Closing Arguments for the Defendant
Guilt Phase: By Mark Geragos
November 2 & 3, 2004
MR. GERAGOS: Good morning. The -- I only get one chance to talk to you, and this is it. There may be a couple of you who think that's a good thing.
The place where I want to start, I guess, is after listening all day yesterday to Mr. Distaso, I kind of just want to go over to my client over here and just ask you all, do you all hate him? Do you all hate him?
Because apparently that's what the sum total of what we heard yesterday was. We heard 12 minutes when we started off. 12 minutes of a scenario that they -- a brand new scenario, by the way, as to what happened, and then we heard four hours of this guy's the biggest jerk that ever walked the face of the earth. This guy's the biggest liar who ever walked the face of the earth. You should hate him, you should hate him, you should hate him.
And if you hate him, then maybe what they're asking you to do is to just convict him. And don't bother with the five months' worth of evidence. Don't bother with the fact that what they proved, they had an ever-changing theory in this case, don't bother with the fact that the evidence shows clearly that he didn't do this, and had absolutely no motive to do this.
But just hate him. Because if you hate him, then you'll convict him.
And don't try to understand what was going on with him. Just assume that he's got this public and he's got this private profile. Just assume that he's some kind of a maniac who lived for 30 years on this planet, who had the FBI investigating him. You saw every single one of his family and friends come through here that all told you that before the moment that Laci Peterson went missing, this guy was one of the greatest, kindest, nicest men that you ever would have met.
And then all of a sudden -- and that all continued. Nobody said a thing, everybody was a staunch supporter of him until, guess what date?
January 15th. And then it all turned.
And when it all turned on January 15th, it was because of Amber, and because of the disclosure, whether it was Modesto PD telling the family, or whether it was the National Enquirer coming out with the article.
That's when it all turns.
And it all turns -- and one of the reasons that I went through a lot of this stuff with the officers and who made statements when is because you've got this prism that just changes. All of a sudden this guy, who would go over and do helpful things for his neighbors, unsolicited, this guy who tried to get the family closer together in anticipation of having a kid, all of a sudden he turned into this evil monster.
And he must be an evil monster because we haven't figured out who did this to Laci Peterson. We haven't figured out how this happened to Laci Peterson. Since we haven't figured out who, what, when, where and why, we might as well just hate him and we might as well just convict him.
Because he's the closest thing. He's the guy that we figured must have done it.
You know it was amazing yesterday when we were looking at the vigil pictures, and my immediate thought, in talking about this prism idea, my immediate thought is that I've got a very good friend who coincidentally his name is Scott, and I won't give you his last name because I don't think he wants it reported, but Scott in December 2000 and 2, virtually two days after this incident happened, was up here in San Francisco attending his mother's funeral.
He was with his wife and three sons, the youngest of which is my son's best friend.
They're driving down I-5, the 15 year old is driving, and Debby, his wife, is in the passenger's seat. And a horrific thing, to leave your mother's funeral, car rolls, the Suburban rolls, killing his middle son and his wife, leaving him as the only survivor with his two sons with great injuries.
At the memorial service, which was -- I think was the exact same day as the memorial service here, Scott was there, and everybody was a mess, because nobody thought -- how could you get on, you -- how could you move through something like that?
Scott, on the other hand, knew that he had to be strong for Graham and for Andrew, his two remaining sons. And after the memorial service when people were saying things that were wonderful, and he was sitting there and beaming, actually, to the boys, and beaming to be strong, and he went over to the house of a mutual friend of ours, did the same thing, he was beaming, he was telling jokes, I shook his hand. You have no idea how to react to something like that.
But nobody thought that was inappropriate. Nobody for a minute thought that because he was smiling three days, four days removed from Debby dying and from Michael dying, that that was something that was inappropriate.
Yet here, when that prism changes on June -- or January 15, all of a sudden the guy who was trying to be strong, who was trying to bring his family back, who did not -- you know, Mr. Distaso referred to it as a memorial service, the candlelight vigil? It was not a memorial service. He did not for a second want to believe that Laci Peterson was dead. And so his acting strong, people telling things about Laci and how much they loved Laci and things of that nature, is then construed or turned around to make it seem as if this guy was happy as could be; he could hardly wait, he's now got his freedom.
I don't think for a second that any of you believe for a minute this idea, this new and this latest ever-changing motive.
I mean I was quite shocked yesterday in terms of what happened. I thought when we were all here in December -- excuse me, in -- it only seems like December, in June when they made their opening statement, do you remember what the theory was of this case then? The theory of this case then was it was Amber. And the theory of this case was that he had met Amber on November 20th, and when he met Amber on November 20th, two days later he was so taken with Amber that he planned this trip, or he told her he was going to go out of town.
And that's when everything's set in motion, remember? And then he gets the call, and it was a key, the key to their whole case was on December 6th he gets the call. And then immediately he goes and he does the Internet research, and he does that Internet research because he's now formulated the plan where he's going kill Laci.
And everything's set in motion from there. And then we had all this talk about, and I'll go through all the evidence, because I think that's -- I at least owe that to you, sitting here for five months, to try and show you the evidence. And I'm not going to go over it just off the top of my head. I'm going to show you where the transcript pages are, so if you want, you have a discussion later, you can write it down and you can say I want a read back, this is where the transcript was. But that's what their theory was.
And guess what happened during the course of this case? It became apparent to anyone sitting here, including them, when Amber testified -- and I have a lot to say about Amber, but clearly Amber was not the motive.
Nobody was going to kill Laci Peterson and their child for Amber Frey. I mean that's -- that's a given. After seeing her, after hearing her testify, that was not going to happen. It also became apparent that all of these things that they had led you to believe that happened post Amber didn't really. Whether it was the breaking of the TradeCorp lease, whether it was the P.O. Box, whether it was paying health insurance, everything else, all of these things you'll see all predated Amber.
American warehouse, we'll get into that as well, he was changing warehouses. All of those things took place.
So all of a sudden we come here, and yesterday, for the first time, this plot, this heinous accusation, has been moved back. It's no longer the first week of December; now we're talking October. And it's no longer for Amber Frey, because obviously that fell flat; now it's because he doesn't want Conner. And that's the new theory.
Well, I'd suggest to you that before you start coming up with theories -- and that's one of the fundamental problems with this case and this investigation is that within an hour, within one hour, they decide that the person who did this was Scott Peterson, that they knew he had done it and they knew how he had done it.
How do we know that? We know that because that's what Greg Reed testified to. We know that Greg Reed was the gentleman who had the house next door. When he had that house next door, they asked him to open it up and, he testified to that. That's what the facts are.
And consequently, what happened here, what really -- this case almost took on a life of its own. You had virtually 40 -- actually we're up to right now 43,000 pages of discovery. All of those binders that are back there. We had -- I think Detective Grogan said we had 300 cops, something like that. 10,000 man hours. Countless money that was spent on this case.
But there was one problem that you might have noticed throughout this case. Nobody on the prosecution's side of the table ever synthesized the information. No -- it's the classic example of the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
I would ask Grogan something, Grogan would say -- even if it was in his reports, because he had 5,000 pages of reports, and nobody's condemning him for it, but he didn't even know unless he went through the reports. And then he didn't know what Hendee was doing, Hendee didn't know what Owen was doing, Owen didn't know what Jacobson was doing, Jacobson didn't know what Brocchini was doing. Nobody was synthesizing this information.
And that -- and I think Mr. Distaso admitted yesterday, one of the biggest embarrassments that he had was this idea of the Martha Stewart.
And that crystallizes exactly what was going on in this case. The idea that you could come to trial in a death penalty case and you could put on what is at the time, as they told you in opening statement, one of the greatest pieces of information.
Why is that one of the greatest pieces of information?
First, because they think that Scott had just made up what happened on the 24th based on what happened on the 23rd. That was their theory.
That was the theory they entered this case with; that he had watched Martha Stewart on the 23rd, remember? That Martha Stewart had played -- or talked about meringue on the 23rd.
They had a theory that she had the same pants on on the 23rd that she was found in, so therefore she was not alive on the morning of the 24th.
That was the theory. That was their -- what they operated from. That's what they led you to believe; that's what they came to trial.
Look what happened -- and I'm going to ask Raffi to put up the 24. Let's look what happened on the 23rd and go through the 24th. The first thing that happened is on the 23rd. We know once they did an investigation, and they knew this that Margarita Nava is cleaning the house, and that she was able to carry the groceries in, five bags at a time. She didn't need any help. She was apparently active enough to do that.
We know that that was from Trader Joe's, that she -- we also know on the 23rd, go to there, Raffi, that next little square.
From Trader Joe's, there's a copy of everything that's purchased. She was there at 10:06 on the 23rd at Trader Joe's, is what the guy's stated it said. That's where the page number is.
Obviously she wasn't at home. And if you remember Margarita Nava's testimony, when she came in I specifically asked her they knew that Scott wasn't home the morning of the 23rd because they asked her: Did you see Scott.
She said Yeah, he just came home for a minute or two, picked up a paper and then left.
Well, if they knew that, why did they have this theory about Scott just transplanting, if you will, whatever happened on the 23rd and putting it on to the 24th?
The reason was because the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. Somebody interviews Margarita Nava, which is Brocchini.
Somebody else -- Brocchini looks at the tape, doesn't see it; Grogan was on his way.
Now, health insurance. Let's go to that. The day before she goes missing, that was Nienhuis, we had the check register. I can't quite read the exhibit number on it, but the check register shows that he paid the Blue Shield insurance the day before. Well, they've got this theory that somehow he was financially strapped and didn't want to do this, and didn't want to do that.
If he had this plan, if there was some master plan to kill her the following day, why was he paying for the health insurance on the 23rd for Laci? What sense does that make? But nobody -- you know, this is something that Nienhuis has got. Nienhuis doesn't -- apparently doesn't let that information get over to Brocchini, or it doesn't get over to Grogan, and the next thing you know you to have wait until trial to find that out.ne We know she was apparently active enough to go on -- for a lamp repair that day, that she's apparently active enough to go to Sweet Serenity Spa on the 23rd, that she went to the doctor's office, and then she went to -- had a doctor's appointment, she went to Salon Salon. Amy told us that.
And we find out at trial, remember for the first time -- they've got a theory that Scott was planning all of this, and the plan was the 24th. And for the very first time at trial the lead Detective tells you, Grogan tells you, that he didn't know that Amy had been invited over for pizza by Scott.
You don't think that's significant? I mean obviously it is.
Both officers who said it said it was.
Go to that. And that's specifically 8921. They invite you over to the house on the 23rd so you could join them for pizza. Scott specifically asked you to come over.
Why? Because he planning to kill Laci? That's why he specifically asked her to come over on the 23rd for pizza, sometime after 8:30?
They do pizza and a video. Go to there.
And then presumably -- and this is the other thing. You know, we went a lot of time in this trial, the prosecution spent a lot of time telling you that she was wearing the same clothes that she was found in. That Laci's remains were found in was the same clothes as the 23rd. And that's -- there's a reason for that.
The reason for that, the reason they came to this theory is because they have this theory of the soft kill. And the reason for that is because they've got no evidence, because if he -- the whole problem what they've got is, if there is no evidence -- there's no blood, there's no poisoning, there's no knife with blood on it, there's no gun, there's no nothing that shows how she was killed -- then you've got to come up with this theory of a soft kill.
And a soft kill being, and he demonstrates somehow Scott had taken a pillow and suffocated her; that's why nobody heard it, it was the middle of the night. That was the end of that.
There's only one problem with that. Go to the next slide, Raffi.
On the 24th, only once we get to trial, do we discover the hamper. And I specifically take Grogan through all the pictures. It would appear that the maternity -- the one reasonable explanation would be from that maternity blouse, was in there -- you can see it there; we saw it -- they didn't know that at the time.
Remember when Detective Coyle got on the stand and he said -- I asked him specifically: Did you see the maternity blouse? He said he didn't remember it. And then he wrote some notes later, and he said, when I showed him this, that now he remembered it?
And then specifically -- go back one slide, Raffi.
The -- I asked one reasonable explanation is the fact that Amy Rocha identified the clothes on the 23rd when she came home. She got out of those clothes, put the blouse in the hamper, hung up the tan or cream colored pants.
Now, remember they found tan and cream colored pants hanging up, worn but not soiled, on the -- when they went in there for the search warrant.
They find the shoes. They -- now we've shown you from the video still the pajamas. That she gets up in the morning, she takes her pajamas off, and she gets dressed.
Now, obviously somehow she got the pants, the tan pants that she was found in, on her body. Somehow she got those on. And clearly they were not the tan pants she was wearing the night before. Which means that she got up the next morning, which means there was no soft kill.
Now, one other thing. I'm not a woman. I've never been pregnant. I have spent some time with pregnant women. I don't know too many pregnant women, and I'll defer to the women in the jury, who sleep with an underwire bra on when they're eight months pregnant.
I just would suggest to you that that's not a likely scenario.
I would suggest to you that if you put on the blue pajamas, the blue pajamas that were in that hamper, that she took them off in the morning, she dresses and puts on the bra.
And then go to the next one, Raffi.
And this is significant. Look what -- this is the picture they take on the night of 24th. That's the curling iron.
Why is that significant? We've got specific information from Margarita Nava that when she cleaned the bathroom she put everything that was out away. There was nothing in disarray. So, sometime between when Margarita Nava left on the 23rd, somebody got out and somebody put that curling iron out.
Well, what testimony do we have from Amy? Amy said: Now, when you were -- you said that you were helping her style her hair, is that something called a fun flip? Well, we did her hair flipped out, we were showing her how to take a -- and she says "curling iron." Not me.
Okay. And was she having trouble doing that? Amy says yes. So that was something that you would do in the morning when you get up in order to style your hair? Yeah.
Another piece of circumstantial evidence showing that Laci Peterson was alive the morning of the 24th. You don't have to take it from me, you don't have to take it from Scott. This is their evidence.
But nobody -- the left hand never knew what the right hand was doing, never put it together. Never -- nobody ever said Wait a second, why is there a curling iron out? If he killed her on the 23rd, why would he need a curling iron out? The maid was there.
Nobody ever asked Amy what about this fun flip, is that what you were doing? She was the one who brought up the curling iron.
Go to the -- where they find the tennis shoes.
Scott, the evidence also proves, said that she was barefoot at the time. She typically wore white tennis shoes when she walked. She wore white tennis shoes when she would go for a walk, I asked. Yes. Barefoot when he left. Yes.
Grogan, we were also looking for white tennis shoes. This is page 17675: We did find some shoes, but they were slip-on. They looked like tennis shoes from the front, but they slip-on from the back. They don't have a standard back that the tennis shoe would have on them.
So apparently one of the other things is missing, and they've done two search warrants, are you would expect to find the tennis shoes.
The tennis shoes are not there. Does it lead anybody to question Wait a second here, maybe there wasn't such a thing as a soft kill in the house, and maybe the logical extension of the fact that we've got no evidence whatsoever of her struggling in that house, of her dying in that house, is because it didn't happen in that house.
Then -- go to the next one.
Laci on computer. This, to me, is the single biggest fact that was never, ever dealt with in this case. I didn't discover it until I'm doing cross-examination on Wall. They never knew it, and it's reprehensible that nothing was done about this.
This laptop computer was accessed at 8:40 a.m. and it ended at 8:45 a.m. This is Wall. This is their computer expert. There's a Yahoo
shopping site that was accessed where a digital weather station and garden weather vane are listed. And then I said where is the next site that's checked.
He says it goes to a shopping site with a GAP pro fleece scarf and sunflower motif umbrella stand. 15756.
I said: Now, were you ever asked to determine the question that I referred to a couple of minutes ago, who was the person who logged on at 8:40?
You mean to tell me that you have got a whole theory that Laci Peterson was killed on the 23rd, or a soft kill on the 24th, and you've got computer access where somebody's looking for a fleece scarf and a sunflower motif umbrella stand and you never bother to ask the guy Hey, tell me who might have done this?
And I said, I asked him, you can compare and see if this particular person, if it's Laci, had actually accessed the GAP web site before they actually made a purchase, correct? That's right.
Now, but none of that was done in this case? As far as you know, you weren't asked to do it in a specific time line? No. Why?
I'll tell you why; because they've got a reasonable doubt. They don't want to know the answer. It doesn't work for me.
If they believe that Laci Peterson was dead, if they believe that Scott Peterson had done it, would you tell me why this simple little task that Wall could have done was not asked to be done? Is there any explanation you can think of?
These are guys who will go out in the Bay 51 times, who will call in FBI search teams from New York. These are people who will haul out a petrographer to compare cement. They will spend any amount of money in prosecuting this case, but they won't ask a guy to tell me if that looks like it's Laci Peterson who was accessing at 8:40?
And, by the way, one other thing that occurs to you when you're looking at this, go back, Raffi, to where that umbrella stand is.
Do you think maybe when she's shopping for that umbrella stand, that that might have reminded her about umbrellas and that might have been why she asked Scott to take the umbrellas out of there? Do you think that that's something that might occur in somebody's brain in the morning?
Is that a piece of circumstantial evidence that you can use to infer certain things, that it wasn't Scott's idea to necessarily take the umbrellas out that morning but that she's searching for an umbrella stand, the woman who's got a sunflower tattoo on her, and she's got a sunflower motif umbrella stand, that maybe the possibility, the distinct possibility is she saw that, she was the one who was on that computer, and then she suggested to Scott Take the umbrellas out of here?
Did anybody follow-up on that? Did anybody ask this question?
No, because they know what the answer is. They know it was Laci Peterson on there.
Recipe for the bread. Look, they've also got -- I'm asking: Christmas day you were invited over to Scott and Laci's house? Yes. For brunch? Yes. Do you know what she was baking for brunch? We were going to have French toast and she said some fruit. That's all I remember. 8930.
This picture is crŠme brl‚e French toast.
By the way, it's also on December 9th, when he's supposedly -- it's got a print date of December 9th, when he's supposedly printing out this master plan for the Bay, which also's got December 9th; we heard ad nauseam about that. Well, apparently Laci is right there, because Laci, at the same time, is telling him to print out the recipe for creme brulee French toast.
Go on to Martha Stewart.
Now, Martha Stewart. Yesterday one of the more stunning things that was said by the prosecutor is That's one of the most important facts for us.
Well, how is that possibly the most important fact for them?
They've got an entire theory that's predicated on the fact that Scott Peterson killed Laci Peterson and then fabricated what happened the morning of the 24th from what he did on the 23rd.
Well, we now know he wasn't at home on the 23rd because we've heard the evidence. We now know that he obviously was at home on the 24th and then obviously Martha Stewart was playing.
So what happened? This master manipulator decided to turn on Martha Stewart at that point and watch it and learn exactly what she was going to say so that when the police asked him he would -- he would anticipate somebody was going to ask him what was Martha Stewart saying, and I remembered it was meringue, and he was going to -- that was in his -- in his thought processes?
I mean it's ludicrous. It's absolutely ludicrous. You would think that, once they see this, they would say to themselves Well, wait a second here, you combine that with the curling iron, with the fact we didn't find the white tennis shoes, with the fact that Laci obviously was on the computer, with the fact that she was dressed and the fact that we now know unequivocally she wasn't wearing the same clothes as the night before; well, I don't think it's a far stretch of the imagination to figure out that Laci Peterson was awake, was dressed, and was up that morning, and that Scott Peterson left at 9:47, which is exactly the last thing ringing in his ears is, oo-hoo, meringue, as he's walking out the door.
Instead -- and, you know, there's some other things that make some sense. If somebody is going to mop the floor, if somebody is going to -- and this is what Brocchini said Scott told him, she said she was going to finish cleaning up, she was mopping the floor, taking her dog for a walk, she was going to go to the store and buy for Christmas morning breakfast, and it was going to be an involved prep, so she was prepping the breakfast and she was going to make gingerbread cookies. Brocchini says yes.
