Rebuttal Arguments for the People

Guilt Phase:  By Rick Distaso

November 3, 2004

MR. DISTASO: Thank you, your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, the argument I'm doing now is called rebuttal. It's basically just time for me to address the points that Mr. Geragos talked about, because I have the burden of proof. That's the way it works. I'm not, rest assured I'm not going to spend all day with you and launch into the whole argument again. We have gone through that.

A couple of things that I do want to talk about. And one is the elements of the crime here. We went over that very briefly when I was talking to you originally.

The way the jury has to work to prove a crime, the best way to describe it, it is kind of like a cookbook. That's what every crime has, has these elements. It's kind of like the ingredients that make up the crime. A real easy one is theft. If I pick up something with the intent to take it I have committed a theft. So I have to take something. I have to have the intent. I have to have some property.

It's no difference in a murder case. In a murder case, you need, a human being has to be killed. We have that. Everyone is in agreement with that. The defense is in agreement with that. So the first element of this crime is proven to all of you beyond a reasonable doubt almost by stipulation.

No one is disputing that Conner and Laci were human beings, and they were killed.

The second one is that it has to be at the hand of another.

Well, that's proven beyond a reasonable doubt also, because no one is saying that Laci went to the San Francisco Bay, committed suicide, or anything like that. So the second element is proved.

The third one is, you have to have malice aforethought.

Has to be an unlawful killing. Clearly that occurred here. They are not disputing that. So that element is proven to you. So we're checking off these elements, and we're framing the issue for you, because you don't, you will need to go back. You do need to say this and/or that happen, and is that proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No one is even disputing it.

The final element is, well, you got a couple of things here. The other thing you have to look at is premeditation. Was this a planned killing? Did somebody stop and think about it, even if it just for a moment, say that's what I'm going to do. I don't think that's in dispute here. I think they probably agree, yeah, that whoever they are, their theory, of course, someone abducted Laci. So whoever took Laci intended to kill her. So that's pretty much proven.

So we have got, here we have two first degree murders that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, except for the one element that you do have to decide, and that's identity. Who did it? That's all you have to decide here.

Let me jump into one thing. If you find the defendant guilty of two first degree murders, which is what I'm arguing to you here, there is another thing on the verdict form called a special circumstance allegation. All that means is, you have to find one first degree murder and one either first or second degree murder. It just means two killings, two murders, one of which has to be first degree. Which really no one is disputing here. Everybody thinks, yeah, if he did it, or whoever, these nameless, faceless killers, it's two first degree murders. That's pretty much, I mean it's pretty much proven to you.

It's proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt almost by stipulation, because they are not disputing, basically concede that. So what we're talking about here is identity.

And I chuckle to myself a little bit when Mr. Geragos was up here giving his argument. He's a very skilled, he's a good lawyer. But when he was up here saying that, yeah, you know, the defense brought forth the truth to you. Which I just loved. It was a great quote. The defense brought forth the truth to you.

The entire defense case and the entire defense questioning was based on hearsay, which you can't consider for the truth. So for the defense to stand up here and say we brought the truth forth, that's not true.

Because you can't consider a single question that they asked an officer what someone told them, other than Diane Jackson. That's the one. Other than that, though, any officer who was asked a question did so. And to tell you this, remember it's in your report, this was reported. They reported to this officer, who reported to this one, who then went down the chain.

You know, none of that comes in for the truth. So for them to say, get up here and say, you know, we presented the truth to you, it's a little disingenuous. I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of what occurred.

I told you this was going to happen in argument. You know, remember the jigsaw puzzle example I was giving you? I told you the defense is going to take each piece. Maybe it's totally blue, so I can't tell if it's a sky, or it's the water, so chuck it out. Or I can't tell if it's orange. I mean it's a orange piece. I can't tell if it's a sunset or the bridge, so I'm going to throw it out.

That is not what the law says you do. You take each piece, just something like a puzzle, put it together. The thing about this case is, what makes it really easy for you folks, this is a very easy case for you to decide actually, because the bridge is already built. When you come to look at it, you might have a couple of pieces here and there, and the defense might have chipped away a little bit of the edges. But the bridge is sitting there in front of you, and you can't miss it.

And I told you they wouldn't be able to address why those bodies ended up exactly where Scott Peterson went. Told you that in argument.

And, you know, they didn't touch it, because they can't. There is only two, only two possible things that happened here. Either he killed them and he put them in the bay, like I have been telling you for two days now, or someone else did it to frame him. Because nobody, no homeless person, no 290 registrant, sex registrant, no burglar, takes a body and drives all way to the San Francisco Bay to dump it in exactly the location he went, unless he's doing it to frame him. That's the only reason.

Otherwise, why do you take the risk of transporting a body all the way from Modesto? It's just not going to happen. All right. So either he did it, or they did it to frame him.

How do we know that? How do we know it wasn't done to frame him? Well, let's, I got to say one more thing about that. Yesterday the defense argued, you know, well, is it reasonable? You know, it must be reasonable that those bodies could have gone in the Hoffman Channel. And remember the testimony that we heard about. Ignore the testimony about the Hoffman Channel, of course, that this is a dog park. I'm holding up an exhibit here for you. For the record, there is a bridge right here. And, remember, they asked Officer Phillips about some homeless people that are encamped, or something, down there.

You got to feel bad for the homeless folks in this case because they are taking a bad rap. You got the vast conspiracy of homeless that grab Laci Peterson in Modesto, took her on, I guess turned her over to the homeless folks that live there along the Hoffman Channel, so then they could submerge her in the bay for three to six months. It's completely undisputed that those two individuals, Laci and Conner, were in the water for three to six months. It's an undisputed fact.

So that's what would have happened for these two folks to of ended up there in the Hoffman Channel. It's just not reasonable. If it's not reasonable, then you must reject it. You cannot base a reasonable doubt on an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence. That law is crystal clear.

Now, let's go back to our frame up, though, because that's what has to have happened. So let's take it to its conclusion. In order to frame someone, you have to the, in this case, you have to know where they went. Not just I went fishing, because I showed you there is hundreds of places to go fishing. So you have to know, to frame him, you have to know exactly where he went fishing. And here is the, you have the press releases in evidence.

So we have what was released to the public, what people knew, when they knew it. And you have to also assume, you know, apparently the homeless people are avid readers of the Modesto Bee, because if they grab Laci Peterson, they had to have gotten that information from somewhere.

So let's look at what the press releases say. I'm holding them all here. Those are the exhibits. You are going to get these.

On December 25, information was released about the defendant.

It said he went to the Bay Area to go fishing. Well, they have already shown us, part of their argument is, he could have gone to a bunch of places in the Bay Area. So how are these nameless, faceless people, how are they to now, based on December 25th, the next day, how are they to know that he went fishing at the Berkeley Marina off of Brooks Island and put the bodies exactly there based on this? It's not reasonable.

So we know then that they had to have held her for at least one day, right? Because that didn't give us the information necessary.

Well, let's look at what came out December 26th. He went fishing in the Bay Area. Well, now they have to have held her for two days, unless they are clairvoyant, or unbelievably lucky, that they said let's take a wild stab, and let's look at that map of California, and let's look at the entire Bay Area, which is thousands of square miles, and we're going to pick exactly where he went. It's not reasonable.

So now they have had to have held Laci Peterson for two days.

This is December 26th. Again, the same press release.

Next one came out on December 27th. Left to the Bay Area to go fishing. That's all it says. So now they have had to have held her for three days. And now the thing is getting harder to put Laci Peterson in the bay, because the police are there. And the police are starting to search the bay. You heard that.

So now these people that grabbed Laci Peterson have to hold her for this period of time. They don't know where she is yet, but now they have to go into a location where the police are actively searching. So now in order to frame him, they have to say, they have to take this risk. I'm going to, I have held her now for three days, where I have killed him or just killed her. Now I'm going to drive to the Berkeley Marina while there is police there out searching the bay and dump the bodies in the exact location he went to frame him. It's not reasonable.

On December 28th they do mention a marina in Berkeley. So I guess that would be the first time that these nameless, faceless people would know at least the Berkeley Marina. So someone has to hold her for four days before they have any idea where that guy went.

And, like I said, let's look at some of the articles that are in evidence. This is an article from, this one says Berkeley Marina. So those are press releases too. Those are press releases. Those weren't Modesto Bee articles. So somehow these people have had to have gotten ahold of those press releases.

Now, the Modesto Bee, articles this one is posted on 1-10.

January 10th. Couple of weeks later. This one says Berkeley Marina. This one says Berkeley Marina too, on 1-11, even further down the road. Same thing on this one 1-11. It's just not reasonable that anybody put those bodies in the bay to frame him. If it's not reasonable, you must reject it.

Let's talk about some of the evidence that the defense presented to you. One of which they spent a lot of time sometime on was this curling iron. Do you remember the curling iron? Well, this proves, the curling iron that's here on the 24th, picture on the 24th, this curling iron proves that Laci Peterson got up in the morning to curl her hair, because Margarita Nava was at the house. She cleaned the house. And did, I guess she put it away. I'll concede that. I don't even care if she put the curling iron away. She left the house on the 23rd.

What the defense didn't tell you, and my guess is that they just simply forgot. But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her.

So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon.

Now, I don't think this is any big deal. I'm only pointing this out to you, because I don't want you to get, based on the defense argument, selective version of the evidence. Go back and check all the evidence. My guess is they just forgot that. But I have already told you, I can't prove to you whether he killed her in the night or in the morning. I have never wavered from that, or changed that. I'm not going to do it now. So I don't care if you think she got up the next morning. It doesn't change the fact that he still killed her.

Let's talk about the defendant's trips to the marina. You know, he said he goes to the marina. This is what they argued yesterday. He goes to the marina to look for people who saw him there. Well, I have already told you we went over there. I told you, you don't going on the frontage road to the look for people who saw you there.

They brought up kind of a funny point. I'm not sure why they did it. I couldn't figure it out. They said, well, the reason he never got out of his car is because he sent his investigator there. Of course that's completely inconsistent, because then why did he go there? He went there for a couple minutes. Apparently now to check up on his investigator? I guess that's what the argument is. It's not reasonable. That's not a reasonable argument.

Another argument about Amber that they made yesterday was the reason he kept calling her when she was the only one that could understand what he was going through. That's just not reasonable. You know. You heard the calls. You heard his demeanor. They are saying that what they are arguing was, I am trying to get you to hate Scott Peterson.

I don't care how you feel about Scott Peterson. It's not important. What's important is the evidence that was presented, and the things he did, and why he did it.

Let's talk about the computer activity. That's an interesting one. Because the way that was presented to you, it was very misleading. Remember, they showed you this particular fishing report, or chart, or whatever it is that says, oh, here it is. Today's headline, December 5th.

Remember the argument was made, well, shoot, the reason the prosecution changed their theory is, exactly what the words were, they changed their theory because that shot Shawn Sibley right down the drain. Looked this up on the 5th.

That was very, very misleading.

What, remember, okay, this was printed on the 9th. I went and looked up the testimony on that last night. You know what the testimony was? This was accessed on, it's right here. On the computer, looks like he doesn't get the picture. It was accessed on December 8th, not December 5th. Like this says, it was accessed on December 8th. And this date on here, December 5th, wasn't updated by the Web Master.

And, in fact, it was updated by the Web Master later that evening because the next page was on there. In the morning you got the December 5th one. On December 8th, in the evening, you got the December 8th one.

Remember the computer activity in the morning of the 24th?

Like I told you, if you want to believe Laci Peterson was on Scott's e-mail account, go ahead. But it's not a reasonable interpretation.

What was argued to you yesterday was the only things that were on there were those shopping sites. As if that five-minute window, 8:40 to 8:45, someone was shopping. An umbrella stand. We saw, that's what caused Laci to get Scott to put those umbrellas in the truck.

And the catch is, if you go back and check the testimony, they were both on the same page. And what it really was, I went through the whole thing last night.

What it really was, was somebody went to a weather site at 8:40 or 8:41. They didn't click on anything, though. They then went to this Digital Weathervane and some other site, some kind of like a shopping, one shopping click. It had both things on there. Mr. Geragos talked about it yesterday. They then went to the San Jose weather and typed in a Zip Code, actually checked the weather.

Do you think Laci Peterson was going to take that dog in San Jose? They then went to the shopping site. He said, I'm not misleading you on anything here. I'm telling you exactly what the evidence is.

After that, the very last thing at 8:45 that morning is Scott's e-mail account. And he checks about a Ping golf bag that he is trying to sell. This guy, Scott Peterson right here. 12-24-02 8:50 a.m. Do you think Laci Peterson was checking his e-mail for his Ping golf bag? This is the same e-mail that he was getting things from Shawn Sibley. Horny Bastard. And do you think she could even get into this, Horny Bastard, and stuff.

Remember the sonar images they talk about for 51, they search the bay 51 times, they don't find anything. Then, or they didn't find any, what they are supposed to find. But they found those cans, and what not.

Remember what the testimony really was. The testimony was, we sent divers down on a target, whatever they feel in the mud they bring up. You know.

Take a look at these images. That little tiny thing, I don't know what, a quarter of an inch, is four feet. This little tiny thing. Four feet. So do you think when they were diving on the targets that they found a stick and a can, do you think the stick and the scan was what showed up on the sonar? That little tiny thing, quarter of an inch, is four feet.

They dove on these targets. Divers brought up whatever their hands felt. That's the way they do it, because you never know if it's going to be important or not.

You know, let's talk about Eloise Anderson. The defense made a very strong attack on her, which they had to do. I mean in the sense they had to do it. I don't mean as mean people. But they are defending their client.

If Laci Peterson's scent is at the Berkeley Marina, then he's guilty. I mean that's as simple as that. So they had to work hard to attack her. And, you know, it's really kind of unfair. I mean here is a lady, she's just a volunteer. She, you know, puts in countless hours with her dog, and doesn't realize anything. No reason to come here and lie.

Do you remember that Deep Six in her training logs, and all that kind of stuff. You know, for one thing, I guess it's kind of funny. Why would she hide that? That's the first question.

The video. The second thing is, she didn't hide it, because, of course, they have it. And the third question is how, in October, or whenever it was she did that, would she know at some point in the future she would be called to track Laci Peterson's scent to Berkeley Marina. I mean it's silly.

Just didn't happen.

Let's look at the Croton watch. That was an interesting one.

They brought in this pawn slip from Deanna Renfro, where supposedly she, does say brand Croton? I'm looking for a second. Wait a minute. It's not even a Croton watch. The branch name is, Croton on this pawn slip.

And she pawned it for twenty bucks. Well, you know, why didn't we hear from Deanna Renfro if they thought this was at all related to the case? Why didn't we hear from her? I mean when you pawn something, you have to give your thumbprint. You have to give your ID.

It's not like we can't find her. Anyone could find her. We didn't put her on because it doesn't have anything to do with the case. If they thought it did, why didn't they?

GERAGOS: There is a objection. That's a misstatement of the law. The defense has no burden under 471.

JUDGE: But he can comment. Overruled. Go ahead.

DISTASO: And the other thing about this, which is even more kind of amazing, I guess, is the people who testified about this pawn slip were the pawn shop people that came in. And, on the other stuff, this isn't even their pawn slip. They show her these in order to go, I can't remember the lady's name. But she goes, well, yeah it's a pawn ticket, but it's not from my shop, and I didn't have anything to do with it.

Well, why didn't we even hear from the people who actually pawned the item? It was pawned for twenty bucks. And, see, the argument is that because, you remember he was wearing that diamond watch when they went walking out. That Croton watch, that is they are trying to show that he is trying to sell it on Ebay.

We know from other things that he sells stuff not on Ebay, because here is his e-mail on that Ping golf bag. It's just with some guy. So I mean where do you think that Croton watch went? I'm sure they sold it. But here he is trying to sell this on Ebay. The reserve is 750 bucks. Look at it.

It's a nice gold diamond watch.

Now, I know you don't get a lot of money when you pawn things, but you get better than twenty bucks on 750. So to make the leap that this Croton watch, Croton is like Timex, or Swatch, I guess. I don't know. Whatever.

So someone pawns a cheap twenty dollar 14 karat yellow gold quartz watch with scratches for twenty bucks, and somehow that's supposed to raise reasonable doubt in your mind?

Now, here is, let's talk about the watch. You know. This was the watch that Laci had repaired. This is the one she was wearing. It's also recovered in the search warrant. It's on her dresser here. And here are, here is a picture of her late in her pregnancy on the couch. She is wearing the same watch on Christmas, I mean the Christmas party she's got the same watch on. So this is the watch she was wearing late in her pregnancy like that.

This is the one the jeweler testified to she had repaired, not that Croton watch.

I'm only going to hit a few more points and I'll be finished.

But they made another argument yesterday that there wasn't a single mark on Scott Peterson that was consistent with him strangling or smothering his wife. They said that, they said there is not a single mark on him. Well you know what? John cue that clip up for me, would you? 

(RECORDING PLAYED)

Okay. So you can't tell me there is no marks on him. You got your hands around somebody's neck. She reaches up and scratches, screaming, "Help", there is no marks on him? That's consistent. If he's got a cut on his knuckles he leaves blood on his car. He leaves two little small blood smears on his comforter. But there is no injury on Scott Peterson.

That's consistent with the way the prosecution presented this case to you. They talked about the mineralization on Laci's clothes from the doctor. And, remember what he is saying. He is saying that's from something being exposed to water, and then not, that kind of thing. And they said, well, that's not consistent with the prosecution's theory. Of course it is. What they, remember the reason they said that was because it's on the front of the pants.

Well, there really is no front of those pants. Those pants were completely frayed, trailing all over the place. If you want to go back and look at the autopsy pictures, just do that. You will see it. But, regardless, the reason they said that's not consistent, because when bodies, just like the doctor testified, when a body goes in the water, it floats face down. The way the head pulls down, the arms and legs pull down. Well, guess what? All of those parts were missing on Laci.

When she came up and started floating to shore, she was alternately exposed, alternately covered. And you are covered a hundred times or more. When she was up on the shore. She is in a tidal area. The water is washing over her. There is a ton of pictures of that. She could be covered and uncovered a hundred times before she is found. So they said that's not consistent. Well, it is consistent. Everything I have argued to you is consistent.

And, finally, I'm going to close with this. The argument was made that the prosecution keeps changing their theory. You heard that a bunch of times. That's actually very clever argument, because we never proposed a theory to you until I got up and argued. We're not permitted to do that.

When we give an opening statement, we're not permitted to argue the case to you then. We can tell you what the facts are going to be.

When the witnesses come on the stand and testify, we're not allowed to ask them questions proposing some kind of theory.

You know, you have heard the objection, argumentative. How many times did we say that in this trial? Sustained, that's what the judge says.

We proposed our theory in closing argument.

The only one, the only side that ever proposed a prosecution theory to you until I got up and argued one was the defense. And it's very clever argument, because then what you can do, you can say, well, remember they did this, they told you this? They are changing this. And you can kind of debunk the theories that they put on us that we never told you.

I never proposed anything to you until I got up and argued the case to you. Then I argued the case to you based on the evidence that came out in this trial.

And with that I'm going to close. And I would ask that you find the defendant guilty.

Thank you.