The Target Bag Timeline

April 14,2003
A Target bag was found tucked into the rocks north of Laci's body. This schematic drawn by Officer Phillips shows the location of the Target bag relative to the Hoffman Channel. The following aerial shows the location in relation to where Laci was found. Click to enlarge.



May 8-12, 2003
Criminalist Pin Kyo examined the duct tape collected with the Target Bag, comparing it to the duct tape retrieved from Laci's body. The Target Bag was not analyzed, except to take pictures of it and obtain its size.

August 3, 2004
Officers Frazier and Phillips, both with the East Bay Regional Park District Police Department, attended a routine pre-testimony briefing. In that meeting, Phillips disclosed that the Target Bag found near Laci's recovery site had the same smell of decomposition as Laci.

August 4, 2004
Bill Grogan, Investigator with the DAs office, completed a request form for DOJ forensic testing of Target bag with tape for human biological materials.

That same day, Pin Kyo was asked to stop her analysis of the Target bag until further notice.

August 5, 2004
Mark Geragos requested a delay based on this new information from Phillips:

GERAGOS: I will, your Honor. As the court is aware, there's been information, potentially exculpatory information, that's been provided within the last 48 hours. Based upon that information, there's scientific testing that needs to be done. And there's also consultation with my experts that needs to be done. And am not prepared at this point to go forward with any other fact witness, at least until the preliminary testing results come back, and I've asked the court to recess until Tuesday.

That same day, DDA Dave Harris instructed Pin Kyo to conduct a visual examination of the Target Bag.

August 9, 2004
Pin Kyo began a visual examination of the Target Bag.

August 17, 2004
Pin Kyo wrote a report on her visual examination of the Target Bag

September 13-14, 2004
Pin Kyo testified. In her testimony about the Target Bag, Kyo said she did not write anything in her first report about the bag having a decomposition smell, and she would have if she had noticed any, therefore there was no unusual smell at that time. In her second report, she specifically said there was no decomposition smell. However, she also testified that there were short fine hairs on the Target Bag that were never analyzed.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what I'm asking you is on the duct tape, when you examined it, you saw that there were hairs on there; is that correct? Short, fine hairs?
KYO: This is not on the duct tape.
GERAGOS: What is it on?
KYO: This is on the TARGET bag.
GERAGOS: On the TARGET bag itself there is short, fine hairs?
KYO: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: That's correct. And did you save those hairs?
KYO: That would be in that particular item with -- together with the TARGET bag.
GERGAOS: And that's what I'm asking. Did you save that as trace evidence?
KYO: No, I didn't.
GERAGOS: What did you do with that?
KYO: It's still in the item. Together with the item.

September 20, 2004
Office Ian Frazier called to testify.