Well, tell me something, when is the perfect time to take your dog for a walk? Wouldn't it be right after you've mopped the floor and the floor is wet and you know you're going to be gone for 15 or 20 minutes and you want the floor to dry. And you're obviously going to mop the floor; if you're barefoot, you're going to step outside, which, by the way, is where the testimony is that the shoes were kept, they keep their shoes outside, so she steps outside the unlocked door, she puts on her shoes, and at that point goes to, I assume, walk the dog.
Now, we've also got the string mop. Why is this important?
Well, we said they would give it to him. You look and see were there any signs of blood or tissue, and there was absolutely nothing on them. And he says correct. Or Pin Kyo said correct.
I believe she also tested the other mop, and if it were used to clean something, some kind of crime scene, you would have some evidence on the sponge because the sponge would absorb it, and she says that's correct.
And then you had the bucket, and the bucket didn't have any kind of anything other than a detergent smell. That was it. That was what was in it.
What's the reasonable interpretation of what happened that morning? Is the reasonable interpretation that somebody mopped the floor and that somebody went outside and somebody put on their white tennis shoes and somebody, Laci Peterson, hooked up a leash to the dog and started to take the dog for a walk?
Isn't that what the reasonable -- the only reasonable interpretation is? Because nobody else, at least from the officers's standpoint, has dealt with this. Has dealt with any of that.
That in and of itself shows you that at that point she was alive, that she was out there. If -- I mean certainly Scott wasn't mopping, because if there had been something to clean up, they would have found some evidence. They didn't find any evidence, so obviously she was just mopping.
They didn't find any shoes. Where did the shoes go? Nothing is there.
So I would submit to you that at that point there's only one reasonable interpretation.
And remember, one of the things that wasn't mentioned yesterday is that besides the idea of -- you know, Mr. Distaso said there's no playbook for grief; do you remember that yesterday? There is a playbook for jurors, and the judge is going to give it to you. And it's call CALJIC. It's the jury instructions.
And it says specifically -- the very first one that he's going to give you is 1.00. And 1.00 specifically says that you must accept and follow the law as he states it to you, whether you agree with it, anything concerning it, or not. And you must not be influenced by pity for or prejudice against the defendant. You must not be biased against him because he's been arrested.
None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not be influenced by sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice.
You're not supposed to just decide this case on whether or not you like Scott Peterson. The judge -- all of you swore that you would follow the law and that you would not consider this on conjecture, sympathy, passion or prejudice.
Well, I would suggest to you that what we've presented to you right here is reasonable doubt. Right here. Because -- and I think I asked virtually every single one of you about 2.01, which is the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
A finding of guilt may not be based on circumstantial evidence -- you can't do it, and this is a circumstantial case -- unless it's consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime and it cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.
Well, you tell me right now what answer they've got that is consistent in their evidence -- this is all their evidence -- that is consistent with Scott Peterson being guilty of that crime.
Clearly she was alive. Clearly she is not a victim of a soft kill.
So then the next question is Well -- and I'm sure Mr. Distaso will get up and he'll ask you Why don't we engage in -- because that's what he asked you to do yesterday -- why don't we engage in sentiment, conjecture, or passion?
And what would the sentiment, conjecture, or passion be? The conjecture would be -- well, the sentiment would be you hate Scott Peterson.
Since we hate him, let's conjecture. Our sentiment is we hate him, and the conjecture is, okay, it wasn't a smother.
By the way, we took the pillows but we never tested them. We've got no evidence. So -- and clearly she got up in the morning, so clearly she wasn't smothered. So let's pretend she was strangled.
You've got no evidence of that. There's no evidence anywhere in that house she was strangled. And, remember, Karen Servas says she lives 15 feet away from that house. You've seen the pictures. 15 feet. Karen Servas was home that morning. Obviously there's a dispute as to what time she left, but Karen Servas was home. And she clearly was home, according to her, up until 10:18.
And I specifically asked her -- I don't know if you've got that handy, Raffi, but I specifically asked her -- and he'll try to find it -- did you hear anything that morning. And her answer was no.
So are you telling me that Laci Peterson, that somehow she gets up that morning, she puts on her bra, she puts on some kind of an outfit -- Scott describes it as a white shirt, black pants -- she puts on tennis shoes to go walk the dog, she starts to mop the floor, and Scott strangles her? And the next-door neighbor never hears her scream? And there's not a single mark on him, nothing -- nothing that would be consistent with a strangulation?
Does that make any sense? Is that consistent? Does that -- is that a rational -- something rational you can base it on?
If this -- if the circumstantial evidence is here, is -- and the judge is going to tell you, this is what you've sworn to do as a juror in this case -- if the circumstantial evidence permits or points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to his innocence and you must reject the interpretation that points to his guilt.
And that's where we are. We're right here. Without me going one whit farther, we're at a point where the one rational explanation is that she was alive when Scott Peterson left.
And if you do what you're sworn to do, and not engage in conjecture, or passion, or prejudice, and if you specifically look and see if it's a reasonable interpretation -- and I would submit to you that that is a reasonable interpretation of what happened -- then you have only one conclusion.
And that conclusion is that Scott is not guilty.
Now, one of the other things. Part of what you do in a closing arguments is pose to the jury questions as to what -- from the evidence.
One of the questions that I've always wondered is if Scott Peterson was the person who was responsible for Laci's death, wouldn't he know what she was wearing when he killed her? Why would he tell the police white shirt, tan -- black pants, if she was wearing some other shirt and tan pants?
What sense would that make?
Wouldn't he want to say, if he's -- if somehow the only other rational conclusion here -- and I would submit to you it's a totally irrational line conclusion -- is that somehow he kills her during the night and then gets her dressed himself, at which point, I would assume, he would remember what pants he put on her. Then he goes and lays out the curling iron, then he hides the tennis shoes, then he goes on to the computer and does a search, and then he sits down and, while she's dead, watches Martha Stewart.
You know, if I suggested a scenario like that, he would get up here, and rightfully so, and say That defense lawyer is blowing smoke and mirrors; that defense lawyer is blowing smoke right up you know where.
Because it's ludicrous. The only explanation that makes any sense here is that she was alive that morning when he left, and you must adopt that interpretation that points to his innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt.
That's what the state of the law is.
There's a reason for that. The reason for that is because he's presumed innocent. And he's innocent until the contrary is proven. And if there's a reasonable doubt whether that's shown, he's entitled to a verdict of not guilty.
And it's not a mere possible doubt because everything relating to human affairs is open to some, but you -- it must leave you, in the minds of the jurors, in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.
What does that mean? You know, I've tried a lot of cases, Mr. Distaso's tried a lot of cases. Jurors often ask me what does it mean about reasonable doubt, how -- how do you know reasonable doubt.
The best explanation anybody ever gave me was a juror after one of the cases who said I just couldn't go to sleep and wake up every single morning and believe, with a conviction, that my decision was the right one.
And that's basically the best definition I've ever heard. You have to have that conviction that at any moment, you know, we're not going to pop up and find out that yes, in fact, who really did this; at any moment that you don't have in your mind -- that you're just confident beyond a reasonable doubt to an abiding conviction that he did it.
Now, the law's got other standards. Let me just give you for a second what those are. I don't know if you've got that.
One of them is a strong suspicion. If you have a strong suspicion that somebody committed a crime, a strong suspicion is not good enough. A strong suspicion is, as a matter of law, you must find Scott Peterson guilty. Or not guilty. You must specifically say, if you go back in that jury room and say to yourself, Look, I got a strong suspicion that he was involved.
It's not good enough.
There's another standard, which is a preponderance of the evidence. If you feel that the evidence -- and a strong suspicion starts kind of the lowest standard that we've got. A preponderance of the evidence is what's used in civil cases. Basically you think more or less. More or less I think he did it.
If you think more or less he did it, then the problem is they have not proven their case.
And then the next standard is clear and convincing. Well, I don't -- I would submit to you there's no way you can say this case has been proven clear and convincing that Scott Peterson had anything to do with this.
In fact, I would submit to you that what's been proven is it's clear and convincing that Laci Peterson was alive on the 24th when Scott left, and that something happened to her after that.
What it is we don't know.
One of the reasons we don't know about what happened is because, specifically, following up on this argument that I was making to you before about the police focusing on him within an hour, even though they focused on him within the hour, they then received all kinds of tips.
And that was -- all kinds of tips of Laci walking. And you say -- and I know Mr. Distaso's point was Well, why didn't somebody -- or why didn't the defense bring those people in.
You know, we talked about bringing them in at the opening statement, but something happened in this case along the way. Something that for me, at least, was rather stunning because I never heard it, it's not in a police report anywhere that I'm aware of. Detective Grogan said that Laci sightings were not a priority. Remember when I asked him that?
And that, to me, was stunning. Laci sightings were not a priority. And the reason he said the reason it was not a priority is because it was publicized that she was wearing a white shirt and black pants. And he then after the fact tries to eliminate various suspects because it wasn't between 10:08 and 10:18, and all that.
Well, they didn't know at the time what she was wearing, obviously. And obviously they weren't concerned about whether or not it was publicized about what she was wearing and that the media was influencing her, because guess what happened? On January 2nd they issued a press release asking for Scott sightings. They wanted Scott sightings on January 2nd, and they wanted the media -- and they put out a picture of Scott's boat and of Scott's truck. So they used the media to get you Scott sightings, but they discounted Laci sightings because of the media.
Well, wouldn't the more prudent thing have been when people's memory is fresh, to go out in and interview these people and ask them when they were, where they were, what time it was, what day it, was rather than letting the defense play catch-up two years later and rather than the police waiting for two years later?
Isn't one of the things that's disturbing about that is instead of going out and making Laci sightings a priority, that they go out and look for other women -- and here's specifically where it was.
Well, I can't say that the sightings automatically were a priority, but it was the intention to try to contact them.
Now, when you say you can't say that they were -- what was the term you used? A priority. And here what they end up doing, contrast that with what they end up doing. They end up later on, for trial, going out and finding women who were pregnant in the neighborhood.
Now, Distaso, Mr. Distaso yesterday said the reason they did that is to show the neighborhood was safe.
That wasn't the reason they did that. The reason they did that was to try to preempt Laci sightings.
So this is where this prosecution took place. They've got this many dots of people who say they saw Laci walking, okay? Instead of going and investigating those people, they waited seven months, or eight months, and they went to find people who looked like Laci, who weren't walking on the 24th, did not have a dog, the dog didn't look like it, or had a Standard Poodle.
That was what they did in order to investigate Laci sightings.
Now, how in the world are you supposed to know what happened -- and here -- here are the people. We've got all the pictures. These are all in the exhibit. And specifically that's what they did. They didn't go and look and talk to the people who say they saw Laci.
How do we know what happened once Scott left but to talk to the people who actually, at the time period, had seen Laci. If you haven't talked to those people, the eyewitnesses, the people who called in, then how can you say now, with any confidence, that they knew or they didn't know?
Why is it that you march in all these people, one of whom has got a red wagon, one of whom has got a chocolate lab, a Standard Poodle, and everything else, people who aren't even pregnant. Why march them in here unless you're trying to just prove a case as opposed to find the truth.
And ultimately that's what the courtroom is, is a search for the truth. Why do you have to get all these machinations? Why do the theories have to change? Why do they have to run away from what it is that they're supposed to be doing, which is to find out what happened to Laci.
Now, specifically, after the 23rd and after Laci is alive on the 24th -- let me go to 49, Raffi.
Specifically I talked about the smothered or strangled.
Yesterday, this is what Mr. Distaso suggested to you happened. That she was either smothered or strangled, and we talked about that.
The blue tarp. Remember the blue tarp. Let me explain something to you. The blue tarp was tested and there was no evidence on it.
Okay? But conjecture? Where is that -- where is the jury instruction that you're supposed to engage, once again, in conjecture, speculation, passion, prejudice?
This is what you're -- what you're tasked to do. So the blue tarp has got no evidence. We've got no evidence that she was smothered or strangled. Now, we've got this backed the truck up and carries Laci to the truck.
Well, Laci, if you believe them, was specifically a hundred and 53 pounds and would have been -- and I don't mean this facetiously, but would have been literally dead weight. And supposedly Scott is going to carry Laci, wrapped up in a blue tarp, into his truck in the front yard, which is -- and the truck is -- I believe you've got the measurements on one of the exhibits, is about 34, 35 inches tall, right here on me. And that's where the bed of the truck is. And so he would have loaded her in this. And supposedly he then puts the umbrellas on top, and then goes over to the warehouse and backs the truck into the warehouse.
Well, that's -- that's the scenario that he's constructing.
Well, then he says he loads Laci in the boat.
Well, what would he have to do if he loaded Laci into the boat?
The first thing he would have to do is to take the umbrellas off. We never saw that demonstration, whether or not Kim Fulbright could get in the back of that truck with the umbrellas in the back of that truck.
But if he took the umbrellas off, why wouldn't he just put them in the warehouse? Wouldn't that be the simplest thing to do, if he's just using the umbrellas to hide Laci until he gets over to the warehouse, take the umbrellas off, put them into the warehouse, and store them?
The reason why the umbrellas were still in there is because Laci was never in there.
Now, he loads Laci into the boat. Okay. So he loads Laci into the boat. Once again, the dead weight in this blue tarp and loads Laci into the boat. That's what they would have you believe. This hundred and 53 pounds.
Well, if that happens, then, what, Laci is dead and decomposing, and he then goes eight feet away into the office and gets on his computer?
Actually, he assembles the mortiser. While she's sitting there dead and decomposing, he assembles the wood mortiser.
This guy who they test, the FBI was trying to find out his entire background, Terry Scott went to San Luis Obispo, Grogan investigated his entire background. Nobody's ever found a crime or anything or ever voiced anything, nobody's ever found him to get into fights, nobody's ever found him to get violent, no female he's ever been with has said he's ever been violent any way, shape or form. This guy's never shown any kind of antisocial activity or behavior at any time in his entire life.
This guy, right over here, all of a sudden is such a absolute cold, calculating murderer that he takes his dead wife and child in a -- and puts them into the boat and then assembles his mortiser in his -- in his place?
That's what you have to believe, because the mortiser was assembled.
Then what he does, because that's not good enough, while she decomposes some more, he's got to go in and get on his computer, because Lydell Wall testified that from 10:30 to 10:56 he's on the computer. So you've got to believe that this guy is such an absolute maniac that he just put her in there, waited in there, and kept of her in there for virtually an hour into -- in the warehouse.
Now, one of the things that I never quite understood about this scenario yesterday is his original alibi was golfing but it got too late to go golfing so then something else? Well, if his original alibi was golfing, and he was going to take her to the Bay, why didn't he just go? Why did he stop to do the mortiser and the computer? What was the point of that? I mean, if his original alibi was golfing?
Because it's just pure speculation.
Then the hair pliers. I don't know -- they've got some theory that he put weights on the body with hair pliers. Well, where is there one whit of evidence anywhere that there were weights put or attached to this body?
You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. But once again, all they want you to do is be influenced by sentiment -- you're supposed to hate him, okay? And if you hate him, then you can engage in conjecture, even though we've got not one whit of evidence that there were ever weights put on the body.
Then we've got put cover on the boat, which is an interesting one, because we've got debris on the boat. How do we get debris on the boat with the cover on it. And then he drives the truck to the Bay, takes the boat out to the Bay, drives home, reports her missing.
Where is the slide about the boat demonstration? I want to show you. Let me give you the second -- the first -- go to the next one. Go to 50 for a second.
The reason that I asked this question, and I only asked it because he testified to it. You remember Jacobson. I know a couple of you do.
Jacobson specifically, when he got up here, in his affidavit for a warrant, I said -- this is his quote: I felt that based on my experience in law enforcement that this -- I felt this was carried out by more than one person.
Correct? Yes, sir.
Well, I've got to tell you, once again, if this was carried out by more than one person, it wasn't Scott Peterson. And if it was carried out by more than one person, that's consistent with his innocence.
And you must adopt that interpretation that points to his innocence.
That's Jacobson. He's not my witness. This is the guy, before anybody got arrested in this case, swore under oath that it had to be or that he felt it was carried out by more than one person.
Now, go to the boat demonstration.
This is a series -- this is 52, Raffi.
Specifically -- you've got the page numbers here. I first asked Dodge Hendee about this: Did you ever have a discussion about doing a demonstration with the boat on a body of water and trying to throw somebody off who weighed a hundred and fifty pounds. We talked about it. It's never been done, to my knowledge. Nobody ever tried it from the DA's office? To my knowledge they haven't.
Why? Why haven't they?
What's the next slide, Raffi?
I asked Grogan: Did you at that point talk to Dodge Hendee specifically about doing a demonstration with a boat and a weighted object to see if the boat would flip over if you tried to push it off? That's possible.
We had discussions about that.
You said Wait, does that include investigators from the DA's office? Yes.
And later, not once, twice, three times. And a decision was made not to try to attempt to push either a body or a weight out of the boat; isn't that correct? That's correct.
Wonder why that is. Maybe because they've got reasonable doubt?
Here's another thing that shows you that they didn't believe their own theory. You suggested areas by buoys be searched as that would provide an area for both cover and to tie off the boat, and avoid an area for both cover and tie up the boat and avoid flipping the boat by putting a body over the side. 18343. Yes.
And specifically one of your concerns is that if your theory is true as to what happened here, that if the boat was not tied up when pushing the body out of the boat, the boat would flip, correct? We considered that as a possibility. That's Grogan. 18343.
The investigating officer in this case not only considered it as a possibility, you heard they went to a great extent to test the buoy, the paint on the buoy to see if it compared with the paint transfer on the boat, because Detective Grogan himself had doubts. He had more than reasonable doubts that their theory made any sense.
Specifically, and here's his evidence -- D 7 X, this is his -- one of his ten reasons that would brackets the 41 reasons. Look at number eight. Difficult to dump body. That's one of their theories. And they never, ever tried to do it. They did, however -- do we have the term turtle one? Go to the next one.
Remember they brought this guy in Weber? We kept you guys cooling your heels for about 15 minutes when we brought him out from Tennessee while I talked to him, because it was a witness they brought in. This guy was a guy who has -- the manufacturer of the boat. And specifically I asked him: If you go to the side of the boat, and the side of the boat, that's not the center of gravity, correct? When you go to the side and put 400 pounds on the side, have you ever done that? No, sir. Would you expect that that would probably turn turtle? I can't honestly answer that.
You're going to convict somebody beyond a reasonable doubt on a theory that the manufacturer of the boat can't answer, on a theory that the lead detective had his doubts about, on a theory that doesn't make any sense whatsoever? How could you possibly do that? And based upon that it couldn't be carried out by one person?
I'll tell you, turn turtle is when they talked about that boat flipping, and yesterday Mr. Distaso got up here and told you Well, we asked Cuanang about it, we asked Cuanang about it, Cuanang the fisherman.
Well, Cuanang the fisherman, take a look at the book, I don't have it handy here, but there's three guys standing in the middle of the boat like this. They're not standing on the side -- you can look at it -- they're not leaning over, they're not trying to dump something out, they're not trying to push it over the side on an ocean, or a bay, while the boat is out there with his 200 and some-odd pounds on top of it, with the weights attached to it. Try to push that out.
They discussed it but they never did it?
You know why they never did it? Under the rules of law in this state and in the United States, if they do a demonstration, they must turn it over to the defense. It's called Brady material. So if they do that demonstration and it doesn't work, case over. They know that.
And that's why they made the decision. That's why the detectives were saying Let's try it, and they discuss it with the DA's office and the DA's office says no. Because they know, if they do it and it doesn't work, case over. Or, what they've done in this case is just come up with a new theory. Maybe it wasn't Scott on the boat, maybe it was something else. That's a real significant problem for them.
Next slide, Raffi.
Here's another area that they specifically yesterday -- and that's why we were up late last night, and excuse me for that; but Scott did not want the baby. That was the newest motive. That he was okay, it was okay, he and Laci, as long as she wasn't pregnant. Well, part of what they count on in this case is, I believe, after five months you'll forget the testimony that happened in the first three months. And so if they just elongate this thing enough, that you won't remember what was said.
