Argument - Counter Argument

I was scouring my computer for certain information and found this article I had started to put together years ago.  Though not complete, I think it's far enough along to be of value.  The part in black is the State's argument; in red is the counter argument.

1.        The most important fact

a.        The connection between Scott's fishing route and where the bodies were found proves that Scott dumped Laci's pregnant body in the Bay on December 24.

                                                               i.      Dr. Cheng’s analysis is seriously flawed        

1.        He could not trace Laci back to the fishing route, only Conner

2.        His wind data was grossly exaggerated

3.        The strong winds did not coincide with the low tide

4.        He used incorrect tidal times, getting his data from the SF station instead of the Richmond station

5.        He still had Conner off-shore at the time of the high tide

                                                              ii.      Conner did not wash ashore

1.        The high tide was a lower than average high tide, with insufficient water level to locate Conner 24 feet north of the breakwater

2.        Conner was found north of the debris line

                                                            iii.      Conner was too old to have died on or before December 24

1.        All eye witnesses described Conner as full-term newborn, even up to a month old

2.        Dr. Brian Peterson’s measurements produced a gestational age of 9 months

3.        Dr. Allison Galoway’s initial observations produced a gestational age of 36-38 weeks; only after applying junk science did she come up with a gestational age that fit Conner’s age on December 23

2.        How and Where

a.        Motive

                                                               i.      Scott didn't want a dull boring life with wife and kids, but freedom and the fantasy life of a rich, successful, jetsetter

1.        Scott was already an international traveler, both for business and for pleasure

2.        Laci allowed Scott a great deal of freedom

3.        Laci and Scott were financially secure

a.        Their own income was sufficient to meet their day-to-day needs

b.       Laci would be coming into a rather large inheritance

c.        Scott’s parents were very generous, such as giving them a costly membership to the Country Club

b.       The Plan

                                                               i.      October -- looking for a new relationship, Shawn Sibley

1.        More like a blatant attempt at a one-night stand

                                                              ii.      November -- starts relationship with Amber Frey

1.        Egged on by Shawn Sibley

2.        Amber made the first call to Scott, 3 phone calls in fact

3.        Scott started the relationship with a well-developed exit strategy

a.        Told her right up front that he would not be available for upcoming holidays

b.       Planned to be totally unavailable for about a 6-week period

c.        Made business trips to Fresno during the dating period in which he did not attempt to see Amber

                                                            iii.      Setup the end of January to be the end of the interest in Laci's disappearance

1.        No, that was his exit strategy – be totally unavailable through the entire Christmas season and until the end of January, giving Amber plenty of time to lose interest in him

c.        The Plan is solidified

                                                               i.      December 6 -- call from Shawn, about being married

1.        Most likely she already knew this, as she and Amber were already trying to track down a marriage record for Scott

                                                              ii.      December 7 -- he researches boats, waterways in Northern California

1.        Very reasonable thing to do for a fisherman who wants to do more fishing

                                                            iii.      December 8 -- he researches Bay charts and fishing information

1.        Very reasonable thing to do for a fisherman

                                                            iv.      December 9 -- he buys a boat

1.        Very reasonable thing to do for a fisherman

                                                             v.      December 20 -- he buys fishing pole and lures, 2-day fishing license

1.        Very reasonable thing to do for a fisherman

2.        These items not necessary to use a boat in the Bay

                                                            vi.      ----------- he made 5 homemade anchors, 4 used on Laci

1.        No evidence whatsoever that he made 4 additional anchors

2.        The weight of those 4 anchors would not have sunk her body

3.        No anchors were found during the extensive searches after the bodies were found

4.        Cheng’s theory about why Laci loosed from the anchors is blatantly false; strong winds did not coincide with an extremely low tide

d.       The Plan is put into action

                                                               i.      Scott strangled or smothered Laci on the night of December 23, or the morning of December 24 while she was dressing. 

1.        If on the night of the 23^rd rigor mortis would have set in

2.        No evidence of death in the house

3.        The clothes Laci was found in were not the clothes she wore to Salon Salon

4.        Laci was on the computer the morning of the 24^th

5.        Laci was seen walking in the neighborhood by at least 4 credible witnesses

6.        Laci encountered Todd committing the Medina burglary

                                                              ii.      He wrapped Laci in the blue tarp, put her into the Ford pickup, covered her with the market umbrellas, snapped McKenzie's leash on, and left the gate open so McKenzie would follow him.

1.        The blue tarp had no forensic evidence; the cadaver dogs did not hit on the tarp

2.        At least Distaso was smart enough to abandon the theory that Scott stuffed her into the green tool box

3.        No evidence presented that McKenzie would be apt to follow Scott’s vehicle

                                                            iii.      He left the house at 10:08 a.m.