GERAGOS: And at that time, Officer Phillips and yourself noticed that there was a smell or an odor coming from this bag; isn't that correct?
HARRIS: Objection, facts not in evidence.
JUDGE: Overruled.
GERAGOS: I'm going, I'm asking, There is a smell coming from this bag. There is an odor, you noticed that the odor appeared to be the same kind of odor of decomposition that was coming from the remains of Laci; isn't that correct?
FRAZER: It was much more an odor of something that had been in the water for a long time.
GERAGOS: Officer Phillips spontaneously stated that he believed it was the same odor of decomposition, didn't he?
HARRIS: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE: Sustained.
GERAGOS: Spontaneous statement.
JUDGE: I don't think so. Overruled.
GERAGOS: Well, did Officer Phillips state something in your presence?
HARRIS: Objection. Hearsay. He can ask if he stated something. Not what he said.
JUDGE: Did he say to something in your presence? Just yes or no.
FRAZER: Not that I recall.
GERAGOS: Do you remember having a conversation with me upstairs a couple of weeks ago with you and Officer Phillips?
FRAZER: Yes.
GERAGOS: And we did that in the DA office, correct?
FRAZER: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, apparently you were supposed to have been testifying here about a month ago; is that correct?
FRAZER: That’s correct yes.
GERAGOS: When you came here, you came here with Officer Phillips, is that right, to testify?
FRAZER: We came separately. But, yes.
GERAGOS: Two of you were subpoenaed to testify on a certain day about a month ago?
FRAZER: Yes, we were.
GERAGOS: When you got here, you related to the District Attorney that you, in fact, had smelled an odor from this bag; isn't that correct?
FRAZER: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Didn't Officer Phillips also make the same observation, sir?
HARRIS: Objection. Speculation.
GERAGOS: Through the District Attorney.
HARRIS: Speculation and hearsay.
JUDGE: Did you talk to the DA about that?
FRAZER: I believe he did, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Then I was able to question you the next day, correct?
FRAZER: Correct.
GERAGOS: Now, when I questioned you the next day, I specifically asked if you had told this information to anybody from Modesto PD; is that correct?
FRAZER: I recall you asking me that question, yes.
GERAGOS: Do you remember saying that, yes, that I believe that were two officer or two detectives from Modesto PD who had been given this information?
FRAZER: There were at least two detectives from Modesto who were present at the Coroner's Office. Whether they were in the area where the tarp was, or in the autopsy room, I cannot recall.
GERAGOS: Okay. Do you remember, or has anybody showed you any reports whatsoever from Modesto PD which would indicate that this observation about the smell was noted by anybody from Modesto PD?
FRAZER: No. The only ones I saw are the ones prepared by my agency.
GERAGOS: Now, Officer Phillips, who was with you when I questioned the two of you, had a distinct memory of making statements to officers, detectives from Modesto PD; isn't that correct?
HARRIS: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
JUDGE: No. Sustained. You are asking for his distinct memory, that he had a distinct memory. How would he know?
GERAGOS: I'm asking if Officer Phillips made a statement.
JUDGE: You can ask if he made any statements whether he had the distinct recollection of memory. You are asking for him to tell us what his state of mind was.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did Officer Phillips make those statements?
HARRIS: That's an objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE: Overruled.
HARRIS: He is asking for the content, Judge.
JUDGE: Did he make, no. Overruled. Go ahead.
FRAZER: He may have. Again, I don't recall whether he made the statements to Modesto officers when he made them to Coroner's personnel.
GERAGOS: Okay. And when this took place, that would have been on the day that the autopsy was done of Laci Peterson, correct?
FRAZER: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. So this would have been done shortly after her remains were found, right?
FRAZER: It was several hours.
GERAGOS: And, specifically, this bag was found within several hours of Laci Peterson's remains being found on the rip-rap, correct?
FRAZER: That is correct.
GERAGOS: And any statements that Officer Phillips made, and any statements that you would have made about this bag would have been within hours of Laci Peterson's remains being found, correct?
FRAZER: Correct.
GERAGOS: And that would have been in the presence of Coroner's personnel, correct?
FRAZER: Yes.
GERAGOS: In the presence of at least two Modesto detectives, correct?
FRAZER: As I said, it's possible.
GERAGOS: Was it Detective Owen and Detective Hendee?
FRAZER: Yes. They were present at the Coroner's Office.
GERAGOS: They were present for the autopsy, correct?
FRAZER: That’s correct.

Under re-cross examination:

GERAGOS: Were you present at the time that the body was recovered, when he brought the bag in?
FRAZER: I was present when the bag was brought in to the sally port of the garage area of the Coroner's Office.
GERAGOS: Did you hear Officer Phillips give a statement about the smell of the bag at that point?
FRAZER: I don't recall hearing him make that statement at that point.
GERAGOS: When you were upstairs and I was interviewing you, didn't you say that you did recall that at that point that he had made that observation? Isn't that what you told me when I asked you?
JUDGE: If you recall, Officer Frazer.
FRAZER: It's possible. I don't recall specifically.

Officer Phillips was not called to testify by the State.

October 19-20, 2004
Officer Timothy Phillips called to testify for the Defense.

