What happens when the State fails to convince?

An acquittal? No, silly, just insert your own theory. Richard Cole notes in his September 7, 2004 article, that "attorneys, reporters and trial watchers" simply replaced the State's theory with their own.

The prosecution's struggling case against Scott Peterson has spawned a parlor game at the Redwood City courthouse -- how else could the Modesto fertilizer salesman have killed his wife?

Prosecutors -- apparently -- contend Peterson killed his wife Laci on the night of Dec. 23, 2002.

He allegedly carried her body to his truck and drove the truck to his warehouse the next morning. He then loaded her into his 14-foot fishing boat, took her to San Francisco Bay and dumped her body near Brooks Island.

But inconsistencies abound in that version. They include the lack of forensic evidence anywhere, and Scott' repeated television and computer use on Dec. 24 when he is supposedly disposing of her body.

That has even the prosecution's strongest supporters skeptical of the official version.

So attorneys, reporters and trial watchers have tried to come up with theories that explain what the prosecution can't.

Cole then lists some of the favorites and gives the reason they fail, too:

• Dirty and Skeeter theory
• Ice cream theory (Dean Johnson came up with the original idea)
• Murder wasn't premeditated

Here's a novel idea: Scott didn't do it.

Richard Cole exposed Trimble's loss of certification

Richard Cole's September 2, 2004 story for the Daily News Group, in which he broke the news that Trimble lost her certification with CARDA.

The tracking dog that prosecutors claim found Laci Peterson's scent at the Berkeley Marina failed its state certification test this year, documents show.

And that failure apparently contradicts Contra Costa County handler Eloise Anderson's sworn testimony at a February 24 pre-trial hearing.

Most tracking dogs in California are certified by a group called CARDA - the California Rescue Dog Association - which works in conjunction with the state Office of Emergency Services.

Eloise Anderson's dog Trimble was certified by CARDA four years ago, but the dog must be recertified every year.

On Feb. 21 of this year, Anderson took Trimble to Auburn for her annual recertification test.

But according to the dog's evaluation, Trimble failed.

"Dog did not complete trail during test period," wrote evaluator Peter Harrington.

Under the category of "recertification," Harrington checked the box "Fail."

Trimble reportedly later failed her Contra Costa County recertification as well.

But on Feb. 24, only three days after the CARDA failure, Anderson seemed to testify in a Redwood City courtroom that her dog was certified. The hearing was held by Judge Alfred Delucchi to determine whether to admit the dog evidence at trial.

Prosecutor Dave Harris asked her if both her dogs Twist and Trimble were certified by CARDA. The transcript follows:

Harris: "Besides working with Contra Costa Sherif's Department, do you also have any certifications with those particular dogs to the Office of Emergency Services here, CARDA?"

Anderson: "Both dogs are certified with CARDA, Trimble as a trailing dog, Twist as a cadaver dog."

Here's a bit more of Anderson's testimony at the pre-trial, under direct examination by Dave Harris:

David Harris: With regards to Trimble, did Trimble also go through the certification signoff process through CARDA?
Eloise Anderson: She did.
David Harris: And what are the, are these trails lengthy trails, or time period type of trails, the dog has to be signed off to be a trailing dog for CARDA?
Eloise Anderson: Above and beyond the basic obedience and agility, again, that the dog has to do, yes, they have timed trails, or aged trails, that are specific ages that the dog must complete in order to take their certification test.
David Harris: And what are the ages that they had to complete?
Eloise Anderson: There is a 48‑hour‑old trail, a 72‑hour‑old trail, and a 96-hour-old trail. And then their test is, I believe 18 to, 20 or 18 to 24 hours, I believe.
Judge Delucchi: Excuse me. Can I, are there any aged trails for cadaver dogs?
Eloise Anderson: No, because the dog does not trail. The dog just works to a specific scent source.
Judge Delucchi: So it could be six months old?
Eloise Anderson: Correct. Correct. And we have worked dogs on many years old.
Judge Delucchi: Okay.
David Harris: With regards to Trimble, did Trimble complete the 48, 72 and 96 hour signoffs?
Eloise Anderson: Yes, she did.
David Harris: And was she successful in getting her certification?
Eloise Anderson: Yes, she was.
David Harris: You were talking about your association with Contra Costa Sheriff's Department, mentioning that you were a handler for them. What does that mean to be a handler?
Eloise Anderson: It means that I handle my own dogs with which I have certified, usually through CARDA. We use the CARDA certifications. Our county accepts the CARDA certification. Means that I am certified to handle that dog for Contra Costa County.