1.        cell site information is not exact enough to pinpoint location

2.         the cell tower for the warehouse borders the 2 cell sites that handled the call

3.        Christmas Eve is traditionally a high-volume day, causing cell sites to overload and calls to be picked up by neighboring sites

4.        AT&T’s records and executives are ambiguous as to whether it was an incoming voice mail, or Scott checking his voicemail

                                                            iv.      Karen Servas found McKenzie at 10:18 a.m., not time for Laci to do what she needed to do, leave the house with McKenzie, get abducted, and McKenzie return home

1.        Karen Servas is not a reliable witness; she changed her timeline a couple of times; moreover as a witness she was hostile to Scott as early as Christmas Day, 2002

2.        The time is based on her Austin’s receipt, which proves she went to Austin’s but does not confirm the sequence of her errands

3.        Buehler did not confirm the accuracy of the register Servas used

4.        Her memory of her activities is unreliable (she thought for a year that she left at 5:05 for her evening engagement when she actually left at 4:05)

5.        Multiple explanations for why McKenzie was alone and not with Laci

a.        Laci was detained after leashing up McKenzie and he got out of the  yard

b.       McKenzie got away from Laci during the walk and they arrived home separately

6.        Karen Servas, the concerned neighbor that she is, does not know for a fact that Laci was not in the house, as she  didn’t bother to knock

7.        Multiple witnesses confirm Laci went on her walk

8.        The Tenbrinks knew Laci confronted Todd

                                                             v.      He drove to the warehouse, put her into the boat, attached the weights using the pliers, and put the boat cover on the boat.

1.        No cadaver scent in the boat

2.        Lab technician testified pliers had not been used recently enough to be involved in Laci’s disappearance

3.        The boat cover is not suitable for being on the boat during transport – it would blow off

                                                            vi.      Sometime after 11:00 a.m., he drove to the Bay, motored out to Brooks Island, and dumped Laci in the water.

1.        The area by Brooks Island is very shallow water, not at all suitable for dumping a body intended to not be found

2.        The 4 alleged weights would not have sunk Laci, nor kept her submerged

e.        Problems with executing the plan

                                                               i.      Original plan was to get to the Bay earlier, then go hang out at the Country club, have a few drinks, but it took him longer than he planned, he screwed up his alibi

1.        Just exactly what interfered with his plan?

a.        He didn’t seem to be in any hurry to get where he was going

b.       He took time to read and send emails

c.        He took time to assemble a mortise

2.        That alleged plan would still have left him with unaccounted for hours

                                                              ii.      He had to admit he was at the Marina because some people saw him

1.        If he was the liar he was made out to be, he would have lied about where he was UNTIL someone came forward to prove he was at the Bay

                                                            iii.      He thought he got her into the deep water, and she would wash out under the Golden Gate

1.        That’s pretty absurd to argue that Scott researched Bay charts but thought he was putting her into deep water

2.        No evidence that Scott did any research on the movement of bodies in the Bay to give him reason to think that the selected location would produce the desired results

3.        Better and easier ways to ensure she washed out to sea than buying a boat and motoring out to Brooks Island

3.        Evidence Scott wasn't fishing

a.        couldn't say what he was fishing for

b.       didn't have the right gear

                                                               i.      How could they know he didn’t have the right gear if he didn’t say what he was fishing for?

1.        He did tell Brocchini he was trolling, and he did in fact have a trolling motor and trolling line

2.        He told others he was interested in sturgeon fishing; that he did not have correct gear for, but he trolled instead

c.        SF Bay too risky for someone just taking the boat out for the first time

                                                               i.      But not too risky to take the boat out for the first time and use it to dump a body? 

d.       He doesn't tell anyone he talks to that afternoon that he has been to the Bay

                                                               i.      Nor does he tell anyone that he assembled a mortise, or that he’s going to his mother-in-law’s that night for diner

4.        Suspicious behavior

a.        He washed his clothes

                                                               i.      God forbid a husband wash his own clothing

                                                              ii.      Even Ron Grantski said Scott did a lot of things around the house

                                                            iii.      Washing clothes does not remove all traces of forensic evidence, and none was found on that clothing

                                                            iv.      He didn't wash the shoes he wore, and no forensics found on the shoes

Is Scott a Nice Guy?

Originally published on SII September 3, 2004.

Thursday, September 2, [2004] I had the privilege of being a guest on CourtTV's Both Sides, with Kimberly and Vinny. This followed last week's guest appearance, August 26, on Trial Heat with Lisa and James.

On the 26th, James asked a question that I wasn't given the opportunity to answer, and on the 2nd, Kimberly made a statement that misrepresents my opinion.

First to James. I had remarked that I thought Scott's "lies" on the January 11 regarding his whereabouts were inconsequential. He asked why I thought so. I think so, James, because a consequential lie would be one that deprived the police of what they needed to know to carry out a search for Laci and an investigation into who was responsible. Where he was on January 11 was inconsequential to the search for Laci or the investigation because he was not engaged in any activity related to her murder or the disposal of her body. 

Now to Kimberly. She noted at the end of the show that I wasn't claiming Scott was a nice guy, i.e. I didn't put up a website named Scott is a nice guy, but one named Scott is innocent. That's not how I feel. 

From what I've learned about Scott, I characterize him as a nice guy who did a bad thing. And no, the bad thing wasn't to murder Laci and Conner. He was tempted to flirt with another woman at a convention, and yielding to that temptation led him down that slippery slope to having an affair. The affair was immoral. It was a sin that he committed against Laci. 

