Craig Grogan

 

Witness for the People:  Guilt Phase

September 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29 & 30, 2004

 

Direct Examination by Birgit Fladager

JUDGE: Because it shows close-ups of the remains of Ms. Peterson. All right. Do you want to call your next witness. If the jury wants to see them obviously you can see them during your deliberations, okay, if you're so inclined. You don't have to, but if you want to, you have access to them. Okay. Detective Grogan.

GROGAN: I do.

CLERK: Be seated. State and spell your name for the record.

GROGAN: Craig Grogan, C-R-A-I-G G-R-O-G-A-N.

CLERK: Thank you.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, can you please tell us how you are currently employed.

GROGAN: I'm employed as a detective for the city of Modesto.

FLADAGER: And how long have you been employed as a detective as a peace officer actually for the city of Modesto?

GROGAN: For Modesto, nine years.

FLADAGER: And prior to that did you have law enforcement experience?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you please tell the jury what that was.

GROGAN: I worked as a police officer for the city of Azusa.

JUDGE: We can hardly hear you, Detective Grogan. I can barely hear you and you're three feet away.

GROGAN: I was a police officer for the city of Azusa in Southern California for nine years.

FLADAGER: In your assignment to the Modesto Police Department are you currently assigned to the Crimes Against Persons Unit?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: How long have you been in that assignment?

GROGAN: Six years.

FLADAGER: And in that assignment what are your responsibilities?

GROGAN: Well, in that assignment we work homicide cases, robbery cases and violent crimes in the city of Modesto, excluding sexual assaults, which is a separate unit, and domestic violence, which is a separate unit.

FLADAGER: Okay. Have you also had experience in investigating those kind of cases as well?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: I'd like to take you back to December 25th of 2002. Were you on duty on that date?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And were you at home?

GROGAN: Yes, I'm sorry, I was on call, but I was at home.

FLADAGER: Okay. Would you explain to the jury what it means to be on call when you are a detective assigned to the Crimes Against Persons Unit?

GROGAN: That means at the time we have a rotational system for the detectives. When you're assigned a homicide case it rotates through all the detectives before you're up again and you catch the next homicide case. That way you have time to complete it. You don't get two back-to-back and it's too much work to complete.

FLADAGER: So on Christmas day were you on vacation?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: But you were due for the next homicide?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you get a call that day while you were at home?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: About what time was that?

GROGAN: It was around 11:00 a.m.

FLADAGER: And who was it that called you?

GROGAN: Detective Al Brocchini.

FLADAGER: And what information did he relay to you?

GROGAN: He told me that he had been called out on the night previous, on December 24th, on a missing person's case and that he thought maybe –

GERAGOS: Objection.

GROGAN: I should come in.

GERAGOS: Objection to anything further.

JUDGE: No, no, it all goes to the reasonableness of his conduct. Overruled.

FLADAGER: Go ahead.

GROGAN: And that he believed it was a suspicious circumstances missing person's case and thought that maybe I should come in.

FLADAGER: All right. And at that point did you leave your family and go into work?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Once you arrived at the police department did you get any further background information as to what had gone on?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what information did you receive?

GROGAN: When I first arrived there I met with Detective Buehler in the Investigative Services Building, which at the time was in a separate building from our police department. I was told that there was a press briefing going on in the main police building at the time and that there were some ongoing searches at the East La Loma Park based on a missing person's case.

FLADAGER: Were you given any information regarding the physical condition of the missing person?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: That she was around eight months pregnant.

FLADAGER: And the person we're talking about is Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did you at that point make contact with any of Laci Peterson's family members there at the police department?

GROGAN: Yes , I did.

FLADAGER: And can you tell us how that came about.

GROGAN: Well, after I was briefed by Detective Buehler, I walked over to the main building to try to meet some of the family and people involved that were attending the press briefing. And I walked into the room where the briefing had just, the press briefing had just completed and I introduced myself to the defendant and some of the other people in the room.

FLADAGER: Did you have much time to actually spend with them at that particular time?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: And why is that?

GROGAN: Because before I arrived, there was an interview, a secondary interview that had been scheduled with Mr. Peterson that that day, and so when I went into that briefing room I wanted to talk to him and see if he was still willing to sit down and talk with us that day. And I believe I introduced myself to the, to Sharon Rocha and the Rocha family. I also sent around my notebook and a piece of paper and asked everybody that was present in the room to write down their name, phone number and possibly even their relationship to Laci.

FLADAGER: Why did you do that?

GROGAN: Well, the reason I did that is because the people in that room would know the most about Laci Peterson, presumably, if they were there. Also because often times the suspect in the case like this is someone that's known by the victim and –

GERAGOS: There be an objection, motion to strike.

JUDGE: No, I don't think so. Overruled.

GERAGOS: It's non-responsive.

JUDGE: Overruled.

FLADAGER: Continue, detective.

JUDGE: Let's not turn this into a narrative.

FLADAGER: Right. So, detective, you got the names and phone numbers of the various people who were present; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes , ma'am.

FLADAGER: All right. Once you accomplished that did you then go to the interview that was scheduled with the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes , I did.

FLADAGER: At that point prior to the interview had you been briefed on a prior interview that the defendant had had the day before with Detective Brocchini?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Had you had an opportunity to watch that videotaped interview yet?

GROGAN: No, it was summarized in just a few moments.

FLADAGER: So the interview that you then participated on on Christmas day with the defendant after the press briefing, tell us what the purpose of that particular interview was?

GROGAN: Primary purpose of that interview was I wanted to go back a couple of days in time from the 24th and my understanding was that the initial interview covered the 24th in pretty, in detail, but I wanted, I was interested in a day or two prior to that. Also, some of the background information about the family and the defendant and Laci Peterson.

FLADAGER: What was the purpose of eliciting information about a day or two prior to Laci's disappearance?

GROGAN: Well, what we were looking for is if the likelihood that something had caused this to happen within 48 hours or so of her disappearance, whether she's voluntarily missing or she's missing for some other reason, something likely happened within a couple of days prior to that that would cause this to take place.

FLADAGER: Now you're actually interviewing the defendant Scott Peterson on December 25th, one of the first things you do when you get to the police department; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes . Within,

FLADAGER: Let me ask you this, why is it at the first interview you're doing it with the defendant as opposed to any other person?

GROGAN: Because he's the closest person to Laci Peterson to my knowledge at that time.

FLADAGER: Okay. Who is it that discovered that Laci Peterson was missing?

GROGAN: Mr. Peterson. Scott Peterson.

FLADAGER: And who was the last person to see Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Mr. Scott Peterson.

FLADAGER: Who was it who reported her missing to the police department?

GROGAN: Ron Grantski.

FLADAGER: Do any of those three things factor into your mindset as you begin this interview with the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And tell us about that.

GROGAN: Well, all three of those things would be reasons that I would need to talk to him minimally to do an interview with him and also reasons that I would need to probably try to eliminate him as a suspect in her disappearance.

FLADAGER: At that point did you have any information about the defendant's statement that he had been fishing on Christmas Eve the day that Laci disappeared?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was that another reason that you wanted to talk to him?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: Well, it didn't appear that he had an alibi for the time period that she disappeared. He was by himself during that time.

FLADAGER: So the interview that you had that began about 1:30 in the afternoon; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And did you take notes during that interview?

GROGAN: Yes , I did.

FLADAGER: Did you have a report prepared as a result of those notes?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: All right. I'm going to ask you a few questions about that. About how long did that interview last?

GROGAN: From around 1:30 till 4:00 or 4:30 that afternoon.

FLADAGER: And who else was present during this interview?

GROGAN: Initially, when I walked into the room, Detective Buehler was there with Agent Mansfield. Shortly after I came in Detective Buehler left, and then it was just Agent Mansfield, myself and the defendant.

FLADAGER: Was this particular interview videotaped or audiotaped?

GROGAN: No, it wasn't.

FLADAGER: Why not?

GROGAN: Well, when I left, I left the press briefing, I collected the document that had everyone's names on it, I walked upstairs into the new building to see if I could find where they had taken Mr. Peterson. "They" being Doug Mansfield and Jon Buehler. So I went through the videotaped rooms and he was not in one of those, he was in a large conference room used at the time for some of the police briefings, squad briefings, which is, it's a large, comfort comfortable room. I just sat down and the interview was more or less started and I continued with it as is.

FLADAGER: All right. Before we get into some of the actual substance of the interview, let me ask you this question as well. At some point during that interview did you have to, did everybody have to get up and move to some other room?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Why did that occur?

GROGAN: I don't remember who the officer was, but someone had came and knocked on the door and said that they needed the room, I assume for a squad briefing or something that was occurring, so we got up and we walked down the hallway two doors.

FLADAGER: And the room where you completed the interview, did that have audio or videotape?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: What kind of room was that?

GROGAN: That is a, on the first door you come to is a room designed for an interview of young children and, like, child abuse cases or sexual assault cases. The room next to it has, they share a wall, and in that wall there's a one-way glass. It's designed that way so that social workers and other people that are involved in, in interviews of children that have been abused can sit and watch the interview without, without having a whole bunch of people in the room with the child or the victim. So we went passed the first room and into the second room, which had a little conference table and we did the, completed the interview there.

FLADAGER: Could you have completed the interview in the room where its designed for child victims?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Had you done that would that have been videotaped or audiotaped?

GROGAN: It could have been if I had walked another portion of the building and started that, yes.

FLADAGER: Why did you choose to not place the defendant in that child interview room?

GROGAN: Because it was designed for small children that had toys and decorations that were applicable for that and it didn't seem like a good idea due to the fact that his pregnant wife was missing.

FLADAGER: During this interview that you conducted with him did he talk to you about Laci walking their doing McKenzie?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what did he tell about you that?

GROGAN: He said that she walked almost everyday, I believe.

FLADAGER: Almost everyday?

GROGAN: (Nods head.)

FLADAGER: Did he indicate whether or not he accompanied her?

GROGAN: I think he told me about half the time he accompanied her.

FLADAGER: That he would actually go with her on the walks?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did he give you a route that would be taken by Laci and by himself when they took McKenzie for a walk?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Was he fairly specific in that?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: What did he tell you?

GROGAN: That they would leave their house at 523 North Covena and walk northbound on Covena Avenue to where it dead ends and there's a path that leads down into the East La Loma Park. They would then walk in an easterly direction toward the El Vista Bridge and go in a circle and come back to the house from the park.

FLADAGER: The El Vista Bridge, is that essentially an overpass over the park for traffic, road traffic?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did he tell you anything about jewelry that she wore?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you during that interview?

GROGAN: That she had recently inherited some jewelry from her grandmother and she had been wearing several of those items a lot.

FLADAGER: Did he tell you what she took with her, if anything, when she went on these walks?

GROGAN: He said that she would not typically take her keys. She would sometimes leave the house unlocked. She wouldn't take her purse. That's about all I remember of that.

FLADAGER: Did he give you a theory, his theory, for what had happened to his wife?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: That she had been wearing jewelry that she had inherited from her grandmother and that he had seen her wearing on that morning. And when she went into the park a transient had robbed her for the jewelry and taken her.

FLADAGER: Did he talk to you at all about the financial shape that he and Laci were in?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: What did he tell you about that specifically?

GROGAN: He said that they were in good shape and that she was a good money manager.

FLADAGER: And did he give you an example of what he meant by her being a "good money manager"?

GROGAN: I think he did, but I don't know if I remember it right now.

FLADAGER: Do you have notes that would refresh your memory of that?

GROGAN: Yes , ma'am.

GERAGOS: Bates number? Bates number stamp?

JUDGE: Do you have a Bates number?

GERAGOS: 24071. Thanks.

FLADAGER: Did you find it, detective?

JUDGE: Bates?

GROGAN: Yes, the Bates stamp number is 24071. And I have it in notes that no extravagant purchases.

FLADAGER: Did you make a point of asking the defendant whether or not he was having an affair?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you?

GROGAN: He said he was not.

FLADAGER: Did you ask him whether Laci was having an affair?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what did he say?

GROGAN: He said no.

FLADAGER: Did you ask him whether there were any suspicions of affairs on either side?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: And what did he say to that?

GROGAN: He said no.

FLADAGER: Did he talk to you about the sort of daily schedule that the two of them had?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you about that?

GROGAN: He said it was a very regimented schedule; that they ate dinner around 6:00 p.m. each night and went to bed between 9:00 and 10:00, I believe in the evening and that they woke up in the mornings around 7:00 or 8:00.

FLADAGER: Did you talk to him specifically about what he himself did on December 24th?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And did he give you a run-down of what he did?

GROGAN: Yes , he did.

FLADAGER: Can you give us some idea of what he said that he did that morning.

GROGAN: Would it be okay if I refer to my report?

JUDGE: Do you need to refresh your recollection?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Can I have the Bates number stamp when you do that.

GROGAN: (Nods head.) The page is 112.

GERAGOS: Thank you. Okay.

FLADAGER: Does that refresh your memory about what he told you he did on December 24th?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what is it he said?

GROGAN: He said that Laci woke up before he did that morning. That they both ate breakfast. They watched part of the Today Show and Martha Stewart. She was making a marinade or something to that effect for French toast. And that she was mopping the floor when he left after deciding to go fishing that morning.

FLADAGER: Did he tell you what he did when he left the house?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what did he say?

GROGAN: He said he went to his warehouse, which is located on Emerald Avenue in Modesto.

FLADAGER: Okay. And what did he do there?

GROGAN: If you'd like it in order, if it's all right, I'll take a look.

FLADAGER: Go ahead.

GROGAN: He told me that he when he arrived at his office he checked the e-mail on his computer and he received an e-mail about a golf bag that he was selling on E-Bay.

FLADAGER: And he said that was the computer at the warehouse?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: The golf bag e-mail?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: All right. Next.

GROGAN: He said he sent an e-mail to his employer and they put together a mortiser, a wood working tool.

FLADAGER: Okay. And after that.

GROGAN: I have here that he cleaned up his office, he unloaded some tools from his tool box and he left at about 11:00 a.m. for the Berkeley Marina

FLADAGER: And when he –

GROGAN: And I should say that he had attached his boat and trailer to his truck before he left for the marina

FLADAGER: And when he left to the Berkeley Marina did he tell you where it was that he went with the boat?

GROGAN: Once he arrived there?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes . He described going to an island a short distance north of the Berkeley Marina with trash around the island and he said that he had trolled, fishing, trolling on his way out there and back, I believe.

FLADAGER: The interview that you did with him went on for some time, did it not?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: We covered some of that interview previously so I'm going to move on and ask you this question: At the end of the interview that you had with Mr. Peterson, after he described what he did that day and the circumstances surrounding his relationship with Laci, did you make any decisions as to what you needed to do next in this investigation?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And can you please tell the jury what decision you made.

GROGAN: Well, I decided based on what I knew so far in the investigation that I needed to try to eliminate Scott Peterson and because of that I completed a search warrant for his house, his vehicles, and the warehouse over on Emerald Avenue.

FLADAGER: And did you do that that night, Christmas night you drafted the warrant?

GROGAN: Yes , I did.

FLADAGER: And when you say based on what you know you made that decision, what specifically was it that led you to the conclusion that you needed to do the search warrant?

GROGAN: Well, that was a combination of what, after I talked to him I went and I also debriefed with some other officers and learned more information about what had happened on the 24th, but that's based on the fact that he is close to the victim. The fact that he did, he was the last person to see her. The fact he is the person that discovered that she's missing. The fact that she disappears during a time period when he is by himself and on what appears to be kind of an unusual trip for him; not anything that had happened recently or was part of his normal behavior up to that point. The first officers on –

GERAGOS: Objection, nonresponsive at that point.

JUDGE: Next question.

FLADAGER: Okay.

FLADAGER: Detective, what else did you rely on? What else did you believe that you needed to go ahead and pursue this as an investigative tool?

GROGAN: Well, we wanted to try to see if there was any physical evidence that would either establish whether he's telling us the truth or he was not telling us the truth. And we wanted to establish if he in fact had been at the Berkeley Marina or if he had been somewhere else during that time period and look to see if there is any kind of crime scene at the house.

FLADAGER: Now you were aware, were you not, that police officers had in fact walked through the house on Christmas Eve that night?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And to your knowledge had they reported seeing any evidence of a crime scene that jumped out at them?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Now given that information, was that any reason to you why you should not still try and determine if there were a crime scene at the house?

GROGAN: That didn't mean that there wasn't something that we hadn't found. Certainly there was no forensic tests done at the house in a brief walk-through on the night before. There were issues about a mop being out and some mop water recently thrown out. The fact that the defendant washed his clothes apparently after the fishing trip that led us to believe that possibly a cleanup had taken place at the house and we needed to try to go back there and see if that was the case or not.

FLADAGER: If there's a cleanup is there some sort of testing that can be done by some particular agency that can help determine that?

GROGAN: Well, it depends on the agency. As I learned then, the Department of Justice Crime Lab will come out and they will, they will examine along floorboards and through the house very carefully and then test specific items that they see to see whether it is blood or not. The FBI had access to a substance that the Department of Justice does not use which, and that's called Luminol, and it's a substance that you can spray and if it is blood it is supposed to fluoresce. So we decided that we wanted to call the FBI and see if they would come and assist in a search of the house.

FLADAGER: As a result of your decision to seek the search warrants, do you have any action taken that night with respect to the warehouse itself?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what is that?

GROGAN: It was later in the evening I sent, I called in another detective who was home on Christmas and I sent him to the warehouse at 1027 North Emerald Avenue and I had him sit in that warehouse complex through the night and told him not to let anyone go inside.

FLADAGER: And is that called freezing the property?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And is that done routinely when an officer is attempting to obtain a search warrant in order to protect the scene?

GERAGOS: Objection, leading.

JUDGE: Go ahead. You can finish your question.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: I think I did.

GROGAN: Yes, that's true, it's not unusual to secure a scene until you can obtain a search warrant.

FLADAGER: And is that to protect the scene?

GROGAN: It is.

FLADAGER: Did you do this sort of thing with the house at Covena or not?

GROGAN: I did not.

FLADAGER: Why not?

GROGAN: Because by the, by the 25th my understanding was there was a large number of people over at the house, friends and family members, and it seemed that destruction of evidence was less of an issue since officers had already walked through the house and there were a lot of people in the house currently. I didn't want to displace them overnight so we just secured the warehouse which didn't seem to affect anyone.

FLADAGER: Moving on to the next day, which was December 26th, Thursday. Well, let me just back up. On the night of the 25th, Christmas day, did you work till about midnight?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Were you back to work the next morning?

GROGAN: 7:00 a.m., I believe.

FLADAGER: Okay. And on the 26th, let me ask you this question, you mentioned that there were searches ongoing on Christmas day, did those searches continue on December 26th?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And these were searches for Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: What was the nature of those searches that were ongoing?

GROGAN: Those searches were really to the park and the information that we had received from Mr. Peterson that she had possibly walked to the park that morning, the fact that the dog came back with the leash attached, with that information there was a huge search effort going on at the park to see if we can find her there.

FLADAGER: Did it include horses?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did it include K-9's?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did it include officers on bicycles?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did it include tactical patrol officers?

GROGAN: I believe so, yes.

FLADAGER: All right. Had a helicopter been used the night before?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did you obtain a search warrant in the afternoon of December 26th?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Prior to serving it did you go back to the Modesto Police Department where there was a press briefing going on?

GROGAN: Yes , I did.

FLADAGER: And is that to make contact with the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes , ma'am.

FLADAGER: Why is that?

GROGAN: Well, we had spoken with him earlier when I was at the courthouse in the process of getting this search warrant reviewed and signed and the defendant had called Al Brocchini who spoke with him by phone and said that he was at the warehouse area and tried to get inside. And almost the same time officers from the warehouse were calling me to let me know that someone had come to the warehouse and tried to get inside.

FLADAGER: And that was the defendant going to the warehouse?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: The same warehouse that you said was frozen?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And did it remain frozen in until the search warrant was served?

GROGAN: It did.

FLADAGER: Okay. Once you went to the police department to try to contact the defendant that afternoon, was he there?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Did you try and figure out where he went?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And how did you do that?

GROGAN: I spoke with Ron Grantski who was standing outside, outside the building of his main office of the building where the press briefing was taking place and he told me that Scott had already left.

FLADAGER: Did you then go to the home on Covena Avenue?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And was the defendant present there?

GROGAN: He was.

FLADAGER: And did he let you in the house?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And shortly after your arrival did Officer Ron Cloward also arrive?

GROGAN: Yes , ma'am.

FLADAGER: And was Chris Boyer from Contra Costa County Search and Rescue Sheriff's Department also with Officer Cloward?

GROGAN: Yes , he was.

FLADAGER: Were you present while Officer Boyer or Deputy Boyer was doing a missing person's report with the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes , I was seated at the table when that was taking place.

FLADAGER: As part of that interview did you ask a question of the defendant yourself?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And did that have to do with where Laci Peterson walked on surface streets?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: In the neighborhood?

GROGAN: Yeah, that's correct.

FLADAGER: And how did the defendant answer that question?

GROGAN: He said he didn't know.

FLADAGER: Was the search warrant officially served about 5:00 o'clock that afternoon?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And were people at the house when that happened?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Are these people that had returned to the house after the press briefing?

GROGAN: Yes , several members of defendant's family were present.

FLADAGER: So was everyone then excluded from the house?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Once everyone was excluded, was there then a briefing at the police department to prepare the officers who would be serving the actual search warrant?

GROGAN: Yes , there was.

FLADAGER: Prior to that did you take, well, at some point that night, either prior to the briefing or after, were you back at that house on Covena?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you point out any particular location within the house to one of the officers?

GROGAN: Yes , Detective Rudy Skultety was, he was assigned as my crime scene manager. I met with him there and I pointed out the location in the converted garage area or living room area of the house where I had been, information had been passed to me that the defendant had been vacuuming on December 25th.

GERAGOS: Objection, motion to strike.

JUDGE: Yeah, it's non-responsive. Let's do it by question and answer.

FLADAGER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

JUDGE: It's getting to be a narrative. Why don't you do it by question and answer so we don't get these objections.

FLADAGER: All right.

FLADAGER: Detective, did you direct Detective Skultety to do something specific in the house or some specific area?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: What area was that?

GROGAN: The carpeted area in the converted garage near the sofa.

FLADAGER: And why did you ask him to do that?

GROGAN: Because of information that I had received that the defendant had been vacuuming there on December 25th.

FLADAGER: On Christmas day?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did you yourself participate in the execution of the search warrant that night?

GROGAN: No, not really.

FLADAGER: Was that the responsibility of the crime scene team?

GROGAN: It was, and they were looking specifically for blood evidence and I really didn't have any business being in there.

FLADAGER: Did you work till about midnight that night?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And in this particular case as it's beginning to be investigated are you the lead detective?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Your responsibilities as lead detective are what?

GROGAN: Well, it's my responsibility to make decisions on the course of the investigation and decide what we're going to do next and what will be tested, how are resources are going to be used, that sort of thing.

FLADAGER: Parallel to this investigative track is there another track which is this search for Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And who is in charge of that?

GROGAN: Sergeant Ron Cloward.

FLADAGER: Did you direct that search?

GROGAN: Not, not really. It fell under the umbrella of the investigation because we could provide them information that they could work from, but he was in charge of that.

FLADAGER: So is he the person then making the decisions about the deployment of horses, dogs, searches, foot patrol, that type of thing?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: And he would then keep you updated and you would keep him updated?

GROGAN: To a certain extent. I didn't update him on the criminal investigation as far as what investigation that we had in the criminal investigation only if there was something that we could add to his list as places to be searched and that sort of thing.

FLADAGER: Okay. So the search warrant started on the night of December 26th, did it continue into the next day or did it start up again the next day, December 27th?

GROGAN: Yes , it did.

FLADAGER: And this was a search warrant of the home, correct?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And at some point it moved to the warehouse?

GROGAN: Yes , those were actually two, they were both going on at the same time at one point, but I believe they started at the house on the morning of the 27th and it wasn't until the afternoon that they started over, or later in the day, I should say, at the warehouse.

FLADAGER: Did you have the opportunity yourself to do a walk-through of the home on Covena Avenue during the course of the search warrant?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Did you make any initial observations there?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what were those?

GROGAN: The house was nicely furnished, it was neat, clean, organized.

FLADAGER: And did you get an opportunity to do a walk-through of the warehouse that afternoon?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what observations did you make there?

GROGAN: That it was very disorganized in the general appearance, I guess.

FLADAGER: Okay. What else did you notice about the warehouse and the shop area?

GROGAN: Well, when I walked through the warehouse, I know I spent some time in the office area looking at, looking for financial records to try to sift through what was there and find some of those. I did go out into the warehouse area or the main bay and I noticed of course the boat was out there and the flatbed trailer with the concrete debris on it.

FLADAGER: What, was there anything about the concrete debris on that flatbed trailer that made you pay attention to it and focus on it?

GROGAN: Well, it was, it was actually Detective Hendee that pointed out the rings in the debris on the trailer to me and I did see those. And I saw there was a significant mess on top of that trailer.

FLADAGER: And when you say rings, what do you mean by "rings"?

GROGAN: Circular voided areas, or they're not perfect circles, but areas that appear circular and I don't know what I would say on a measurement, but they all seemed fairly consistent and there was about a total of five of them.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, had you ever worked with concrete yourself or cement?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: Have you ever made it?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what you noticed on the trailer, for purposes of making a single anchor, did anything about the mess on that trailer strike you?

GERAGOS: Objection, calls for speculation. No foundation.

JUDGE: State of mind. Overruled. You can answer.

GERAGOS: How could it have been his state of mind at that point?

JUDGE: His state of mind. He's the investigating officer. What he did do as a result of his observations is reasonable enough. Go ahead.

GROGAN: Well, it seemed like a tremendous mess for making one eight-pound anchor.

FLADAGER: At some point that evening did the defendant contact you by telephone?

JUDGE: Okay. If you are going to go to another subject matter, let's take the noon recess now because it's two minutes to 12:00. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, before we move on to a new area we'll take the afternoon recess. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. We'll reconvene at 1:30. We'll pick up with Detective Grogan.

JUDGE: All right. This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. This morning, the Court sealed some autopsy photographs. There are other photographs, there are some other photographs, in particular recovery of Conner Peterson's body. I'm going to seal those for the same, I'm going to admit them in evidence, seal them for the same reasons I gave this morning, to protect the privacy of the Rocha and Peterson family. It could inflame public opinion  against the defendant. To protect the sensitivities of the families. I'm going to admit into evidence the 102 series, which was identified by Officer Gard, 102A through H. So they will be admitted in evidence and sealed, for the reason I have given. And also defendant's VV, as in Victor, that was identified by Martinez. So VV will also go be admitted and sealed for the same reasons. There are others too that, Marilyn is going to collect all the photographs that have been already identified, and we'll go through all of those. And the same ruling will be applicable to those photographs also. They have to be further identified for the record. So I'll give this back to you. Okay, you can bring in the jury. Ready to go, Miss Fladager?

FLADAGER: Yes.

JUDGE: That would be pursuant to 243.1 of the California Rules of Court. Miss Fladager, did you make tapes, do you want to get her attention for me, please? Do you have, are you going the play some tapes.

FLADAGER: We have two audiotapes, and transcripts are all here. We have some for media, some for the attorneys.

JUDGE: All right. Let the record show that the jury is present in the jury box along with the alternates. That the defendant is present with counsel. And, Miss Fladager, proceed.

FLADAGER: Thank you, your Honor. Detective Grogan, where we left off back on December 27th, the search warrant had been completed at the house and the shop. In the evening hours you get a phone call from the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And during that phone conversation with the defendant, does he ask you any questions about what you found during the course of the search warrant?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any question about whether his house appeared to have been broken into?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Any question about whether there appeared to be an attack or a crime scene within the house?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: So by the end of the day on December 27th, the search warrant has been completed, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And based upon what you have learned from other officers, and what you have learned from the search warrant being served, what are some of the things that you now know and that you rely on for your next steps in your investigation?

GROGAN: Well, we do know at the warehouse there is evidence consistent with something being made with cement, and there is a mess apparently there from something being made. We know there is a boat in the warehouse that there appears to be some water in the boat that can be tested.

FLADAGER: In the bottom of the boat?

GROGAN: Yes. We know that there is some fishing tackle in the boat and a couple of fishing poles. There is no rope found in the boat to be attached to the anchor. That, initially, at least –

FLADAGER: And there is one anchor that's found?

GROGAN: One anchor.

FLADAGER: Within the boat?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right.

GROGAN: Also at the house we know that small amounts of a substance that could be blood are recovered on the comforter cover in the master bedroom, and that a blue tarp is recovered in the shed on the north side of the house; and that a boat tarp is recovered in a shed on the south side of the house, with a leaf blower on top of it that appears to be leaking gas.

FLADAGER: How about patio umbrellas?

GROGAN: The patio umbrellas apparently had been moved from the back of Mr. Peterson's truck to an area that's an overhang between the north shed and the house.

FLADAGER: Now, the tarp, the boat cover, and the umbrellas that you mentioned, these were all located in various areas in the backyard?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And they previously have been seen where?

GROGAN: The boat cover was seen in the truck. The blue tarp and umbrellas were in the truck.

FLADAGER: All right. As a result of the search warrant, was anything else found in the back of the defendant's truck?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: Some concrete debris and a tool, I don't know what you call it. It's some sort of gardening tool with three prongs on one side and a hoe blade on the other.

FLADAGER: Was there anything unusual about the condition of that gardening tool?

GROGAN: Had some, had some cement debris on it, yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of the service of the search warrant on in the house, was clothing of, certain types of clothing of Laci Peterson being looked for?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And, to your knowledge, was any of that found?

GROGAN: Yes. I believe there was at least two pairs of black pants that were recovered, and that was something that we were looking for because it was part of the description for Laci Peterson on the morning of December 24th.

FLADAGER: What else?

GROGAN: We were looking for a white shirt, but we didn't find one in the first search warrant, which would have matched her description on December 24th. We were also looking for white tennis shoes. We did find some white 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 a tennis shoe would have on them. As far as clothing, that's what I recall we recovered there.

FLADAGER: Why is it that you were looking nor black pants and a white shirt, and white tennis shoes?

GROGAN: Because that was what the defendant said she was last seen wearing on December 24th when he left the home.

FLADAGER: Let's talk with jewelry for a minute. Were you looking for jewelry during the course of the search warrant as well?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: Because we were also told that they was wearing certain jewelry on December 24th just before he left the home. And if I can correct one thing.

FLADAGER: Go ahead.

GROGAN: From the last, my last statement, he did not say she was wearing white tennis shoes when he last saw her. He did say that she was barefoot at the time, and that she typically wore white tennis shoes when she walked.

FLADAGER: She wore tennis shoes when she would go walk?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Barefoot when he left her?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: Now, the jewelry, was jewelry located during the service of the search warrant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: That was photographed?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And items that he had described to you in your presence, were those items found within the house?

GROGAN: It appeared so.

FLADAGER: So they were not missing?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: During the service of the search warrant, was Laci Peterson's purse taken?

GROGAN: Yes it was.

FLADAGER: Did you bring that with you today?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. I'd like to have this marked people's next in order, envelope and contents.

JUDGE: Okay. That's 262. Envelope and contents. And I assume that's Miss Peterson's purse.

FLADAGER: It is.

JUDGE: This is the one that was removed from the inside of the closet hanging on the peg?

FLADAGER: Correct.

GERAGOS: Did you mark as purse and contents, Judge?

JUDGE: Yes. Envelope and contents, which was Miss Peterson's purse.

FLADAGER: And wallet.

JUDGE: Recovered from inside the wallet. We'll mark the wallet 262B. Envelope and contents will be 262A. The wallet will be 262 B.

Envelope and Contents Marked as Exhibit 262A&B for identification.

JUDGE: And that was, I assume that comes from the purse?

FLADAGER: Exactly.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, I'm going to have you take a look at what's been marked 262A and 262B. And, just for the record, would you describe what  262A is?

GROGAN: 262A is a brown, appears to be a leather purse with a brown leather strap. And it has a pattern on it, and the letters "VL".

FLADAGER: Are you familiar with a fashion manufacturer called Louis Vuitton?

GROGAN: Only due to this case.

FLADAGER: All right. Inside the purse there is also a wallet. Would you please go ahead and open that up. And describe for the jury, if you would, the contents of the wallet.

GROGAN: Inside is a black, appears to be leather wallet. It's marked People's Exhibit 262B. And it has two zippers. Do you want me to tell you all the contents?

FLADAGER: Yes, please. In a general sense.

JUDGE: Miscellaneous papers?

GROGAN: Well, first it has an identification card for Laci Peterson. There appears to be three plastic cards. MS. FLADAGER: FLADAGER: Is the identification card a driver's license?

GROGAN: It says California Identification Card.

FLADAGER: And the plastic card, are those credit cards?

GROGAN: They are Visa cards. And one is a Pier 1 Imports card.

FLADAGER: Are there any receipts within the wallet?

GROGAN: Yes. There is a Lowes receipt and a target receipt.

FLADAGER: Okay. Now, the Lowes receipt, can you please tell us what the date is on the Lowes receipt?

GROGAN: It's date marked 12-9-02.

FLADAGER: And does that have Laci Peterson's signature on it, or the imprint from the card, her card?

GROGAN: It has her name on it. I do not see a signature.

FLADAGER: And what is the purchase that's listed on that receipt?

GROGAN: It says Ten Inch Professional, with a dollar amount before tax, $498.

FLADAGER: Are you aware of a ten-inch saw being found within the defendant's storage locker at a later search warrant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And ten inch saw that had been wrapped as a Christmas present under the tree?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Okay. Take that back from you.

JUDGE: That's just the, was this the purse that was found identified in the closet of the residence?

GROGAN: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Just wants to make sure we lay a foundation. All right.

GROGAN: Miss Fladager, before we move on, I left the jury with the wrong impression on one thing. Like to go back to that if I could.

FLADAGER: All right.

GROGAN: When we were talking about jewelry recovered from the house, there is a, there is one jewelry item described by Mr. Peterson which is screw back diamond earrings that were not recovered from the home. So when I said all the jewelry was recovered, that's not correct.

FLADAGER: Screw back diamond earrings you could not locate?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: I have group of documents here that I'd ask be marked People's next in order. They are DMV registration forms for the boat and trailer.

JUDGE: 263A. And about there are two items, Miss Fladager? Two items?

FLADAGER: There is a whole group of documents all together.

JUDGE: Shall we mark them as a group exhibit then?

FLADAGER: Yes.