This is the cross examination by Shephard Kopp, who was working with the Geragos law firm, on February 25, 2004.

Shephard Kopp: Good morning, Miss Anderson.
Eloise Anderson: Good morning.
Shephard Kopp: I'm Shepard Kopp, an attorney representing Scott Peterson. Now, I'm going to start off with your dog Trimble. How old is Trimble?
Eloise Anderson: Trimble is six years old.
Shephard Kopp: And when was Trimble certified by CARDA as a trailing dog?
Eloise Anderson: Trimble was certified by CARDA for the first time when she was four years old.
Shephard Kopp: So she had been certified for approximately a year when you performed these trailing exercises that you just testified about.
David Harris: Objection. Are we talking about the exercises, or what?
Judge Delucchi: I sustain. Be more specific.
Shephard Kopp: In late December of 2002, she had been certified for about a year?
Eloise Anderson: I would have to double check my records, but I believe that would be correct.
Shephard Kopp: Give or take a few months?
Eloise Anderson: Correct.

Anderson is very evasive about Trimble's certification -- she gives her age, not the date. To give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, she should have said: Trimble was first certified by CARDA in February 2002, recertified in February 2003, and failed recertification on February 21, 2004, just 4 days ago. Cole got that wrong in his article: Trimble had been certified for 2 years, not 4 years.

Would Trimble's failure to recertify in February 2004 have made any difference in Delucchi's decision to allow Trimble's alert at the Berkeley Marina as evidence in the trial? I think they (the Prosecution and Anderson) must have feared it would have a negative impact, or they wouldn't have concealed the information. Or perhaps Anderson concealed that information from the Prosecutors, too.

Was Trimble's failure to recertify in February 2004 brought up at the trial when Anderson testified on August 31 and September 1, 2004? Let's see what Dave Harris brought out on direct examination:

HARRIS: Now, I want to go back to, for Trimble to come on line to the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, did she need some type of test or exam or something?
ANDERSON: We did our, our very first certification we did with the California Rescue Dog Association, because at that point in time the Office of Emergency Services and Contra Costa County did not have specific testing standards in place for the trailing dogs. And so they accepted the CARDA certification. So I tested her under the CARDA guidelines for her first test.
HARRIS: Now, when you're talking about CARDA guidelines, we've heard what that is, but I want to go through their guidelines, what they did. Is this a process where you just show up and show them your dog and you get some type of certificate?
ANDERSON: No. What you have is to do you go through a process. You do some basic obedience. For trailing dogs, because they also recognize that a lot of your trailing dogs you don't want heavy obedience on them, so they do basic obedience. They have to walk like a sane creature on the end of a leash and not be dragging you everywhere, when they're on a collar. They have to be able to be tied up. They don't have to do a hard sit/stay where they're not tied, where they have to stay. They are just expected to stay tied to a fence, or something of that nature. They have to be, they have to demonstrate agility over some different surfaces. They are, I believe, exposed to cadaver scent only for the notification of the handler, so that if their dog were to find somebody, does the dog have aversion. Will the dog go I'm not going in there, or will the dog drive forward in there. And then for the trailing portion of it, they have to do a 48 hour old trail. They have to do a 72 hour old trail, can I, may I look at my,
JUDGE: Sure.
ANDERSON: sign offs? Just to make sure I get the hours right. Whoops. Wrong binder. They have to do two night search trails, which aren't any specific age. They have to do a 48 hour old trail, a 96 hour old trail. They have to do an urban trail where the trail is strictly in an urban setting. Streets and sidewalks. And then their test is on a trail that is, I believe, 18 to 24 hours old.

No mention of the failed recertification in February 2004. And it took a direct question from Delucchi to get the date of when Trimble was first certified.

