Such a tragedy!

I don't often use this blog to comment on other cases, unless they have a direct bearing on Scott's case, but this news is so heartbreaking.  Just really heartbreaking.

Police: Missing mom's husband intentionally set fire to home, killing himself and two sons

Published February 06, 2012

| Associated Press

•   Print
•   Email
•   Share
•   Comments
• inShare4

• 
  AP
  Sept. 23, 2011: Josh Powell is surrounded by reporters as he leaves a Pierce County courtroom in Tacoma, Wash.

GRAHAM, Wa. –  Josh Powell's note was simple and short, a farewell to the world after two years of being scrutinized in the media, hammered by police and questioned by judges, prosecutors and social workers, living his life under a microscope since the day his wife vanished.

Just minutes before authorities say he set fire to his home, killing himself and his two young sons days after he was denied custody and ordered to undergo a psycho-sexual evaluation, Powell sent an email to his attorney.

"I'm sorry, goodbye," he wrote.

The Sunday blaze at Powell's home brought yet another twist in the very public scandal that began when Susan Powell vanished in 2009. The case had since spiraled into a salacious saga of finger-pointing and accusations of sex and lies -- and now the unthinkable loss of two young lives caught in the crossfire.

A social worker brought the two boys to Josh Powell's home Sunday for what was to be a supervised visit, and Powell let his sons inside -- but then blocked the social worker from entering, Graham Fire and Rescue Chief Gary Franz told The Associated Press.

The social worker called her supervisors to report that she could smell gas. Moments later, the home burst into flames, igniting an inferno that neighbors said rattled their houses.

Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Ed Troyer said it appeared some sort of accelerant was used to make the house burn faster.

He said emails Powell sent just prior to the explosion that authorities were made aware of seemed to confirm that Powell planned the deadly blast. Troyer didn't elaborate on the content of the emails.

Jeffrey Bassett, who represented Powell in the custody case, said he received an ominous email from his client just minutes before the blast.

"I'm sorry, goodbye," it read.

Susan Powell, a pretty 28-year-old mother of two, was reported missing Dec. 7, 2009, after she failed to show up for her stockbroker job in Utah.

Authorities in the couple's hometown of West Valley City, about 10 miles outside Salt Lake City, quickly turned their attention to Josh Powell. He's been the only "person of interest" in the case, but had repeatedly denied any involvement in her disappearance.

"I would never even hurt her," a tearful, red-eyed Josh Powell told CBS' Early Show in August. "People who know me know that I could never hurt Susan."

About a month later, police spent 12 days in the remote central Utah desert looking for clues, and Josh Powell and his father, Steven, quickly disappeared from the limelight. The search area around Topaz Mountain, a popular spot for rock and gem hunters, was about 30 miles south of where Josh told police he went camping with his two children in the hours before his wife's disappearance -- his steadfast alibi.

On Sunday, the lawyer for Susan Powell's parents, Chuck and Judy Cox, told the AP the children had started talking to their grandparents about things they remembered from the night their mother vanished.

"They were beginning to verbalize more," said attorney Steve Downing, whose clients had custody of the children. "The oldest boy talked about that they went camping and that Mommy was in the trunk. Mom and Dad got out of the car and Mom disappeared."

Police turned up no clues in their desert search, but a day before ending it, Steven Powell, 61, was arrested at his Washington state home and accused of secretly videotaping his daughter-in-law, other women, and young girls taking baths and sitting on the toilet in neighborhood homes.

The elder Powell is now jailed and facing child porn and voyeurism charges. He claimed in previous television interviews that he and Susan Powell were falling in love and even implied a sexual relationship had occurred.

"Susan was very sexual with me," Steven Powell said in one interview at the time. "We interacted in a lot of sexual ways because Susan enjoys doing that."

Susan's father denied the allegations and said Steven Powell had been initiating unwanted sexual advances, and that his daughter had no interest in her father-in-law.

The children, 5-year-old Braden and 7-year-old Charles, were ordered by a judge to then go live with Susan's parents as the parallel cases were investigated.

The custody matter got so heated that at one point a court commissioner in Washington state ordered Chuck Cox and Josh Powell to keep 500 feet apart.

Custody hearings continued, with the latest on Wednesday, during which Josh Powell pleaded with a judge to return his children to him.

"For over four months already, my interactions with my sons and many other aspects of my character have been investigated and documented by" social services, he wrote in an affidavit to the court. "I have proven myself as a fit and loving father who provides a stable home even in the face of great adversity. ... It is time for my sons to come home."

But the judge ruled against him, ordering the children to remain with Susan Powell's parents, at least until Josh Powell underwent a psycho-sexual evaluation in light of the explicit material found on computers inside Steven Powell's home that led to his arrest.

Sherry Hill, a spokeswoman for the Washington state Department of Social and Health Services, said the social worker who was with the children Sunday was not a Child Protective Services employee but a contract worker with a private agency that supervises visits for the state.

"The visit supervisor for this particular agency had taken the children to the home. When she does that, she sits through the visit and might take notes on her observations," Hill said. "She pulled up in the car, and the kids ran out ahead of her. He closed the door and locked it. She wasn't able to get in, and that's when she smelled gas."

Downing called it "the most horrifying thing you can imagine happening ...The Coxes are absolutely devastated. They were always very fearful of him doing something like this, and he did it."

Bassett said he represented Powell free of charge because "every parent deserves the right to an attorney." Powell called or emailed him at least once a day, and often more than that, and in their conversations "he never once admitted doing anything regarding Susan. In fact, he denied it."

Sgt. Mike Powell of the West Valley City Police Department in Utah said it was too soon to say how Josh Powell's death may impact their probe.

