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.

Can't discuss the truth in the courtroom

Steve Jacobson testified for the State on several issues, including the wiretaps. On the last day of his testimony, after being asked about a tapped call from Dan Abrams telling Scott that if he didn't do the interview with him, they'd go on the air and say he wasn't being cooperative. Scott responded that he wasn't going to be blackmailed into an interview. Jacobson and Geragos ended with this exchange:

JACOBSON: Well, I think they were all curious, like we all are today, what the real truth is.
GERAGOS: Right. And, unfortunately, that can change depending on what facts you give, can't they?
JACOBSON: Well, um,
GERAGOS: No further questions.
JUDGE: So that's your answer?
JACOBSON: You know what, Judge, I'm not going to discuss the truth in the courtroom because this all happened.
JUDGE: You can't give your opinions. Any more questions?
DISTASO: No more questions based on that.

Richard Cole, reporter for the Daily News group, wrote in his article a slightly different rendition of Jacobson's last words:

"I think we're all curious as to what the real truth is," the investigator said, and continued talking even after Geragos dismissed him, saying he couldn't "discuss the truth in this courtroom 'cause that just won't happen.'"

Early News Reports

It's always good to go back and review the earliest news reports on Laci's disappearance to see exactly what people heard and when. Of particular interest to me are the reports by the ModBee, whom I believe was the primary enabler for this wrongful conviction. This brief timeline shows the coverage through the arrest of the Medina burglars -- key points are listed for each article. My pontifications are in italics.

December 26, 2002

"Woman Vanishes on Walk"by Molly Dugan and Judy Sly

• Scott made a "fishing trip to the Bay area." In fairness, it's newsworthy to mention where the husband spent the day. But let's start counting how many times it's mentioned that he went to the Bay, and specifically to the Berkeley Marina.
• "Officers located people who said they saw [Laci] in the park about 10 a.m." People is plural, as in more than one person.
• Karen Servas found McKenzie about 10:30 a.m., "his leash attached and muddy." Servas put McKenzie into the Peterson's backyard.

December 27, 2002

"Expectant Mom jubilant over son on way" by Ty Phillips

• Laci "began calling her friends and relatives at 7 a.m. the day she found out [she was pregnant] -- waking many with her jubilant announcement." I distinctly remember Dave Harris ridiculing Dr. March when he stated this fact at the trial, that Laci immediately called family and friends when she found out she was pregnant, and all of the media and the surviving jurors jumping on the bandwagon. But on December 27, 2002, no one was trying to hide that critical fact from the public -- people were talking about it freely and using it as a way of connecting with Laci.
• "Someone reported seeing Peterson walking with her dog in East La Loma Park that morning" This is the 2nd straight day that the ModBee reports someone seeing Laci walking her dog in the Park. What happened to these witnesses?

"FBI joins inquiry into woman's disappearance" by Patrick Giblin

• "Officers arrived with the warrant at 7:45 p.m. at Laci Denise Peterson's house . . . FBI crime-scene investigators joined police inside the home."
• "At 10 p.m., workers prepared to haul a pair of vehicles from the Peterson home."
• "Police brought in a bloodhound that led authorities away from Dry Creek."
• "A police officer interviewing people along the park's Mensinger Trail,and elsewhere around the park, reported that he spoke with a woman who said she heard screams about 10:15 Christmas Eve. She lives on the park's border."
• "Over the course of an hour, police went in and out of a home near the Peterson house."
• Scott "said he was going on a fishing trip to the Bay Area." <1>
• "A neighbor found the dog, with leash attached, wandering at 10:30 a.m., and put the dog in the Peterson yard . . . Police Chief Roy Wasden said the leash was muddy, as if it had been dragged some distance." Where did McKenzie come from? From being on a walk with Laci, of course. It's incredible how blinding tunnel-vision is.
• "at 5 p.m. when officers released the bloodhound in front of the Peterson home, the dog did not go to the dirt path [to the park]. Instead, the hound led police to houses around the corner, then south to Yosemite Boulevard and eventually to Santa Rosa near E&J Gallo Winery. Now this is accurate reporting. This is exactly what happened. At this time, the media can't be expected to know the significance of the Winery's location adjacent to the Airport District, as the Medina burglars have not yet been identified and the safe and loot found in the Airport District. However, they surely could remember what really happened, as many of them were trailing Valentin and Merlin as Merlin proceeded to trail Laci.
• Contra Costa County sheriff's deputies, who supplied the bloodhound, concluded the search when the dog began nosing around some Dumpsters. Police searched with flashlights and climbed in, but it was not known what, if anything, they found."
• "Police said earlier in the investigation that people reported seeing someone believed to be Peterson in the park about 10 a.m. Tuesday." Yes, on the 27th, they can still remember that the police reported Laci-sightings in the park.
• "Walter Collinge, an avid bicyclist, said he often saw Peterson walking along the path." Was Collinge asked if he recalled the last time he saw Laci, and how frequently he saw her?