Millions of Americans have yielded to that same temptation -- one that for men seems to be most powerful when their wives are in late stages of pregnancy or just after the birth. No matter how much they love their wives and look forward to being fathers, they feel the impact of a significant loss of their wife's attention. Conner was their first child. Scott would no longer be the center of Laci's attention. Late term pregnancies and newborn babies are very demanding on a woman's energy and loss of sexual interest often results. 

But, by all descriptions from Laci's friends and family, his family, their neighbors, and their common friends, Scott did not stop being a very likable, nice guy when he started the affair with Amber. His personality did not change. He didn't stop doing nice things for the neighbors. Karen Servas testified to the kindness he did for her just the Sunday before Laci's disappearance. He was reaching out to Sharon and Ron to develop a closer relationship with them after he started the affair with Amber. He went to all of Laci's pre-natal appointments after he met Amber, just like he did before. He built Conner's nursery, and he had just received a mortiser to use in projects around the house. He gave Laci everything she wanted, and never, ever even spoke in an angry tone to her. 

The evidence and testimony doesn't show that Scott ceased to love Laci. Rather it shows a man tempted with a short-term fling. In spite of his flirtations with Shawn at the convention, Scott did not eagerly follow-up on Shawn's invitation to meet her friend, Amber. In fact, it took some prodding from her. And, he laid the foundation for the end of the relationship with Amber on the very first date. 

But then something very unexpected and traumatic happened -- something that must have shaken him like a 10.5 earthquake. He came home from a fun trip to the Bay to try out his new boat to find his wife was missing. 

I totally understand his not telling the police about Amber on the 24th. Why drag Amber into the investigation when he had no reason to suspect her because she didn't know about Laci? Why run the risk of having Laci brought back home with everybody knowing about Amber, since she had chosen NOT to tell them herself? She obviously didn't want her family and friends to know about it. Why further upset the family when they had all they could handle just dealing with Laci's disappearance?

I also understand why he continued to keep the secret from everyone as the days and weeks wore on. He was being hounded by the media, and he knew they would do the same with her. As he said so often in the taped conversations, she did not deserve to be involved. Still believing Amber did not know about Laci, why put her through that media hassle? She would lose her privacy and she and Ayianna may even be endangered. And he was right. That's exactly what happened when she was confirmed to be the other woman by MPD. Scott tried to protect her from that, and took it on the chin for doing so.

I repeat: Scott is a nice guy who did a bad thing. We can condemn the adultery and still recognize all the good character traits that he possesses. 
 

The Peterson Family's Reply to Geraldo

The Peterson Family has replied to Geraldo's 10-year special.  Click here.  It's a fairly short and very direct reply, and for anyone that wants more detailed information, it has links to in-depth articles.

Just one thing to add.  I searched SII for the subject of Geraldo's big point, that Scott is resting his appeal on Conner not having been born.  I distinctly remembered the subject coming up years ago, and after researching it on SII, discovered it was associated with a potential wrongful death suit by Sharon Rocha.  In early May 2003, ABC did an in-depth article titled "Can a Fetus Sue."  You can read the entire article.  It focused on the dilemma Sharon Rocha would face in a wrongful death suit because CA law at that time did not allow a relative to sue on behalf of a fetus.  So to sue on Conner's behalf, she would have to admit he was born.  Which of course would defeat her case, because if Conner was born, then the whole case against Scott falls apart.  The wrongful death suit was not pursued, so that legal point was never put to the test.

To my knowledge, that is the only use of the argument in this entire case. It certainly wasn't an argument put forth on Scott's behalf at trial, and it certainly is not part of Scott's appeal.

It's discouraging enough to know that so many people have falsely concluded that Scott is guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn son -- but to know that their conclusion is based on such misinformation and outright dishonesty in reporting multiples the discouragement 100 times over.

Edited to Add:

I did find an opinion article written by Cal Thomas in April 2003 which raised the question of whether Conner was a "person" as defined by the US Supreme Court.  Click here to read the article.

The Hidden Harshman Tip, revisited

Written by Jane Hamilton. Originally published on May 28, 2008.

The Hidden Harshman Tip

The story of Tom Harshman and his tip is one of the most outrageous examples of the failure by MPD police detectives to follow leads that could have found Laci Peterson alive and that were totally exculpatory for Scott.

Tom Harshman, who lived in Modesto, saw something that really concerned him near the corner of Scenic Drive and Claus Road as he was driving with Elizabeth Harshman between 2 and 4 p.m. on the afternoon of December 24. He saw a young pregnant woman being forced into a van. After driving past this scene, Harshman was so upset that he turned around and went back to the spot hoping to find the van still there and hoping to get more information about the license plate number.

He called the police on the same day he saw this. Calls before December 26 did not go to the Laci tip line but instead to 911 or to the main number at the MPD.

When Harshman’s call was not returned by MPD, he tried again. By December 28 when Laci’s disappearance had become public knowledge, he was sure that the woman he had seen was Laci Peterson.