"Quite frankly, this has obviously quickly unfolded up in Washington and we're obviously just working through the details ourselves here," said Powell, who is not related to the family.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/05/blast-kills-husband-missing-utah-woman-2-boys-734852263/?test=latestnews%3Ftest%3Dlatestnews#ixzz1lbyWM9H1

Finally, at last, Record certified for accuracy

01/30/2012

Record certified for accuracy

Now let's see how long it takes the CA Supreme Court to put its stamp of approval on the record.

Extension of time granted, again

Scott's direct appeal attorney filed the 7th request for extension of time on January 26, and it was granted yesterday.  

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)

Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD):                      2012-01-30

Event Description:                           Extension of time granted

Notes: 

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including April 2, 2012. 

December 30: Amber's debut

According to Detective Brocchini, the first he heard of Amber was standing behind the person taking the tips on the MPD tip hotline on the morning of December 30, 2002.  His story is just not believable.  Neither is it believable that Amber didn't know "her Scott Peterson" was the husband of the missing pregnant woman from Modesto.

I lived in Sunnyvale at the time, which is 90 miles from Modesto.  I watched very little TV, rarely caught a local newscast, and didn't subscribe to a paper.  Yet I knew by the time I sat down with my family for a noon-day Christmas Dinner that a pregnant woman from Modesto was missing.  When I returned to work the next day, it was widely talked about.  Amber wasn't a hermit -- she had a job, she had friends, she had a very good detective friend with the Fresno PD (alerts were sent to every police department in CA) who had a friend who worked for the CA DOJ (the DOJ was heavily involved in the investigation from day one). Her sister lived in Modesto, just a couple blocks from Sharon Rocha.  Amber had sent a photo of the couple in her Christmas cards.  And it isn't true that Scott's photo wasn't in the media -- it was.  And his name was mentioned in every story.  Also, Tradecorp was mentioned as his employer from at least the 27th.  Why didn't Shawn Sibley pick up on that?

So, I'm not playing this game anymore that Amber didn't know "her Scott" was the husband of the missing pregnant woman from Modesto.  She did; she probably knew he was married and his wife was pregnant before Laci even disappeared.  All the evidence at this time points to the Medina burglars as Laci's abductors, so that is not an accusation that she had anything to do with Laci's disappearance.

So what was up the morning she called Brocchini? And why did she first call Brocchini?  My theory is that  Amber knew Scott was married and knew his wife was pregnant.  When she heard about Laci's disappearance on Dec 25th, she immediately called Richard Bird, a detective with the Fresno PD, and asked his advice.  She was probably scared to death she was going to be thrown under the bus by Scott, since we know she was having serious trust issues already.

We can tell that Bird was a very good friend because one doesn't spend 30-60 minutes at a time on the phone on several occasions with someone that's not a good friend.  And these are only the calls we know about that were placed to Bird from her phone; we don't know how many incoming calls she received from him or their frequency or duration.  You can see her phone conversations with Bird here.  On Christmas morning, at 8:36 a.m., she called Bird and talked for 24 minutes. She probably had just heard about Laci's disappearance.  Bird probably did what he could to protect his friend -- not in an illegal way, but to be sure that she did not become the prime suspect.

What advice did he give her?  I conclude from her behavior that it was to be sure to keep in touch with Scott, while not acknowledging that she knew anything, so she could keep tabs on him.  She surely knew that if Scott told the police about the affair, they would investigate her.  That explains her effort to make contact with Scott on the 25th, even having Shawn Sibley's uncle call Scott to chew him out for not calling Amber as he had promised.

Then on the 26th, she made an astounding number of calls to Scott - 14 in all.  She seemed to be in a panic to get hold of him.  She first called Richard Bird at 1:38 p.m, and talked to him 5 minutes.  Again, we only know what calls she placed to him; we don't know what calls he placed to her.  Then she called Scott at 3:04 p.m.; he didn't call back.  Then she called at 5:32, 5:37, 5:48, and 5:50.  This would be about the time the television stations were showing the house on Covena being cordoned off in preparation for the search warrant.  She probably also saw television coverage of Scott leaving the house.  Scott did call her at 6:55, but they didn't make contact.  Then she called at 6:57, 7:18, 7:19, 7:34, 7:34, 7:36, 8:16, 8:20, and 8:21.  No, the two 7:34's is not a mistake.  Scott called her at 9:33 and they talked for 17 minutes (her calls to and from Scott were compiled in a chart by Jacobson, click here to view; my analysis of the Amber/Scott phone calls is here.)

My theory is that while Amber was trying frantically to keep in touch with Scott so she would know what he was up to, Bird was working the other end, trying to get an arrangement with the MPD wherein Amber could come forward as a cooperative witness against Scott and essentially have immunity from prosecution for anything they should happen to find out about her in their investigation.  Amber had an 18 minute conversation with Bird at 8:09 p.m. on the 28th, and by that time it was absolutely clear that the MPD was singling out Scott as their only suspect. Better to jump on the bandwagon and help catch Scott than risk becoming a suspect.  After all, he'd lied to her and her only alibi for the morning of the 24th was her toddler daughter.

In the early morning hours of the 30th she made a call to Bird that lasted 4 minutes.  She said Bird had called her earlier on the night of the 29th while she was still at the party.  This appears to be his instructions to her on how to contact the MPD so as to take full advantage of the arrangement he had worked out. But somehow the wires got crossed.  She called Brocchini, when she was supposed to call the tip line, as I suspect Brocchini wanted it to appear that she was just calling in the tip line on her own, so as not to give away any hint of the agreement they had with her.  Then she goofed again and mentioned that she had called Brocchini's number earlier.  But that was all swept under the carpet and no one noticed anything strange about it.  No one even noticed at the trial when Amber's tip was not produced as evidence -- no, it wasn't.  So we don't have the alleged tip that Brocchini said the tipline received from Amber.  Heck, for all we know, she didn't even call the tipline, she just called him and he made the rest of the story up.  His stories have about as much credibility as Richard Nixon's "I'm not a crook," or Bill Clinton's "I never had sexual relations with that woman."