JUDGE: 263. And those are a group exhibit. DMV Documents Marked as Exhibit 263 for identification.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, on December 27th, were there briefings concerning the activities that were to go on for December 28th regarding the search?

GROGAN: I'm sure there was.

FLADAGER: Do you have your binder there? Would that refresh your memory regarding activity? Probably around 145 to 147.

GROGAN: Thank you.

GERAGOS: Let me ask, what Bates number stamp are you looking for?

GROGAN: That report starts at Bates number 143.

GERAGOS: 143?

GROGAN: 143. And I have multiple briefings going on that day.

FLADAGER: Okay. During the course of the briefing then late on the 27th,  there is some discussion of the plans for the next day.

GROGAN: I'm referring to my report for that.

FLADAGER: I'm interested in specifically relating to the Berkeley Marina for the following day.

GROGAN: Yes, we, I requested someone to contact the U.S. Coast Guard and ask that a search of the San Francisco Bay be conducted that day. And I assigned Detective Phil Owen to follow up with them.

JUDGE: This happened on the 27th?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: That's when you determined to have the Coast Guard search The Bay?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: The documents, are they ready. Detective, I'm going to ask you to take look, if you would, at People's Exhibit 263, which is a series of documents from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Did you have a chance to look at those a little while ago?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And do those documents include a release of liability form for the boat that was located in Scott Peterson's warehouse?

GROGAN: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.

FLADAGER: On December 9th of 02?

GROGAN: Transfer date, yes. The receipt date is 12-17. The buyer was the defendant Scott Peterson.

FLADAGER: And this is a release of liability form that's filled out and submitted by the owner of the boat who is selling it to the new owner; is that correct?

GROGAN: The one I'm looking at, the printout from Department, GERAGOS: Objection. That's leading.

JUDGE: I'll permit it. Overruled. Who fills it out, do you know?

GERAGOS: There's already been testimony that Bruce Peterson said he filled it out. I think what he's looking at, it appears to me at least, to be the DMV printout. So I don't know –

JUDGE: Unless he is related to the defendant –

FLADAGER: Stipulate Mr. Peterson is not related.

GERAGOS: Original owner, Bruce Peterson.

JUDGE: Bruce Peterson.

FLADAGER: Was there any indication in the DMV documents that you have in front of you, Detective Grogan, that the vehicle was ever subsequently registered by Scott Peterson with the Department of Motor Vehicles?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Thank you. So December 27th, which we just finished the search warrant, move on. Was Saturday the 28th a day off for you, detective, or were you still working this case?

GROGAN: It was a Saturday and, no, it was not a day off.

FLADAGER: Were you involved in discussions regarding canvassing the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you take steps to try and secure getting videos from gas stations along the route between Modesto and the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why did you do that?

GROGAN: The defendant had told me that he had stopped at a Chevron gas station and filled up his truck on his way home from the Berkeley Marina. And at that point we were still trying to establish if what, his statement that he gave to us was true and if he was where he says he was on that day.

FLADAGER: Did you have an officer drive the distance from the shop to the marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And have you done that yourself, as well?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Approximately how many miles is it from Berkeley Marina to the defendant's warehouse?

GROGAN: It's around 80 miles.

FLADAGER: And about how long does it take to drive that?

GROGAN: A little under two hours, depending on traffic.

FLADAGER: At far as you know, were the searches, active searches for Laci Peterson ongoing, still, all the way through December 28th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On Sunday, December 29th, were you also working on this case?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you take that opportunity to conduct interviews with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Were those rather lengthy interviews?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was the purpose of those interviews?

GROGAN: Well, I wanted to get to know what Laci's habits were, what information they could give me that would help me to try to find her, and establish if they could think of any motive for anyone wanting to hurt her.

FLADAGER: During the course of this interview, did Sharon Rocha provide you with any information related to vacant homes within the area around the Covena home?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you know her to be involved in the real estate business?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: As result of getting information on vacant homes in that area, did you do anything with that information?

GROGAN: I passed that on to the search teams that Ron Cloward was supervising. And I believe he arranged for all of those homes to be searched.

FLADAGER: In addition, was there further organization done in terms of parceling out the follow-up investigation that needed to be done from your viewpoint?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was there searching going on in the waterways between Modesto and Berkeley?

GROGAN: On that particular day?

FLADAGER: The 29th.

JUDGE: 29th?

FLADAGER: Yes. Sunday, December 29th?

GROGAN: Yes, that's correct.

FLADAGER: So, at this point, four days five days after she is missing, is the search now expanding to find Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Is your investigation expanding as well in other areas?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On Monday December the 30th, did you get a call from Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes. I think I got two, or I talked to him twice that day.

FLADAGER: Twice on the 29th. Did you tape record each of these phone calls?

GROGAN: I actually, I talked to him three times. The first time he called me I was in squad briefing. And then I called him back later. That was a very short conversation. And then there was another conversation after that, and I recorded that as well.

FLADAGER: Okay. In the, you had an initial conversation. The one I want to talk about first is the one that occurred about 9:05 in the morning. Do you recall that conversation?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the purpose of your talking to him during that phone conversation was what?

JUDGE: 9:05 a.m.

FLADAGER: 9:05 a.m.

JUDGE: A.m.

GROGAN: If you could let me switch binders. He called me initially on that day to ask for Sergeant Cloward's phone number. And I think I asked him a few questions when I gave him that information later.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, what we are working up to is playing two separate tapes. I'm going to play, one series of transcripts that go with both calls that are stapled together. We'll just play them back-to-back.

JUDGE: Okay. Have you got transcripts for everybody?

FLADAGER: I do.

JUDGE: You have got a transcript, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: Yes. There is only, as I indicated at the break, couple of words out of synch. But I don't want to hold it up. As long you do the admonishment, I'm okay with that.

JUDGE: Do you want to do that now? Do you want to mark as 264, two tapes?

FLADAGER: This is December 30th at 9:05, and December 30th at 5:20 p.m.

JUDGE: We'll mark the 9:05 tape as 264A. 264B is what time?

FLADAGER: About 5:20 in the afternoon.

JUDGE: 5:20 p.m. The transcript of the 9:05 tape will be marked C.

FLADAGER: Actually, your Honor, both transcripts are stapled together. C would be the transcript for both tapes.

JUDGE: 9:05 and 5:20.

GERAGOS: We can call it 9:05. At least on my transcript it says 9:15.

FLADAGER: It's the same call, 9:15.

JUDGE: Ten minutes difference.

GERAGOS: I'm just saying that's the way the Court Exhibit copy is marked.

JUDGE: All right.

FLADAGER: All right.

JUDGE: Do you want to play it?

FLADAGER: I will in just a moment.

JUDGE: You give me one to look at?

FLADAGER: I have many.

JUDGE: I have the court copy. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to pass out these transcripts. I want to remind you again that these, the best evidence of what was said is actually the tape itself. These transcripts are just a guide to help you follow what was said. If you hear something in the tape that's a little different, some word that's a little different than the transcript, feel free to apply your own interpretation and disregard the transcript version.

FLADAGER: Okay, your Honor. Before we actually play the tape, I have a few more questions.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, in that first conversation that you had with him that you taped, was there specific information that you wanted to get from the defendant on the tape?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: Well, he'd been interviewed a couple of times about the jewelry, but none of that had been taped. So I wanted to try to get what he had said, on tape, about the jewelry that she was wearing on December 24th. She being Laci.

And then I wanted to ask him a couple of questions about the boat.

FLADAGER: And after that conversation with the defendant, did you get some information related to Amber Frey?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: So this is on December 30th, in the morning?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What information did you get?

GROGAN: I was told that Amber Frey had contacted the Modesto Police Department tip line on two occasions through the night, once some time after two in the morning, and then later some time after eight in the morning. And at least one of those conversations she identified herself as Scott Peterson's girlfriend. And she also said that Mr. Peterson had told her that he had lost his wife.

FLADAGER: As a result of, let me back up one thing. You were told that Amber Frey reported that the defendant said he lost his wife. Were you told the date of that conversation when Amber Frey was told the defendant had lost his wife?

GROGAN: In that initial tip I believe in there of December 9th.

FLADAGER: December 9th being the same day that we saw the boat documentation?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: And purchase of the saw?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: As a result of the information regarding Amber Frey, did you send detectives to Fresno to follow up?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: After they left to go to Fresno, did you continue to get updates from various other officers working the case about other aspects of the investigation?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was that an ongoing process throughout the entire course of this investigation?

GROGAN: Yes. There was, there was a lot of officers being given different assignments. And it was very common for there to be people waiting to talk to me at my desk while I was on the phone, for my cell phone to be going off. At the same time I was talking on the phone, people are waiting to talk to me. There was a lot of stuff going on for a long time.

FLADAGER: Did you have the second phone conversation with the defendant then in the early afternoon about five, 5:30?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you tape record that call as well?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: You have reviewed the tapes and the transcript for both of those calls?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And they appear for accurate to you?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: I want to remind everybody, don't write on these. Just listen to it.

FLADAGER: We're going to start with what's marked 264A. 264A.

JUDGE: Okay. 264A.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, between the time of that call and this next call we're going to play, did you find out about Amber Frey?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: You found out about Amber Frey?

GROGAN: That's correct.

JUDGE: Didn't know about Amber Frey in the first call?

GROGAN: No.

JUDGE: We'll admit the tapes into evidence. 264A, B and C admitted into evidence. Take the same number. Exhibit 264A,B,C Admitted in Evidence.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, why was it that you were Trying to get the information regarding Laci's dentist?

GROGAN: Well, it's required on the missing persons form that you supply that. So normally the first officer taking the report would fill out the dental information. And it's something that, something that you can use to try to identify people if they are later found deceased.

FLADAGER: Had you made a number of requests from the defendant for the information relating to Laci's dentist?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Is that the date that he finally provided it to you?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Recording is not real good when we listen to it. Were you recording off of a cell phone?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And when the defendant would call you, would he call you on the cell phone?

GROGAN: He would call me on my cell phone, yes.

FLADAGER: Did you try and get to him call you on your desk line?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: How did you do that?

GROGAN: Well, I did, I gave him my cell phone number early on. And, but when I would leave messages for him, I would usually leave my desk line phone number. I had a recorder set up to do that. And when he was calling on the cell phone, I would have to take everything and take it apart, take it off the phone at my desk. And the we have a pretty elaborate, it's a suction cup that's sticks to the back of your cell phone, and it runs down to the recorder. That's, so I would disconnect it from the other phone, plug it in to that to try to stick it to my phone when he would call.

FLADAGER: And is that why you, some of these calls we're missing the beginning portion of the call?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: You asked him some questions about some chicken wire. Had you seen photographs of some chicken wire that was found in the back of his truck?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was there anything about that chicken wire that piqued your interest, you were trying to get some answers to?

GROGAN: It seemed odd that, first of all, that it was in the truck.

And then when he told me that he had just bought it from Home Depot, he hadn't used it yet, if you look at the photographs, it's partially unwound. And it kind of has a jagged edge, or jagged cut on the outer edge. And then there is another wire attached to it.

FLADAGER: Is it a 90 degree cut to the base of the chicken wire where it is cut, or is it at some sort of an angle?

GROGAN: It's a very jagged cut at an angle.

FLADAGER: As a result of what he told you, and what you had seen did you have follow up investigation done into chicken wire purchased at Home Depot?

GROGAN: I sent, at the time, Ron Reed out to Home Depot to try to find out how it came packaged.

FLADAGER: And have you dealt with chicken wire, yourself, before?

GROGAN: Yes, in a few occasions.

FLADAGER: And when you purchased it, has it ever come with that kind of a jagged edge?

GROGAN: Not that I have seen, no.

JUDGE: You know, we will take the afternoon recess. It's almost 3:00 o'clock. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take the afternoon recess until 3:00 o'clock. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. We'll switch reporters also.

JUDGE: Okay. Let's go on the record. All right. Let the record show the defendant's present with counsel, the jury's in the jury box, along with the alternates. Go ahead, Ms. Fladager.

FLADAGER: Thank you.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, the inquiry you were making of the defendant with regard to his credit card, obviously you're not interested in making yourself feel –

GERAGOS: Objection, I believe "debit card"?

FLADAGER: Credit card.

JUDGE: Credit card.

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: And the purpose for you to try and track down that particular credit card receipt from the defendant on December 24th in the Livermore area was what?

GROGAN: To try to establish his alibi, which was that he had been at the bay on that day.

FLADAGER: Once you finished these two, this last phone conversation with the defendant on December 30th, did you get a debriefing from Detective Buehler and Detective Brocchini regarding Amber Frey?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you get any information as to whether a recording device was provided to Ms. Frey?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you get any information as to whether or not there was actually a phone conversation between the defendant and Ms. Frey while the detectives were present?

GROGAN: Yes, I was told that, yes.

FLADAGER: Moving on to December 31st, did you do some follow-up investigation or request follow-up investigation related to this case based on what happened with Amber Frey?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And can you tell us what that was, please.

GROGAN: I asked that a, we actually asked the assistance of Kip Loving, who's a police officer with another agency, and he had some expertise in writing search warrants that included cell site information, so we asked him to come and assist us in completing that search warrant.

FLADAGER: And why is it that you, why is it that you were interested in getting cell site information for the defendant's phone?

GROGAN: Well, we wanted to find out what communications he's had with Amber Frey and doing that through phone records and to find out where he was when he was having those communications and find out his location on December 24th.

FLADAGER: In addition to cell site location were you also looking for essentially just phone record information for the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you meet with defendant's parents on December 31st?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe I did, yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And was the purpose of that interview similar to the interview that you had with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: By December 31st has the defendant personally given you or any other detective that you know of information about him being involved in a relationship with Amber Frey?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: On December 31st was there a vigil that was held in Modesto for Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes, a candlelight vigil.

FLADAGER: That was in late, late, early evening hours of the 31st?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On January 1st was that a day off for you?

GROGAN: Yes, I think it was.

FLADAGER: Your first one since this started?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: Moving on to January 2nd, did you get briefings regarding the phone conversations that were going on between Amber Frey and the defendant? Bates stamp 183.

GROGAN: Thank you. (Pause)

FLADAGER: Let me ask it this way, detective, at the time the recording device was attached or given to Amber Frey for her recorded phone calls, did you receive periodic updates from Detective Buehler regarding those conversations?

GROGAN: Yes, I talked to her very rarely myself, Detective Buehler talked to her mostly and he would pass on information.

FLADAGER: By January 2nd were there searches still continuing within the waterways at Stanislaus County and adjoining counties?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And that was looking for Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you take any steps relating to financial documents of Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe somewhere in this time a search warrant was also written for some of his financial records.

FLADAGER: Okay. And why is it that you were interested in his financial records?

GROGAN: I wanted to see how he had been spending his money and we could also use that to show locations where he purchased items and where he was.

FLADAGER: All right. Did you have a phone conversation with Scott Peterson on January 2nd?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, telephone conversation?

FLADAGER: Yes, telephone conversation.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you plan to release photographs to the media of his truck and his boat?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was that the purpose of the phone conversation?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: To let him know that?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why were you releasing that information to the media?

GROGAN: I was trying to establish if he had been seen, if there were other witnesses that could say that they saw him at the Berkeley Marina during the time he said he was there.

FLADAGER: As a result of that information being released to the media did, was there a response from the public?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And were there a number of people indicating that they thought they had seen Scott Peterson or his boat and/or his truck in various locations?

GROGAN: Yes, we got calls of sightings of the truck and boat ranging from I think Mendocino County down to the Fresno area from the foothills to the coast.

FLADAGER: And as a result of these calls that came in, let me ask this, were some of these in the general route that Scott Peterson had taken to get to the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: With all of these calls that you received was there anything that you could do to absolutely confirm that any of them were even accurate?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Did you begin working on warrants for GPS tracker devices?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you still have in police custody the defendant's Land Rover and the truck?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was there a plan to put a tracker in the Land Rover?

GROGAN: Yes, there was.

FLADAGER: And did you have a discussion with Scott Peterson about returning the Land Rover to him?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was there a delay in returning the Land Rover to him for repair work?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What essentially was the repair work?

GROGAN: When we did the search warrants on the 26th and 27th we stored his vehicle. Detectives searched his vehicle later on and they found some stains on the headliner. They didn't know what they were for sure so they cut them out and he had some cutout sections of his headliner. And so we did have discussions as to whether or not we would replace that headliner for him because the stains were not blood or of any apparent evidentiary value.

FLADAGER: So the plan was to replace that for him?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did he come to the Modesto Police Department on that day to get some keys from you?

GROGAN: Some keys?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: During that time did you have a conversation with him?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did he make any certain comments to you about Laci?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Could you please tell us what it was he said.

GROGAN: Can I look at the report, make sure it's correct?

GERAGOS: What Bates number?

GROGAN: It's page number 185 is where it starts.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

JUDGE: What date was this, Detective Grogan?

GROGAN: It's January 2nd.

JUDGE: Still January 2nd?

GROGAN: Yes, sir. He told me that he wanted to have the Land Rover back as it would help in the search for Laci. And we had a discussion where he brought up the idea if Laci had been abducted so that her child could be taken from her, kidnapped for the baby, and he asked me, quote, do you think when she has the baby I'll get half my family back.

FLADAGER: That I'll get half my family back?

GROGAN: Right.

FLADAGER: Did he ask you anything else?

GROGAN: He did provide me with the, a piece of paper that had a Chevron Livermore information on it that showed he purchased $13.08 in gas, it looked like. And he also provided me with something that Russell Graybill, the mailman, had given him as to his schedule.

FLADAGER: Okay. Some documentation about the postman's route?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. In your conversation with Scott, in addition to the comment about once she has the baby will I get half my family back, did he ask you something else about he thought she passed away or died?

GROGAN: Yes, he did.

FLADAGER: And when he made, posed that question to you did you notice any physical reaction on his part?

GROGAN: Yes, he had, he had tears in his eyes.

FLADAGER: And this is on January 2nd?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And as far as you know there's still conversations going on between the defendant and Amber Frey?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: At this point do you request any assistance from the Department of Justice?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what is that for?

GROGAN: I think at that point we, I had officers writing a search warrant to install a tracker on the vehicle and we also asked for officers for surveillance team and Department of Justice's resources were used in that as well as Modesto Police Department's.

FLADAGER: All right. Let's move on to January 3rd. And did you become aware that some briefing regarding a burglary that had occurred in the neighborhood?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On or prior to that date?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And on January 3rd did you receive any information about that burglary being solved?

GROGAN: I believe so, yes. Yes, I talked with Detective George Stough and Sebron Banks who investigated the burglary.

FLADAGER: And the house that was burglarized, where was that in relation to the Covena home?

GROGAN: It was at 516 North Covena, across the street, and it would be east of the Peterson residence.

FLADAGER: And was the property recovered from that burglary?

GROGAN: I believe the majority of it was, yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And suspects arrested?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you begin to take a look at the jewelry that was retrieved during the search warrant and time to do further investigation into that?

GROGAN: Yes, I did a lot of investigation of the jewelry.

FLADAGER: And why did you do that?

GROGAN: I was trying to establish what jewelry Laci Peterson had, what she received, what potentially was missing to see if we had in fact recovered all of the jewelry or most of the jewelry that had been described by the defendant that she was wearing.

FLADAGER: Throughout the course of the next several months did you have several interviews with other family members regarding the jewelry?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you take a look at jewelry that they had that was part of this inheritance?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you show photographs to various people of the jewelry that was recovered?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you attempt to have jewelry identified by these people?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Was that a long process?

GROGAN: Yes, it was.

FLADAGER: On that particular day, January 3rd, did you do an interview with Scott Peterson at the police department?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you attempt to audiotape and videotape that interview?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Were there any problems with the audiotape and videotape on that particular interview?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What happened?

GROGAN: We, I set up the interview to occur at the old investigative services building, which is at 1200 F Street. It's a small two-story building separate from the main police department. It did not have any videotaping capabilities inside that, in that building at all. There were some at the main building. He was coming to get the keys or to collect his Land Rover and I thought that I'd have, it would be easier to bring him back into an interview room very close to the front door there to complete an interview at that building rather than take him to the second story of the other police building behind a bunch of gates and other things to get the interview done.

So I asked Rudy Skultety, who is my crime scene manager, to try to set up a surveillance camera inside the room so it can be recorded inside this small room that we were in. And I asked him also to take just a standard cassette recorder and tape to the bottom of the table in there or something so we can record the interview there. And the videotape portion I had, that was being, I think you could watch that in one of the neighboring rooms where they were recording it and they had an agent from Department of Justice monitoring that as it was taking place, but there was no audio to that room only, only the tape had audio, the cassette tape under the table. So after we completed the interview, when the tape starts it, you can hear the first few words on it and then it just trails off to nothing. And the explanation that I was given was that the microphone that had been taped off to the side of the table requires a separate battery and that wasn't changed prior to this interview.

FLADAGER: But the interview itself was captured on videotape?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you take notes during the course of that investigation or that interview?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was the point of that interview?

GROGAN: Well, what I wanted to do is I wanted to show him a faxed photograph of the defendant and Amber Frey together. And I was going, and tell him that we had received this faxed photo and ask, ask him if he could explain that.

FLADAGER: And did you do that?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you please describe for us what it was that, what his reaction was when you gave him that faxed photograph?

GROGAN: Well, he looked at it for several seconds and I think his exact quote is, is that supposed to be me or something, something to that effect.

FLADAGER: Do you want to take a look at your notes and refresh your memory.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Bates number stamp when you find it.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I have a photocopy of a faxed photograph I'll have marked next in order.

JUDGE: 265.

GROGAN: Mr. Geragos, the Bates stamp number is 198, I believe.

GERAGOS: 198?

GROGAN: For the report, yes.

JUDGE: Ms. Fladager, is this a photograph of the defendant and Amber Frey?

FLADAGER: It is. I will issue a number.

CLERK: 264.

JUDGE: 265.

CLERK: What's 264?

GERAGOS: I thought you called it 265.

JUDGE: Yes.

GERAGOS: Right.

JUDGE: 264 was the tapes.

GERAGOS: Right. 264 were the tapes and the transcript, A, B and C.

CLERK: All right.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, I'm going to ask you to take a look at what's been marked as 265 for identification. Can you tell us what that is.

GROGAN: That's a photocopy of a faxed photograph that we received at Modesto Police Department that contains the defendant and Amber Frey and has a Christmas tree in the background.

FLADAGER: I'll put that up on the document camera. What's the quality of this?

GROGAN: It's not very good, but I can tell who they are.

FLADAGER: Is that the photograph that you presented to the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the exact words he said to you when he finished looking at it were?

GROGAN: He said, "Is that supposed to be me?"

FLADAGER: Did he say anything else after that?

GROGAN: Well, we talked and he said that the female did look like a girl he went to college with, but it wasn't him in the photo and he didn't think it was the girl, he didn't think it was the same girl he knew from college either.

FLADAGER: In addition to confronting him with the photograph of himself with Amber Frey, did you ask him additional questions about the anchor?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And can you please tell us what you asked him.

GROGAN: Well, I asked him about the, we went over some of the same things that are recorded in the 12/30 conversation. The new information was just I talked to him about where he got the idea to make the anchor. He said he rented some boats in the San Diego area in the past and thought it would be easy to make. He told me he made it out of cement because a bag of cement is only $3 as opposed to spending 30 for an anchor from a store.

FLADAGER: Did you later confirm the price of cement at Home Depot?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And can you tell us what the price was for various sized bags?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Bates stamp 42082.

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: What did you find out?

GROGAN: That an 80-pound bag of Baselite Proline concrete mix cost $2.59 per bag. And that a 60-pound bag of this same type of concrete mix is $2.08 per bag.

FLADAGER: And then when did you do that price check?

GROGAN: August 15th of 2004.

FLADAGER: In addition to your conversation with him about the anchor, did you talk to him about TradeCorp was doing?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you about that?

GROGAN: He said it was a startup business and that they had lost about a $100,000 that year and the following year he wanted, the goal was to break even.

FLADAGER: And when you say they had lost a $100,000, that was Scott Peterson's operation lost a $100,000?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: Did you talk to him about his search for, search for a boat, how he found a boat?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you about that?

GROGAN: He told me that he looked up, he looked on the Internet in the Modesto Bee and that he had looked at two other boats prior to purchasing this one.

FLADAGER: Were you ever able to track down these two other boats?

GROGAN: He gave me directions on how to try to find them on residential streets, which I relayed to another detective and asked him to go search. We were able to find one of the two boats.

FLADAGER: And the time frame, were you able to determine the time frame that he looked at that boat?

GROGAN: Not the game fisher boat, but the other boat.

FLADAGER: The other boat.

GROGAN: I believe that was December, December 7th or 8th, and I would have to do some research to find out for sure.

FLADAGER: Okay. We'll come back to that.

GROGAN: All right.

FLADAGER: And did you, during this conversation that he had with you about checking in the Modesto Bee website Internet did he ever mention checking the Fresno Bee for a boat?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: And did you ever find out later that in fact the Fresno Bee had also been checked on the Internet for a boat?

GROGAN: Yes, I did learn that.

FLADAGER: Did you talk to him at all about the condition of McKenzie or when it was he first noticed McKenzie with the leash on?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why did you follow up with that?

GROGAN: Because when I was writing my report I was looking at my report on the incident and Detective Brocchini's and then my notes and I wasn't clear exactly what he had said on that so I tried to verify that in that statement.

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you?

GROGAN: He told me that he had come home on December 24th and found McKenzie in the yard with the leash attached.

FLADAGER: And that's prior to the defendant actually entering his house?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: And washing his clothes and eating, etc?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: At the end of this interview with Scott Peterson did you ask him again about any affairs or any infidelity?

GROGAN: The end of this interview?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes, certainly when I showed him those photos I told him if he was having an affair that he should tell me about it and it didn't mean that necessarily he had done anything to his wife.

FLADAGER: And his response to that?

GROGAN: He told me that he was not, that he had not, and I'm looking at my notes here.

GERAGOS: Looking at 200.

GROGAN: I'm looking at in my notes, actually, on page 24155 and both the report on page 200 and the notes say that the last time he dated anyone, aside from Laci, was prior to his marriage to her.

FLADAGER: Okay. During the course of this interview did you also ask him about the umbrellas and how they ended up being in the truck in the backyard?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What did he tell you about the umbrellas?

GROGAN: He told me that he had put them in the truck to take them to the warehouse and he was going to store them there and he forgot them in his truck when he went to the Berkeley Marina and then apparently he forgot to unload them again when he came back from the Berkeley Marina and was at the warehouse disconnecting the boat and, and he told me they were back at the house at that time.

FLADAGER: After your interview with him was physical evidence taken from him?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you tell us what was done?

GROGAN: Yes. A search warrant was written because we had recovered samples of what we believed to be blood at the house and from the truck and we needed to get a DNA sample from him. So after that he was taken to the hospital and a blood draw was done.

FLADAGER: All right. On January 4th, moving on, we already talked about there was some additional investigation regarding the jewelry, is that right? Or let me back up right there. On January 4th did you do interviews with Brent Rocha and Amy Rocha?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And is that Laci Peterson's brother and half sister?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the purpose of those interviews were what?

GROGAN: Well, we started looking into the inheritance aspect of this and if there was anyone that would have financial motive to dispose of Laci. And because there was some inheritance in this, in this family, it was possible, I needed to look at that as a possibility, so interviews were done with both of them.

FLADAGER: Okay. And the purpose of the interviews, were you looking to try and find alibis, people that could substantiate where they were on December 24th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And were you able to do that?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: As part of this investigation into a possible financial motive did you have someone take a look at the documentation related to the inheritance?

GROGAN: Yes, I spoke with the Rocha's attorney and as part of that follow-up, and I took the financial documents that I had received from Brent Rocha and I had those looked at by the city attorney's office to see if their analysis of what would happen in the event of Laci's death is the same is what I was being told by the attorney for the Rocha family and Brent.

FLADAGER: And was an analysis thereafter done on those financial documents?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was what you were being told confirmed by the city auditor?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On January 5th, which was a Sunday, the very next day, did you go to Tulloch Lake, Bates stamp 216?

JUDGE: What lake? What lake?

FLADAGER: Sunday, January 5th.

JUDGE: No, what lake.

FLADAGER: Tulloch.

JUDGE: Lake Tulloch. Okay.

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And why were you there at Tulloch Lake?

GROGAN: There were some searches being conducted there along a bridge at Tulloch Lake.

FLADAGER: Is there a dive operation going on?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was this another attempt to try to find Laci?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Were you advised on January, you talked earlier about the Department of Justice beginning to get involved by way of surveillance; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you receive any information on Sunday, January 5th of the whereabouts of the defendant?

GROGAN: I don't know if I received that information that day.

FLADAGER: Okay. At a subsequent time did you learn of a visit by Scott Peterson on Sunday, January 5th, to the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was that in a gray Subaru?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On Sunday, excuse me, Monday, January 6th, did you receive additional information about the location of Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And on Sunday, January 6th, where was it that he was located or surveilled?

GROGAN: To the Berkeley Marin.

FLADAGER: On that occasion was he in a red Honda?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: On January 6th was there a decision made for Amber Frey to confront the defendant about his wife?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was Detective Buehler involved in that?

GROGAN: Yes, Detective Buehler and Sharon Pagling-Hagan from the Department of Justice and myself.

FLADAGER: Why is it the decision was made to essentially let Scott Peterson know?

GERAGOS: Objection, leading.

JUDGE: No, overruled.

FLADAGER: Why was it that the decision was made to let Scott Peterson know that Amber Frey was beginning to clue in that Scott Peterson was married and had a wife that was missing?

GROGAN: Well, the reason that that was done is we had had some information that possibly not all calls that Amber Frey was making with Scott Peterson were being recorded or turned over to us and there was a possibility that she was communicating with him without telling us about it. That was someone's opinion that it was at least possible. So at that point because Ms. Frey was all the way in Fresno, we decided it would be better for her safety to end this portion of the investigation where she was communicating with him and he had no idea that she talked to the police. We thought that would give her a measure of safety.

FLADAGER: Okay. So on January 6th was, were there a series of phone calls that were made on January 6th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On January 7th did you get a debriefing on what had happened during the course of those phone calls?

GROGAN: Yes, I was actually there. It started, those series of phone calls started on the evening of January 6th and they went into the early morning hours of the 7th and I was there throughout that time but not, not necessarily in the room when she was having the communications.

FLADAGER: You previously indicated that you were told back on I think it was December 30th that Ms. Frey had indicated the defendant told her that he lost his wife and he made that comment on December 9th, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of this particular confrontation did you want to try and verify that statement?

GROGAN: Absolutely.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: Because it was one thing for her to say that had taken place, it's another thing to have it on tape and acknowledged by the defendant.

FLADAGER: And did that happen?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of the confrontation of phone calls did you become aware of how the defendant referred to Conner, any particular language he used?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: Throughout some of those communications, I think at one point he called Conner Laci's baby.

FLADAGER: As far as additional investigation that you assign out on January 7th, do you assign someone to take a look at what current life insurance policies might be in existence?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why do you do that?

GROGAN: Obviously, again, looking for motive or if, if there is no, no motive to be found in that particular piece of this entire thing.

FLADAGER: All right. Had you received some information up to that point that there were some life insurance policies?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you want to confirm whether they were still in existence of a change?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you meet with Amy Rocha on January 7th?

GROGAN: I'll look for a minute.

GERAGOS: Bates stamp 234.

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: During the course of that information with Amy Rocha did she provide you some information about clothing that Laci Peterson was wearing on December 23rd?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was that the first time that that information had been sought?

GROGAN: It's the first time I asked her that, yes.

FLADAGER: And what did she tell you?

GROGAN: She described a maternity top that was like a cream or tan color, excuse me, black shirt with cream-colored flowers, cream-colored scarf, a black jacket and she said cream-colored stretch pants that appeared to be maternity pants and black shoes with a strap over the top with a buckle.

FLADAGER: Now as a result of that description of the clothing that Laci was wearing on the 23rd, did that cause you to decide to take to take further steps?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: Well, we wanted to see if, if those clothes were still in the Peterson home or if they were missing.

FLADAGER: What would that mean?

GROGAN: Well, that, if the clothing that she was wearing on the 23rd was missing, and then maybe that would mean that she didn't disappear on the morning of the 24th.

FLADAGER: What if she was wearing on the 24th?

GERAGOS: Objection, leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: On Wednesday, January 8th were you made aware that the defendant was somewhere around the police department?

GROGAN: I believe so.

FLADAGER: Approximately page 238.

GROGAN: Yes, at about 3:55 p.m.

FLADAGER: And what was happening?

GROGAN: It was in, it was in a briefing and we were notified by the surveillance team that Mr. Peterson had driven passed the Investigative Services Building at 1200 F Street and near the police department at 600 10th Street and some of the streets surrounding it.

FLADAGER: Did he ever stop into the police department at either one of those police department buildings?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Did you look out the window and see his vehicle?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: The prior day during one of the calls with Amber Frey, did Amber Frey make any statements about going to the police?

FLADAGER: On the prior, on the prior day did she make a statement that she was going to do that?

GROGAN: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: She told that to Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. Your Honor, we have a video, which is probably we can wind up with.

JUDGE: Okay.

FLADAGER: It's a video without the sound. We'll play the first portion, fast forward, and play the second portion.

JUDGE: Okay. This is a video of what?

FLADAGER: Pardon me?

JUDGE: This is a video of what?

FLADAGER: January 3rd, that interview.

JUDGE: The interview where the recorder didn't work?

FLADAGER: Right.

JUDGE: So all we're going to look at is his demeanor?

FLADAGER: Correct.

JUDGE: All right. This will be 266, videotape of January 3rd, 1303, video of interview with the witness.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, what I'm going to ask you first to do is when we start playing the tape, let the jury know when it is that you slide that photograph or fax of that Amber Frey photo in front of him so we know that's what he's looking at, and then we'll fast forward to an area where you talk about cement?

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: During the interview were you asking him about cement, are you trying to get an idea of the size of the cement bag?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And how does that come about, what do you do and what does he do?

GROGAN: I was asking him if it was a 60 or a 90-pound bag of concrete, which until I went to Home Depot I didn't know that 80-pound bags of concrete even existed. Normally, they came in 60 or 90-pound sizes, which is why I was asking that. So I was just trying to make a size reference as to what, how big a cement he had.

FLADAGER: Okay. And does he make a gesture in response as well?

GROGAN: Yes, I think so. (Video played)

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, as Scott Peterson's in the room will he be in the room facing the camera?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And we'll be seeing basically your left side?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you please tell us when you pull out the photo.