On December 28, Tom Harshman called the Laci tipline twice. His first call on this date was listed incorrectly under the name Harsh and was given Bates Stamp number 14789. The call was given to Detective Holmes. Harsh(man) said that he had called 3 or 4 days earlier on the day that he had seen a pregnant young woman being pushed into a van. There had been a man standing over her as she squatted to urinate with her back up against a chain-link fence. The man was described as 30’s, tall, thin, with ponytail, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking. When she finished, the woman was shepherded back to the driver’s door of the car, where another man’s arm was seen pulling her into the car. He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He said she had a scared look on her face.

Harshman called back on December 28 with additional information, and this time his name was listed correctly under Bates stamp number 14791. This call also was given to Detective Holmes. Harshman said he had been driving on Scenic east of Coffee when he saw the woman being forced into a van. The van was an older white van with 3 windows and a tan stripe on the side, approximately a foot wide. The woman had dark hair, was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He added that the man was a white male, forties, and was wearing a ball cap.

By January 3, 2003 Harshman still had not received a call back from MPD. He knew that his information was significant; and so he tried again. On January 3, he went to the Command Post at the park and spoke to the officer on duty there. The officer made notes about his information. Harshman described the location of the sighting as the south side of Scenic near Claus Road. He repeated the information mentioned in previous contacts.

Harshman believed his report would reach the detectives and they would do something about it. He was wrong. He did not receive any followup calls during the investigation. Nothing in the 40,000 pages of discovery provided to the defense included anything about Harshman’s report to the Command Post. Only during the trial was Sergeant Cloward able to find this report in one of his binders.

About a month later, sometime in February 2003, Harshman’s wife spoke to a relative of hers who lived in New York about the sighting of Laci Peterson near the corner of Scenic and Claus. Mrs. Harshman’s relative shared this story with an NYPD detective. This NYPD detective was so concerned that he contacted the MPD and spoke personally to Detective Grogan on February 14, 2003. What did Grogan do with the information? Nothing at all. Only the tip number and a brief notation were provided in the discovery.

More than a year later during the pre-trial hearings in May of 2004, DA Investigator Kevin Bertalotto noticed the Harshman tip and insisted that Grogan call Tom Harshman and speak to him personally. Grogan did this on May 18, 2004.

Grogan provided an audiotape and a transcription of his conversation with Harshman to the defense on May 20, 11 days before the beginning of the trial. This was the first time that the defense was made aware that a woman resembling Laci Peterson had been forced into a van near the corner of Scenic and Claus on the same day that a similar van had been seen by Diane Jackson in front of the Medina’s house. Harshman specifically said in this interview with Grogan that he had seen the woman’s face when she was up against the fence. That’s what he had concentrated on. He said there was a scared look on her face.

On May 24, 2004 Mark Geragos filed a Defense Motion for Sanctions Against the Prosecution for the use of an unqualified hypnotist with Diane Jackson and also for hiding the details of the Harshman tip. On May 27 the Prosecutor filed his response and hearings were held. The prosecution motion contains this misleading paragraph:

The defense neglects to tell the court that the alleged sighting took place on December 28, 2002 (four days after Laci Peterson disappeared) and that the witness had previously spoken to Modesto Police Detective Denis Holmes on that same date. Further, the witness's description of the woman's clothing did not match the clothing Laci Peterson was wearing when she was ultimately found. Finally, the witness's name, address, telephone number and a description of his statement were previously provided to the defense on May 14, 2003 in the initial discovery.

Ruling that these incidents together constituted exculpatory evidence and to exclude them would be a Brady violation, Judge Delucchi allowed the prehypnosis interviews of Diane Jackson along with the Harshman information into the trial. However, he did not impose sanctions on the prosecution. Judge Delucchi concluded that the van seen by Jackson and Harshman could have been the same vehicle.

GERAGOS:... Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan.
DISTASO:...Miss Jackson says a white van, and she changes it then to say a beige or tan van.
GERAGOS:...He says it looked white but it was really a little darker, it was kind of cream. They both are describing the same thing.

As far as the descriptions of the men associated with the van, consider this. Diane Jackson did not see the driver of the van. She saw only the 3 dark-skinned men outside the van. Harshman saw only the driver of the van and another man’s arm. There could have been other men inside the van that he did not see; or the other men may have stayed behind at this point.

The timing of these sightings can be explained in this way. Diane Jackson saw a van, 3 men, and a safe in the front yard at Medina’s at 11:40 a.m. on the 24th. She was witnessing the final step in a burglary which had started approximately an hour before, shortly after Medina’s left home and around the time Laci was abducted and taken away, probably in this same van. Apparently Laci was held in another location in Modesto for a while, probably some place in the airport neighborhood, and then a few hours later was being transported in the van at the time Harshman saw her near the corner of Scenic and Claus. She was probably being taken out of town. Claus Road is a good alternate route leading out of Modesto to points north.

During the trial Mark Geragos decided to bring information about the Laci sightings in through the testimony of Detective Grogan. Grogan’s testimony about Tom Harshman and his tip verges on perjury. He claims that he did not know that the tips from Harsh and Harshman on the same day were from the same person even though they contained the same call back number and similar information.