December 28, 2002

"Neighbors don't know what to make of disappearance" by Lisa Millegan

• "Her husband said he last saw her at 9:30 a.m. as he left on a fishing trip to the Bay Area" <2>
• "Krigbaum said her family has been more on edge since the disappearance. Her partner's 12-year-old son is not allowed to play outside because of concerns about his safety."

"Officers scour more locations" by Ty Phillips

• "Investigators expanded their hunt for clues Friday to a warehouse used by the Modesto man whose pregnant wife has been missing since Christmas Eve." If this doesn't convince everyone that Scott is the only suspect, I don't know what would. Searching the home can be justified as a look for evidence of a break-in or abduction from the home, but the warehouse points only to Scott.
• "police and FBI crime-scene analysts spent a second day working inside the La Loma neighborhood home that belongs to the missing woman, Laci Peterson, 27, and her husband, Scott, 30."
• "Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared." <3>
• "Ridenour said investigators were looking for evidence in two computers and two vehicles seized Thusday night from the Peterson home." More effort to remove all doubt that Scott Peterson is the only suspect.
• "Susan Medina said she and her husband, Rudy, were gone from Christmas Eve until about 5 p.m. Thursday, and discovered then that someone had broken in and stolen a safe holding $50,000 worth of jewelry. Police have been going in and out of the house the past two days."
• "Peterson . . . left with his aluminum fishing boat for a trip out to Berkeley." <4/1> So everyone now knows exactly where Scott Peterson went fishing, not just the San Francisco Bay, not just a marina in the Bay, but the Berkeley Marina.
• Scott "provided detectives with a launch receipt that verified his trip . . . had turned over a receipt from a Bay Area gas station." <5>
• "In the short time I've known him, he's probably one of the nicest guys I've ever met," said Guy Miligi, a family friend. "He's always a gentleman with women. We'll be at dinner with them, and when my wife and Laci get up to go to the restroom, he'll always stand up. And he'll stand up again when she returns. You don't see that anymore."
• "He's the type of person that if you had broken down on the freeway, he'd be the guy who would stop and help you," said Kenni Friedman, president of the Downtown Rotary Club. "He's just a very compassionate, giving person." Do good people (such as the man described by Miligi and Freidman) sometimes do bad things (such as have an affair)? Yes, they can, but when weighed in the balance, as it appears Laci was willing to do with Scott, some of them are worth keeping around.