GROGAN: Okay. I'm pulling out the photo from the back of the pad and sliding it across.

FLADAGER: Does he continue to look at that photograph?

GROGAN: It appears so, yes.

FLADAGER: All right. At this point we'll go ahead and fast forward to the section dealing with the cement and the gestures.

GROGAN: Right in there.

FLADAGER: All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead. Hold on. All right. We'll stop it there. So the gesture you made was to indicate a certain size cement bag?

GERAGOS: Objection, leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: What was the gesture made?

GROGAN: I'm asking if it was a 60-pound or 90-pound bag, how big it is and I think the only answer I got out of him was, was, it was something like that, so I don't think he said whether it was 60 or 90, necessarily.

FLADAGER: Did he tell you what he did with the bag when he was done making the anchor back on January 3rd interview?

GROGAN: Yes, I think he said that he took it, he took it home and he threw it in his trash at his residence.

FLADAGER: Thank you. Your Honor, would you like to go ahead and stop for the day or –

JUDGE: Yeah, this would be a good time. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, then you're not to discuss this case among yourselves or with any other person or form or express any opinion about this case. You're not listen to, read or watch any media reports of this trial or discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents. Remember tomorrow morning at 9:15, okay, because I'll be having a hearing out of your presence so we'll see you at 9:15. Have a nice evening.

 

September 21, 2004

FLADAGER: Thank you.  Detective Grogan, what I'd like to do initially before we go back exactly where we left off is ask you a question about this case in general. The size of this case anything like you have ever experienced before?

GROGAN: No, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And back here behind me, all the way going back to here, are a series of binders, have you seen these binders?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And are they packed with documents that are three or four inch binders?

GERAGOS: I'll stipulate there is 42,000 pages of documents.

FLADAGER: I'll accept that.

JUDGE: There is 42,000 pages of documents under, which are also subject to discovery we are dealing with.

FLADAGER: Okay. Detective Grogan, approximately how many tips were phoned in on this case?

GROGAN: Over 10,000.

FLADAGER: How many reporting officers were involved?

GROGAN: Over 300 reporting officers.

FLADAGER: How many agencies assisted the Modesto Police Department?

GROGAN: Around 90.

FLADAGER: Of the case reports that we have talked about, the 40,000 plus pages, about how many pages of those are yours?

GROGAN: I have around 3200 pages of documents. That includes attachments to my reports and transcripts of tapes that I have had transcribed. I have probably around 1700 pages of typewritten narrative.

FLADAGER: How many audiotapes?

GROGAN: In the case in total?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: I think there is a round a hundred fifteen.

FLADAGER: How many tapes that you made yourself based on interviews?

GROGAN: Over fifty.

FLADAGER: How many videotapes were associated with in case?

GROGAN: I think that's seventy-four.

FLADAGER: How many people were mentioned, or specifically that you interviewed in your reports?

GROGAN: Over 300 names in my reports.

FLADAGER: And when we talked yesterday about Modesto Police Department releasing photographs of Scott Peterson's truck and boat, you indicated that a number of people called in to report sightings; is that right?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: About how many sightings?

GROGAN: We were tracking them initially, and we stopped somewhere around ninety.

FLADAGER: As a result of the media attention in this case, and the Modesto Police Department putting out information that Laci Peterson was missing, the Modesto Police Department got reports from people indicating that they thought they saw Laci Peterson on or about December 24th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: About how many reported sightings were there?

GROGAN: There is about, I think there is 74. There is probably more than that.

FLADAGER: All right. I'd like to have this chart marked People's next in order.

JUDGE: That will be 267, the chart. This is Modesto sightings.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, you have seen these?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Would you describe in general terms what it is, for the jury?

GROGAN: It's a map of the City of Modesto. And what I tried to do is plot the sightings on the map based on the information that were in the tips.

FLADAGER: All right, Detective Grogan, let's put this up here.

JUDGE: Detective Grogan, there is a pointer there in the tray.

FLADAGER: There are a lot of little red dots on that map of Modesto?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And there is a legend to the side?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: What do the red dots indicate?

GROGAN: The red dots indicate sightings that are on December 24th of 2002.

FLADAGER: And what do the green dots indicate?

GROGAN: The green dots indicate sightings that were where the witness gave a date range.

GERAGOS: I can't hear.

JUDGE: The witness gave a date range.

GERAGOS: Date range?

GROGAN: A date range that included the 24th. Was very near to the 24th.

FLADAGER: All right. And, last, blue dot there on Covena Street, is that representative of where the house was?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, could I just walk that in front of the jury?

JUDGE: If you want to. This will be admitted in evidence. All right. We'll admit 267 in evidence

FLADAGER: All right. Now, Detective Grogan, a number of these sightings are in areas far away from the Covena home; is that correct?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: Are some of these within the general area of the La Loma Avenue Park, along the route that the defendant said Laci would ordinarily take when she was walking?

GROGAN: Some of them are, yes.

FLADAGER: Taking a look at those, that would be along the path she would have taken that day, were you able to draw any conclusions, or form any opinions as far as whether any of those sightings could possibly be consistent with Laci Peterson that particular day?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was your conclusion?

GROGAN: It appeared, looking at the sightings, there is only a few of them that fit into the category where she was supposed to walk in the park. Those sightings, one of them is during a date range, time period. Another one could be explained by one of the other ladies that was walking –

GERAGOS: I'm sorry, I missed, the first one was what?

GROGAN: Was during a date range. It's one of the green dots that covers a date range time period that included the 24th. One of them can be explained by one of the other witnesses that had testified already I believe in this case that was walking her dog on Covena that morning.

FLADAGER: Is that because she was with her husband at that particular sighting?

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: All right. Let's just move on. The other sightings that you looked at in that area, were there reasons that indicated to you that could not have been Laci Peterson?

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: I'll permit the question. Go ahead.

GROGAN: Yes. It looks, what you have to kind in mind is the City of Modesto covers a thirty-square-mile range. So though that might look like a small area, some of those are not exactly close to the residence at 523 Covena Avenue. I talked about before. There is only a few of them that are in that, in that area where she was supposed to be walking based on the statements that we had.

FLADAGER: Did some of them also fall outside of the time range that Laci was supposedly walking?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: I'll permit it. Go ahead. Try not to ask leading questions.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I will. Your Honor, I have got another diagram I would like to mark.

JUDGE: Next in order 268. Was there a diagram –

FLADAGER: At this point we'll, at this point we're only going to mark one side.

JUDGE: All right. We'll mark it side A and side B.  We'll mark both sides for the time being.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, have you previously seen this enlarged map of the State of California?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And did you place red and green dots on this map as well?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: Are these also reported sightings of Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: Miss Fladager, let her mark the B side. Let her mark the B side. I don't think the alternates can see. Why don't you stick it in the tray, maybe they can see it better.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, on this particular exhibit that's just been marked, you indicated you placed red dots. What are the, what is the general areas where the red dots seem most concentrated?

GROGAN: Seem most concentrated around the San Francisco Bay Area

FLADAGER: And are there green dots on this diagram as well?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Do they have the same indications as on the prior diagram, that the green dots are date ranges?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: The red dots, where else are they showing up in the State of California, these reported sightings?

GROGAN: In the route between Modesto and the Berkeley Marina. And then there is sightings from Fresno to the Sacramento area, a little bit north of Sacramento.

FLADAGER: All right. Similar to the sightings that you talked about yesterday that were reported, people calling in anything, that they saw the defendant's truck, or both, or the defendant, similarly, as far as these sightings go on December 24 throughout the State of California, could you corroborate any of these as actually being Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: All right. Let's go ahead and get back to the investigation that you were conducting back in January, on January the 9th. On that particular date, were you working at all related to Brent Rocha?

GROGAN: I believe so. If I can look at my report to make sure I'm accurate.

FLADAGER: Sure. Bates stamp approximately 248.

GROGAN: Thank you.

FLADAGER: 248.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What steps did you take on January 9th in relation to Brent Rocha? Did you conduct interviews?

GERAGOS: Just ask what Bates stamp when you find –

GROGAN: 248 and 249.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GROGAN: I arranged for Brent Rocha to be interviewed by another individual.

FLADAGER: Okay. Did you have any interviews with people associated with Brent Rocha?

GROGAN: Specific to January 9th, yes, I spoke with Brent's supervisor from his work.

FLADAGER: Did you also have conversations with his wife and his in-laws?

GROGAN: I don't see that here.

FLADAGER: On January 9th? Did you eventually have interviews with his wife and his in-laws?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the purpose of the interviews with his employer and his wife and in-laws is what?

GROGAN: Verify his alibi, and determine if there appeared to be any motive in the financial gain aspect of this case.

FLADAGER: All right. On January 9th did you get any reports from the surveillance team regarding Scott Peterson's whereabouts?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And where was he located?

GROGAN: He had been seen at the Berkeley Marina.

FLADAGER: Was he also reported to head to Fresno that day?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Were you advised on that date the result of a bay search that was going on?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What were the results?

GROGAN: There was a search being conducted out there with sonar. And the initial impressions that they had from looking at the sonar images were there was possibly a body on the floor of the bay that appeared to be a human body.

FLADAGER: And was that the focus of the search for Laci in bodies of water that day was the San Francisco Bay?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: To your knowledge, was there any search going on for Laci Peterson at the San Luis Reservoir O'Neill Forebay on January 9th?

GROGAN: Not to my knowledge, no.

FLADAGER: As a result of the information that you received about this object being found in the San Francisco Bay, did you take any steps?

GROGAN: That was being reported in the media, and there was a briefing about that, and –

GERAGOS: Could I ask what Bates number stamp you are referring to?

GROGAN: 249, at the lower part of the page under San Francisco Bay.

GERAGOS: Okay.

FLADAGER: Was that in preparation for further search of the bay?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you notify any family members of the finding?

GROGAN: Yes. It was already being reported, so I made telephone calls both to the Rocha family and to the Peterson family.

FLADAGER: Moving on to the next day Friday, January 10th. Was any work being done related to a wiretap?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And who was working on that?

GROGAN: Investigator Steve Jacobson from the District Attorney's Office.

FLADAGER: What was the purpose of the wiretap?

GROGAN: We were trying to obtain more evidence in the case, clearly, and to have another way to monitor Mr. Peterson's actions and his conversations with other people.

FLADAGER: Was that wiretap up by the next day, Saturday, January 11th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was surveillance ongoing of Mr. Peterson on Saturday, January 11th?

GROGAN: Surveillance, we started out that day with surveillance on the 11th, yes.

FLADAGER: Was that, who was assisting the police department with that surveillance?

GROGAN: The California Department of Justice.

FLADAGER: At some point did the surveillance terminate that day?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And why was that, in your understanding?

GROGAN: My understanding is, one of the agents involved in the surveillance of Mr. Peterson, Mr. Peterson drove up on her, and it was clear that there was possibly a problem with the surveillance. We weren't going to be able to continue it. So they discontinued surveillance for that day.

FLADAGER: On that particular day, did the wiretap allow you to be updated on the defendant's whereabouts, or at least where he said he was?

GROGAN: Yes, to some extent.

FLADAGER: Moving on to Sunday January 12th. You were working again that day, just writing reports?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And Monday, January 13th, did you do any work related to Amy Rocha?

GROGAN: If I can look for a moment.

FLADAGER: Bates stamp approximately 256.

GROGAN: Yes. I interviewed witnesses that could corroborate Amy Rocha's location on December 24th.

FLADAGER: That was verifying her alibi?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: The next day, Tuesday, January 14th, did you receive any reports related to financial documents or trust documents? Bates stamp 268.

GROGAN: Thank you. I think it's actually Bates stamp 267. And, yes, I spoke with the City Attorney who I had turned over the documents regarding the inheritance to earlier on, and found out what their findings were in that.

FLADAGER: And, to your mind, ruled out any financial motive?

GROGAN: It seemed to he, yes.

FLADAGER: Let's talk about the wiretap on Amber Frey. Did something happen on January 14th that caused you to have a meeting with those who were monitoring the wiretap?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was it that happened?

GROGAN: On January 14th, I think initially, Amber Frey called Detective John Buehler to say that the media had come to her place of work.

FLADAGER: I'm going to back you up there just a little bit, detective. Referring you to Bates stamp starting about 268, and I want to talk about a meeting that happened at the location of the wiretap itself. Between Detective, or Investigator Jacobson, and Detective Buehler, and yourself.

GROGAN: I'm sorry, I was incorrect on the last statement. That wrong time period.

GERAGOS: I'm sorry as to what? 1-13 by Rocha, over to 1-14?

GROGAN: On page 268 at the bottom, under SDEA, I believe that's what Miss Fladager was referring to.

JUDGE: Is that, is that conversation with Amber Frey? What are we talking about? You said you were in error, Detective. In what respect to what Mr. Geragos, Amy Rocha's verifying her alibi?

GROGAN: No.

JUDGE: Or the reports on the trust and financial documents?

GROGAN: No. Just the last question, your Honor. And if I can look through this for a minute, I'll see if I can work out what we're –

JUDGE: Have a lot of questions. I have lost the question since then. Perhaps you can repeat it when he gets done reading his report.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Okay.

GROGAN: Sorry.

FLADAGER: Have you had a chance to take a look at the report as it relates to that meeting that you, meeting that you had at the location, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: You are going to have to clear this up. Yes, what? I'm not so sure the jury gets it either.

FLADAGER: I'll back up a little bit. On January 14th, did you have a conversation with the officers monitoring the wiretap regarding Amber Frey and the phone calls she was making and taping on her own with the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And during that conversation, were there concerns expressed by the officers that perhaps not all the calls were being reported or taped?

GROGAN: That's correct, yes.

FLADAGER: Now, you mentioned yesterday something to that effect in relation to your advising –

GERAGOS: Judge, all of these are leading, and –

JUDGE: Yeah, they are. Sustained.

FLADAGER: Let's just go through this real quickly. The conversation you had about the phones, did that raise any concerns for Amber Frey?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why did they?

GROGAN: Well, Amber had had a conversation with Detective Buehler on the previous day, and had played, and at the time they talked she said that she had not been in contact with Scott Peterson. On the 14th there was a call on the wiretap between Mr. Peterson and Miss Frey. So we were under the impression that possibly she was not telling us about all the phone calls.

FLADAGER: Did that cause concern for her?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: As a result of that particular concern, was a decision made to contact the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you make that contact?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: What was the purpose of that contact?

GROGAN: To let him know that I, the photo that I had showed him previously, that I knew who that lady was in the photograph, and that she was Amber Frey.

FLADAGER: Let's move on to January the 15th. January the 15th, on that particular day, was there a decision made about disclosing Amber Frey's presence to family members on either side?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you please tell us why that decision was made?

GROGAN: Well, speaking with our Public Information Officer, he was, he had received a phone call, or some information, that there was going to be an article in the National Enquirer that was going to say something about Scott Peterson, and the fact that he had a girlfriend.

FLADAGER: And did that cause you concern?

GROGAN: It did.

FLADAGER: For the investigation?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And how about for the families?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: So what decision was made with respect to the Peterson family and the Rocha family?

GROGAN: Well, based on the fact that there were some photographs taken with Scott and Amber together, and some of those had been mailed out, we didn't know if we had accounted for all of those photographs. And we didn't know whether this, a photo of Scott and Amber together was going to appear in the newspaper. We decided that we needed to let the families know about this affair.

FLADAGER: And when you say photos were mailed out, mailed out by Amber Frey herself?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was that in Christmas cards?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Who was responsible for contacting the Rochas?

GROGAN: I asked Detective Buehler to do that. And he did that with Detective Brocchini.

FLADAGER: Who was responsible for notifying the Petersons?

GROGAN: I was.

FLADAGER: How did you go about doing that?

GROGAN: With the assistance of the Sheriff's Department, Detective Owen and I flew into a small municipal airport near the Petersons' home in San Diego.

FLADAGER: And did you contact them by telephone?

GROGAN: I did, once we got down there.

FLADAGER: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Peterson on the phone?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you tape record that conversation?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: Why did you do that?

GROGAN: There was some things that we were told in the investigation at that point which included Scott had said he had taken a firearm to a hunting trip that his dad attended, Lee had attended. And I wanted to see if he could verify that information one way or the other.

FLADAGER: Was there, did you have any concerns that you wanted to raise with Mr. Peterson regarding telephone conversations that he had had with his son on December 24th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that about?

GROGAN: Well, there was phone records that showed that there was communication between Lee Peterson and Scott Peterson on the 24th, and during the time period he had left the Berkeley Marina and was en route to his home at 523 North Covena, based on the defendant's statement.

FLADAGER: And what did you want to find out?

GROGAN: I wanted to find out if he had said anything about the fishing trip that he was on.

FLADAGER: After you had this taped phone conversation with him, did you indicate to him you wanted to meet him in person?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did he agree to meet with you in person?

GROGAN: He did.

FLADAGER: During that interview, did you provide him a photograph of the defendant and Amber Frey?

GROGAN: I showed him two or three photographs, yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: Moving on to January 16th, Bates stamp 289. Did you have contact with the Rocha family now that they had been notified of the Amber Frey relationship?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And did you inquire whether they would be willing to start taping phone conversations that they had with the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Did they indicate a willingness to do that?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On that particular day, did the defendant retrieve his Land Rover at the police department?

GROGAN: I believe may have been the previous day. That may have been the previous day.

FLADAGER: Did I give you a wrong date on that? Was that January 15th?

GROGAN: No. I think at the end of the report –

GERAGOS: What Bates number stamp are you looking at?

GROGAN: Page 292, I believe, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GROGAN: Yes. That was, I was told that he left his Land Rover at Modesto Police Department on January 15th during the time period I was gone.

FLADAGER: Was that for purposes of replacing the liner?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And also putting in another tracker?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Moving on to January the 17th, did you have any conversations with an employer of Amy Rocha? Bates stamp 302.

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And did that relate to working on the alibi aspects for her still?

GERAGOS: What page are you looking at?

GROGAN: I'm looking at page 304. Yes.

FLADAGER: In relation to that conversation with her employer, did you learn about a videotape present at the Salon Salon hair center where Amy Rocha worked?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was that the first indication that you had had there might be a videotape at a hair salon?

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: Did you have any idea prior to that that there might be a videotape there?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Did you eventually take steps to try and have that tracked down?

GROGAN: Well, I asked him to try to find the videotape for that time period. Prior to that, I didn't have any idea that there was a video at the hair salon.

FLADAGER: What did you later determine about the status of these videotapes from the hair salon?

GROGAN: Well, I spoke with Amy about it again, and asked her to remind them to look for those videotapes. And I spoke with Lauri Weisenberg later on. And what I eventually learned is that they had been taped over before I asked for them.

FLADAGER: Within a couple of weeks, or week, did they give you any indication –

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

GROGAN: I would have to look at her report.

JUDGE: Did they advise you enough to know the day when this tape over occurred, as a result of your investigation?

GROGAN: Do I know absolutely? Your Honor, no, I don't.

JUDGE: He doesn't know. Next question.

FLADAGER: Thank you.

FLADAGER: Moving on through January 17th and 18, you continued to work on this case, correct?

GROGAN: 17th and 18th?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: On January 19th, is that a day off for you?

GROGAN: Yes, it was.

FLADAGER: And that's a Sunday. You are at home?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Do you get a phone call reporting that there had been a burglary at the Covena address?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And is a detective assigned to follow up on that burglary at the Covena address?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On January 20th, do you get information related to that burglary, and that a suspect was identified?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Moving on through January 22nd. Did you have a conversation with Scott Peterson? Bates stamp 323.

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And what was it that the defendant was interested in asking you about?

GROGAN: Making arrangements to get the Land Rover back to him.

FLADAGER: Did he ask you any questions at all regarding the status of the investigation of his missing wife?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Had he called you within the last week making an inquiry about the status of your investigation; do you recall?

GROGAN: Not that I recall.

FLADAGER: On January 22nd did you have a meeting with Detective Buehler to sort of brainstorm on this case?

GERAGOS: I'm going to, objection, leading. The idea brainstorming, everything else is suggestive.

JUDGE: It's overruled. You can answer.

GROGAN: Yes. Late that evening.

FLADAGER: What was the purpose of the meeting that you had with Detective Buehler?

GROGAN: Well, while I was sitting at my desk trying to work through some of the evidence that we had, to attempt to determine a search location, and the best way to use the resources that I had for a search.

FLADAGER: What did you and Detective Buehler come up with?

GROGAN: We came up with the idea that Laci Peterson's body would be found in San Francisco Bay.

FLADAGER: How is it that you came up with that as a conclusion?

GROGAN: We made a list looking at reasons that she would be in San Francisco Bay, as opposed to reasons that she might be in lakes or other waterways.

FLADAGER: And before we get into those specific reasons, let me ask you this question. Why is it that you, at that point, had the idea that she was going to be found in some body of water?

GROGAN: Because of the cement debris in the warehouse, the circles on the flatbed trailer in the warehouse, and the boat that he had in the warehouse that no one seemed to know about, except for the person that sold it to Mr. Peterson, Bruce Peterson, the defendant, and possibly Laci Peterson.

FLADAGER: So this list that you came up with, what were the reasons that you came up with for why Laci Peterson would eventually be found in The Bay?

GROGAN: Well, we looked at the fact that Mr. Peterson did have a parking stub from the Berkeley Marina that's dated 12-24, and the timing is consistent with his statement. The fact, maybe that's easier to explain later, so I'll move on. The cell sites at that point, which we had the cell site information, that showed his location on December 24th. And it did show that he did make phone calls from over in that area, and it did appear that he was there. The dog track at the Berkeley Marina that indicated that Laci Peterson's scent was there. The defendant told us that he was at the Berkeley Marina. He had a fishing license, two-day fishing license that was purchased on December 20th, and filled out for the 23rd and 24th. The fishing tackle in the boat, at least the majority of the fishing tackle, if not all, was fresh water tackle. And on January 11th, on the wiretap, when everyone was waiting to see the Side Scan Sonar image that eventually ended up being an anchor, what that was going to turn out to be. When Sharon Rocha called him and left him a message, he retrieved it. And he whistled when he heard it was an anchor. At that point, he had also made three trips, three subsequent trips to the Berkeley Marina since the December 24th visit, which seemed odd. And it directed us back there. Another thing that we considered was the fact that we had witnesses saying on December 24th, that when, right after the defendant found that his wife was missing from the house, that he had told people that he was golfing that day. And we considered that as possibly what his initial alibi was meant to be.

FLADAGER: That the initial alibi was –

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: No, let her ask it. Go ahead.

FLADAGER: The initial alibi was golfing?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Okay. At some point did you toy with the idea there might be a second, that the golfing might be an alibi for the fishing? Is that what you mean?

GROGAN: Well, what I mean is that it's possible that, because he told Amy Rocha on the day prior he was going to be at Vella Farms, and he told some of the witnesses early on in the evening on the 24th that he had been golfing on the 24th. Initially his plan was to say that he was golfing on that day, and for no one to ever to know that he had the boat, or the that he made the trip to the San Francisco Bay.

FLADAGER: Okay. Next.

GROGAN: The fact that there were umbrellas in the back of his truck wrapped in the tarp, wrapped in a tarp. That those umbrellas are approximately the same height as Laci Peterson.

FLADAGER: What conclusion did you draw from that? Why was that significant?

GROGAN: Why was that significant? Well, it would enable him to explain anyone seeing him load something in his truck.

FLADAGER: Okay.

GROGAN: The fact that we had already conducted some searches of the lakes around bridges, and we had not found Laci up to that point. The fact that we tested the water in the bow of the boat, and it came back as salt water and not fresh water. Also, looking at the computer searches that we conducted of the defendant's computers at his shop, and the fact that he was, he was researching San Francisco Bay. In that, I have to add that he also had sites for fishing locations that were fresh water, and lakes throughout California, but San Francisco Bay. Berkeley Marina did appear in there as well. The fact that he didn't clean up the mess at the shop, and that led me to believe that never intended for anyone to come back there. He never intended for anyone to come back there and look at the boat.

GERAGOS: Are you referring to a Bates number stamp?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: What page?

GROGAN: Page 24101.

GERAGOS: I'd ask that it be not in the narrative form of the question and answer, because it appears right now that he's just reading from his notes.

JUDGE: Well, he can read, if there are any, refresh your memory, do it by question and answer. We just get this narrative.

FLADAGER: Your next reason?

GROGAN: The fact that he made the phone call from, let me step back just a second. But the fact that he had really no activity on the phone that morning.

FLADAGER: On December 24th?

GROGAN: On December 24th, and then after around 2:00 o'clock, when, by his statement he's leaving, he starts to make phone calls. And he leaves a message at the house that he's at the Bay, or just fishing, and he's going to be late coming home. After that phone call, then he stops to get gas on his route back. But he buys thirteen dollars worth of gas. Which I think is not a significant amount of gas in the truck.

JUDGE: Question and answer.

FLADAGER: Okay. And your next reason for believing that Laci Peterson would turn up in San Francisco Bay?

GROGAN: I have that there is deep water current nearby, where the map on his computer that he was looking at does show a deep water current in that are

FLADAGER: All right. What's another reason?

GROGAN: The fact that he, what I have here is the fact that he paid cash for the boat, and he didn't register the boat.

FLADAGER: Next reason?

GROGAN: The boat cover.

FLADAGER: What was significant about the boat cover?

GROGAN: You have to ask why it's in the truck on the 24th in the evening. Did he take it to the Bay? And, if so, why? Was it tied on the boat and covering the boat? Was it, if it was taken off the boat before he left, why not leave it in the warehouse? Why put it in the truck? Was he using the boat cover for some other purpose to cover something maybe in his boat. And then the fact that we find the boat cover in the shed on the search warrants on the 26th and 27th with a leaking gas blower on top.

FLADAGER: Okay. And do you understand the condition of the boat cover at that time was neatly folded, or in some other condition?

GROGAN: It was not neatly folded.

FLADAGER: What was the another reason for your belief?

GROGAN: Looking at the driving Mr. Peterson was doing that was captured on the tracker, in Bakersfield around the time of this anchor found at the bay, and when it's identified, it's erratic. It's just kind of strange.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, let me ask you this. How many total reasons did you come up with with Detective Buehler why you feel Laci Peterson would eventually turn up in San Francisco Bay?

GROGAN: About 41. About 41.

FLADAGER: Did you also try and work on reasons why you thought she might turn up in lakes?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you come up with any reasons there?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: About how many how many?

GROGAN: About ten.

FLADAGER: After going through the comparison of the two, what was your ultimate conclusion?

GROGAN: The ultimate conclusion was that Laci Peterson's body was in San Francisco Bay, and that we needed to search there, to focus our efforts on that search.

FLADAGER: The next day, January 23rd, did you discuss this new position, or this focused position with other members of the team working on this case?

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: He can answer yes or no to that question.

GROGAN: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Overruled.

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And what did, what was the consensus when you did that?

GERAGOS: Objection. Testimony has come in for the reasonableness of his investigation, not for –

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: As a result of the conversation that you had with other members of the team, what decision was made in terms of the investigation?

JUDGE: What decision did he make?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Well, the efforts, as far as the search efforts were concerned, were strictly limited to the San Francisco Bay, excluding some things that we had had in place for a long time, which was we had a policy that if someone called in and said they knew where Laci's body was, and they could give a specific location, that we would go in and search it. Whether it sounded credible or not, we sent people to search.

FLADAGER: And did those types of tips include psychics, and that kind of thing?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: But the decision was made to follow up?

GROGAN: Yes. If there was enough information to do that.

FLADAGER: Outside of those, then, from January 23rd on, where were searches for Laci Peterson body focused?

GROGAN: In San Francisco Bay.

FLADAGER: To your knowledge was there any search of the Pittsburg Marina area on February 9th?

GROGAN: Not to my knowledge, no.

FLADAGER: Also, on January 23rd, did you learn anything regarding the defendant and the house at 523 Covena?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, the date again, please?

FLADAGER: January 23rd. Bates stamp 327.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what is it you learned?

GROGAN: I learned that some information came in on the wiretap that Mr. Peterson was going to have a meeting, a lunch meeting, and possibly discuss the sale of his home.

FLADAGER: What did you do as a result of that?

GROGAN: We sent female CSO, female Records Clerk to the same location where this meeting was supposed to happen to see if they could sit near them and hear any of the discussion.

FLADAGER: I'm going to move right into the next tape, which is Friday January 24th. Bates stamp 350. Can you please tell us what happened with Amber Frey on Friday, January 24th?

GROGAN: Yes. This is where I misspoke earlier. I had the date wrong. And on this date is where the media, there was some indication from Amber Frey that the media had come to her place of work and knew who she was.

FLADAGER: What decision was made as a result of that?

GROGAN: Ultimately, after speaking with the Public Information Officer, and trying to get some advice on what to do, we did a press conference where Amber Frey made a statement. And that was done at Modesto Police.

FLADAGER: On Friday, January 24th, did you call the defendant on the phone?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Why is it that you called him?

GROGAN: I called him after the press conference happened to make sure that he was aware of it.

FLADAGER: Was he aware of it?

GROGAN: Yes. He said he'd already learned it, I think, on the radio.

FLADAGER: On Saturday, January 25th, did you get additional information from the wiretap related to the defendant? Bates stamp 354.

GROGAN: I'm sorry, the question again, please?

FLADAGER: The question is, did you get some information from the wiretap on that Saturday about the defendant and vehicles?

GERAGOS: You said 354?

FLADAGER: Roughly.

GROGAN: Yes, it related to the tracker?

FLADAGER: No. In this instance related to the –

GERAGOS: Be an objection. It's leading.

JUDGE: She's just directing the witness.

GERAGOS: If it's to this particular Bates number stamp, there is no reference.

FLADAGER: That's the general vicinity. Related to the purchase of vehicles.

JUDGE: Re what?

FLADAGER: Related to the purpose of vehicles.

JUDGE: Purchase of a vehicle?

FLADAGER: Yes.

JUDGE: Is there a page you can refer Mr. Geragos to?

FLADAGER: 357 would actually probably help both of them.

JUDGE: Page 357. This is Bates stamp.

GERAGOS: Bates stamp?

FLADAGER: Bates stamp.

JUDGE: Bates stamp 357.

FLADAGER: Or 21304 on the wiretap Bates stamp.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What information did you learn?

GROGAN: That phone calls had been intercepted that Mr. Peterson had called dealerships and was inquiring about prices on Suburbans and Expeditions.

FLADAGER: Did you receive a phone call from the defendant on January 25th?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And did you tape that phone call?

JUDGE: I think we should take the morning recess before we start. The jury has been here over an hour now. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take the morning recess until five after eleven. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. We're going to get into playing some tapes now.

JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the jury's in the jury box, along with the alternates. Defendant's present with counsel.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, just one little thing, we have a slight scheduling problem so I'm going to ask you, if you don't mind, if we go to 12:15 and come back at 1:45. Is that okay? We have to work this thing out.

So we'll go to 12:15, come back at 1:45. All right. Go ahead, Ms. Fladager.

FLADAGER: Thank you, Your Honor. I have a disk and a single page transcript I'd like to have marked next in order.

JUDGE: That will be 269. We'll mark the transcript 269 A and we'll mark the disk 269 B. And you have, I assume you have transcripts for everybody?

FLADAGER: I do not, judge. It's a single page that I'll put on the document camera

JUDGE: Oh, it's only one page. Okay. All right.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, you indicated that you tape recorded a phone conversation between yourself and the defendant on January 25th; is that correct?

GROGAN: No, actually he called me and I was unable to get to a recorder in time to capture it on tape. It was captured on the wiretap, however.

FLADAGER: Thank you. Did you have an opportunity to listen to that call on the wiretap and review a transcript of that call?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And does the transcript accurately reflect what is on the wiretap?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, that conversation that we just heard, that was after the Amber Frey press conference, a day later?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: Moving on to January 26th, did you leave a message for the defendant on his phone in the morning hours?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And this is Sunday, January 26th, is that Super Bowl Sunday? 

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the message that you leave for him on his phone is what?

GROGAN: You want the exact quote?

FLADAGER: If you have it, yes, sir. I'm going to have to summarize it. I can probably get it off the wiretap if you want the exact quote later, but it –

GERAGOS: What page are we talking about?

GROGAN: We're talking about page 360, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

FLADAGER: All right. Go ahead.

GROGAN: I said something similar to, I thought you'd want to know all the evidence has directed us to the bay. We're going back there with a sonar expert now. I told him that we were trying to keep it out of the press and that I thought he would want to know.

FLADAGER: All right. Thank you. After you left that phone call did you later receive some information that the defendant had in fact been to the Berkeley Marina on that same day you left the message?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the timing of that trip to the Marina?

GROGAN: I left the message at 11:40 a.m. and the tracker showed that he was there at 8:00 o'clock that morning, several hours before I made that call.

FLADAGER: Moving on to Monday, January 27th, did you get a phone call from Sharon Rocha?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And did she relay any information to you regarding the statements that Scott Peterson had made to her that day?

GROGAN: Yes. She said that she had been invited to go to Southern California to participate in a media interview with Mr. Peterson.

FLADAGER: And did you later determine where it was that Mr. Peterson was that day?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And where did he go that day?

GROGAN: I believe he was in Southern California doing an interview with Good Morning America FLADAGER: Okay. Prior to his trip to Southern California did the tracker place him again at the Berkeley Marina area on Monday, January 27th?

GERAGOS: May I ask what page you're refreshing your recollection with?

GROGAN: I'm still trying to find it, sir.

FLADAGER: And if the tracker documents would help, I'll give you those as well.

JUDGE: Can you direct him to the page, maybe that might help. Do you have it there, Ms. Fladager?

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, do you have the tracker documents with you?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And if you would take a look at the January 27th track.

GROGAN: Okay. On January 27th at 2:54 p.m. to 2:57 p.m. is the time indicated that he was at the Berkeley Marina area.

FLADAGER: Thank you. On Tuesday, January 28th, Detective Grogan, did you have occasion to watch Good Morning America during your morning briefing?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd like to go ahead and play that now. I have transcripts to distribute to the jury.

JUDGE: Okay. And this is a transcript, is this the interview with –

FLADAGER: With Diane Sawyer.

JUDGE: With Diane Sawyer. Okay.

FLADAGER: What I'd like to do first, Your Honor, is I'll ask a few more questions of the detective to set up the interview.

JUDGE: Okay. Out of the presence of the jury, I want to lay down the track history. It will only take me about two minutes. We don't have to do that right now. It's just going to lay down the foundation. Give me maybe two minutes and bring you back. Go ahead.