Richard Bird was at Amber's house on December 30th, but left before Brocchini and Buehler arrived.  Or at least, that's the story they gave us.

Now that Amber was known to the MPD, she could help build their case against Scott.  Whatever tapes she had made on her own no longer existed, with the exception of the voice message she had saved.  They would want her to get certain things from Scott: a confession, of course, and lacking that, to get him entangled in as many contradictory statements as possible.  I assume they would also want her to get him to badmouth Laci, run her down, blame everything on her, so they could run to Laci's family and share it with them.  Of course, Scott didn't do that.

That's right, through all the conversations you heard between Amber and Scott, did you ever once hear him say anything negative about Laci?  When Amber pressed, he would say he wasn't going to talk about that.  He never shared anything personal between him and Laci.  You might not think that's much to brag about, but adulterers do often make it out to be the wife's fault.  In fact, Scott chose the only explanation for not being married that would eliminate any suggestion that his adultery was in any way Laci's fault -- he said he lost his wife. Who can say something bad about a wife that's been "lost."

And if we go back to the record, neither Shawn nor Amber could repeat anything bad that Scott ever said about Laci.  No one did; no one could because it just didn't happen.  The truth is, and all the Scott-haters just can't admit this, no matter what his personal failings with adultery, Scott loved Laci and had no intention of leaving her for Amber or for anyone else.  Even Distaso had to admit that Scott's feelings for Amber were not anywhere significant enough to warrant leaving Laci.  Too bad that he couldn't admit he was wrong about everything else, too.

The chameleon slipper

There is no doubt that one of Scott's bedroom slippers was collected on the night of December 26, 2002, to assist in the dog trailing.  And Christopher Boyer not only knew it was Scott's slipper, he intentionally asked for an article of Scott's to be collected.


P. HARRIS: Well, what, in actuality when you say she collected another item, the brown slipper, isn't it true that you asked, you specifically asked for one article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson?
BOYER: That could be true, sir. I don't recall that specifically.
P. HARRIS: I'm going to direct you to the report to refresh your recollection. Take a look at the first paragraph. 
BOYER: Yes, sir.
P. HARRIS: Does that refresh your recollection?
BOYER: Yes, sir, it does.
P. HARRIS: So you specifically asked for an article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir.


What is in doubt, however, is the color of Scott's bedroom slipper.  As I scanned the various testimonies on the subject, I was surprised to find some difference in the descriptions.  


First, the Pre-Trial hearings on the dog evidence.  Cindee Valentin, a dog handler, testified first, and the slipper is described as brown 19 times in her testimony.  Notice that Dave Harris is doing the direct examination and he is the one to first name the color of the slipper.  


D. HARRIS: Did you see her with the scent item from the defendant that you had collected on the 26th?
VALENTIN: Yes, I did.
D. HARRIS: And did you,
VALENTIN: I saw her scent her dog with that article.
D. HARRIS: That was the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
>>>
P. HARRIS: He identified the articles, correct?
VALENTIN: After I collected them and walked out, he stayed in his chair at the table and asked about, well, he stated that the brown slipper was his, twice. And I asked if the other things were Laci's, and he said yes.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Can you describe the tone to me that was so objectionable about the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: I don't think I could imitate Mr. Peterson's tone.
P. HARRIS: Okay. Just seemed like he didn't want to give it up?
VALENTIN: He seemed concerned that I had it, not that he didn't want to give it up.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Concern that he had about the brown slippers, Ms. Valentin, is that you had the right item, wasn't it?
D. HARRIS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE: The right item.
P. HARRIS: The right item to search, the best possible item to search for his wife, correct?
>>>
VALENTIN: He verified that that was him, and I did not use it.
P. HARRIS: Okay. You picked up Mr. Peterson's brown slipper, correct?
VALENTIN: Two slippers.
P. HARRIS: Is that the first article you picked up?
VALENTIN: No. I believe the first article I picked up was the pink slipper. Then the brown slipper. Then the glasses, then the hairbrush.
P. HARRIS: Okay.
VALENTIN: And I was collecting many articles because sometimes you run more than one dog in the search.
P. HARRIS: Uh‑huh. Did you, you wore rubber gloves while you were doing this?
VALENTIN: Yes.P. HARRIS: Okay. And when you first picked up the pink slipper, you were wearing the rubber gloves?
VALENTIN: Uh‑huh.
P. HARRIS: Did you change the rubber gloves before you picked up the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: I don't recall.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So if you were picking up a brown slipper belonging to Scott Peterson, you would definitely want to change rubber gloves beforehand?
VALENTIN: Yes. If I knew that I was collecting something from Scott Peterson, I would have wanted to change gloves, yes.
P. HARRIS: And you didn't do that, did you? Because you didn't know it was an article belonging to Scott Peterson, did you?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: So you didn't change gloves, did you?
VALENTIN: No.
>>>
P. HARRIS: When you left the premises, did you leave with the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: Yes. After Scott identified that the brown slipper was his, they were going to continue on with some other things, and I skirted out because I wanted to, you know, get things organized with the dog.
P. HARRIS: They were going to continue on with some other things. "They" being?
VALENTIN: I guess continuing to, to finish up with, with Scott.
P. HARRIS: But there would be no reason for you to take the brown slipper because you weren't looking to go after anything with Scott Peterson?
VALENTIN: No, I wasn't looking to go after,
P. HARRIS: So the obviously logical thing to do would be to leave the brown slipper at the house?
VALENTIN: Certainly. I certainly could have.
P. HARRIS: But you didn't do that?
VALENTIN: No, I didn't.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Okay. The two articles, scent articles you had, excuse me, there were four, correct?
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: Okay. That included the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: Scott Peterson's?
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: So despite the fact you were still not tracing Scott Peterson, you had the brown slipper?
VALENTIN: That's correct.
P. HARRIS: And you took that and put it into a Ziploc bag?
VALENTIN: No, I did not take the slipper and repackage it. I believe I was repackaging a pink slipper and glasses. I wasn't given an assignment to drop trail for Scott Peterson.
JUDGE: Let me ask you a question. When Mr. Peterson told you that the brown slipper was his slipper, did you take it anyway, or did you just leave it there at the residence?
VALENTIN: I had it in my hand. I was on my way out the door. I took it anyway.
JUDGE: You took it anyway?
VALENTIN: Right.
<<<
P. HARRIS: Following up on that, you actually do know the brown slipper was used?
VALENTIN: That day, yes.
P. HARRIS: That day.
VALENTIN: Yes.
P. HARRIS: So you were aware when you left the house that day with the brown slipper, well, let me rephrase that. At what point did you give the brown slipper to Detective Brocchini?
VALENTIN: At the end of the first evening, the 26th, when we finished all three trails, I handed him all, everything that I had.
P. HARRIS: Okay. And you told him that, excuse me, strike that. When you came back on January the 4th, the brown slipper was still in the package there?
VALENTIN: Yes.