Rose Rocha was one of the first people who testified. And she was told specifically that they had a lot of effort to get pregnant. Oh, this month we are really going to try, I purchased the ovulation calculator. And she made it very plain to you that it would require an effort on both their parts for her to get pregnant, didn't she? Yeah.
You heard that -- Brent say on television shows that Scott was excited about the baby, didn't you? Yes. That was Brent.
Next slide. Ron Grantski. Is it a fair statement that as Laci got more pregnant or as the pregnancy proceeded that Scott made an effort to try and include you and Sharon more with them? Yes, he did. And that involved having you and Sharon, as she got more -- progressively more pregnant over on Sundays? Yes.
Next slide. And then he wanted to spend more time to have the families get together, about two weeks before Laci disappeared? I made a point of asking Sharon about that. You know, it's kind of strange, two weeks before Ron is saying Why are you driving me over to Scott's house on Sunday for dinner, and Sharon's telling him Because Scott wants a family, Scott told -- Laci said Scott wanted us to spend more time together because of the baby.
Next slide. Brent Rocha. Is it fair to say that Laci was very excited about the kid? Yes. And Scott as well?
They count on you to don't remember. One of the goals was to have a child and family. Okay. That was one of his goals. Apparently that goal has morphed now into one of his motives.
Specifically you told him I just want my sister back, and he said I do too, I want Laci and my baby back. Is that what he told you? Yes.
That's it. They just count on the fact that you won't remember what happened early on in this case.
This is Mr. Olson, remember Mr. Olson. He was the guy who worked for Scott. He told police officers basically when you're working with him, you're talking about experiences with him, that Scott seemed happy with the pregnancy? His answer was yes.
Next slide. Greg Reed. During that time you were looking at it -- and remember, this is his friend, the one he went to Lamaze classes with, he and Laci attended the Lamaze classes with. They were looking through this Cabella's catalog, which is a hunting and fishing catalog, and when they were looking through it, specifically the kids' sections with the kids outfits, And the two of you were talking and laughing about how much you couldn't wait to buy your kids those kinds of outfits? I remember that clearly, that's correct. He was very excited about the possibility, wasn't he? Yes.
That's what the testimony is. That's what the evidence is.
We could always default back, I suppose, to conjecture, and we could always default back to sentiment and passion against, or you could do what you're sworn to do, which is to look at the testimony.
Keep going. 64.
Here's another. This was the jeweler. Remember that? She was the one that came in and testified that Scott was in there, and, in fact, he was showing affection towards her, he was rubbing her stomach, et cetera, and that was correct.
Then this was taken -- this is Ann Bird's kid. This was introduced just this week. This was at the -- I think the baptism on January 12th. This is the gentleman who didn't want -- didn't want the baby.
There's a Brooks who'se got no axe to grind, as Mr. Distaso would say. Brooks is a jeweler. She saw Scott rubbing the belly.
The next slide.
Here's another one that they talked about. The financial motive. Apparently yesterday they backed off to some degree on that. They said Well, they had a high debt to credit ratio. But the fact of the matter is you all remember they called no less than four witnesses to suggest that there was a financial motive for him to kill Laci. No less than four.
But look at what the evidence told you. First of all, Amy inherited the jewelry with Laci.
Next slide. And, specifically, Laffer said what would that have done to essentially their financial condition? As I understand it there were the proceeds from the 485 -- 485,000 that were going to be divided up between the three beneficiaries.
And then there was also testimony the estate was worth approximately 2.4 million dollars.
Next slide. And what Brent testified to is if anything happened to Laci it would pass to her son Conner, and if something happened to her son Conner, then it would not go to Scott Peterson at all; is that your understanding? My understanding it would go to the remaining two beneficiaries.
So there was no motive for him to kill Laci and Conner whatsoever. In fact, on the contrary, next slide.
Now, back to what I was asking. This is Brent. From a financial standpoint in regard to the house and the trust, there was absolutely no motivation for Scott Peterson to see Laci and Conner -- have anything happen to them? Brent Rocha: Correct.
And yesterday for the first time you hear a new theory, and the new theory is Well, maybe he didn't -- I think he said he didn't want to pay child support. He didn't want to pay child support? He's going to kill his wife and his child because he didn't want to pay child support? What is the child support obligation? A couple of you have been divorced. What is the child support obligation for somebody's who is making 5,000 a month?
283. It's not astronomical, number one. Number two, for those of you who have been through a divorce, you know that when there's a change in circumstances you know longer have to do that. When Laci, if he divorces her, comes into this money, he's not going to have to be paying anything. If anything, she's going to be paying him, because she's going to have all of the wealth.
This idea that somehow Scott had a financial motive to kill Laci is ludicrous. As Mr. Laffer said, when I asked him, she was infinitely worth more to him alive than dead. Brent Rocha himself said there was absolutely no motivation for Scott Peterson to see Laci and Conner -- have anything happen to them.
The reason that motive is important is because -- there is going to be a jury instruction the judge is going to give you. It's going to say absence of -- motive is not required. But he's also going read to you that absence of motive in and of itself could mean that somebody is not guilty.
Absence of motive.
That's why they struggled so mightily here to come up with a motive. That's why it just switches around constantly from one motive to another. First it's Amber, then it's financial, then it's because I want to be free, then it's because I want the kid. Because there is no motive, and if there is no motive, that in and of itself means that he could be not guilty.
Is this a time to take the break?
MR. GERAGOS: Thank you, judge. One thing I don't have a slide on one of the -- just mention in passing. I'll give you the page number, too.
There is -- yesterday Mr. Distaso mentioned the taxes, the gross and the net, with Mr. Laffer, on that chart somehow that that is -- that Laffer wasn't carrying that into his calculations. At 19355, I specifically asked him, based on your review of Mansfield's testimony, did you draw a conclusion about their financial condition? He said, just based on the monthly income and expenses, looked like they were spending less than they were making.
Then I asked, okay, is there anything regarding the way that you treated the tax consequences of the monthly salary that would impact this? He says, well, what Mansfield used was the gross monthly salary. But, as we all know, there is taxes are withheld, Social Security, Medicare tax, Federal, State withholding.
I didn't factor that in. But it would be less than the excess that I'm showing on my chart.
So Mr. Laffer was aware of the fact that Mansfield had a gross versus net, still did not affect his ultimate conclusion in this case that they were doing well -- they were doing well financially. One of the things that was brought up, and this was specifically this idea that Scott was embezzling money. I say this because, to a certain extent -- I'll explain later when I talk about Scott's emotions, what I think he was going through based on all this. You know, you have got your wife and child missing. Everybody in the world thinks it's you. And the next thing you know, you have got them accusing you of -- or suggesting that you are embezzling money, when you are dealing with an employer who is already probably not real thrilled with the amount of scrutiny that you are getting.
So I thought -- the reason we put up the Double K was to just put to rest, once and for all, the fact that, according to TradeCorp's internal control, rules of control, he was allowed to manage. No evidence was found with respect to TradeCorp or violation of internal rules.
Yesterday Mr. Distaso had mentioned the e-mail from the -- from TradeCorp that was found on Scott's table, as if that was, you know, TradeCorp had some issue with him. This is, mind you, after the fact, after that e-mail came in. They were given everything about Scott. They didn't have a problem with him. They specifically, even in the face of all of this pressure, everything still said that he was complying with everything, that there was no problem. Significant, I think, from the standpoint that this is just one added pressure that he's undergoing at that point.
The next one was, there was a suggestion yesterday that -- been a suggestion throughout this case that somehow Scott was moving the warehouse to get out of Modesto. But you will remember this exhibit, looks like KKK-5. It's an American Warehouse exhibit. That it shows that TradeCorp already, by October 30th of 02, was already planning to move the warehouse.
Raffi, the next one.
And he was -- once again it's almost as if they figured you don't remember any of this. Mr. Harris -- my Mr. Harris asked, shortly after you came to work for TradeCorp, you became aware that TradeCorp was, in fact, looking into the relocation of the warehouse to a place called American Warehouse. And Olsen -- this the guy who worked for Scott then -- said yes, he became aware of that in October of 2002. He said yesterday it was TradeCorp's desire to move the warehouse to a bigger location. And Olsen said yes.
This whole idea somehow he was picking up and trying to move out of town, this was all to be free, is just nonsense. Not to mention the fact that nowhere yesterday did we hear about the fact, if he's moving the warehouse out, if he's selling the -- or wants to kind of free himself up from Modesto, why is he borrowing $25,000 from Jackie and Lee to buy a Del Rio Country Club membership on December 1st?
If his big plan in October is, I'm going to off Laci and Conner because I don't want a kid, and I want out of Modesto, why is he incurring that kind of expenses, jet set lifestyle? Why isn't he going to take at that 25,000, go to down to Pebble Beach, go somewhere else whether? If he wants this jet set lifestyle, why is he buying in Modesto? Those are the kinds of questions that are unanswered.
The reason they are unanswered, they make no sense, basically, is because this whole theory is ludicrous. Because he didn't kill his wife. He didn't kill his unborn child. He was a gentleman who, unfortunately, when they went missing, was having an affair. And everything can be explained by virtue of that afterwards. That's what the reality of this situation is.
When you look at the facts, you know they have it as if the warehouse was something that he was -- that he was going to move out because of Amber and because of this desire to get out of there. At all times it was TradeCorp.
The P.O. Box rental was for Amber. The evidence was that there was additional mail mailed to the mail box that they were notified about.
And that's at 13378. And one of them, just one piece was to Amber. The others were addressed to TradeCorp.
And the application was for TradeCorp. I asked House this.
And that's at 13374. And House specifically said that it appeared, at least, that the mail box was taken in the name of TradeCorp.
And specifically Cavallero. That was the gentleman we brought in just a couple weeks ago. He specifically said, based upon -- did you make a suggestion to Mr. Peterson about what he should do with his mail or checks? I suggested Scott should get himself a P.O. Box. And what was the reason for that, that he wouldn't have any stolen checks any more.
So this idea that somehow he had planned all of this in order to secrete Amber away, which is the original theory. Now I don't know what the theory is. Somehow he went and rented a P. O. Box so he could be free, just wasn't the case, specifically.
And I don't know if you don't have a slide for -- might also remember that I asked one of the officers about whether or not he was aware of the cluster mailboxes being broken into. And that officer specifically said, oh, yeah, we had a county fraud unit that -- he told me about that, and it was a real problem. So this idea, once again, if you have got this prism that you are looking through that you are presuming him guilty, everything looks like some kind of incriminating fact.
The reality is when you examine what is the testimony, it's not incriminating. But when you start from presuming Scott Peterson guilty, yeah, it looks like -- it looks like there is something -- there is something to it, until you start asking questions. When you ask questions, then, all of a sudden, it's something else.
Go to 75, Raffi.
That's a perfect example. Remember this? They show you a picture -- this is the People's exhibit. What number is that, Raffi?
MR. NALJIAN: 152.
152. Do you remember this? This is the one where they took -- they went to a storage unit on the day, on February 18th, and they found this item, which was a receptacle, and it had some photos in it.
Well, instead of photographing it inside of the storage unit, they take the receptacle out, they put it in the middle of this asphalt area, and they photograph it, as if to suggest to you that he's throwing out these photos.
When, in fact, the reality was, when I asked him the questions, did it look to you that they were put in some kind of receptacle and placed in the storage unit?
Yes, in order to store them. That's what it looked like. It didn't look like anybody was throwing away the photos.
House, their cop, says, I don't think so.
So, once again, if you want to have -- you want to start from presuming him guilty, you can say, oh, my God, there is a trashcan there, and he had photos in it. Therefore he is throwing them out. When you ask a couple more questions, you find out that that's not what happened at all.
This is -- you find out later he's had his warehouse rammed.
He's had his house burglarized. People are taking videos, taking clothes out.
They are taking photos out. He's putting stuff into storage. Instead of suggesting that he's throwing out wedding photos, getting basically what I consider to be a misleading picture, you have to ask the question to get the full story. That's, I think, one of the hallmarks of this prosecution.
Now, one of the others was -- this was suggested in Grogan's testimony by Miss Fladager that Scott Peterson was not cooperative with police.
That's -- we did a little chart here. All within -- look, there is eleven separate interviews with the police in the first ten days.
He immediately took the police to the warehouse on the 24th.
Now, one of the things that just makes absolutely no sense to me is this shift of alibis, that somehow he went up there to fish. And that -- I think yesterday it was said. Okay. So he went fishing. But then on the way back out that there was the bumping.
There was two witnesses who -- so he had to change the story.
Well, we know that he called Laci on the phone and said, "Hon, I'm leaving Berkeley." Okay? Then he makes a phone call to Lee. Well, we makes the phone call to Lee, if he's shifting his alibi, wouldn't the perfect place to shift it be to tell your dad at that point, hey, dad, I'm leaving Berkeley, that I just went fishing.
And yesterday -- and I do resent this to some degree, the calling of Lee and Jackie liars. Because that's what they did yesterday. They said Jackie was lying about walking. Lee was lying about -- if Lee wanted to lie, wouldn't the easiest thing for him to lie about be that Scott told me all about the boat, that he had just been fishing. That wasn't on a wiretap. That was on the 24th. If Lee was going to lie, wouldn't that be the simple thing to lie about, that he tells you the truth? No, he didn't discuss it.
And, well -- so if he wasn't telling the Lee about this new alibi, and he wasn't telling Greg Reed about this new alibi, and then he goes and supposedly tells Krigbaum that he was golfing at a certain point, isn't part of the problem of that, that he immediately told the police that he had the boat, that he had it at the warehouse? How do you reconcile these things? Just doesn't make any sense.
He immediately consented to search of the house on the 24th within an hour. Tells the police where he's been. He signed the release for Laci's medical records. He consented to a search of both cars, gave them carte blanche.
Asked to meet with the Chief of Police. Later on gave blood and hair samples, and provided them with evidence. He gave them free rein.
If this is a guy who has killed his wife in his house, transported her in the truck, gone over to the boat at the warehouse, done all of these things and then come back, and then -- and he says he washed his clothes. Well, you know, I don't think it's that much after of a stretch to think that if you are out on The Bay and you come home, this is a guy who deals in fertilizers, is out there dealing with fertilizer products.
My guess is, from what we have heard about Laci, that she does not like him coming home with his clothes, putting his clothes in her hamper after he's either been work around fertilizer or in The Bay. My -- just a wild guess that that's not something that she's going to approve of. And a wild guess is, when he gets home, the first thing that he does is to put his stuff in there. And he does it because he wants to wash it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Look at the things he did provide. He provided them a gas receipt. The marina parking ticket, the fishing license. When they ask you originally, there was this idea that was suggested to you that he was doing it like, here is this, here is this, here is this. Here are the things. But they -- even then when you find out, when you ask Grogan, where you asked Brocchini, we have the witnesses testify, you find out they asked him for it, and then he got it.
One of them was the search warrant. Forget who it was. I think that was Grogan that handed him the search warrant. And he had Scott read the search warrant. Went over, picked up one of the items and got it for him.
The gas receipt. They say, why Scott go back to the place that Scott, as they told you, went back over to the gas place to see where it was.
Grogan asked him -- and this is in the evidence once again.
Grogan asked him where were you? Where did you stop at the gas station one.
Remember, he only bought thirteen dollars worth of gas. Even though I showed him ten other times when Scott bought thirteen or less. But Grogan said, what gas station did you stop at? We want to see if there is videotape there. We want to take and prove this. So he drives the over there, he does that.
Why does he go to the marina? Simple thing. There is newspaper articles that say the search of The Bay, and he's looking for the witnesses. Now, they say why didn't he stop in the office? Well, what they then find out in the testimony was, is that his investigator stopped there in the office to see if they could find him. So, you know, all of this stuff, once again, if you presume him guilty, if you say, okay, I hate this guy, I hate this guy, I hate this guy, and I'm going to try to find everything -- negative spin.
They talked yesterday about the spin. I'm showing you what the evidence is. I'm not trying to get you in here, and get you emotionally charged up to acquit because, you know, you like Scott or anything else. What I'm asking you to do, and I think what the Court has you do as jurors, you swear to take an oath that you are going to apply the law and the facts to the -- the law to those facts. And, specifically, there is nothing in this case that has not been explained, and explained virtually out of their own case.
One of the other things that they did was they suggested that Scott didn't care, didn't search, wasn't active in the search. Do you remember how many witness we had early on -- I'm not going to show you all the testimony -- who said he would show up to the Volunteer Center, and he would leave by nine. As soon as media got there, he was gone by 9:00 o'clock. We had four to five witnesses who testified to that. Well, why would they suggest that to you.
We know by then that they had DOJ following him.
The Department of Justice had him under surveillance from January 3rd to January 11th. And what did they find? They find him going everywhere. Highway 33 Costa Road, Manteca, churches, Country Club, the reservoir forebay, the Red Lion, downtown, Civic Center, Maze. On and on and on. Where does he start every day? At the Red Lion. At the Red Lion.
How many times did I ask DOJ personnel, did they follow him there at 9:00 o'clock? Yeah. What time did he leave? 12:00 o'clock, 1:00 o'clock. The witnesses, for whatever reason, post-Amber, once Amber is over there, the prism changes. And, once again, it's -- the memory is different here. They have got -- they know better. Because they have had sworn police personnel who were following him.
Remember what the term was? The term was lose it, don't burn it. So it wasn't one of these surveillances where they were following behind so Scott knew he was being followed. Their position was that you are not to let yourself be found. So he doesn't know that they are watching him, and look everywhere. He's going by himself, and with others, putting up posters, putting up flyers. He doesn't know he's being followed.
He's doing this organization. He's going to the Command Center. All of this stuff is being done through it all; yet they still perpetuated basically this false idea from this witness stand with these witnesses that he would come in at 9:00 o'clock, or he would come at seven.
He's out of there by 8:45, that he is just gone, just wasn't true.
The uncontroverted testimony is this guy searched more than any other human, any other human, and rightfully so. It's his family that he is looking for.
Yeah, now here is another one. This was -- you will remember Scott returned to the marina. And this one was, once again, they were trying to tell you, I think this was on the 9th. Could have lost one of the tails when DOJ was following him. I understand for specific reason, because they always want to make it seem as if there is some issue higher, what he is doing something suspicious.
Remember, they said he drove the off, then he went on to a little area. And then he got lost for a second. He came back on not until cross examination, when I asked the guy, do you remember if there was a large nursery there? And the guy says yes. He said, did you ever think a fertilizer salesman might be visiting the nursery, which is a customer of his? No, didn't hear that.
Also, remember, I don't have the slide for it. But remember his erratic driving down in Bakersfield, he is circling the parking lots.
Remember that? We produced two exhibits. You will get them, the receipts he went inside the store and he bought items.
Well, apparently his erratic driving was looking for a parking space, because right at the time they said they got him under surveillance. He's buying something. I think it was a K-Mart and the some other store. Some other hardware type store. And we have got exhibits there.
Take a look at it.
This idea that he's doing this, or he is doing that, everything has a sinister connotation. They have to assume that you are going to do that, because they hope you are going to presume his guilt. They hope you are going to hate him. Hopefully you will speculate, get to the point where you say, look, we may not have the evidence, but I hate the guy.
The defense hasn't shown me who else did it. If they don't show me who else did it, I'm going to turn the burden of proof on its head. You are just going to convict him. That's the basic assumption.
Now, Raffi is way ahead of me. Sears. Thank you, Raffi.
There is the receipt, D6A. That's when he's being followed. That's when the testimony was that he was driving erratically. Got the receipt. It's in evidence.
Now, one of the other things go to 90. Yeah, 90.
Repeatedly we have heard about this two-day fishing license. I don't understand the issue. One of these things where I wish you could ask me questions, because I would love to answer. Maybe, you know, I have noticed something that I haven't. I do not understand it.