FLADAGER: All right. Thank you. Detective Grogan, in watching this initial interview during briefing on Tuesday, January 28th, did you make any observations about Scott Peterson's statements during that interview?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was it that struck you?

GROGAN: Well, he did say in the interview that he notified the police on the first night of the investigation about the affair with Amber Frey and I knew that not to be true.

FLADAGER: On Wednesday, January 29th, did you watch Part 2 of that Good Morning America interview?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: On January 29th did you get any information about the defendant selling Laci Peterson's Land Rover?

GROGAN: Yes, on page 381.

FLADAGER: What did you learn?

GROGAN: I learned that we had a tracking device installed in the Land Rover and it led to an area in Modesto where there are some lots for vehicles for sale, and then I later saw Mr. Peterson had obtained a 2003 Dodge Dakota truck.

FLADAGER: Have you watched the two Good Morning America interviews, have you watched them again that were broadcast on January 28th and January 29th?

GROGAN: Have I watched them again?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you also watch a third interview aired on Prime Time Live, essentially portions of the same interviews with additional information that was broadcast in April?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And that's it, Your Honor. We're ready to play them.

JUDGE: Okay. Before we do that, I just want to lay down the history. I'll go ahead and excuse the jury just for about two minutes. I just want to go through this just for the record and then we'll bring you back, okay. Just for a short time.

JUDGE: All right. Let the record show that the jury's been excused just so I can lay the foundation on the issue of the Good Morning America tape, the Diane Sawyer tape. Just the, the history is that the, I'm trying to do this, remember the prosecution subpoenaed the Diane Sawyer tape from ABC in New York and they were given an edited version. That portion that was actually broadcast. The Court reviewed that portion of the tape that was actually broadcast. And there were two references there that the Court ordered that they be taken out. One was when the defendant, in response to a question from Diane Sawyer, refused to take a lie detector test. I had that taken out. And, also, a reference was made to some testimony by the juror, the juror who had been hypnotized and I ordered that that be taken out.

GERAGOS: The witness?

JUDGE: I'm sorry, the witness who had been testified.

GERAGOS: The witness who had been hypnotized.

JUDGE: Pardon me?

GERAGOS: You said the witness who had been testified.

JUDGE: The witness who had been hypnotized. I'm glad you straightened that out for me, Mr. Geragos, I'm tongue-tied. The witness who had been hypnotized, Ms. Steppenwolf, Diane Sawyer paraphrased a question with some information that had apparently been provided by that witness and I also asked that that part be excluded. Mr. Geragos wanted the complete tape to be played and Mr. Geragos subpoenaed the tape at ABC headquarters in New York City. As a result, we had Ms. Kelli Sager come in here from Davis Wright & Tremaine from Figueroa Street in Los Angeles representing the American Broadcasting Companies to court, the subpoena duces tecum that was issued by Mr. Geragos in an attempt to get the complete tape from ABC. And then we had a hearing here and there was, Ms. Sager was present, Mr. Olson was also present, and there was a thorough airing on the record on the issue of the Shield Law.

The Court ruled that there was an insufficient showing to pierce the Shield Law so the Court ordered this: The subpoena that was issued by Mr. Geragos to be quashed. As a result, Mr. Geragos appealed the Court's ruling. There was a petition for a Writ of Mandate prohibition and other extraordinary relief, and it was a request for an immediate stay of the ruling that the Court made.

That was denied by the Court of Appeal. Then the issue then was raised again to the Supreme Court. I believe you filed a petition for rehearing, correct?

GERAGOS: That's correct. Petition for review.

JUDGE: Petition for review. And that was also denied by the California Supreme Court. So as a result the only tape that we have available now to play to the media with respect to the Diane Sawyer was the redacted tape and the one that the Court has already indicated that the Court redacted.

GERAGOS: Could I augment the record because there has been one –

JUDGE: Go ahead.

GERAGOS: The one thing that has changed since the time that the petition for review has been denied by the Supreme Court is that I now have what I believe to be an accurate transcript of the non-broadcast and the complete tape. And I believe that it's clear to me, at least, and I have brought up I think to the Court previously, that there are portions of this tape that have been spliced and have been edited so that answers to certain questions were not exactly the way they were. In fact, not even close in several instances when you look at the completely, what I call the unedited, un-broadcast tape. It's my position, I know the Court's already made the ruling, obviously I brought it to the Supreme Court and back, however, it's my opinion, and I will in the defense case once again subpoena the producer who was there and make a finding or make a showing, I should say at that point, of what I believe to be the –

JUDGE: Waiver of the Shield Law.

GERAGOS: Waiver of the Shield Law and the specific instances where this tape was edited and once again request that the Court order that. Ms. Sager left me a message on my voice mail saying that she would accept service on behalf of that producer. So at the appropriate time I believe that we're going to have to retread this or rehoe this area at some point. I would only ask that at this point that the Court instruct the jury of the factual underpinnings, which is, this is the broadcast portion, this is not the straight unedited.

JUDGE: I'll just tell them that this is an edited version of the original broadcast of Good Morning America. This is that part that was actually broadcast. And I also will tell the jury that it may not have, it may not be connected in context and that they'll have to take that into consideration in assessing whatever weight they want to put on this particular tape. Yeah.

FLADAGER: Can you also remind them of this tape and the other two tapes that there's been editing with the Court's desiring,

JUDGE: I thought we were just addressing the one tape now. When you play the other ones, if you play them, I'll be glad to remind them of that. So you want to cue up that particular tape so we know what the history of this is with respect to the, this Diane Sawyer tape and apparently we'll hear the issue all over again. We'll mark it, 270 A will be the transcript and the disk will be 270 B.

GERAGOS: What is it marked as? What did you mark it?

JUDGE: 270 A is the transcript.

GERAGOS: 270 A is the transcript?

JUDGE: Right. And 270 B is the disk. How long is this about?

FLADAGER: All three of them together, 21 minutes.

JUDGE: Okay. All right.

GERAGOS: All three of Diane Sawyer?

FLADAGER: Nods head

JUDGE: Okay. Let the record show that the jury's in the jury box, along with the alternates. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're about to play for you the Diane Sawyer interviews that were played on Good Morning America I want to advise you that these are the edited versions. These are the only, what you're going to hear today is the portion of the tape that was actually played on Good Morning America. This is not the tape in to to because that raises other legal issues that the Court has already ruled on. So as you listen to this tape, you may not, you may see a lack of continuity because it's been edited by the Court, also, because of some evidentiary issues. So you can take that into consideration when you decide whatever weight you want to put on these tapes, okay, so you should bear that in mind.

JUDGE: All right. We'll admit the transcripts and the disk pursuant to 1553 of the Evidence Code. It will take the same number

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, on December 29th after you watched that second Good Morning America interview –

GERAGOS: I believe that's just a misspeak. You mean January 29th?

FLADAGER: Yes, January 29th. Thank you.

FLADAGER: Did you call the defendant that day on the telephone sometime later in the day?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Did you record that conversation with him?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I have another tape to play. This is an audiotape with transcripts.

JUDGE: Is it just one page or –

FLADAGER: No, it's multiple pages.

JUDGE: Okay. We'll mark that 271, transcript, as A and the disk will be 271 B.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, did you have a chance to review the audiotape and the transcript that was prepared to go along with it?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And do both of those accurately reflect the telephone conversation that you had with the defendant Scott Peterson on the 29th?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: All right. We'll admit 271, transcript and disk, will take the same number.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, Thursday, January 30th, the day after that phone call, did you do some work generally in the area of what, the jewelry investigation?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And do you have Sharon Rocha and Amy Rocha both individually come into the police department to take a look at the jewelry?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And do you get any documentation from Amy while she was there?

GROGAN: Some of her work records to show her activities on the 24th.

FLADAGER: On Friday, January 31st, do you meet with someone named Maria Rocha?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of that meeting did she mention an item of jewelry that you had not heard about before?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: That was the Croton watch, which she was just describing as a gold watch with diamonds around the face. She didn't know the name brand, but she did say there was one additional watch that wasn't in the jewelry box.

FLADAGER: And was that part of the inheritance?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On that particular day, January 31st, did you have a phone conversation with Sharon Rocha?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you share with her the information about the Land Rover?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Did you, as a result of the conversation with Sharon Rocha did you call and leave a message for Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was it that you left him by way of a message?

GROGAN: What I told, I told Sharon was that the Land Rover had been sold in the event she wanted to go get it. And she asked that I contact Scott Peterson to see if she could get some photographs and some other belongings of Laci's.

FLADAGER: And did you contact, then contact Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: And what sort of a message did you leave for him?

GROGAN: Just that if he was willing to do anything like that that I would try to be an intermediary for them not, not, I was actually trying to stay out of the middle of it, but I would do that if necessary.

FLADAGER: On Saturday, February 1st, did you begin working on some additional paperwork? Bates stamp No. 397.

GERAGOS: Through 402.

JUDGE: Is that right?

FLADAGER: That's not what I'm talking about.

JUDGE: You better check with Mr. Geragos because once the cat's out of the bag I can't put it back in. Let's make sure we're on the same page.

FLADAGER: Let me ask a leading question.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, did you begin working on some search warrant documentation?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: Okay. And what was it that you were seeking by way of search warrant on this occasion?

GROGAN: Well, I thought at this point it would be a good idea to go back to the Peterson home because we learned additional things through the investigation we didn't know on the 26th and 27th and then we could go back there and possibly recover more evidence.

FLADAGER: On Sunday, February 2nd, was that a day off for you?

GROGAN: Yes, it was.

FLADAGER: Is that your third day off since December 25th?

GROGAN: That sounds about right, Yes.

FLADAGER: On that particular day did you learn anything about the defendant's plans for a trip out of the country?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And what was it that you learned?

GROGAN: That, that Mr. Peterson had planned a trip to Guadalajara, Mexico, and I think it was in relations to a business meeting.

FLADAGER: As a result of that information did you ask some assistance from the San Diego Department of Justice in relation to the defendant's vehicle?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: What did you seek?

GROGAN: Well, I asked for a surveillance of Mr. Peterson's new vehicle and I arranged for a tracker, search warrant to be completed so that we could install a tracker on that vehicle while it was at the airport.

JUDGE: I think this will be a good time to take the recess.

FLADAGER: Sure.

JUDGE: All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take the afternoon recess. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. We'll reconvene at 1:45 and we'll deal with this. See you at 1:45

JUDGE: All right. This is People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. The jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. Go ahead, Miss Fladager.

FLADAGER: Thank you.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, I believe where we left off, we have made it through February 1st where you began working on the next search warrant affidavit, February 2nd. So let's move on to then third.

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: On February 3rd was there some discussion about a modification, or an additional reward that would be offered for Laci Peterson's return?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you please tell us what was decided, or what was discussed at that point, and why?

GROGAN: Yes. The first reward was established for $500,000. Actually it grew to that number shortly after Laci disappeared. And that was for safe return, for her safe return. And, at this point, we began discussing offering a different, additional reward, one for $50,000, for basically the recovery of her body. There was no incentive for someone to provide information to us if she was already deceased.

FLADAGER: The purpose, the fact that you got to this point, February 3rd, with the $500,000 reward out there, had there been anybody that had claimed that reward?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: That, in and of itself, mean something to you in your investigation of the case?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: Well, the large amount of that reward kind of told us that it was less likely that we were dealing with multiple offenders, that there were a group of people involved in Laci's disappearance. For $500,000, if you had limited involvement in her abduction, and she was still alive, that would be powerful incentive for someone to come forward and talk to us.

FLADAGER: And the fact that there was no one coming forward meant what?

GERAGOS: There is an. Objection assumes facts not in evidence. He's already testified there were 10,000 tips. So the idea that there is nobody coming forward,

JUDGE: I think nobody came forward in order to claim the reward.

GERAGOS: That's also assuming facts not in evidence.

JUDGE: Well, she can ask him if somebody ever, did anybody ever come forward to claim the reward during the course of your investigation?

GROGAN: No, your Honor. That would have required Laci's recovery alive.

JUDGE: All right.

FLADAGER: So the decision to offer a $50,000 reward for the recovery of her remains, why did you do that?

GROGAN: We were still, at this stage, discussing that. And we had not offered that reward at that point. But we wanted to look at all possibilities. If there was anyone that had information out there, and if Laci was already deceased, we wanted an incentive for someone to come forward with that information.

FLADAGER: Let's move on to Tuesday, February the 4th. Did you have contact with Sharon Rocha on that particular day, about 4:05?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you receive some information from Sharon Rocha that you had not been aware of before?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: She forwarded me some information that was on an e-mail that included another website, I'm sorry, another phone number for a tip line that I wasn't aware of before. And that was the 1-866-LACINFO tip line.

FLADAGER: Is that a tip line that law enforcement had anything to do with?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd like to go ahead and have marked, I have two additional CDs or DVDs and the transcripts that go along with them. I'd like to play these.

JUDGE: Before we do that, let's move in some of these others referred to. Is there any objection to the video, 266? That's the video with no sound that was played yesterday. You got any objection, Mr. Geragos? I assume you are moving that in. Any objection, Mr. Geragos? This is the video with no sound.

GERAGOS: I thought we had already entered that.

JUDGE: No. It's been marked, but we haven't entered.

GERAGOS: That was one from yesterday?

JUDGE: Yes. 266.

GERAGOS: That's fine.

JUDGE: Other one is 269. That's the –

GERAGOS: 269?

JUDGE: Is the transcript of the disk that was played yesterday.

GERAGOS: That's the 1-25-03?

JUDGE: Yes.

GERAGOS: That's fine.

JUDGE: 266 and 269 may be admitted in evidence. That's 269 that A and B which deal with the tapes. This is 272.

FLADAGER: I'd like that to be the Gloria Gomez interview.

JUDGE: 272A will be the transcript and 272B is the disk.

This is the Gloria Gomez tape that the Court already viewed?

FLADAGER: I have a transcript for the jury.

GERAGOS: Did you say 272A is the transcript?

JUDGE: This is the transcript. These are the disks. B is the disk. A is the transcript. B is the disk.

JUDGE: Miss Fladager, you didn't mention the date of this.

FLADAGER: This was –

JUDGE: I know what date it is. The jury doesn't know.  January the 29th?

FLADAGER: I believe it's the 28th. I'll check on that.

JUDGE: Do you want to check so the jury knows?

FLADAGER: Broadcast on January the 29th.

JUDGE: Then we'll admit 272A and B. .

JUDGE: I should point out to counsel, when we had these motions before we marked some of these tapes earlier, just so the record isn't confused. 131A, B, C, D, and E were the tapes of Diane Sawyer. So that was, 270 was formerly marked 131A, B, C, D and E. This tape that we're playing now, 272, was formerly marked 136 and, 136A and 136 B. And the next tape, the interview with Ted Rowlands was formerly marked 137 and 137

GERAGOS: You said the Sawyer was 131?

JUDGE: 131A, B, C, D, and E.

GERAGOS: Thank you, judge.

JUDGE: So there that there is no confusion on the record.

GERAGOS: So you are admitting this, obviously.

JUDGE: The 270 series we are admitting. You can stop when we go back, and we're admitting these into evidence, or reviewing these for admission.

GERAGOS: You will make a note for those.

JUDGE: You want to indicate for the record that these were, had been remarked to be played today.

GERAGOS: Got it. This is 273A and B. A is the transcript.

 JUDGE: Do you want to mark the Ted Rowlands tape?

FLADAGER: Yes.

JUDGE: That will be 273, formerly 137 and 137A. Now we're going to mark it. 273A is the transcript, and B is the disk.

JUDGE: What is the date of the Ted Rowlands tape? January 30th? Aired on January 30th.

GERAGOS: What?

JUDGE: Aired on January 30th.

GERAGOS: Right.

JUDGE: Is that correct, Miss Fladager?

FLADAGER: Yes. January 30th.

JUDGE: This was, this was aired on January the 30th, 2003.

JUDGE: Okay, we'll admit 273A and B, the transcript and the Ted Rowlands tape

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, I'd like to go back for just a couple of questions. When you watched the Good Morning America video at the briefing at the police department, was there anything that you learned or heard during the course of that interview that was important to you?

GROGAN: Yes. Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you tell us what that was?

GROGAN: Well, in watching that interview, it appeared that he spoke in the past tense on one occasion when talking about Laci, and in one occasion when he was talking about Conner. He was very emotional during the Diane Sawyer interview, which it contrasted with his demeanor on the night of the 24th from the, at least from the interview that we saw on videotape with Detective Brocchini, and on the 25th from the interview that Doug Mansfield and I did with him.

FLADAGER: What else?

GROGAN: Also, in that he spoke about the market umbrellas, and verified that he put those in the truck, which corroborated with Detective Brocchini at the scene.

FLADAGER: And the placement of the umbrellas in the truck on the morning of December 24th, that was important to you in some way?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: I think we learned through these interviews that he had put the umbrellas in there on the morning of the 24th.

FLADAGER: Was there anything else about the Diane Sawyer interview that struck you in terms of your estimation of Mr., involvement with Mr., investigation of Mr. Peterson's involvement?

GROGAN: Right.

FLADAGER: In the interview we just, at least the one with Gloria Gomez, that interview took place in the home at 523 Covena?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Let's go back on February the 4th. Did you have occasion to go to the hair salon where Amy Rocha worked, called Salon Salon, in Modesto?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And did you go there with Detective John Buehler?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you learn anything when you were there regarding the availability of these security videotapes from the salon?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: I spoke with Lauri Weisenberg, and she told me that the videotapes were on a seven-day cycle. They had been copied over prior to our request for them.

FLADAGER: All right. Object that particular day, did Brent Rocha come in and see you?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did he bring anything with him?

GROGAN: He brought in some jewelry items that I asked him to bring that were related to what Laci had inherited, or what came with the grandmother's jewelry.

FLADAGER: This was something that went to him?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Next day, February 5th, did you meet with Amy Rocha?

GROGAN: Amy Rocha?

FLADAGER: In the vicinity of 419, Bates stamp number.

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Did Amy Rocha bring in jewelry?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: Was that at your request?

GROGAN: It was.

FLADAGER: Same reason that you had Brent Rocha bringing in jewelry?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During that interview with Amy Rocha, did you learn anything about any of Laci's jewelry?

GROGAN: I learned that Amy had some information that Laci may have put some jewelry on Ebay.

FLADAGER: And was there a specific watch that was mentioned?

GROGAN: A Mickey Mouse watch.

FLADAGER: Prior that, had you had any information that jewelry was listed on Ebay prior to receiving it from Amy?

GROGAN: I don't believe so.

FLADAGER: When you get this information from Amy about the watch being sold on, or listed on Ebay, what does that cause you to do in terms of your investigation relating to the jewelry?

GROGAN: Well, we, I think as a result of this is where we obtained some Ebay records for the Petersons.

FLADAGER: All right. All right. Moving on to the next day, Thursday, February 6th. Did you have information as far as where Scott Peterson was at that time? The 5th and the 6th.

FLADAGER: For the 5th and the 6th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Do you have a Bates stamp number?

GROGAN: Might be listed right at 419, or at 429.

GERAGOS: It's 429, top.

GROGAN: Thank you. At that time we knew that Scott Peterson's vehicle was at the Los Angeles Airport, and we believed he was in Guadalajara, Mexico, on a business trip.

FLADAGER: All right. On February 6th, did you have an opportunity to review some Grand Jury subpoenas related to Ebay?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you find some information related to the gold Mickey Mouse watch?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And where it was sold?

GROGAN: Yes. It was sold on 12-8 of 2002.

FLADAGER: And did you find information during the review of that documentation relating to the Croton watch?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: That it was listed on Ebay. And I don't have a date in this record. But that it was listed on Ebay, and it did not sell.

FLADAGER: On Friday, February the 7th, did you meet with jewelers from the jewelry store in McHenry Village where Laci Peterson had taken her jewelry to be worked on?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And did you ask them any questions about the Croton watch?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Approximately page 431. And why did you go to them and make an inquiry about the Croton watch?

GROGAN: I asked them about a number of items of jewelry, and interviewed both of them. And wanted to see if they, specifically if they had, if she had brought in the Croton watch, or the Geneve, I'm not certain of the pronunciation of it, watch to that location to have it repaired and cleaned.

FLADAGER: And did you find out whether or not she brought in the Geneve watch?

GROGAN: She had.

FLADAGER: And had that been repaired and fixed?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: How about the Croton?

GROGAN: It was not brought in.

FLADAGER: During the course of these few days here in early February, were searches going on in San Francisco Bay? February 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.

GROGAN: Yes. On page 434 I do have a meeting with several other officers about a Bay search occurring on 2-8 and 2-9.

GERAGOS: You say on 434?

GROGAN: I think, maybe that's 433. I signed right over the top of that number, so I'm not –

FLADAGER: All right. There are bay searches that are being supervised by another officer; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. On Sunday, February 9th, is that a day off for you?

GERAGOS: 431.

JUDGE: Sunday a day off for you, Detective Grogan?

FLADAGER: Bates stamp 461.

GROGAN: That's correct. I didn't work that Sunday.

FLADAGER: All right. That would be your fourth day off since December 25th, correct?

GROGAN: That's, I believe that's correct, Yes.

FLADAGER: Okay. February the 10th, was something done in relation to the various hospitals in the area and I backtracked on that. On February 10th was anything done to try and prepare to make contact with hospitals throughout California?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was done?

GROGAN: One of the lieutenants at the Police Department had a contact with hospitals, local hospitals that could send a flyer out to a nationwide database of hospitals to forward information to them. And he asked that that be done. And we, I think I wrote a memo, and he forwarded it.

FLADAGER: And what's the purpose of doing that?

GROGAN: We were looking for, and what will be suggested is, if Laci Peterson was abducted for her baby, we wanted to find out if there were any hospitals that came in contact with infants that were brought in by someone other than the mother, and any suspicious circumstances involving newborns.

FLADAGER: All right. Also, on February 10th, did you receive any information regarding a storage shed and Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: Storage shed and Scott Peterson? I'm sorry the date, please?

FLADAGER: The date of February 10th.

JUDGE: February 10th.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: We learned that he had, he had obtained a storage locker at 1401 Woodland Avenue in Modesto.

FLADAGER: And did that information cause you to take any additional steps?

GROGAN: Well, I'd been working on a search warrant return to the home, and that then included the storage locker area JUDGE: Just about to take the recess. Take the afternoon recess until ten after three. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given you.

JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the defendant's present with counsel, and the jury's in the jury box along with the alternates. Ms. Fladager, are you ready to go?

FLADAGER: I am, Your Honor.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, we're up to February 11th. Did you get the search warrant signed on February 11th, Bates stamp 468?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And as part of that search warrant was the goal also to install a tracker, another tracker, a different tracker on his new truck?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On February 11th, in preparation for the search warrant, were you reviewing photographs from the prior search warrant back on December 26th and 27th?

GROGAN: Yes, I was.

FLADAGER: And in the course of reviewing those photographs did you discover something that you have not been aware of before?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you please tell us what that is.

GROGAN: That's Modesto Police Department, I think the evidence number is 144, the yellow-handled pliers that were found in the bottom of the Gamefisher boat with hair coming out of the pliers and down alongside the placard.

FLADAGER: Have you been aware of that photograph for that hair before?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: When you saw that, did it cause you to take any action?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: Well, in the photographs it was late in the evening that we were going through them and I think the following day when Dodge Hendee, who was the crime scene manager for that that search warrant at the warehouse came in. We asked him about the hair. And Dodge had been on vacation when he was called in for the original search warrant. He resumed vacation afterwards and it was a week or two later before he came back and I just, I guess I never got that information.

FLADAGER: All right. When you saw that photograph of the hair did it cause you to think that it might be something of evidentiary value?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And how would it be something of evidentiary value?

GROGAN: Well, what I was considering at the time was whether there was a root attached to the hair, and, if so, that can be sent off for DNA testing.

FLADAGER: At the time did you think that a root was required for DNA testing?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: The next day, February 12th, did you meet with Detective Hendee to discuss the pliers and the hair?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And after discussing it with him did you request that he take some action?

GROGAN: Yes. I asked him to take a look at the hair and see if it had a root attached and, if so, the plan was going to be to send it to a DNA lab.

FLADAGER: Also, on February 12th, in preparation for the warrant, did you watch a videotape that was associated with a stolen, a camcorder that was stolen from the Covena address several weeks prior?

GROGAN: Yes, I did. It's on page 4-8-0. Begins with 4-8-0.

GERAGOS: I'm sorry, 4-8-0?

GROGAN: 4-8-0 it starts.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

FLADAGER: And is the burglary that we talked about previously where there was a Kim McGregor that was identified as being involved?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: And had you had an opportunity prior to this to watch that videotape?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: In watching that videotape did you see something on it that was important to you in terms of your investigation?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: Well, looking, watching the video there's a lot of different clips through the video, but near the end of the video there are several jewelry items that are, that are videotaped for short segments of time and many of those were jewelry items I recognized from Helen Rocha's jewelry box that Laci had inherited.

FLADAGER: And are some of these items items that had been placed on E-Bay for sale?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: With photographs associated with them?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In this video did you also see or did you hear Laci Peterson's voice associated with any of this activity?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On Thursday, February 13th, did you do some investigation related to the Laci info line, referring to approximately Bates stamp 504 or thereafter?

GROGAN: Sorry. Just one moment, please.

GERAGOS: Bates number stamp? Detective, the Bate's number?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, I am going to have to ask Ms. Fladager to repeat the question.

FLADAGER: All right. It should be a Bates stamp approximately 504 to 507 and the question is whether or not, Detective Grogan, you took any action related to the Laci info line that you had learned about on February 13th.

GERAGOS: It's actually 505.

JUDGE: I can't hear you, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: It's actually on Bates stamp 505.

JUDGE: All right. It's on Bates stamp 505.

GROGAN: Yes, I did take some action. I called the Laci info line and identified myself and tried to find out information about where the tips were going for that, that line.

FLADAGER: Did you, did they give you that information?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Were they cooperative with you?

GROGAN: They would not tell me anything more than they would, would fax my name and phone number to a fax number and that whoever was at that fax number would decide whether or not to call me back.

FLADAGER: All right. Moving on to the next day, February the 14th, did you have contact with the Department of Justice regarding their analysis of some of the evidence in this case?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And what is it that you learned at that point or that you discussed having them do?

GROGAN: We discussed the pliers that were on 144, evidence item No. 144, having those examined and compared with the chicken wire and also what examinations could be done with the hair.

FLADAGER: All right. And did you learn about DNA results for the blood on the comforter or the truck?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. Let's move to the search warrant which was on February the 18th, Tuesday. Starting at Bates stamp 510.

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, how is it that search warrant was planned to be executed that morning?

GROGAN: Well, there were some items that were taken from Mr. Peterson in a prior burglary case, I believe the Kim McGregor burglary case, and that were going to be returned by Detective Sebron Banks. So I talked with Detective Banks and found out when that was going to happen so I could assure that Mr. Peterson would be home when we served the search warrant.

FLADAGER: And why is it that you wanted him to be home when you served the second search warrant?

GROGAN: Because I wanted to put a tracking device in his vehicle.

FLADAGER: All right. Did you make contact with the defendant at his, in the vicinity of his home that morning?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Tell us how that came about.

GROGAN: I was actually on my way over there and I think the tracking device showed that, well, I'm sorry, not the tracking device. We knew that his Dodge Dakota truck was parked on a street about one block away and I went toward the house and Detective Brocchini went toward where the car was parked and he found that vehicle with, I think Mr. Peterson was on his way to it or getting into it at the time, so I pulled over there and started following his, his truck, and he actually looked in the mirror, saw me and pulled over.

JUDGE: When you say "car" and "truck," are you talking interchangeable, is that the same vehicle?

GROGAN: He was driving a truck and I was driving a detective car.

JUDGE: I think you said he was walking toward his car.

GROGAN: I'm story.

JUDGE: Walking toward his truck.

GROGAN: Truck, yes.

FLADAGER: Thank you. Did you advise Mr. Peterson, the defendant, of a search warrant that you had obtained?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you return to the address on Covena?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was there something that he was interested in retrieving from the Covena Avenue home?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: He had some bags that he had packed in the, in the home that he wanted to take with him.

FLADAGER: All right. I have nine photographs here that I'd like marked as one exhibit. I'll staple them together.

JUDGE: You want to mark them 274 A through I so they can identify each one individually?

GERAGOS: 274?

JUDGE: 274 A through I

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, as part of this search warrant what were some of the items that were being looked for specifically?

GROGAN: Well, we were looking for the clothing that had been described that Laci was wearing on December 23rd and multiple items. If I can refer to –

FLADAGER: Sure.

GERAGOS: Bates number?

GROGAN: This is actually a copy of the 2/18 search warrant.

GERAGOS: You don't have its Bates number stamp?

GROGAN: I don't, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'll get that.

FLADAGER: Okay. Detective Grogan, can you tell us what it was that you were searching for?

GROGAN: We were looking for any, any drugs, prescription or otherwise, in the home, any potential poisons, any paperwork that had dates and times, receipts that would show who purchased what items when. Additional photographs. The remaining bedding from the Peterson bed in the master bedroom. Prenatal vitamins. And, also, as part of that we were looking for the clothing. I got authorization and the warrant from the judge to bring Amy Rocha to the home to look through the clothing items.

FLADAGER: And was to try and locate clothing that she remembered Lacy wearing on the 23rd?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: When you entered the home with the defendant were these two bags that he wanted ready to go ready to be picked up and taken?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Were they already packed?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you look through those bags prior to letting him take them?

GROGAN: They were searched, Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, I'm going to show you some photographs that have been marked 274 A through H, a variety of photographs.

If you could take a look through those, please.

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, are those photographs that represent the bags and the items, some of the items within the bags that you found on February 18th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: I'm going to start with 274A. All right. Detective Grogan, you can go ahead and tell us what the items are that you indicating in the bag there.

GROGAN: What I'm pointing to in that photograph is some U.S. currency.

FLADAGER: All right. In the other bag there's a, let me just back up. The U.S. currency, was that counted?

GROGAN: It was.

FLADAGER: And how many currency was found in the bag?

GROGAN: That was documented on receipt completed by Veronica Holmes that I don't have with me. If you have that.

FLADAGER: Were there two packets of money associated or two places where money was found?

GROGAN: Yes, there was two, there was an envelope inside, what that is is a side pocket to that brown leather bag and I believe that there is a Ziploc bag that contains money in there and there's also an envelope that contains money.

FLADAGER: All right.

JUDGE: And you don't know what the amount was?

GERAGOS: I'm sorry?

JUDGE: I said you don't know what the amount was? You guys didn't count it.

GROGAN: Oh, yes, it was counted and there's a receipt for it.

FLADAGER: We'll track that down.

JUDGE: All right.

FLADAGER: All right. Moving on to 274 B. This is sort of a view from a car. But are these the items that are within that brown bag?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Clothing items?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was there jewelry also associated with this bag?

GROGAN: Yes, there is one, one watch and the defendant's wedding ring.

GERAGOS: The answer to the currency question, judge, is on Bates No. 512.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, the next one is 274 C, can you see those items?

GERAGOS: 274 C?

FLADAGER: 274 C.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: 274 D, can you see the watch and the wedding ring that you mentioned in that photograph?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: 274 E, is that that wedding ring?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: You mentioned currency being in both an envelope in a bag.  Let's take a look at 274 G.

JUDGE: You guys skip that, Ms. Fladager?

FLADAGER: 274 G?

GROGAN: Yeah, but you didn't identify F. Is that by design?

FLADAGER: Which one?

JUDGE: You went from E to G.

FLADAGER: That was by design.

JUDGE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something here.

FLADAGER: We'll be back.

JUDGE: All right. So G is a photograph of envelope and currency.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, is that what you found there in the bag?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: 274 H, is that some of that money?

GROGAN: Yes, we laid it out on the counter there in the home and counted it.

FLADAGER: And to the right of the currency there appears to be a plastic Ziploc baggie. Is that where these bills were found?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: Let's look at 274 I. Is this additional currency?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And let's take a look at the close-up, 274 F, a second bag, was there any alcohol found in that bag?

GROGAN: There was a bottle of wine, Yes.

FLADAGER: And can you see that sticking out of the bag?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. Let's go to, Mr. Geragos found that Bates stamp.

GERAGOS: It's at the bottom of 512.

FLADAGER: Have you found that page?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And how much currency was recovered from these two bags or how much currency was noted and documented at the time of the search warrant?

GROGAN: The white envelope contained $1,081 in cash and the Ziploc sandwich bag contained $1,000 in cash, so combined, it was $2,081.

FLADAGER: Was this money returned to the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was his watch returned?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was the wedding ring returned to him?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And where was the wedding ring found in the bag?

GROGAN: I believe in that side pocket where the money was located.

FLADAGER: During your contact with Scott Peterson on February 18th did you talk with him about the Laci Info Line?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you about that, that line?

GROGAN: He told me that he was able to retrieve messages from the line. I think the messages went to his mother and some of those were faxed to him at his office, and he did retrieve some of those faxed documents that he had in his office and he brought them back to me while the search warrant was in progress.

FLADAGER: Later that morning?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of the search warrant did you do an examination of trees in the back of the defendant's yard?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why did you do that?

GROGAN: Because he, he had told, told us earlier that he had the chicken wire in his truck because he wanted to put it around the trees in his yard. So, and he said the purpose for that was because the cats were scratching the trees. I, so due to that, I examined all the trees and shrubs that they had in the backyard to see if that was in fact happening.

FLADAGER: And what did you determine?

GROGAN: I determined that there were several stakes and trees and shrubs in the backyard that had scratch marks on it and, in fact, much later when we were getting ready to leave from the search warrant I saw one of the cats scratching on one of the trees.

FLADAGER: So you were following up on something that the defendant had reported to you?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: To verify or rule it out?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On Wednesday, or during the second day of the search warrant, do you take time to review all the various books and photographs, books and magazines within the house?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Why did you do that?

GROGAN: Well, there was some information that Mr. Peterson was an avid fisherman and I wanted to determine if, if he had any periodicals of books on fishing in the house.

FLADAGER: Did you find any?

GROGAN: No, I didn't.

FLADAGER: During the course of the search warrant in the house was there anything about the condition of the nursery that struck you?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: It was much different than when we were at the house on the previous time. There was some chairs and there was a lot of items stored in the nursery.

FLADAGER: When you saw that did you remember anything you had seen in the Diane Sawyer interview?

GROGAN: I recall that he said that he made, he made comments that he couldn't go into the room, it was too difficult to go into the room, that kind of thing.