GERAGOS: Just put TARGET bag. And this bag, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get in your way. This bag that was found here, and you marked, once again, this riprap, that's the broken concrete, right?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Now, when you find the bag, D 8 M 13 resembles how you found it?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And that silver substance appears to be duct tape?
PHILLIPS: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And then this is the riprap there, is that correct?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. Primarily broken pieces of concrete.
GERAGOS: Okay. Same with D 8 M 12, that's how you found it on that day?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And D 8 M 17, the picture of how you found it?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: D 8 M 16?
PHILLIPS: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And D 8 M 15, is that same thing? You've got a picture of the bottom of the bag?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And D 8 M 14, is that also the, another view of the bag?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you took the, you collected the bag at the scene, what did you do with it?
PHILLIPS: I placed it in the back of my Ford Expedition, and I was directed by Sergeant Iverson to take it directly to the Contra Costa County crime lab.
GERAGOS: Okay. And when you found the bag, did you believe that it was significant for a reason?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And what was that?
PHILLIPS: Well, due to the circumstances in which it was reported to me by a citizen, as I got in close proximity to the bag I noticed, I stopped to take a look and examine it further, and I did notice an odor about it.
GERAGOS: And was that, was there something about that odor that was distinctive?
PHILLIPS: To me the odor was similar to the odor of the remains that were recovered earlier.
>>>
GERAGOS: Okay. When you got it back over to the Coroner's Office, did you still, did you still smell that same smell that you smelled that was similar to that of the remains?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you comment on it at that point?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. I assume, you've worked for East Bay Regional for how long?
PHILLIPS: I've been with East Bay Regional Parks for two and a half years,and I've been in law enforcement for going on 19.
GERAGOS: 19 years?
PHILLIPS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And you've been in that area surrounding the Bay for approximately how long?
PHILLIPS: A good portion of the two and a half years, that's my primary beat that I worked.
GERAGOS: I assume the smell that you smelled was different than the just normal smell of things that would have been in the Bay?
PHILLIPS: It was distinctive enough that it's almost, I can almost say it's indescribable. It was distinctive enough, both the odor from the remains and the bag, or the tarp, to me were similar.
GERAGOS: Okay. I assume, so that I've got this situation down, when you first get called out you go to the area that I had already marked on the exhibit as to where the remains were, correct?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And I assume that you had noticed the same odor there, is that correct?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: And then when you went over to the area where this woman, approximately how long were you there before this woman came up and kind of tried, before she got impatient and left, told you there was something she thought was important?
PHILLIPS: She brought it to my attention or, somewhere around 8:00 o'clock, 8:15 in the evening.
GERAGOS: Okay. What time did you arrive there?
PHILLIPS: I got to the scene about 12, I believe it was around 12:45.
GERAGOS: About 12:45. And this was 500 and some-odd feet away, the bag was?
PHILLIPS: The bag itself would have been probably closer to 800 to a thousand feet north.
GERAGOS: 800 to a thousand feet north. So the distance obviously from where the bag was, or where the remains were there to the bag here, is that what we're talking about?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you notice this what you described as a, I guess a not susceptible or indescribable odor on any of the other items that you collected, any of the other fabric items?
PHILLIPS: No, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. The cadaver dog, you had a cadaver dog that was out there being worked on by who, or who was the handler?
PHILLIPS: Ms. Christine Crawford.
GERAGOS: And did she take the dog over to the bag?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. With Officer Breed.
GERAGOS: Okay. Who did you tell about or who did you comment on this smell that you thought was similar between the bag and the remains?
PHILLIPS: I believe I mentioned it to Sergeant Iverson. And upon my arrival at the Coroner's Office. Captain Dean from the Contra Costa County sheriff's office also had, prior to my mentioning it had made a comment that the odors seemed similar.
GERAGOS: Captain Dean is a person who works there in the Contra Costa Coroner's Office?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. She works for the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, when you came back and were, was actually at the Coroner's Office, did you ever encounter any Modesto Police Department personnel?
PHILLIPS: There were some members of the Modesto Police Department present, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Do you know who was present?
PHILLIPS: Primarily their investigators that were involved by name, I don't recall the actual names.
GERAGOS: Do you remember what they looked like?
PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: What did they look like?
PHILLIPS: One a detective, an older gentleman who had taken some photographs at the scene. Another detective who was a little bit smaller in stature, somewhat stocky.
GERAGOS: Did you mention, did you mention the fact that the bag and the remains seemed to have the same odor to the two of them?
PHILLIPS: I believe I did.