Grogan also backtracked after saying that red dot #41 on prosecution exhibit 267-8 (far right on the map) was Tom Harshman’s tip even though the location and the time of day are exactly the same. Grogan said #41 could not be Harshman because Harshman did not witness this incident until December 28, and #41 was a tip for a sighting on December 24. Grogan said that the dot for Harshman’s tip could be found on the United States map. When Harshman made the call to MPD on the 28th, he specifically stated that this was something he had seen 3 or 4 days before and that he had initially called in with the information shortly after he saw it. Grogan misrepresents this by saying that Harshman said he called in on the same day he saw this incident and that because he called in on the 28th, he must have witnessed the event on the 28th.

Many concerned citizens tried to get the Modesto Police Department to listen to their valid sightings of Laci Peterson. Even one credible sighting of Laci after Scott left home is proof of his innocence. There are several credible sightings. Tom Harshman’s tip is one of the most compelling and the most disturbing because of MPD’s failure to respond to it and their subsequent decision to cover it up. Tom Harshman was persistent. He tried and tried again. His repeated efforts were met with silence.

A review of Geraldo's 10-year special

Someone commented on the Recent News article that Geraldo's show on Saturday night was a good review of the case.  Unfortunately, Geraldo's staff failed to do any fact checking.  Hare are some notable inaccuracies and other curiosities.

First, Brocchini said that after Scott returned home from fishing, he showered, ate some cold pizza, and checked his email.  No, Scott did not check his email.  I suppose, to give Brocchini the benefit of the doubt, he confused what Scott did after he got home from fishing with what he did before he went fishing.  Or he deliberately embellished.  To quote Fox News Channel, we report, you decide.

Second, Greg Reed made a claim that simply is not supported by the transcripts and other court documents.
Greg Reed: "There were multiple messages from a frantic Scott 'uh have you seen Laci....do you know where Laci is at?' And these were over a period of about 2 1/2 hours, uh..."

Kristin Reed: "'Did Kristin talk to her?'"

Greg Reed: "'Did Kristin talk to her today?', uh, one thing I pointed out to the authorities from the messages, it took them a long time to come listen to them, is that it was very clear there was noise, tire noise, road noise, he was driving every time he had called."

Interviewer: So he was on the road when he was calling you?

Greg Reed: "Right"

Interviewer: Probably driving back from the Berkeley Marina?

Greg Reed: "That appeared to be what was going on".

From Scott's phone records and from Reed's testimony, we know that Scott called Reed at 2:34 p.m. and talked to him for 6 minutes.  Scott was calling on the way home from the Marina, and Reed acknowledged that in his testimony, that Scott was returning Reed's call and that they talked about New Year's Eve plans.  Scott's next call to Reed was at 5:46 p.m., obviously a voice message because it was only 1 minute, when Scott is already known to be home, not still driving on the road.  This is the call that Reed described as "frantic."  In his testimony, Reed makes no mention of tire noise or road noise during this call.  Scott called Reed again at 6:46 p.m., another voicemail.  This last call is not discussed in Reed's testimony.  It's hard to believe that Reed's memory is so bad that he couldn't differentiate between the afternoon call about New Year's Eve activities while Scott indeed was on the "road" and the evening "frantic" call when Scott was obviously already at home and the search for Laci was already in progress.

Third, Geraldo's review repeated the nonsense that Scott told "everyone" he had gone golfing that day, then changed it to fishing after he feared he had been seen by people at the Marina.  Let's break this down in a timeline.

• Amy reported that Scott told her on the evening of the 23rd that he planned to golf the next day.
• Scott told Brocchini and Grogan that fishing was a last minute morning decision on the 24th.
• Scott went to the Berkeley Marina, got the parking ticket, and motored out to Brooks Island.  Presumably, by the time he's on his way home to Modesto, he already knows that he was seen and would have to change his alibi to admit he was at the Marina.  
• Scott returned home to find Laci missing and contacted Sharon Rocha first.
• Scott went across the street to Krigbaum's and she reported that Scott said he was golfing all day.  
• Scott was interviewed by the responding cops.  He told them he went fishing.  
• Later that evening, he told Ron Grantski that he'd gone fishing.
• Still later that evening, he told Harvey Kemple that he had been golfing.

It's obvious, even if you believe Scott's guilty, that Krigbaum and Kemple were wrong in their conclusion that Scott said he had been golfing.   So to say that Scott told people he had been golfing and then changed it to fishing is utter nonsense.  

Fourth, the discussion on the whistle heard from Scott on Jan 11th.  On Jan 9th, the MPD reported that sonar had picked up an image at the end of the old fishing pier at the Berkeley Marina, and divers were looking for the object, expecting to find a body.  The search was concluded that day without success and the 11th scheduled for the continued search.  When Scott listened to a voice mail from Sharon Rocha telling him that the "body" was an old anchor, Scott is said to have whistled.  The tape was played by Geraldo, and yes a faint whistle could be heard.  Brocchini explained that Scott was obviously relieved they had not found a body because "he knew we were looking in the right spot."  Well, let's look at the facts. The old fishing pier at the Berkeley Marina is not where Laci and Conner were found, nor to where Cheng traced the bodies.  So, even if you think Scott is guilty, there's no reason whatsoever for Scott to fear Laci had been found on Jan 11.  Just more of the unevidence that the State used to convict Scott.