December 29, 2002

"Search for missing woman moves west" by Molly Dugan

• "Police said they had found no connection between Peterson's disappearance and a burglary across the street from her Covena Avenue home. Investigators say they believe the burglary occurred between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Tuesday, the day Peterson disappeared." And they were absolutely right. We know Jackson saw the van, 3 men, and the safe being removed from the house at 11:30. Was there another van sighted at the Medinas, or another group of unidentified men, just before 4 p.m.?
• "Investigators said they continue to investigate the burglary for a possible link with the Peterson case, and Laci Peterson's brother Brent Rocha said Saturday, "I think that's our best lead." Now watch what happens - take the focus off the Medina burglars and put it squarely on Scott Peterson!
• "A bloodhound convinced investigators to broaden their search to the west. Officers brought in the dog Thursday and let it loose in front of Peterson's house, thinking it might go to a dirt trail less than a block away that she used to go to Dry Creek. Instead, the dog stayed on neighborhood streets, made its way to Yosemite Boulevard and headed west. Investigators took it from there, deciding to scour the Toulumne River all the way to the San Joaquin." It's just been 2 days since you reported the truth about Merlin's trail, and now you are spitting out this garbage? I know it's different reporters, but don't they read other articles in the Bee? Don't they discuss cases they are covering? Don't they compare notes? Merlin did not head west on Yosemite Blvd; he led Valentin down Santa Rosa to the Gallo Winery, and then headed East towards the Airport District, which is exactly where the Medina burglars lived. If the investigators were going to take it from there, they should have allowed Merlin to go wherever he would in the Airport District, but alas, Brocchini called off the trail. Well, DUH, Merlin obviously wasn't going in the right direction because the warehouse isn't in the Airport District. But the burglars, the safe, and stolen goods most certainly were. You can read all about Merlin's trail that Thursday night in the summary of her testimony at the pre-trial hearings, under the date of February 24, 2004, or read her full testimony. But my question is, who is telling these blatant lies to the ModBee? And my second question is, where were all those reporters who were tailing Valentin and Merlin, and who knew darn good and well where he went that night. Why don't the reporters call these people out when they feed them lies like this?
• "Evidence collected so far includes two computers and two vehicles from the Peterson home and a boat from the Modesto warehouse that Scott Peterson used in his work as an agricultural salesman." But Scott isn't a suspect. Yea, right!
• "Peterson told the police that he left his home at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday and took his aluminum boat to a marina in Berkeley, where he set out on a fishing trip on San Francisco Bay. Investigators reported coming up empty Friday when they went to the marina. Officers said they found no one who could report seeing Peterson on Tuesday, nor did officers find any other clues." <6/2> Funny isn't it, how it only took Anne Bird about 15 minutes on her very first effort at the Berkeley Marina to locate four witnesses that saw Scott there on December 24? Anne also mentioned how many reporters were there at the Marina, and yet not one of them found any of those four witnesses. (See Blood Brother, pgs. 69-71).
• "Officers made a return visit Saturday, but it was not known what they might have found." They found nothing, because there was nothing to be found -- not yet.

December 30, 2002

"Search presses on, but no trace, breaks" by Michael G. Mooney (posted online at 5:16 a.m. PST)

• "Although police have received about 340 calls on a special tip line, none has resulted in a 'concrete lead' at this point." Not when you won't look at anyone else other than Scott! But the Medina burglary tips most certainly were "concrete." Did any reporters ever ask, what about the Medina burglary? Apparently not, as all they seemed interested in was Scott's fishing trip.
• "Ridenour said investigators traveled to the Berkeley marina where Scott Peterson said he went on Dec. 24 but did not turn up any conclusive evidence." <7/3>

December 31, 2002

"New Wrinkle in Search" by Patrick Giblin (Front page, continued on A-10; posted online at 6:46 a.m. PST)

• Scott said he left "on a fishing day trip to the Berkeley Marina."' <8/4>

"Search: Video from sporting goods store being reviewed" (A-10, continued from Front Page)

• "When Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department deputies brought in a specially trained bloodhound on Thursday 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 Boulevard." Repeating it doesn't make it true, but it does make it stick in people's minds. The truth is, no bloodhound trailed Laci from the house all the way to Maze Boulevard. It simply didn't happen. And these reporters have to know it didn't happen that way -- they were out there following the blood hound and its handler. It's one thing to be lied to; it's quite another to knowingly pass a lie along.
• "'The divers were [at the Old Fisherman's Club on Hwy 132] because the bloodhound made a beeline down Maze', said deputy Mark Cardoza, a member of the dive team. 'We are looking at all the areas where people could pull off the side of the road and not be seen.' he said Monday." If people's noses grew when they told lies, Scott's would certainly be the shortest one in the group.
  