JUDGE: When was she actually certified by CARDA?
ANDERSON: She was certified by CARDA in February of 2002.
JUDGE: February 2002?
HARRIS: February.
GERAGOS: February 2002.
ANDERSON: I believe so. I can double-check.
JUDGE: Yes.
HARRIS: So Trimble becomes certified February of 2002 by CARDA?
ANDERSON: Correct.
HARRIS: And at that point in time did Contra Costa County accept that certification and allow you to start working with them?
ANDERSON: Yes, they did.
HARRIS: And did also the Office of Emergency Services accept that certification, allow you to start working with Trimble?
ANDERSON: Correct.
HARRIS: Now, you, you've told us about all the training, and the dog goes through this certification process; February 2002, certified dog. Do you get to stop training the dog at that point in time?
ANDERSON: No. We continue the, the training is an ongoing process with the dogs. Once, I spent three years working this dog before I ever tested her, because I wanted to try to make things as smooth as I could, to work out as many wrinkles that I might see and try to get her as solid as I could before I ever tested her, because I knew that trailing dogs are a very limited commodity in California, and I wanted as solid and competent a dog as I could produce, so that she could hit the streets right away.

Delucchi doesn't seem to be aware that the dogs must be recertified each year. Maybe that's because the subject of recertification is very carefully avoided.

HARRIS: Ms. Anderson, we were going through your training records with Trimble and we're going to move on at this point in time. What I want to talk about is moving to December 2002. Were you and Trimble as a team certified to work for CARDA, the Office of Emergency Services and Contra Costa so that you could be called out in a search and rescue operation?
ANDERSON: That's correct.

Geragos does bring out a lot of problems with Trimble's trailing record. Specifically, he called her out on failing to remember a vehicle test that Trimble failed when she testified at the pre-trial hearings in February 2004, for which Geragos later obtained a video tape. Geragos played the video, and it was very obvious that Trimble could not do a vehicle trail. More importantly, Anderson did not notify the DAs that she had failed to "remember" this test when she testified in February 2004, and in fact did not notify them until Geragos subpoenaed the records.

GERAGOS: Now, when did you call the district attorney about this?
ANDERSON: I don't recall. It was after February.
GERAGOS: Okay. It was after February. Wasn't it when I executed a subpoena on Contra Costa on August 3rd? Didn't you call the DA, of this month, on August 4th, and tell them Wait a second, I got a tape?
ANDERSON: No.
GERAGOS: You didn't call them on August 4th?
ANDERSON: No, I didn't. Well, I don't, I don't know who might have called them on August 4th, but I had the tape before this month.
GERAGOS: You never before –
ANDERSON: In fact, I turned this tape over to the sheriff's department in March or April. I believe it was March.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did you know that I had executed a subpoena on Contra Costa on August 3rd for all of the records? August 3rd of this month?
ANDERSON: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay.
ANDERSON: I mean I was told that, yes, there had been a subpoena
GERAGOS: Okay. You were aware that on August 4th I get an e-mail from Mr. Harris that all of a sudden they may have a tape?
ANDERSON: I, I don't know what e-mails you get from Mr. Harris.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, did you call Mr. Harris on, after the subpoena was executed this month, on August 3rd, and say Hey, by the way, I got a tape, remember that vehicle trailing exercise they were asking us about in February, all of a sudden I remember there's a tape of it and I did fail?
ANDERSON: No, I did not.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you seem to know a whole lot about or have a memory about it now and you didn't in February, correct?
ANDERSON: I didn't ever remember doing an actual vehicle trail, because we never set up actual vehicle trails.
GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you were asked: Do you recall an exercise that Mr. Rebmann ran you and Trimble through in which there was a contact trail, and then the subject got in the vehicle and drove away? Do you remember that? And your answer was yes, correct?
ANDERSON: Yes.
GERAGOS: And you said: Okay. Did you tell Mr. Rebmann that your dog, Trimble, was capable of following a scent, a trail that came out of a vehicle? And your answer was Yes, I did; right?
ANDERSON: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And on this particular occasion Trimble was not able to follow the scent that came out of the vehicle, correct? And your answer was?
ANDERSON: 'I don't recall.'

However, Geragos asks no questions about the recertification process and does not mention Trimble's failure to recertify in February 2004, just a few days before Anderson led Judge Delucchi to believe he was certified, as in currently certified. It would have been nice to see Anderson confronted with this and asked if, and when, she advised the DAs of Trimble's failure to recertify.

Does it make any difference that Trimble failed recertification on February 21, 2004? Obviously Anderson, and most likely the DAs, too, thought it would or else she/they would have disclosed it to the Defense in discovery, to Judge Delucchi in the pre-trial hearings, and if Delucchi would still have let the testimony into trial, to the jury.

Anderson's duplicity coupled with Seitz's dog NOT alerting at the Berkeley Marina that day should signal to all reasonable people that there is no evidence whatsoever that Laci was ever at the Berkeley Marina.