Fifth, Ernie Limon's characterization of Scott running to the border is ridiculous.  Limon said Scott knew the DNA was to come out that day.  I guess Limon thinks Scott had been living in a cave and didn't know that since Monday, April 14, everyone anticipated the bodies were Laci and Conner, and there were press releases and press conferences daily about the pending identification of the bodies.  Any reasonable person knows that if Scott was guilty and intended to flee from prosecution, that he would have done so immediately when the news broke about the bodies being found.  

Sixth, the camping expert that commented that Scott could have survived 2 weeks on the camping gear in his car at the time of the arrest, wasn't asked, And what would he do after that?  See, these people don't think things through.  They come up with the first guilt-inspired gut reaction and spout it off only to make fools of themselves.  The fact is, Scott bought those camping supplies BEFORE Laci's and Conner's bodies were found.  He also bought the Mercedes BEFORE the bodies were found.  He also died his hair BEFORE the bodies were found.  And yes, hair that is dyed will change color in a swimming pool.  I was actually amused when Geraldo showed the one photo taken on 2-18-03.  Scott is sitting in his truck and Grogan is talking to him through the window, and Scott already has a noticeable goatee.  But the facial hair on the day of the arrest is cited as "evidence" that Scott was evading the police.

Seventh, Geraldo's promo said he would "test the evidence," that convicted Scott.  We still ask, what evidence?  Geraldo produced nothing of evidentiary value in his less than "fair and balanced" special.  Oh, I agree that it's enough to raise some suspicion, but a reasonable person would expect that most of the special would then be devoted to real evidence sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.  But that's not what happened because there is no real evidence.

Eighth, Geraldo put himself squarely in the media frenzy that ensured this conviction.  He is quite proud of his visit to the Volunteer Center very early in the investigation where he confronted Scott and told him to be a man and confess.  And he's steadfastly carried the guilt mantra ever since. 

Ninth, Juror Julie's belief that Scott's motive was to get rid of Conner.  Juror Mike had said the same thing in another anniversary interview.  So why did the jury then settle on 2nd degree for Conner?  Obviously, there wasn't unanimity on that vote, but Julie and Mike and perhaps others gave in.  Was that part of a jury deal -- you vote to convict on 1st degree for Laci and we'll acquiesce to 2nd degree for Conner?  

Tenth, Geraldo's insistence that since Conner was unborn, he couldn't be murdered is the basis of Scott's appeal is ridiculous.  Yes, he includes Geragos making that statement, but that claim is no where in the appeal brief Scott's attorney has filed.  This is just something Geraldo seized upon to make Scott's appeal chances look ridiculous.  

Eleventh, the interview of Nancy Mullane, another who voices a very negative opinion about Scott and yet has never even met the guy, much less interviewed him.  You can read about her book here and here, and also an article about her visit to San Quentin is here.  In the article, she doesn't say a single thing about seeing Scott Peterson.  I'm surprised Geraldo didn't ask her if she was in love with the 5 men she wrote about in her book.  After all, isn't that the only reason any woman would stand in defense of any convicted man?  

Twelfth, Geraldo's insistence that Scott is living a cushy life, a life of luxury at San Quentin is nothing but a bald-faced attempt to stir up more anger and vile hatred for Scott.  Perhaps Geraldo should volunteer to spend 10 years on death row, starting out in the Adjustment Center, moving to East Block and then up to North Seg.  Then he can report back on how cushy and luxurious life is at San Quentin.
 

Recent News

The Peterson family has posted an update on the family website.  If you haven't seen it, please click here.

There's also been some recent media attention.  

Inside Edition did an exclusive 10-year interview with Amber Frey.  Click here.  Includes a video.

KTVU did 10-year interviews with jurors Mike Belmessieri and John Guinnaso.  Belmessiere said he believes that if Laci hadn't been pregnant, she'd still be alive.  Interesting, since the jury as a whole voted 2nd degree murder for Conner, indicating he was only a secondary consideration.  Click here.

Guinnaso expressed disappointment that Scott hasn't been executed yet.  They ruled, the Judge concurred, so I suppose he thinks Scott should have been taken out immediately and executed.  

There's still more media attention.  Tonight Geraldo Rivera is airing his special 10-year anniversary edition.  This is the promo for the show:

Saturday, March 21 at 10 p.m. ET
Sunday, March 22 at 1 a.m., 4 a.m., 9 p.m. and midnight ET
Before Robert Durst rocked the nation with his stunning admission on an open microphone, there was Scott Peterson. In fact, of the more than 16,000 homicides in 2002, none captivated the nation like the outrageous murder of his 8-month pregnant wife, Laci and their unborn child, Conner. Peterson was convicted and sentenced almost 10 years ago to die by lethal injection. Still on death row, Scott’s lawyers are appealing his death sentence.

