The "might be a body" ruse

January 7, 2003, the Modesto Bee reported:

Searchers Monday [Jan 6] concluded their work in and around the Berkeley Marina, said Modesto police Sgt. Ron Cloward, who is supervising the search effort.

"They're confident they have searched it thoroughly," Cloward said.  "They're confident they're done there unless something comes up that sends us back there."  ("Search goes on for their teacher" by Ty Phillips)

 Was Cloward out of the loop or flat-out lying, because on January 9, 2003, the Modesto Bee reported in the  front page article "Marina checked anew" by Ty Phillips:

Searchers returned to the Berkeley Marina on Wednesday [Jan 8] and used underwater camera equipment to hunt for clues relating to the discovery of Laci Peterson of Modesto.

 Police called the search routine and said it was not based on any tip that they had received.  Officials reported no significant developments.

The continuing story on page A-12 included a large picture of a law enforcement official collecting a water sample at the Marina.

January 9, 2003 was a fairly busy day for the MPD and other agencies assisting in the search for Laci Peterson. Jacobson was busy writing an affidavit for a wire tap on Scott's phones and various MPD personnel were out at the Berkeley Marina using side-scan sonar to search for Laci.  At 6:30 that evening, the MPD announced "that a sonar device had detected some type of object that might be another body in the area of the Berkeley Marina" (Modesto Bee, "Object spied in Bay" by Patrick Giblin and John Cote).

Another body? 

 The Bee reported incorrectly Friday that a body - not Laci Peterson's - had been pulled from the bay.  Police told of the body's recovery on Thursday, then later in the day alerted The Bee that the report was incorrect, and that no body had been found.  The Bee received the corrected information before press time, but the incorrect report still appeared in Friday's editions.

"Clearly, in the media frenzy that is associated with this case,  there have been a number of rumors that have made it difficult to separate fact from fiction," Police Chief Roy Wasden said.  "That led to a miscommunication between The Bee and the police department."  (January 11, 2003 "Divers set to renew search in SF Bay" by Ty Phillips and Patrick Giblin)

Translation:  We found a body and notified the media, then changed our minds and didn't want anyone to know, so we called you to tell you it was an incorrect story but you printed it anyway.  Of course, there are other scenarios that might explain the tall tale told by Wasden, but I leave those to your imagination.

After getting over the excitement of finding the body that wasn't found, the side scan sonar spied an object that "might be" a body.   Cloward told The Bee,

The guy from San Mateo [the side scan sonar was on loan from San Mateo] said there's a 50-50 chance that it is a body.  The divers tried to get to it today, and they said the current was bad and the weather was bad."  ("Object")

 Wunderground.com doesn't have weather data for Berkeley for January 9, 2003, but reports light rain and light winds in the afternoon for Oakland.  Assuming it was raining at the Marina, does rain affect diving?  Aren't you in the water anyway?  Don't you have on a wet suit?  Don't the guys on the boats have raincoats?

Cloward also told The Bee that the side scan sonar "can identify tires up to 300 feet underwater."

The media are so gullible, and here's why.  On the 11th, The Bee had a graphic showing the search location.

 According to the info on the left, the water depth is about 12 feet at MLLW.  The Richmond station reports the following verified water levels from a low of 2.75 at 11:18 to a high of 4.49 feet at 4:48 p.m., back to a low of  1.94 feet at 10:48 p.m.  If you add 2.75 feet to 12 feet, you get 14.75 feet, and add 4.49 feet to 12 feet to get 16.49 feet, rounded up to 16.5.  So the water was between 14.75 - 16.5 feet deep where they were searching and found what "might be" a body, 50/50 chance it's a body.

So the tale the media gulped down, is that the side scan sonar they were using on the 9th could identify a tire 300 feet underwater, but could not identify an anchor 16.5 feet underwater!  Incredible!  And the divers weren't able to get to it, but they were able to pull up the body that wasn't found.  In the same area.

This was nothing but a ruse.  They knew on the 9th it was an anchor, but they wanted Scott Peterson to think they had found a body at the Berkeley Marina, to force him into doing something incriminating.  They announced they would be retrieving the object which might be a body on the 11th, so Jacobson could get the wiretap up and running, which was accomplished on the 10th.  Rather than have ground surveillance, which might discourage Scott from doing whatever incriminating thing he might do, as he had a knack for knowing when he was being followed, they used the wiretaps and the cooperation of AT&T to use his cell phones to track his whereabouts.