Evidence preserved by Google
Since we are on the subject of that area of the dog park, I thought it might be good to share an aerial from Google Earth's historical image collection. This aerial shows a vehicle in the dog park on the north side of the Hoffman Channel near the location of the Target Bag, which proves that even though there is no road access for vehicles, a vehicle can certainly get to that area. Click to enlarge.




Body found by birdwatcher on Richmond shore
KTVU's coverage of the finding of this body just last Christmas Eve included a video, which showed police cars and other emergency vehicles on the Bay Trail to recover this body. In the event the video link ceases to work, I captured a few instances which showed the vehicles. Click to enlarge.



I've labeled another Google Earth aerial to show vehicle access from 51st Street to the location of the car caught by Google. Click to enlarge.

More neglected evidence -- "whole bunches" of it

In his trial report on October 6, 2004, Richard Cole exposes more of the Prosecution's duplicity as he reviews one of the last witnesses called by the State. To give some context to the issue, a 402 hearing was held on September 23, 2004, because Geragos complained that misleading information was given through Pin Kyo's testimony. Buelna's testimony was allowed by the Judge because she would provide the date and location of the debris that was examined by Pin Kyo, and the jury could place whatever weight they wanted on the evidence.

The first witness was an East Bay Regional Park police officer apparently called to clear up misleading evidence given by another prosecution witness earlier in the trial.

That occurred last month when state Department of Justice lab expert Pin Kyo testified she compared plastic twine knotted around Conner Peterson's neck with other plastic debris found on the San Francisco Bay shoreline.

She concluded that the twine was similar to the other debris -- implying Conner had simply become entangled in flotsam commonly found in bay waters.

What prosecutors failed to tell the judge and jury was that the debris she used in the comparison was found more than two months later and a mile away, nearer to where Laci's body washed up on April 14, 2003.

Officer Kris Buelna testified yesterday that on June 21 a passerby had alerted her to the plastic trash alongside a canal on Point Isabel. She recovered it and sent it to the Modesto police.

Prosecutors did not explain, however, why they chose to compare that debris with the twine around Conner's neck.

Of course they don't "explain" anything -- they just use innuendo to allow the jury and the public to draw whatever conclusion they want, knowing that odds are good that the conclusion, whatever it is, will be adverse to Scott.

I checked Kyo's testimony, and yes, she was asked to compare the twine from around Conner's neck to the twine found in the rip rap at Hoffman Channel, which is very near where Laci was found. You can view the two twines at People's 253 and People's 254 and Kyo's testimony on SII. To get to the relevant part of Kyo's testimony quickly, do a search for "Rich 1" without the quotation marks.

People's 290 depicts the Hoffman channel bridge and the debris in the rocks. 290A has an X in about the center of the picture to indicate where the debris was located. Also see Defense 8E, which is the collection of debris in a bag.

I don't doubt the State wanted everyone to conclude that this proves the twine around Conner's neck was just flotsam, but in my opinion, that is not a reasonable conclusion.

First, this collection of "debris" was not strewn over the rocks; it was all found together in a crevice, and it took a bit of effort for Buelna to retrieve it.

HARRIS: These items, did you have to go down into this, the concrete area to get these items?

BUELNA: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: How were these items in the concrete, if you can describe that for us?

BUELNA: They were kind of in between and underneath the concrete.

HARRIS: When you say around and in between,

BUELNA: Yes.

HARRIS: Did you have to move any of the concrete?

BUELNA: Some of it, yes.

The collection included:

• a pair of purple gloves
• a piece of a green glove
• a "whole bunch" of long pieces of plastic that is 17" wide
• plastic twine similar to what was found around Conner's neck
• 1/4" plastic yellow ties
• 1/2" plastic green ties
• a dirty sock
• yellow caution tape that is used at crime scenes or construction sites
• a plastic tag with a loop of string around it

Kyo obviously didn't find any of the plastic twine tied in a tight double knot with a bow on top, or we surely would have seen it.

Kyo sent the plastic twine similar to what was found around Conner's neck to Yoshida to be tested, but no testing was done with the long, 17"-wide plastic. If you look at the evidence photos, there indeed is a "whole bunch" of it. Conner was 48 cm long, or 18.9 inches, according to Dr. Peterson's measurement.