In this special, we speak with man whose job it was to defend this convicted killer and probe whether the jury did the right thing when they sentenced to death the young fertilizer salesman. Plus, in an exclusive interview we’ll meet his motive, Amber Frey, who ultimately helped bring Scott to justice. And we'll test the evidence that led to Scott's conviction and review his death sentence and expose the condemned man’s seemingly privileged life in San Quentin prison.

All that and more on 'Geraldo Rivera Reports: Scott Peterson 10 Years on Death Row'

If you miss tonight's show, you can catch one of the 4 reruns on Sunday.  

.

Some reflections

Another anniversary is upon us -- March 16, 10 years since Judge Delucchi sentenced Scott to Death Row.
I've been involved in this case from the beginning.  My interest began on Christmas Day when I heard the news of the missing pregnant woman in Modesto CA.  I didn't know where Modesto was, so I looked it up on a map.  It wasn't far from Sunnyvale CA, where I lived, and a lot of the activity happened on the East Bay, even closer to home.

I've had a lot of theories over the years on what happened to Laci and who was responsible.  But what do I think now?  After all of these years of research and discussions and more research, etc., what do I know that I didn't know back on Christmas Day, 2002?

I know the State's theory:  Laci was killed at home on the night of the 23rd, by means of a soft kill that didn't leave any blood or bodily fluids, then transported by means of Scott's Ford 150 truck to the warehouse, then transferred to the boat he had just recently purchased in secret, then to the Berkeley Marina, then to the fishing route to near Brooks Island, where Scott heaved her overboard and expected her to never resurface.  On April 12 there was a big storm in the Bay that forced Conner out of Laci and floated him to the mudflat and Laci to Point Isabel.

The strongest evidence for the State's theory is, of course, where the bodies were found, in such close proximity to where Scott went fishing.  In fact, it's the only evidence that directly links Scott to the murders.

It's an easy theory to accept, if you don't think too much about it.  Maybe that's my problem -- I'm too logical.  Things have to make sense to me. For example, it doesn't make sense to me that Scott would buy a boat for the sole purpose of disposing of Laci's body when there were so many other ways to do it without putting out that $1400.  Why spend $1400 when you don't have to?

But it goes well beyond that -- way beyond that.  It even goes way beyond the lack of evidence in the home, the truck, the warehouse, the boat.  It all boils down to the irrefutable, hard cold facts that were presented at the trial, but they just did not sink in.  Heck, even experts like Wecht and Lee didn't catch the significance of these cold hard facts.  Or if they did, they were too cowardly to testify about them.

These are not opinions -- they are facts, measurements, photos taken by the State's side of the aisle.  And I have heard the most absurd explanations for why these facts do not matter.  But they do.

Fact Number One.  Conner could not have washed ashore to where he was found.  Yes, he could have washed ashore on the beach, but that's not where he was found.  He could have washed to just in front of that massive rock breakwater, but that's not where he was found.  He could have gotten into and among the rocks in the breakwater, but that's not where he was found.  He could even have gotten through the breakwater, but that's not where he was found.  He could have been in the well-formed debris line, but that's not where he was found.  He was found 2-3 feet beyond the debris line, distinctly separate from the debris line.  The only explanation for him being there is that someone put him there.  Did that someone find him in the water in front of the breakwater and fetch him out?  Or among the rocks?  If so, why didn't that someone call for help, like the Looby's did?  Why did that someone put Conner where he was found and just leave him there, at the mercy of all those birds?

Fact Number Two.  Conner's size, 32 cm crown-to-rump measurement, did not fit Laci's 23 cm top to bottom uterus measurement.  It would fit if Laci had given birth before she died because the uterus does automatically shrink down to about that size, 23 cm, just from the process of giving birth, even with a c-section.  But there simply is no means by which a uterus that has been dead for 112 days, inside a woman that has been dead for 112 days, has the capacity to shrink when the baby is removed.  When rigor mortis set in, the muscles, including the uterus, would have stiffened.  When rigor passed, they would have relaxed, and so would the uterus.  Once relaxed, and the muscle begins to decompose, there's nothing left in it or the body to cause it to shrink when the baby is removed.  It wouldn't behave like a balloon when you let the air out, because the uterus would no longer have the capacity to shrink -- what makes a balloon stretch and shrink and what makes a uterus stretch and shrink are entirely different processes.  Rather, it would be like a filled water bottle being emptied -- the water bottle remains the same size, it is just flat when it's empty.  Similarly, the uterus would just be a flat, limp muscle once the baby was removed. For the uterus to shrink, the baby would have to be born while the mother was still alive or just immediately after, when the uterus was still capable of shrinking.  This proves that Scott did not put pregnant Laci into the Bay on Dec 24.

Fact Number Three.  Conner's size does not fit his gestational age on December 24.  Galloway's measurements are cold, hard facts.  The State wrested and wrangled with those measurements, but they still remain written in stone.  The State couldn't accept the cold reality because those measurements prove that Scott did not put pregnant Laci in the Bay on Dec 24, and the MPD had him under such tight surveillance that there's no way he could have had them elsewhere and put them in the Bay at a later time.