And what incriminating thing did they catch him doing?  Why, the most outrageous behavior of all -- he lied to his own mother about where he was.  Really?  Yes, really, and that was presented as circumstantial evidence that Scott killed Laci and Conner.  It's just inconceivable to minds so laden with suspicion that Scott might want to protect his privacy and not have some renegade media who tapped his phones know where he was.

Unfortunately for Scott, the renegade media weren't his worse problem; it was the renegade police.  

Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2

According to Steven Jacobson's testimony, the first wiretap on Scott's phones was authorized January 10, 2003. It was called Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2 because it was the 2nd wiretap in Stanislaus County for that year.

JACOBSON: The first wiretap was designated Stanislaus County wiretap number 2.
DISTASO: Okay. And let me stop you. Why did that one get the Stanislaus County number 2?
JACOBSON: Because that was the first, that was the second wiretap that was used in Stanislaus County on the state side, for our particular county.
DISTASO: So for Stanislaus County, that was, this was our second wiretap?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: And the other wiretaps that you talked about were federal wiretaps; is that right? When you said you've been involved in these wiretaps, you've been involved in wiretaps on the federal side as well?
JACOBSON: I've been involved in wiretaps on the state and federal side. Stanislaus County wiretap number one I was involved with as well.
DISTASO: Okay. And,
JUDGE: And that's completely unrelated to this case?
JACOBSON: It's completely unrelated, your Honor.
DISTASO: Right.
DISTASO: The, what were the dates that wiretap number two was up and running?
JACOBSON: January 10th, sir.
DISTASO: It started on January 10th?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: And when was, when did it close down?
JACOBSON: On February 4th, 2003.

The second wiretap on Scott's phones, Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 3, didn't start until April 2003.

DISTASO: And then the second wiretap that was authorized in this case was authorized on what date?
JACOBSON: April 15th, I believe, to April 18th.
DISTASO: So just for that three day period?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: And what was that wiretap's designated number?
JACOBSON: That was designated as Stanislaus County wiretap number three.

In the previous article, I quoted from Brocchini's testimony that his findings on the meringue were used in the wiretap affidavit.

DISTASO: Okay. The -- that information, did you also give that information to Investigator Jacobson?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I did.
DISTASO: And to your knowledge did he use that information as part of an affidavit that he wrote for -- for a wiretap in the case?
BROCCHINI: Yes, he did.
>>>
GERAGOS: Now, after that you gave the information to Investigator Jacobson, right?
BROCCHINI: Sometime after that, yeah.
GERAGOS: Yeah. And he filed a wiretap application, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes, he did.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he, when he files that wiretap application, he prepares an affidavit, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And that affidavit is based upon what the detectives in the Modesto Police Department tell him are the results so far of their investigation, right?
BROCCHINI: It's based on what the detectives believe are, what the, what's in the investigation up to that point.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that, is that accurate?
BROCCHINI: That's accurate.
GERAGOS: And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?
BROCCHINI: No. Wiretap.
GERAGOS: Wiretap.
BROCCHINI: That's correct.

Brocchini specifically said that he viewed the Martha Stewart tapes on January 17, 2003.

DISTASO: Okay. Now, when you watched these shows originally, what date did you watch them?
BROCCHINI: On January 17th of 2003.
DISTASO: Okay. How is it -- how did you watch it?
BROCCHINI: I plugged it in a VCR, sat in a -- a lunch room and watched it.
DISTASO: Okay. Were you familiar with the Martha Stewart show?
BROCCHINI: I've heard of it. I never watched it before.
DISTASO: Okay. Up 'til December -- up 'til January 17th of 2003, had you ever seen a Martha Stewart show?
BROCCHINI: I'd never watched one. I'd flipped through channels and seen it on there, but I'd never watched one.
DISTASO: The -- when you watched the show on January 17th, what were you looking for, if anything?
BROCCHINI: I was looking for Martha Stewart baking with meringue, or something similar to that.
DISTASO: Okay. And on the 23rd, so December 23rd of oh two, does Martha Stewart bake something with meringue or use meringue?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
DISTASO: And did you notice that when you watched the show on the 17th?
BROCCHINI: Yes.

How could what he learned from that viewing on January 17 be used in an affidavit for Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2 when that wiretap, per Jacobson, was up and running on January 10?

In the pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the wiretaps, Jacobson gave January 20th as the date the Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2 was authorized.

DISTASO: When was Wiretap Number 2 authorized?
JACOBSON: Wiretap Number 2 was authorized on January 20th of 2003.
DISTASO: And when did it terminate?
JACOBSON: Terminated on February 4th of 2003.