Eloise Anderson, another dog handler, was second to testify in the Pre-Trial hearings.  In her testimony, the color brown is mentioned only once - she generally referred to it as a slipper.


Shephard Kopp: Do you remember the brown slipper that was Scott Peterson's that you were using? Do you remember what that was made out of?
Eloise Anderson: I believe it was made out of on the outside almost a, a wool type of textured material, as I recall. And then maybe like a phony sheep skin on the inside? But I'm not positive about that.


Chris Boyer, Captain of the Search and Rescue team to which Valentin and Anderson belonged, testified last.  Brown slipper is mentioned 15 times in his testimony.  After reading Valentin's testimony and Boyer's, it's quite apparent that one of Boyer's primary assignments was damage control.  


BOYER: She actually collected four items. There was also another slipper that was collected. They were placed in plastic individual plastic bags. I believe that she labeled the bags, and then we walked out to the living room.
P. HARRIS: Well, what, in actuality when you say she collected another item, the brown slipper, isn't it true that you asked, you specifically asked for one article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson?
BOYER: That could be true, sir. I don't recall that specifically.
>>>
P. HARRIS: The brown slipper was collected second?
BOYER: No, sir. I believe it was collected last.
>>>
P. HARRIS: Then it's your testimony that after you collected those three items, you collected the brown slipper fourth?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
>>>
P. HARRIS: And at that point she had already handled the brown slipper, correct?
BOYER: That's not my recollection. That was the last thing we collected.
P. HARRIS: If she testifies, in fact, she had handled the brown slipper first before, would that refresh your recollection?
BOYER: Then one of us is incorrect, sir. My recollection is the brown slippers was last.
P. HARRIS: You did, in fact, see her handle the brown slipper, didn't you.
BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe I did.
P. HARRIS: From your recollection, Miss Valentin didn't search through the purse, didn't pull the sunglasses out of the purse and didn't touch the brown slipper; is that your recollection?
BOYER: She didn't personally search purse. She did not pull the sunglasses case out of the purse. I'm sorry, what was the third part of the question?
P. HARRIS: She never touched the brown slipper?
BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe she ever touched the slipper.
>>>
P. HARRIS: He didn't ask you to take the brown slipper, for example, that was Scott Peterson's, scent it, and see if the dog would go to the warehouse?
BOYER: No, sir.
>>>
P. HARRIS: I'm referring to the fact that the hairbrush, the brown slipper, and the,
BOYER: Pink slipper.
P. HARRIS: Pink slipper were in your possession when you left that house that day, correct?
BOYER: No, sir.
P. HARRIS: Whose possession were they?
BOYER: We gave them to the, I believe it was Detective Brocchini.
P. HARRIS: You gave the items to Detective Brocchini, including brown slipper, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir. All, everything except for the glasses case that Miss Valentin used.
P. HARRIS: Miss Valentin purposely kept away from the brown slipper because of the contamination problem, correct? They would not have wanted to have the brown slipper, because that would have possibly contaminated with the items from Laci Peterson, correct?
BOYER: I don't know what you are referring to that she kept away from it.
P. HARRIS: She did not have possession over, excuse me. She did not have possession, specifically, of the brown slipper, because that scented to Scott Peterson, correct?
BOYER: She didn't have possession of,
P. HARRIS: She didn't walk out of the house with it, did she?
BOYER: I don't believe she walked out with that in her hands, no.
P. HARRIS: Detective Brocchini walked out, didn't he, with it?
BOYER: I believe we gave it to him while he was inside the house, yes, sir.

Now let's revisit the trial testimony.  Valentin didn't testify at the trial because her dog trailings were ruled inadmissible by Judge Delucchi, and for good cause.  Anderson testified, but her dog trailing on January 4, 2003, using the brown slipper was likewise ruled inadmissible, so the subject of the brown slipper never came up.  Boyer also testified, but now the slipper is "green and brown."  