• "Scott Peterson gave investigators a receipt last week from the Berkeley Marina where he said he went fishing." <9/5>
• "Police were still investigating a burglary at a home across from the Peterson home that happened about the same time she disappeared." Yep, at exactly the same time she disappeared. Coincidence? Not hardly.
• We really feel a compelling need right now to get the burglary solved to see if that moves us any closer to finding Laci," Police Chief Roy Wasden said. He said the police today expected to release a description of three people and a vehicle seen in the area of the burglary . . . offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the burglar or burglars. It's about time, don't you think? You've had the description since the 27th. It's now the 31st.
• "Police have received more than 500 tips. Only a few turned out to be credible." You had all you needed to know what happened to Laci -- take the blinders off and it's just as plain as day.

"News crews back for latest human drama" by Ty Phillips [Front page, continued on A-10]

Nothing specific about the investigation, just a false tip that Laci's body had been found, which led the mass media to gather at 3:00 a.m. at the police department awaiting a special news conference which never happened.

"MEDIA: Networks do interviews with Modesto's police chief" [A-10, continued from Front Page]

• "Wasden has done two interviews apiece with 'Good Morning America', 'Today', and 'The Early Show'."
• "CNN cut away from programming Monday afternoon to show the Police Department's news conference live."

January 1, 2003

"Hope unites crowd at vigil for Peterson" by John Cote [posted at 6:48 A.M.]

• Scott "attended the vigil but did not sit with other family on the stage. He did not address the audience. He tearfully greeted friends and family after the ceremony but declined an interview with The Bee." He also spent a good deal of time helping set up for the vigil.

"Police say foul play likely, Tip that missing woman at store on Dec. 24 ruled out; Spouse's Marina stamp valid" by Patrick Giblin (Front page all editions)

• "At a news conference Tuesday, police said they had confirmed the validity of a timestamped parking receipt, presented by Peterson, from a vending machine at Berkeley Marina, which is where he said he launched his aluminum boat in the hours after he last saw his wife." <10/6>
• "Police said Saturday that their investigation had led them to doubt whether Peterson ever made it to the park. They believe she disappeared between 9:30 and 10:30 a.m." At this stage of the investigation, they are assuming a 1-hour time frame for Laci's other-than-the-husband abduction. Why are they then ignoring sightings that occurred between 9:30 and 10:30?
• "Detectives said it seemed less likely that a burglary across the street from Peterson's home had anything to do with her disappearance. The timing does not seem to fit, detectives said. The burglary occurred some time between 10:30 a.m. Dec 24 and 4 p.m. Dec. 26. Witnesses reported that they saw three suspicious-looking people in front of the home at about 11:40 a.m. Dec. 24, Detective George Stough said. That sighting was more than an hour after a neighbor found Peterson's dog -- with leash attached -- wandering in the neighborhood. Still, police said they could not discount a connection, and they again announced a $1,000 reward for information leading to suspects in the burglary." It's not rocket science, Detective Stough, but I'll go through this real slow for your sake. 1) Leash attached -- they went for a walk. 2) McKenzie alone -- he got away from Laci. 3) Van with 3 men and the safe being removed from the house across the street at 11:40 a.m. -- burglary in progress. 4) Laci never heard of again -- she interrupted the burglary and paid with her life.

January 2, 2003

"Moment to rest, reflect" by Patrick Giblin [Posted at 4:40 A.M.]

• Scott "told police he was leaving on a fishing trip to the Berkeley Marina." <11/7> This is more repetition than Dora the Explorer.
• "The handler for a bloodhound used to track the woman told the police that she left her house in a car instead of by foot that day. Her car was parked in her driveway and her purse and cell phone were in the house when she was reported missing that evening." Yes, she certainly did leave in a vehicle -- the van parked in front of the Medina's house during the burglary. Valentin released Merlin in the street at the Southeast corner of the property, which is right in front of the Medina house. Merlin headed straight up the street and around the corner onto Highland, exactly the route the burglars had to take to leave the area. Merlin didn't trail Laci to the warehouse, which is what should have happened if Scott had killed Laci. Instead, he trailed her to the Gallo Winery and headed east towards the Airport District. That no one in the MPD or the media could see this obvious evidence that Laci was abducted by the burglars is beyond my ability to understand. Truly, tunnel vision is a horribly powerful and paralyzing phenomenon.
• "Tuesday, police said it's becoming evident that the case involves foul play." Such liars, the police. Truth is, they had concluded the night of the 24th that Laci's disappearance resulted from foul play. Two of them told Greg Reed so. They were not wrong about that -- it did result from foul play. What they were so very wrong about was who the foul players were. Instead of seeing the obvious evidence pointing to the Medina burglars, the officers and detectives in the MPD were already heavily under the influence of tunnel vision.