More, or Less, from Jacobson

Reviewing Richard Cole's articles for the Daily News group, I was reminded of the MPD's duplicity towards Amber Frey. Cole writes: "To her face, Modesto police detectives praised her cooperation and feigned concern for her emotional state. But behind her back they wrote reports suggesting she was involved in Laci Peterson's disappearance. Some reports apparently falsely accused her of hiding phone calls to Peterson as well as arranging secret trysts with [Peterson]. . . . Even after Frey passed a lie detector test with flying colors, police suggested she might have met secretly with Peterson at Lake Arrowhead during the weekend of Feb. 22-24 in 2003." Cole writes that Jacobson "wrote numerous reports and affidavits claiming Frey was holding secret conversations with Peterson and lying about it. In one affidavit to continue wiretaps on Peterson's phones, Jacobson contended, 'there was no way one person could have done that to Laci Peterson'." Wednesday, August 25, 2004)

This is how Jacobson described his suspicion of Amber:

GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, you wanted to, at that point, you told the magistrate the reason you needed the wiretap, specific reason you needed the wiretap, you believed it took more than one person to commit this crime, correct?
JACOBSON: I didn't specifically tell him that. I'm not quite sure. I have heard that in the media. I have heard it elsewhere. I'm not quite sure where you are getting that at. If could you maybe show me in a report or in the affidavit itself, I did a conspiracy theory with the affidavit. I'm not quite sure.
GERAGOS: Did you testify in this courtroom on February 19th of this year?
JACOBSON: I believe so, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Did you just say that you don't know where somebody got that from?
JACOBSON: No. I'm just saying if you have that, if you could direct my attention to that.
GERAGOS: Sure. I'll show you page 964 of your testimony on February 19th of this year in this courtroom.
JACOBSON: Yes, sir. Kind of jumped that first paragraph there.
GERAGOS: I'm asking you about it. I'm going to ask you about it right now. One of the reasons you wanted to get a wiretap is because you believed that there may be co-conspirators in this case?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. That's what I asked you back in February, and that's what you answered then?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And I said that was because you did not believe that this could have been accomplished by a single person; is that correct? Isn't that what I asked you?
DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative.
JUDGE: Overruled. Is that what he asked you?
JACOBSON: I believe so. If I could look at your transcript on that.
GERAGOS: I'm going to ask you, before I refresh your recollection, wasn't that one of the reasons that you sought the wiretap?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Because you believed that this could not have been accomplished, that the abduction of Laci Peterson could not have been accomplished by one person, correct?
JACOBSON: I believe that there could possibly be more than just one person involved in Laci's disappearance, yes.
GERAGOS: Well, you testified, and I felt that based on my experience in law enforcement that this, I felt this was carried out by more than one person, correct?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: That was your, that was your feeling then. That's why you got the affidavit. That's why you signed it under penalty of perjury, correct?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Now, specifically, you also, I asked you, and you believed that, based on your experience, and based on what happened here involving Laci Peterson's disappearance, is that one person, I asked you, is that one person could not have accomplished that. Isn't that a fair statement? Do you remember what your answer was?
DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. It's been asked and answered.
JUDGE: Not that. Do you remember your answer, Mr. Jacobson?
JACOBSON: I think, I believe I said for the co-conspirator or conspiracy portion of this affidavit, I felt that there was more than one person involved.
GERAGOS: That's not, you believed that when you wrote this application that more than one person was perhaps responsible for this crime?
JACOBSON: That's what I just stated that.
>>>
GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't I ask you specifically if you believed that Amber Frey, as of January 10th, was cooperating?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And wasn't your answer, I was suspect of some of the cooperation from witnesses, or a witness, and that I did not believe that more, and I did believe that more than one person could be responsible for this crime?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And I asked you who was the witness that you were suspect of?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And who was that?
JACOBSON: I believe I responded that I was suspect of Amber Frey's cooperation.
GERAGOS: And the reason you were suspect of Amber Frey's cooperation was?
JACOBSON: Was because I had had some conversations with some detectives from the Modesto Police Department, and we had conversed regarding whether or not Amber had communicated with Scott at different periods of time. And I was told information that which basically contradicted what I believed at the time with what the wire intercept was showing me, and the toll records.
>>>
GERAGOS: So your information is, after the 10th, that you are already suspicious on the 10th. That's why you fill out an affidavit for the wiretaps, because you don't believe that one person could have committed this crime alone, correct? Under your conspiracy theory, correct?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir. I believed that more than one person could have been involved in this case.
GERAGOS: Okay. So that's your belief. Then moving, I want to get pre the 10th, and after the 10th, so we don't mix it up. Before the 10th, that's your working theory, correct? One of your working theories?
JACOBSON: One of my working theories was to find every aspect to any possible leads, to see if we can develop any further co-conspirators, whether they were known or unknown.
GERAGOS: But the, specifically, specifically, you were, one of your the witnesses that you were specifically focused on was Amber Frey, correct?
JACOBSON: She was listed as an interceptee. We believed we were going to be intercepting her communications with Scott. And I felt it was very important that we listen to these phone calls separately and apart from what Miss Amber Frey was doing. She had no idea that we were going up on a wire intercept. Felt it was important to either corroborate her statements that she was making to the police; or if she wasn't being truthful to the police, to start looking in that area as well.
GERAGOS: And you believed, within three to four days, that she wasn't being truthful with the police; isn't that correct?
DISTASO: Objection. Asked and answered.
JUDGE: I don't think so, no. Overruled.
GERAGOS: You believed within three or four days of that suspicion, that she was not being truthful with the police, correct?
JACOBSON: I had believed that, yes, sir. But as I look back on it now, after talking with John Buehler, going over your question that you had, law enforcement was mistaken. And we were operating under a, not a valid concern there.
>>>
GERAGOS: Well, let me just take you back. Let's go step-by-step through this. As of February of this year, you believed that, correct, that she was not being truthful?
JACOBSON: February?
GERAGOS: February is when you,
JACOBSON: February of this year.
GERAGOS: February this year, when you testified before Judge Delucchi, and I was asking you questions, February 19th of this year, I asked you specifically, easy for me to say, as to whether or not you were suspect of, or you said you were suspicious of the cooperation, right?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: I also asked you, is it a fair statement that she was telling her handler, Detective Buehler, one thing, and you had toll records which revealed another? Is that a fair summary? And your answer was, I'm not calling the lady a liar. I'm just saying I was suspect in the fact that some of my information that I had didn't quite jibe with the information that was being told to me by the detective.
JACOBSON: That's correct, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And I said to you, did it appear that, to the detectives at least, that they were telling you that Amber Frey appeared to want to have a relationship with Scott, and appeared to be, for lack of a better word, if not lying, working the detectives? And your answer was, that's correct. And I asked you specifically, do you remember, was that Detective Buehler who was telling you that? And you said, yes, sir. Correct?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
>>>
GERAGOS: So then I asked you where is this call that you guys, you, Brocchini, Buehler, Grogan, three guys from SDEA, listened to on the 13th together?
JACOBSON: At least, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And all seven of you came to the conclusion that Amber Frey must have been working it, lying. You didn't want to call her a liar?
JACOBSON: No, I don't want to do that.
GERAGOS: Didn't want to call the lady a liar. You were saying that she, we're at the point with making her a co-conspirator, weren't we?
JACOBSON: I don't know if I would label her a co-conspirator. I said I was very suspicious of her cooperation. I wanted to listen to more of their communications. I wanted to basically hear it for myself.
GERAGOS: And when you, that was on the 10th. Once you got to the 13th, by the time you got to the 13th, you were starting to go down that path, right?
JACOBSON: I was, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And up until the time I said where is this call, nobody bothered to come up with any analysis of it to determine what it was; isn't that correct?
JACOBSON: That would be a fair statement, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. So last week for the first time, somebody goes back and takes a look and, lo and behold, turns out you guys were wrong, all seven of you; is that right?
JACOBSON: I don't know if I would say wrong.
GERAGOS: You just changed your mind?
JUDGE: Wait a minute.
JACOBSON: I don't think so.
JUDGE: Stop. Stop. Let him finish the question. Let him finish the answer before you ask the next question. Finish your answer.
JACOBSON: Yes, sir, I don't think it's a matter of who is wrong and who is right. I think it's a matter of the timing of that particular call and how this whole thing got started. If you would like me to elaborate and explain.
GERAGOS: I'll ask you,
DISTASO: Let him finish his answer.
GERAGOS: He wanted to elaborate. It's non-responsive when he goes on in the speech.
JUDGE: It's cross. When you take him back on directs, you can have him elaborate. All I'm asking, Mr. Geragos, let him finish.
GERAGOS: I will, judge.
JUDGE: Ask the next question. I have a court reporter here that's going to be very upset with me and you. Next question.
GERAGOS: Now, you then write up, or not you, but Buehler writes up, Buehler writes up a two-page analysis of what he thinks actually transpired; is that right?
JACOBSON: I believe it was analysis of what we believed, collectively.
GERAGOS: Well, and you saw this. This was, it's dated August 17th, right?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that's whose handwriting is that?
JACOBSON: That's Detective Buehler.
GERAGOS: Did you review this?
JACOBSON: I don't believe I read it verbatim; but I was there when he wrote it out.

5 days later, during direct examination by Distaso, we learn that the meeting on Jan 13th was simply about calls that the wiretap recorded on the 12th that Amber Frey didn't turn over to Buehler.

DISTASO: Now, there was some confusion that counsel asked you about regarding some calls that Ms. Frey recorded on January 12th, do you remember that series of questions?
JACOBSON: I do, yes, sir.
DISTASO: At the time on January 12th and I guess into the 13th, what was law enforcement's belief about whether or not Ms. Frey had actually recorded those calls on the 12th?
GERAGOS: Objection as to what law enforcement's belief is.
JUDGE: Law enforcement's,
DISTASO: That's fine.
DISTASO: What was your understanding at the time on the 12th?
JACOBSON: On the 12th or the morning of the 13th?
DISTASO: Morning. Yeah.
JACOBSON: When I talked to Detective Buehler.
DISTASO: Right.
JACOBSON: It was my belief and the belief of the other detectives that were there that it was possible that Ms. Frey was deceiving us in her recordings; that perhaps she was recording or she was talking with Scott and not turning over those recordings to law enforcement.
DISTASO: Did you subsequently go back, when you went in and kind of married all this stuff up, did you actually, did you find those recordings from the 12th that you thought might not, that she might not have been telling you about?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: So she actually, there actually were recordings from those calls that were turned into law enforcement?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: So your belief at that time was maybe she was being --
GERAGOS: Objection, leading.
JUDGE: Sustained.
DISTASO:
DISTASO: So your belief at the time was incorrect?
JACOBSON: Yes, it was.

Wow, that was anti-climactic. Why couldn't they have cleared that up in a day or two? Why did it take 19 months? Jacobson had the list of conversations between Scott and Amber recorded by the wiretap, and Buehler had all of the tapes Amber turned over.

Seems like if it was a big enough deal to cause Jacobson to suspect Amber was a co-conspirator and use that as justification for various warrants, someone would have followed up on it after that big meeting on Jan 13th. Jacobson was swearing that the statements he made in those affidavits were true statements. Seems like he would have made at least one follow-up call to Buehler. After all, Jacobson's personal integrity was on the line. Amber testified that neither Buehler nor anyone else ever asked her if she was recording all the conversations and turning over all the tapes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So what I'm asking you now is are you aware that the detectives believed that you were not reporting calls because they compared the wiretap information with what you were telling them? Did they ever confront you with that?
FREY: No, they did not.

Quite frankly, I don't believe it was just a matter of them thinking she wasn't recording all the conversations with Scott and then discovered that she was. The State produced recordings and transcripts of 2 calls on the 12th: 6:04 p.m and 7:19 p.m. It's unlikely Geragos would have asked, "Where is the call" if the call that required that meeting were one of those two calls. So, where is this call that Jacobson, Buehler, Grogan, Brocchini, and 3 guys from the SDEA listened to together, and which they subsequently on August 17, 2004, on the 5th day of Amber's testimony and just one week before Jacobson was to testify, decided it wasn't any big deal and didn't impugn Frey's credibility?

I bolded and italicized one sentence of Jacobson's testimony in particular because I think it's the crux of the matter. Jacobson held a long-standing suspicion of Amber Frey, that comes through in all of his reports, affidavits, and testimony, but in a single conversation, apparently on August 17, 2004, just one week before Jacobson is to testify, Buehler is able to convince him that the suspicion was unfounded. What did Buehler really tell Jacobson? I suspect it was to tow the line, memorize the talking points, and backpedal everything he'd written in reports and affidavits that cast suspicion on Amber Frey. Jacobson did his best, but back pedaling is hard to do when there is so much on the record.