D. HARRIS: What were the items that were collected.
BOYER: We collected a hairbrush, we collected a pink slipper, we collected a sunglasses case with a pair of sunglasses on the inside, and we collected a green and brown slipper.
>>>
P. HARRIS: And how many scent articles were collected?
BOYER: I covered that with Mr. Harris. It was a hairbrush, that would be one of the articles, the sunglasses and case, which would be a second article, a pink slipper, a third article, and a green and brown slipper, a fourth article.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So hairbrush was last, the glasses case, so the two slippers you don't know the order, and the pink slipper, brown slipper?
BOYER: No, sir, they might be in Ms. Valentin's report but I don't recall.
>>>
P. HARRIS: It says I collected a brown slipper off of the front floor in front of the dresser, a sunglass case, I collected a sunglass case containing glasses from inside a Louis Vuitton purse hanging in the closet?
BOYER: That doesn't tell me she reached inside it, sir. It just says she reached inside the purse is the way I interpret that.
>>>
P. HARRIS: So you came to learn at some point that the green and brown slipper was in fact Scott Peterson's?
BOYER: Yes, sir.
P. HARRIS: And you came to learn that in fact this was the item that, the green and brown slipper was an item that in fact you did want to take from the house, correct?
BOYER: You'd have to characterize that question differently.
P. HARRIS: You choose to take the item even after you found it was Scott Peterson's, correct?
BOYER: Yes, sir.

Perhaps Boyer is a person who pays more attention to detail than Valentin, and he noticed there was some green on the brown slipper, so he called it a "green and brown" slipper.

Detective Brocchini also testified about the scent items collected on the night of December 26th.  Here's how he describes Scott's slipper.


DISTASO: And then after Deputy Boyer, you know, collected those items, or whatever, were they given to you?
BROCCHINI: Later.
DISTASO: I mean at some point later in the evening?
BROCCHINI: Yes. Yes.
DISTASO: And what time was that?
BROCCHINI: It was about 9:30 at night.
DISTASO: And what condition did they come to you in?
BROCCHINI: They were in separate Ziplocked like one-gallon plastic bags.
DISTASO: Like one-gallon Ziploc storage bags?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
DISTASO: And was the Ziploc bag closed?
BROCCHINI: Yes, it was.
DISTASO: And what were those items? What physically were they?
BROCCHINI: There was a pink slipper that belonged to Laci, a gray slipper that belonged to Scott, a hairbrush that belonged to Laci, and Laci's sunglasses and a hard sunglass case.
>>>
DISTASO: Yes, your Honor. 75.
JUDGE: What is it?
DISTASO: It is --
JUDGE: Bag and contents. What is it?
DISTASO: It's a gray slipper.
JUDGE: Gray slipper. Okay.
>>>
DISTASO: Detective, let me show you 75. And just say -- we'll do them one at a time. Do you recognize that bag and item?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I do.
DISTASO: And what is that? What's inside there?
BROCCHINI: This is a gray slipper. Inside a Ziploc bag that is zipped.
>>>
DISTASO: And did you give those items to Detective Schmierer who then used them in a further dog tracking event?
BROCCHINI: Not all of them.
DISTASO: Okay. Which ones did you give to Detective Schmierer?
BROCCHINI: Boyer asked me to send the pink slipper, the gray slipper and the sunglasses up with Detective Schmierer and Stough.
DISTASO: And did you give those items to those other detectives?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I did.

Just to be sure Brocchini didn't misspeak and say gray when he really meant to say brown, I viewed People's 75, and sure enough, the description on the envelope is "1 GAP grey slipper," and it's Brocchini that booked the slipper as evidence. 

Whether you spell it "gray" or "grey," it's not that easily confused with brown, as shown by these photos I found on the Internet:

So who are we to believe?

Valentin says the slipper is brown; Boyer says it is green and brown; Brocchini says it is gray.

Valentin says she collected the brown slipper second; Boyer says she collected it last.

Valentin says she did not change gloves before or after collecting the brown slipper; Boyer says she did.

Valentin says she walked out of the house with the slipper in hand; Boyer says he gave it to Brocchini while they were at the house; Brocchini says Boyer gave it to him later that night after the dog trailing was completed.

Is this an anomaly, or a pattern?  

More to come on the dog evidence, but in our next article, we turn our attention to Amber Frey, as her debut was the next big event in the investigation.  

----------------------------------------------

I mentioned in my last report that we didn't know the names of the two detectives who went to the Berkeley Marina on the 28th to do the dog trailing and water dog searches along the route from Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island.  Obviously I was wrong, as Brocchini identified them as Schmierer and Stough, neither of whom testified at anytime -- not at the Prelim, nor the Pre-Trials, nor the Trial.  

Activity on December 28th the MPD didn't want anyone to know about

I stated in my previous article that Brocchini had all the evidence he needed to establish the Berkeley Marina as a crime scene -- the point at which Scott entered the Bay waters to dispose of Laci.  It didn't matter how "inconclusive" the evidence was -- with one trailing dog not even picking up Laci's scent, and the other trailing dog being nudged by a biased handler and most likely scented with a contaminated article -- it was enough for Brocchini.

The absurdity of Brocchini's conclusion is even more obvious when we discover the other search and rescue dog activity at the Bay on December 28.  This was kept a secret, and even now we know only bits and pieces.  The big secret is that water cadaver dogs were also brought to the Bay. 3 boats, 2 having a water cadaver dog on board, headed off from the Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island.  Yes, the exact same route Scott traveled on his fishing trip, and which the State foisted on the Court, the jurors, and the American public as the exact place where Scott dumped Laci.  The cadaver dogs didn't alert at the Berkeley Marina nor at any place along that route.  Think of that.  Cadaver dogs are able to pick up human decomposition scent, and water cadaver dogs are able to pick up that scent in water.

To be sure everyone gets the point, I'm going to repeat it:  3 boats, 2 with a water cadaver dog on board, headed off from the Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island, the exact same route Scott traveled on his fishing trip, and which the State foisted on the Court, the jurors, and the American public as the exact place where Scott dumped Laci, and not a single one of those 2 water cadaver dogs alerted at the Berkeley Marina, or at any point along the route from the Marina to Brooks Island.

