes you certain Peterson is guilty?

Bruce Dombrowski said...

the evidence makes me certain of his guilt.

and yes, behavior by the accused makes me certain of his guilt. (i've personally witnessed the same behavior first hand many years ago)

Bruce Dombrowski said...

sorry, by responding, I have aided and abetted in breaking a rule of this blog, for this I apologize and throw myself on the mercy of the court. any chance for a pleas bargain? :)

"Regarding comments posted by others, you may express your opinion about the comments, but you may not ask questions or demand explanations or evidence to support their opinion." -Marlen Newell

Lee Kramer said...


What is the evidence that most convinces you of Peterson's guilt, and what is the behavior? Do you know Peterson personally, or when you refer to behavior, do you mean you observed similar behavior in someone else that you know, in another situation?

I don't understand the rule above...and I enter this conversation with a lot of caution anyway because it seems so difficult for people who disagree to communicate about this case.

I personally am skeptical of the evidence I've seen against Peterson so far. I would say the description of the baby as full-term, the witnesses who saw Laci walking, and the Aponte tip are what make me most skeptical of Peterson's actual, factual guilt. As an added influence, the police's withholding of the information about the Aponte tip makes me suspicious of their motivations.
People see things very differently, but this is just what I see.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

the circumstantial evidence is powerful....yes, this is hard to communicate in this forum...feel free to email me at and i can tell you all my reasons...and no i do not know scott, but i know a guy just like who did the same thing in 1992 to a member of my family

LA Curry said...

I too am skeptical about Peterson's guilt, for numerous reasons.

What I do know is that a woman who wants to walk her dog and clean her tile floors and then go to the grocery store...cook....and wrap the day up by attending a dinner later in the evening, will most likely be wearing different clothes for the cleaning and walk portion than she would for going to the grocery store and to a dinner later in the evening. Us women tend to plan those things out in the a.m. when we are eating breakfast. This is especially true for a woman who has problems with being tired, as we know Laci was in Dec.

It is very realistic that Laci did walk the dog and then went home to change before going to the grocery store. While changing, she could have noticed something going on across the street. I doubt any woman seeing something odd at their neighbor's house would go to that house she very possibly could have again put the leash on McK to go and check it out and then, sadly, never returned to the house.

The only hiccup in a theory that Laci interrupted the burglary and the burglars were witnessed being at the Medina house at 11:40 is the Servas timeline, according to the Prosecution. But, who is to say that Laci didn't go over to the Medina house in time for the Servas timeline AND Diane Jackson's timeline to fit...after returning home and changing her clothes in order to complete her other, more public, errands? I can't think of anything that would make that scenario impossible.

It is quite possible that both Servas, Jackson, and all the other witnesses that saw Laci walking that morning are being accurate in their recollections...Laci could have very well been inside the Medina house when Diane Jackson saw the men loading the safe.

How much of an investigation ocurred at the Medina house? Anyone know? I know that the defense had wanted to test the safe but was informed that it was no longer available...but did they send the FBI and all other available units to that address and do a thorough investigation? I highly doubt it as they did not even know the house was burglarized until the 26th.

Unknown said...

An experience lawyer like Gerrigos...would no have missed these witneses