January 3, 2003

"Police seeking to verify trip story; Public being asked to report if husband's boat, truck were seen" by Ty Phillips (Front Page)

• "Police released photos of Scott Peterson's truck, boat, and boat trailer, asking anyone who saw Laci Peterson's husband the two days before Christmas to call the Police Department."
• "Investigators need more information to confirm or corroborate Mr. Peterson's story," said Detective Doug Ridenour. "We want to eliminate him from this investigation. If we have an independent witness who saw him that morning, that would help." What a crock. They already had an authentic parking receipt from the Marina to prove he was there, and they had a gas purchase at Livermore on the way home. The truth is, the MPD is trying to find someone that saw Scott Peterson in his truck somewhere that he had not told them he was. Did that someone come forward? No, because it didn't happen, Scott didn't go anywhere in his truck or in any other vehicle except where he told them he had.
• "Scott Peterson has told police he went fishing at the Berkeley Marina on Christmas Eve morning." <12/8>
• "Ridenour said forensic evidence has been taken from both Scott Peterson's boat and truck. The evidence was sent to a Department of Justice lab, Ridenour said, and it could take detectives as long as 60 days to receive the results." Ah yes, the alleged forensic evidence that Pin Kyo repeatedly said had no relevance to Laci's disappearance. But in the meantime, the public is assured that Scott Peterson's boat and truck were used in a crime against Laci -- after all, isn't that what "forensic evidence" means? The only evidence against Scott from either the truck or the boat is the hair in the pliers, and that was still sitting in an evidence drawer waiting to be discovered by Detective Brocchini, who, like the knight in shining armor, always comes to the rescue of an investigation in danger of failing to get its man. More importantly, the burglars are assured that all they have to do is let the MPD convict the man they already know is guilty of the crime the burglars committed. How can criminals be so lucky as to have a police department framing someone else for their crime?

"Missing: Investigators refuse to say if husband was asked to take lie test" (continued from Front page)

• "Polygraph would be a tool that we would incorporate in this case," Police Chief Roy Wasden said. "In many crimes, you want to evaluate statements by the use of polygraphs. It's a helpful investigative tool." But not allowed in any Court in California because they are so unreliable. But what can absolutely be counted on is the public interpreting this bit of information, in context as it is with requests for the witnesses to confirm Scott's story about going to the Berkeley Marina, as "Scott won't take a lie detector test, which means he's guilty" or "Scott took one and failed, which means he's guilty."
• "Last week, Ridenour said investigators would pursue a lie-detector test. During the past few days, however, he has refused to say whether detectives had asked Scott Peterson to take a polygraph."
• "While police said they hope to find Laci Peterson safe, they now believe her disappearance was the result of foul play." Her disappearance was the result of foul play; her death the result of a foul investigation.

"Local tragedy in national eye" by Judy Sly [Page B-1]

Judy Sly rightly criticizes the media circus Laci's disappearance has become. She didn't seem to notice that the MPD was playing the media to pre-convict Scott Peterson. She also didn't seem to notice that the Modesto Bee, her own newspaper, was the "enabler in chief" of this media fiasco and subsequent wrongful conviction. Perhaps she was just too close to the situation.