FLADAGER: All right. Your Honor, we're at the point where we will probably be playing the search warrant video. I don't know if you want to go ahead.

JUDGE: How long is it going to take, should we do it the first thing in the morning?

GERAGOS: Actually, judge –

JUDGE: I'm going to tell the jury.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JUDGE: Before I excuse you now I just want to let you know that tomorrow morning we're going to call two witnesses out of order, get them out of here. So there's going to be two witnesses be called right at 9:00. And then we'll pick up with Detective Grogan. So when you get here tomorrow morning we're going to call these two witnesses out of order. So I'll give you the admonition. You're not to discuss this case amongst yourselves. You're not to form or express any opinion about this case. You're not to listen to, read or watch any media reports of this trial nor discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents. We'll see you tomorrow at 9:00 o'clock. Who's the first witness going to be tomorrow morning, doctor, is it going to be who?

HARRIS: It should be Dr. Devore.

JUDGE: Who?

GERAGOS: It should be Dr. Devore.

JUDGE: It could be Dr. Devore.

GERAGOS: Should be, could be.

JUDGE: So that should be the first witness, assuming everything goes smoothly.

 

September 22, 2004

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, where we left off yesterday we were about to show a videotape and I am going to backtrack a little bit and just clear up a couple things. First of all, I'd like to take you back and we're going to talk about January 3rd and January 14th, two occasions where you had contact with Scott Peterson regarding Amber Frey. On January 3rd, do you remember that particular contact?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And on that particular day what contact did you have relative to Amber Frey?

GROGAN: I showed him the faxed photograph relating to that had been faxed to Modesto Police Department. It had his, his picture with Amber Frey in it.

FLADAGER: And the purpose of showing him that was what?

GROGAN: As an investigative technique.

FLADAGER: And to see how he'd react?

GROGAN: Yes, I wanted to see if he would tell me about Amber Frey at that point or not.

FLADAGER: Okay. And on January 14th, was that the date you indicated that you knew who Amber Frey was?

GROGAN: That's the day I told the defendant that, yes.

FLADAGER: Okay. And why is it that you told him that on January the 14th?

GROGAN: On January 14th, that was because of the information with the wiretap and the recordings and communications between Amber Frey and Jon Buehler and that information where we didn't know whether we had all of her conversations with him being recorded.

FLADAGER: Okay. So to clarify that rationale,

GERAGOS: Objection, leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: I believe you testified earlier something to that effect on January 3rd, so I'm just trying to clarify when that actually,

GERAGOS: Objection, leading.

JUDGE: Well, I think she's trying to clear up a question.

GERAGOS: I understand. She's testifying by doing it.

JUDGE: Go ahead. You can answer the question. But try not to ask leading questions.

FLADAGER: All right.

FLADAGER: Can you clarify, detective, the difference between the 3rd and the 14th.

GROGAN: Yes. I'm sorry, when I testified earlier I had the dates mixed up slightly and when I was talking about the 3rd previously I was thinking about the 14th.

FLADAGER: All right. Thank you. I'm going to ask you too about a shopping center at the intersection of McHenry Avenue an Briggsmore in Modesto. Are you familiar with McHenry Village Shopping Center?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And do you know where Salon Salon hair salon is located?

GROGAN: I do.

FLADAGER: And where is that located?

GROGAN: It's located in McHenry Village.

FLADAGER: How about Edwards Jewelers?

GROGAN: Edwards Jewelers is also located in that same complex, yes.

FLADAGER: And the yoga shop that we've heard about earlier, the morning yoga?

GROGAN: That address is in the same complex, yes.

FLADAGER: And I think we have some evidence here I'd like you to take a look at.

JUDGE: Has it been marked already, Ms. Fladager?

FLADAGER: It has. Detective, I'm going to show you what has been marked as People's Exhibit 241. Will you go ahead and take a look at that envelope and tell us if you recognize what it is.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What is it?

GROGAN: It is a Modesto Police Department evidence envelope marked with evidence No. 43 A, debris from boat cover.

FLADAGER: And where did you get that?

GROGAN: I collected that at the Department of Justice Crime Lab in Ripon and it looks like on 12/10 of 2003.

FLADAGER: And is that something that you subsequently delivered to an expert in concrete?

GROGAN: Yes, and, actually, I, I received an envelope from Pin Kyo, which was sealed at the time I initialed that envelope which is inside this one, and then I put my own outer envelope over the top and put Modesto Police Department markings on it and then transported it.

GERAGOS: Could I, that was the answer to the second question? You didn't deliver it and then get it back from Pin Kyo.

GROGAN: No, I got it from Pin Kyo.

GERAGOS: And then delivered it?

GROGAN: And then I delivered it to Murphy's.

GERAGOS: Okay.

FLADAGER: Next, detective, I'm going to ask you take a look at what has been marked as 206B?

JUDGE: What's the number again?

FLADAGER: 206 B.

GERAGOS: 206 B.

JUDGE: 206 B.

FLADAGER: Detective, I'm going to ask you to take a look at that particular item and turn to, I believe it's page 31. There's a green post-it note marking it. Do you see that page?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And there are a few numbers highlighted there, do you recognize whose number there that is highlighted?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Whose number is that?

JUDGE: Can we just identify what it is for the jury. This is the AT&T binders with the bill usage records.

FLADAGER: For Scott Peterson.

JUDGE: Right.

GROGAN: Yes, both of the highlighted numbers on page 31 are the cell phone number for Detective Allen Brocchini.

FLADAGER: Thank you.

FLADAGER: And, Your Honor, next I have a videotape that I don't think we've marked it.

JUDGE: Marked next in order.

FLADAGER: Yes, please. This is a search warrant videotape from February 18th.

JUDGE: All right. This will be marked 278.

GERAGOS: 278?

JUDGE: Yes, search warrant video from 2/18. Right?

FLADAGER: Yes. And, Your Honor, I'd ask to go ahead and play this videotape at this time.

JUDGE: Okay. If you lay a foundation. Have you looked at this, detective Grogan?

GROGAN: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE: Does it accurately represent the seen as you saw it on the 18th?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: Okay.

FLADAGER: What we will do to give the Court notice is that at one point there's a lengthy segment throughout the backyard showing various trees and we'll just fast forward through that particular section.

JUDGE: So the jury knows. Okay.

(Videotape played)

FLADAGER: And, Detective Grogan, if you could, as we change scenes, just indicate where we are at the house?

GROGAN: That is starting at the driveway area and leading through the north gate into the backyard. And to the right side of the screen is the shed where the blue tarp was found.

FLADAGER: And that was back in December?

GROGAN: Yes. Entering the door of the house through the sun room area be the dining room off to the left. And now going down the hallway it leads to the bedrooms in the location.

FLADAGER: The room that we're looking at right now, is there a difference in this room in February than there was in December?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What's that?

GROGAN: The bed that was in that room in December is not there any longer and it appears that a sofa that had been at the warehouse is now inside that room.

FLADAGER: At the time this video was taken has there been any searching done yet or is this the condition of the house upon entry?

GROGAN: This is the condition of the house on entry. The only searching that had been done at that point, if then, was possibly the two bags on the floor out in that sun room area that Mr. Peterson had packed to leave with that day.

FLADAGER: And are these books and photographs that we're looking at, the ones that you cataloged individually as part of your report?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: The closet that we're looking in, is this still in this guest room area, study area?

GROGAN: Yes, it is. Okay. At this point we're stepping into the master bedroom of the home.

FLADAGER: And are we about to see drawers opened on a dresser?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Is there something you see, particular drawer, the top left drawer which is important to you?

GROGAN: Yes, that's the shirt that Amy Rocha had picked out as being most likely the one worn by Laci Peterson on December 23rd when she was at Salon Salon.

FLADAGER: And what was the condition of that? Were you present when the shirt was pulled out of the drawer?

GROGAN: Yes, Amy took it out, Amy took it out of the drawer and I remember the sleeves were turned inside out on it. This is a scarf in that picture of the lighter of the scarves that Amy also selected that day.

FLADAGER: Was there a pair of shoes in that general area that Amy collected?

GROGAN: Yes, a pair of black shoes. There's some tan pants that she looked at in that same closet that were hanging there as well, and I don't see them in the video right there.

GERAGOS: Did?

GROGAN: I did not see them just in that. Now walking into the nursery area.

FLADAGER: What's changed about the condition of this room on February 18th from when you saw it in December?

GROGAN: Those black chairs were inside there. It appears that the bedding right there, I believe that was on the bed had been in the neighboring bedroom on the 26th, 27th search warrants. It's on the floor.

JUDGE: By the "neighboring bedroom" do you mean the second bedroom?

GROGAN: Yes. It's like items are stored there.

FLADAGER: What are they looking into now?

GROGAN: It's a hall closet or storage area. Now stepping into the bathroom off the hallway. Okay. This is another closet. It has a crawl space at the bottom and it's at the end of the hallway nearest the dining room area. And this is the dining room. This appears to be the box spring and mattress behind it against the windows in the dining room. I assume that came out of the second bedroom.

FLADAGER: Is that one of the two bags we talked about yesterday?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. And this is the kitchen area.

FLADAGER: This is the family room sitting room area?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And is this the second bath?

GROGAN: Yes, it is.

FLADAGER: Do you notice anything about that shower head?

GROGAN: It doesn't appear that there is a shower head there.  It looked to me like there was a threaded end with maybe some plumber's tape on it. We're back in that sun room area.

FLADAGER: And, then, Your Honor, Mr. Geragos asked that we not fast forward through this so we'll play this all the way through. Detective Grogan, just by way of reminder, did you ask that all these in the backyard be documented?

GROGAN: Yes, I asked that they be videotaped and photographed.

FLADAGER: Do your notes, detective, reveal how many trees that you saw something that there appeared to be scratches on?

GROGAN: Yes, they do, I believe there's four where I made observations there were scratches.

FLADAGER: And. Detective, as long as we are getting to the trees right now, let me just ask a couple questions. Were there some business documents and records that you found within the defendant's house during that search warrant?

GROGAN: I believe so, yes.

FLADAGER: And did you take them or did you make other arrangements for them?

GROGAN: There were some business cards and there were some records that Mr. Peterson was interested in keeping and so we made arrangements to photocopy those and he kept the originals and we've, we photographed the business cards so we wouldn't have to take those.

FLADAGER: At the conclusion of the search warrant when the Modesto Police Department was through inside, what steps were taken prior to leaving?

GROGAN: Well, when we were serving the search warrant, we had a number of people there. And at the later stage of the search warrant there was quite a bit of grass clippings and stuff that we tracked into the house, so we swept the floors and tried to vacuum up the mess we had made.

FLADAGER: Detective, as we're passing the jacuzzi,

JUDGE: I can barely hear you, Ms. Fladager.

FLADAGER: As we pass the jacuzzi here are we coming down to the last side of the yard?

GROGAN: I believe, yes.

FLADAGER: And, detective, let me ask you this, why did you think it was important to go ahead and videotape each and every one of these trees in the backyard?

GROGAN: That was something that the defendant had said and there was evidence there that showed that he was telling the truth on that; that those trees had been scratched by something.

FLADAGER: Any indication on any of these trees of chicken wire around them?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: And, detective, we're just about done here, so just as a leadin, if you go ahead and turn to Bates stamp 533.

JUDGE: We'll admit 278 into evidence. (People's Exhibit 278, previously marked for identification, was admitted into evidence.)

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, you just talked about the search warrant that was conducted on February 18th and February 19th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In that search warrant you talked about a tracker that was installed in the defendant's new truck; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On the very next day, Thursday, February 20th, did you get any indication as to whether the new tracker was working or not working?

GROGAN: The new tracker was not working.

FLADAGER: The tracker that had previously been installed by the San Diego Department of Justice when the car was at the Los Angeles Airport, was that tracker still working?

GROGAN: It was, yes.

FLADAGER: All right. On Friday, February 21st, did you take some steps again related again to the Laci info tip line that had been established outside of the police department? Bates stamp approximately 535.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you, who is it you contacted, if anyone?

GROGAN: I contacted Agent Ernie Limon and Agent Denise Felix of the Department of Justice in San Diego.

FLADAGER: And why did do you that?

GROGAN: I asked that a female make a phone call to the Laci info line and leave a tip from that area code and I wanted to see if that tip would later be forwarded to Modesto police.

FLADAGER: Let me just go ahead and ask you the question now, was that tip ever forwarded to the Modesto police?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Moving on to Saturday, February 22nd, did the tracker give you any indication as to where the defendant was on that day? Bates stamp No. 543.

GERAGOS: 543?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Where was he?

GROGAN: The tracker showed that Scott Peterson was in the area of Lake Arrowhead.

FLADAGER: And later was he also in San Diego?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you get some results from information from the Department of Justice regarding testing of items that had been seized in the December search warrant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And let me ask you specifically findings regarding the truck and the comforter.

GROGAN: Yes, there was results on blood samples from the comforter cover and from the blood and Scott Peterson's truck.

FLADAGER: And those came back as being Scott Peterson's?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. Moving on to Monday, February the 24th. Did you have a conversation with Jackie Peterson? Approximately 546 as a Bates stamp

GERAGOS: 546?

FLADAGER: Or shortly thereafter.

GROGAN: I believe it's going to be on 550. I'll look at it for a moment. Yes.

FLADAGER: What was the purpose of that phone conversation with Mrs. Peterson?

GROGAN: We spoke about tips from the Laci info line and I'd asked that we receive those tips, and that's about it there.

FLADAGER: All right. On that particular day did you have, did you do anything in relation to follow up about the Croton watch being placed on E-Bay back in December?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: There was someone who had had bid on that watch when it was listed on E-Bay and I contacted him to see if he had purchased it and to ensure that the records were accurate; that it had not been sold.

FLADAGER: Moving on to February the 26th, did the tracker give you any indication as to where Scott Peterson was on that day? Bates stamp approximately 662.

GROGAN: I'm sorry, 662?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: And your question was about tracking?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes, the tracking device was showing that Mr. Peterson was located somewhere near Lake Arrowhead.

FLADAGER: On this particular day did you have any contact with the Department of Justice relating to the hair that was found in the pliers?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you learn anything new during this conversation?

GROGAN: Yes, I learned a description of his examination of the hairs and also learned that mitochondrial DNA was possible on hair.

FLADAGER: Even without the root?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: Let's move ahead to February the 28th. Are tips received by someone in your department? Approximately 680 as a Bates stamp.

GROGAN: I'm sorry, the date again.

FLADAGER: February the 28th.

GERAGOS: 680?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble finding it.

GERAGOS: I don't either. I just skipped from February 26th to March 5th, basically.

FLADAGER: Well, let me ask this question which will probably clarify it. Did Captain Aja in your department receive some tips from the Laci Info Line?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did you become aware of those?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you take a look at those?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: Can you give us a general description of the nature of the tips and the status of them when you received them?

GROGAN: There were several pages of tips. Some of them were duplicate pages and there was nothing of, of any real significant that I saw.

FLADAGER: Now did these originate from Jacki Peterson, do you know?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did they come to you directly?

GROGAN: No, they were faxed to the captain's office and, actually, I'm not certain who sent them absolutely.

FLADAGER: All right. Moving on to March 3rd, did you have a conversation with Scott Peterson on that particular day? Bates stamp approximately 653.

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And did you get any information from him that you were particularly interested on that occasion?

GROGAN: Yes, I had heard some information that when the defendant and Laci Peterson were at California Adventure that Laci had been pushed in a wheelchair so I asked Scott about that and he said that was true.

FLADAGER: And the approximate time frame for when they were at the California Adventure Park, Disneyland?

GROGAN: That was sometime in November from memory.

FLADAGER: In 2002?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Moving on to March 5th. Was there a press conference that the Modesto Police Department had in conjunction with the Sund-Carrington Foundation? Bates stamp 684.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what happened at this press conference on March 5th?

GERAGOS: Can I ask what Bates number stamp is. Is that 687?

GROGAN: I think it's 685.

GERAGOS: Thanks.

GROGAN: On that date we a reward was established for $50,000 for the recovery of Laci Peterson.

FLADAGER: Is this approximately three weeks after her due date?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And can you tell us what that was that you did.

GROGAN: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.

JUDGE: What were the results?

GROGAN: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.

FLADAGER: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?

GROGAN: That was my understanding from her, yes.

FLADAGER: As part of your follow-up on jewelry on this particular day did you watch a videotape that we talked about previously that was recovered after the burglary by Kim McGregor?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And what is it that you discovered when you watched that video?

GROGAN: Well, I watched it and it contains several, several different small clips in it throughout the video, including things like traffic patterns that appear in the neighborhood close by to where they reside. There's some driving in vehicles on Encina Avenue. There are some images of the defendant's truck with the flatbed trailer attached to it, some job site footage, it appears, and some, there's some other, like a, there appears to be a fishing trip that's videotaped. Additionally, there's, there's several photographs, there's several small segments at the end that show items that appear to be on E-Bay and appeared that the photos for E-Bay matched the videotape.

FLADAGER: And one of these items is the Croton watch?

GROGAN: Yes, one of the items is, yes.

FLADAGER: With diamonds around the face?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And based on you analysis of that videotape and watching it does it appear that's it's been videotaped for several minutes?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: At different times?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Does the time ever change on the watch?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: What conclusion did you draw from that?

GROGAN: That the watch was probably not functional; that the battery was dead, and there are several other watches that were also videotaped on that and many of them appeared to be working.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I was going to show the videotape at this time, but what I think I'll do is ask a few more questions and we can come back to that in the morning.

FLADAGER: Detective, I'm going to jump ahead to March 19th. Bates stamp approximately 836.

GROGAN: 836?

FLADAGER: Yes. I'm going to ask you specifically about Michelle Buer.

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: Did you interview Michelle Buer on that day?

GROGAN: It appears so, yes.

FLADAGER: And where was she?

JUDGE: Would you spell the last name, please.

FLADAGER: B-U-E-R. Was she employed?

GROGAN: She's employed at Sweet Serenity Day Spa.

FLADAGER: Did you subsequently interview Michelle Buer on April 30th in preparation for trial?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: And that's Bates stamp 40490. Did you make any corrections based upon your second interview with Michelle Buer?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: And why was that?

GROGAN: Because I apparently misinterpreted something she said in the original report and when I met with her and had her review her report to see if it was accurate, she corrected it so I wrote a report correcting it.

FLADAGER: Okay. And what was the nature of the miscommunication or misperception?

GROGAN: Whether she was or was not at the volunteer center and what observations she would have made there.

FLADAGER: Let's move to April 4th, and that's Book 3. Book 3. Bates stamp 17509.

GERAGOS: Ms. Fladager, again.

FLADAGER: 17509.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GROGAN: Okay

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, on April 4th did you get some information relating to the defendant's vehicle and where it might be located and where the defendant might be located?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what is it, how is it you get this information?

GROGAN: If I can read through this just for a moment, please.

FLADAGER: Sure.

GROGAN: On that particular day I received a faxed police report from the Berkeley Police Department and it was a report that had been completed by the defendant while in the City of Berkeley. He reported a vandalism on April 1st and there was some follow-up by the local agency there. Someone was detained, but not arrested.

FLADAGER: As a result of the police report that he filed, was information taken about the vehicle he was driving?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did that caution you any concern?

GROGAN: Yes, he wasn't, he wasn't driving the vehicle that we installed the tracker in, he was driving another vehicle, a full size extra cab Ford truck.

FLADAGER: And did you determine who that vehicle was registered to?

GROGAN: Yes, it was registered to Lee Peterson.

FLADAGER: Did you attempt to locate where the vehicle with the tracker in it was located?

GROGAN: Not that I see right here, no.

JUDGE: Okay. Let's stop right there because I want to stay on the record after the jury goes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take the evening recess. I've got to stay on the record. I've got some odds and ends to deal with. You don't have to be present for that. So remember you're not to discuss this case among yourselves or with any other person. You're not to form or express any opinion about this case. You're not to listen to, read or watch any media reports of this trial, nor discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents. We'll be in recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. We'll see you then.

(Jury excused for the evening)

JUDGE: All right. Let the record show that the jury's filed out for the evening. Is there any issue now about this tape that we're going to see tomorrow because,

GERAGOS: I've got the transcript. I told Ms. Fladager that I would review it tonight.

JUDGE: Okay. You'll review it tonight then you'll let me know tomorrow if you want me to review it if there's any 402 issues?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JUDGE: Okay. Then you'll let me know in the morning. And then I'll also rule on the admissibility of Officer Chris Bromas' testimony tomorrow, also. I've read the transcripts and I'll rule on it tomorrow morning. Okay. We'll be in recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. Do you think you're going to finish at least on the direct examination of this witness tomorrow morning?

FLADAGER: Yes. Hopefully by lunch time.

JUDGE: By lunch time?

FLADAGER: Yeah. Hopefully.

JUDGE: Okay. We'll be in recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning.

 

September 23, 2004

JUDGE: All right. This is People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. And these proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury. Last week we had a 402 hearing with respect to the testimony of Officer Buelna. The Court had indicated a ruling, and then the court decided, after hearing further argument, the Court would reserve a ruling until I read the testimony of Pin Kyo and the testimony of Sarah Yoshida. What the subject matter of the dispute is the People's 254A through E. In reading Pin Kyo's testimony on Page 17091, she describes the contents of the exhibit that was presented to her. She describes pieces of plastic, et al. And on page 17092, Line 4, she indicates that the debris came from the Bay. At page 17093 she identifies a long piece of plastic.

Then she examined it and sent it on to Sarah Yoshida for analysis. On page 17095, Lines 9 and 10, Pin Kyo testified that they were, the piece of plastic that was in 254A through E was chemically similar to that the found on Conner.

She doesn't say in her testimony where the 254E was recovered or what date it was recovered. The Court read Sarah Yoshida's testimony. At page 16449, starting at Line 6, she describes testing this material. She described the material, you will all recall, as Polyethylene. At page 16455, at Line 14, it appears to be similar in its chemical properties. She also doesn't say where the debris was recovered. She apparently doesn't know. In the examination of Miss Yoshida, Mr. Harris refers to 819-30. That is a sample from 254, our number 254A through E. And Rich-1 is the piece of plastic that was recovered around Conner's neck. At page 16261, Line 19, she says it has a similar chemical composition. Now, the Court after reviewing that, there was a 1054 issue. I don't believe there is a violation of 1054. That information about Pin Kyo's testimony and Yoshida's testimony was in the hands of the defense, and the subject was properly pursued on cross-examination. Now, the fact that these particular samples were gathered in June, which is a few months after the discovery of the bodies, goes to the weight rather than the admissibility. So we all we would have is this 254. Nobody would know where it came in. And I think it's important for the jury to know that they can put whatever weight they want on the fact that this material was recovered in June, months after the bodies were found. So the Court will permit the testimony of Officer Buelna after reviewing the evidence of Pin Kyo and Sarah Yoshida. The Court, I'm accepting the proffer of the prosecution that the witness is going to say she recovered this particular material, and I think it was June 1st or June the, 2.

GERAGOS: June 21st.

JUDGE: June 21st. Okay. All right. So the Court will permit that evidence. Are we ready to go?

FLADAGER: We are.

JUDGE: Do you want to bring in the jury?

JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the jury is present in the jury, box along the alternates. And the defendant is present with counsel. And, Miss Fladager, you know whether you left off. You can pick up there. Good morning, everybody.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, before we actually show the videotape that we talked about yesterday from the camcorder that was recovered let me ask you a couple more questions about that. Have you had a chance to review that a couple of times?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you request one of the clerks from the Modesto Police Department to prepare a transcript of that?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Is there a lot, or not so much, in the way of actual voices that you can hear on this tape?

GROGAN: There is not a lot in comparison to how long the tape is.

FLADAGER: And in terms of when there are voices on the tape, are they easy to hear or not so easy to hear?

GROGAN: Sometimes they are difficult to hear.

FLADAGER: Have you noticed that there is a time date stamp that appears to sort of, that appears to be on and changes around quite a bit?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you describe for the jury a little bit what to expect before they see it?

GROGAN: There is several different clips throughout the video. It's not one continuous video with the time and date stamp on it. So you have to watch that at the bottom corner of the videotape. And we really don't know whether the time and date stamp is correct or not. On a couple of them you can tell because of other things in the photograph. But, for instance, there is one portion of it where you can hear someone talking on the radio, and the time they say on the radio is not the same time that appears on the camera. So it's, on the date stamp, it's hard to rely on those times. We're not suggesting that we know that those are accurate.

FLADAGER: Before we show the video, let me also ask this question. What is the first image that we're going to see on the video?

GROGAN: The first image is Laci Peterson.

FLADAGER: All right, your Honor, I have transcripts here.

JUDGE: This is not, is this the tape that's been already been reviewed by both sides, and everything?

GERAGOS: Yes, your Honor. There was some changes made.

JUDGE: All right. Miss Fladager, this will be 279.

FLADAGER: Yes, please.

JUDGE: Next in order. Can you just describe it for the record so I can write it here?

FLADAGER: This is a DVD of a camcorder video.

JUDGE: Of?

FLADAGER: Video from the camcorder that's stolen from the Covena residence.

JUDGE: By Miss McGregor?

FLADAGER: Yes.

JUDGE: And you have, okay. Okay. 279A will be the transcripts, and 279B will be the videotape.

GERAGOS: 279A and B.

JUDGE: Yes. I want to remind you again, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that this is just a guide to help you. The best evidence is what you actually see and hear on the video.

FLADAGER: And by way of warning, Detective Grogan, is this a rather lengthy videotape?

GROGAN: Yes. I think it's around fifty minutes long.

JUDGE: Fifty minutes. Okay.

FLADAGER: At some point we'll fast forward it to get through it a little faster.

JUDGE: Yes. Who is going to start the video? You are. Okay.

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Just ask you real quickly, Detective Grogan, there was a truck and a flatbed trailer attached in that scene. Do you recognize that truck and trailer?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Who does that belong to?

GROGAN: That belongs to Scott Peterson.

FLADAGER: Is that the flatbed trailer that was found in the shop during the search warrant?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe so.

FLADAGER: Thank you.

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, we saw a scene that had a time date stamp of January 03. What was the approximate date that this video camcorder was stolen from the Covena Avenue address?

GROGAN: I believe it was around January 18th.

FLADAGER: Thank you.

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, do you recognize the two individuals in this scene?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And who are they?

GROGAN: That is Amy Rocha and Lee Peterson.

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: We're going to fast forward a little bit now.

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, do you recognize the intersection that's depicted on the screen?

GROGAN: Yes. I believe that's the Buena Vista and La Loma intersection in the City of Modesto. Not far from the Peterson home.

FLADAGER: This is part of what we call the La Loma neighborhood, La Loma area?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right.

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, can you tell us what street we're on at this point?

GROGAN: I believe at that point it's Encina. Buena Vista Avenue turns into Encina as you travel eastbound.

FLADAGER: And we are coming up to a park that will be on the right-hand side?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What park is that?

GROGAN: That's Kewin Park, which is part of the Dry Creek Park. And this is La Loma and Buena Vista. This is what's referred to as the La Loma Bridge.

FLADAGER: Are we coming up to the round about?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, we just saw a scene. Was that from the interior of the Covena residence?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Are you able to see the board on the wall?

GROGAN: You know, I'm sorry, I missed it. Yes. It appears to say "Happy Anniversary".

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Detective, we are looking at La Loma Avenue?

GROGAN: We are. I'm not certain where the, whoever is filming this is standing. But that appears to be La Loma (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED) And right here we're starting from the east end of Encina Avenue by the school, and we're going to be coming up on Covena Avenue. It's a little green belt here off to the right that's called Pierre Park. And the next intersection is Covena Avenue. The Peterson home would be off to the right if you turn at this intersection, and within that block. And continuing down Encina, which will turn into Buena Vista and run into La Loma.

FLADAGER: You previously talked about a park being off to the right-hand side of the road. Are we coming up to that same park you mentioned?

GROGAN: That's Kewin Park again. And this is the intersection of Buena Vista and La Loma. Looks like we're doing the same thing again. Starting at the school, the dead end of Encina, and driving all the way through to La Loma.

FLADAGER: All right. Now, which direction are we going?

GROGAN: Now we're on La Loma headed eastbound. This is the La Loma Bridge. And this is Buena Vista where we're turning.

FLADAGER: This is the reverse direction of what we have already seen?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: And you can let us know when we are approaching that intersection again. (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

GROGAN: Okay. I believe this is going to be the intersection of Covena right now.

FLADAGER: So at this particular intersection, what you described as Pierre Park is off to the left top corner of the screen?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: If you were to go the Peterson home, would you turn left right here?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And about how far up is the house?

GROGAN: It's a few houses up on the left hand side.

FLADAGER: All right. (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED) Is this some sort of orchard off to the left?

GROGAN: I believe that's olives.

FLADAGER: And on the, on the right-hand side?

GROGAN: This is the school. This is the end of Encina Avenue. When they are talking about the Encina, that project is to continue that road through there, or where that field was, and connect it with another neighborhood on the other side.

FLADAGER: Do you recognize any of the individuals in the scene, in this scene?

GROGAN: Yes. That's Lee Peterson so the right-hand side. The other adult male is Joe Peterson.

(RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, is that the pool at the Covena address?

GROGAN: It appears to be, yes. (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, the location that's depicted in this particular scene where we are looking at some golf clubs, can you tell where that's filmed?

GROGAN: I believe it's the warehouse at 1027 Emerald Avenue.

FLADAGER: Thank you. (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED) Detective Grogan, taking a look at what's on the screen right now. Can you tell us what that is?

GROGAN: Yes. That's the Croton watch.

FLADAGER: And is this the same image that you eventually found on Ebay?

GROGAN: Yes. (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

FLADAGER: Is this additional footage of that same watch?

GROGAN: Yes. It's been filmed three times at this point.

FLADAGER: And there is a Mickey Mouse watch that we have talked about before?

GROGAN: Yes. That was sold on Ebay. These other watches that we're seeing were also listed. (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED)

JUDGE: We'll admit 279A and B, take the same numbers.

FLADAGER: All right, Detective Grogan, the number of those items that we saw at the end, golf clubs, metal rack.

JUDGE: Watches.

FLADAGER: The watches.

FLADAGER: Were those items that eventually we saw were listed on Ebay?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And of all the various watches, necklaces, or bracelets, earrings that you saw in that videotape, to your knowledge were all of those recovered except for one item?

GROGAN: The Croton watch was not recovered. Some of the chains may have sold on Ebay. Certainly the Mickey Mouse watch sold on Ebay.

FLADAGER: There was one image on the screen very briefly that was in a bathroom, appeared to be like a house, a bathroom in a house on November 20th. Did you see that image?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On that particular day, on the real November 20th kind of day, did you have information as to where Scott Peterson was on that day?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And where was that?

GROGAN: He was with Amber Frey on a date, and at the Radisson Hotel, I believe.

FLADAGER: And were the various locations where Amber reported them to be followed up on by detectives?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. What I'd like to do now is move up to April the 8th. On that particular day did you make an inquiry to the FBI Violent Criminal Apprehension Program?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: Can you tell the jury why that was done?

GROGAN: Well, at that point, we were still expanding the investigation. VICAP is a recourse that we can use for a national database of homicide cases that are unsolved or that have been solved. It's a voluntary program where police departments submit homicide cases, whether they are solved or unsolved. It basically is used to track serial crimes.

FLADAGER: In relation to this case, why is it that you were going to that resource?

GROGAN: The information that I submitted was to look to see if there was any patterns regarding pregnant females and homicide cases, serial cases involving pregnant females. I wanted to lock into any possibilities in that regard.

FLADAGER: Did you also make similar inquiries throughout the local area in California?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why, ultimately why is it that you were doing that?

GROGAN: Well, at that point we had been searching for Laci Peterson for quite a bit of time, and come to the realization that there was a possibility we would not recover her body, especially due to the environment of the San Francisco Bay. And I began to look at this case as a no-body homicide case.

FLADAGER: What does that mean when you refer to something as a no-body homicide case?

GROGAN: That means the prosecution of a homicide without a body.

FLADAGER: Is there something about that that makes a case –

GERAGOS: Be an objection as it's a legal conclusion. It's also speculation.

JUDGE: It is a legal conclusion. If you want to ask from his point of view.

FLADAGER: From your point of view, detective, does that impact what you need to do in your investigation?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In what way?

GROGAN: Well, first off, you have to prove that a homicide occurred. And without having a body to do that from, it's difficult to do. So that's one of the challenges of it. The other is that you need to look at every possibility that there is, whether she's still voluntarily missing, anything that may have happened to her.

FLADAGER: As part of that, then, did you, were there other people investigated as potential suspects throughout this case?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: How is it that you identified specific people to conduct investigations on?

GROGAN: Well, I, there was a combination of what came in on the tip line, a combination of what items should be done based on the preliminary information that we had in the investigation, looking for motive, people that had a connection with Laci Peterson, and did potentially have a motive to harm her. So it was a combination of all of those things, plus what we sent out to VICAP. We were looking for more people to try and follow up on.

FLADAGER: Some of the initial people that you talked to us about that you conducted these investigations on, were they family members?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did Amber Frey also get investigated?

GROGAN: She was.

FLADAGER: Some of the tips that you received that led you to investigate particular people, did some of those include self-reporting, or people indicating that they are saying they killed Laci Peterson?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you follow up on those people?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And can you give us an example of where one of them was actually located?

GROGAN: One of them was located in a mental hospital on the East Coast.

FLADAGER: Other folks that you followed up on, did you check out alibis for them?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the other investigated persons that you followed up on, can you tell us a little bit about those investigations?

GROGAN: Well, we looked at alibi information, and we looked to determine if we could show any connection to Laci Peterson, the Peterson family. The first step would be to try to show there is some connection to the victim. And we were unable to find any that had that link.

FLADAGER: Let's jump forward to April 14th, Monday. Did you get some information at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning relating to this case? Bates stamp 17527.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What happened at 8:00 o'clock in the morning on April 14th?

GROGAN: I was notified by one of the police clerks that the body of a fetus of unknown gender had been recovered in the San Francisco Bay.

GERAGOS: Judge, I assume multiple levels of hearsay are okay in terms of a reasonableness of the investigation?

JUDGE: Yeah, I would think so.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JUDGE: Just what information you received. How did he act on it.

FLADAGER: What did you do as a result of that particular information?

GROGAN: Well, I took that information. I contacted, or left a message with the Richmond Police Department, with the detective handling that, and left a voicemail message there, left my call back number. And then I had to go to court that morning.