So, we are left with reality:  Human hands put Conner where he was found; Conner lived beyond Dec 24, and Conner was born while Laci was still alive or had just died.

What else do we know that might shed some light on this subject?

We know that Laci's severely decomposed body was for some time in the Bay because of the marine artifacts -- she hadn't just gone into the Bay when she was found; Conner did not have any marine artifacts or any animal feeding, so he was protected, but he was also severely decomposed.  Laci's body was skeletal above the waist, with significant disarticulation; Conner was not skeletal or disarticulated.  Laci's body had a piece of duct tape attached; Conner had some plastic twine around his neck and body, tied in a knot and a bow.

Now, many of you are saying, So how do YOU explain all of this?  How do YOU tie all of this together?

Well, first of all, I admit it's bizarre.  Very bizarre.  But here's my current theory, based on the known facts.

First, being wrapped in plastic, secured by duct tape, is consistent with the condition of Laci's body and Conner's protected condition.  If Conner were wrapped in plastic separately, then wrapped with Laci in plastic, that would explain how the two could be kept together, and not float away from each other.  If the plastic covering around Laci gradually came undone, exposing parts of her body to more marine activity and decomposition, but Conner's plastic covering remained intact, that would explain the difference between their conditions when found.

Now you ask, who put them in the Bay?  Who would go to that much trouble just to frame Scott Peterson?  Well, wouldn't you go to that much trouble?  If you had killed someone for whatever reason, and it changed from being just another murder in a town with a fairly high murder rate to a national media frenzy, and the husband was obviously the only suspect, and it was well publicized exactly where the husband went that day -- would you think it too much of a bother to put the bodies right where he went? Remember, the cold hard facts of Conner's measurements prove they lived beyond Dec 24.  The perps kept Laci alive.  I have no theory as to why they did that -- or to rephrase, one theory is to me just about as good as any other theory.  It was sick and depraved, whatever their reason was.  But once they were dead, and the case was so well publicized and everyone just knew the husband did it -- I don't think you'd think it much trouble at all to get them to the Bay.   If the bodies were found, they'd pin it on Scott.  If the bodies weren't found, they'd pin it on Scott.  Win/win situation for the murderers and very little risk involved.

Now you ask, how could they put them in the Bay when they were doing all the searches in the Bay?  Well, they didn't search at night.  And they didn't search every day.  And once they searched an area, they moved on to another area.  Some places along the East Bay from Berkeley to Richmond have vehicle access, and at night.  Wrapping in plastic would be a good way to move the bodies.  The perimeter of the Albany Bulb would be a good place to put the bodies, and it had vehicle access at night.  It was a sanctuary for a sizable anti-law enforcement homeless population that would not be likely to report a body and have dozens of law enforcement invade their sanctuary and poking through all of their things. And it's intertidal, a necessary element for the particular marine artifacts on the duct tape and Laci's body.

Now you ask, how did the bodies get to where they were found?  Good question.  Laci could have just washed free and floated to where she was found, but Conner had to involve human hands.  The particular dates may have been significant -- Palm Sunday -- or perhaps someone was really frustrated because the case wasn't being solved and Scott was still a free man.  It's pretty obvious the DA's were not going to bring charges against Scott without a body.  So the bodies had to be found to close the case.  It's also pretty obvious that searchers had long since stopped looking in that area of the Bay, so some direct intervention was necessary.  An anonymous quick tip where to find the bodies is all it would take.

Now here's the really weird part.  I don't believe Conner was put where he was found in order to be found.  The mudflat is just too uninviting and too rarely frequented by humans for it to be a deliberate choice if you want a body to be found.  But a perfect place if you want a body to not be found.

Why wouldn't they want Conner to be found?  Well, Duh, because he's the strongest evidence that Scott didn't kill them.  He's born.  He's too old.  How could they ever get a conviction against Scott with those 2 facts staring them in the face?  And by that time, Laci's body was such that the absent baby would be accepted because the uterus was empty of everything.  Once rid of Conner, all that was necessary was to send Laci afloat and wherever she banked would be okay -- A conviction signed, sealed and delivered merely because of the close proximity to Scott's fishing route.  Case solved. The MPD gets their man!

But something went wrong.  It's called a coincidence.  They do happen.  The Looby's just happened along and found baby Conner lying on the ground.  They'd never been to the mudflat before. They thought their dog could swim from the beach, just off the bicycle/pedestrian path that wraps around a residential area, but the tide was way too low, so they walked on across the unsightly beach, climbed over some rocks and followed the muddy, narrow path onto the mudflat.  I've been there a number of times -- you have to want to get there pretty bad to go to all that trouble.  The first responders and investigators didn't bother interrogating the people at the other side of the mudflat, down by the picnic table, even though the only way they could have gotten there was by the way of the baby.

It's really quite imaginative the way they spun the cold hard facts to explain away Conner.  And they got away with it simply because no matter how convoluted the evidence, the media and the public had already made up their collective mind, Scott is guilty!  Period!  

And so Scott sits on Death Row.  10 years.