January 4, 2003

"Burglary suspects didn't take woman; 2 in county jail, neighbors' home broken into 2 days after incident, police say" by Ty Phillips (Front Page)

• "Based on interviews with the suspects, police said the burglary on Covena Avenue in the La Loma neighborhood took place between 4 and 7 a.m. Dec. 26. Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing about 6 p.m. Dec. 24." Interviews in which Todd first said he burglarized the Medina home on the morning of the 27th. Interviews in which Todd said he was visiting his kids at a home that no longer existed. See Todd's Lies. Interviews in which Todd said he knew no one was home because he noticed mail in the mailbox. See The Medina Mailbox.

"Missing: Cops say burglary was on Dec. 26" (Page A-14, continued from Front Page)

• "We're confident in our minds that we have resolved one crime," Ridenour said Friday, "and now we can get back to focusing on Laci's disappearance." You already solved the crime of Laci's disappearance, you nitwits. Take the blinders off and see the truth that was staring you in the face. Truly this is evidence of how blinding and hubristic tunnel vision is.
• "Detective George Stough said Steven Wayne Todd, 36, and Donald Glen Pearce, 44, were far more cooperative than suspects usually are with the police." And why shouldn't they be? They were smart enough to not look a gift horse in the mouth. They knew the game -- tell us what we want to hear and all will be well. They weren't about to rock the boat.
• "It was bad luck on their part," Stough said. [Steven Todd] said he was scared that he was going to be associated with Laci's disappearance." And it was extremely good luck that the MPD was already fixed to frame someone else for their crime.
• "they gave numerous statements and facts that checked out, convincing police that the two men were telling the truth." Of all the various persons involved in this case, in my opinion Stough carries the heaviest responsibility for Scott's wrongful conviction. To have accepted the obvious lies Todd spewed as truth is either gross incompetence or a deliberate cover-up.
• "Todd said he saw several TV news trucks in the area, so he picked a different entry into the home. Police said the burglars carried a large safe out the front door and onto the front lawn." Do you people read what you write? Todd chose a different entry, but carried the safe out the front door and onto the front lawn, with all the TV news trucks in the area? Come on, folks. Are you intelligent, thinking, reasoning reporters, or do you just type what you are told?
• "None of the reporters or crews in those trucks reported seeing or hearing anything suspicious, Stough said." DUH, because there was nothing to report. The burglary didn't happen the morning of the 26th. It happened on the morning of the 24th, when Diane Jackson saw 3 men, the van, and the safe being removed from the house. And why couldn't those TV reporters and crews figure out that there was something really screwy going on with this investigation?

"Officials search Marina for missing woman" (posted 2:34 p.m.)

• "Police dogs carrying cadaver dogs are scouring the Berkeley Marina this weekend, searching for Laci Peterson." <13/9>
• "Sgt. Ron Cloward said 14 officers and 16 members of the California Rescue Dog Association are conducting a search, along with eight water-searching dogs, six land dogs, and six boats. Cloward said 75 percent of all water certified dogs in the state are dedicated in the search for Peterson."
• "Meanwhile, investigators have cleared two burglary suspects, who were in Peterson's neighborhood around the time she disappeared." Correction, AT THE TIME she disappeared.

January 5, 2004

"Dogs and divers go to work in SF Bay; Peterson search extends from Berkeley to island" by Patrick Giblin (Front page, continued on page A-16)

• "Peterson told police that he launched his aluminum boat at the marina, then went northwest and fished around Brooks Island, said police Sgt. Ron Cloward, who is directing the search." <14/10/1>

"SEARCH: Request by State emergency services agency helps get use of dogs for effort" (A-16, Continued from Front Page)

• "Dogs searched on [Brooks] Island but did not finish Saturday, and will return this morning, Cloward said." Can anyone seriously doubt that Scott Peterson is the one and only suspect? The Bee graciously included a map that inadvertently at least shows the way to get to the Berkeley Marina, in case any interested parties didn't know. And the map outlined the fishing route.
• "They pulled a tarp out of the water and found no one in it. It was nothing significant. It was just a tarp."
• "We currently have 75 percent of the water dogs in the state concentrated on this search," Cloward said. The combined resources spent on these Bay searches is staggering.
• "[Cloward] attributed the bay search to pleasant weather, not to new leads in the case. He said he has worked on cases where dogs successfully tracked people a year after they disappeared, so time was not of the essence in searching the bay." If there is no rush, why not just wait till the body surfaced, as in the Evelyn Hernandez case? What justifies such an extravagant expenditure of resources, since they obviously are not looking for a live Laci in the Bay.