FLADAGER: Was that to testify in a case unrelated to this?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you receive additional information at about 1:00 o'clock that afternoon?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that information?

GROGAN: I received some information that East Bay Regional Park Police had recovered the body of an adult female in their jurisdiction off of Point Isabel.

FLADAGER: When you received that information, did that lead you to take any particular steps?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Can you tell us what those were?

GROGAN: I spoke to a member of that police department, East Bay Regional Park Police. I was given some initial information from them. And then I returned to the police department after our conversation and notified some of the people I work with there.

FLADAGER: Was there a plan already in place for members of the Modesto Police Department in the event that Laci and Conner's remains were to be discovered?

GROGAN: There were.

FLADAGER: And did you implement that plan at this time?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that plan?

GROGAN: The plan was that certain members of the investigative team would go to that location, and that I would try to locate Mr. Peterson.

FLADAGER: And the members that you indicated, who were these people and where the they go?

GROGAN: I believe, if I can look for a minute.

FLADAGER: Should be about 17529.

GROGAN: Detective Don Hendee, Detective Phil Owen, and Sergeant Al Carter responded to the location where the female's body was recovered.

FLADAGER: Was the plan for them to attend an autopsy, if one were to occur that afternoon or evening?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What were you doing to attempt to locate the defendant?

GROGAN: I was in contact with members of the California Department of Justice in the San Diego area, and I sent them to residences at that location to try to find where Mr. Peterson might be. I also sent some officers to addresses in the Central California area from Modesto Police Department to try to locate him.

FLADAGER: Did anyone report finding the defendant's truck on that particular day?

GERAGOS: Could I ask what Bates number stamp, your Honor?

GROGAN: I believe it is 17532, bottom of the page.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GROGAN: And, yes, it was found at an address in San Diego.

FLADAGER: Was the defendant present at that location?

GROGAN: Well, not that could be established at that point, no.

FLADAGER: All right. At this particular time was there media interest being generated?

GROGAN: Yes. Intense.

FLADAGER: Did you have a conversation with Doctor Peterson that afternoon?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: What was the purpose of that conversation? Bates stamp 17530.

GROGAN: I asked him some questions about the recovery of the fetus and his autopsy of that.

FLADAGER: So that autopsy had already occurred?

GROGAN: That had occurred, yes, earlier that day.

FLADAGER: On the fetus?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: On the next?

GROGAN: And next I asked him if he would also do the autopsy of the adult female who was later identified as Laci Peterson.

FLADAGER: Why did you want that to happen?

GROGAN: Because I wanted the same pathologist to do the examination for both.

FLADAGER: All right. Did he indicate he would do that?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did members of the police department attend that autopsy?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you have any plans, or did, excuse me. Was DNA discussed at that particular day?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question.

FLADAGER: Was DNA analysis discussed that day?

GROGAN: Yes, it was.

FLADAGER: And how did that come up, and why?

GROGAN: It appeared to be the only means that we would have to positively identify the bodies.

FLADAGER: And did you discuss that with a particular agency?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what agency was that?

GROGAN: With the Department of Justice.

FLADAGER: In an effort to try and locate the defendant, did you consider any other investigative tools?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was one of those tools to wire reinstate the wiretap?

GROGAN: Yes, it was.

FLADAGER: On Monday, April 14th, did you receive any phone calls from the defendant?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Moving to Tuesday, April 15th.

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: Did you have any concerns about the media interest in the case at that particular time?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was there a discussion ongoing about the possibility of DNA in the media?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you have any idea at that time when the police department e would be getting results from the Department of Justice about the DNA?

GROGAN: If I can have one moment, please. (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS)? Yes, there was. At the time, there was, the information we had was that extraction of DNA had to occur, and it depended on whether that they had a viable sample or not. And so that time period was kind of variable.

FLADAGER: Did you take any steps through your Chief of Police to have an impact on the testing, or when the testing would be announced?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: Well, I asked that any information that was released to the media be extended to the outermost limit of what was possible so that we would have time to find Mr. Peterson before DNA results were completed.

FLADAGER: Why did you want to that?

GROGAN: I wanted the time to find him and to set a surveillance team in place.

FLADAGER: On April 15th did you take additional, or did you make additional assignments to the other detectives for investigation?

GROGAN On the 15th?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GROGAN: Well, the wiretap was being put in place. There was also some information about duct tape on the body. And I sent some officers to do some follow-up in regards to that. And I asked one of the detectives to try and follow up on the clothing tags that were recovered with Laci Peterson's body, to find out exactly what type of clothing that was.

FLADAGER: All right. Did you ask for any follow-up in relation to what's been described as a Target, plastic, sort of Target bag that was found in the general area that day?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what did you ask to be done with that?

GROGAN: I wanted to find out where that bag came from, and if we could track anything based on the information that was on the bag.

FLADAGER: Did you know whether that had anything to do with Laci Peterson's body?

GROGAN: I did not.

FLADAGER: And were you trying to verify, rule it in, or rule it out?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Were you involved in a jury trial still on Tuesday, April 15th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Wednesday, April the 16th. At this point is the defendant located?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: How is it that the defendant is found on this particular day?

GROGAN: Through the wiretap we could track that Mr. Peterson had checked his voicemail on his cell phone from a phone number, from a certain phone number. And then we used that phone number to try to establish an address that went with the phone number. And we sent officers to that location.

FLADAGER: Did you receive information at that point regarding the defendant's physical appearance?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And did that cause you some concern?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: Well, I was told that his hair color had been changed.

FLADAGER: Did you receive some information about surveillance attempts?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did that information cause you some concern?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: The surveillance units that we had in place, Mr. Peterson walked up on them and was writing down license plate numbers their vehicles to their vehicles.

FLADAGER: At some point was there concern that he was –

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: We'll rephrase. Was he ever seen on that morning?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what were the circumstances there?

GROGAN: After he had written down –

GERAGOS: There will be an objection. If the, if he's testifying this was not observed personally by him. I know what the background of this is, and it's hearsay upon hearsay. If he wants to testify as to the hearsay upon hearsay, I would, that's fine, but not –

JUDGE: I can't tell what's hearsay on hearsay on the manner which the question is being asked. Is this going to be, is this information that he received from other law enforcement authorities?

FLADAGER: It is.

JUDGE: And then he acted upon this information?

FLADAGER: Yes.

JUDGE: I'll overrule the objection.

FLADAGER: What information did you receive?

GROGAN: That Mr. Peterson had left that address on a motorcycle shortly after writing down some of the license plate numbers, maybe I need to correct that. There was, what I was told is someone wearing the same or similar clothing to what Mr. Peterson was wearing was seen leaving the area wearing a helmet, that they couldn't see his face, traveling at a high rate of speed on a motorcycle, and they lost him.

FLADAGER: On Wednesday, April 16th, did you receive any information about a pending press conference by the Department of Justice?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was that related to, was that at least purported to relate to DNA analysis by the Department of Justice?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What did you do as a result of that information?

GROGAN: I contacted the lab and asked for at least a 48-hour period to try to locate Mr. Peterson before the results were made public.

FLADAGER: Did you get any indication whether that request would be granted?

GROGAN: Yes, that's the information I received.

FLADAGER: During that phone conversation, did you also learn that, in fact, DNA had been, had now been extracted fromthe samples? Approximately 17544.

GROGAN: Then, yes, later that day I did get information that DNA had been extracted.

FLADAGER: Shortly after you learned that information, did you learn that information from another source?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What source was that?

GROGAN: It was reported in the media

FLADAGER: How long after your learning of it was it reported in the media?

GROGAN: Within a few moments.

FLADAGER: Let's move on to Thursday, April the 17th. Were you working on an arrest warrant affidavit?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Was it your intention to get an arrest warrant for the defendant in this case?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: In addition to what you have already told us about, was there, in addition, was there any information that you had now learned this week which caused you to decide to pursue that arrest warrant at this time?

GROGAN: Well, obviously the recovery of the bodies in the same location where Mr. Peterson was during the time period she disappeared, the fact that the clothing didn't match what he had described her wearing, led me to believe that an arrest was appropriate.

FLADAGER: And when you say the clothing didn't match, what do you mean by that?

GROGAN: Well, Mr. Peterson had told us that she was wearing black pants when he last saw her. And the clothing from Laci's body showed she was wearing a light-colored pant.

FLADAGER: Did you receive any information related to the autopsy that also figured into this decision?

GROGAN: Well, it appeared, based on the information I had, that Conner's condition was consistent with him being in utero until shortly before the bodies were recovered.

FLADAGER: Did you receive any indication from the autopsy as to whether Laci Peterson had given birth, or whether there was some other force at work?

GROGAN: Yes. There was no indication that she had given birth.

FLADAGER: And the condition of her body, what did that indicate to you?

GROGAN: Well, the decomposition was, fell within the range of her being put into the San Francisco Bay within the time period shortly after she disappeared.

FLADAGER: Did you get the search warrant signed on Thursday?

JUDGE: Thursday being the 17th?

FLADAGER: The 17th. Excuse me. I mean arrest warrant. I said search warrant.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Did you make the decision to head down to San Diego?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Did you have any guidance from your Chief of Police as you are heading down to San Diego with your arrest warrant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What is that?

GROGAN: He told me that he wanted surveillance in place, and that he didn't want Mr. Peterson to be able to get away, if he was trying to flee, and that we should serve the warrant if it appeared that that was going to happen.

FLADAGER: Was there anything else that you were waiting for prior to serving the arrest warrant?

GROGAN: We were waiting for DNA results.

FLADAGER: What time did you arrive in San Diego?

GROGAN: I think that was around 4:00 o'clock in the morning on April 18th.

FLADAGER: Who went down to San Diego with you?

GROGAN: Detective John Buehler, Sergeant Alan Carter, and Detective Al Brocchini.

FLADAGER: When you got down to San Diego in the morning, what did you all do?

GROGAN: We met with the supervisor of the surveillance team that was in place down there, and we rented a few hotel rooms and tried to get some sleep.

FLADAGER: What happened about 7:00 o'clock the next morning?

GROGAN: We were called by the surveillance team and were told that Mr. Peterson had left the home. They were surveilling. And that they had lost him briefly that morning already. But they picked him up and they were following him.

FLADAGER: Was there what car was he reported to be driving?

GROGAN: A red Mercedes Benz.

FLADAGER: Did this have, do you have any prior knowledge of the defendant being associated with a red Mercedes Benz?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Going back to the media, was there anything being reported in the media that caused you concern?

GROGAN: Yes. The time period that the DNA results would be completed was being reported or speculated on in the media. And it was also being reported that an arrest was going to be made that day.

FLADAGER: Of the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Were you getting any reports about, or, excuse me, from the surveillance team?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And throughout that morning what kind of reports were you receiving?

GROGAN: I was told that he drove out of San Diego into Orange County, into the lower portion of Los Angeles County, and then returned down to the San Diego area again. That he was aware he was being surveilled, and it appeared that he was taunting the people that were surveilling him. And that his driving was very erratic.

FLADAGER: Did you make a decision to go ahead and arrest the defendant prior to the DNA results being made known?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: Why did you do that?

GROGAN: Because we had lost him at that point twice on that day. And as part of the surveillance, that he was picked up after the second time and someone found him. There had already been some driving that was reckless. And I was told that one of the agents nearly got into an accident. I had an arrest warrant for him, and I didn't think that continuing with what we were doing until the DNA results came in was the safest course for anybody involved.

FLADAGER: Anybody involved, meaning what?

GROGAN: The public, the officers involved in the surveillance, and Mr. Peterson.

FLADAGER: Did you eventually get notification that the defendant had, in fact, been arrested by the Department of Justice surveillance team?

GROGAN: I did.

FLADAGER: Did you respond to that the location?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: Did you notify the defendant of anything?

GROGAN: I told him that he was under arrest for murder, yes.

FLADAGER: I already asked you this for Monday April 14th. Let me ask you, for Thursday the 15th, did the defendant ever call you on your cell phone?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Or your work phone?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: How about Wednesday, April the 16th?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Thursday, April the 17th?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: During this week time period, how would you characterize the media coverage of the body recovery and the pending DNA results?

GROGAN: It was very intense.

FLADAGER: At the time the defendant was arrested, was he wearing a wedding ring?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: After the defendant was arrested, was there some processing that needed to be done in San Diego county?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And, after that, you begin to transport him back up to Shasta County?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of that whole procedure, did you eventually get notified of the DNA results?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: Who notified you of those results?

GROGAN: I was told, I believe, by my supervisor, Sergeant Mike Zahr.

FLADAGER: And how, after you were notified of the DNA result, did you hear the results in another way?

GROGAN: Not personally, no.

FLADAGER: Were you surprised that they were reported in a different way?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: I was advised that shortly after I was notified, a press conference released that same information.

GERAGOS: I'm sorry?

JUDGE: That the press conference released that information?

GERAGOS: The press, in a press conference.

JUDGE: At a press conference?

GROGAN: Yes. There was a press conference that released that same information.

GERAGOS: By Modesto PD?

GROGAN: Not by Modesto Police Department, initially.

FLADAGER: Who was it released by?

GROGAN: By the Department of Justice.

FLADAGER: After you got the DNA results, was another request made of you?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that?

GROGAN: I was asked on behalf of the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office to make death notification due to the fact that Mr. Peterson was next of kin for Laci and Conner Peterson.

FLADAGER: Did you do that?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was the defendant's reaction when you notified –

GERAGOS: There is an objection to that. I just –

FLADAGER: Let me rephrase the question. I think it will be fine. Can you describe his physical reaction when you gave that notification?

GROGAN: Yes. He and I were seated beside each other in the back of a car being driven by Detective Buehler. I gave him that information. He was wearing a pair of sunglasses. And he removed his sunglasses. I saw that he lowered his head, and a tear came out of his right eye, which is the only side of him I could see. And that he wiped his left side of his face. I couldn't see that, but he did wipe it with his hand.

FLADAGER: When you got back to Modesto, had you made arrangements to book the defendant?

GROGAN: While en route, I made a phone call to try to make arrangements for that.

FLADAGER: What kind of arrangements were you trying to make?

GROGAN: Trying to make arrangements to go to a second facility that the ine Sheriff's Department had to book him there, to try the avoid the media event.

FLADAGER: And was that plan set in place?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: At some point after that you were advised the plan had changed?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Were you told why the plan had changed?

GROGAN: I was told that my supervisor had been in contact with someone from the Sheriff's Department that advised that we needed to book him in the downtown facility.

FLADAGER: And did you do that?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, would this be good time for the morning break?

JUDGE: Okay. If you want to go now, all right. We'll take the morning break. We'll reconvene at ten minutes to eleven. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given. All right. Let the record show the defendant's present with counsel, the jury's in the jury box, along with the alternates.

And, Ms. Fladager, go ahead.

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I have a DVD that I'd like marked People's next in order.

JUDGE: Next in order, that will be 280. And there, I assume there's no transcript of that one?

FLADAGER: Correct. No transcript.

JUDGE: No transcript. All right.

JUDGE: And you're going to lay a foundation with Grogan?

FLADAGER: I will.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, have you watched a DVD, sort of aerial version view of the Modesto, California, and moving over to the Bay Area covering the Berkeley Marina and the two recovery sites for Laci and Conner Peterson as well as Brooks Island?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And does that video also show the tracking that was the GPS trackers, is that outlined on, in the vicinity of the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And also in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Fields Race Track?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Does that video accurately represent the locations as they are relative to each other of the recovery sites and the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: All right. I'd like to play that now.

JUDGE: All right.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, the image that we're looking at on the screen right now, is that the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And the markings on that, do those represent the tracking, GPS tracking areas?

GROGAN: It's an overlay of some of the GPS tracks, yes.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, do you recognize that parking area there in the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: Yes, it's where the boat ramp is located.

FLADAGER: Okay. And, Detective Grogan, in relation to the Golden Gate Fields Race Track, is that what we're looking at right now?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, the area that we're looking at here, what is this?

GROGAN: It's the location, it's the bulk mail center and then the coastline along where Laci Peterson's body was recovered.

FLADAGER: Can you still see the Berkeley Marina back there with the tracks around it?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, is this the area where Conner was recovered?

GROGAN: Yes, that's the Richmond Marsh area.

FLADAGER: And I'm going to approach the screen with a pointer. Detective Grogan, there is an area here, is that a beach area?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And then to the left of that on the screen there's an area with a straight edge, sort of a jetty, is this the area that you're calling as the Richmond Marsh area?

GROGAN: Yes, there's some breakers right there where it makes kind of a 90-degree angle and Conner's recovery site's within that square-looking are

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, what we see here at the bottom of the screen that is sort of in the shape of a stingray, what is that?

GROGAN: That's Brooks Island.

FLADAGER: And to the right side of the screen where there appear to be yellow markings, what is this?

GROGAN: That's the Berkeley Marina.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, does this image represent the Brooks Island recovery site, Laci recovery site and the Berkeley Marina as they are in relation to each other in the bay?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: All right. We'll admit 280. Takes the same number.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, I'd like to take you back to December 24th one more time. The sightings of Laci Peterson on December 24th that are indicated on that particular diagram, which is People's Exhibit 267, you indicated earlier that you had ruled out essentially in your mind ruled out those as being viable of Laci's sightings, correct?

GROGAN: That's correct.

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking, according to the defendant's statements and physical evidence and phone records on December 24th?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What was that time frame?

GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

FLADAGER: And on either end of those time frames prior to 10:08 subsequent to 10:18 are there factors that would indicate she could not have been out walking?

GROGAN On these sightings in particular?

FLADAGER: No, just in general.

GROGAN: In general. Well, there is the information that we had from her medical records that said that she was supposed to walk later in the day, that she had been getting nauseous, and then those reports to the doctor stopped, so you can read maybe something into that. The fact that cuts down some on the time line is she is, she's supposed to be in the house in a pair of black pants and a white shirt and mopping the floor when he leaves at 10:08, and so for in order for her to, to go for a walk, she would need to, based on the defendant's statement and the clothing, she would have to change her clothes, put on her shoes and socks, put the leash on the dog and then leave the house.

FLADAGER: And at 10:18 end of time period, the end of that time frame what, what caused that 10:18 time frame?

GROGAN: That's when Karen Servas finds McKenzie with his leash attached in the street one house south of 523 Covena Avenue.

FLADAGER: Now, the sightings that are on the board there from December 24th, are there a few of them that occur or appear to occur between the time frame of, let me back up. Are there a few of them that actually cover the time period of 10:08 to 10:18?

GROGAN: There are a few of them that are in that time period, yes.

FLADAGER: And of those particular sightings do a number of those people report there Laci sightings as being someone in black pants?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, the question again.

FLADAGER: The question is, of those that we're talking about, do a number of those Laci Peterson sightings indicate she's wearing black pants?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Is that consistent with the information that has been put out by the police department?

GROGAN: That's consistent with what we were told and what was released to the media early on as a description for Mrs. Peterson, yes.

FLADAGER: And that was the description provided by the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Of those Laci Peterson sightings that might fall or cover in some way that 10:08 to 10:18 time period, did their physical location, any of them, make them unlikely?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: Well, looking at No. 18, which is 10:00 a.m. to noon on the 24th, she's in the north part of town and actually additional follow-up on that showed it to be someone else.

FLADAGER: How about No. 58, physical location-wise.

GROGAN: Physical location-wise, No. 58 is also north of, JUDGE: Why don't you show us 58 on the board so the jury knows what you're talking about using the pointer.

GROGAN: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE: Thank you.

GROGAN: This is No. 58 up here and, actually, it's off of the map a little bit. To include it on the map, I just put the description. It's about one mile north of this point on the map.

FLADAGER: The majority of the red dots that we see there on the map, do they fall outside of the 10:08 to 10:18 time frame?

GROGAN: The majority of them, yes.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, we're going to take a look at a bunch more sightings. This has already been marked People's 268 B.

JUDGE: Maybe, Detective Grogan, you can use the pointer to show, you can show the jury.

FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, would you please explain for the jury what it is we have on this particular exhibit.

GROGAN: This exhibit contains all of the other Laci Peterson sightings that are not on December 24th that are nationwide, worldwide. And the other two maps that are behind that are the 24 sightings in California and Modesto. So this is throughout the investigation that these are all the number of times that Laci Peterson was seen excluding what's already mentioned on the other maps.

FLADAGER: Do people claim to have seen Laci Peterson in a good majority of the states?

GROGAN: I believe 26 of the states.

FLADAGER: And what other countries was Laci Peterson reported to have been seen in?

GROGAN: Canada, France, Italy, and the Virgin Islands at St. Martin.

FLADAGER: Taking a look at the sighting from Italy, what is the date that sighting was reported?

GROGAN: That was March 9th of 2003.

FLADAGER: Now, given the fact we have or the Modesto Police department received reports from all of these people reporting to see Laci Peterson in a variety of locations at a variety of times, did you put any faith and credence in any of these reports?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Were attempts made to follow up on those that seemed the most reasonable or likely possibilities?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Do you know approximately, I may have asked you this already, but approximately how many sightings we have documented on this particular chart?

GROGAN: There's 193 on this chart. And I should also include that there are additional sightings that are not listed. These are the ones that had adequate information for us to chart.

FLADAGER: And when you say "adequate information," what do you mean by that?

GROGAN: Dates, times, locations enough to fill out this information.

FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, after the defendant's arrest in April of 2002, in the past 17 months have you continued to work on this case?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Has it pretty much been a full-time job?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: Perhaps more than a full-time job?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: What is it that you've been doing the last 17 months since Scott Peterson's arrest to work on this particular case?

GERAGOS: Be an objection, relevance.

JUDGE: I think so. Sustained. He's been arrested. We're here. Go ahead.

FLADAGER: Has there been follow-up investigation done?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what generated the follow-up investigation?

GROGAN: The tips that we had received already, tips that we continued to receive, and then follow-up that needed to be done to complete the investigation, re-interview of witnesses because there, there were over 400 people listed as witnesses initially in this case and some of them were only contacted early on and had to be re-contacted later, and by that time of course they maybe made more observations, had more information to provide.

FLADAGER: As part of the, once the defendant was arrested did the focus of what you needed to do change in any way?

GERAGOS: Objection, relevance.

JUDGE: Yeah, I think so. It's all post- arrest. Sustained. I will sustain the objection.

FLADAGER: All right. In preparing for trial, detective, did you take the time to try and review all of your notes, reports, that type of thing?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And in doing so did you find that there were occasions where reports were missing or couldn't be located?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Could you give us some examples of that.

GROGAN: One example in preparing for the preliminary hearing I noticed that I collected a DNA sample from Dennis Rocha and I had not included that in a report so I needed to, once I found it, I documented it in a separate report.

FLADAGER: Now, and you had actually collected the DNA sample to be submitted to the lab?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And it has just not been reduced to writing to a report?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: Okay. Do you have any other examples?

GROGAN: I went through dictation tapes and discovered that there were four reports listed on dictation tapes that had been transcribed, apparently. I don't know if they were forwarded to me for correction or and I corrected them and I didn't get them back or if I never got them, but those reports were, once I found them, they were, we transcribed them and they were corrected and submitted.

FLADAGER: Okay. And one of those reports that related to a witness who recently testified?

GROGAN: Yes. Mr. Lee.

FLADAGER: Any other examples you can think of?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Go ahead.

GROGAN: I did remove some information from a report at one point to be followed up on at a later time and I determined that that information didn't make it into a report. I corrected it, completed a report and forwarded it.

FLADAGER: Okay. And that information, was that placed on a lead sheet?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And that was for the follow-up?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And was it followed up on?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Once the case got filed, did that affect your work load?

GERAGOS: Objection, it's post-arrest.

JUDGE: I think so. Sustained.

FLADAGER: Let me ask you about this, detective, as far as once we moved over here did you continue to interview witnesses?

GERAGOS: Objection, relevance.

JUDGE: Overruled.

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And why is that?

GROGAN: Because there was additional information that came in, there were witnesses that had not been spoken to until or since very early on in the investigation, witnesses that had additional information that needed to be documented.

FLADAGER: And did you do that?

GROGAN: Yes, myself and others.

FLADAGER: Was there anything about this particular case, Detective Grogan, that made it different in terms of the investigation from any other homicide case that you've worked on before?

GERAGOS: Objection, relevance.

JUDGE: Sustained.

FLADAGER: All right. I have no further questions for Detective Grogan.

 

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: Good morning, detective.

GROGAN: Good morning.

GERAGOS: As I understand it when you testified is that you were called out on this case on the 25th, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And we've heard it a couple of times, but basically there's kind of a rotation that Modesto, for the homicide detectives; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And Brocchini's out there the night before, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. The first thing that happens, and we've heard testimony and I know you've been in and out of the courtroom so some of this you've heard, some of this you may not have, but I assume you're aware Evers is out there virtually as a patrolman, he was there on the 24th almost immediately after getting the call; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And when arrives, he immediately is told by Scott e Peterson that he, that Scott had been fishing in the bay at about that morning, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, I don't know about immediately, I know he's told that at some point.

GERAGOS: Okay. He also, and I'll show you the reports as we're going so you don't have to go through all of your binders, but he's also immediately at the same time that he's interviewed, Scott Peterson also tells him about the his work address on Emerald, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the fact that Scott had left that morning and had gone over to pick up the 12-foot boat, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe so.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, and Scott had told Evers, when I'm showing you a report, you've reviewed virtually all of these reports in these binders that are behind us, correct?

GROGAN: I have not reviewed all of those reports, no, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. But the large majority of them, is that a fair statement, especially if they have to do with the investigation and the initial kinds of reports that were made?

GROGAN: I have reviewed a number of the key reports in this. I have not had time to read every report in every binder.

GERAGOS: Okay. It's a fair statement that Scott is the, as soon as Evers gets there, and Evers is a patrol officer, he's not a detective or something like that, correct?

GROGAN: At that time, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. He may have been promoted since, but at the time he was a patrol officer, right?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And Scott gives him basically, runs down the fact that he, that his wife Laci had told him that she was going to be taking the dog for a walk in the park; that she told him she was going to the grocery store to pick up groceries and that he was, he had gone to his work, TradeCorp, said where that was, gave an address; that he was going to pick up his 12-foot aluminum boat, fair statement?

GROGAN: Well, I prefer to look at the report because I've heard so many versions of different statements that I, I can't say which is which.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Scott also told Evers that he had arrived at the Marina about noon; he launched the boat; he fished for about two hours by himself until it started to get, rained. Correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: He also told Evers he loaded the boat in the trailer, drove home; he attempted to telephone home to his eight-month pregnant wife for the first time via cell phone, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he was unsuccessful getting a hold of her and thought that she was just shopping, correct?

GROGAN: That's what it says, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he tried one more time calling his wife when he was driving through Livermore, but he was also unsuccessful, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And when he arrived home he saw the golden retriever in the backyard with the leash dragging on the ground?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: The rear door is unlocked, his wife's vehicle's is parked in the driveway?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that he thought Laci must have been at her mother's house, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically on the 24th he also said or told Evers, maybe I'll just hang it here.

GROGAN: Well, I believe I may have that.

GERAGOS: The only reason I'm not giving you Bates numbers is at least on my copy I don't have it. It's just 12/24 report by Evers.

GROGAN: Okay.

GERAGOS: And he told Evers also that he called his mother-in-law, found out Laci was not there, he became concerned and started to call her friends, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And none of the friends had heard from Laci all day long?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. He knew that she had mentioned that she'd be taking a walk at Dry Creek Park with McKenzie and he surmised that maybe something had happened to her, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And then he called family members and additional family members, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now Letsinger, Spurlock, Duerfeldt and Evers then respond to the house, right, set up a command post?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then they enter the residence and they confirm that she wasn't there, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point that's, that's what he tells Evers on the 24th, and that's, at least on the interview it says that Evers upon his arrival at 1755 he met with certain family members and friends, including the husband. 1755 would have been just five minutes before 6:00?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now one of the things that was done almost immediately was, by the police at least, is Evers, Spurlock, Letsinger, they come into the house, correct, at least based upon what you've been told subsequently?

GROGAN: Based upon what I've been told they did a walk-through of the home, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And they didn't discover any evidence of forced entry, nothing out of the ordinary, correct?

GROGAN: Well, I think they made some observations that they later told to Detective Brocchini.

GERAGOS: Right. And that's exactly where I'm headed. One of the observations was that they saw some towels on the washer and the dryer, right?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. And they saw a mop, correct?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so they surmised that a cleanup had taken place; isn't that a fair statement?

GROGAN: Well, I think there was some information about the mop bucket being poured out and they considered that as a possibility.

GERAGOS: Well, I mean, that was one of the things that had peaked their curiosity as patrolmen that are there, is that a fair statement?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. The mop had peaked their curiosity, the fact that there was some rags on the washer and dryer peaked their curiosity, and the fact that he had said he had gone fishing that morning had peaked their curiosity, correct?

GROGAN: Well, I don't know which of the officers would have said that, and I don't want to attribute it to all of them necessarily if that's not true but –

GERAGOS: Well, it's a fair statement that the caucus, at least as you're aware, the officers all got together and shared at some point Duerfeldt, Evers, and you've heard them testify, they got together, caucused, and they came to a kind of general consensus, isn't that a fairly accurate rendition of what transpired?

GROGAN: Yeah, I think the overall circumstances they discussed they decided that it would be appropriate to call out a detective.

GERAGOS: Okay. And one of the other things that peaked their, at least it's in the report, and I'll show you the second page, is that Scott had walked up to Spurlock and Evers and asked about the progress of the helicopter search, and at that point somebody who is known as the father-in-law of Scott, who you now know as Ron Grantski, had asked Scott if he was able to get in a game of golfing, and Scott replied, I didn't play golf today, it was too cold, I went fishing, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that they put down, in the report at least, that they perceived Ron Grantski to seem puzzled and responded, 9:30 or 10:00 in the morning is way too late for fishing and that Scott should have gone earlier, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, that's what it says.

GERAGOS: And the next thing in the report says that they, at some point after that Brocchini shows up, right?

GROGAN: He showed up later that evening, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, we have also heard from Greg Reed that, at least, and you know who Greg Reed is, he's one of the witnesses who was brought here by the prosecution, correct?

GROGAN: I have met him, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And he testified by 7:00 o'clock he was next door at the house immediately north of Covena, is that correct, that's your memory of what transpired of what he's testifying to?

GROGAN: You know, I wasn't in here when he testified, but I know that he did at some point that evening unlock the house and let officers search next door.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you've heard his testimony or seen his report where he indicates at that point, 7:00 o'clock, within an hour one of the officers indicates they already know what happened and who did it?

GROGAN: No, I haven't seen the report that, that, well, I'd have to look at his report to see specifically what time. I think that's part of your question.

GERAGOS: Sure. Let's just say that Greg Reed, that he came there, assume for the sake of argument, that he came there that evening within about an hour of Spurlock, Evers and Duerfeldt getting there. So, if you assume that, you're familiar with the fact that he says one of the officers at that point made the comment that they already knew what happened and who did it. Is that a fairly good, you're aware of that?

GROGAN: Well, I'd like to look at that report.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now when, one of the other things that the officers thought was suspicious at the time, it hasn't been testified to, but I think it's in some of your reports and I think you followed up on it, was they saw a phone book open in the house; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And they thought that that was suspicious because the phone book was open and it was to an ad for an attorney; is that right?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that's one of the things that kind of peaked these officers curiosity, thought that was odd, wife's missing, why is there a phone number open for an attorney, right?

GROGAN: That was something that was mentioned, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. In a couple of reports. You did some investigation on that, didn't you?

GROGAN: I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what you did is you found that phone book, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you opened it a couple of times and determined that the reason that it would be is because the attorney's ad is on a thicker piece of cardboard paper in the middle of the phone book, right?

GROGAN: Yes, I saw that the phone book would easily open to that page.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so at that point you realized that for whatever concern that was Scott had indicated, at least in subsequent interviews, and we'll get to that, that he had opened the phone book to make some calls, correct?

GROGAN: Yeah, there was some indication that he was going to make some calls that night. I don't know who opened the phone book.

GERAGOS: Okay. But your, you did it, I think you put in one of your reports and I'll get it if you want me to, but I think you said you demonstrated this yourself at least numerous times and that every time you did the phone book opened to the same ad for this attorney?

GROGAN: Yeah, I did write a report on that. I don't know if it was every time, but I agree with you that it would open very easily to that page.

GERAGOS: Now, that, that was done approximately when, when did you figure out that that kind of suspicion ended up not being something that should have been acted on?

GROGAN: I don't know. I have to look that up.

GERAGOS: I'll show you. I just found it. It looks like sometime in March you removed the phone book from the property room; is that right? Can you take a look at that. I've got a yellow highlighter. And I'll just ask you about this. That's all you have to read to refresh your recollection.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Does that refresh your recollection?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And basically what you did is sometime in March, by the way, either in one of the search warrants someone had seized this phone book, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And so you went in March, as part of the investigation that was ongoing, to determine, you pulled it out of the property room that we have talked about before, to determine what was going on with this phone book, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you put in here that that location of the phone book, I don't have Bates stamp on this thing, was a natural place for the phone book to open and that you were able to close the book and reopen it to that page three times in succession by running your thumb along the edge of the phone book pages; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, something very, very similar to that at least. Three times in succession, yes, it says that.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now one of the other things that was suspicious to the officers early on, and before you even got there, was the fact that in the back of the, in the back of the truck there was a roll of chicken wire, we've heard a lot about this chicken wire; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you asked Scott about the chicken wire in the truck; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he specifically told you, and I'm looking at your 12, and I'm just going to come up and do the effects it will save a lot of time if I do it this way. You specifically asked Scott why he had the chicken wire in the truck, correct?

GROGAN: I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you, and this is sometime, I think we played yesterday a December 30th interview, correct? Do you remember hearing that interview? You had tape recorded an interview with him?

GROGAN: Yeah, we played two tapes from December 30th and I think that is the transcript from later of the two.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that he had, that had he trees or that the trees in the back that the cats scratch and that he planned on in the future encircling the base of those trees with the chicken wire to prevent that from happening, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, that's part of what he said.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he said he bought the chicken wire at Home Depot and he said it was approximately two weeks ago, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said he had the wire that had been sitting on the cart there in his office until he decided to bring it home and he told you that he had not yet used the wire, right?

GROGAN: Yes, he said he hadn't used it yet.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, based upon that you told Detective Reed to go do some investigation; isn't that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Detective Reed obviously is another detective of Modesto P.D.?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: So on January 3rd you requested that he go to Home Depot and Lowe's in Modesto and you gave him a number of items and to kind of follow up on. One of them was the chicken wire, correct? I think you gave him the tubs, you gave him that, and you gave him some of the chicken wire, right?