Cookies and meringue on Martha Stewart

In his taped interview with Det. Al Brocchini, Scott gave this information about what happened in his home that morning, December 24, 2002.

Page 1 of 29
PETERSON: Thank you
BROCCHINI: Pretty much Scott, all we do, lets just go over what, what we already talked about so I can make some notes.
PETERSON: Um hum. (Affirmative)
BROCCHINI: See if you remember something that you know maybe you don't know you remembered. So today just tell me about the morning?
PETERSON: Ah, okay. Ah I don't know what time we got up, probably ah Laci got up and went I assume, she said she had some cereal for breakfast.
BROCCHINI: Um hum.
PETERSON: Eats right when she wakes up, otherwise she gets sick, 'cause she's pregnant. Ah, I laid around in bed longer, I got up at I don't know, 8 o'clock probably or so. Ah, showered ah we were watchin' her favorite show, Martha STEWART. Watched a little bit of that.
BROCCHINI: You didn't watch the whole thing though?
PETERSON: No.
BROCCHINI: You remember what part you saw?
PETERSON: I don't know, I don't know what they had on, some cooking deal, I don't know, cookies of some sort, they were talking about what to do with meringue.
BROCCHINI: Ah and I, I can't remember, your house, you had the, the converted garage area, is that your TV room, right?
PETERSON: Yeah.

By that time, Brocchini was already convinced Scott was responsible for Laci's disappearance and didn't believe anything Scott told him. However, why did Brocchini focus obsessively on the meringue and forget all about the cookies? When he wrote his report on December 25th he mentions only the meringue.

GERAGOS: Does this refresh your recollection from your 12/25 report: Remembered Martha Stewart was baking something with meringue. So it went: I don't know, they had on cookies of some sort, they were talking about what to do with meringue. And in your report it says: Peterson said Martha Stewart was baking something with meringue; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: I didn't quote it like that, but that looks correct to me.
GERAGOS: Well, that report that I've got right there, do you have any reason to believe that's not straight out your report on 12/25?
BROCCHINI: No, that is. I remember that, but there's no quote marks in my report.
GERAGOS: Okay. This is a direct sentence out of your report, right?
BROCCHINI: Yes.

Brocchini ordered the tape of the Dec 24, 2002 Martha Stewart show to find out if Scott was really home that morning.

GERAGOS: So by getting the, the significance of the Martha Stewart portion is to see if in fact he was at home watching Martha Stewart sometime on Christmas Eve morning, correct?
BROCCHINI: That's why I did it.

But Brocchini didn't just request the tape for the 24th, he also asked for the 23rd.

GERAGOS: And you ordered, why did you ordered both the 23rd and the 24th?
BROCCHINI: I don't know. I wanted to see if what he was talking about was on the 23rd or the 24th.
GERAGOS: Why didn't you order the 20th?
BROCCHINI: If I had to, I would have, but I didn't think it was necessary at the time.
GERAGOS: Out of all the days in December, how did you pick the 23rd?
BROCCHINI: Two days.
GERAGOS: Well, you knew by the January 17th, you'd talked to Margarita Nava, right? By January 17th?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: By January 17th you knew that he wasn't home on the 23rd, from your interview with Margarita Nava, correct?
BROCCHINI: That's right.
GERAGOS: Okay. So you still picked the 23rd?
BROCCHINI: There's TVs everywhere, Mr. Geragos. I don't know.
GERAGOS: So you didn't know, you thought maybe he had gone out and, part of his grand scheme and watched Martha Stewart somewhere else?
DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative.
JUDGE: Sustained.
GERAGOS: Well, the,
DISTASO: Well
GERAGOS: what you put later,
DISTASO: There is an objection, Judge.
JUDGE: I ruled on it. Sustained.
GERAGOS: That's why I asked another question.
JUDGE: I'll have to sit closer to the microphone.
GERAGOS: To the microphone, exactly. Pull it close.
GERAGOS: You had made a leap that he was describing in your reports. You said he was describing what had happened on the 23rd; isn't that your statement in your reports?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay.
BROCCHINI: That's what I thought.
GERAGOS: Okay. Well, by the time you wrote your report on the 21st, you already knew he wasn't at home on the 23rd?
BROCCHINI: I wrote, yeah, I know. That's right.

On January 17, 2003, when Brocchini watched the tape of the 24th, he didn't hear any mention of meringue. I can't fault him for that, as the word only appears once in the transcript. When he watched the tape of the 23rd, however, he saw an entire segment with meringue. Brocchini wrote another report involving the meringue on January 21, 2003:

GERAGOS: Now, after you prepared this report here on January 21st, you then wrote in the same report: I find it highly suspicious first that Scott Peterson would describe clothing to me that Laci was wearing on 12/24 as the same clothing she was wearing on 12/23, and you also find it suspicious that Scott Peterson would claim to be watching Martha Stewart with Laci on 12/24 while Martha Stewart was baking with meringue. And then your conclusion is there is no meringue mentioned on the show on 12/24, correct?
BROCCHINI: That's what I wrote.

So he concluded Scott was lying and gave that information to Jacobson, who included it in his affidavit for a wiretap.

DISTASO: Okay. The -- that information, did you also give that information to Investigator Jacobson?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I did.
DISTASO: And to your knowledge did he use that information as part of an affidavit that he wrote for -- for a wiretap in the case?
BROCCHINI: Yes, he did.
>>>
GERAGOS: Now, after that you gave the information to Investigator Jacobson, right?
BROCCHINI: Sometime after that, yeah.
GERAGOS: Yeah. And he filed a wiretap application, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes, he did.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he, when he files that wiretap application, he prepares an affidavit, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And that affidavit is based upon what the detectives in the Modesto Police Department tell him are the results so far of their investigation, right?
BROCCHINI: It's based on what the detectives believe are, what the, what's in the investigation up to that point.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that, is that accurate?
BROCCHINI: That's accurate.
GERAGOS: And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?
BROCCHINI: No. Wiretap.
GERAGOS: Wiretap.
BROCCHINI: That's correct.

Brocchini knew that the tape for the 24th included making cookies because he included that in his report on Jan 21, but that didn't seem to make any difference to him.

GERAGOS: Well, let's take a look at your report on the 21st. The report on the 21st, specifically you say you reviewed the 12/24, 2000 and 2 from the beginning, including commercials; is that accurate?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And Martha Stewart baked lemon butter cookies during the first, and then during the second segment there was no mention of meringue during any of this show, correct?
BROCCHINI: That's what I wrote.

I can't understand how the cookies got eliminated from the picture in Brocchini's mind. Why, when he saw the long segment on making and decorating lemon butter cookies didn't it register that Scott was telling the truth?

Scott's statement: I don't know what they had on, some cooking deal, I don't know, cookies of some sort, they were talking about what to do with meringue.

The December 23rd Martha Stewart show, People's Exhibit 81, had no segments on making cookies, and cookies were not mentioned except in Martha's closing, when she describes the buffet table that has been set and says: "And, of course, cookies and there are other delightful surprises for dessert coming out later." There was indeed a long segment with Chef Bill Yossa demonstrating how to make his Bittersweet Chocolate Dacquoise. A dacquoise is layers of meringue and either mocha butter cream or praline butter cream.

The December 24th Martha Stewart show, People's Exhibit 82, included a long segment with Dorie Greenspan, author of "Paris Sweets," making lemon butter cookies. The recipe uses egg yolks only, so Stewart asked Greenspan what she was going to do with the egg whites.

Stewart: So when are we going to do all the egg whites, Dorie?
Greenspan: Ooh, you want to make little meringues?
Stewart: Oh, that would be nice. So there.

Little meringues are little cookies that you make with egg whites and sugar. Stewart and Greenspan continued to work on their lemon butter cookies. The mention of little meringues was toward the end of the cookie segment, so it's no surprise that Scott remembered "cookies" and "meringue."

Scott was telling the truth. He did watch Martha Stewart with Laci on the morning of the 24th and he did see that segment on the lemon butter cookies, a recipe which probably delighted Laci because, after all, it was a French pastry and she had gone to France to take a cooking course.

That still leaves the question of why Brocchini only wrote about the meringue in his report on the 25th, when Scott clearly said cookies and meringue. I suspect he edited his Dec 25th report to only include meringue in Scott's statement after he watched the Martha Stewart tapes on Jan 17.

Todd didn't notice all the activity on Covena on Dec 25

In it's last posting on the Facebook page, Scott Peterson Page: Truth be Told reviewed David Corder's testimony. In that testimony, Corder described all of the activity on Covena Avena December 25th because of the effort to find Laci. The activity included lots of uniformed police searching the park and the neighborhood, police cars parked on the street, and civilians working the area putting up Missing Persons posters.

Steven Todd told Officer Hicks that he rode through the park on his bicycle and then onto Covena where he observed signs that the Medinas were not home. I ask the same question that Truth be Told asked, How is it possible that Todd was in the park and on Covena on the 25th and didn't notice all the search activity? How is it possible that he then would be brazen enough to rob a house on that very block, exactly across the street from the Petersons, the very next morning? And as we've noted before, when there were satellite trucks parked on the street.

The State's own witnesses demonstrate how preposterous it is to believe that Todd and Pearce robbed the Medina home on the 26th. All reasonable people will admit they robbed that home on the 24th, and the burglary was in progress at 11:40 when Diane Jackson saw the van, the 3 men, and the safe being removed from the home. How plain does it have to be?

Here is Officer Hicks' testimony:

GERAGOS: Okay. So then you asked him again to tell you about the burglary; is that right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he said that he rides up and down Covena hundreds of times because it's a shortcut for him, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he rides from a place called at the airport district; is that right?
HICKS: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he says then he goes down Covena to the dirt path to the foot bridge and back up Covena because it's some kind of a shortcut for him?
HICKS: It's an indirect shortcut to his mom's house without going around the river.
GERAGOS: And then he told you that on Christmas, 12/25, that he was riding from his mom's house to his place at the airport district; is that right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he says that at that point when he road by he noticed, and this is on Covena, he says I'm riding my bike on Covena, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Then he says on Christmas day when he road by he noticed that 516 Covena appeared to be empty; is that right?
HICKS: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And 516 Covena is the Medina's house, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he says he noticed it because there was only one car in the driveway, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Which he described as being either a Mercedes or a BMW, right?
HICKS: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he said he also noticed that the mail in the mail box; is that right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he could see when he's riding his bike down the street, not only the car, but that he could see mail in the mail box, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that led him to believe that nobody was home; is that right?
HICKS: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And then he stated that he road home to his residence and eventually met up with his friend Pierce, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And then after he did a couple of other things that he road back to his house and stayed there until about 3:00 in the morning on December 27th, correct?
HICKS: He was confused about the date initially. It was clarified later it was actually the day after Christmas, which would have been the 26th.
GERAGOS: When he first gave you the story he told you the 27th, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he didn't say that he was confused the first time he gave you the story, did he?
HICKS: Yes, he did.
GERAGOS: Did you put that anywhere in the report?
HICKS: No.
GERAGOS: Okay. The first time you report, at least I'm looking at your report, you don't have a supplemental, well, you do have a supplemental, but in the initial report he says he didn't go back until December 27th, right?
HICKS: Right. The date was clarified in a separate property done by Detective Stough.

When her turn for cross examination came up, Birgit Fladager asked Hicks if Todd owned a car:

FLADAGER: How did you know Mr. Todd?
HICKS: I have known Mr. Todd for about seven years.
FLADAGER: And is that as a result of your being a police officer?
HICKS: Yes it is.
FLADAGER: Your contact with Mr. Todd over the course of those seven years, did you ever know him to have a car?
HICKS: He's never had a car. He's always road a bicycle.
FLADAGER: In fact, with his riding a bicycle, you have been aware of that for seven years?
HICKS: Yes.

One might think her point was that Todd couldn't have abducted Laci because he didn't have a car, except that she immediately followed it up with this:

FLADAGER: Did Mr. Pearce indicate that he had -- he agreed to assist Todd in taking Todd back over to that Covena address?
HICKS: Yes, he did.
FLADAGER: What did he tell you happened when they got to the address?
HICKS: He said they pulled up to the front of the house with the passenger side towards the front door. Mr. Todd got out of the vehicle, went to the front of the house where the safe was on the dolly. He wheeled it to the front passenger side. And then Mr. Todd actually rolled it into the front seat, because it was so heavy. To close the door, Mr. Todd actually got into the back seat, they drove away.
FLADAGER: Do you know what kind of car it was that Mr. Pearce was driving?
HICKS: Yes. It was a small four-door Honda.

No, Todd didn't have a car. But Pearce did. Didn't she just prove that Todd most certainly could have abducted Laci?

If you aren't following Truth be Told, please go to its Facebook page and review all of the Notes. It reviews each of the witnesses in their order of appearance.

The Albany Bulb - A Curious Place

I've made a couple of trips to the Albany Bulb, which is quite a peaceful, restful place. It is becoming more heavily used as an off-leash dog park and a number of homeless still live there. I don't see any problem with that -- they've got their tents and they don't appear to bother the visitors. At least no one has ever bothered me.

This last visit I took some photographs of the mini-amphitheater that greets visitors as they go onto the neck of the Bulb. The blue marker in the aerial shows its locations, but the aerial does not do justice to the structure. Click to enlarge.