From People's 290, I can't tell how far up in the rip rap the collection of debris was compared to the high water line. That would be important information to know in considering whether the debris washed up or was placed there, but it's hard for me to imagine that debris can wash up to be "between and under the concrete" such that pieces of concrete had to be moved in order to collect it all.

Here is an aerial from Google Earth that shows the location of the debris relative to the Laci and Conner Recovery sites and to the Target bag found the day was found. Click to enlarge.

Bizarre Moments . . .

In his September 30, 2004, article, Richard Cole calls attention to some very bizarre trial moments.

First, the incident wherein Fladager challenged one of their own crime photos.

The incident capped a day of shadowboxing over issues so obscure that experts and reporters following the case were left scratching their heads.

Prosecutor Birgit Fladager attacked Modesto Police Department photos used by the defense to throw doubt on a police demonstration.

In that demonstration, police put a pregnant Stanislaus County district attorney's office employee in the toolbox of Scott's pickup truck to show he could have hidden Laci's body in the tight space.

But defense attorney Mark Geragos showed jurors earlier photos police took when the truck was seized. They showed that the toolbox was too packed with boxes, shoes and other items to fit a body inside.

When Fladager resumed questioning lead Modesto police Detective Craig Grogan, she had him take a closer look at the crime scene photos used by the defense.

She triumphantly showed that the police photographer whose name appeared on the bottom information line of the photo actually could be seen in one frame -- proving she could not have taken the shot.

"Those are her own photos!" a bewildered Geragos said from the defense table.

It was not Fladager's best moment.

Second, Fladager makes a pointless point.

Fladager showed Grogan photos of Scott during his first police interview on Dec. 24, 2002, the day Laci disappeared. She made the detective note that Scott was wearing a blue shirt and brown pants with a wide leather belt.

She then showed photos of the same shirt and pants in a clothes hamper at the Petersons' home. The photos were taken during a search of the house two days later.

What significance that might have to the murders of Laci and Conner was not explained.

Third, forensic tests never completed.

Grogan acknowledged that police developed a theory that Scott had strangled or asphyxiated Laci because there was no evidence of blood or violence in the Petersons' home.

The detective said that police confiscated the Peterson's bed linen - and then apparently never checked it for forensic evidence such as urine, which is often found when a victim is strangled.

The State's "trump card" is a Joker, continued

In his article after Dr. Ralph Cheng's testimony concluded, Richard Cole continued to expose the contradictions in the State's theory. These are some of the quotes he picked up from Cheng's testimony that should have caused anyone to seriously wonder about this man's credentials as an expert.

• Cheng acknowledged that his theory "involved large uncertainties."
• Cheng admitted, "I don't know how bodies behave in water."
• Cheng admitted he could not "reproduce the trajectory of Laci's body."

And yet the State, through the efforts of Detective Hendee to find some evidence, any evidence, that Laci was actually in the Bay in a place that could be linked directly to Scott Peterson, spent thousands of dollars using the best dive team and the finest sonar equipment in the US all based on this joker's theory of the most likely place Conner washed from. Did Hendee find anything? No. I won't rehearse all the reasons why I've long known this so-called expert is really a Joker, as you can read them on Dr. Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram is Junk Science, Did Cheng use the wrong starting point?, Cheng for Dummies, and More on the Cheng controversy.

Cheng said he didn't know how bodies behave in water. Neither do I. But I observed some very large objects moving in the water on a recent field trip to the Conner Recovery Site. First, for some background. I usually enter the site from the West, parking in the public parking area adjacent to the Shimada Friendship Park, and then walk the Bay Trail to the beach. This time, on December 22, 2010, I took the back way. I started at the Bay Trail at the foot of 51st Street, joining the main Bay Trail just East of the bridge over Baxter Creek, aka Stege Creek, and then following the Bay Trail West to the beach. Click on the aerial to enlarge.

The following pictures were taken from 9:30 - 9:35 a.m. The water level during this time rose from 6.44 feet to 6.55 feet, according to preliminary water levels published by the NOAA Richmond 9414863 station. The Bay was experiencing a storm surge of about 8 3/4 inches from several days of rain: the predicted water levels were only 5.71-5.81 feet. The winds were very mild. Wunderground.com, using a weather station very near this site (KCARICHM4), reports winds ranging from 2.5 mph to a maximum gust of 4.0 mph, and from the NW/WNW. Obviously, these logs were getting no help from the wind.

In the first picture, you can see log #1 just approaching the bend in Baxter Creek, and follow its journey around the bend in #2. Click to enlarge.





In these next 4 pictures, you will see a 2nd log appear in the Creek. Apparently the log was mired in the mud and when the water rose sufficiently, it lifted the log enough to start it floating. Click to enlarge.






This next picture shows the 1st log as it approaches the Baxter bridge, and the following picture shows the 2nd log having rounded the bend.




The next two pictures show log #1 on the north side of the Baxter bridge.




According to the path tool in Google Earth, log #1 traveled .1 miles in 5 minutes powered only by the current in Baxter Creek coming from the rising water in Campus Bay, with absolutely no help from the wind. If my math is correct, that's 1.2 mph.

Cheng discounted the effect of the tidal current, saying it was too weak to matter and the ebb current (falling tide) would erase any movement made by the flood current (rising tide). However, a rising tide lasts hours. According to the chart below, the rising tide following the L lasts about 4 hours; and the rising tide following the LL lasts about 7 hours. It seems to me that these 2 logs would have traveled some distance during a 7 hour rising tide just powered by the tidal current, until they met some obstacle, such as a shoreline.

The State's "trump card" is a Joker

More common sense from Richard Cole, September 27, 2004, as he notes how the State disproves its own theory.

Scott Peterson's prosecutors are expected to play their trump card this week -- an expert who will trace the path of Laci's and Conner's bodies to where the defendant was fishing the day his wife disappeared.

But the prosecution theory -- that the bodies lay anchored underwater until a storm on April 12, 2003 -- appears to contradict their own expert witnesses and consultants.

-- Contra Costa coroner Dr. Brian Peterson -- no relation to Scott -- testified two weeks ago that he had discovered mineralization in Laci's clothes when her body washed ashore April 14.

The stone-like mineral deposits likely formed because the body spent a substantial amount of time exposed to air and sunlight, Dr. Peterson hypothesized.

That conflicts with the prosecution's belief that Laci's body stayed underwater in the spot where it was dropped until the storm dredged it from the San Francisco Bay floor and freed Conner.

And raised questions as to why no one spotted the floating body despite scores of search boats, dive teams,sonar surveys and helicopter flyovers in that area.

-- Both Dr. Peterson and bone expert Dr. Alison Galloway said Laci's head, arms and legs parted from the body as her corpse floated along the bottom of the bay. That is a common occurrence for submerged bodies, the experts said.

But if the body moved along the bay floor, it would not likely be in the spot where it was allegedly dropped more than three months earlier.

-- As the Daily News previously reported, lead Modesto police Detective Craig Grogan consulted San Francisco Medical Examiner Boyd Stephens two weeks before the bodies washed ashore.

Stephens also told Grogan it was not likely the body would have stayed in one place, in part because of currents in the bay. Bodies have moved as much as 5 miles along the bay floor, Stephens said.

The current around Brooks Island where Scott was fishing is a strong 4 knots, Grogan reported -- so strong that divers said it made underwater searches difficult.

-- Stanislaus County prosecutors and Modesto police have never reenacted the placement of Laci's body in the bay.

That may be because Stephens warned police that the 35 pounds of concrete anchors they theorized were used to sink Laci's 153-pound body was not enough to do the job.

The medical examiner said bodies have been found floating with 80 pounds of weight attached.

Stephens' caution was born out during a test performed by Phil and Dan DeVan, who have worked with several media organizations and consultants during the trial.

Phil DeVan showed the Daily News a videotape he made intended to demonstrate Scott could easily lift Laci's body, plus 50 pounds of weight, out of his boat without capsizing.

The DeVans filled two cloth bags with 153 pounds of material and wrapped them in a tarpaulin, as police theorized Scott had done. They then attached two 25-pound concrete weights.

Phil DeVan maneuvered the mock body and weights out of his 12-f00t boat with little difficulty.

But the videotape then showed the "body" bobbing on the top of the water. It never sank, DeVan said.

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.