To recap this lengthy review of the initial coverage by the Modesto Bee:

1. 14 mentions of Scott going to the Bay, 10 specifically of the Berkeley Marina, and the last one identifying his exact fishing route and including a map on how to get there.
2. Reports on evidence that was taken from the Covena home and the warehouse, including computers, the 2 vehicles, and the boat.
3. Reports on "forensic evidence" collected from Scott's boat and truck.
4. Pictures of Scott's boat and truck with requests for the public to report any sightings of him on December 23-24.
5. Reports of searches at the Berkeley Marina including cadaver and water dogs.
6. Insinuations that Scott either refused to take a polygraph, or took one and failed.
7. Lies about the results of dog trailing, suggesting the dogs trailed Laci from the home to the warehouse to the Berkeley Marina.
8. Report the burglars were cleared because they committed the burglary on the morning of Dec 26 and brought the safe out the front door and across the front lawn, even though there were TV crews and reporters present on the street who saw nothing.

I said in the opening paragraph that the Modesto Bee was the chief enabler of this wrongful conviction. I believe so because there simply were so many red flags in what they were given by the MPD that should have raised a lot of suspicion about the integrity of this investigation. Since the Modesto Bee was the hometown media, I believe it was their responsibility to do more investigative reporting, rather than just typing out what they were told by the MPD.

As the days and weeks passed, more and more lies and half-truths were fed to the Modesto Bee by the MPD -- and none of its reporters seemed the least interested in checking the accuracy of any of those reports.

Too many are annoyed by the ethic demands on our Criminal Justice system

Someone posted a comment to the Weather on December 24 article calling my attention to this current story in the San Francisco Chronicle: Judge: Caramad Conley wrongly convicted of murder. The story is of a man wrongfully convicted through willful prosecutorial misconduct.

As usual, I clicked on comments to see what people think of this story. The very first comment I read represents mainstream America, I believe. Even though the comment, as of this time, has received only one thumbs up and seven thumbs down, I've read it in its various versions on far too many of these kinds of stories to think it's an anomaly.

For all those who get so liberally outraged over potential ethics violations, imagine a world where cops, prosectors, judges and juries do everything by the book. YOU WOULD NOT BE HAPPY. You would not remain holier than thou. Not after murderers, rapists, molesters, and repeat violators repeatedly get set free because there's so rarely enough air-tight evidence to convict them for their crimes.

The weather in Modesto on December 24, 2002

Much has been made about the weather in Modesto on December 24, 2002, to discredit some of the sightings of Laci and McKenzie. For example, these excerpts from a ModBee article on June 6, 2003:

Mike Chiavetta, a neighbor of Peterson's in the La Loma district of Modesto, said he told police that he clearly remembers seeing the golden retriever, McKenzie, at about 10:45 a.m. as Chiavetta played catch with his own dog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
He said he cannot be sure, but someone may have been walking the dog along a fence next to an orchard. "I remember looking over, and, in my mind, I see a woman with a big white smock and black leggings."
>>>>>>>>>>>
said he clearly remembers seeing dozens of people in the park that day. He said he ran into an acquaintance and they remarked on the large number of parkgoers who, they surmised, were off work the day before Christmas and enjoying the sunshine.

Others who say they saw Peterson and her dog that day also remembered clear weather. But data at the Western Regional Climate Center show fairly clear weather in Modesto on Dec. 22 and 23, with mist setting in at about 6 p.m. Dec. 23 and lasting at least through Christmas.