This is a guy who has got August 30th and 31st September 10th, October, November, December, four months prior, he buys a two-day fishing license, okay? That's before Amber. That's before his master plan, the new master plan, new theory. He's got two-day fishing license. They have got it.
They saw it. He got it in 2000. And specifically that's page 11242.
I asked Skultety, I did ask Skultety, did that contain a fishing license, an older one? Yeah, I believe it was 2000. Here's one from 99.
This idea that somehow a two-day fishing license is suspicious is just beyond the pale. And remember what happened when they brought the Big 5 guy in here? The Big 5 guy, because they put Brocchini on as to why would you buy two-day fishing license when you can buy a one-year? It's a better deal. Something like that.
Then we bring the Big 5 guy in. They bring him in. The Big 5 guy says the reason he got it is because we didn't sell the one-year. We didn't have them. All we sold were two-day because it was the end of the year.
Why did they tell you this? I don't know. This is Brocchini and Distaso. This is a 2002 sport fishing license, number 79. And that he handed to you? Yes, it is. Okay. So he had one in December. He had one in August. He's had two prior to that. He actually had a year license back in 94.
I don't know why this becomes such a big deal, but I guess it's because they want to hide from you the fact that he was a fisherman. I e mean this is what Lee Peterson tells the police where he's gone with Scott.
Probably going there since the age of three.
In fact, growing up Lee's interest was golf, and Scott's was fishing.
Now, I didn't bring the tackle box out. Can you tell me something. I don't fish. I mean obvious, the way I was handling the fishing poles. You guys picked up on that.
Who has a tackle box like that if they don't fish? Is that -- you got the tackle box back in evidence. But who's got a tackle box that's got this kind of collection of junk in it? Bait, lures whatever the heck they are, if they don't fish. Is that something that somebody who doesn't fish -- take a look at the age of the stuff that's in there. Take a look at some of them. Still got the little stickers on it from years ago. You will see.
That's what he would do.
The close up of it. I mean did he go to the great extent of buying all of those lures, and just -- and whatever they are called so that he could -- part of his master plan to throw Modesto PD off the trail by having this fishing tackle box? I don't think.
Then specifically when he moved to San Diego, Scott went fishing out on boats, and go salt water fishing his preference was salt water fishing because it was more challenging. Lee says yes. Once again he called Lee a liar.
Mary Anna Felix. Do you remember her? She testified she was the jeweler. Laci told her -- the just assumed you will forget about that.
Laci told her that Scott enjoyed ocean fishing at Monterey and he fished on the delta. Felix is page 10413. So Laci apparently knows that he enjoys ocean fishing.
Laci tells other people almost, you know, basically her jeweler, that he enjoys ocean fishing. That's their witness. Yet they tell you he's not an avid fisherman. Why? They know it. Here is the evidence. I guess they assume you are not going to remember. And that's, unfortunately, why I'm going to remind you of it.
Next one, Raffi, 96.
The fresh water fishing pole. This was from the opening statement. This is fishing equipment Scott Peterson said he took with him. You have that light reel, then fresh water fishing pole. You are going to find out, on the pole -- and the pole, it was 39.99. And it stands for salt water. So you are going to -- salt water you buy yourself. The guy says, yes, sir. You know what "SW" stands for? It stands for salt water. He bought a salt water pole. Salt water pole is in two parts. Not being a fisherman, or ever having fished, I couldn't tell you what the significance of that is. But those who do tell me that, sometimes what you do is, once you are finished fishing, you take the pole apart, and you put it like this so that you can then carry it easier.
The other pole that was not done with, because the other pole apparently does not break apart like that. And if you go take a look at that when you are back in the jury room, you know what you will notice is that somebody has gone to the point of -- part of this master plan of master criminal Scott Peterson, of threading the twine through the pole.
Looks like the pole was used. Looks like the pole was done all the way. And, you know, I'll get back to what I have said all along. If you didn't want to bring attention to yourself, or if you went out there to just put the boat in the water, why would you get all the fishing equipment, which is automatically going to cause the Fish and Game Warden to come over and see if you got a license. If you want to just buy the boat, and if you are just to going to dump your wife and kid in the bay, why would you go to the extent of the fishing.
You get a new boat. I wanted to see if it would run, not attract Fish and Game, or somebody else. That's -- how ludicrous, this gun in the glove compartment is. This gun, yesterday it was is he was using that for protection. Where did that come from? Now, this, besides the fact that this guy murders his wife and child, he's also going to shoot it out with the CHP on the way to the marina? I mean, you know, at a certain point when you follow this out, it is so absurd, it is so illogical, it makes absolutely no sense.
But the only thing they are banking on is that you are going to hate him. And if you hate him, you will suspend rationality.
Because if you test any of this -- test any of this, if you examine any of this, it makes absolutely no sense.
Salt water. He had no salt water pole.
Go to the next one, Raffi.
You know, no one goes fishing alone. No one goes fishing on Christmas eve. Ron, sitting there. Ron told you that he went alone on and Christmas Eve.
No one drives ninety miles to go fishing. That's another one of my favorites. Well, we -- already there are two witnesses in this case, three witnesses, actually. Ron has driven ninety miles to go fishing. Cuanang, the expert, has gone ninety miles to go fishing. And Brian Peterson admitted -- they had all gone ninety miles to go fishing.
Yesterday there was another suggestion. Why would you drive ninety miles to go fishing when you had all of these lakes? Well, first of all, if you are going to dump the body, you heard Bertalotto, Investigator Bertalotto, tell you that the lakes were 300 deep. Okay?
Now, one of the 41 reasons that Grogan gives is Russian -- I forget how he worded -- but talked about a Russian body, that there was a murder up in the Central Valley somewhere, and bodies were dumped in a lake. And the bodies were found in that lake by Side Scan Sonar. And they were 300 feet deep.
And then Grogan writes that in his 41 reasons. If you list this about Russian bodies, well why, if you know that it's shallow in The Bay, are you going to drive ninety miles to The Bay to dump the body in water that is going to be two feet deep at low tide, when you could go to a lake that's right around the corner, and dump these bodies in the lake, 300 feet deep, where nobody is ever going to find.
Thinking that is just mind boggling to me. Its this assumption.
Once again Mr. Distaso says -- he says, well, The Bay was cold and chilly, and there wasn't very many people there. How did he know that? How did master criminal, master weatherman -- master weatherman, master traffic man, knew that on Christmas Eve day of the 24th, he knew how many people were going to launch their boat?
He knew that the live aboards, all that. We started off yesterday's argument by Distaso with that picture. And he's showing you, he said look at those houses. Look at how far way they are. They couldn't see what was happening in the bay. They couldn't see what was happening.
Well, by the way, 25 feet away from the boat launch are how many people that they testified are living on the boats, that could see right in there, could see what was happening there. Why does he pick the largest marina in Northern California? Because he knows it's not going to be that crowded. If it's going to be non-crowded somewhere, there is going to be remote somewhere.
Why not go to Tulloch Lake? Why not go to the one of the other lakes that Mr.
Distaso suggests, where you can just to get over, and there is nobody there.
They got a boat launch area. Go out in the middle of the lake, 300 feet, and you can dump the bodies.
Doesn't make any sense.
The reason it doesn't make any sense, there is no theory here.
All there is is hate this guy, and then suspend rationality. The question that -- I'm looking at 98.
Cuanang testified. They have brought this guy, and apparently -- I don't mean to be sarcastic about this. But apparently if you don't pass some sturgeon test, then you can't go sturgeon fishing, is the prosecution's position.
This guy specifically said he's seen lots of recreational fishermen who don't quite do things the way that he would do them. Right there, that's what the evidence was. 13772.
In fact, it's safe to say that most recreational fishermen don't have that much knowledge of sturgeon fishing that you do. Of course not. The guy is writing a book, trying to sell a book to them, get them to buy the book so they will have the knowledge. I would say, yes, people go out in The Bay and catch sturgeon, ideal conditions, yes.
Have you ever been to Lake Tulloch? Yes.
From where you live, you are driving from South San Francisco to Modesto to go fishing, specifically to Lake Tulloch? It's a ninety mile -- it's longer than that. So apparently, I don't fish, but apparently those who do think nothing of driving the ninety miles to go fish.
I don't know why that's the big deal that it is, but I guess if you assume that he's -- if you presume he's guilty, then you can put a spin on it that somehow Scott Peterson, it's hinkey that he drives ninety miles to go fish. You examine it, and if you just look at the facts, it doesn't. What they proved in this case, it doesn't do anything.
Here you have got -- okay, in your experience, you will fishing at the drop of a -- you get a chance, won't you? Yes.
Ron Grantski says he goes fishing at the drop of a hat. Mr. Harris asked him, from your knowledge of recreational fishermen, a lot of what they do is just get on the lake, on the boat, whatever, half the fun of it, during your years of fishing.
Have you ever bought boats before? A few.
You have had a boat. You just got a boat, you weren't anxious to get on the water, were you? You were anxious? He says, yes.
Kind of run it out see what it will do? He says yes.
If you assume Scott Peterson is guilty, once again if you presume he's guilty, then, wow, I'm going to run out to The Bay, run the boat in The Bay That's easy. But if you just look at the evidence, it's standard operating procedure. Frankly, this is the reason that they changed their theory.
During Wall's cross examination you will see that there is two of these, USA Fishing sites. This one, which is -- Raffi, do you know what the exhibit number is? Can you tell? I apologize. I'll come back to it.
But, anyway, what it has got on December 5th headline. When I cross examined Wall on that, I specifically asked him, explain to me December 5th, yet the print date was December 9th. And he said one of the reasonable alternatives, one of the reasonable explanations was that you saved it, you book marked it, and then when you came back, refreshed it. You will see in evidence, you have got another one where it says December 8th.
What that did is, that single document right there forced them to change their entire theory in this case in the middle of the case. Because if the December 5th -- here is the December 8th one right there. This is what Wall pulled up, where it says December 8th.
Go back, Raffi.
Here it says December 5th. If he pulled it up on December 5th, you will -- the phone call from Shawn Sibley was meaningless. And so what happened is, when that happened with Wall, when Wall testified that one of the ways that this could happen -- Raffi, go to December 8th.
When Wall testifies that happens, the whole Shawn Sibley, today's headline December 18th, all he had was the bookmark. He went to that location.
Go to that.
On the 5th he bookmarked it. He went back on the 8th. He refreshed it, came back December 8th. And then when he printed it -- Raffi, I'm going to do this to you again. Show when he printed it. He prints its on the 9th.
So this is, single handedly what destroyed their theory about Shawn Sibley. That whole scenario that they had created, that when Shawn Sibley called up on the 6th and said, are you married? He said I lost my wife, he immediately went to research the internet was not the case. He had gone already on the 5th. He had today's headlines.
Their own witness told you that. That's why all of a sudden they have now moved. This whole scenario changed now from being one of Amber finding out that he was married, Shawn Sibley finding out he was married, and moving it back into October. I just want to be free, and I don't want Conner.
Next one, Raffi.
This is some of the research that he did on the morning of the 8th. It will show you -- remember, we went through this. The dragon shirts, the embroidered shirts, the other embroidered shirt. Looking for boat ramps, specific boat ramps, king beds. Sturgeon fishing.
In fact, at the present time what you remember about this -- go to the next the one, Raffi.
Still the same. Hold off on that. What you will remember about that is that he specifically told them where that internet research was. He's the one who told Grogan that was -- Grogan just told you last week. That wasn't something they discovered that. It wasn't something they pulled off. Scott did the internet research.
They went there on the search warrant, they found -- you have Hendee said, I think he found it right flex to the computer.
Here, this is on the boat. Now, specifically once again, if you presume this guy is guilty, then I suppose you can put a sinister spin on anything. But, once again, we asked Grogan if he had looked at other boats.
Specifically told you, he gave you description of other boats. He was looking at two other boats. Told you one was here he found, this 17 foot, 35 horsepower. He told you the boat was blue with a bleached white top. He said you are not going to pay for garbage. Did not purpose it. Then I asked, the boat appeared to be garbage, why wouldn't that be something of interest to you, if the boat was garbage? Price was, I think, was nine hundred.
If you are going to buy that boat for one time to go dump your wife in The Bay wouldn't you want to buy the cheaper boat? Grogan's answer was, if it ran, yes, that's -- of course.
If you test any of this stuff, it falls apart. But if you presume that he's guilty, master criminal, master liar, then you put a sinister spin on it. That's not what you are here to do. This is the lead detectives.
If you are going to -- if this guy is in financial shape, he doesn't want to pay child support, he's worried about these added expenses, he's going to the spent an extra five or six hundred bucks for a one time dump in The Bay, for a boat that he doesn't want anybody to know about? I mean, does that make any sense to anybody here? Of course not. Because nobody has thought it through. People just go off on a tangent, and don't look at any of the consequences of it.
Go to the next one.
I asked Grogan -- remember, we talked about registration, and with another boat. And he said the boat was not registered. And he didn't want an unregistered boat? Correct? Correct.
Well, as far as you know, according to Bruce Peterson, when he bought the boat they never tested it out. The 24th, as far as he knows, is the first time he took boat out. As far as I know it's the first time in the water.
Why is that significant? You would think if he's got the master plan to premeditate and deliberate to kill his wife and child that he is going to buy a boat which he doesn't know if it runs? He's going to tow it 90 miles, and he's going to put it in The Bay with one pass, and hope that it runs? Does anybody buy that?
Nobody takes that through to a logical conclusion. No, no. He must have just had some ulterior motive to go ninety miles and freak out about it.
Go to the next one.
Look at the size of the boat. Remember something else about the, registered with the DMV, and size of the boat. If he had this master plan to go out and do all of this, why in the world would he buy this particular boat? This is not a large boat. We talked about the fact that they are afraid to do the -- and were afraid to do a boat demonstration because they know what will happen. They know as well as you and I do that this boat is going to tip over.
You can't push a body, a 150 pounds, with weights attached, two hundred pounds -- two hundred pounds, you can't push that body over without turn-turtling the boat. They know. They don't do it. They are not going to do the demonstration.
Now, buying the boat. No one told Brocchini that Laci had used the rest room on the 23rd. She said she had -- Laci was in the shop on the 24th. That's the night -- I told him the 23rd.
Then Grogan says, what did you base the fact that Laci knew about the boat? And he said based on the statement, because Rosemary Ruiz said she had been over there in the industrial complex and had come in to her unit to use the rest room. That was December 20th. That would have been the Friday before she disappeared.
And he made that statement that Laci potentially knew about the boat based on the event that she had been there and used the bathroom in this place. Correct? Yes.
Go on to the next one.
Now, the other 11 of the 41 reasons, I marked the 41 reasons so you can get it. One of the other 41 reasons is this. Buy the boat in cash.
You presume him guilty. That's suspicious. He buys the boat for cash. Well, there is only the one problem with that. Who wanted the cash? Well, Bruce Peterson wanted cash for the boat. He didn't have cash. He said he would he come back the next morning after the banks opened. It wasn't Scott Peterson who said I want to pay you in crisp hundred dollar bills. It was Bruce Peterson who wanted it in cash. Yet this made it on to one of the 41 reasons there, is he paid cash for the boat.
Boat, a registered boat. So apparently he's trying so buy a registered boat so that the State of California would have a record of it being his boat. But at the same time he wants to pay cash so nobody will know that it's him. Doesn't make any sense.
But, once again, you don't have to -- if you just presume him guilty, if you hate him because he's a master criminal.
This is the boat. Transaction of the purchase has got his name on it. That's one of the exhibits you will see. It's got his address on it.
And if he was hiding that boat, why would he put 523 Covena? Why wouldn't he put the P. O. Box number if he was trying to hide that boat, if Laci didn't know about it? How does he know when he gives the address to Bruce Peterson on December 9th, how does he know how long it's going to take the DMV to send him a release of liability and the information to his house?
How does anybody here -- can you say that I know for sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the DMV is not going to send that until after the 24th when I kill my wife and child? Of course not. He didn't know. The reason is because it's only suspicious if you presume him to be guilty.
Now, they said -- got them backwards here. Brocchini -- I think this is what I want to go to, the anchors. Take a look at this spot. 152-E.
What I have done -- are you able to take these in and out, Raffi, the little rectangles?
MR. NALJIAN: No.
MR. GERAGOS: That's the trailer. Now, this is -- this, to my mind, is one of the most amazing things about this whole case, is why we spent so much time on cement. They are fixated on the fact that there must be weights, and that he made anchors. And they are absolutely fixated. You know why that is? Because they acknowledge, as well as anybody else, that there is no way, that if Scott had dumped Laci in The Bay, four months later that it would be in the same spot.
They know that.
When they talk about -- he says that the simple fact of the body washing up in The Bay, beyond a reasonable doubt that that is -- that you can convict is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just the opposite. It's quite the opposite.
The simple fact of the bodies washing up in The Bay without any evidence of anchors whatsoever is precisely the fact Scott Peterson had nothing to do with this, because there is no way that body is going to remain in that location for four months -- and we'll get to the amount of searches that were done -- for four months without moving. We know that through the evidence that was given. We know that for a fact. But they want to fixate on that and just say, don't bother me with any of the other evidence. The bodies washed up in The Bay, that must be.
Now, take a look at what we here. I know I had some fun with Detective Hendee on this, and crop circles on the trailer. But the fact of the matter is -- Raffi, can you put the others in?
They look more like rectangles. Why would that be significant?
Why would you have a rectangular area in there as opposed to these circular voids that he said? Well, do we have an explanation for that? We're told that the anchor was made on the trailer. We're told that -- specifically that the concrete residue was from Scott making anchors in late December.
What they hoped you won't remember is that Eric Olsen testified -- this is very important. At 11648 and 11649, what did Eric Olsen say? He said in the middle to end of November he says he saw a partial bag of concrete.
You mentioned going to the warehouse, seeing a bag of cement. Do you recall?
Do you recall telling he actually used a bag of cement. Olsen. A partial bag.
A partial bag. It was partially was open. Partially used.
In fact, he told the police officer what the partial bag of cement was next to the flatbed trailer, wasn't it? Yes. In fact, several old -- if you look there are several older worn-in cement patches like somebody who is doing cement work on the flatbed trailer. They knew that. They knew that there was a reason why there was cement residue on that trailer that had nothing to do with the anchors.
It had more residue than required for one. I asked Grogan, you had information reasonable to the investigation. When I specifically asked him -- 18107 -- Doug Phelps, his answer, he said he had been to the shop. Do you remember who Doug Phelps was, was going into Scott's shop? He's a competitor who doesn't like the fact that Scott is taking away some of his competition and some of his clients. So this guy comes out.
You noticed there were four-by-four fence posts and bags of what I could assume is concrete on this trailer back in the month of September. Did you ever let the petrographer know that?
Why do we get this whole idea that somehow, oh, my God, we heard it yesterday in Mr. Distaso's closing, it was only one anchor. It couldn't have made this whole mess.
Once again, not going to remember what he -- what Eric Olsen said. You are not going to remember that they knew this fence -- told this to Grogan. They go on their merry way.
Do you have one more on that, Raffi, or not?
Let me show you the other thing. That is just -- do you have that picture of the area of the exhibit?
So then they go -- they go to kind of a fallback position. On the fallback position is what about -- they listen to a tape. They hear on the tape that Scott talks to Brent. When he talks to Brent, Brent says what did you do with the rest of the concrete? He says by the sides of the driveway.
Do you remember -- we have had quite a bit of discussion about that. Well, the fact of the matter is, that what happened on the side of the driveway -- this is it right here. This is the photos that was taken by the police. Now, mind you, the police did not put a placard down where they took the sample from, but it was testified to by Skultety that it came from this area.
This is 69M. You can see right here where the concrete has set up. It's an area right there. That's back at the time when they took the sample.
Now, they will have you believe that they went through this before, that somehow this doesn't match because of the gravel that was underneath it. All of you saw that gravel. All of you heard the uncontroverted -- Mr. Distaso basically conceded yesterday that even if you believe that there was 22 pounds, where is the rest of it? Well, the fact of the matter is, he told them where it was. This is where he poured it.
Obviously the rain is something -- we don't know how much was in the bag. We don't know which bag. It's just another one of these things where they want you to presume guilt. They know better. They have didn't bring O'Neill back to try to rebut Mr. Gebler's testimony. They now know, when you take a look at these pictures that I have got here, in the samples they know you saw, that looks like cement was placed over gravel.
You know that that was what the fact of the matter was. You know what they try to do -- I don't have it up here. 295-A was that last photo.
They have got that photo of a bag of cement that's over -- somewhere over here.
That was August 9th. Do you remember that? Somebody took it on August 9th.
Then we had -- they finally had to stipulate -- you have to take this as fact -- that Vladimir said, the next-door neighbor on the other side, that he never did cement work on this side. But they went so far as to try to have you believe that somehow this cement work that Vladimir was doing in August of this year was somehow related to the cement that was on the side of the driveway. Why they go tothat extent is beyond me. They know better. They interviewed him and it wasn't there.
The fact of the matter is that the cement that was there, according to O'Neill, had Portland Cement, the fly ash, and the pea gravel.
Okay? And when you take a look at 60, you will see that it had all three of those components. When you see it, when you see the samples that we have got in evidence, you will see also we polished them. It looks like it was just poured over the gravel.
They would have you believe, they presume his guilt, that somehow that this cement that got over there came from the next door neighbor, flew over the fence, or seeped under the fence. Just so happened to be in the exact same formation as Scott described to Brent on the phone a year and half before.
Now, tell you bit of what Mr. Gebler based his conclusion on was that that cement was over a year old. And he told you that it had carbonation.
Whatever the heck that is. That the carbonization and -- the carbonation is there, and it's over a year old. So this idea and they just suggest without any basis whatsoever.
Okay, so we screwed that up. So let's take a picture of the driveway where there is a bag of -- by the way, fence post concrete, and the fence post concrete was never opened, as it was never any work done in that area. And Vladimir tells you, here it is right here, that Vladimir tells you, by stipulation, that this was their on August 9th of 2004, in the middle of this trial. That no work was ever done, because this particular fence, which is not the one that Scott did the fence post work on, but the existing one, was not in concrete.
And they just suggested is -- somehow this bag somehow moved over to the other area, and somehow got over there. And so that proves that Scott Peterson didn't have -- or was lying to you lying, through his teeth when he's telling Brent Rocha that there was cement on the side of the driveway instead of conceding -- instead of just getting up here and saying, just like March that, sure, we admit we screwed up on this one too. No.
They just need -- they are fixated on the cement. Instead of conceding, they are having Grogan, or somebody else concede that Grogan knew that he had done fence post work on that trailer. Instead of conceding that, and saying, okay, you know, maybe we jumped the gun on that. They wouldn't do it. They just keep going, because they have got basically what they have. They have got a suspect.
What happened in this case is not traditional law enforcement.
Traditional law enforcement is, you look at the evidence. The evidence drives who the suspect is. You build a case. That's where the term comes from. You build a case by collecting evidence. You collect that evidence, and then that directs you to a suspect. This is the absolutes turn-on-its-head just like they have turned reasonable doubt on its head, and say to Scott Peterson, look, if you can't come up with who did this, we are just going to convict you.
They turned traditional police work on its head. They come up with him. They said he's the suspect. We have -- we had him. Within an hour we knew that it was him. We knew what happened within an hour, and now we're going to try and fit the facts to it.
And don't bother us with the fact that every single one of our forensic tests come back negative. Don't bother us with the facts that all of our theories have fallen apart. We got to prove something. And there is the perfect -- it's emblematic that they are so desperate to show you that somehow their cement theory was complete and utter BS.
That they will have you believe, until they were forced to stipulate on Vladimir, that there was never any concrete work done by Vladimir on that side of the yard. They just come up with a picture and want you to just run with it, because they want you to conjecture, they want you to speculate because, you know, that what they want you to do is just hate him. And if you hate him, you can convict him.
GERAGOS: Good afternoon.
The next slide I've got, Raffi, looks like 40.
This was -- I went back and looked for it. I had mentioned to you this morning that the fact that it was represented why, why would he have come back and washed his clothes, and the representation was in the opening that it didn't rain at the marina.
And I went back and found the two witnesses who dealt with that. One was Mr. Chess, and the other was Opdyke. Chess said it was drizzling, kind of drizzled a mist, and Opdyke talked about that there's different areas, or I think his expression was four seasons in one day there at the marina.
It's significant in the sense, at least, that one of the original things that the -- you were told you were going to hear is that the harbor master was going to come in and tell you that it didn't rain that day.
In fact, point of fact is that it drizzled at the very least, which would have been an explanation for why Scott's clothes were wet.
Once again turning that prism. If you presume that he's guilty, you can always come up with something or hope that you can come up with something that supports it. If, in fact, you presume innocence, which is what you have the obligation to do as a jury and what our criminal justice system is based upon, the evidence shows otherwise.
This specifically has to deal with the clock that Mr. Distaso was talking about yesterday. As I had indicated before on the 24th, the most logical, at least from my standpoint, of when Scott leaves, logical time, would be when he hears that meringue off of the Martha Stewart show. Obviously it's going to take him whatever amount of time to leave the house after hearing the TV, walk out of the house, get into the truck and take off.
The reason about the 10:08 cell site and then the changing of Karen Servas is that I think what that does is, once again, shows that they're compressing the time, the time line. And there's no reason to compress the time line. If you truly want to find out, or if you truly are seeking the truth, as opposed to just trying to convict somebody, then what is the point of doing this? Because we know specifically that this 10:08 time is not something that you can rely on.
They flew in -- some of you might remember that woman from Florida, Margaret -- Anderson, I think her name is. 125. And she specifically was asked about the cell sites and whether or not you could -- 125.
Specifically does there ever occur a malfunction in the system, and she said -- because this is not perfect. Because the fraud records are not accurate, and the calls do not get captured 100 percent, and she said That's correct.
She specifically also -- I asked her, this is 127, I think, she had -- I showed her these -- it's a little difficult to see, but I asked her about Manteca and the other two cities for the voice mails. Specifically as you as you sit here today, is it a fair statement and a reasonable statement that based on these anomalies, and based on what you see here on the voice mails, that you can't draw any conclusion whatsoever as to -- with any kind of certainty, as to where somebody is located when they're checking their voice mail. And her answer was: I think that's a fair statement.
Now, she -- she -- and I asked her specifically with any degree of certainty.
Now, Jacobson did a test, but as you'll remember, the test that he did was not a voice mail retrieval. I asked him specifically did you go or did you test it by retrieving voice mail, and he said no.
The reason that that's important is precisely because of this exhibit, which you got to go back to, is that you get these voice mail retrievals and they show other spots. She's the one that came up and said it's an anomaly. She's the one that said that you can't pin location down based on that.
You'll also remember that I went through with the other gentleman and with Jacobson the fact that with Scott that evening, on the 24th, was sitting in his front lawn making a call. We know he was on his front lawn because we had Evers, Spurlock and Letsinger that were there, and he talked at one point to Karen Servas and handed the phone directly over to Duerfeldt that night.
We saw three successive calls were pinging off of the different cell site towers, all while he's sitting on his front lawn. So the idea that you're going to then extrapolate and do a test a year later, and determine that somehow that means that only between with 10:08 and 10:18 could something happen to Laci I think is not rational.
You can't, as Ms. Martin says, or Anderson says, you can't do it with any degree of certainty. And clearly, as we talked about before, for anything dealing with presumption of innocence, you have to have a condition you cannot say you feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.
So clear and convincing? She can't even say that she was certain of this.
Raffi's blown it up a little bit more here, but this was specifically when she was talking about these voice mail retrievals and the voice mails and that there was a problem with Manteca and the other areas and it was bouncing around, and obviously, based upon the times, the person was not moving. It was pinging from Modesto, Manteca, back to Modesto. So obviously there's problems there.
The other problem that I would suggest to you is that you don't know, you can't know, whether or not -- where he specifically is. All of the people said We don't know if he's driving from one area to another.
Had a lengthy cross-examination with that witness in which the witness said look it can be usage. If it's busy that time of day, it will go for the strongest signal. If it's busy -- less busy, it will go to one other tower. So it doesn't tell you anything.
The idea that you're going to somehow try to pin this down, compress the time period down to 10:08, I think is fundamentally unfair, doesn't make any sense, and certainly is not based on the evidence. The people they brought in to testify -- they weren't my witnesses, they were their witnesses -- said you couldn't do it.
Now, the next one is even more disturbing. It's 150. Now, this is the Croton watch. Now, we heard a lot about the Croton watch in this case. And the first suggestion was that Scott sold the Croton watch on eBay.
Remember there was that person named Bobster, and a suggestion from the eBay guy, Mr. Harris, David Harris was asking him questions.
And then I got back up and said but there's no record of eBay of that watch having ever been sold. And he said No, the listings, as indicated, did not look like -- were not successful listings, no. They were not sold.
The reason that becomes important, I don't know if you'll see -- I don't know, Raffi. Can you blow this up or not?
You've got Defendant's Exhibit N. You want to talk about coincidences. They spent a lot of time on the Croton watch. The reason they spent a lot of time on the Croton watch is they couldn't find it, and that Scott had said that the last time he saw her he thought she was wearing earrings, he thought a pendant, and one of the watches she inherited.
Well, I'll ask you -- you know, they were saying yesterday about coincidences. I'll ask you about coincidences. What is the coincidence of having a Croton watch pawned in Modesto on December 31st? What it is?
Croton, 114 karat yellow gold quartz watch with scratches, used, a woman would wear. That's where it was from, the pawn shop. That was -- that was something that Detective Grogan this last week identified as a watch that I think he said his community service officer went through to see if she could find.
In terms of the reasonableness of the investigation, you want to talk about coincidences, somebody goes missing on 12/24. You know that she's got a watch. You can't account for that watch. And up comes pawned a Croton watch, same make watch, on -- within a week.
And, you know, what they did in terms of this investigation?
Do you remember? They went back to the eBay video that was taken -- remember what Kim McGregor stole? She stole a video that was then found in a grease pit, and then they pulled up that video and showed it to you.
Well, on that video it showed Scott and Laci putting the watch on a background, and while they were putting the watch on the background, they were filming it. Then they would take the still and put the still on eBay.
You've got the eBay records.
Grogan's way of investigating what I think is one of the most incredible coincidences was to say Well, the watch didn't move during the two minutes -- the watch hand didn't move during the two minutes that it was on that video.
Well -- and so therefore she wouldn't have worn it.
Now, I'd submit to you that that's not the most reasonable -- especially given Detective Grogan's history with batteries, I would submit to you that's not the most reasonable way to investigate this. We don't know if this is an automatic watch that you shake, like some watches do, in order to get it to run again. We don't know if Laci put in another battery. We don't even know if it was a watch that you wind.
But I suggest to you the best way that you find out if this is the same watch, and the best way for anybody to do that is to do what? You know, they filed these -- the other woman that testified was -- I think her name was Brooks, or Mary Ann Fields from one of the pawn shops where Laci had taken in some jewelry and she says this is a form they keep in triplicate for the police departments.
Well, why didn't the police department go demand to see the watch? Why didn't they say Let me see that watch? We've got the pawn ticket, we want to see if it's Laci Peterson's watch. We can tell, we can look at the serial number, we can see if it had diamonds around it, we can see whatever it is.
Why is it that they -- that the extent of the investigation in what could have been the most critical clue to finding out who abducted Laci, why is it that it's left to looking at a videotape and assuming that the watch's battery was dead and therefore she wouldn't have done anything with it?
To me, to my mind, that in and of itself not only gives you reasonable doubt, but tends to show you, unless you believe that it's just an enormous coincidence that within a week somebody's pawning a Croton watch in Modesto, that in and of itself is reasonable doubt.
129 is -- I'm going to run through a couple of these, as many as I can. You know, the -- the specific still from the Yoga Center. Once again, why is it that we don't find out about that? Why is it that we have to go out, "we" meaning the defense, why do we have to go out and find that out?
In the middle of this case, apparently Buehler and Grogan go and decide they're going to investigate the access to this place. The Yoga Center Debby Wolski. You already know that there was a stipulation that this Debby Wolski lied when she was on the stand. We stipulated and you accepted that stipulation, as the judge indicated, that she lied.
DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. That's not the stipulation.
GERAGOS: She changed her story.
DISTASO: The stipulation -- she didn't --
JUDGE: I don't have the stipulation in front of me. The jury's heard the stipulation. If they want it re-read back, we'll read it back.
JUDGE: I'll look through all my mess here, but there was, in fact, a stipulation.
GERAGOS: I could tell you what the stipulation.
JUDGE: I don't remember the exact verbiage of the stipulation, but the jury's heard it, and if there's an issue --
GERAGOS: She testified --
JUDGE: -- we can have it read back.
GERAGOS: She testified that she had told the DA's office and Modesto PD in February that Laci -- that she had helped Laci walk to her car, and it was stipulated that she never told them that in February.
On top of that, not only -- and this is why it's significant.
You put somebody up here, and once again this is a woman whose story evolved over time. She's over in Modesto. It evolves over time as you've kind of got this mob mentality that takes over, Scott Peterson. The prism shifts, and all of a sudden the story starts getting embellished. All of a sudden it's she's ailing and she needs to be walked to her car.
Little did she know, and I don't know, I don't live in Modesto and I don't know this Yoga center, but little do you know it's that kind of a steps that it takes to get up to the Yoga Center. Isn't that something that you would want to know and isn't that something that Buehler and Grogan should have written a report of and didn't? That's the quality of the evidence that they're asking you to convict off of.
This is a -- specifically about this whole series of the Longview, Washington wiretaps. Now, they say he lied about the wiretaps in Longview, Washington. And the wiretaps do show phone calls to Washington, and Jacobson admits not all of those were recorded.
He also admits that one of those calls was a 411 direct and somebody punched it in, made the call, and got connected. They intercepted that one.
What only happened on re-cross was he admitted that there was a previous 411 direct the week before, and, as you'll remember, somehow my client finds out that the detective's name is Jacobs. So he automatically asks for Jacobs on the first call that is captured by Jacobson.
If that's the case, obviously he knew or had information before that.
And then you've heard the subsequent calls that we've done, specifically where he's calling Modesto PD and he's asking -- he's the only one, I lived with her for eight years; remember that tape we played? I lived with her for eight years, I want to see it.
And it finally came out this last week nobody from Modesto ever looked at it. No one ever looked at it, nobody from the Modesto PD ever viewed the tapes. Yet they are saying that Scott was not interested. Makes three phone calls to the police, they won't let him look at it, they never looked at it, they just accepted Longview, Washington.
At a certain point is that me attacking the police? Or, as the judge said, does this information come in for the reasonableness of the investigation? Yesterday we heard a lot about the reasonableness of my client's actions. You know, there's nowhere in the law that says that if my client doesn't act according to some playbook, that therefore you can find him guilty.
You're not going to get any instruction that says that.
However, you can -- and a reasonable doubt can be generated -- if you don't believe that this case was investigated properly. If you have a reasonable doubt that it's generated by the fact that my -- that my client's wife and child were not there -- their abduction was not reasonably investigated and that my client didn't have anything to do with it, that in and of itself supplies reasonable doubt.
There's another one, the next -- Scott had no rope in the boat. You heard that yesterday. I point you out to Brocchini. This was also found on the 27th. Can you tell me what it is? That's the rope. Do you know where it was recovered from? Yes, from the green duffel bag in the boat on the 27th.
Now, there's another spot where Brocchini says it wasn't in there on the 24th, but Brocchini was also wrong about what was in that green toolbox. As you'll remember, nobody ever mentioned -- we got the information on it, out on the stand -- nobody ever said there was a cardboard box inside of that green duffel bag. Nobody ever mentioned to you the rope. The rope is in ne evidence. I've got it for you. It's a very similar style rope as the one that was on that picture that Lee Peterson took that was connected to the cement anchor. It's a very similar rope. That was accessible to it.
In fact, marked here once again as Double A. Specifically, Scott Peterson didn't have a rope. They found it on the 27th.
But once again, if there's any way that they, through their prism of guilt, that they can lead you to believe that it wasn't there and it looks suspicious, that's what they end up doing.
Now, Mr. Harris gave me the specifics. I also asked Brocchini: You specifically wrote in your report, didn't you, that all of the shotgun shells you had seen in the truck toolbox on the 24th now were inside this green duffel bag? Answer: That's what I wrote. That's incorrect, though.
Question: That's incorrect, isn't it? Yes, it is.
That's at 11574.
So whatever they want to say about my client, at every point where they could make a choice between cutting him some slack or trying to specifically find out what the truth was, they jumped to a conclusion that supposedly incriminates him and makes him look guilty.
Okay. Now, this is what we talked about briefly this morning, and I want to make sure you understand. This is Amy, and she's there with Grogan. And specifically she's shown the pants. And specifically she's saying: Definitely not these two.
The one that she's saying definitely not is the one that they proceeded for a year and a half, and actually coming into this trial, having you believe was what was found on her when she was recovered.
It's now been established I think beyond any shadow of a doubt that those were not the pants, and that the pants that Laci was wearing on the 23rd were the ones that were hung up, worn, not soiled, and they never brought those in to show you. But Amy did go in and identify those pants, the shoes, and everything else that was being worn on the 23rd.
This -- they've got somehow, and I mentioned this before, that this handgun was related to the crime. The evidence was by Welsh who testified there was no blood or tissue. He said: I didn't see any blood or tissue. He tested it for whether it was recently fired. It had not been fired recently.
I think it's really a stretch and shows you just how far they'll go to say okay, he was carrying it with him for protection. The idea was, when they got it, they obviously thought to some degree that he had used this gun somehow. That's why they gave him that GSR test, the gunshot residue test. But obviously nobody ever -- they took the sample, nobody ever tested it, so I don't know at one point what they think they're doing.
Let me give you 137. Now, this is another, I mentioned this before this morning, the cardboard box. When they do this demonstration, they first come into this case having you believe that she was in the toolbox.
And the reason they did that is because at that point the defense had not pointed out this cardboard box, which was never put into evidence. So once we prove -- I'll remind you that they had done this December 15th of 2003. Their theory then is she's in this toolbox, even though there's no blood, no tissue, the one hair that's on there is not Laci's.
But what happens once in trial is clearly they've taken all this stuff out, they never cataloged the fact that there was this cardboard box in there. They literally played hide the ball with that, because I asked Grogan is there anywhere in the 43,000 pages where he sees a cardboard box. He says no.
So what happens, guess what, we get a new theory midway through the trial, and the new theory mid trial is that she's no longer in the toolbox because obviously the cardboard box is in there, and that wouldn't work.
Now, she's in the bed of the truck, she's in the bed of the truck with the umbrellas over her.
So that's a brand new theory, and it's a brand new theory because, once again, the defense, which has no obligations to prove anything, it's the prosecution's duty to prove this, shows that that's an impossibility.
Once they show it's an impossibility, do they then say Okay, sorry, Scott, I know we've had you investigated for a year and a half, your wife and child are missing, you've never grieved, we're sorry about this? No. They just come up with another theory. Do they base on it any evidence?
Well, you'll remember that there was stains that were on the tailgate. All of them tested negative for blood. There was all kinds of stuff that was tested in the bed of the truck. None of it was tested. And you'll also remember that I asked specifically could you -- have you ever tested whether or not you could even open this truck bed door when the boat and trailer were attached. Nobody's ever tested that theory out.
They want -- they want to have it all ways. They just want you to -- I would submit to you, to speculate. They want you to engage in conjecture. And once again, the idea is you need to prove -- you, the defense, needs to prove that you're innocent, we don't have to prove that you're guilty.
Scott selling the car, 139. Specifically, and I bring this up just because they made such a big deal about it, that: Sharon told you that the vehicle did not have any sentimental value, and she said Yes. That particular item did not did not have any sentimental value, correct.
Somehow now we come to trial, all of a sudden it's indicative of or consistent with this behavior of Scott's that makes him guilty. Her mother did not attribute any sentimental value to that car. There was no history of any specificity as to that car. In fact, the testimony was that she wanted a new car, and that that's what she was looking for.
So the idea that he's selling the car, when they impounded his truck, to get another truck? Give me a break. The -- they have his -- they had his truck, they had that truck for over a year and a half. He's making payments on that truck during that entire time. He's got a Land Rover, which is not exactly -- I think the guy who sold it said it's not easily serviced, you have to go to Sacramento. Remember they brought the guy in who testified. And they want him to just go driving all around the state.
You see how much Scott drives in connection with his work. That's not the car to take driving around in connection with his work, and it had no sentimental value.
Specifically 140, I believe. This is the hair on the pliers.
Now, this also, he made a big deal about this, and I've yet to figure out why.
I mean, first of all, the hair could have been there, as Oswalt said, as a line transfer. It could have come by Laci looking over the boat. It could have come when they took -- as you see this is the first picture right here. That's the first picture they take.
Then they take the bag out of the boat and put it up on the front of it. They take the jacket out. When they taking the jacket out there is no placards. None of these evidence placards. Then you go to the next spot and see yet a picture there's still no placards. Go to the next, there's still no placards. You can see the pliers over there. The -- the jacket is right there.
Could the hair of fallen from the jacket? I don't know.
Could the hair have been -- remember Brocchini was going through her truck, the Land Rover, on the night of the 24th then he left his notebook in the boat?
Could that have been what they call a secondary transfer? As Oswalt, says I don't know.
But the fact of the matter is that until Laci had visited that warehouse, Brocchini had searched that boat and pulled the bag out went through it, and they get a hair. Or could it simply have been a hair that had been on Scott and then fallen off?
They make much of this idea that the hair on the pliers was mashed or splayed, and that it's first one hair and then two hairs. But the fact of the matter is next, 141, I asked Hendee about it. And you opened it up so the hair would fall out? Yes. When you did that, did you have to shake it or anything like that? Or did the hair just fall out? I don't recall having to shake it. So the hair was not intertwined with the pliers or anything like that? You didn't have to pull the hair off? No. I mean, does that sound to you like that pliers was used as an instrumentality if it wasn't intertwined?
You know, it's been represented that it was intertwined, it was locked in the jaws. The various descriptions.
The guy who found it, Dodge Hendee, Modesto PD, says you didn't have to pull the hair off, it was not intertwined in the pliers.
That's the -- that's the evidence. I didn't make that up.
That's what Dodge Hendee -- I asked him the question, that's what it was.
You know, I still don't understand what the significance of the blade of grass is. Maybe they can tell us in rebuttal, but there's apparently a blade of grass. The testimony of Oswalt -- I don't know that I've got it up here, but the testimony of Oswalt was -- who was the hair guy, you might remember him, he was a couple of your favorite witnesses, he was the gentleman with all the hair jokes. And he specifically described that hair as no way, no way of aging it, so to speak, know when it was there, how it was transferred there. The hair actually had a dull end, is what he said, and then the other side had what he called mashed or splayed he said by mechanical action.
We don't know how that got there.
The other thing that they did with that pliers is they swabbed it. Do you remember that? Oswalt said they swabbed -- or actually I think it was Yoshida said she swabbed it for blood or tissue, but they never tested it. So I don't understand. If you think that this hair on the pliers is something of significance, then why do you swab it for -- for tissue or blood and never test it? I mean, is there a reason that you do that? Or do you just, once again, throw out some kind of a theory without any way to back it up?
The next piece of evidence that Mr. Distaso talked about yesterday is that Laci's scent was at the marina.
Raffi, I'll ask you to hit 142.
Now, you'll remember this is the woman who came to testify, and when she first got on the stand she specifically told you, I asked her how much handler training experience do you have. And she denied -- she said she had done it twice, one time failed, one time successful. That that was in her record.
Then we showed her a video clipping.
Are you able to show that? And I've cut it down so you don't have to see the whole thing. Just the pertinent part.
Now, the next slide was we also -- you know, they led you to believe that this woman had all kinds of skill or expertise. But she ended up, at the end of the day what we found out, is we found out she deep-sixed, as you remember, this test. She didn't put it in her records. She literally did not keep this test in her records. She had the ones before at Mr. Rebmann's training facility. She had the one after. This test she deliberately left out.
What was deliberately left out also, and you didn't hear about, was Mr. Seitz was there, and he said: When my dog finds a specific scent, then it follows that particular trail, so if there was a presence of scent there, I would have expected a dog to lead me in a direction away from that sort of perpendicular line, either toward the water, or away from the water.
Seitz was there. Seitz was there the same -- or actually before Anderson. Seitz's dog found nothing. The fact of the matter was -- go to 144, this is what he said. I said so if I understand correct, if your dog had picked up the scent from the pink slipper.
Now, remember we heard about the glass case and the pink slipper. The fact of the matter is that she testified that on the glass case she used the banana peel technique. We all know, and the evidence is clear, that somebody handled that glass case, and it was Brocchini. One of the officers says that he saw Brocchini handle the contents of the purse and showed them to Scott.
The -- Brocchini says no, I don't remember that. The fact of the matter is that the only scent article of any non -- you can argue was not contaminated is the pink slipper. And he's the one who said it didn't pick up any scent, or his dog did not pick up any scent from the pink slipper.
The judge is going to give you an instruction, which is 151, on dog tracking evidence, because this is evidence you must use in a certain way.
Evidence of dog tracking specifically, I'll read it to you, is not sufficient by itself to permit an inference that a defendant is guilty. Before the crime of guilt may be inferred, there must be other evidence that supports the accuracy.
Now, you've also got factors that have to be met. Whether or not the handler was qualified by training and experience to use the dog.
Well, how are we supposed to know? She deep-sixed one of the -- only had three trailing exercises. She admitted to one that failed. Says one passed. And the third one you just saw.
Whether or not the dog was adequately trained. How would you know?
Whether or not the dog was trained on tracks where circumstances show the victim would have been. Again, you don't know.
Whether or not the trial was contaminated by the environment or any other factor.
And any other factor that could affect the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence. Specifically whether or not the scent article was contaminated.
Whether or not the dog was actually getting the scent from the truck as opposed to the boat.
If their theory is correct, if their theory is that Laci had been killed on the 23rd, or the early morning of the 24th, then why were they using a scent dog as a trailing dog as opposed to a cadaver dog? Why didn't they bring a cadaver dog there at the marina to see if that hit on anything.
And they obviously hadn't. They had water dogs, all kinds of dogs.
The only dog that was out there that gave you anything was this woman's dog. And before you can accept anything about that woman's dog -- I'm sure she believes that her dog can do incredible things, but the fact of the matter is you saw her testimony, and all of those factors make her unreliable.
In fact, the judge will give you another instruction that's called a witness willfully false. It's 2.21. And it says: If a witness is willfully false in their testimony before you, about a material point, and I would submit to you it's a material point whether the dog was adequately trained or found reliable, basically if the witness lies, you are free -- and the judge, Judge Delucchi will instruct you -- to disregard all the testimony regarding that.
And that's 2.21. And you'll get that instruction. Get it hopefully tomorrow.
Raffi, go to 145.
You know, this is -- I -- I know that we've heard probably too much about chicken wire, but you have to understand once again, at least from our perspective, why this is important. Specifically this chicken wire was one of their only two original theories. And it goes back to this idea of the body being in the Bay. Because they knew, as anybody who's got any experience with the water knows, that that body would not have remained in the Bay in the same spot for four months unless that body was weighted down.
So they figure that they have this chicken wire, they found the chicken wire in the back, and they told Dr. Cheng assume that the chicken wire -- that she was either wrapped in chicken wire or she was weighted down. And that was their theory.
But there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Laci Peterson's body had anything to do with chicken wire.
Now, that would be great if they didn't try to mislead you in this trial, because they specifically did try to mislead you in this trial by telling you, you'll remember, Detective Grogan was up here, and Ms. Fladager got up and asked him: Wasn't there something suspicious about the way that the wire was cut? It was one of the last questions. And he said Yeah.
Now, they knew at that point that he had said he bought the chicken wire at Home Depot.
Next slide, Raffi.
And they told you they went to two stores and they cut them in 25 and 50 foot lengths. And this one was 24 feet and a half, and specifically they were there for two days, and the second day, besides noticing scratches, they saw the cat scratching, and everything Scott told them about why he bought the chicken wire made sense, was corroborated. They were eyewitness to it, yet they still came into court and they still led you to believe -- in fact, Grogan said this little wire here was suspicious to him. That's when I asked him, I said: Isn't that the wire that they just put around the chicken wire to hold it when you leave the joint? He said I don't know. But they would still would lead you to believe, or want you to suspect, with conjecture and sometimes speculation, that that chicken wire had something to do with anything.
They knew all of these things came back negative. The tools that were seized, that they sent out. And then did you ever ask, did you ever take the chicken wire over and specifically ask whether the wire or cutting looked like something they would do? Grogan says no.
Still in February, they still have a working theory that Laci Peterson's demise had something to do with chicken wire.
Then on April 2nd, this was what -- is just even more here.
They go to Boyd Stephens, who is the medical examiner for San Francisco, long time medical examiner for San Francisco. And they ask him about it. They still give him the theory that April 2nd, even though they had no information that the chicken wire had any connection whatsoever, they gave to it Cheng, they gave it to Stephens, they were still talking chicken wire even into this trial.
This is the one where I said: Well, specifically didn't it look like that wire in the picture, that you said still looks suspicious, didn't that look like that was a wire that had been wrapped around it in order to keep it bundled? And the answer, 18704: That's a possibility.
Now, this is one I kind of in a veiled way, I guess, was accused that I'm blaming this whatever happened to Laci on sex offenders.
I was not the one, and you've got this exhibit, it's 113, I was not the one that compiled the sex offenders list. I was not the one who went out and represented to you in this trial that somehow the sex offenders were given a clean bill of health. They weren't, and there was good reason for that.
It was a good idea initially go out and check sex offenders. That's one of the reasons in California we have a law that sex offenders have to register, because whenever there's a crime involving a woman, the thinking is, among enlightened law enforcement, that you go first to -- I hate to say it, the usual suspects, and see if they re-offended, because these people tend to do that.
Well, they came up with a list. And last week when I talked to you, if I understand correctly, the eight page list that you gave me contains 300 some-odd names, 280 I think were the people who have been contacted. He said 285.
Next. Now, when you get to complete, that doesn't mean eliminated; is that correct? He said 280 was completed, that does not eliminate. He said essentially I'm the only person I know that I can eliminate.
Well, the problem was, when I started to ask him specifically what he did to eliminate these people, I wasn't doing that to say this particular person did it or this particular person did it. The reason Judge Delucchi allowed that into evidence is specifically to see whether or not the investigation was reasonable.
You all heard what it took for them to complete a so-called sex-offender investigation. I would submit to you that it wasn't even remotely reasonable.
This is in the opening statement. I'm sure it was just a misspeaking because he didn't know it at the time, but once again, it just goes to show you how everything is viewed in a way that is anti Scott, that presumes his guilt.
In the opening statement Mr. Distaso said he had a double-sided knife that was down in the driver's side door in the storage compartment --
REPORTER: Mr. Geragos, I can't hear you.
GERAGOS: Double-sided knife that was down in the driver's side door, in the storage compartment on the drivers side.
Now, Rick Distaso did not know at that point that that had nothing to do with my client. But, just assume that it must have; you know, he's there, the suggestion is he's fleeing, he's trying to get to Mexico, I want to have that knife right there, right at the ready. Kind of like the gun in the glove compartment theory. If somebody comes over they're going to take action.
Well, look what happened when they put on the guy who owned the car: Did you tell the officers you had forgotten the knife in the car? No. I didn't know it until some time later.
It wasn't even his knife. The guy who sold him the car left the double-edged knife that, if we hadn't asked the question, could be just another nail in Scott Peterson's coffin by the Modesto PD investigating this case and -- and attributing it to my client.
And, once again, attributing -- if I had never asked that question, I guarantee you, you know what you would have heard yesterday? You would have heard yesterday, just like the gun he had in his glove compartment, That's not a hunting knife, that's a knife, that's a weapon. So if he would have been pulled over by DOJ, he would have grabbed it and he would have used it.
I guarantee you that would have been argued.
Scott was fleeing to Mexico. I got the impression yesterday that they have abandoned that. I say that because the argument was, from Mr. Distaso, that he's now -- he was living out of his car.
I will concede that he was living out of his car. I will also concede that he was heading north when the surveillance occurred and that he had first gone to Torrey Pines.
I will never concede that Lee Peterson was lying about having a foursome at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. Detective Buehler who testified told you that he did an investigation, that he confirmed that there was a foursome and that only three played, or that only three Petersons played.
Why now we call Lee a liar I don't know, but Lee did get -- you know, dates are important. April 10th -- and you've got the exhibit -- is when we got that resident card. Well, April 10th the bodies had not washed up. So this idea that somehow this is all part of the master plan to have given the phony license, or whatever else, makes no sense.
Why would he have both his license and his brother's there; and you notice who the only brother was who wasn't playing golf that day? It was the brother whose license he had. Why they want to once again turn that prism towards guilt, when the explanation they know is the fact that he thought he was being followed by the press.
And they knew that. Here's his handwriting on the document.
This is one of those documents that's sealed -- and you get it but we're not putting it out to the public -- where he's writing down the license plates and, you know, what it turned out, every single one of those DOJ people said those were their cars, that's what he thought he had. He had written on that "private investigators."
When you take a look at it, you'll see that he also had, I believe either this or the next exhibit, his then lawyer, Kirk McAllister's name, and he was going to fax this down to Kirk McAllister with the idea that Kirk could run it, find out who these PIs were working for and take some action on it.
Okay. Now, this running to Mexico again. Immediately he didn't resist, he didn't run, he didn't flee. This is Jubran, the guy from San Diego.
At any time did you see him...
JUDGE: I was just asking her a question.
JUDGE: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Geragos.
GERAGOS: ...head to a border checkpoint? No. At any point did you see him head for Nevada? No.
Next one. Once again, I would ask you to take a look. He had that golf appointment. Lee had made it the week before. He had his brother's ID for a discount.
You know, the cash withdrawn. Jackie withdrew the cash on the 8th, and we gave you the bank records. On the 8th the bodies had not been found. She testified, and you got the withdrawal slip that shows that she withdrew it from a account that she's jointly on with Scott.
There it is. And on the 8th, and it's April 8th, 10,000, and that's it. There's no indication whatsoever to him of anything untoward.
That's -- the Exhibit is D 84. You can look at it. There isn't anything on it that shows anything untoward about that.
Specifically the similar items of clothing. I think we've got -- I had mentioned before he's got items of clothing that were similar to what was found in his car on the 18th of February.
There's no calls or communication indicating Scott was fleeing.
In fact, on the contrary, the intercepted wiretap fall with he and his brother shows that he was not going to go golfing because he thought the press was behind him and thought that there was -- that he didn't want a shot taken, or a press shot taken of him playing golf.
Now, the thing -- once again, and I'd have to ask you to understand why this is so frustrating in a lot of ways. You know, they say Oh, my God, he wasn't up there to determine if it was his wife and kid. At the same time he is up there when they claim it's his wife and kid on January 11th and they're reporting it. Then he's condemned for that.
But this time they say Well, he was getting ready to run.
Well, does anybody ever think, if he is the killer, if he's the one who killed his wife and his kid, why is he waiting for DNA? If he's -- if a -- if a male baby and a woman, obviously decomposed woman, wash up on April 13th, why is he waiting for the DNA? If he's the killer, he knows who it is and he would have fled the day it got reported in the paper. He wouldn't be saying, as he did to his brother, that I know it's not them and they're going to get embarrassed again, as he did.
It makes no sense. You have to push the logic out in order to understand it.
He met with the Berkeley PD. They say he disguised himself, I've got this photo. The reason I put that up there is specifically -- this is on February 18th, the day of the search warrant, he's already growing a goatee, okay? And that's him with Detective Grogan, so I don't know who he thinks he's going to hide from, but it's certainly not going to be Detective Grogan.
He met with Berkeley PD. Remember that? He reported a Taggart as being somebody vandalizing something in early April and he gave his own name.
He didn't have any trouble doing that. He didn't have any trouble going and reporting that.
He purchased Easter books for his nieces and nephews. You saw that.
The camping receipt. They want to make a big deal, he's got a water purifier, got this and that. That was dated in March. You've got that in evidence. This was a March 16th purchase.
And you've got Jackie's bank receipt. All of that tells you at the end of the day not only was he not fleeing, but this was -- and what's he going to do, he's selling his truck to his brother so that he can flee to Mexico in a bright red Mercedes? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Of course not. He wasn't fleeing to Mexico.
The judge is going to give you a jury instruction, and the reason that I spent a little bit of time on this is because you have to make certain determinations. Specifically you have to determine if -- the flight or attempted flight, once again, is not sufficient to establish guilt. It's a fact which, if proved, may be considered. If there was such an attempted flight, it's for the jury to decide.
So the judge is telling you you have to decide, is there flight.
I would submit to you that there not only is not flight, but this would have to be the only flight known to man where the guy pulls over, asks them if they're cops, they say they aren't cops, when they do try to pull him over he pulls over immediately and without incident.
And you've got all kinds of independent evidence that shows that he wasn't attempting to flee at any time. So the weight to give this whole episode, I would suggest to you, is nil.
Okay. This is a little section that I pulled out because you heard so much about whether or not Scott was reasonable. And whether his behavior was reasonable. And once again, I believe that there's a lot of information that wasn't -- it's been so long you may not remember.
Ron Grantski. I said: He was extremely emotional, especially for him, because you had never seen him emotional at all before that? Grantski says: That's true.
Krigbaum across the street. I mean he was distraught; it kind of made me a little distraught, so I didn't know how to handle the situation.
Servas, who is another next-door neighbor. It looked like he was in shock. I mean, that's how I interpreted it. He was in shock and just kind of, you know, had the posters and was out with friends stapling posters up on the flag -- up on the poles and things like that.
Susan Medina. This is the other neighbor across the street. So you've got virtually everybody on that block.
When he talked to you about Laci, do you recall what his emotions were? Yeah. On that second time he was crying and he was really upset. Very emotional? Yeah. And there was no media present then, was there?
No, it was in my living room.
Now, on cross-examination I think Mr. Harris said Was his investigator there, as if he can turn it on for the investigator. Well, if the argument was that Scott Peterson could turn it on for the investigators and he's not emotional, and the Harvey Kemple theory that he was more emotional about burned chicken, why didn't he just turn it on, if that's what it was. All these people independently said that he was.
Matt Spurlock was one of the first three officers there, on 9893. When you arrived you said some of the people were frantic. He said Yes.
Scott Peterson included? He said Yes.
Spurlock, one of the other officers. Did he appear to be upset?
Yes, I would say so.
Spurlock again. This is with Mr. Distaso asking the questions, not me: Tell me exactly what he was doing. He seemed concerned. He had a look of concern on his face. I think he maybe even had some teers -- I think should be tears -- in his eyes. But as far as frantic, I wouldn't claim. I saw frantic concern. You saw him concerned, that's how you would describe it? Yes, sir.
When I'm asking yet another one of the cops there. When he walked up, he appeared to be very upset? Is that a fair statement from how upset that Scott Peterson was, and how upset Sharon Rocha was, you got the immediate feeling that something very serious was going on. That is correct.
One of the main factors that Scott was so upset you perceived him to be, correct? He never said yes.
53, Stacey Boyers. Now, when you got the call at 5:26 was he upset? Yes.
54, Lori Ellsworth. When Scott called you, he was upset? He had a different tone in his voice. He was panicked, wasn't he? Panic, maybe.
All of these people -- and nobody had any complaints with Scott's emotional behavior, how he reacted until after Amber. After Amber the prism changed and all of a sudden everything turns. All of a sudden he wasn't emotional. All of a sudden he doesn't go to the volunteer center. All of a sudden he's not looking for his wife. All of a sudden he never wanted a kid.
All of a sudden this guy whose got absolutely no history of anything in his entire life except doing good is turned into this evil, maniacal human being who nobody around him ever described that to be prior to then.
of the -- number 3.
GERAGOS: Thanks, Judge. Raffi, could you put up slide three?
One of the other areas that we talked about was the -- yesterday was this idea of Laci being pregnant on June 9th. And the suggestion was that that was something that was just made up, that somehow the Doctor March had just found that in one of the -- Rene Tomlinson's testimony, or something like that. I believe that if you take a look at all of the testimony that we have got, that that specifically is buttressed in at least five areas.
Raffi, do you have the first one? Do you have it handy?
Because otherwise I can just talk it.
Question. Baby shower June 9th is the day that specifically there was a phone call that was made.
Jackie Peterson said she gets a phone call first thing in the morning, something like 7:00 o'clock in the morning. Sharon Rocha tells Grogan that on June 9th, that's when they find out, that they get this that she is pregnant.
Martin, she was the woman at the doctor's office that indicates when she came in on July 11th she had already done the home pregnancy test and specifically said that you are not allowed to make a appointment unless you have -- you had a home pregnancy test.
Endraki, who was the doctor, said if you have any notation, you would be able to get more precise if you knew they were doing an early pregnancy test or early pregnancy test.
Specifically when they get Doctor DeVore up there, you will remember Doctor DeVore had this idea that if you take these three measurements, he could predict exact date of death. Well, two out of three of those measurements were demonstrably wrong. December 21st, December 22nd, and then the third one was December 24th. Gives new meanings to two wrongs make a right.
December 21st and 22nd were not right. He averages out the three, and he says that if you average the 21st, 22nd, and 24th, you get the 23rd. Well, specifically you can't do that. Everything has got to have a range. If, in fact, you remember the opening by Mr. Distaso, he said that Doctor DeVore was going to come in and tell you that there was a range.
Endraki made that. Tomlinson, she said she told you on June 9th she was pregnant, correct? Jackie says, you remember the date you found out. She called you that morning. She woke you up, told you she had taken a test, determined she was pregnant.
And then Grogan said that the first line of the note space on June 9th of 02, Laci Peterson calls around 7:00 a.m. to announce she was pregnant. And based on your investigation in this case, it's not contradicted anywhere else that June 9th in the morning is when family and friends out Laci was pregnant.
Now, why does that matter? It matters for the simple fact that if March is telling you that, based upon the age of the child, that June 9th, and you work backwards the four days, that is the time specifically when she got pregnant, would have been 14 days prior. And that this baby lived, to the earliest, would have been December 28th.
We had the previous testimony that I showed you this morning about the ovulation test from Rose Rocha that she was doing an ovulation test.
She specifically was having -- or arranging so that Scott would come on specific times so that she could get pregnant. If that's the case, when DeVore says -- and remember what DeVore's testimony was.
He was assuming that conception was two weeks after the last menstrual period. Last menstrual period May 6th, two weeks after would have been the 20th. If you adjust that in either way, that adjusts the date. Does that matter? It matters to -- in the sense that you can't just pick a date like he did.
Mr. Distaso, in his opening statement, told you that you just can't pick a date. He comes in here in court and all of a sudden he just picks a date. He picks a date based on three averages. The date is December 23rd.
We have already shown you, I think beyond a reasonable doubt, that Laci was alive on December 24th. If you show that the first time that she took a pregnancy test was the 9th, and 14 days prior to that is when she conceived, that means that baby lived, and Laci lived, at least until the 28th or the 29th of December.
One of the areas that Mr. Distaso talked to -- I should show up screen -- was that there is this motive, that somehow Scott's life was in a disarray. He was going through some kind of midlife crisis. I have listed all of the these areas where it looks like they were doing as well as any couple you would expect.
They had the baby on the way. The nursery you saw was something that Scott built.
They had a beautiful home with recent improvements that Scott and Laci had done.
They had a very good relationship with the Rochas, to the extent that Scott would call Sharon mom. They had new friends with young children, and joined the Rotary Club in Modesto. And strong financial commitment. All of this is testified to.
Laci is set to inherit the money. Specifically Mr. Laffer's testimony. The jewelry. He's got a great job. This idea that somehow the job was not something that he would have wanted or didn't like I think is just belied by what the facts were in this case. All of that.
There was also testimony about a raise at work. Do you have that, Raffi? Specifically, the last one was -- I think it was Coleman who said he received a raise in 2003, and they believed it was from 5,000 to 5,350 or 5,300. Once again he's going to go out and murder his wife for child support for $5,000, has gotten a raise to 5,300 or 5,350.
Does anybody believe for a second that that's the motivation for what happened here? I don't think so. I think that clearly what happened here, and what we have here, is that somebody abducted her once she went out.
Now, how do we know -- or what was done in terms of the investigation? Well, there was a number of things that weren't done in terms of the investigation. And I have explained most of those to you. But specifically let's talk about the ones that we brought up through the reasonableness -- what the judge called the reasonableness of the investigation.
First is the Medina burglary, which is across the street.
Now, much has been made about the fact that that burglary didn't take place on the 24th, that it must have taken place on the 26th. And the problem with that is, and one of the reasons that I asked Officer Hicks in here, is when Officer Hicks came in, he testified that Todd told him that he saw mail in the mailbox.
If Todd saw mail in the mailbox, you will remember that the Medinas said when she left that they had put, specifically at 10:30, that security mail box. When you go there, this is what I was asking Graybill, his understanding that they put the mail in, you can see it. And that when you pull it out, you put the incoming mail down into the slot.
Well, Todd told the -- and we have that portion of Hicks.
Todd says in his interview with Hicks that he saw mail there and a car. If he saw mail there and a car, he -- Graybill says he's between 10:35 and 10:50 on that street. Then that means that Steven Todd was on that street some time between -- before Graybill got there, because the following day was Christmas Day. And Medinas came back on the 26th.
If the Medinas put outgoing mail in that mailbox, the mailman had come around and taken the outgoing mail, there would have been no mail for Steven Todd to have seen on either the 25th, Christmas, or the 26th. If that was the case, that should have been followed up.
The other thing you have got is, you have got Diane Jackson, which came in for the truth. Diane Jackson specifically called in at 11:40 a.m.
on 12-24. Said that she saw on 12-24 at 11:40 she said she saw people who are located in a van, or had -- she had seen a van with three people.
Now, once again, the people, as we indicated yesterday, we have never located a van that comports with what you saw. Yesterday Mr. Distaso told you, well, maybe it was the Siemens van. Well, that's -- you know that it's not Siemens van. I specifically asked Grogan, wasn't the van the was one across the street? No, because -- does he have some information that he's not given to Grogan?
Both Brocchini and Grogan have said that they searched. They looked for this van with the three people who were seen in that street with the safe out. And then besides that, what about all of the media presence that was there on the 26th? Do you really believe that by the 26th, when there is media camped out on that street -- and we have got testimony on this. Distaso is asking Venable. She says, you remember waking up on Christmas Day, wasn't a lot? There were a few reporters. And do you have some kind of an appointment on the 25th? He asked Brent. He said, did yousee media present at that point?
Yes. That's -- by Christmas on the 26th, there are people out in that street.
You mean to tell me on the 26th, they carted this safe out on the street, and ine the guy is driving up and nobody sees anything? It makes no sense. Nobody followed up on that.
The timing makes sense? I don't know who knows, but they have never found the van nor the three people who were there on that street apparently on the 24th. So that's troubling.
One of the other things that is troubling is, we went around, and they found a -- while interviewing women who were walking dogs, they found a woman who was a DA in Merced. The woman who was a DA in Merced a dog, Golden Retriever named McKenzie. She had been threatened the month before. And, specifically, they knew who it was that had threatened her. And she took it seriously. And she went to the police, the DA did, and told them about it. And they set up an appointment to go interview the woman who had made the threats, because her husband had been incarcerated. And she doesn't show up. And they never did another thing.
That woman lives right around the corner within an eighth of a mile. She's got dark hair. She's got a dog named McKenzie. She's been threatened. She was recently pregnant, so presumably still had a little extra weight on her. Was that ever followed up on?
But this idea that somehow, if the defense doesn't prove he did it, that that supplies who did it. That supplies you the fill-in-the-blanks. Trouble is that is not the law. The fact of the matter is they didn't follow up on what were tangible leads.
Was there specific -- is there specific other leads that they could have followed up on? Sure. Was there other stuff Kim McGregor did at the -- did she tell four different stories? Did she burglarize the house? Did she take stuff out of there did they not follow up on that? Did they not do the witnesses and find out what the witnesses said? Yes.
Do I know that she did it? No. Do I know that the person who threatened the DA did it? No. Do we know that it was the three men with the van? No. But this idea that there was nothing else going on in that neighborhood, or that there was nothing else you could have followed up on, I think is belied completely by what we have heard.
And how can you say that there was no opportunity for anybody else? Nobody else had that opportunity. If Laci was alive on the 24th, as almost every indication in all the evidence is, and she walked out that front door, who knows what happened to her?
Now, the response is -- and yesterday Mr. Distaso said, well, what somebody had to frame up Scott, or this or that. Didn't frame up anybody.
Fact of the matter is that it was widely known by January 11th press conferences and press releases going on, there was over 50 media outlets on January 11th at the Bay. Who knew anything about the case knew that Scott's alibi was at the bay.
Is there an explanation that they can come up with as to why they can't find anything there? Yesterday it was referred to as finding a needle in a haystack. Well, you 18 -- 17 people know better than anybody that it wasn't finding a needle in a haystack. They did 51 searches. They found zero evidence that pertained to this case.
However, they did find things at small as a Snapple Tea bottle; sticks as small as six inches; asphalt pieces. They found rope. They found a plastic bag. They identified 261 separate targets on the bottom of that bay floor that they went and dived on. They brought in the FBI Dive Team. They brought in Doctor Cheng, the U.S.G.S. expert, to tell you from where these bodies were, this is where you should have found the evidence. And they didn't find one iota of evidence that was related to this case.
Wouldn't that tell you something? Why was it -- why was this finding a needle in a haystack? They did find items. They found tires. They found a backhoe scoop, was the testimony. They found item, after item, after item they identified. You have got the exhibits. You can take a look at them when you go back there. They found item after item in this the whole area.
And that's prior to the time when the bodies are found in this area.
After that, when they got an idea of where they should find evidence, they search again, and they don't find anything that links Scott Peterson to this case. Nothing whatsoever.
They hired that REMUS device that goes through and maps the bottom of the bay floor. And take a look at how they advertise that REMUS device. I marked the exhibit. And it describes it. And it says it is Side Scan Sonar, that it can go down as low as 300 feet. Well, we're talking about an area that is two feet deep. We're talking about an area that you can see the bottom, as testified to by Dodge Hendee, in a helicopter going over. Where if the body was there, you would be able to see it.
And they still persist on the fact that he weighted, made anchors and weighed the body down. You have got another problem with that.
That was Doctor Peterson. Doctor Peterson talked about -- some of you remember these mineralization that was in the pants. And it would have been in the pants right along the front.
And when I asked Doctor Peterson about that mineralization, his explanation was that the body had to have been exposed. I have a sixth grader. Like other sixth graders, I can tell you they just finished the mineralization chapter. In order to have minerals, you have to have an object that is exposed so the water evaporates and the minerals form.
Doctor Peterson recognized that. You know what Doctor Peterson did? Because of that observation about the mineralization, what he called smooth stones, he said my thing is it may have had to do with the body being alternately exposed and submerged. And maybe as water and salts were deposited and dried, the material could be laid down.
I said, when you say it was submerged, meaning at some point under water, at some point out of -- at least not exposed, or maybe on the surface of the water. That's what the testimony is. That's their expert.
Somehow the mineralization took place in the -- mineralization was on the front of Laci.
His testimony was that you would normally expect the body to be laying with the appendages down. If that was the case, how do you explain the fact there was mineralization in the front, and the stones were in the front, unless that body was somewhere else, somewhere else.
For instance, I don't know if it's the case but, you know, we showed you that area by that Hoffman Channel where there is a marshy area.
These bodies kind of come and float up right in that specific area. And you will remember on the map, there was Laci's body, there is the bag, this bag that Officer Philipps said had the she same smell as the composition. Then there was the baby. It was all by the Hoffman Channel.
And remember, Officer Philipps said that that water comes out on the tide. And you will remember, even the DA two months later came up with that bag of junk which I opened up and showed to you, which they said was plastic, which was at the foot of the Hoffman Channel. And that's a marshy area over there.
If the bodies were dumped over there, is it so hard to believe that that's why there was this mineralization? Because it was in a marine environment over there by that marsh area. And that at some point when the large rain came, that's what washed the bodies out to where they were found?
I don't think so. I don't think that's so hard to believe. In fact, you would have to come up with some explanation, because we have got completely conflicting theories.
If it -- on the one hand, they are saying bodies are weighted down. That was the argument yesterday. The body are weighted down, that they are at the bottom, and that's why we can't find anything. That's why we did all of these searches, and the bodies were not -- you weren't able to locate the bodies. But, at the same time, you have got their medical examiner saying that they are all -- they are alternately exposed and submerged, meaning that at some point out of the water, not exposed to the water, or at least on the surface of the water. How else do you explain it? That's what the facts are. We're not making them up.
But the fact of the matter is, if you don't find weights, and if you have got your doctor telling you that the bodies have -- or the one body has elements that show that there is mineralization, then how do you explain it, exceptmaybe the body was not submerged the entire time. And maybe that's what happened. Do we know? No. Has anybody pursued it? No. But, once again, it's not the defense's job to sit and try to prove everything and prove their innocence.
I would love nothing more -- and I mean this -- I would love nothing more than to solve this case, and to tell you -- and to point to somebody and say this is who did this. Nothing would make me happier. And send you guys home, you wouldn't have to deliberate. Wouldn't have to sit here for nine months, or anything else.
But the fact of the matter is, is that they have not proved this case. They have not proved that Scott Peterson did anything except lie.
And that's -- and they give you really no reason as to why he would lie. They haven't proven -- they haven't given you any satisfactory explanation as to how all of these things fit together, except, I will submit to you, that it sure as heck makes a heck of a lot more sense that these bodies were not weighted down, that there were no other anchors. That's why we didn't find the other anchors.
That this body obviously was exposed to the air or the elements. That's why you had the evaporation.
Scott Peterson had nothing to do with this. Scott Peterson would not -- do you think he's just out there manufacturing this kind of concerned husband and running around doing the searches, and putting up flyers, and putting up posters, and living out of his car, all because it's part of his master plan to become a jetsetter? Does that make sense to anybody?
Or do you think that something else happened here and it was never fully, unfortunately, investigated, because the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
You know, people say all the time -- Mr. Distaso was telling you yesterday, people come up to him, and when they find out he's on the case, I'm sure they ask him questions. And say, you know, just because he lied doesn't mean he's a killer, and this or that.
I have to -- I have the same thing. And the thing that people always tell me, always say about Scott, is, well, he just didn't act right. Just doesn't look right. It's kind of -- it looks arrogant. Didn't show concern, or things like that. Those are always what they say. But at a certain point, understand what happened to him, I'm not asking -- nobody is going to nominate Scott Peterson as husband of the year.
But I'll tell you by all accounts, he treated Laci with a great deal of respect. He treated Laci, or gave Laci a great deal of love. He cheated on Laci, and he feels like a fourteen karat asshole for doing it. He deserves to feel that way. But, at the same time, you know, he said something in that interview that, I thought, spoke volumes anybody who's ever been married. Really it's nobody else's business but the married couple of what their relationship is.
I have never known -- I have known lots of people who have been -- whether they are married or not married, in relationships that worked for whatever reason. And far be it from me, I'm the last guy on earth to tell you this is the remedy, or this is the prescription for how a relationship should be. But he had a relationship, and by all accounts it worked. And then he had the rug pulled out from under him.
Understand what's going through his head. He gets home, she's not there. You know, if he's not putting away the curling iron, why would he take the leash off of the dog. You know, this is all a set up. Why didn't he call the police immediately? Because he didn't suspect anything was wrong until he started calling around, then he became a little bit distraught.
Realizing, you know, the car and everything else.
And then you see hope, what kind of takes over in his brain.
You know. You will notice in the phone calls, he didn't call Amber that day.
The calls with Amber in December had pretty much tailed off. It's important to remember, because in the opening statement there was this idea that was suggested, that he had had a couple dates with Amber, and then he told her about the drip to Europe that wasn't the case.
When Amber was here she testified, first date, before they had sex, before they had had more than a couple of drinks, he gave the Kennebunkport story, he gave the other story. He gave the story about he's going to be gone for January. I think it's a fair statement that he thought he was going to get some sex, he was going to -- not going to be a heavy duty commitment. And I don't think he treated her with a whole lot of respect. I think that's a fair statement. And I think you would agree with that.
The fact of the matter is that then he gets caught. And he gets caught, and he tells her, I lost my wife. You know. People say, well, isn't that a coincidence? He says I lost my wife. First holidays without her. And, you know, turns out he loses his wife right before Christmas.
Well, I'll tell you what is a coincidence. Amber has yet another guy who tells her that he lost his wife a Dave Ghiardelli. Same month.
Been ten days, you know. I hate to say it, guys. I don't want to speak for us, but guys, on occasion, use a line. And the line is, I lost my wife.
Another line is, you know, we're not getting along. We're not doing -- you can think of a hundred different lines. But the fact of the matter is that she finds out. He goes -- he tries to placate her. He tells her some -- fast forward.
Laci is going missing. You don't see a bunch phone calls with him to her. What you do see, however, is a bunch of phone calls from her to him. Like I believe she said fourteen on that one day, because she wanted to thank him for the little skylight thing that he had given her. That's what she says.
But remember what happens. She has that uncle of Shawn Sibley. It's now -- by the time he's getting a call from Sibley's uncle, has already -- he's not completely dense. He's been at the police station.
Brocchini has driven him around. They have searched his car. They have taken a gun out of the glove compartment. They have taken the mop. They have taken the other items. They have taken him off to the police station at midnight to interview him. They have basically asked for his alibi.
They have spent -- while he would rather be looking for his wife, he's spending time trying to talk to Brocchini, and convince Brocchini that he really did go to the bay. Brocchini is telling him, I'm sorry I have to do this, but you are a suspect.
You meet again with Mansfield and Grogan the very next day. When he meets with Mansfield and Grogan, they are asking him similar type questions. He understands at that point, when he gets a call from Doug Sibley, you know, they think they are suspicious of you now, wait until they find out about Amber. And he gets a call from Amber.
So what does he do? He just does something that is equal parts stupid, yet to some degree I can understand it, and I hope you can too.
He figures Laci is coming back. He does not accept the fact for a minute that Laci is dead. I mean that's something that is throughout the very first month of this case. And he lies to her. He keeps up the lie that he told her the very first time he met her, the same -- the same lie that he was going to the Kennebunkport, that he was in Europe, the whole thing, hoping that if he can keep her at bay and not have her go to the press, that at a certain point Laci is going to come back, and then he can get out of this. That's the mind set I believe that he's going through.
Now, what happens? And at a certain point, he starts talking. She is going to go -- wants to know whether she is getting suspicious of him. And he tells her. And then the first thing that she says -- and I went through this with her -- is, you know what, if I go to the police -- never dissuades her from going to the police, ever. He specifically says, look, that's your decision.
But what he does wants to do is keep her from going to the press. Because, as I say, he may not be the smartest tool in the shed, but he knows enough, he's been around Modesto, has a history of various other kind of sundry things where young women go missing --
DISTASO: I object to that, your Honor. That's not appropriate.
JUDGE: Jury can disregard that.
GERAGOS: He knows enough to know that if she goes to the press, all bets are off. That the searches of her -- that he becomes the focus. Is it altruistic totally? No, I don't think he's altruistic totally.
He knows that he is going to be become the object of suspicion. But he also knows that once she goes to the press, everything stops. You know what, he didn't have ESP, but he sure as heck was right. The minute the Enquirer came, out the -- image the Enquirer came out, the volunteer center shut down the next day. And when the volunteer center shuts down the next day, the Rochas turn on him.
The Rochas have had, previous to that, an outstanding relationship with him. And at that point, we got somebody who's now lost his wife and pregnant kid -- pregnant -- pregnant with his kid. You have got somebody who is now the subject of -- the object of much suspicion. Remember he's five days removed from the police announcing that they found the body in the bay. They announce that at first. They later corrected it. You have got press releases and articles in evidence.
They announced on the 11th, and the only reason they were searching in the bay is because already they were telegraphing everything in the world, he's the guy who did this. He was at the bay. We're searching at the bay. We found a body at the bay. Everybody at that point was starting to suspect him.
When his family -- the Rocha's turn against him, he's at that point even more under siege. He's getting the house burglarized. He's got Laci's friends coming over and doing the yelling and the screaming. He's got shock jocks out front called him a murderer. At a certain point, he's trying to keep himself up. And, you know, I think at a certain point, there was almost relief for him when Modesto PD took Amber and had her do that press conference, which was on the 24th. Because it was like, okay, I have gotten past that.
And, within days, he decided to try to revive the search by doing his own thing with Diane Sawyer, and doing his own media with Diane Sawyer. Tried to revive whatever there was.
Mr. Distaso says why does he keep calling her? Well, I think that the fair import of why he keeps calling Amber after that is to some degree I think he believed, and wanted to believe, that she thought he was innocent.
Because everybody else was turning on him. I think to some degree he was -- respected the fact she hadn't gone to the media. She had done this thing. You know, clearly she could have sold her story to the Enquirer, to the Globe, do some Bantam Books for a quicky book.
She didn't do that. She went to the police. And I think he respected that. I think he was being honest when he said that -- in the interview with Diane Sawyer, that he respected her. At a certain point she was only the person who could understand what he was going through. He understood what she was going through. Publishing nude pictures of her, media camping on her, media chasing her. There was kind of an almost a Stockholm syndrome in a weird sort of way between the two of them.
But the idea that somehow that whether she was the motive of this or that, I don't think explains it. I think truly what was going on there is, he developed a respect and a friendship, and she was somebody he could talk to at a certain point. And you will see the amount of hours.
If you are looking at the Jacobson chart, he barely talked to her, barely made phone calls in December. I forget the number. Was not be a large amount. Absent one phone call, they spent some time together. But there was just intermittent phone calls toward the end of December.
Then, boom, on the 25th or the 26th, there is 16 calls from her, and then the calls shoots up. But then, by February, after the press conference that she's done, the time of the calls goes back down. And you find, and you know -- I think -- I don't want to play amateur psychiatrist or psychologist, but I think when she says, you know, I don't think we should talk any more, I think I can understand that she was surprised by his reaction.
I think you heard the tape as well, where he just kind of ended it. I think that's a pretty telling observation on her part and on Buehler's part, that it seemed to be easier, because I think at that point there was also a sense of relief, being resigned it to. But at a certain point, at that point, you know, there emotion. Maybe emotion is too strong. Talks about his small world. He is an actor. He can turn on the emotions left and right.
I don't buy that. I don't think that you -- I don't think any human who has got the kind of background that he does, who has got absolutely no evidence of being, you know, the bad seed, you know a cold blooded killer. I think you would see evidence of that. I don't think that you just wake up one day said I will kill my wife. I can't deal with it, because in a month I'm going to have a kid. I don't think that anybody is going to believe for a second that that's Scott Peterson.
There is absolutely no history of domestic violence, or anything else. And that one day he just snaps, and all this -- all this happens and, gee, coincidentally, there is no evidence? And, gee, coincidentally, every theory that we have doesn't work? I don't think that's a coincidence.
I think that what the reality is, the stark reality is, is this is a guy who literally got caught with his pants down, and he got caught with his pants down, and he did what he thought he had to do, because he fully expected her to come home. He fully expected Laci to come home.
I think if he didn't expect Laci to come home, he would have made a lot different decisions than the ones he made. And I think that, at a certain point, you have a guy -- and I don't know if any of you could ever place yourself in this position. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for him. I'm not asking you to have empathy. I know that to some degree most people would say there is a reaction that I don't care if he's been falsely accused, I don't care if he's been sitting in custody for eighteen months. I don't care if he couldn't grieve for his wife and child because he's been accused of this.
I don't care if we kind of mocked him and denigrated him, and the whole bit. Cheated on his wife, and he deserves it, you know. There is to some degree a lot of people feel that way. But, at the same time, how in the world can you say, can you look at this man over there, and can you say that you think, based upon the evidence that's been shown in this case, and based upon everything that you know, based upon all of these changing and morphing of theories, that beyond a reasonable doubt to an abiding conviction, that you are going to say for the rest of my life, yeah, I wake and I think Scott Peterson is guilty of this horrific crime?
I just don't -- I don't think that you can do that. I don't think that the evidence is there. I think frankly the evidence shows otherwise.
This is a good place to break. I just got to tie some loose ends.
November 3, 2004
MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
Good morning. The, I finished off yesterday talking about Amber, giving you at least my take or an explanation as to what that means and what all of these tape recordings that you listened to ad nauseam meant. I know Mr. Distaso invited you to go back and listen to them, and I'm sure you're all anxious to go do that.
The fact of the matter is, though, I think this case basically comes down to one thing, and that's evidence versus emotion. And essentially what you're here to do, and the reason, frankly, that you're sequestered, the reason that we went through 16 weeks, or whatever it was, selecting all of you, was specifically so that you would look at the evidence.
The last kind of section of evidence that I haven't talked about would be the twine around the baby. And I'm not going put that picture up on the screen. I don't know about you, but I remember the first time I saw it on, in the discovery. It's still kind of seared into my brain. It's one of the most disturbing pictures, I think, that you will see.
But one of the things that's never really been explained, and I want to make it quite clear, I have never said and have never told you that that twine had anything to do with the baby's death. So when Mr. Distaso gets up, and maybe he just misunderstood what I said, and says there's nothing underneath the twine, it's not what I'm saying.
I specifically asked Dr. Peterson, how much space was there around the baby's neck. You've all seen how it was tied around, and he said there was two centimeters, which is less than an inch. About three quarters of an inch.
Anybody can see, and Dr. Peterson himself said, I said Would you just pull it over? He said No, I didn't want to abrade, was his term, the face or the baby's head.
Well, the reason for that is because the neck is obviously more than two centimeters less than the circumference of the head. That didn't come just around the head.
Second of all, you remember that, and I believe it was Sarah Yoshida, but it could have been Pin Kyo, one of the criminalists of the Department of Justice, and I specifically asked her about, because it was cut off, as you'll remember. The twine was cut off by the doctor. Could not take it over the head.
And I specifically asked Well, when you undid the what was described as a loose bow, what was there. And she said A hard, tied knot. And that was the knot that I showed you.
Now, once again, the prosecution says Well, we've all had, I think he used the term electrical cords or extension cords and they gets knots in them.
I would submit to you I have never, and I don't think anybody else that I know of has ever gone out to look at either a hose or an electrical cord in their garage or their closet and seen it absolutely with a bow and a knot, a tight knot underneath.
What do I think happened? I don't know. Does he know? No.
But I tell you one, one thing that makes some sense, the doctor said, Dr.
Peterson said, that baby was in a different condition, obviously different condition than Laci was.
One of the theories he had was that there, the baby had been there in the uterus and had been protected.
The problem with that, obviously, is that you don't have a placenta, you don't have an umbilical cord.
And clearly that was the other thing that he said he could not rule out that baby having either been alive, or the baby having been removed and handled outside of the womb, because the umbilical cord is not there.
Was that baby wrapped in some kind of plastic? Was that baby in the TARGET bag? Was that baby in the other bag that the cadaver dog alerted on to? We don't know. Most of those things were not tested.
The fact of the matter is, though, that that baby, it looks like, had something that was wrapped around it that protected it, and it looks like that that rope or twine, or whatever you want to call it, was tied and it was tied with a knot and with a bow.
And if that's the case, it is not Scott Peterson who did that. If that's the case, then that baby was handled outside of the womb.
Obviously somebody other than Scott Peterson did that.
And there's been no evidence whatsoever to explain that other than to say Well, maybe it got on through the flotsam and jetsam and got in around the baby.
Well, if it got in around the baby, it would have been just as easy to pull it over the baby and you wouldn't find the bow and the knot underneath.
The fact of the matter is that all of these things that were tested, all of the evidence that was tested by the Department of Justice came back negative. Whether it was the bone, from the tissue or blood, the pliers, the blue tarp, the boat cover.
Now, they've got a theory, and the theory is that, as to what happened, that the boat cover was involved, that the blue tarp was involved, that that truck was involved, that the boat was involved.
The only thing they've got is a hair. They can't tell you how that hair matters, other than, and they've got a theory about weights.
They don't have any evidence, and they went through and I went through, and I'm not going to re-list it, every single item that was tested by the Department of Justice. Everything.
And they all came back negative. Negative for tissue.
Negative for blood. Negative for any kind of urine. Negative for feces. There wasn't anything, anything at all. There was no evidence.
Now, the fact of the matter is when you take the oath here and the oath to do, as a juror, to come to a conclusion, what you're supposed to do, and the judge will tell you, is specifically examine the facts. You're supposed to examine the evidence. And you're supposed to come to a decision based on the facts and the evidence. I think we discussed yesterday, not a conjecture, not an emotion, not on anything else.
The fact is that, as you sit here, there is no evidence that links Scott Peterson to this crime. So if you get back there the judge tells you, he'll give you instructions on how the deliberate, one of the things that we talked about, most of you individually and myself when we were doing this, is that Mr. Peterson is entitled and the prosecution is entitled to your individual deliberation.
Which means you get back there, you don't go with the crowd, so to speak. It was one of the reasons that it took us so long to select a juror is because out there, and I used the term with a lot of you, in the ether, there was this presumption of guilt, or a prejudgment that against Mr.
Peterson was so high. And that was one of the reasons why it took so long, why we had questionnaires. That we're not supposed to decide this case based upon what's said on cable TV, chat fests. We're not supposed to decide this case on how many people are in the courtroom and what kind of information they had.
We're supposed to decide this case on the evidence that's here.
And you're not supposed to be influenced by whatever the passion is or the sentiment in the community at any one time, or whatever, whatever else may be swirling around you.
And if you get back there and you have a situation where you disagree with one of the other jurors, the judge will tell you, specifically one of the jury instructions, that you're supposed to stand your ground. You're supposed to deliberate, but you're also supposed to examine what the other person says.
One of the anomalies of the law is that, if that's the case and you're a guilty voter, you say Well, I think that he's guilty, but all, all these other people in the jury room are making cogent arguments as to why they have not proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to go back to the two reasonable interpretations jury instruction, which directly specifies that if there are two reasonable interpretations of the evidence, that you must adopt the one that points towards innocence.
That's what the burden of proof is in a circumstantial evidence case. That's what beyond a reasonable doubt means.
If you find that you're, for some reason you're swept up and you're feeling these emotions that I don't like Scott Peterson, I don't like some of the things that he did, you have to set those things aside.
If you're a person who says Well, I'm predisposed to voting against him in this case because I've got a strong suspicion, or I think that the prosecution has shown more evidence than the defense has, there's another instruction the judge will tell you, he's going to read, hopefully, those instructions today, the defense does not have to do anything. The defense can rely on the state of the evidence.
Which means, if the prosecution doesn't prove their case, the defense doesn't have to do anything. And, frankly, I would say, contrary to what I told most of you, I remember almost joking with most of you that I was going to just sit there and, if the judge would let me, read crossword puzzles, read the sports section and not do anything.
Well, we've done more than rely on the state of the evidence.
I respectfully submit to you that we have tried to bring out the truth on every single one of these witnesses. We tried to get at what actually happened, we tried to get at what the evidence really showed.
And the reason is, I would once again respectfully submit to you, is because if you believe that Mr. Peterson is factually innocent, then there's nothing to hide. And the reason there's nothing to hide is that there's never going to be any evidence that shows that he did anything.
And that's for the same reason that Mr. Peterson let the police into his house immediately, for the same reason that he let them search his warehouse and took them over there immediately, for the same reason that he met with them ten or eleven times, for the same reason that he cooperated as much as possible until it became obvious that they were going to try and pin this thing on him, for that reason, because Mr. Peterson knew that there wasn't anything connected to him because he didn't do this. He didn't have anything to do with it.
Whether the, and as I said yesterday, what I'd love to have found out, what I'd still love to find out, and would I like to in the future find out exactly what happened to Laci? Absolutely. I'd like to know, and I think that it's been established, I think we established beyond a reasonable doubt that she was alive on the 24th.
I think she went out that door and I think that that dog, McKenzi, was barking wildly sometime at 10:38 when waking up Amie Krigbaum, I think that the postman, when he came by, who knew that the dog barked every day, and sometime between 10:35 and 10:50, the postman remembers that the dog did not bark on that day I think is highly significant.
I think you've got a witness down in the park who is apparently telling some of the officers that they saw a dog on a leash barking wildly over by the creek. All of those things lead me to believe, and you've got Diane Jackson, and the judge let it in for the truth of the matter, with a van that's never been found, with three people that have never been found, that do not fit the description of the two people who were arrested for the burglary across the street.
Are they connected? I don't know. Was Laci up in Tracy? I don't know. But they certainly did not search that. I mean the first thing that came out about Tracy was, you remember, when Helton was on the stand, Helton said We went up there and we spent three days chasing weeds.
Then they bring Beffa in and Beffa says, Well, I was up there for 46 hours. Then they bring Mears in, and Mears says Well, we were here for two hours, but we didn't go out to search, and then in 15 minutes they were called back somewhere else, and I never went back to that specific location, the one where we went over the area with the heat radiating device, the FLIR device, to see what was going on.
Was Laci there? I don't know. We don't know because they didn't go up there.
And the fact of the matter is that you cannot shift the burden of proof to the defense. That is not what the state of the law is. The state of the law is that the prosecution has to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.
They haven't done it, and they can't do it because Mr. Peterson did not do this crime. There's no evidence of it.
And that's one of the things you've got to have in this, in this case is evidence. You can't just say I'm going to convict this guy because he, I don't like the way he acted.
You can't convict him because he had an affair. You can't convict him because he said various things to Amber.
I mean, you know, the, I could make fun of, and trust me, I've had my chuckles, I suppose, the same as Mr. Distaso has, over the things he says to Amber. Some of those things would just be considered ridiculous. At the same time, was any of that stuff, when put into proper context, does any of that stuff lead you to evidence that he did something to his wife and unborn child?
No. Of course not. Their theory has morphed. You know, they put up on the screen, I went back and looked at it, remember the comment by Rose Rocha that he said I was kind of hoping for infertility. Well, if you remember, and I'm sure a lot of you were taking notes, that comment on cross-examination, when asked, she said Well, he might have been joking, I think he could have been joking, I couldn't tell.
The other basis for this theory that they've got, this new theory that somehow he wanted this jet setting lifestyle, is that he tells Brent Rocha I think in the pool or at the pool at the party, I'm going through, I'm going to turn 30 and become a father and I'm a lousy salesman all in the same year.I don't know about any of you, I've certainly made myself, I've made many a comment that are a lot worse than that about a particular situation, and for the prosecution to introduce that into a capital murder prosecution, where they've got no evidence that links him to this case, I think falls flat.
If you have what they've kind of let, wanted to lead you to believe, if you had blood all over the house, if you had, as Detective Buehler said, some kind of repairs covering up a spot in the house where maybe there was a violent struggle, if you had something at the warehouse that showed that she had been in there, or if you had urine or feces or something on a boat cover, or e if you had blood in a boat, if you had those kinds of things, that's what real murder cases are about. You have evidence, and you piece together that evidence, that circumstantial evidence.
Remember all of you were asked in that jury questionnaire would you, about your feelings about circumstantial evidence. And we talked about DNA, and we talked about fingerprints, and we talked about copies of originals, and things of that nature.
The fact of the matter is that there are no fingerprints that matter of any, that they found. And the one fingerprint testimony we had in this case was about that Simple Green container, and apparently they lifted a fingerprint off and the fingerprint didn't match Laci or Scott, but we don't know who it matched? And that was just kind of the end of that. And they tested all of these other items and they don't have it. And there's so many internal inconsistencies with this case.
You know, this idea that somehow Scott was cleaning up the house, yet he didn't spend one minute cleaning up the warehouse? I mean, if he had made anchors and wanted to avoid being detected for that, why wouldn't he have gone back to the warehouse and cleaned up the warehouse if there was anchors, for instance?
If there were anchors, why didn't they find them? Why did they find Pabst beer bottles, why did they find Snapple tea bottles, why did they find sticks, why did they find tires, backhoe scoops, things that are all substantially smaller than a body, all that are, some that are substantially smaller than an anchor.
Why didn't they find any of that when they spent all kinds of money, energy, time, and searches?
And the obvious reason for that is that there wasn't any.
But that didn't change the focus of the suspect. It just changed theories.
They didn't find, you know, chicken wire, the anchors. Remember we had the poisoning theory, we had the smothering theory, the strangling theory, we've got the gun theory, we've got the knife theory. We just keep changing theories and we never change suspects.
That's the problem with this case. That's why I believe that a juror who has taken an oath in this case has a duty to find Mr. Peterson not guilty.
One of the things that every one of you promised was that, when you took this oath, that you would follow the law, and I trust and I don't have any doubts about that. My big fear, and I shared it with a number of you going into this, is that there are people who feel like if they voted not guilty, that somehow that they couldn't go back into the community, or if they voted not guilty, that somehow that would be, there would be something wrong with that.
There certainly is no badge of distinction one way or another if you vote not guilty. The hallmark of our system of justice, the hallmark of the American jurisprudence system is that if the prosecution does not prove their case, that you must acquit Mr. Peterson. And they have the burden of proof.
If they don't prove their case, you do not just fill in the blanks for them. You do not engage in speculation or conjecture. You don't just go back there and say Well, I've got a strong suspicion about it, and even though they didn't prove this, and even though this kind of fell apart, I'm going to just find him guilty anyway.
That's not our system. It's the system in other areas of the, on the planet, but it's not here in America.
And I would just ask you and, to adhere to that oath and ask you to return with a verdict of not guilty.
I know that yesterday, the day before yesterday, Mr. Distaso said he wanted to thank you. And I, I obviously want to thank all of you for your service and the amount of time that you have spent here in this court and the obvious diligence.
I think I've been tardy or late more often than all of you combined, so I apologize for that. I do want to tell you, however, you've been truly, you've really, just personally, you've really, I think, had an enormously good experience in the sense that you've had a tremendous judge, you've had a competent prosecution team, which you don't always find. Competent in the sense that they tried to put a case together. It's, I don't think that there's any prosecutor who could have proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence just isn't there. You can't blame them for that.
I like, I personally like Mr. Distaso, and I've grown to like him more since I've been here and consider myself to be a friend of his when we're not fighting on the record or doing, or objecting on the record.
But the fact of the matter is that whether you like or don't like a lawyer, and whether or not you like or don't like the judge or the experience, the fact of the matter is that you have to focus on what the evidence is. And the evidence in this case shows, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Scott Peterson didn't have anything to do with this.
I would thank you and thank you on behalf of Mr. Peterson, and ask you to return a verdict of not guilty in this case. Thank you very much.
Thank you, your Honor.