Pat Harris tried to bring this to the attention of the jurors during the testimony of Chris Boyer, but he was not allowed to get into that area of Boyer's activities on December 28, 2002 at the SF Bay because it was "beyond the scope" of the direct examination.  That's how the State prevents the Defense from getting critical information out of a witness -- it simply avoids those subjects in the direct examination and then the  Defense has to call the witness back.  Judge Delucchi allowed a lot of wiggle room in this area because he did not want to have a long trial, so he allowed questioning beyond the scope so the Defense would not have to call the same witness back, but in this instance, he blocked it.

This is all Harris was able to get out of Chris Boyer regarding the water cadaver dogs used on the 28th:

P. HARRIS: What's the first thing you did when you arrived?

BOYER: Went looking for the dive team and the marine patrol were launching the boats, so I went over to speak to them, made sure we had enough boats to support the water efforts and then I went looking to water dog handlers to make sure they were comfortable with the weather conditions and working on the bay with their dogs.

P. HARRIS: Well, you had kind of a dual mission that day, you were handling the boats, water dogs and the trailing dogs, correct?

BOYER: I defaulted into multiple missions that day, yes, sir.

P. HARRIS: When you say defaulted, how did you default in that position?

BOYER: There were two Modesto detectives that were brought onto the boats, and so there wasn't another detective to handle the trailing dog issues so I dealt with that myself.

P. HARRIS: So you weren't originally, it wasn't your original plan to go out there and do, you were originally out there to do the water dogs?

BOYER: Yes, sir.

P. HARRIS: Is that fair?

BOYER: (Nods)

P. HARRIS: When did you first, when do you recall first seeing Mr. Seitz?

BOYER: When we began briefing the water dogs on what their mission would be.

P. HARRIS: So Mr. Seitz came up at that point, how did you first get to see him?

BOYER: He came up at that point his partner is also a dog handler and he had come with her. And she was one of the water dog handlers so he was standing there at the water dog briefing.

P. HARRIS: At this point had he either scented, had he scented the dog at that point on an item?

BOYER: No, not at point.

P. HARRIS: Was he with his dog at that point?

BOYER: No, normally dog handlers, well, I don't recall him having his dog on lead in his hand at that point. Normally dog handlers leave their dogs in their vehicles until they're ready to go on the mission. They discussed it and briefed it. None of the water dog handlers had their dogs with them at that point so I don't believe he had him with him either.

Amazing how much incomplete information can be given in a trial which can send a man to death row.  2 detectives, no names; water dog handlers, no names; water dog mission, no details.

Mark Geragos got some corroborating information from Seitz during the Defense Case in Chief:

SEITZ: I have been a mission ready dog handler since 2001. Began training a dog in 1999. Prior to that with CARDA, I was a Tech
Support Person starting in 1996. And I have been with the Alameda County Sheriff's Office in a volunteer position since September of 1976. 28 years.
GERAGOS: Okay. When you were called out, who called you out to the Berkeley Marina?
SEITZ: I responded as CARDA as a mutual aid request for Berkeley Marina to the assist the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office. I responded with two other dog handlers that were dispatched there to do boat searching. I was there in support of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
GERAGOS: Okay. The, specifically the, I guess when you got there, you talked to somebody, is that correct?
SEITZ: I met with, there was a briefing in the morning with the other two dog handlers that were present there for the water searching, which I was there with. We met with the two officers from Modesto Police Department and Chris Boyer, who was there from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office.
GERAGOS: When you met with them, were you told various things, or various scenarios?
SEITZ: There were some. The issue was at first focused on boat searching for two handlers that went out. And I just attended the briefing. There was some discussion about some probable scenarios, and they were going to dispatch the two water search dogs out on boats that morning to try to search some of the area around the marina.
>>>>>>>>>
HARRIS: Okay. So you finished working. Did you leave?
SEITZ: No.
HARRIS: You're not working but you stay around?
SEITZ: I put my dog in. My wife was out on the other boat as a dog canine handler, and I waited for her to arrive back to base after they finished their boat searching.

Ron Cloward admitted he didn't even know about this search on the 28th, but it's through Geragos' questioning that we find out the area of interest on the 28th was Brooks Island:

GERAGOS: Could you pull this out for just one second. If I could borrow it. Now, the information that's on here prior to the 8th, did you put that in, for instance, looks like on December 28th, Contra Costa met with two MPD detectives to launch the Berkeley Marina search, Brooks Island. Looks like the U.S. Coast Guard was there.

CLOWARD: I didn't create this document, so I haven't seen it until the other day.

GERAGOS: Do you know who created this document?

CLOWARD: No, I don't.

GERAGOS: Were you aware that the Contra Costa was out with the Modesto PD at the Berkeley Marina on the 28th?

CLOWARD: No, I was not.

Catherine Crier in her book, A Deadly Game, identifies Brooks Island as the focus point of the water dog activity.

At 10:00 P.M., Detective Brocchini contacted Captain Boyer and asked to have the Brooks Island area of the San Francisco Bay search by cadaver dogs and the marina parking lot searched by tracking dogs.  Boyer asked for Laci’s sunglasses and pink slipper to be delivered as scent objects, then scheduled three patrol boats, two cadaver dogs, one dive team, and a helicopter for nine o’clock the next morning.  The police also made available a team of specialized cadaver dogs with the ability to smell bodies in the water. 

Members of the Contra Costa County Search and Rescue team initiated the search an hour early on December 28.  It was a nippy 53 degrees, and the air was thick with moisture as the three orange crafts were launched.  