I thought it wise to check the weather for Modesto from December 22 through December 25, 2002, so you can judge for yourself whether the ModBee or the witnesses accurately reported the weather, but in my opinion, it definitely was not misty from 6 p.m. on December 23 through Christmas Day. The morning hours on the 24th start out clear, except for scattered clouds at 4:53 and 5:16, followed by more clear skies. Scattered clouds are again present at the hours of 8:53 and 9:53 and the haze is not first reported until 10:53. Chiavetta specifically mentioned the haze in his interview on Larry King Live the same day. And, of course we know that the haze didn't prevent Ron Grantski from enjoying the good ole outdoors by going fishing that afternoon, nor was it too cold for fishing. I guess Ron knows how to suck it up.

My source is Weather Underground (no association with the 1960s radical violent organization). From its "About Us" page, we learn the following: "Weather Underground has developed the world's largest network of personal weather stations (almost 10,000 stations in the US and over 3,000 across the rest of the world) that provides our site's users with the most localized weather conditions available."

Here are the charts of the hourly weather reports for Modesto for each of those days. You can verify the accuracy of the charts by going to Weather Underground, entering Modesto CA as the location, and then select the dates.

The circles on the trailer - the ah-hah moment that fizzled

During the search of the warehouse on December 27, 2003, Detective Dodge Hendee experienced an ah-hah moment. He saw concrete mix powder on the trailer in the shape of circles, a pitcher, and the anchor that Scott said he made at home fitting perfectly into the pitcher. From this, Hendee concluded that Scott made additional anchors that were used to weigh Laci down. In fact, he was so sure about it that he conducted 22 searches of the Bay for those anchors, calling in the most sophisticated side sonar equipment in the US and the most expert FBI dive team, in addition to using the resources of several other agencies in the area.

So what fizzled? Well, the anchor didn't fit perfectly into the pitcher after all, and a concrete expert said the anchor Scott had was not made in that pitcher. Hendee reluctantly almost admitted that he was fooled into thinking that there were actually circles in the concrete mix powder because he mistakenly thought the anchor had been made in the pitcher.

GERAGOS: At the time you thought Ah-hah, I've got some evidence, because the pitcher fits in there, right?
HENDEE: Yeah.
GERAGOS: All right. And that was part of the, it kind of led you to see those circles on the trailer, too, didn't it?
HARRIS: Objection.
GERAGOS: I mean, you thought,
JUDGE: Wait, wait, wait. One at a time. Sustained. Argumentative.
GERAGOS: Okay. Well, your idea was that this, the anchor, was made in this, the pitcher?
HENDEE: That's what we thought.
GERAGOS: And then from there you extrapolated that the pitcher was on the trailer, and therefore, if it was in four locations, there must have been four of these, right?
HENDEE: We felt that was a possibility.
GERAGOS: Okay. You thought it was more than a possibility; you searched the Bay 22 times looking for these, right?
HENDEE: Exactly.
GERAGOS: Okay. And it turns out at the end of the day the pitcher never made it, right?
HENDEE: Right.

He was more forthright about admitting he was mistaken about the anchor being a perfect fit for the pitcher.

GERAGOS: Okay. And as it was on the trailer, he was taking this item, the concrete, right?
HENDEE: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: The anchor, and he was holding it like this?
HENDEE: Yes.
GERAGOS: As it was inside, right?
HENDEE: Yes.
GERAGOS: And it was his and your opinion that it was a perfect fit?
HENDEE: Mistakenly so.
GERAGOS: Tell the jury why that was mistakenly so.
HENDEE: Because it was looked at by a concrete expert who determined that this mold was not made in this pitcher.

Here are 3 pictures of the trailer before the MPD marked the "circles" with evidence markers, followed by a series of pictures taken by John and Robyn Ungari at their local Home Depot. Seems like concrete mix bags tend to spread a lot of dust around, some even could be called "circles."

Conner Recovery Site Field Trip - October 6, 2010 PART 16

These are the last of the digital pictures from the Oct 6 field trip.

Click images to enlarge.












This collection of pictures indisputably proves Mr. Rick Distaso's statement in his Closing Argument is absolutely wrong.

"He came ashore. 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. In fact, when you go back and look at the pictures, you can see the line of debris where the heavier objects settled first and, you know, the lesser heavy objects, as the tide was receding."

You judge for yourself. Is Distaso just ignorant, or intentionally trying to deceive?