GROGAN: Yes, sir, that's one of the items.

GERAGOS: Okay. During that interviewing he went to both Lowe's and to Home Depot and interviewed the people who work there, correct? 2439 if it helps. 2439.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that both stores said that they cut the chicken wire ahead of time in 25 and 50-foot lengths, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then Detective Reed went back and he measured, kind of pulled out the chicken wire, right, and measured it?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he was able to stretch the wire out to how, how long?

GROGAN: Twenty-four feet, twenty-four-and-a-half feet.

GERAGOS: It pulled very taut, right?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And he also indicated in his report that the cutting that, there was no set pliers at either place or cutter at either place. I'll walk back up, I'm sorry. There was no set handle or tool that was used that generally had one clipper to cut, but others might have been used, correct, that was what Mr. Emmond said?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, can I see that other page.

GERAGOS: Sure.

GROGAN: Yes, that's what the manager of Lowe's was saying.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically there was never, and at that point it appeared at least that the chicken wire was 24 feet, six inches, they sell it in 25 or 50-foot lengths. Scott said that he had at that point bought it because he was going to encircle the trees in the back. And you get involved I guess at least in February when you're doing the search warrant and you go into the backyard, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And yesterday we saw that in fact the, specifically the trees had scratch marks on them, correct?

GROGAN: I noticed there was four of the trees had scratch marks, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically even while you were there, you were there for two days, February 18th and February 19th. On the second day, besides noticing the scratch marks the first day, the second day you actually saw a cat scratching on one of the trees, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. At that point it kind of just put a hat on the suspicions about the chicken wire, didn't it?

GROGAN: Well, there was still probably more questions I could ask about the chicken wire and that's, there's a long piece of wire attached to it that seemed kind of unusual, the fact that it was kind of loose in the truck and not, and not attached seemed possibly unusual.

GERAGOS: Well, but you then, you still took that chicken wire and then you had seized two different instruments. And we've got them marked here in evidence. One is a pliers that's found on the boat and it's got a cutting edge to it, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the other is another cutter or type of pliers that was seized on February 18th during that search warrant, right?

GROGAN: I think we sent, and this is only from memory, we sent a pair of pliers, the pliers, 144 A, and I'm sorry, 144.

GERAGOS: Right.

GROGAN: We sent another pair of pliers or cutters that were in that fishing tackle box, and then we sent one pair of pliers seized from the Peterson residence, and I don't remember which search warrant those were seized in.

GERAGOS: Okay. But we've heard all of those things came back negative. But the tools that were all seized and the chicken wire had no connection, correct?

GROGAN: No, the ones that we sent did not match cut marks for the chicken wire, that's correct.

GERAGOS: And then did you ever ask, did you take the chicken wire over to either Lowe's or Home Depot and specifically ask whether or not the wire and the cuttings of the wire looked like something they would do?

GROGAN: No, I did not. I asked Detective Reed to follow up on that, and I'm not completely familiar with his report but –

GERAGOS: Specifically Ms., you remember Ms. Fladager asking you on direct, you know, you bought chicken wire a couple of times, right?

GROGAN: I have, yes.

GERAGOS: And she asked you, did it look like the edge was cut irregularly or something and you said, well, maybe, but you never actually took the chicken wire over to Home Depot or Reed that you know of and said, is this how you cut it, did you?

GROGAN: I don't know if he took it there or not. I believe he may have taken photographs, but I'm not certain of that even.

GERAGOS: Still in February, however, it was still this working theory that as of February 13th that Laci Peterson had been possibly wrapped in chicken wire, and that was something that information that was given to a Dr. Ralph Cheng; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears to be accurate.

GERAGOS: Okay. That was one of the two possible theories. It was either four anchors at eight pounds each or wrapped in chicken wire or some form of plastic wrap, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And Ralph Cheng is somebody who was hired or was retained or contacted by the prosecution in terms of trying to figure out where a body, if it was placed in the bay would be in the bay, correct?

GROGAN: He was contacted by Modesto Police Department, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically the other thing you had that I remember specifically is you had indicated to, let's see if I've got a picture of it. This is the picture I believe that reflects what you're talking about, isn't it?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then this picture would show this claw hammer item?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Can I have these as defense marked next in order.

FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos, can I take a look at those.

GERAGOS: Sure.

JUDGE: Defendant's 6X 1 and 2, photos of chicken wire in the bed of the truck.

GERAGOS: Detective, these two photos that were just marked D 6X 1 and 2 this is the back of the truck as it looked on the 24th or the 26th; is that right?

GROGAN: I've seen the photos before and I would be guessing to tell you exactly which date they were taken.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is it a fair statement that this was the 24th, 26th, 27th, whatever day, or you impounded the truck also on the 26th, right?

GROGAN: On the 26th, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. So sometime after the 24th this photo was taken, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And this is that claw hammer that we're talking about, and this is the twenty-four-foot six-inch when whole taut role of chicken wire, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And I assume that this is the wire that caused you some, still causes you some pause?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically the fact of the matter is, as you sit here, though, today, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever if you fast forward to the recovery of Laci Peterson's body the chicken wire had anything to do with anything, correct?

GROGAN: Well, there's no evidence that chicken wire was attached to her body that we had recovered, that's correct.

GERAGOS: And one of the other things that specifically the, I think Ms. Fladager had asked you about also yesterday was the cement and the mess on the trailer; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically the mess on the trailer you said looked like it had, it was too much for one anchor or something like that; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yeah, let's see, I think I said it seemed like a rather large mess for making one anchor.

GERAGOS: Okay. You were aware, and I assume this is the, this is what was previously marked as Defendant's O, is this how the trailer looked with the placards are on it?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe I've seen that photo before.

GERAGOS: Okay. And were you present, you've walked with this gentleman who was here, the concrete, the petographer or concrete man?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And specifically remember all that testimony, all that testimony about fence post concrete and all of that?

GROGAN: I was not here for that portion of the testimony. I really don't know anything about the concrete versus the post mix.

GERAGOS: Well, he, you went to him specifically, you were the person who was kind of his contact, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you went to him to have him analyze these samples of concrete that you had collected, correct?

GROGAN: I, yes, I spoke to him about testing those items and I delivered those items to him.

GERAGOS: Now, when you contacted him about testing those items, as I understand on the 30th when you talked to Scott, and once again we heard the testimony here, Scott told you that he had made that anchor with a plastic bucket, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that that plastic bucket was something that he had purchased when he was at Home Depot, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you went to Home Depot and he testified at least that he thought that maybe you called him from there, did you actually call him from the Home Depot?

GROGAN: Robert O'Neill?

GERAGOS: Yes.

GROGAN: Yeah, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Scott told you that he had bought this little plastic painters bucket or something that he called little painters bucket, and you found it, and I'm not going to pull it out again, but once you bought that, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you did that because you had been in Modesto P.D. and basically Dodge Hendee I guess had been, Hendee and Brocchini, when they looked at this picture had come to the conclusion that the anchor had been made and formed in this particular pitcher, right?

GROGAN: We were under that impression.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that had been the working impression for going on almost a year until O'Neill was hired; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then somebody came up with the investigative idea to collect some of these samples, sample from this trailer here, correct? Somebody had taken a sample from somewhere here, correct?

GROGAN: Detective Hendee collected some samples. I can't tell you from where exactly.

GERAGOS: And somebody had taken a sample from the plastic pitcher and actually sent him the plastic pitcher, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And somebody had collected, and we think it's Brocchini, had collected some evidence from near the driveway, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then there was a comparison done of all of this stuff, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, O'Neill's testimony is that the, that some of the stuff that was near the, that was recorded to have been collected near the driveway had some larger aggregate, are you aware of that that was his finding?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, he also said that that was consistent with fence post concrete, are you aware of his testimony about that?

HARRIS: Objection, that misstates the testimony.

GERAGOS: He said it was consistent with fence concrete.

JUDGE: Remember he said you have to back up one of rigging mix trucks and pour it for the fence posts?

GERAGOS: Right before, right before he wouldn't take me up on my bet you couldn't get it at Lowe's or Home Depot.

GERAGOS: When you seized, when you seized such a search warrant from Scott Peterson, didn't you pick up this Lowe's receipt? It's the one that we copied last Friday, you and I, or last Thursday, you and I, and I wrote on the back of it so we'd know where it came from. Evidence Item 109 1 of 2?

GROGAN: It does look like something I've seen in the reports here.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now this would appear to be a Lowe's receipt, and I'm going to mark this as defense next in order for fence post QuikRete when Scott Peterson is at Lowe's on November 1st with; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: The date is November 1st. It is Lowe's.

GERAGOS: So it would appear that our lengthy petographer is wrong when he says you have to back up the truck because Scott Peterson was apparently able to buy –

JUDGE: Argumentative.

FLADAGER: Yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

JUDGE: For the record it's Defendant's 61.

GERAGOS: 61. I said 109, it was 108 1 of 2.

JUDGE: What is the date on that receipt again?

GERAGOS: November 1st.

JUDGE: November 1st.

GERAGOS: And this shows Scott Peterson had actually gone in there and returned some fence QuikRete post mix and it looks like getting some kind of credit, correct? Did you ever tell the petographer that in fact Scott Peterson had purchased at some point in November QuikRete post mix or before November?

GROGAN: No, I didn't tell him that and –

GERAGOS: Could I ask you one other question?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Do you remember a gentleman by the name of Doug Phelps? Doug Phelps called into the tip line and said he was a competitor of Scott Peterson. And Doug Phelps said he had been in the shop, Scott Peterson's shop. And Doug Phelps said that he noticed that there were four-by-four fence posts and bags of what I would assume is concrete on this trailer back in the month of September? Did you ever, did you ever let the petographer know that maybe one of the reasons that there was a mess there or that the reason he's find fence post concrete is because Scott Peterson's doing fence post concrete work?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: Okay. You know yesterday when we saw that videotape of the search in your search warrant it looked to me in the back of the house, and that was February 18th, that some of those fence posts looked like they had been installed within the last couple of months, did you make that same observation?

GROGAN: You know I can't say I did. I didn't notice that, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: You did notice, and I'll pull it out if you want me to, you did notice there was a stack of bricks in the driveway right adjacent to the area where supposedly the concrete was; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: There's, there was a stack of bricks and I believe at that time it was at the end of the driveway and my understanding there were other cement or concrete was recovered was off to the right of that.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to show you what's been previously marked as, and feel free to correct me, Quadruple C-6.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: This was a picture that we previously entered into evidence.

It looses a little resolution, but if I can see correctly, this is the edge of the bricks right here, this stack of bricks; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And supposedly the cement that's recovered is someplace over here right next to the defense posts?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically did anybody ever have Mr. O'Neill, the cement man, let me show you this.

JUDGE: I think Mr. O'Neill would take umbrage with that. He's the concrete man.

GERAGOS: I stand corrected.

GERAGOS: These photos look similar to you that the one that were taken on February 18th?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And do those, I'm going to put them up on the board.

GROGAN: That's the date that's on the bottom of them with Denise Ducot, 2/18 or 2/19 with a case number.

GERAGOS: I assume that she, that plugs in, I have been operating with this assumption, a digital camera. She's got a way that she sets it for the particular day and then the case number so that when it prints up you've got some way to identify when it was taken?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: I'm going to show you what was previously marked as Quadruple C. When you were there did you notice whether these fence boards here along the side of the house that goes, and this runs along, by the way, this fence runs along the side of the house and goes directly right passed the area where you pick up or where the concrete was supposed to pick up, doesn't it, and that's the far side of the house, if we look at it right here, right over here, this is the same property line that's running right here; is that correct?

GROGAN: I believe so, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And now I'm going to show you what's been marked as Quadruple C4. That brick work that was there, did anybody take any sample of that brick work that you're aware of?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: And then I've got another Quadruple C5, it doesn't quite come out as vivid on the screen as it is in the picture, but and I'll' bring it up to show you, but this work here, right here, did that appear to you to be fairly recent when you executed the search warrant on February 18th?

GROGAN: It, from the color of the boards they appear to be fairly recent, at least some of them in the back there.

GERAGOS: And that would seem to coincide with the report that was prepared in regards to Mr. Phelps, one of Mr. Peterson's competitors who said he saw fence boards, he saw bags of concrete on the trailer at the shop in September, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now –

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, I think we'll stop right there.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JUDGE: All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take the noon recess. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. We'll reconvene at 1:30. We'll pick up with the cross-examination of this witness

JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. The jury is in the jury box along with the alternates.

Go ahead, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Thanks, judge.

GERAGOS: Detective, when we left off we were talking about fence post concrete. I have got something here which I want to mark as defendant's next in order.

JUDGE: You don't expect my clerk to schlep that around?

GERAGOS: I'll schlep it around.

JUDGE: All right.

GERAGOS: Correct legal term for it.

JUDGE: All right. Defendant's 6Z. Looks like a sack of, it's going to say cement or concrete. All right.

GERAGOS: Says concrete. Says fence post concrete.

JUDGE: All right.

GERAGOS: While she is marking that.

GERAGOS: Detective, I have got here what appears to be a fence post concrete, I went over to Home Depot myself and bought it after the expert testified. You have been to Home Depot, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: I'm going to show you a receipt from Home Depot, which looks like post concrete. See a date on there? Hope there is. September 15th of 04, 7:10 p.m.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay.

GROGAN: At the San Mateo Home Depot.

GERAGOS: Right. It appear to you that you can buy fence post concrete at the Home Depot. I will have marked the receipt as defendant's next in order. Then I, also at the break I asked to you take a look at 4422 and 4464, Bates number stamps. Documents 1 and 2.

JUDGE: Do you want to mark the receipt separately?

GERAGOS: We can make it ZA and B.

JUDGE: That will be 1 and 2. 1 will be the sack of concrete, Z2 will be the receipt. Counsel have any objection if we just keep that sack in the courtroom so she doesn't have to carry it back?

GERAGOS: No objection.

JUDGE: Marilyn, you can just keep the sack of concrete.

GERAGOS: I don't mind. At some point I can just take a picture of it then enter the picture.

JUDGE: Whatever. It's too heavy to carry for the clerk.

GERAGOS: Tell me about it. The two documents that I just showed, where were those obtained?

GROGAN: I don't know. They have Bates stamp numbers attached to them at the bottom, so they are in discovery somewhere. And I don't know exactly where.

GERAGOS: If you were to punch up on your computer roughly that area, would that tell you which one of those documents that was, that were seized that you got these from?

GROGAN: Yes, I think so.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to mark these two pages next?

JUDGE: That will be Defendant's 7A. Do you want to mark them separately, Mr. Geragos? 7A-1 and 2.

GERAGOS: Sure 1 and 2, sure. If Miss Fladager is kind enough, I'm going to make a copy of these. These are the only one –

JUDGE: Stipulation we can substitute the copies for the originals?

FLADAGER: Yes.

GERAGOS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And while you are looking for those, can I ask you a question, detective?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. I have also got a report from Greg Reed, looks like, who was talked to by Al Brocchini. Greg Reed is the gentleman who testified here, grandmother owned the house immediately next door to Covena?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Does it appear that Greg Reed had informed Detective Brocchini that my client was doing some cement work in the yard?

GROGAN: Yes. In October of 2002.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Greg Reed at that point, as far as you know, was the person whose, at least when we are looking at the exhibit, we are looking at these two exhibits here, the first is quadruple C2, Greg Reed's grandmother's house, when she was alive, and the house that he inherited is this house here where my hand is; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And that also, once again, if I show you quadruple C5, this fence, this fence post here, and then this house right here, that's the Greg Reed house, correct? Greg Reed's grandmother's house?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe so.

GERAGOS: The angle that this picture is, is actually kind of next to the corner of the house that's Karen Servas's, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then this would be the house which Greg Reed took the officers into, and the fence posts along the border between Mr. Peterson's and Laci Peterson's house, and Greg Reed's grandmother's house, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe so.

GERAGOS: Okay. And were you able to find 4422 and 64 in there?

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, can we, just for the record, would you identify what we finally marked as 7A-1?

GERAGOS: Yes.

JUDGE: And 7A-2. And 7A-2.

GERAGOS: While you are looking for that, I'm going to publish, if I could, to the jury. Looks like one appears to be a pile of documents, Power Desk documents that shows September 13th, 2000, a fence, and entered in right there in the Microsoft document?

FLADAGER: I might interject. Did you say December 13th?

GERAGOS: September. September.

GERAGOS: Then the other another document I believe was seized. It is showing concrete, 60 pound bags, fence boards, stringers, ledgers, lag bolts T-nails, and everything else. A total on those. Both come out of the discovery that is assembled by the Modesto PD and turned over to the DA's Office and provided to my office, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Were you able to locate where those documents specifically came from?

GROGAN: I can say that they are in with other documents for TradeCorp.

GERAGOS: Okay. Would that most probably, I'm not going to, you executed, obviously, the search warrant to both the house and at the warehouse on the 26th. And, just guessing by the Bates-numbered stamps, it's in the 4000 series, your guess is that probably would be items that were taken during the first search warrant in December?

GROGAN: I think that would be accurate, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, going to the –

GROGAN: However, I don't know if they were taken off the computer, or these were printed off of the computer, or if they were documents in the office.

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that when the police went in, there was, when the police went in, there were documents the jury has seen on the tables, or on the desks, as well as the computers were seized, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And then when the documents are produced, at least from Modesto PD, the DA's Office, and ultimately to my office, they are marked with these Bates number stamps, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And sometimes what will happen. And I don't know if it happened here. For instance, if you gave the computer to Lydell Wall, or to his predecessor who retired, may print out a whole series of documents, those get Bates numbered stamps. Then somebody may also just pick up a bunch of files off the desk, and do the same things, Bates number stamped. And sometimes it takes a little while for either you or me to figure out whether they came from the computer or off the desk. You know. Obviously was seized by the police department; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes. It's in discovery. It's part of this case.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, also, I'm going to go back to the initial investigation. One of the things that was done early on is, looks like you had specifically, you learned early on from Scott that they had lived in San Luis Obispo, so you sent out teletypes over to San Luis Obispo; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes. For contacts for both Scott and Laci Peterson. I did that, yes.

GERAGOS: Came back there was no record are wants or warrants on either one of them, correct?

GROGAN: No contacts, other than one of them, and I didn't really see which, was listed as a contact person for a large company, I believe for The Shack. That's what I remember.

GERAGOS: Okay. And also one of the things that was done early on is to determine whether Scott had any juvenile record or any major incidents, other than traffic citations, correct?

GROGAN: I'm not sure. This has no Bates stamp. Has no Bates stamp number on it. I'm not sure what interview we're talking about here. It looks to me like possibly a page two of an interview. And that is what somebody told me.

GERAGOS: So you had an interview with someone. Would that have been law enforcement?

GROGAN: I don't think so.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you had the interview, indicated that he had no juvenile record, was never involved in any major incidents involving law enforcement, aside from traffic citations; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes. And I want to say that that was an interview with –

GERAGOS: Lee and Jackie?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And would that also would have been in December, I'm assuming, if the report on the bottom has a 1-1-03 on it. So it would have been prior to the 31st, or the 31st, on or before?

GROGAN: I'm sorry the date on the bottom is 1-1-03?

GERAGOS: 01-01-2003.

GROGAN: Yes. So that's probably, I think I interviewed them prior to that date.

GERAGOS: Now, the, specifically you had mentioned before that Terry Scott had gone out. And Terry Scott is an FBI agent, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Miss Fladager had asked you about several things involving Terry Scott. The jury heard months ago he was the Resident Agent in Modesto for the FBI?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And one of the 90 agencies I think that was involved with this was the FBI, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you had asked at some point for his assistance in checking out Scott's history in San Luis Obispo, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the FBI, then you met with him, I guess, approximately two months later; is that right? Some time in February of 03? Pointing you to the yellow highlighted portion.

GROGAN: Yes. That's one of my reports. It is dated in February. And I don't see a Bates stamp.

GERAGOS: Yes it's for the, it's a February 13th report, of 03?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And Terry Scott reported back to you that the FBI, he briefed you on a trip that the FBI had done into San Luis Obispo; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, I think he made that trip.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he had talked to many people in the area, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said that many people in the area where very supportive of Scott Peterson, correct?

GROGAN: The people that he contacted, yes.

GERAGOS: He said one individual had commented that Scott was not treated well by Laci, but that all of the people were very supportive of Scott; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Now, one of the other things that was done early on, and the jury has seen it, and I assume you have seen it as well, was the interview by Detective Brocchini that took place, would have been early morning hours of Christmas morning; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, you reviewed that interview; is that correct?

GROGAN: I have seen that tape on at least a couple of occasions.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, is it a fair statement that at that point, and I'm talking about obviously when Brocchini interviews Scott, you have not been called yet, right? That's in the morning of the 25th. You get called later on in the morning?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And one of the things that's determined is you want to try to confirm his alibi, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is it a fair statement that law enforcement, meaning you, did not, or wanted some kind of, I don't want to say dubious or suspicious, but you wanted to either confirm or try to eliminate or prove that he didn't go to the marina; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes, we wanted to know where he was during that time period.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so you asked him. You wanted to know what kind of proof that he had to show that he had been at the marina when he says he was at the marina; is that correct?

GROGAN: I think, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically that did not happen right away. You still, I think you testified on direct, even into January there was a belief by law enforcement that maybe he, Scott Peterson, had not been to the marina that day; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Well, that was considered a possibility early on. And we did try to, through phone records and many other means, determine if what he said was accurate.

GERAGOS: Okay. One of the things that you did was to put out a story to the, I don't know a story, but there was a press release where the police were seeking to verify the trip story by Scott Peterson; is that correct? I'm showing, so the record will indicate, looks like a January 3rd Modesto Bee article?

GROGAN: Yes. I have never read this before, so if you can give me a moment.

GERAGOS: Sure.

GROGAN: Okay.

GERAGOS: Is that a, that's an article from the Modesto Bee on the third of January?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. And I'd like to mark this as defendant's next in order.

JUDGE: Okay. That would be 7, defendant's7B. Date of the article, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: It's a Modesto Bee January 3rd article entitled, "Police Seeking to Verify Trip Story".

JUDGE: Okay

GERAGOS: Now, the, this, by the way, is something that came out of the discovery, is it not?

GROGAN: It appeared to have a Bates stamp number, yes.

GERAGOS: I was going to say Marylin just put the exhibit sticker over it.

GERAGOS: Okay. So it was a Bates number stamp in the right there?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: So it was known by the police, at least, obviously to you as the lead detective, that was known publicly that you were putting it out there, this, that you were looking –

FLADAGER: Objection. Not only compound, many different people.

JUDGE: Rephrase it.

GERAGOS: I'll rephrase it.

GERAGOS: You wanted to verify the story, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And one of the ways to verify the story was to determine if there were any witnesses at the marina, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: You have had many interviews with Scott Peterson, or telephone calls with Scott Peterson, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you in one of those interviews that he, in fact, had, somebody had seen him specifically backing the boat up in on the launch ramp, correct?

GROGAN: Trying to think if that's in both statements he gave to me and to Detective Brocchini, or which statement that actually comes out of. He did make that statement to someone, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So at least to one or another police officer, he had told either you or Brocchini, and I have got tons of interviews here, I'm going to try to get through this quickly. He had told somebody, either you or Brocchini, look, somebody saw me backing my boat up. And he described what happened, didn't he? Either you or Brocchini?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the way he described it is, is when he was backing the boat down the launch ramp, that he actually kind of backed into either the pier or one of the pylons; is that right?

GROGAN: That sounds correct, yes.

GERAGOS: And that he said that the person who watched him, saw him do this, actually started laughing at him, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Also, specifically you became aware, I think at some point, that not only was he trying to find that witness, but that he had a private investigator who was trying to find those witnesses up at the marina, correct?

GROGAN: I heard that at some point, yes.

GERAGOS: And I believe I don't have, I apologize, I don't have, as you know, there is a ton of paperwork here. But I believe how you determined that is on the approximately January 7th you had sent somebody up to talk to the Harbor Master at Berkeley Marina, correct?

GROGAN: My recall on that is it was earlier than that.

GERAGOS: Some time the first week of January?

GROGAN: I think that Detective Armendariz went there. And it may have been in late December.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the reason for that was to determine, see if they could find either the person who saw Scott Peterson backing the boat up into the boat dock there, and/or he also mentioned that, Scott also mentioned that he had seen some city workers, Berkeley, City of Berkeley workers that day; isn't that correct?

FLADAGER: Objection. Compound again.

GERAGOS: I'll break it down.

JUDGE: Okay.

GERAGOS: Didn't he also tell you, either you or Brocchini or Mansfield, that he had also seen some city workers there that day, as to try to verify his alibi as to where he was?

GROGAN: That sounds familiar, Mr. Geragos. But I don't know that I can say that for sure without looking at it somewhere.

GERAGOS: Okay. My recall of at least of the discovery is that,

FLADAGER: Objection as to counsel's recall of the discovery.

GERAGOS: I'm just trying to refresh his recollection.

FLADAGER: The record will –

GERAGOS: We'll do it as a leading question then. Specifically when you sent Detective Armendariz –

GROGAN: Armendariz.

GERAGOS: Armendariz up to Berkeley to talk to the Harbor Master, the Harbor Master gave the Detective Gary Ermoian's name as this guy has been over there asking about employees, didn't he?

GROGAN: That may be true, but I don't recall that, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically the January 5th trip to the marina that has been talked about, you are aware of that trip, the one that Scott took up there?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, which date.

GERAGOS: Was there a January 5th trip? 5th or 6th?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: The 5th, 6th, 9th were three days when Scott, I believe it's been testified to here, had gone up to the Berkeley Marina. And you have seen, for instance, the GPS tracks Miss Fladager showed today, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is there anything about those GPS tracks that's inconsistent with somebody who is driving through that area looking for these witnesses?

GROGAN: Well, I would think if he was going there to look for someone to verify that he was there, that he may stop and make contact with one of the offices, the Harbor Master's office, someone, rather than drive through.

GERAGOS: Then I was asking you, that's why I specifically asked you, were you aware that on January 7th I believe that the Harbor Master says that the private investigator hired by Mr. Peterson had already been there asking about these witnesses.

GROGAN: If you have a report you could refer me to, I can probably answer your question, sir. But there is dates. And who that statement came from, or where it came from, is very difficult for me to answer.

GERAGOS: Okay. Well, there was also search operations going on in the Bay on the 9th; is that correct? January 9th.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: January 9th there was also an article in the Modesto Bee, I have got it marked over in an exhibit, "Divers Going Back to the Bay", correct? Do you remember that?

GROGAN: Yes, there was some media coverage of some searches that were being done during that time period.

GERAGOS: Did you go up there when the searches were being done?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: Was it reported to you that there was a great deal of media involvement or interest in this case whenever they would go out to the Berkeley Marina?

GROGAN: I remember that there was on the 11th a very large media presence. What was there on the 9th, I don't know.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically going back to Brocchini's interview on the 25th, Mr. Peterson went willingly with Detective Brocchini, correct?

GROGAN: We're talking about leaving his home and going to the warehouse?

GERAGOS: Yes.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he then submitted to the interview at the police station, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then at least, as the jury and I saw, we saw together, that he took what's called a gunshot residue test. Did you see that?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: The gunshot residue test is where they pull out the, it is kind of a jar, and they sponge the area of your hands, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that was done presumably because there was a gun found in the glove compartment, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Isn't it true that the Modesto PD, Department of Justice, that nobody ever tested the gunshot residue test?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. As we sit here today, that gunshot residue test that was taken from Mr. Peterson on the early morning hours of the December 25th of the year 2002 remains in the Modesto PD evidence room or property room?

GROGAN: It's still in evidence, yes.

GERAGOS: And nobody has ever, to this day, done the testing on that, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct. And I can explain why.

GERAGOS: Is that, I would like you to. I'll ask you in a second. Are you going to say that because he had said that he took a shower, that you did not believe that you would find anything?

GROGAN: Yes. It was the combination of he said that he had been out on the water that day, that he got wet while he was out there. He said that he had taken a shower and changed clothes. And so the gunshot residue test is not something that stays with you through a shower. It needs to be done relatively soon to the time that you fire a weapon.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did anybody consider doing it, just to be on the safe side, to see?

GROGAN: We could have done that, and it was not done.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, did you ever talk to anybody that, did anybody ever make the decision, say whatever happened to that, you call it a GSR test, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Anybody ever say, "Hey, why don't we run the GSR test?"

GROGAN: I think we had discussed that and decided not to do that.

GERAGOS: Now, the, specifically I'm going to show you the Detective Brocchini report 12-25. There is a yellow highlight there. Read that and refresh your recollection. It's page –

GROGAN: There is no Bates stamp on the document. But page nine of 12 of a report dated twelve-25 by Detective Brocchini says –

GERAGOS: Just read it to yourself, we'll ask you about it, see if it refreshes your recollection.

GROGAN: Okay.

GERAGOS: Okay. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether Scott immediately told Detective Brocchini on the 25th that he had a hard time backing his boat down the boat ramp, and said there was some maintenance men near the boat ramp that were getting a good laugh at him backing up?

GROGAN: Yes, that's what that report says.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he also vividly described exactly where he went that first evening with Detective Brocchini, correct?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, where he went at the Berkeley Marina?

GERAGOS: Yes.

GROGAN: He described an island and where, in the area that he fished, I believe.

GERAGOS: And, in fact, the, specifically it looks like in one of the notes, is that of your interview, that your handwriting?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that would be Bates number stamp 24 thousand 60 –

GROGAN: 24068.

GERAGOS: Does that refresh your recollection that he also told you the same thing?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that, namely, he told you that he had trouble backing up the trailer after he hooked up; is that correct?

GROGAN: Can I see it again? Says trouble backing the trailer, period, after hooked up 14, 15 hours.

GERAGOS: I'm going to show you another report that was by Detective Owen dated January 6th of 03. Can you read that paragraph to yourself, see if that refreshes your recollection?

FLADAGER: Could I have a Bates stamp number on that?

GROGAN: 1854. I don't see a date.

GERAGOS: Would it be fair to say, if the report is, let's see. Let me just get 1823, and I'll tell you if I can find the date. The report is dated January 6th, correct?

GROGAN: The report at the bottom of the pages has that date on it. I don't know when the officer did that interview.

GERAGOS: Okay. When, the officer was Detective Owen; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. When he said specifically, he said, specifically this officer, that he had gone to the Berkeley Marina, that would have been at your direction, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, I think so. I know I sent Detective Armendariz out there. And I believe Phil Owen was sent at a subsequent time.

GERAGOS: Show you 1822 and 1823. And I believe your memory is correct, you sent Armendariz, it looks like, and myself, meaning Owen, then the same day?

GROGAN: I'm sorry. Just a moment.

GERAGOS: Sure.

GROGAN: Yes, sir, this report appears to be dealing with all their activities on January 6th.

GERAGOS: And specifically two detectives that you sent up to the Berkeley Marina met with the Harbor Master. The Harbor Master told them that a private investigator that worked for Scott Peterson had been there inquiring specifically to, actually been at the office that same day that the detectives had, correct, at 10:30 in the morning?

GROGAN: Yeah, I think so.

GERAGOS: And that the specifically the private investigator was asking about the two witnesses that had watched Peterson attempt to pull his boat out of the water. However, he was fishtailing his truck, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that the, according to the investigator, the two witnesses were laughing at his attempt to get the boat out, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that they wanted to know who the witnesses might be. She said she had taken the private investigator's card; however, she didn't have it at that time, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And that would have been on the 6th. So appears, at that point, that that would have been consistent with both Scott Peterson, with Scott Peterson attempting to find these two witnesses who worked in the maintenance yard at Berkeley Marina, who could witness and confirm for the police that he had been there that day.

FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. Calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: Does that, is that consistent with trying to verify the story?

FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation.

JUDGE: I'll let him answer it.

GROGAN: I'm sorry.

GERAGOS: Is the fact that the investigator was there consistent with trying to find the two witnesses who can verify his presence there on the 24th?

GROGAN: That's a possibility, sir.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically, and specifically you had sent two officers up there to do the very same thing, correct?

GROGAN: I did. I don't know what the timing is on the track that, where Mr. Peterson had gone there that day. I don't know what time he was there exactly.

GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, at the time of this gunshot residue test that was taken, Scott Peterson had shown Detective Brocchini that he had a small cut on his right index middle knuckle; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And that he did not note any other injuries on Mr. Peterson; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And at the conclusion of that interview, that your information that Scott went home. Now, in that interview it appears that Detective Brocchini had already elicited the information, or knew the information, from being at the house that evening, that Scott Peterson had taken a shower; isn't that correct? Is that what Mr. Peterson told him?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Yet Detective Brocchini still asked to do, and did perform, a gunshot residue test; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Now, the next day, about six hours, seven hours later, what time did, what time did you and Mansfield show up to interview him?

GROGAN: I showed up about 1:00 o'clock on the 25th.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically you and Officer Mansfield said that, or told him that you needed to familiarize yourself with the case. You introduced yourself as the lead investigator, basically; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And you told Scott specifically that he did not have to participate in the interview, and he was free to leave; but that you would appreciate if he would assist in the investigation, correct?

GROGAN: That's all correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he said he would stay, and he wanted to help, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at that point you introduced, was it Detective Buehler? Do I pronounce that right, Buehler?

GROGAN: Detective Buehler was already there that day.

GERAGOS: And specifically when you introduced him, was Mr. Mansfield from the Department of Justice there?

GROGAN: What I recall is, I had a conversation with Mr. Peterson, and  that he left with Detective Buehler and Agent Mansfield. And I don't know if they were both standing next to me when I talked to him, or if it was just John Buehler.

GERAGOS: You gave him, at that point you gave him your card and your cell phone number, right?

GROGAN: I know I did at some point that day.

GERAGOS: I'll just show you. It's not a big deal. But you had mentioned before that he was calling your cell phone. And I'm assuming that when you gave him the card, you wrote the cell phone number on your card. Doesn't have your cell phone number on it, does it?

GROGAN: No, it doesn't.

GERAGOS: That's because you don't want everybody calling your cell phone, right?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: You asked him, you gave, you wrote on the card your cell phone number, and that was, you gave it to him the first time you introduced yourself, right?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: That was at the police station?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically you had started to ask him about all the relationships of Scott to his family, Laci to her family, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you specifically wanted him to, you wanted to lead him through kind of that history. And he gave you basically who was who in the family, right?