Crier goes into some detail on the results of the trailing dog activity, but gives no details on the results of the water cadaver dog activity.  That's because there were no results to report -- zip, nada, nothing.

Brocchini couldn't have been very happy with those results.  How could Anderson's Trimble pick up Laci's scent at the Berkeley Marina, and yet the cadaver dogs not give a single alert at the Berkeley Marina nor at any point along the route from the Marina to Brooks Island -- and they had two opportunities, on the way to Brooks Island and on the way back to the Berkeley Marina?  It certainly wouldn't occur to him that Anderson was manipulating Trimble, or that the scent article was contaminated (not when he is the one that had possession of the scent articles from the night of the 26th till the morning of the 28th; why, that would be like accusing himself).  And it most certainly wouldn't occur to him that Scott wasn't guilty. No, there had to be another explanation.

Of course, Scott disposed of Laci on the way to the Marina, and enough scent remained in the boat for Trimble to pick up.  That would become the next place to look, along Hwy 132.  That search began in earnest on December 30, and will be the subject of our next article.  Unlike the Bay search on the 28th, which was kept a deep, dark secret, the Hwy 132 search was well-publicized.

Brocchini hastened to get the Berkeley Marina identified as a crime scene

When we put things in time lines, we can get a better perspective of what happened.

So let's look very closely at other events on December 26th-28th, 2002.

December 26
-----, Ron Grantski told Greta Van Susteren: "I -- I talked to Scott two days after Laci was missing, and I -- I asked him then. I said, you know, if you -- if you had an affair, was seeing somebody, I think this is time to say something because I know the police are going to bug you about your fishing story, and he said, no, no problem. And so I let it drop."  Ron testified that it was the afternoon of the 26th when he quizzed Scott. Ron also testified that it was a day or two after the 24th when he first learned Scott had a boat, because someone asked if he knew about the boat.  Now isn't that curious?  Why didn't Ron tell the police that it was no big deal that Scott went fishing that afternoon because he himself went fishing that same afternoon.  Moreover, as we shall see, Brocchini did believe Scott went to the Berkeley Marina, albeit not to fish, but to dump Laci's body.  Of course, Brocchini knew he would need a motive -- and an affair would be perfect.  Didn't he and Buehler tell Amber Frey when they first met her that they were praying for someone like her to come along?  

4:12 p.m., Susan Medina places a call to her son in Los Angeles.  Susan and Rudy were returning to Modesto from Los Angeles and as they drove past the MPD on G street, they noticed the TV cameras; Susan called her son to find out why Modesto was again on the news.  When they reached Edgebrook and Covena, the entrance onto Covena was blocked by a police barricade, and they had to show identification to prove they lived on the street.  As they drove into their driveway, they noticed the hand truck (dolly) on the front lawn, and when Rudy went into the backyard, he noticed the french doors were wide open, having been kicked open.  Susan went out to the street and got the attention of police officers to report they had been burglarized.

4:45-4:50 p.m., Office Wend, on the scene for the Peterson search warrant execution, responded to the Medinas to investigate the burglary.  Wend said the dolly was approximately 25 feet from the street, and  described the burglary as "a pretty typical door-kick, grab what you can and take off with it. I mean, it wasn't, there was only one room that was really ransacked, and that was the master bedroom. And it wasn't ransacked a lot. Some things were taken off the top shelf in the bedroom, in the bathroom. In the master bedroom a drawer had been opened and a jewelry box had been laid, laid out."  The safe was approximately three feet tall by two and a half feet wide by two and a half feet deep. The point of entry was through a gate on the south side of the Medina property. The clue that it was a forced entry was the boot print by the lock, and the door standing open. The boot print was like moist dirt transferred to the door, but Wend couldn't tell from its composition how long it had been on the door.  Mr. Medina had placed a chair up against the doorknob, as an extra precaution, and the burglars moved the chair out of their way.  A lot of valuables in the house were not touched, such as TVs, VCRs, a vase containing $800 cash and jewelry out on a counter.  The keys to the Mercedes parked in the drive were hanging in the kitchen, but the car was undisturbed.  Wend left the forms for the Medinas to fill out, documenting everything that had been taken, and then had nothing more to do with the investigation of this burglary. 

Wend's description "a pretty typical door-kick, grab what you can and take off with it" doesn't pass the giggle test - one doesn't just grab a 3'x2.5'x2.5' safe and take off with it.  But the fact that valuables out in the open, much easier to grab and take off with, were not taken, suggests to me a robbery interrupted.

So, as the search warrant on the Peterson home was being executed, the MPD knew about the burglary right across the street.  It's unfathomable that both Brocchini and Grogan, who were at the Peterson home at the time Wend responded to the Medina burglary right across the street, could not have known about the burglary.  But they didn't seem to be a bit interested in it.  Not a bit.  Which isn't strange at all when we remember that Brocchini made up his mind what happened to Laci on the night of the 24th; and Grogan concurred on Christmas Day.  So it was just a matter of proving it, and not letting irrelevant stuff like a burglary across the street distract them from their noble cause.

~7:30 p.m..  We don't know exactly what time Cindee Valentin began the dog trailing effort with Merlin, but she did before Skultety arrived at 7:30 to begin the search warrant, which for that night only included a search for forensic evidence and signs of a struggle.  A few stains were probably blood and collected, but certainly nothing to compel any reasonable person to believe Laci had been murdered in that house.  Unless you already were certain she had been.  

~9:30 p.m. The dog trailing that Brocchini manipulated to prove Scott transported Laci's dead body from the house to the warehouse and then headed out of town had already terminated by 9:30 p.m., when Chris Boyer gave the scent items to Brocchini.  Brocchini kept these in his possession to be used for later dog trailing.  

To get the most traction out of the dog trailing on the 26th, Brocchini ensured that the media received only his interpretation, and thus we read in the ModBee:

When Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department deputies brought in a specially trained bloodhound on Thursday [Dec 26] 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 Blvd.  

Which, of course, was a blatant lie.  Merlin led Valentin to the Gallo Winery.

December 27

------.  Rick Armanderiz was sent to the Berkeley Marina to meet with Berkeley police officers to confirm or refute Scott's alibi.  Remember, Scott said he went to the Berkeley Marina and produced a parking receipt.  Mark Geragos was not allowed to ask Armanderiz about his interviews at the Marina, or the media presence there, because Distaso objected on the grounds it was beyond the scope of his direct.  Delucchi ruled in Distaso's favor. However, we found out from a couple of the Marina people he did interview that there indeed was a media presence at the Berkeley Marina, and they were there because of the Laci Peterson investigation.  They hemmed and hawed their way out of saying it was the 27th, but that only confirmed that it was.  This is pretty important information to know -- that on the 27th, the MPD's very first field trip to the Berkeley Marina, there was already a media presence at the Berkeley Marina.  Folks, it was no secret that Scott Peterson went to the Berkeley Marina on December 24th.  

4:10 p.m., Diane Jackson informed Sgt. Ed Steele that she "witnessed the 459 [the California burlgary statute] on Covena on 12-24-02 at 1140 hours. She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house."  Some reports are that Jackson, who lived around the corner from the Petersons, saw the police there that morning for the conclusion of the search warrant, and walked over and told some of the officers about what she saw.  She obviously told the same thing to Sgt. Steele, perhaps at the Volunteer Center as he was the police liaison there.  Surely this should have caught someone's attention and caused someone to re-consider whether they were following the wrong lead in the investigation.  If it did raise any concerns or curiosity, that would soon be quashed.  

6:30 p.m. , Detective Stough was told about Jackson seeing the Medina burglary and he called her for an interview.  For me, I think I'd have gone to her house and had her give me much more information, like the exact location of the van she saw, exactly where she saw the 3 men.  Instead, Stough was content to get a description of the 3 men:  "three short of stature, dark skinned but not African American guys. . . . When asked to further describe the individuals she stated that that's all she could remember as she wasn't thinking about that and hadn't thought about that until she called the police."  The MPD wasn't in much of a hurry to solve this burglary -- it didn't release a description of the 3 men and the van or inform the public about the $1000 reward until the 31st. How did the reporters keep from laughing when Chief Roy Wasden said, on the 31st, "We really feel a compelling need to get the burglary solved to see if that moves us any closer to finding Laci."  Compelling need?  Really!

What do you do when the media, the public, and even some police officers get distracted in a murder investigaton?  You redirect them.  

December 28  

So it is that Brocchini asked Chris Boyer to take trailing dogs to the Berkeley Marina, and he chose Anderson and her dog Trimble and Seitz and his dog TJ.  Brocchini wanted to prove that Laci Peterson was brought to the Berkeley Marina by Scott Peterson.  Brocchini sent the scent items with two detectives to give to Boyer -- scent items he'd had in his possession since the night of the 26th.   

Boyer gave the glasses/case to Anderson, and the pink slipper to Seitz. Anderson's Trimble allegedly followed Laci's scent to the end of the pier and stood gazing out on the water.  Seitz' TJ didn't have any such luck -- he could not pick up Laci's scent at all.

Why the difference?  Perhaps because Seitz wasn't already convinced that Scott was guilty, as Anderson was, and thus wasn't leading TJ to smell something that wasn't there.  Perhaps because the glasses/case Anderson used was contaminated with Scott's scent.  Probably a combination of the two.

What evidence is there of such contamination?  The scent items were compromised from the very beginning. Valentin was the person who collected the scent items at 523 Covena Avenue in the late afternoon on December 26. She collected the items in this order:  pink slipper, brown slipper, sunglass case with sunglasses inside, and a hairbrush.  She did not recall changing gloves between the collection of the items.  For this reason, the scent items were compromised from the very beginning. The only exceptions were the pink slipper which was collected first, and the sunglasses inside the case which had not been opened.  However, he case itself had been inside Laci’s purse; and a number of people had put their hands inside the purse before the scent items were collected:  Boyer, Brocchini, Spurlock and Scott himself when he retrieved Laci’s keys.

All of the scent items were in Brocchini's possession from the night of the 26th to when he gave them to Detectives Stough and Schmierer to take to Boyer at the Berkeley Marina for the dog trailing that was to be done that day.  He sent the pink slipper and the sunglasses/case and the brown slipper.  The brown slipper is important, because it was Scott's brown slipper, with Scott's scent.  Ron Seitz used the pink slipper and found no evidence of Laci’s scent at the Marina.  Anderson used the glasses, and allegedly trailed Laci to the end of the pier and out onto the water.  Moreover, Anderson didn't take much precaution to prevent Trimble from picking up Scott's scent from the glasses case; she just opened the case and had Trimble smell the glasses.  

Noble cause: doing what needs to be done to get the guilty person.  So what if you have to nudge the evidence a little, to make it say what you want it to say. 

At the trial, the State addressed the issue of contamination by saying that if it had been Scott's scent that Trimble picked up, then Trimble would have followed Scott out of the Berkeley Marina back to Modesto, because trailing dogs are trained to pick up the freshest scent.  I'll remind you of this explanation when we get to the trailing that was done on January 4.  But there are other things to discuss in the meantime.

The net result is that by the end of the day on the 28th, Brocchini had his evidence that Scott murdered Laci, transported her to the Berkeley Marina, and brought her out into the Bay in his boat.  Now all that needed to be done was to get the rest of the investigative team and the media on the same page. The burglars were home free.