FLADAGER: Are you looking at your Page 3 of 10 of your 12-28-02?

GROGAN: Bates stamp number one 11.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then he went through, we have heard this ad nauseam here. But he told you basically that he was employed by TradeCorp, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he says that, he told you that he's got clients all over the California area, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Told you he was a manager with the company. He didn't tell you, he said he, specifically he was employed by them. He didn't own the company, right?

GROGAN: That’s correct. He said he was a manager.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you he generally leaves for work at about 9:30 in the morning. His hours are flexible, and they vary, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said he selected the Modesto area to set up his office due to the fact that Laci's family lived there, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then he told you, he went through and described exactly what he had done that next, or you had asked him again, what did you do on Saturday? And he told you that his parents had purchased a membership for him at the country club, right, in December, December 1st?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that he and Laci had worked in the yard on Saturday, that he had played 18 holes of golf, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: He told you on Sunday that he recalled watching the Charger football game on Sunday morning; is that correct? Bottom of the page.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: He told you specifically that he had worked on the nursery later in the afternoon; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he told you about going to meet Laci at the OB-GYN appointment, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: He specifically remembered that the heart rate for the baby was a 150 beats per minute, right?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that he remembered, or that they knew it was a boy, because Laci couldn't wait.

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically were you also present during an interview that same day, or the next day, with a Mr. Boyer from Contra Costa?

GROGAN: On the following day, on the 26th, at 523 Covena, yes.

GERAGOS: And when you met with Mr. Boyer, did he do an interview?

GROGAN: He completed a missing persons report, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And during that interview, did Scott tell him, in your presence, that he, that Laci did sometimes walk the residential streets in the neighborhood?

GROGAN: Not that I recall.

GERAGOS: Show you what is –

GROGAN: That's my report. I don't see a Bates stamp number on it.

GERAGOS: Looks like an, I don't know. Is that the date or not? 12-

JUDGE: Does it refresh your recollection.

GERAGOS: Does it refresh your recollection?

GROGAN: What I recall of that is, I asked Mr. Peterson if Laci walked in the residential area around there, if he knew the route that she walked in that area. And he said no.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he did tell you, or tell Boyer in your presence on the 26th, that Laci did sometimes walk the residential streets in the neighborhood, but she didn't venture far from the home, right? Correct? You wrote that in your report, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you also wrote in the report Laci had no particular route around the neighborhood, and typically left through the French doors that led her to the backyard?

GROGAN: Yes, I think that's accurate.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that specifically Chris Boyer asked, when was the last time, prior to Tuesday, that Laci went for a walk. And Scott answered specifically last Sunday around the neighborhood, and last Friday in the park. Is that correct? Bates stamp 2915.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Chris Boyer specifically asked, when was the last time prior to Tuesday, which would have been, Tuesday was the 23rd, at that point what he was referring to, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Monday was the 22nd, Sunday the 21st. Do I have that right? Monday is the 23rd?

GROGAN: Monday is the 23rd.

GERAGOS: Tuesday is the 24th?

GROGAN: Tuesday is the 24th.

GERAGOS: 24th. And so when Chris Boyer specifically asked when was the last time prior to the 24th that Laci went for a walk, Scott? Last Sunday around the neighborhood, and last Friday in the park. Is that correct?

GROGAN: That's what that report reads, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And that report is Chris Boyer's attempt to do a verbatim transcript of his conversation with Mr. Peterson, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation.

JUDGE: I'll let the answer stand. Can I just ask one question?

GERAGOS: Sure.

JUDGE: My understanding, we were supposed to have to stop around 3:30.

GERAGOS: I'm just –

JUDGE: I'm going to ask the jury if they would like to go to the, instead of the 2:30 recess, go to 3:00 o'clock, and let you go until three. Would you like –

GERAGOS: I see bouncing heads.

JUDGE: We'll go through until three. We are going to have to, he has other material he has to bring in for the cross. So we'll, what we'll do, if you don't mind, well just forego your 2:30, recess and we'll go to three. Is that all right?

GERAGOS: Thank you.

GERAGOS: Now, when Captain Boyer, was it Captain Boyer?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. When he asked that, I'll get to it probably in the next twenty minutes. But, quickly, when he asked that, and said Scott answered that she walked around the neighborhood, doesn't that give you, didn't that give you some concern about the eliminating the sightings?

GROGAN: Well, there was a specific route that Scott was aware of that she took, and that was down into the park and traveling eastbound through the park, and then back to the home. And then there was no specific information on where she walked in the neighborhood.

GERAGOS: Okay. But one of the bases, if I understand correctly, one of the ways that you eliminated some of these sightings was if they weren't in the park; isn't that correct? On a number of these sightings that are here on People's 267, didn't he eliminate because they weren't in the park?

GROGAN: Yes. Some of them, yes.

GERAGOS: You did have information obviously, as of the 26th, one, the Chris Boyer interview that Scott had said that Laci, as recently has Sunday, had walked in the neighborhood, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, he also told you, and this would have been also on the 25th when you were talking to Mansfield, he's the one who specifically told you this would have been before the search warrant, correct? When you talked to him with Mansfield, you were at the police station?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he specifically told you that he decided to go fishing at the Berkeley Marina, right? And that he had advised you that he had researched on the internet about fishing in the area, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So when you seized the computer the next day, would have been actually would have been two days later. You froze the location that evening, right?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: When you froze the location, the person who had given you the information about the internet research on fishing in the Bay was Scott Peterson, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. That wasn't something that you just stumbled on to. I mean you had that information. And I assume one of the reasons that you wanted the computer is to see whether or not he, in fact, had researched for fishing on the internet, right?

GROGAN: We were trying to verify anything that we could in that statement.

GERAGOS: He also gave a specific description, actually he told you that recently they had sold jewelry on Ebay, correct? It would have been the same page, last paragraph.

GROGAN: Yes, I have information here he volunteered that information.

GERAGOS: Right. You didn't, when you, this was the first time you talked to him, right? In the same conversation when you introduced yourself upstairs, you had given description to Miss Fladager about, you didn't have, only had that one children's video room, and you didn't want to do it in there. You went to another conference room. Is that the, am I on the same page with you?

GROGAN: Same interview?

GERAGOS: Same interview.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: In that same interview, he's the one that brought up the fact that they had sold some jewelry on Ebay?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's the one who brought up that she had recently received her grandmother's inheritance?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's the one who told you, additionally, that one of her rings was at a jewelry store in McHenry Village. She was having work done on it as part of her Christmas gift, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: You didn't have that information from anybody else at that point on December 25th; is that correct?

GROGAN: Not at that point, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. But you later, obviously we have seen it ad nauseam in this trial. You later determined that, yes, he'd been on the internet researching, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: You later determined that, yes, they had sold jewelry on Ebay, correct? Or at least the Mickey Mouse watch and some of those chains?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you later determined that one of her rings was at the jewelry store in McHenry Village, she was having work done on it, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that she wanted it done by Christmas, but the store said that they weren't going to get it done in time, correct? You don't have to look that up. If you don't remember, that's fine.

GROGAN: I don't remember.

GERAGOS: At some point you went over and you did check up on the jewelry at McHenry Village, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: When you checked with the jeweler at McHenry Village, at some point did that jewelry get collected, somebody take that jewelry away?

GROGAN: The rings that she had left there?

GERAGOS: Yeah.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: I'm going to show you, specifically I have got a copy of the Edwards Jewelry items. Looks like on January 4th all the jewelry was picked up; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And who picked it up?

GROGAN: Sharon Roch

GERAGOS: Did Scott Peterson, the best of your knowledge, any time between December 25th and January 4th when Sharon Rocha picked up the jewelry, did he ever express any interest whatsoever in getting that jewelry, to you?

GROGAN: That he wanted to get it from Sharon, is that your question?

GERAGOS: Yes. Did he ever say, give me this jewelry, or have her get it to me?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: I'm going to mark, what I showed you was, I assume, a front and back copy of an envelope from the jewelry store?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that's got what purports to be Sharon Rocha's signature on there with a date of January 4th?

GROGAN: That's what I saw, yes.

GERAGOS: Mark that is defendant's next in order.

JUDGE: Defendant's 7C.

GERAGOS: Now, the –

FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos, could I look at that?

GERAGOS: Yeah.

GERAGOS: Specifically you also asked Scott on the 25th, the same interview, if Laci had ever gone fishing with him, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you that he taken Laci on a catamaran, the boat had flipped over, and she said she wouldn't go on a boat with him after that; isn't that right?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. He told you he'd never used the twelve foot aluminum boat, and that two days earlier he had gone to Big 5 Sporting Goods and had obtained a two-day license, and some fishing lures, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that he planned to fish for Sturgeon and Striper in the bay, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that he had last fished on a trip to Alaska. He enjoyed fishing and hunting. Is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that he said that Laci normally walked the dog in the morning after the frost; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he also said that she walked him in the Dry Creek area off Covena Avenue, the north end, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the dog always went with her?

GROGAN: Well, it doesn't say that exact quote. But it's talking about walking the dog. So I assume that's what we're, that she has to have the dog with her.

GERAGOS: You described how he had gone directly to his office and checked his e-mail on the computer; is that right? He's describing to you what he was doing that day, right?

FLADAGER: Could I ask which day?

GERAGOS: He's describing to you on the 25th what he did the day before, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And said he sent an e-mail to his employer, right? Second paragraph, under 1027 Emerald Avenue.

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And he, and, in fact, you did see an e-mail to the employer was found on his computer, correct, wishing his employer a Merry Christmas?

GROGAN: I am not seeing that in specifics.

GERAGOS: Okay. He told you that he would put together a mortiser, this woodworking tool, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: He cleaned up his office, and he unloaded tools from his toolbox, and left after 11:00 o'clock, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he specifically told you exactly how he drove to the marina, correct? Told up the highways that he took?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Told you specifically where there was a traffic slowdown, at what interchanges, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Told you that he put five bucks into what he described as an Iron Ranger, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Told you that he had two fishing rods with him, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that he had a tackle box with no ice chest, right?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: The weather conditions were worse, he was getting wet, decided to return, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that's when he said he had that difficulty backing up the trailer on to the dock with the trailer, and he saw people laughing at him, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, he also told that he when he left the area he called his wife at about 2:15, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that's the message the jury has heard where he says, "Honey, I'm leaving Berkeley now," correct? Or, "Sweetie, I'm leaving Berkeley"?

GROGAN: I don't know whether the jury has heard it. But that is the content of that message, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. You have heard the message that's on the message machine that was played at approximately 2:15. He said something like, "Sweetie, I'm leaving Berkeley now"?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And specifically he also told you that he hit traffic delays, and he stopped at the Chevron station and used his ATM, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: That he did not have a receipt for the ATM machine, right?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you wanted him to get one, right?

GROGAN: Yes, I asked him for that.

GERAGOS: You wanted him to prove that he had, in fact, made this trip, right?

GROGAN: Yeah, I don't know that that came up in this interview. I asked him, probably asked him if he had that receipt with him or not.

GERAGOS: You had another interview later where he had volunteered to give you the debit card number, or give you the debit card statement off the internet. You could check to see if he had been there, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And, specifically, he wrote it down for you and gave it to you?

GROGAN: Yes. That is a note he gave to me.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then mark this as next in order. It's Bates number 189.

JUDGE: Defendant's 7D. And that's what?

GERAGOS: It's a one-page note that has my client's handwriting.

JUDGE: Indicating credit card number?

GERAGOS: Indicating a debit card number, and amount, and a location

GERAGOS: Is that correct?

GROGAN: It's not my handwriting, so I assume it's his.

GERAGOS: This is one of the 41 reasons that you suspected that Laci Peterson was in the Bay, isn't it?

GROGAN: That he made.

GERAGOS: That item that he gave you, the thirteen dollars for gas?

GROGAN: Not so much the item, but the fact that he stopped.

GERAGOS: To get gas. And he got thirteen dollars and eight cents?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: You specifically had asked for that receipt, wasn't that correct? To prove that he had, in fact, stopped to get gas?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he also told you that he then went to Emerald Avenue, which is the workshop. He disconnected the boat, left immediately, spending only about five minutes at the warehouse, right?

GROGAN: Sorry. That was a little too fast for me.

GERAGOS: Said he disconnected the boat, left immediately. He only spent about five minutes at the warehouse?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: He told you, went on to say that Laci routinely mopped the kitchen in the morning, and he usually took the water out for her, is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And specifically he said that he had removed his clothing which was wet from the fishing trip and put it directly into the washing machine and started the wash cycle, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that was one of the things, the facts that he had put his clothes into the washing machine, that had caused, by the way I'm just going to show it so the jury can see it. This is the item that we just marked. This is one of the 41 reasons, at least the fact that stopped to get gas, even though he didn't retain the receipt, right?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

JUDGE: Can I interrupt. And that was presented to you by the defendant?

GROGAN: Yes, your Honor, it was. And it was, I believe that was on January 2nd that he gave me that.

JUDGE: At least he gave it to you. All right.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically he told you that he had removed his clothing, put it in the washing machine, started the wash cycle, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said that he went directly to the shower. When he finished it, he listened to the telephone messages, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. He said there was the one from him, and one from Ron, Ron Grantski, right?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And one from Ron asking Laci to bring whipped cream to the holiday celebration, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then you asked specifically to Scott, why did he wash his clothes upon entering the home, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you he washes his own clothing two to three times a week. Why?

GROGAN: He told me that because of the work he does, he gets some of the products on his clothing. He doesn't want to put his clothing in with other clothing in the hamper, and so he would wash it as soon as he came home.

GERAGOS: He also told you since his clothes were wet with salt water, he decided to do the same thing with those clothes, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And then, and then he told you that he and Laci had a good relationship. Next page, top.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he specifically told you that they didn't yell at each other. There had never been any violent encounter, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he told you also on that day that he had a life insurance policy that, what he described as a Whole Life plan?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you that Laci had a policy as well, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said that a friend of his sold him the policy. He couldn't recall the amount, but he gave you the name of the person, Brian Ullrich, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he also told you his phone number, and he gave the phone number for Brian Ullrich?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Ullrich?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: He told you that Laci and he had just gone on a trip to Carmel?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he had gone, and they had been to Hawaii earlier in the year in May; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: No specific, do you know specifically what week in May that they went to Hawaii was?

GROGAN: Not from this report, I don't.

GERAGOS: Okay. You would be able to find that out through the credit card statements, I assume?

GROGAN: I don't believe, I don't know if we have records going back that far.

GERAGOS: Okay. He told you that he had recently been out of the country, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Told you he had been in Cairo in February for one and half weeks, Brussels in June for one and a half weeks, Southern Spain in October for one and half weeks, all in connection with his travel, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically, also, listed out his monthly debts. And Agent Mansfield testified to this. He was the one who was really getting into that; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes. His nose on that is better than mine.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then you asked, Scott also volunteered about what kind of guns he had; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you specifically about the .22 caliber, which apparently had already been collected by Brocchini, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Told you about one, two, three, four, five, six other guns?

GROGAN: Seven.

GERAGOS: Seven other guns? And he told you about the maid; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Told you about who the poolman was, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that he had never been in a physical fight or altercation in his life; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And then part of the, were you, by the way, you have done a pretty extensive investigation on Scott Peterson, wouldn't you say?

GROGAN: Yes, I'd have to say that.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever find anybody whose ever had a fistfight or physical altercation with Scott Peterson?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: And he also said he's got no criminal history, either as an adult or a juvenile, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have anything out of the 40,000 pages, anywhere that indicates anything other than that?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: Specifically you asked him what he thought had happened to Laci; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the first thing that he told you is that he thought maybe she had been assaulted in the park by a transient, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: And he believed that possibly her jewelry was a motive, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you when he walked with his wife, which was about half the time, he saw transients sleeping in the park frequently, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said he would confront them and ask them to move on; threaten to call the police if they didn't, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said Laci would do this also, but he was unsure if Laci would do it if she were by herself, right?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Now, also told you about his future plans. And he said that he and Laci planned to move to San Luis Obispo, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said they were going to do that when his son was old enough to start school, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, you actually, there was some investigation that was done that indicated that actually Laci Peterson had called a real estate broker in San Luis Obispo before she went missing, correct?

GROGAN: I don't know that.

GERAGOS: All right. I'll pull that up and give you a report later on.

GROGAN: Okay.

GERAGOS: And you asked Scott about her current physical condition, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said that she was fine. She only took prenatal pills, and no medical problems, no history of mental illness, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Some time that same day, did Brocchini go to the house and also meet up with Scott?

GROGAN: On the –

GERAGOS: 25th.

GROGAN: 25th? Yes, that would have been in the morning prior to this interview.

GERAGOS: And when Brocchini went over there do you meet up with him? Met up with Scott?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Scott at that point had informed Detective Brocchini that they had already printed up thousands of flyers, and they were organizing a search; is that correct?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, sir, can I look at that?

GERAGOS: Sure.

GROGAN: Just this section?

GERAGOS: Right.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, there was, at that point Scott Peterson had cooperated fully with both you and with Detective Brocchini; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And on the 26th, Scott Peterson, at about eight in the morning called you on your cellular phone, correct?

GROGAN: On the next morning?

GERAGOS: On the next morning. Did he call you at eight in the morning on the 26th?

GROGAN: Yes, that's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that, already on the morning of the 26th at eight in the morning, that there were already news crews that were at his home; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that they were already requesting that a statement be released by members of the family, and Scott Peterson said he was going to work with the press, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said, however, the news crews were requesting member of the police department respond to be interview as well; is that right?

FLADAGER: Just want to object. I don't know that we have a foundation that any of this is something that Detective Grogan knew, as to opposed to something that was in another report.

GERAGOS: This is Detective Grogan's report. I'll show him, see if, it's Detective Grogan's report.

GERAGOS: This is a phone call you had with Scott Peterson, correct?

JUDGE: Is there a Bates stamp on that?

GERAGOS: My first thousand pages aren't Bated.

FLADAGER: Page 128.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically he wanted somebody from the police department, or you explained to him that Modesto PD had a Press Information Officer, PIO?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: That you were going to arrange for a statement, but you couldn't  do it. You wanted to work leads in the case, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Then at about that, that was in the morning, at 8:00 o'clock in the morning the day after Christmas, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then on that same day at about 4:10, you received a call on your cellular phone from Scott Peterson, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was, were you there with Detective Brocchini?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And had the search warrants already started?

GROGAN: No. We were going over there to meet with him and serve the search warrant.

GERAGOS: Had you gone to, had he gone to his warehouse?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, had he gone to the –

GERAGOS: What was the reason he was calling you, do you remember?

GROGAN: Yes, he had gone to the warehouse that afternoon and had met with two officers that were over there.

GERAGOS: Freezing the location?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he called up to tell Brocchini, look, you didn't have to get a search warrant, I would have consented. Isn't that correct? Isn't that what he told you and Detective Brocchini, that he would have consented to the search of the warehouse had we asked or agreed to speak with us after the press briefing regarding the search?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then so, if I understand correctly, you are in Judge Ashley's chambers on, is this a different matter?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: You are getting the search warrant signed?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And he goes to his warehouse. You got two officers that have frozen the warehouse, correct?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: He can't get in. They tell him we're waiting on a warrant, basically, is what your understanding was, right?

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Then he calls you and, or he calls you and Brocchini, and you tell him, and he says, look, you didn't need to get a warrant. I would have just let you get in, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, this might be a good place to stop.

GERAGOS: Sure.

JUDGE: I'm going to, after I excuse the jury, there is a few little bookkeeping things. I'm going to ask the audience remain seated.

I'm going let you go now. And remember the admonition, not no discuss this case among yourselves, or with any other person, or form or express any opinion about this case. You are not to listen to, read, or watch any media reports of this trial, or discuss it in any way with any representatives of the media or their agents. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock. We are still on track to finish the prosecution case, today, I have been advised next week. Okay?

 

September 27, 2004

JUDGE: All right. This is People vs. Scott Peterson.  Let the record show the defendant's present with counsel. These proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury. The defense, in the company of the prosecution, showed me these short tapes that they intend to play. The court's reviewed them and the court feels that they are relevant material. With respect to the second tape, the one that has to do with the interview of Ms. Rocha, the court directed the defense not to show the police report, nor the affidavit, as part of the film because it contains hearsay and conclusions and opinions of the writer. So with that qualification, then, the two tapes that the defense is proffering may be used in cross-examination of Detective Grogan. Okay. Now, the jury is coming in. And, for the record, now I a have a second, I have a second list of anticipated witnesses for this week. And has the defense been provided with this? Did you get a copy?

GERAGOS: Did you give it to Pat?

DISTASO: I put it on your desk.

JUDGE: Adds a few more witnesses. Three more extra ones other than what we had last Thursday, as I was searching through this list.

GERAGOS: Just adds Andrieu?

DISTASO: Yeah.

GERAGOS: From the previous?

DISTASO: Yeah.

JUDGE: Okay. Bring the jury in. Also, did you share with the defense that Ms. McGowan, or McGregor will not be called?

GERAGOS: They're not going to? Okay.

JUDGE: Okay. Good morning everybody. This is the case of People vs. Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant's present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. And proceed where you left off, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor.  Good morning, Detective.

GROGAN: Good morning.

GERAGOS: I think where we left off, I was talking about the calls, the interaction you were having with Scott after you met him for the first time on the 25th. And we talked about that you were in Judge Ashley's chambers with Detective Brocchini on the 26th; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And when you were in there on the 26th, at that point, do you remember what time it was you were in Judge Ashley's chambers?

GROGAN: Not exactly, no, sir. It was in the afternoon.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then at some point while you were in there you and Brocchini were told, either Scott told you or Brocchini, one or the other, that Scott was on his way to a press briefing at the Modesto PD headquarters building?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. The jury, I guess, is probably not aware of the layout there of the civic center, but the Modesto PD building is walking distance from the courthouse, is it not?

GROGAN: Yes, it is.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you were told that, that's when he told you, Scott told either you or Brocchini, that he would have consented to the search of the warehouse if you had asked, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, he told that to Detective Brocchini.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then the press briefing was with your chief of police; is that correct?

GROGAN: I don't know if he spoke that day or if it was just the public information officer. I didn't go inside the press briefing.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, while you were doing the press briefing, not you personally, but while it was going on, and I'm standing over you so you don't have to go pull out all of your books, what ended up happening is that Scott apparently left during this briefing; is that right?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Mr. Grantski was there and you went and talked to Mr. Grantski?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And asked him why Scott had left; is that correct?

GROGAN: Let me see that. Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that several members of the press were asking questions specifically about Scott and it appeared to anger or upset him; is that right?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then shortly after that, this took place over at the, at the police station. Shortly after that, you then went over to the Covena house; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that was at about 4:00 in the afternoon?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you went over to the Covena house, Scott, you met with Scott at that point?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you that he was, that he had had difficulty when he went over to the warehouse. He was trying to get a hold of a picture to pull up to put on some flyers; is that right?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that he couldn't get the photographs sent to him via computer from his home, and he said it was a picture of Laci and he planned to use it to create another flyer; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the detectives who were present at the warehouse wouldn't let him inside. And he said that if you had asked him to search the business, he would have granted you access, correct?

GROGAN: Is that my report here? Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And this is your report, is it not?

GROGAN: Yes. I believe so. I don't see the Bates stamp, but I think –

GERAGOS: My first 1,000 pages don't have Bates stamps, for whatever reason. Then also at that point there was a discussion between you and Scott and Detective Brocchini, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that's where Scott said that he, you know, if you had, he basically said if you had asked me, I would have let you search. And then he said something to the effect he was having real trust issues with you and Brocchini; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes, he said something like that.

GERAGOS: Okay. That's when you had a discussion, he said that he was, that he had serious doubts as to whether or not Detective Brocchini had accidentally left his cars (sic) inside of the truck, right?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, his what.

GERAGOS: He had doubts as to whether Brocchini had accidentally left his keys inside of the truck?

GROGAN: I believe he made that comment.

GERAGOS: He also said that he doubted that Brocchini had left his notebook inside the boat by accident as well, correct?

GROGAN: I believe so. I'm sorry, I want to,

GERAGOS: And that took place on the 26th. Did you eventually let him in there on that day so that he could get a picture of Laci to do on one of these new flyers?

GROGAN: No. I believe that the warehouse was secured through the night and it wasn't searched until the following day.

GERAGOS: Okay.

FLADAGER: Approximately Bates number 133. 133, 134.

GROGAN: Thank you.

GERAGOS: Now, the next, looks like 10:00 o'clock that night. 8:00 o'clock that night, I'm sorry. 8:45, you also got a call from Scott Peterson; is that right.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he was asking about certain aspects of the investigation, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then you asked him if he had gotten any sleep since the incident, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he said that he at least had the comfort of his own home and the smell of Laci in their bed, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, that's what he said.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then you asked him specifically at that point, and this is the same conversation at 8:00 o'clock that night on the 26th, you asked him specifically if he would provide you or tell you where certain items of evidence were, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Would you tell me what the Bates stamp number is on that?

GROGAN: It's page 141.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when, you asked him specifically where the fishing license was, correct? Second sentence on that paragraph.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And when, and he told you that the fishing license had been on the counter inside the house and he had handed it to Brocchini earlier that same day, correct?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you also called Brocchini up to find out if he, in fact, had done that, right?

GROGAN: I believe I, it's not in this report, but I believe that's, that's eventually where we found the fishing license, inside the home, and Detective Brocchini did say something about Scott doing that.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then you specifically asked him also where the Big 5 bag with the fishing lures and receipt was; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he told you that it was either left in the bag, or he had left the bag in the truck or it was possibly at                                                                                             his shop; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you later found that Big 5 receipt, or the bag and the receipt in the shop, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, I believe that's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. You then asked him how to recover messages from his phone without erasing them, and specifically I, I, my belief is that that's the phone messages that would be on a voice mail; is that right?

GROGAN: I think at that point we were talking about the digital phone for the, for the home. The home phone.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you how to do that so that you wouldn't be, so that they wouldn't be erased, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then that was the sum and substance of your contacts with him on that day; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically you'll remember we talked about the Chris Boyer interview. That was the gentleman that came from Contra Costa. That was one of the dog handlers. That was also on the 26th, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Mr. Boyer testified when he was here that Scott had, was the one who had asked him for a receipt for the items that were being taken as scent articles. Were you here in the courtroom when he testified to that?

GROGAN: I don't think so.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to show you what's page nine of 15. Specifically in your report it states, and you were present, correct, when Captain Boyer was there?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: In your report you write that Captain Boyer was the one who offered to complete a receipt for the items of clothing, and Scott said he would like to have the receipt. Is that your memory of what transpired? That it was Boyer was the one who had offered to fill out a receipt?

GROGAN: Yes. What I have in my report is I was writing down those items in my notes as to what was being taken, and that the defendant was happy that I was keeping track of, of what was being taken, and then Captain Boyer offered to complete a receipt.

GERAGOS: Okay. It wasn't a situation where Scott said I want a receipt for this, or anything else; he was happy that you were documenting what was coming out of the house, and then Boyer was the one who offered to do a receipt on this; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Boyer also asked Scott if he would complete a standard, what you call a standard form regarding a search for a missing person, and Scott consented to completion of that form; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically Boyer asked a great deal of questions while you were there; is that right? I mean go on to the next page, which is page ten of 15.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Scott specifically told them about McKenzie, the dog's condition. That he was clean, however his leash was dirty as if it was dragged through mud, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And Scott said that he didn't know what type of jacket Laci would have worn going on a walk, but she would wear one of his jackets on occasion, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And specifically that's when they talked about the purse. And Captain Boyer searched through the purse; is that right? Third paragraph down.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then Scott also was identifying her major credit cards, saying that there may have been other cards for specific businesses, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he also, Scott gave kind of a description of how Laci would, what she would wear when she would go walk; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And specifically he described, he said Laci would typically not wear anything in her hair when walking; is that correct?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And that she was wearing nothing in her hair when he last saw her; is that correct?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you had also interviewed Sharon and Ron, Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski a couple of days later; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you specifically asked Shawn and Ron, Ron and Sharon if they could tell you about Scott and Laci's daily schedules, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And Sharon and Ron told you that around 7:00 o'clock they, that Laci would walk the dog every day or second day, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, that's what it says.

GERAGOS: And she would have a daily visit to the grocery store, usually around the early afternoon, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that she would do household cleaning and chores, visit with friends or her sister, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Occasional pedicures and manicures, and dinner preparation at 6:00 to 6:30; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that she cooked all their meals and they would sleep together and their bedtime was unknown?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And that Scott typically traveled to the warehouse in the morning, and although the time was unknown, Scott's daily routine was not known to either Sharon or Ron; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that Scott traveled frequently and went out of town frequently?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So on the 30th, when you interviewed Ron and Sharon, it was their understanding that Laci had told you that Laci would wake up at 7:00 and walk the dog on a daily basis or every other day, correct?

GROGAN: That was my understanding.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when Scott described what she was wearing, he said she was wearing some jewelry which included diamond earrings, correct?

FLADAGER: Page 136.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that she also was wearing a diamond solitaire on a gold chain?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And a watch with diamonds around the face?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she, and he told you that Laci did have two diamond rings and a sapphire ring, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that one of the rings that was, was currently in the shop; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And that her ears had three piercings and that the diamond earrings that she wore were older and were screw-on clasps at the back; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you interviewed Sharon, also on the 30th, Sharon told you specifically that on the day of Laci's disappearance she was aware that Laci had planned on that day to walk the dog and to bake gingerbread cookies; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes. And I think in conversations with her after that she corrected that to just gingerbread rather than gingerbread cookies. Maybe that was a mistake I made.

GERAGOS: Okay. So that she was, she was aware, at least on December 30th, that Laci had planned to walk on that day, and that, that also to bake, do some baking? You remember gingerbread; you don't know if it was gingerbread or cookies?

GROGAN: Exactly.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically the, one of the reasons that you were investigating or concerned about jewelry was you wanted to see what jewelry, if she was walking, and she was abducted, what jewelry was there, what jewelry was missing, and see if that comported with what Scott had told you; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you never did recover the older screw-on clasp diamond earrings, correct?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: In fact, Scott was the one who told you, and this was, this interview was on the 26th with Boyer, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's the one who told you that the, one of the rings was currently in the shop. You didn't know that before that, correct?

GROGAN: No, I don't, I don't think I knew that until this day.

GERAGOS: Okay. So the first time that you learned that some of the jewelry was in the shop, and you later learned it was over at McHenry Village, and that receipt that I had showed you on Thursday, the first person who told you that was Scott?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically one of the reasons that you, we've heard a lot of talking about the Croton watch and Genevieve watch and Mickey Mouse watch. One of the other things you're trying to determine when investigating this is to see what items she's wearing when she leaves, or when Scott last sees her, to see if you could find those items, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. So what we've got missing is the, you don't find the older screw-on diamond earrings, correct?

GROGAN: Right.

GERAGOS: And we've got one watch, at least, that's unaccounted for; which is this Croton watch, correct?

GROGAN: Yes. That one's unaccounted for.

GERAGOS: Unaccounted for. And I'll get into that in a little detail later, because you did a lot of investigation on that. But you were keenly interested in that to determine if she was wearing the Croton watch when she went walking, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you were also, and one of the reasons, I think, that we've been going through the diamond solitaire around her neck is to determine if the diamond solitaire was something she was wearing when she went walking, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And we'll get into that a little bit also. But one of the things you were trying to do is determine if the diamond solitaire was something that had been inherited from her grandmother, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Or whether it was a diamond solitaire that she had that, preexisting, so to speak, correct?

GROGAN: Well, I think in the descriptions that we, we got, I was told that she was wearing inherited jewelry at the time, and that's mainly what my focus was.

GERAGOS: Okay. Except specifically, on the 26th, Scott had said she, the ones that she was wearing, the diamond earrings were older and that she had specifically on a watch with diamonds around the face, which you interpreted to be one of the inherited items, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he also told you, and we went through this, we got into what her route was when she went through the park. But he also told Boyer that she sometimes walked in the residential streets in the neighborhood but didn't venture far from home, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And specifically said that she would typically leave through the French doors that led into the backyard; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And those are the same French doors that Scott says were unlocked when he came home, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, after that interview with Boyer, and that was on the 26th, you next got a phone call, and he called you on the 27th at about 11:22 in the morning?

GROGAN: I'm sorry, "he" being?

GERAGOS: Scott. Looks like page two of five.

GROGAN: That's the 27th?

GERAGOS: Uh-huh. And he called you on your cell phone and said that there were two, two individuals that were present at the command post, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you knew that to be where?

GROGAN: I think the command post at that point had been set up at the Red Lion in Modesto.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he asked you about one specifically, which was a, involving a purple Tempest automobile with Arkansas plates; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you told him at that point that you had no information about that specifically, but basically you explained that what was going on is that people were evaluating the leads and if they seemed like something was promising, they would forward them over to you?

GROGAN: Yes. I was made aware of anything that was significant, it seemed.

GERAGOS: Okay. He also told you there was another person present at the command post that worked at The Olive Grove that was northwest of his house, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: What's the Bates stamp number of that?

GROGAN: 144.

GERAGOS: Thank you. And that he didn't know if they had seen anything, but that they did, he thought that an investigator should interview that employee; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he, you told him that you would have this, another sergeant assign a detective to respond to handle that; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he thanked you, and that was the end of that conversation, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then he called back sometime within the next hour, on that same day? While you were in a meeting? Looks like page three of five.

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he called you on your cell phone and said that he wanted to see if the detective was en route to handle the follow-up for these leads, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he also asked you if there were equestrian units conducting any searches on that day, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you told him that there were, and he was, he said good; he was pleased with that, is that right?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you also, on the very next page here, you, on that same day went over to the office, on the 27th, where the search warrant was taking place; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you made a notation that you believed that the office appeared to be generally disorganized in contrast to the orderly state of the Peterson home; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, when you, I'm going to go back just to the previous day. There was some testimony by Boyer that at some point Scott had placed some papers under something on the table when Boyer was writing. Did you see that? Or did you notice that?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so as to appear not to scratch or to write on the table?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And did you think that that was suspicious or odd?

GROGAN: It seems maybe an unusual concern based on the fact that his wife had only been missing for a couple of days.

GERAGOS: Did you think after, once you went to the warehouse the next day and saw how disorganized it was, that maybe in fact that showed that he was expecting his wife to come back? What man would care about whether or not the table got wrote on if his wife wasn't coming back?

GROGAN: