|
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: Well, I didn't really consider that. GERAGOS: Okay. But you did, you previously, when we had Brocchini testify, that Scott had described himself as kind of a slob when looking in the closet on the day of the 24th, correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry, the question again? GERAGOS: Brocchini said that Scott had characterized himself as kind of a slob when Brocchini was looking in his closet on the 24th, correct? GROGAN: I – GERAGOS: Were you aware of that? GROGAN: I don't recall that, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. But you were aware that when you went over to the office that it did appear to be disorganized and messy correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Whereas the house appeared to be neat and orderly, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And at the time you might have thought that that was unusual. As you sit here today it may not seem that unusual, given the dichotomy between how he maintains his office and how she maintains the house? GROGAN: That is one way to look at it, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, after you, you went over to the office on Emerald, I guess later that same day, is the next paragraph, it looks like at about 5:30 you received a telephone call from Scott on your cellular phone; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he wanted to know what your estimate would be for him to be able to return into his house; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically, I assume, I'm assuming that when you are executing the search warrant, and we've had testimony that it took a line couple of days, that he's not allowed to come in and spend the night; so he's got no access to the house, correct? GROGAN: From the 26th to the 27th, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And he also has no access to his automobiles on the 26th or the 27th, correct? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: And he's, we've already talked he had no access to his office as well? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: His office, actually, for a longer period of time because you had frozen it prior to the search warrant actually getting over there? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. He, after he called you, then you called Brocchini and asked Brocchini to go back to Covena and collect a sample from near the driveway; is that right? Cement sample? GROGAN: Yes. What I recall of that, on the 27th we were still securing the home. There were still an officer there, but the search had essentially ended. And I called Detective Skultety first. He was no longer there, so I sent Detective Brocchini back. GERAGOS: Okay. And Skultety was not there when you sent Brocchini back; is that correct? GROGAN: Not, not to my recollection, no. I talked to them both over the phone, not in person. But that, that was not the impression I got, that Rudy Skultety was there. GERAGOS: Right. That's why, because if I understand, you would have called Skultety first because Skultety was the crime scene manager for the search of the house, and specifically he would be the guy that you would want to direct to do this, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Since he's no longer there, you call up Brocchini and send Brocchini over to do it because he's available, I guess; correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the 27th, it's still the 27th. At about 7:30 you get another telephone call from Scott; is that correct? Page five of five, I think, of that same report, midway through. Looks like at about 7:30 in the evening. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, at this point he told you that he was a short distance from his house in a vehicle, and he said there were members of the media all around the house and there was an officer who was apparently being interviewed; is that correct? GROGAN: That's what he said, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the officer, he wanted the officer to stop participating in the interview in front of the house or, and/or have the media leave so that he could get back into his house; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You told him that there was really not much that you could do at that point as long as they weren't on the property; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that you would offer to have the officer remove the crime scene tape that was around; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he was courteous throughout the telephone conversation? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the next time that you talked to him, you taped that conversation; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically during that search on the 26th and the 27th, did you talk with Jon Buehler during the course of the search? GROGAN: I'm sure I did. GERAGOS: Okay. Did he specifically request that you try to locate any latent prints at the residence during the processing in case this was a stranger abduction or intruder crime? GROGAN: Can I see that? GERAGOS: Sure. Bates stamp 1622. One six two two. FLADAGER: One six two two. GROGAN: Yes. I think he's talking about, I believe he's talking about a briefing we had prior to the, prior to the search warrant. GERAGOS: Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, he called in the FBI to do the Luminol and the, and there was some other searches, but to the best of your knowledge did anybody attempt to locate latent prints at the residence? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And latent prints are where somebody would come through and dust for fingerprints or spray some kind of a substance to see if they could find fingerprints that were in the house; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And do you know whose decision it was to not do that? GROGAN: I think when we were looking at the house we were trying to determine any location where anything had the appearance that someone had come inside. Anything that appeared to have been handled. And based on what the defendant had told us, there was no indication that that was the case. So that would have been a focus area for where we could have done fingerprints. GERAGOS: Now, on the 30th, December 30th, and looking at your report again, page one of five, on the 30th, you then spoke again, you had another briefing; is that correct? There it is. You had, you had another briefing regarding this case; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And during that briefing, or at the conclusion you received another phone call on your cell phone from Scott; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that, and this was in the morning? GROGAN: Yes. Between 7:00 and 8:00. Somewhere in there. GERAGOS: Okay. He told you he was trying to get a hold of Sergeant Cloward? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Sergeant Cloward is the person who testified here. He's the guy who's in charge of the search efforts? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that at one point he had his cellular phone number but that he didn't have it or couldn't find it and he wanted you to give it to him? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And that you told him at that point that you wanted to interview his parents, Lee and Jackie, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you that they would participate, and he gave you his dad's cell phone number, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that you told him you would call him back within about 15 or 20 minutes, as soon as you returned to your office? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Eventually you got back to your office and you called him back. This time you recorded it; is that right? The conversation? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. That's the one we listened to already when Ms. Fladager was doing your direct? GROGAN: Yes. It's one of two on that date. GERAGOS: Okay. And you were still pressing him for a accurate description of Laci's jewelry, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you that she had been wearing diamond earrings and she had two diamond-encrusted gold wrist watches and she had been wearing one of them; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you determined, at least at this point in your mind; or not, do you have any information on December 30th as to the watches that she had inherited? GROGAN: No. I knew that we had recovered the, the Genevieve watch and that it had diamonds around the face of it and it was gold. And as far as the investigation into what exactly all she received in the inheritance, that took a long time to get through. GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point he's the one who is giving you the, he's the main source of information, looking back, on the 30th, because you don't have any of that at that point; you haven't done that investigation yet? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you found the Genevieve when you did the search; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. But you did, when did you the search you were unable to find this Croton watch; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. It wasn't there when we were searching for it on the 26th, 27th. Didn't know it even existed until I talked to Maria Rocha, Robin Maria Rocha, much later. GERAGOS: Okay. Also in that same conversation is when Scott tells you about Russell Graybill, the, the mailman, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's the gentleman that came here to testify that he was on his route that morning, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Also at that point Scott told you about the diamond solitaire necklace, right? GROGAN: You know, in one of these interviews I, I attributed a necklace in, into his statement that was not there, that we didn't actually talk about, and I went, I did a report correcting it. I think we would have to look at the transcript to make sure that it's not this one. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, you were also asking him about any injuries that either he or Laci had in the cars, the vehicles; the truck and the SUV, correct? Page two of five, third paragraph down. GROGAN: And the question was about injuries? GERAGOS: Yeah. You were asking him about any injuries either he or Laci had received in the vehicles. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, that's because you already executed the search warrant; you've taken a section of the headliner out in the Land Rover, correct? GROGAN: That, I'm not sure what date that happened, but it did happen, yes, sir. GERAGOS: When, when the search warrant was served, at least before you had this conversation with Scott you had at least some belief that there was some kind of blood evidence on that headliner, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. There was a time when, when we believed that was the case. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: And – GERAGOS: And that would, whether you cut it out on the 28th, 29th, 30th, the first week of January, it probably would have been before January 3rd, but whether that was the case, at least, when you executed that search warrant, you thought that there was blood, or somebody thought that there was blood evidence in the Land Rover, correct? GROGAN: We thought that that was a possibility, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And you thought that there was blood evidence of either Laci's or Scott's in the truck, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And so you were specifically asking Scott, on the 30th, after you've executed the search warrant, to see if there was any reasonable explanation for why this, why there may be a trace of blood in one of the, one or both of the cars, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he never at any point told you that he believed that Laci had bled in one of the cars, did he? GROGAN: No. I think he said he didn't know anything about that to his knowledge. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically he told you about the injury on his knuckle when he had reached into a door panel storage area on the left door; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You also asked him specifically, you wanted to know about this boat purchase; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, you wanted to know about that because you wanted to see ne whether or not he was buying, you basically wanted to test out this, this story that you felt he gave you on the boats, correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry, your question is why I asked him? GERAGOS: Let me ask you, you asked him, you, you, you interviewed him about the boats and you said specifically, you asked him did he know, did Laci know about the boat purchase, right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And he said that she did know, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that she had been to the warehouse previously to meet him for lunch, and he last believed that she was at the warehouse on the Friday before her disappearance, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, that would have been December 20th; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. You later found out from doing an interview with a Peggy O'Donnell and Rosemary Ruiz that, in fact, December 20th or December 23rd was their memory of when Laci had been to the warehouse, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. 20th or 23rd? JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: I believe that was the statement they gave. Wasn't it originally the 20th or the 23rd? GROGAN: I believe it was, it was the 20th with Peggy O'Donnell. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the same day that Scott told you that he believed that Laci had been over to the warehouse, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you asked, you also asked him why he selected that particular boat; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically he told you, number one, that it was in good shape, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: But he also told you, I don't know, was it in that conversation or another one, that specifically it had been registered for a long time? Do you remember him telling you that in one of the conversations? GROGAN: I remember we talked about registration and, with another boat that he had looked at. GERAGOS: And that boat was not registered and he didn't want an unregistered boat, correct? GROGAN: Correct. And I – GERAGOS: Did you find that, did you find that to be a, a little bit at odds with this theory that he was trying to hide the boat? And that he was actually buying a boat or he wanted a boat that had been registered? GROGAN: Well, not necessarily. I don't think that if, if he got stopped for a violation of an unregistered vehicle or boat while enroute to the Bay, maybe that wouldn't be good. GERAGOS: Well, did he put his name down, we've got these DMV documents that were marked as People's Exhibit 263; is that correct? These were marked by Ms. Fladager. GROGAN: Yes. There's a release of liability completed. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically these documents show that that boat's been registered for a while, correct? GROGAN: Yes. It appears so. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So, and that receipt date was on December 17th; is that right? GROGAN: I'm not sure. I'm sorry, I didn't look at that. GERAGOS: Okay. When you talked to Bruce Peterson, you did interview Bruce Peterson, didn't you? GROGAN: Yes. He was interviewed several times, I think. GERAGOS: Okay. He told you that he, that he had filled out a release of liability, correct? GROGAN: I don't know if he told me that, but I believe that's in one of the reports, at least. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the DMV documents show Scott Peterson, his address, correct? And the transfer date as 12/9; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the release of liability is also a document that is filed with the DMV, to the best of your knowledge? GROGAN: The release of liability? GERAGOS: Release of liability. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically when you fill that out, you usually have the buyer sign it? Isn't that your understanding of how it operates? GROGAN: Yes, I believe so. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically in this case, that document right here is then forwarded to the DMV with all the information showing that, Scott Peterson, his address, and everything else; and then this notice of release of liability says: Mail this form to DMV. That's your understanding of what happens; is that correct? GROGAN: That the seller of the vehicle or vessel completes the form and, and sends it to DMV, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did that, the fact that a release of liability on a registered boat that is filled out, at least in part, by Scott Peterson tend to negate your idea that he was trying to hide this boat? GROGAN: Well, that was completed by Bruce Peterson. GERAGOS: All the information was correct as far as Scott Peterson, wasn't it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Scott Peterson didn't give his name, or give somebody else's name or somebody else's address, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. In fact, he gave his Covena address, which is the home, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And I would assume that if the DMV is going to send a notice sometime after December 17th, which is the receipt date, they're going to mail it to the Covena address, correct? GROGAN: If they mailed anything to him, yes, it would go to that address. GERAGOS: Okay. One of the first things that they would mail to him would be one of the notices of tax due, wouldn't it? On the transfer of the boat? Doesn't one have to pay a transfer tax? GROGAN: I think that's the case. GERAGOS: And so wouldn't that, if you're buying a boat on December 9th and you're listing your home address as 523 Covena, wouldn't one expect, especially if he's bought and sold vehicles in the past, that you're going to get a notice from the DMV? That's not exactly a place that you would want to put that address to hide it from Laci Peterson, would you? GROGAN: No, it would not, it would come to the house, or any mail that went between the Department of Motor Vehicles would go to the address that's on there. GERAGOS: Okay. As opposed to if you put the Emerald Avenue address, or something like that, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. You asked Scott also if he had looked at other boats and he told you that he had, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then you asked him if Laci had accompanied him when he purchased it, and he told you that she had not, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said that he had started the boat dry one time before he took it out on the 24th; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, you understood starting it dry to mean start up the engine when it's not in the water, correct? GROGAN: That's my understanding of that, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that's on the 30th. That's the second time you've talked to him on the 30th; is that right? GROGAN: I believe that's the first time. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Well, I'm sorry. GERAGOS: That was the second. You had called him back. You talked to him briefly in the morning, right? GROGAN: Right. And I talked to him again after that. GERAGOS: Okay. So you talked to him once again sometime around 5:20 in the afternoon? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you received a telephone call from him on your cellular phone, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And this, this is another one that you recorded; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's one where he explained that he purchased the boat without an anchor and the owner of the boat did not want to sell the anchor so he made his own, right? Last paragraph on that page four of five. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Now, you later, when you interviewed Bruce Peterson, confirmed that, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then you confirmed, in fact, that Bruce Peterson did not want to sell his anchor, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And Scott told you that he used the pitcher in the shop, or you asked him if he used the pitcher in the shop as his form, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said no, he had poured it into a small plastic painter's bucket; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And then he told you he placed rebar into it to affix a rope to it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, we've already talked about the chicken wire. He answered that for you. You then also told him on the 30th that you had been unable to locate a receipt for the gas purchase that took place on the way home from the Bay, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And he told you he never collected a copy of it on that day, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And that's, he marked as an exhibit the item that he eventually gave you after this conversation, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at some point somebody had thought it was suspicious, one of the officers who had responded on the 24th, that Scott had a receipt from the boat launch area; isn't that correct? That he produced that right away? GROGAN: I, I don't know that anyone thought it was suspicious. GERAGOS: Well, if that was suspicious, one of the officers had thought that was suspicious, wouldn't it be, wouldn't that be counteracted by the fact that he had not saved the receipt for the gas? FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation and – JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: The, he specifically just gave you the information so that you could go and confirm it, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you, you later did go and confirm it, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the 30th, did you, was that the last phone call you had with him, at 5:30? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Did you talk to him sometime around 1:30 also on that day? GROGAN: Did I talk to, to Scott Peterson on December 30th at about 1:30? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: I don't have anything here for that. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, after that, the, on the 2nd of January, Scott shows up at the Modesto Police Department; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was at about 2:45 in the afternoon? GROGAN: I'm sorry, just one moment. GERAGOS: Sure. I'll show you at the top it's got a 113 and says page three of five. GROGAN: Okay. And that's page 185. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when he came in, he specifically requested to speak with you; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you wanted him to identify what his keys, you had brought out his wallet and, his keys and his wallet, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you had asked him specifically what each key was for, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And, in fact, I notice in your notes, and you say in your report, you had photocopied all of the keys, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And when you asked Scott to identify each one, you maintained the key to his truck, right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: The toolbox in the back of the truck? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And the alarm control key? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you gave Scott his wallet, which included his credit cards and his business cards, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then he also told you that he had two checks that he believed were inside of his truck that he needed for business so that he could pay his employees, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he again inquired about the status of the Land Rover, telling you it would be nice to have it back so he could help in the search for Laci? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you told him that you, the detectives had been called away to work on an unrelated homicide; is that correct? The very next sentence after helping you search for Laci. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And you said that you would try and return it as soon as possible; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Scott explained to you how it would be helpful for him to pay employees, and he wanted to see if he could do what was necessary to get the checks released; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Now, this is the conversation you had with him where he asked you if you thought it was possible that Laci had been kidnapped for the baby? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he also asked you, wanted to know if you thought she had passed away; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you told him that with the passing of each day the likelihood that Laci would be returned unharmed diminished; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And what was his physical demeanor when you told him that? GROGAN: He had, he was looking right at me and he had tears in his eyes. GERAGOS: Okay. At that point he also provided you with that paper that's been marked as an exhibit that had Russell Graybill, the postman's name and number on it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You had already interviewed Graybill; or somebody had at that point, correct? GROGAN: Yes, someone else had. GERAGOS: He also gave you a piece of paper with the Chevron Livermore 13 dollar information on it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he took off from there; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then that was on the 2nd. On the 3rd, on the top it's got 122, Scott calls again; is that correct? Approximately 11:00 o'clock in the morning? FLADAGER: 184. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You telephoned Scott and left him a message; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the, when he returned your call, you said, you offered to give him a ride to the investigative services bureau, and he said that he could return his rental car and come over to investigations; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Was the rental car agency fairly close to the investigations services bureau? GROGAN: Yes. It's, it's a block or two from the headquarters building and about two blocks from where we were located at that time. GERAGOS: Okay. And then on the 3rd, and I'm looking at Bates stamp 1650, looks like when he came there, did he also ask you about the status and the progress of the case? On that day, on January 3rd? GROGAN: Bates stamp 1650? GERAGOS: 1650. GROGAN: Is that a – GERAGOS: It's a Buehler report referring to his conversations with you. GROGAN: Yes. I assume Detective Buehler's referring to the, to the information about whether Laci had been abducted for the baby. GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically you told him also on that same day, on the 3rd, that you needed to obtain blood samples, fingerprints, palm prints, saliva samples and photos of him; is that correct? I'll show you again, once again, 1650, and see if that refreshes your recollection as to Buehler's report. GROGAN: That's what his report says, yes. GERAGOS: Is that what you ended up doing when he came to the Modesto PD that day? GROGAN: We rolled fingerprints. I don't recall if we did buccal swabs, the cheek swabs, but we took him to the hospital and drew blood. Took some photographs. GERAGOS: Now, the photographs that you took, basically he was stripped down naked, correct? GROGAN: He wasn't naked. He was down to his underwear. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he was photographed front and back, correct? GROGAN: I think so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You didn't see any injuries on him, correct? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically took samples from him as well? Hair samples? GROGAN: No. No hair sample was obtained that day. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on that day you also asked him to release, sign a release for any medical information that related to Laci and her OB-GYN? GROGAN: Yes. I filled that out at the hospital while Detective Buehler was doing the rest of this. GERAGOS: And he signed that, correct? GROGAN: He did. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically, and that's contained in the records that you later obtained from Dr. Yip's office, correct? The authorization itself? GROGAN: Is it in their records? GERAGOS: Yes. The reason you do that, have him sign an authorization, is so that when you go to the doctor's office you can hand them the authorization and they keep, keep that so that there's no liability and they can release confidential records, correct? GROGAN: Yeah, that's the way those work. I, I haven't gone through all the records. I don't know if it's present or not. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you left, first Scott came to the Modesto PD, and then you guys drove him over to the hospital? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you tried to record that conversation, correct? GROGAN: Yeah, we ran a tape, ran a tape in the back of the car, with Detective Buehler driving and the defendant seated in the right front seat. GERAGOS: Okay. And that tape didn't come out too well, did it? GROGAN: You can't hear it very well, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And the, you played it back, in other words, and you can't really discern what the voices are saying and the quality is pretty bad, right? GROGAN: Yeah. We didn't, you know, we didn't really talk about anything substantive in the, in the car, and I don't think it's been transcribed. I don't know that the, I know the quality is probably not very good. GERAGOS: Okay. Okay. And then on the 3rd, that was the, when you took him over to the hospital, where was, which hospital was that? GROGAN: I think that was Doctors Medical Center. GERAGOS: Okay. And then, once again, you asked him about the, you said you wanted to talk to him about some of the evidence that had been found during the search warrants at his business and home, and he said sure; is that correct? The top of the page is 127. Page two of three. GROGAN: 127. GERAGOS: Specifically there. You asked him about the anchor again, right? GROGAN: This conversation I believe took place, yes, this conversation took place in the investigative services building at 1200 F street before we went to the hospital. GERAGOS: Okay. And you asked him and he, he willingly just said that he would talk to you about these items; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that he made the anchor out of cement rather than buy it from the store, because the bag of cement costs three bucks and an anchor would cost 30 or more, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: 30 bucks or more. You told him you had never seen a cement anchor like that, right? GROGAN: That's true, yes. GERAGOS: And he told you that, and you asked him, you said: I've never seen one, basically, where did you get this idea of making an anchor like that; correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And he told you he had seen them in rental boats in the San Diego area in the past and believed they would be easy to make; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you that the standard anchor is called a Danforth, D-A-N-F-O-R-T-H, and there's also a mushroom anchor, which is the type that the owner of the boat he purchased owned, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And, once again, he told you that the owner of the boat did not want to sell the anchor with the boat and he kept it, so Scott decided to make his own anchor, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that you later confirmed that; and, in fact, we've had Bruce Peterson testify that that was, in fact, the case, right? GROGAN: That he kept his own anchor, yes. GERAGOS: Right. He didn't want to sell it? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. Then you asked Scott about TradeCorp; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you that last year that the business had lost 100 grand and that the goal for this year was to break even; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you that his salary alone was approximately 66,000 bucks, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that he had one salaried employee that made about 30,000, right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: He also told you TradeCorp, the company, parent corporation, was aware that a startup company would likely lose money the first few years until it was established? GROGAN: Yes, that's what he said. GERAGOS: Okay. And then once again you asked Scott if he had looked at any other boats; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you, he told you he had looked at two other boats on the Fresno Bee online; right? GROGAN: No. I think he told me that he had looked at, he had looked in the newspaper. Let me see. GERAGOS: I'm looking at the one, two, three, four, fifth paragraph down. Starting with: I asked Scott if he had looked at other boats. GROGAN: Yeah. Modesto, Modesto Bee online. GERAGOS: Okay. I think earlier on your direct Ms. Fladager was asking you about the Fresno Bee, but is the, as far as you know, did the Modesto Bee and the Fresno Bee have some kind of a relationship? GROGAN: I think, yeah, all the Bee newspapers are somehow under the same umbrella, but I couldn't tell you exactly how they're connected. GERAGOS: The Sacramento Bee, the Modesto Bee, the Fresno Bee are all owned by the same company; isn't that correct? GROGAN: I think so, yes. GERAGOS: He told you he had gone to the Modesto Bee online and within a few days had purchased the twelve-foot boat, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically he told you, he gave you descriptions of the other boats that he was looking at, right? The two other boats? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Told you one was a heavy duty fifteen-foot fiberglass boat with a 35 horsepower Evinrude motor, E-V-I-N-R-U-D-E; right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He told you the boat was blue with a bleached white top and broken windows, right? GROGAN: Yes, that's what he said. GERAGOS: The boat appeared to be garbage and he decided not to purchase it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you exactly, or as close as he could, to where it was. He said it was in a home off a street on Tully Road north of Briggsmore? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you the street was west of Tully and the first street north of Briggsmore? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he told you he also looked at another twelve-foot aluminum boat off of McHenry, between Orangeburg and Roseburg, on a residential street? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said that boat when he got there did not even have a current registration and he chose not to even contact the owners and ask them about it; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, were you able to follow-up on either one of these? GROGAN: I sent a detective to follow-up with these descriptions, and I believe it's Detective Ruskamp. He was able to find the first boat, the 15 foot boat, but he wasn't able to find the second. GERAGOS: Now, the 15 foot boat that Scott described as garbage, do you know if that boat was registered? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, wouldn't that be something that you, if the boat was garbage, do you know what the price was? GROGAN: I think it was 900 dollars. GERAGOS: Okay. If you're going to just buy this boat for one time to go dump your wife in the Bay, wouldn't you want to just go buy the cheaper boat? GROGAN: If it ran, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. The, well, as far as you know, according to Bruce Peterson, when Scott bought Bruce Peterson's boat, they never, never tested it out, correct? The 24th, as far as you know, is the first time he ever took the boat out in the Bay? GROGAN: As far as I know that's the first time it was in the water, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. As far as you know the, the, Bruce Peterson did not do anything to indicate that that boat had been running since September, correct? GROGAN: I don't know about a specific date with Mr. Peterson's statement, but I believe he did say the boat ran. GERAGOS: Okay. The person, when Ruskamp went out to interview the person that had this boat, the 900 dollar boat, did that person confirm that Scott had been out there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the second, second boat which you couldn't find, Scott said that boat didn't have a current registration and that's why he didn't contact the owners, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he bought the boat he currently owned on the following morning, correct? GROGAN: Is that in his statement here somewhere? If so, I'm not finding it. GERAGOS: Yes. The second paragraph from the bottom. The following morning. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: He's, he's the one that told you that Laci was the only person who was aware that they had bought that boat, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he also told you, you also asked him why he put the umbrellas in the back of his truck, right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And he told you that he had wrapped them in a tarp to take them to the shop and that he had forget to take them out on two occasions, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you asked him where the current location was, and he told you he had taken them out of his vehicle and put them in a shed behind the house, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And did you go and look there, or you had looked there to see where they were? GROGAN: I know they were found during the search warrant, and I'm not sure where they were when they found them. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you tried with the hidden camera to capture the interview on tape. This is, unlike the one in the car, but this one the tape did not work, well, apparently because there was no battery in the microphone unit, or the battery that was in there was dead? GROGAN: That's what I was told, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did Scott call you again? And I'm looking, at the top is 198 in handwritten, January 14th? Or you called him sometime, between 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock? GROGAN: The Bates stamp number is 198? GERAGOS: It's not Bates stamped, unfortunately. It's just handwritten on the top 198. FLADAGER: 270. GROGAN: Thank you. And this is the date of the, of 1/14? JUDGE: January 14. GERAGOS: January 14; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You called him again and you talked to him about various subjects, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you called him again on the 15th; is that correct? And tape recorded that conversation? FLADAGER: 272. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, once again, on the 29th of January, you called him and talked to him again; is that right? I'll show you this. It makes it faster. GROGAN: Yes, that looks correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then ultimately on the 18th, when you came to the house in February and executed the search warrant, there, you had testified that there was some items that Scott needed in order to, that he wanted to take with him, basically; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. One of the items that he needed was a screwdriver; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he needed that because at that point the shop, the warehouse, had been boarded up; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And it was boarded up because somebody had rammed the truck into it; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he explained that his, he had told you that the building had been vandalized and he needed a screwdriver to remove boards that were covering the front door area? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you, also on the 19th, when you finally secured the house, you had contacted Scott by telephone to tell him that you had completed the search warrant at the home; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that it was ready for release to him; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Scott told you he didn't plan to come to the home and asked that you secure the house, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you just set the alarm, he's not coming back, right? GROGAN: Right. JUDGE: What was that date? That was on the 19th that he told you that, that he wasn't coming back? GROGAN: On February 19th, yes, your Honor. JUDGE: February 19th. GERAGOS: Now, one of the things that you specifically had mentioned, I think it was you, in one of the interviews that Scott had referred to Laci in the past tense; is that correct? GROGAN: Talking about the media interviews? GERAGOS: Right. GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm looking at 14751. You got a call from a Marna Davis, who is a reporter from Sacramento, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Marna Davis reported that she was a reporter from Sacramento who had spoken to Brent Rocha, and she thought it was odd that Brent Rocha had spoken about his sister in the past tense; is that correct? GROGAN: That's what this tip says. GERAGOS: And that she had interviewed Brent Rocha on the day after Christmas and he had referred to Laci in the past tense and she thought that was odd, correct? GROGAN: That's what the tip says, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, did you, to the best of your knowledge, did anybody follow-up with this reporter, Marna Davis, to see what, what interview she had done with Brent Rocha where he had referred to Laci in the past tense? GROGAN: No. That's the first I've seen that. GERAGOS: Okay. That's in the, it is in the discovery in the tips line that comes in; isn't that correct? GROGAN: It does have a Bates stamp number, so it should be in the discovery. GERAGOS: Yeah. 14751, correct? GROGAN: Correct, yes. GERAGOS: Now, you've also seen a number of the, well, you've got one report here that is, I can't quite, it says page six of six. Is that 142? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. And is this an interview with Amy? GROGAN: Yeah, it appears to be. GERAGOS: You've got some quotation marks around something Amy said; is that correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And this is a January 5th report? That you prepared? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Does Amy refer to Laci in the past tense on January 5th? In your quote? GROGAN: Talking about, yeah, it's talking about jewelry and whether Laci would have set any aside or if it would all be in the jewelry box, and she said: Laci was not that way, she would have shared all of it. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you find that odd that Amy had spoken about Laci in the past tense? GROGAN: At the time, no. GERAGOS: Okay. I've got, you, there were also other interviews that were done on Larry King, on The Early Show, and Good Morning America. And in, you would periodically, I'm sorry, look at those interviews, as well, of the families, correct? GROGAN: Actually, not very often. I didn't watch very much of the media in this. I was occasionally told about it. GERAGOS: Okay. Were you aware that in an interview on The Early Show on December 30th that Sharon Rocha spoke about Laci in the past tense? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Were you aware that on Good Morning America, on December 27th, that Sharon Rocha spoke about Laci in the past tense? FLADAGER: Your Honor, I would object as (inaudible). JUDGE: I can't hear you, Ms. Fladager. FLADAGER: I object to this, your Honor. The detective's indicated he's not watched these programs. JUDGE: The objection's sustained. GERAGOS: Did you do any, did you look at who other family members were speaking about the, about Laci on TV? GROGAN: No. I rarely watched any media reports related to this case. GERAGOS: Okay. If I were to show you, are you aware of how to obtain transcripts from the shows? Either by a Lexis search? GROGAN: I know it can be done. GERAGOS: If I were to tell you during the break to take a look at the Good Morning America transcript from December 27th, or The Early Show from December 30th, or the, specifically the Connie Chung Show, which I guess no longer exists, and they have family members speaking in the past tense; that in and of itself was really indicative of nothing, is it? GROGAN: I don't know if it's indicative of nothing. Maybe it's when someone has decided that there's a possibility that Laci may not be coming back. GERAGOS: Okay. As far as you know, it appears, at least, however, that virtually everybody who was close to her at one time or another in the media referred to Laci in the past tense within the first week; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Based on the documents that you showed me, some of those people, if those quotes are correct, said things similar to that, yes. JUDGE: All right. I think with that, Mr. Geragos, we'll take the morning recess, all right? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take the morning recess until five to 11:00. Remember the admonition I've heretofore given you. We'll pick up where we left off. We've got the certify the record JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. The jurors are in the jury box, along with the alternates. Go ahead, Mr. Geragos. Have you got it cued up now? GERAGOS: Yeah. But we may just wait one minute. JUDGE: Okay. Is this Miss Wolski? GERAGOS: Huh? JUDGE: This is the Yoga witness? GERAGOS: Right. GERAGOS: Detective, you, at some point there was, the investigation centered on the, at some point somebody went to talk to a Debbie Wolski, I think. I believe it was you, correct? GROGAN: Actually I had, Miss Wolski came to the police department and I interviewed her there. GERAGOS: I have got at the top 799 and 800. Do you have that? FLADAGER: That's the number at the top, not the Bates number. GERAGOS: Right. GERAGOS: Miss Wolski was the instructor and owner of this Village Yoga Center? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that Laci attended, she told you that Laci had attended all of her classes, and her last class was on December 20th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that Laci, she bought some kind of a ten-class maternity card; is that what she told you? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that Laci actually may have gone to more than ten of the classes. Miss Wolski didn't really keep track? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said, she did not get to know Laci that well, correct? GROGAN: I'm not seeing that specifically, sir. Yes, I see that. That's correct. GERAGOS: The other thing that she usually described what Laci would wear to come to the Yoga class as a white shirt with long sleeves, correct? This is it says. Typical clothing. It's on page five of nine. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said what she typically wore were black stretch pants, a white shirt with long sleeves, and white tennis shoes, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And that she wore this with a red fleece vest when the weather was colder? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, you have been to this area of where this yoga center is; isn't that correct? GROGAN: McHenry Village. I have been to McHenry Village. I have never been to the – GERAGOS: Next in order. JUDGE: Defendant's next in order will be defendant's 7E. And this is the one the Court's viewed. This is a video of the Yoga Center. GERAGOS: Detective, this is McHenry Village? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: What street is that? GROGAN: What street is that? I believe the one at the, well, from here I think the one, the street at the bottom of the photograph is going to be Briggsmore Avenue. I'm not really certain yet. GERAGOS: Right here where my pen is? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Okay. That was not Briggsmore. I think that is one of the streets inside the shopping center. GERAGOS: Okay. This is the Village Yoga Center? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She lists that as 1700 McHenry, Suite 66C, when she gave you the information. That appears to be the address which we're looking at right now? GROGAN: Yes, I believe it is. I know that that is an address to that shopping center, 1700 North McHenry. And that's the address she gave me for the Yoga Center. GERAGOS: Okay. And she had indicated that Laci was last there on Friday before she disappeared the 20th, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I think she may have gone back to look at some of the records to try to determine what dates. I'm not sure what the end result of that was. But that's what she says here. GERAGOS: Okay. You say you have never been to the Yoga Center; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Were you aware that this is the entrance for the Yoga Center? GROGAN: No, I wasn't. GERAGOS: Were you aware that the Yoga Center is located on the second floor of this building? GROGAN: That's what I have been told. GERAGOS: Do you remember who told you that? GROGAN: I think I had a conversation with Detective Buehler not too long ago that he was aware that it was on the second floor. GERAGOS: Okay. And, best of your knowledge, has Detective Buehler ever gone over there to see how it is that you get upstairs to the second floor? GROGAN: I think he has. GERAGOS: Okay. When you talked to Detective Buehler, did he inform you that the only way to get up there was through this stairwell? GROGAN: I don't think we talked in specifics about that. But he did say that you had to go up some stairs, it was on the second floor. GERAGOS: Okay. And apparently Laci Peterson was able to get up these stairs at her advanced stages of the pregnancy on the 20th? GROGAN: Apparently. GERAGOS: As far as you know, is there any elevator anywhere there? GROGAN: Not to my knowledge, no, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this is taking a look down the those stairs? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And as far as you know, based on your discussions with Detective Buehler, this is the only way in and out of the Yoga Center? GROGAN: To my knowledge that is, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Miss Wolski said that, and I had asked you, I think before, the typical clothes that Laci wore were black stretch pants, white shirt, long sleeves, white tennis shoes. She specifically said that she had a memory on the 20th of wearing a white long-sleeved shirt, black stretch pants, and a red vest; isn't that correct? That would be page six of nine under 12-20-2003. GROGAN: That’s correct. JUDGE: We'll admit that video into evidence. Take the same number. Defendant 7E. GERAGOS: Did Wolski tell you that Laci had said that some time, she believes it was around December 4th, possibly late in December, that Laci had mentioned she had gone for a walk at the park, she had become dizzy? GROGAN: Is that on page 871? GERAGOS: I have got it as page five of nine, under exercise walking. You see where I was referring to, detective? GROGAN: I do. GERAGOS: And she specifically had said, Laci had told her some time, she thought it was around the December 4th class, could have been late November, that she should gone for a walk and she had become dizzy, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that she said Laci told her she shortened her walks. And Wolski said that she suggested she drink more water because she felt it might be a dehydration problem, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And she said Laci did not mention walks again, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Right. And she said that she had just assumed that Laci had stopped the walking when she didn't talk to Laci about it after that time, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, you asked her about the jewelry that Laci was wearing, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said that Laci would come into the class wearing what Wolski estimated to be $50,000 worth of jewelry, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Wolski, actually, it was so noticeable that she actually inquired about it, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Laci said she didn't want to leave it in the car, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And that she had had that jewelry, or she just received it recently from her grandmother's estate. It was secured in a safety deposit box, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And she said, specifically, that she was, on the 12-4, December 4th time, that Laci had planned to have the jewelry appraised after class at a jewelry store in McHenry Village? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this, the McHenry Village that the jury just saw is the same McHenry Village where this Edwards Jewelers is? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's where Scott told you, in one of those first interviews that we talked about before the break, that the ring was. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. When you interviewed Wolski, this is in March, correct? GROGAN: March 20th of 2003. GERAGOS: At least the report on the bottom has got a 03-03-20. You prepared the report some time in March. I assume you interviewed her contemporaneously with that? GROGAN: Yes. It should have been within a day or so of that. GERAGOS: Okay. She also described what Laci was wearing, what kind of jewelry she was wearing on December 4th, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: A gold watch with diamonds around the face, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: A modest wedding ring set on her left hand. GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: A large wedding set on her right finger. GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Gold chain with diamond solitaire, about two carats? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, and then a set of diamond earrings, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, she said the set of diamond earrings was about one carat each, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, she also described what Laci was wearing on December 20th, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. What you just told the jury what she was wearing on the 4th what she was wearing, what Laci was wearing on December 4th, which were the larger, bigger-ticket items, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: She says on the 20th when she saw her she was wearing, unlike the gold chain with diamond solitaire, two carats. This time she was wearing a diamond pendant with a diamond solitaire and gold chain, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: So apparently the larger gold, you did find a gold chain with diamond solitaire of about two carats, correct? GROGAN: I'm not sure of the size. But the diamond that has the gold all way around it I think is probably the largest of them. And it's probably around two carats. GERAGOS: It looks substantial? GROGAN: It's a large diamond. GERAGOS: You found that. And then she also, on the 4th she said Laci was wearing a set of diamond earrings that were about a carat each, right? GROGAN: On the 4th, yes. GERAGOS: Right. And you found some diamond earrings thatwere about a carat each, didn't you? Just kind of like asking you about designers. GROGAN: Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm really not a very good judge of the size of diamonds. GERAGOS: But she distinguished between the set of diamond earrings that were a carat each she was wearing on the 4th, and the one-quarter to half-carat diamond earrings that she was wearing on December 20th, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So at least, to her eye, there was a noticeable difference in the size of the earrings that she wore two times that she saw her that month, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And on the 20th did she describe, did Wolski describe any watch? GROGAN: On the date of the 20th, I don't see a watch described, no. GERAGOS: Okay. But what she did describe was the smaller diamond necklace and the smaller diamond earrings, correct, ear rings, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, at some point you also contacted a woman by the name of Ann Bird; is that right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Now, Ann Bird you knew to be, at some point you had gotten, when you interviewed Scott, I think it was with Mansfield on the 25th, you had gotten kind of a family tree out of him; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yeah, I think that's accurate. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, and you knew Ann Bird to be a half sister or a stepsister of Scott; is that correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And you knew Ann Bird to live where? GROGAN: In Berkeley. GERAGOS: In Berkeley. How far from the marina? GROGAN: I eventually did a report looking at the distance from memory. I would say it's about four miles. But I would have to look it up to tell you for certain. GERAGOS: One of the things that Miss Fladager had asked you is to look at some tracks in late January. Do remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She had asked you, I think the way she phrased it was, does this appear that Scott was in the Berkeley Marina area? Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Was that because you were unable to distinguish from those tracks whether he was at Ann Bird's house, or specifically at the marina? GROGAN: My understanding of those records, I think it's, it talks about University Avenue, or the Berkeley Marina, as that's the line where they decide if it's the Berkeley Marina area or not. GERAGOS: Okay. And how far away is Ann Bird from there? GROGAN: About four miles. GERAGOS: Okay. And do you know if the tracker distinguishes that kind of, that kind of distance? GROGAN: My understanding of that is, it's within a few yards. GERAGOS: On that particular track, I agree with you that on the tracker that we had the witnesses come out here and testify that their testimony is within a couple of yards. Are you sure that that's the same for the Department of Justice tracker? FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd object. Just – GERAGOS: I'm asking what his understanding is as the investigating officer. JUDGE: All right, you can answer. GERAGOS: What's your understanding of the track, not the tracker that has, the tracker that has, I guess it would be the Orion tracker, but the specific Department of Justice tracker? GROGAN: My understanding of the technology is that it's capable of going within a few yards. I don't know enough about the other tracker that we got ne from Department of Justice in San Diego to really tell you much more than that. GERAGOS: Have you talked to Rudy Skultety about that, about the Department of Justice tracker? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. He was somewhat frustrated, wouldn't you say with that tracker, because it didn't have the same capabilities as the Orion tracker? GROGAN: Yes. That was more in the live track capabilities was my understanding. And from actually using it myself through a website, it will tell you, if you go into the computer and log in and check it, it will tell you where somebody is at that time. But it doesn't have the ability to run a continuous track like the one that we used from Modesto PD. GERAGOS: Now, one of the things that you wanted to talk to Ann Bird about was the Disneyland trip; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And if I understand correctly, at some point it became one of the theories of the investigation that Laci was not walking any more, so, therefore, when Scott said she had gone walking, that that was suspicious, correct? GROGAN: Well, it conflicted somewhat with what we had from the medical records. GERAGOS: Okay. And you have seen the medical records, and the fact, and now you have see them and heard, I assume heard the testimony that the doctor said that it appeared, at least, that Laci asked for some advice and was told not to walk again; but then called the next time and apparently was still walking, in contravention of the doctor's orders. FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. GERAGOS: I'm asking at the scene. JUDGE: If he's heard that. You were aware of that? GROGAN: Yeah, I was. I remember that it was recommended that she not walk. And that she – GERAGOS: Or walk later in the day? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Did you see the next entry in the record, she called after getting that advice, and apparently is still walking? GROGAN: Yes. There were two occasions when she called in. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, so one of the things that you wanted to do is, and I think one of the other witnesses testified that there had been a wheelchair that was used for Laci at Disneyland; is that correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry. Your question is who told me that? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: Ann Bird, and I know that defendant told me that in one interview. And I don't know if anybody else did. GERAGOS: Okay. So you wanted to get more information as to why she would have been in that wheelchair on Thanksgiving, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. When you talked to, and she said that Scott, FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd object to hearsay as to Ann Bird to this particular – GERAGOS: Judge – FLADAGER: this line of questioning. JUDGE: This goes to his investigation and reasonableness of his conduct, and information that he received, and what did he do about it. So it's not coming in for the truth. His state of mind, explaining his conduct. Go ahead. GERAGOS: Okay. Ann said that Scott and Laci got along. We have, Scott even rented a wheelchair to push her around, to pamper her, correct? GROGAN: Do you have a Bates stamp number? FLADAGER: Page 650. GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: And that they felt that Laci could have walked around. Scott chose to push her in the wheelchair, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she described Scott as being excited about becoming a father, and he and Laci seemed very happy together? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Same page that you just referred to. GROGAN: I'm sorry. Your question again, sir? GERAGOS: My question was, that she told you that Scott seemed to be excited about becoming a father, and he and Laci seemed very happy together, correct? Bottom of the page. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And she said that Scott carried her son Tommy in his car seat and held him one time too at dinner, and stopped him from crying? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And that she had, and she also attended a baby shower in Del Mar on the day before Thanksgiving? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that both Scott and Laci seemed excited about becoming parents, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that she noticed Laci was wearing a sapphire and diamond ring that looked similar to one that she had given Jackie? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, you, specifically you had a tape recorded interview with her; is that correct? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I have got 36910, starting there. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically 36915. And told you that Scott had rented the wheelchair for her. She didn't have to walk. He was spinning her around and taking her through Disneyland and Downtown Disney, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said she, Laci said she never had a better time, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Scott was carrying her son Tommy around saying, "I'm going to have to get used to this." They were asking you about car seats, correct? GROGAN: They were asking about car seats. GERAGOS: How old would Tommy have been at the time, as she described it to you, said, when you interviewed, which was the end of February, right after the search warrant, about a week after the search warrant? Six days? I show 2-25 on the bottom. GROGAN: Yes, somewhere. GERAGOS: She said Tommy was six months then, so he would have obviously been an infant back in November? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then they said that they went to dinner to a place called the Napa Rose, and that you specifically asked did Laci try to walk around before he got the wheelchair, or did she just go straight to that? And told you, no, she was just walking around, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. She did say that she was walking around. GERAGOS: Okay. She also said that he got the wheelchair as a little bit of a joke. He didn't want her walking that far. And that he just kind of, it was just that kind of a thing. He was pampering her a little bit, and she just loved it, correct? GROGAN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: And it was her opinion, Ann Bird's, that she, Laci was perfectly capable of walking, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And specifically, and specifically she said, I'm looking at 36918, they got along great the whole time. There was no problems. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And then on the next page, referring you to 36919, she said they were just going on and on about how they were so excited about this baby and, you know, what they had done to the nursery. And Laci didn't eat dessert. She was watching her weight. She just had a manicure and pedicure, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And then you asked specifically about Scott carrying around Tommy, right? That's where she said he was about three months old? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And talks about how they were going to dinner. About back on 36920. And you asked specifically, did Scott take him out of the car seat and play with him, or anything? Did he just carry him? You said, well, in the restaurant you talked to him. He was holding him, was playing with him. He was actually crying, and Scott got him to be quiet, which was kind of fun, right? GROGAN: That's what Ann said, yes. GERAGOS: You asked specifically, did he seem to have any reservations about being a father? She said not a bit. Not one ounce. He was really excited. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And then, again, you asked about that. She said, but I remember she was real excited. She was so happy it was a boy. And they decided on the name Logan. Although Jackie didn't like that name. So I think that's why they switched to Conner. And I think, you know, she said she was doing really, she was just so happy. She seemed really happy for them; is that correct? GROGAN: That's what she said, yes. JUDGE: What was the date of the interview of Miss Bird? GROGAN: February the 5th. GERAGOS: Your report reads the 5th. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: That's what it says on your page, it says on 2-25, from 1940 to 2050 you conducted a tape recorded interview; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's correct. JUDGE: This took place February the 25th, 2003. GROGAN: Yes, your Honor. JUDGE: All right. GERAGOS: And so then you asked specifically about jewelry; is that correct? What she was wearing? On 36921. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said that she usually noticed it, but didn't that day. But she did notice she is wearing a little maternity dress and some sandals. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then specifically you asked what she thought had happened to Laci, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. JUDGE: That's irrelevant. GERAGOS: Did you ask her that? I'm not asking for the answer. I'm asking, what was her theory of what happened, correct? GROGAN: Basically. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you went on to talk to her about, specifically about Scott; is that correct? Looking at 36923. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she told you that there was absolutely zero percent chance that Scott had anything to do with Laci's disappearance? FLADAGER: Disappearance? GERAGOS: Correct. JUDGE: This is getting around really my ruling. I'm going to have to strike that. What she thinks about how Laci disappeared is irrelevant. What he found out from her is one thing. Her opinions are irrelevant. GERAGOS: Specifically did she tell you that there were, that Laci was the fifth missing pregnant woman from Northern California? FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance. Lacks foundation. GERAGOS: Going to what his investigation, what he did. He did do an investigation after this about the other pregnant missing women. JUDGE: No, not unless he was investigating them all himself. GERAGOS: He did go to look to follow up on this. JUDGE: I'm going to sustain the objection, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Now, did you specifically ask her about, or tell her that you couldn't even pretend to know the over 7,000 tips that have come in on the tip line. That's at 36925. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was in discussing what it was, orwhere the investigation was, I take it; is that correct? GROGAN: I think we were talking about various tips. GERAGOS: Okay. And one of the tips that you were talking about was this Mapes Ranch; is that right? FLADAGER: Objection, relevance. His discussion with Ann Bird on tips – JUDGE: I can't hear you. Again. FLADAGER: My objection is as to conversations between Detective Grogan and Ann Bird regarding tips in the case. GERAGOS: Goes to his – JUDGE: Well, except that you have some, you asked some questions. He received tips. He received the, again the issue is reasonableness of his conduct based on what information he received, what did he do about it, and did he act on it, didn't he act on it. I think it's admissible. Overruled. Then you can ask him why he did or didn't. GERAGOS: Now, the Mapes Ranch leads, did you talk about that? GROGAN: Not seeing that, sir, is that supposed to be on 36925? GERAGOS: 36925. Let me take you to the next portion of the interview then. Did you, you asked her about this idea that Laci and Scott were, whether she knew that Scott had said anything about Amber to Laci, correct? You were looking at 36928. GROGAN: It appears, talking about halfway down the page here, or so. GERAGOS: Starting at the, "And Scott said he was up front about that." FLADAGER: At this point I would lodge an objection, as he's eliciting a statement by the defendant supposedly made to Ann Bird, who supposedly is now telling Detective Grogan. And it's self-serving hearsay by defendant. GERAGOS: It's not the case. JUDGE: Can I have that slowly? You lost me. FLADAGER: It's a statement by, allegedly by the defendant to Ann Bird and then to Detective Grogan. And it's self-serving hearsay by the defendant. JUDGE: All right. GERAGOS: Goes to reasonableness of the investigation. They opened the door on all of this stuff. JUDGE: I think so. GERAGOS: Specifically mention – JUDGE: I just ruled in your favor. Overruled. GERAGOS: Detective, she specifically told you that Ron, that Laci did not like Ron Grantski, as she called him, said Sharon's boyfriend, correct? GROGAN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: She said Laci doesn't like him. She didn't want her mother or he to know about the affair at all. Isn't that what she told you? GROGAN: That's what she told me. GERAGOS: She said that, said Laci was very adamant about that. That's why he protected that, instead of being up front and that kind of thing; is that correct? GROGAN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: She said that Scott said that Laci was extremely, or very pissed off. That's what he told her, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that the, and they were going to get through it, but that she was, Laci was upset, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said that Scott said that Laci had insisted they not tell the parents about it, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's what Ann said. GERAGOS: And you said that Laci was pissed off, but they had been through it before, correct? And said her answer was, right, she was not happy. But he said, you know, they talked it over, you know. They were going to, going to get through it. They were looking forward to Conner being born. She went on. It was kind of putting it on the back burner; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's what she said. GERAGOS: Then you specifically asked, I'm at 36929, about the fact of what else Scott talked about, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you were, and this was an investigative technique that you used with a lot of witnesses. Have you talked to Scott Peterson? What did he say? How did he look, correct? Did this with a lot of his friends. For instance, Aaron Fritz, Mike Richardson, Greg Reed. That was something that both you and Detective Brocchini were doing, correct? GROGAN: All those people were interviewed. And I think I have talked to some of them myself, yes. GERAGOS: Some of them have been talked to by other of the Core Detectives in the group, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And when you asked her about what else he talked about. She said he just keeps hoping and praying that she's, that she'll appear. That she said, I did know he sold Laci's car because the locks didn't work on it. He said when the police went through the car, through her car, the locks were damaged. And he wanted, I think, Brent to bring the car back, or have it fixed, or something. That what they told you? GROGAN: That's what they told me. GERAGOS: She said that he said, that Laci called the car a piece of shit, and hated the car, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she actually wanted the same car that Ann has; is that correct? Is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said that they had been shopping around for a different car, and that he needed to turn that car in for those reasons; and, also, because he needed a truck, and he had asked several times to get his truck back, and he couldn't get it back, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And you know that at that point you still had the truck, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, you also had an interview with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski on December 29th of 2002, correct? I'm looking at 2212 Bates stamp. FLADAGER: 2212? GROGAN: Yes, I did. GERAGOS: During that interview with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski you learned, and you talked to two, just the two of them, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you learned then that Laci did want a larger home and a new vehicle, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: In fact, I had asked you about this on Thursday, one of the tips you received on the tip line in May was from a real estate broker in San Luis Obispo; is that correct? GROGAN: This is a tip? This is May, 2003. GERAGOS: Tip came in in May, 2003, about something that occurred back in May of 2002, correct? GROGAN: Yes. This is a tip that is written in a report by Detective Brocchini. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm asking, did this tip involve a real estate broker from San Luis Obispo who specifically had had conversations with Laci Peterson in May of 2002? GROGAN: I'm not familiar with that. GERAGOS: With this report? FLADAGER: Do you have a Bates stamp, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: Bates stamp is 22363. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: 369. I'm sorry. Were you aware of the fact that Laci had been calling a broker in San Luis Obispo about relocating there? GROGAN: If I was told that, I don't remember it right now. GERAGOS: You know there has been testimony in this case, and I believe specifically some of the, in some of the reports about Scott selling the car. Didn't you also call Sharon Rocha and tell her when the car was sold? GROGAN: Yes, I did. GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't she tell you at the time that the car had no sentimental value to her? GROGAN: I don't recall if she said that or not. GERAGOS: Okay. I'll find a report at the break. I'll show it to you this afternoon. When you were talking to Ann Bird, specifically in that same tape recorded interview, you talked about Amber, correct? Look at 36930. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that Scott admitted that he had screwed up and that he had made a huge mistake, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And, specifically, you also asked why it was that, you were asking about the fact that he had an attorney; is that correct? Scott had an attorney? FLADAGER: Do you have the Bates stamp? GERAGOS: 36932. At the top of the page you are asking, I think Jackie, I'm sorry, Bird, Ann Bird's asking, I think Jackie said that a policeman told her they should get an attorney. She was completely alarmed; is that right? GROGAN: That's what Ann said. GERAGOS: You said you didn't know about that. You certainly didn't tell them you needed an attorney. Then she said, yeah, I think Jackie said they were alarmed and so they hired an attorney. Jackie and Lee did, correct? GROGAN: That's what Ann said, yes. GERAGOS: And there was talk about who the lawyer was, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you specifically started talking to her about what the media had done; is that correct? Bottom of the page. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I did find the portion, Bates number 395, about when you phoned Sharon and said that Scott had sold the Land Rover, where it was located. Sharon told you that the vehicle did not have sentimental value to her, correct? GROGAN: Yes. That particular item did not. GERAGOS: The car did not have sentimental value? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: That was, if I understand correctly, when Miss Fladager had asked you about you brokering some of the belongings back and forth. That was that same conversation, correct? GROGAN: I think so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that there was, Sharon said the vehicle didn't have any sentimental value, but she wanted the baby's belongings, the crib, Laci's photographs, two Tiffany lamps, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that was on, some time on January 31st? GROGAN: I believe that's accurate. GERAGOS: And so that's when you called up, I believe Miss Fladager asked you. You called up Scott; is that correct? And I'm looking at what's got 334. You received an e-mail which had been forwarded to you from Sharon, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Sharon had asked that she wanted the photographs of Laci as well as some Tiffany lamps and some items from the nursery, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And in that e-mail, Scott, it was apparently an e-mail between Sharon and Scott, right, that had been forwarded to you? GROGAN: I don't know. Is it attached there? GERAGOS: I don't think that it was. But maybe it is. Let's see if it's the next page. Is that it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically on this e-mail that was forwarded to you, Scott apologizes. Says, I have never taken the opportunity to apologize, addressed to mom, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: "I have never taken the opportunity to apologize to Ron or yourself for lying to you about my infidelity to Laci," correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: "I'm truly sorry I was not forthcoming with you immediately. I know both of our goals is to find Laci and Conner. I'm hoping together we can do that more than separate." Correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then the last paragraph, "I received a message from Detective Grogan regarding the lamps and photos. Of course, I'm willing to share any photos with you. Laci loves her lamps and they should be in our home when we bring her home." Is that correct? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: "For all of us, more importantly for Laci, we need to find her, bring her back where she belongs among us. We can do this if we can communicate and work together." Correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically when you asked, did you talk to Scott about this? GROGAN: I think we had a discussion during the 2-18 search warrant by telephone, or something, as to whether or not Sharon could come over to the home and pick out a few of Laci's items that she wanted to take with her. GERAGOS: Parts of what the e-mail also has on it was that there was a national search day coming up that next week weekend; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. That's in this e-mail. GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically what I'm handing you now is a flyer for that national search day; is that correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Do you recognize both of those items? GROGAN: Yes, I believe I attached them to one of my reports. GERAGOS: Okay. And if I could mark those as defendant's next in order. JUDGE: Defendant's 7F. GERAGOS: I want to make a clean copy of this. Now, this national search day for Laci was scheduled for Sunday the 9th of February; is that correct? GROGAN: I believe that's what it said. GERAGOS: Okay. Is that the same day, or about the same day that Scott's warehouse was vandalized? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact date on that. I'd have to pull the report up. GERAGOS: Could you pull the report and tell me if that's the same day? JUDGE: We'll take the noon recess. It's five to twelve. By the time you finish this up it will be noontime. Remember the admonition. We'll pick up again at 1:30. See you then. JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the defendant's present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. And, Mr. Geragos, proceed. GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor. You also, good afternoon. You – GROGAN: Good afternoon. GERAGOS: You also talked to Ms. Bird, Ann Bird, about the press turning on Scott; is that correct? 36932? GROGAN: Yes, we talked about the, about the media GERAGOS: Okay. And the idea of the media turning on Scott, was that your phrase? Saying that the police, meaning we, didn't turn them on Scott. Bottom of 36932, second from the bottom. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And, in fact, you were talking about how the media was also, going on to the next page, 36933, the media basically surrounded the Modesto PD as well, correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Couldn't walk, your description was, I assume this is accurate, that you should see this place a few days where the, they're surrounding our entire courtyard out here and you can't walk out of a building without being on film? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And they're digging and trying to get as much information as they can. You were referring to the media? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it a fair statement that when you executed the search warrant on February 18th, I think it was one of Brocchini's reports he describes approximately 50 members of the media out front during the search warrant; is that correct? Whether it's in the report, I'm asking your, your memory of it. Is it your memory it was quite a zoo out there when you executed the search warrant? GROGAN: Yes. There was no, there was no media there initially, and through that first day they continued to show up. And there was a large number of media personnel by the second day, certainly. GERAGOS: Okay. And you were trying to verify, when you were talking to Ann Bird, about verifying his, Scott's, story that he had been fishing; is that correct? The same page. That 36993. It's the next thing you guys discussed in the interview. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. She actually said that she had gone over to the marina and within 15 minutes she said four, she met four people that all had seen Scott that day, correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So she told you that she had their names and telephone numbers and everything. And you subsequently, I believe, asked her for some of the names later on in the interview, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. That, and I'm assuming that that goes back to the search for people who had seen Scott on the 24th? When you had sent Detective Armendariz up to the marina as well? To find people? Is that one of the issues, in your mind at least, from the investigative standpoint? GROGAN: Yes. We did send some people out initially. I think, I think by this point in the investigation we believed he, he was there. GERAGOS: Okay. So you as a detective had, but the public is still dubious, is what Ann Bird was telling you; is that correct? In the context of this discussion you were having about the media and the media turning on Scott, she started telling you Well, that's not the perception that's out there; correct? FLADAGER: Objection, vague. And relevance. JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: Well, she specifically talked about that he was receiving all kinds of hate mail; is that correct. FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance. JUDGE: Yeah, I'm going to sustain the objection. Sustained. GERAGOS: Let me show you a picture. The, does this accurately reflect what, well, what does that accurately reflect? GROGAN: Well, it's not a very good photograph, but I believe that's, I believe that's my car parked in front of 523 Covena, either on, I think this is February 19th, would be my, my guess. GERAGOS: Okay. That would be, and the police tape would be, I'd like to mark this as defense next in order. JUDGE: Okay. That would be Defendant's 7 G. FLADAGER: And, Mr. Geragos, can I see that for a moment. GERAGOS: Sure. GERAGOS: Detective, the, the conversation that you were having with Ann Bird, she was telling you about the stacks and stacks of hate mail that Scott was receiving; isn't that correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance. JUDGE: I just sustained an objection to that. Maybe you forgot. GERAGOS: It was the second, the second part of the question. I mean the second part of his interview. He had asked it successively two different ways. JUDGE: I know, but I sustained an objection about the hate mail. GERAGOS: Now, the witnesses that Ann Bird gave you, did you check out the names of those witnesses and who they were? At the top of 36935 there's one name in particular. A Mike Ilvestri. GROGAN: Mike Ilvestri. Yes, he had been interviewed already, I believe. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was a groundskeeper at the Berkeley Marina? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Did he, did he give you, when you interviewed him, did you get some information out of him? GROGAN: I didn't interview him. He was interviewed; and, yes. GERAGOS: I'm going to take you back to what was marked as D 7 G. Does this, does that accurately reflect what it looked like outside of Covena on the second day of the search warrant being executed? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Specifically so we can get our bearings, I think when I asked you about and showed you the picture up on the stand you said this was your car there here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And I'm assuming does this, does this appear to be, do you know which angle we're looking at? Where the photographer is standing? GROGAN: My, my guess would be that they were standing somewhere in the area of Greg Reed's grandmother's residence. Slightly north of 523 Covena, the next house north. GERAGOS: So when the jury saw on Thursday that, where the new fence is, the fence posts and the boards, on that side of the house as opposed to Karen Servas's side? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And as you look in this photo, is this the street right here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then your car is parked kind of on an angle at the curb? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The police tape has been put up specifically to try to keep all the people away from the house? GROGAN: Yeah. It's to keep everyone back. GERAGOS: Okay. And could you give me an estimate as to at that point, in this picture, on the second day it's taken, approximately how many people and trucks and satellite trucks and camera personnel are out there? GROGAN: It appears that there's probably 30 or so photo, people photographed in that, in that photo. And that would not represent everyone that was out there. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it a fair statement that, if you have a panoramic of what was going on here, that the street was pretty much covered with people all the way up and down? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And these large satellite trucks that we're seeing were parked on both sides of the street? GROGAN: Yes. I think so. There were, there were several trucks out there. Exactly where they were all located, I don't remember. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, then you and Ann Bird discussed this purple car for a period of time; is that correct? As one of the tips? And that's on 36936. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was a car that was, at least from your knowledge, somebody had spotted parked in the neighborhood there with Arkansas plates and a Confederate flag that had been there on the 22nd and 23rd and disappeared on the 24th? Was that your, your understanding as well? GROGAN: It was my understanding. I think it was parked, well, we don't have the map up. It was parked at another entrance to the park, from my memory, a ways away from this neighborhood. GERAGOS: Okay. Approximately, was it by the bathroom areas in the park? GROGAN: It was at the entrance that went down to where the command post would have been during the early phases of the search. GERAGOS: Okay. So if the jury can remember back several months ago when Cloward testified and pointed out a location on the map where the command post was in the park, that's roughly where this purple car was? GROGAN: To my memory, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, there was also a discussion about people who had seen Laci walking that morning; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, one of the people, one of the pieces of information that you received was from a deputy district attorney who worked in Merced; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And can you tell the jury what that piece of information was? What that tip was? FLADAGER: Actually, your Honor, I would oppose, impose an objection at this point because this is information that, at least if there's some indication that the detective relied on this in some fashion in his investigation, as opposed to just randomly discussing some gossip that might be out there, or rumors or speculation – GERAGOS: He prepared a report. FLADAGER: with Ms. Bird. JUDGE: Wait. Finish. What? You want to finish? FLADAGER: That's it. JUDGE: Okay. Overruled. Go ahead. You can ask him. GERAGOS: Okay. You, there was a witness, I'm not going to use her full name, I'll just call her Michelle last initial D. Do you know who I'm referring to? GROGAN: I do. GERAGOS: Okay. Bates stamped thirty-thousand nine nineteen. Now, she was not one of the witnesses that the DA brought in here to testify in front of this jury that was walking her dog that day, was she? Or that walked the dog in the neighborhood? GROGAN: No, I don't believe she testified here. GERAGOS: Okay. She contacted on January 6th, first of all, she indicated, she indicated that she was a deputy district attorney with a local district attorney's office, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she is described as a white female adult, 35 years old, who was five one, a hundred and forty pounds with brown shoulder length hair and brown eyes, correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry I don't, give me just one second. GERAGOS: Sure; I'm sorry. I didn't mean to, you want to look at this or you want, you've got better pictures, actually. GROGAN: I've got it. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, she said she was pregnant in 2002 and given birth on October 20th, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she has a dog, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And how did she describe her dog? Or how was her dog described? GROGAN: It was described as a reddish brown Golden Retriever, four years old. GERAGOS: Okay. What's the dog's name? GROGAN: McKenzie. GERAGOS: Same name as Laci Peterson's dog? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: This woman was pregnant and gave birth in 2002, right? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she apparently said that she had originally contacted the Modesto Police Department based on threats she had received while working as a deputy DA, correct? GROGAN: Yes. In Merced County. GERAGOS: Right. And she worked in the Merced County but she lived in Modesto, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she formerly, before she moved, she lived on Encina Avenue in Modesto? It's at the bottom of the page, second line from the bottom. 3919. GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So she said she lived on Encina Avenue, she had been pregnant in 2002, had given birth. She said she did not walk on a regular schedule, and she intentionally changed the time of her walks for security purposes, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And when she didn't walk on weekends, she walked in the morning, leaving her home between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m., correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. She, JUDGE: Wait. When did she give birth to the child. GERAGOS: October of 2002. JUDGE: October of 2002. GERAGOS: Right. GERAGOS: And she said, she was specific that she did not walk on December 24th, correct? Of 2000 and 2? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she specifically said that she saw Laci Peterson on one occasion in her yard during her walks, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that she did not walk in October or November but she began walking again in December of 2000 and 2, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she was on maternity leave between October through January 6th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. She advised that recently she had a prosecution, prior to her going out on maternity leave in October, where threats were made against her; isn't that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she specifically gave the name of the gentleman, and the person's wife, who had threatened her following the prosecution; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said that these threats were witnessed by other court employees when the threat was made, and it was slightly outside of the courtroom; is that right? Got another report that shows it as well. GROGAN: Yes, that's what that report says. It's Detective Buehler's report. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically she says that after the threats were made outside of the courtroom, the person who had made the threats, this person she had prosecuted, had to be physically restrained from coming at her, right? GROGAN: I believe that's what that said. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, she supplied the information to the Modesto PD because she wanted to alert them that there may be some relationship between the person who threatened her and they might have possibly mistaken Laci Peterson, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, sometime in April, looks like April 16th of 2000 and 3, there was some follow-up investigation done; is that right? GROGAN: It appears so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the follow-up investigation was to try to contact the person who had threatened this deputy DA, right? GROGAN: I'm sorry, can I see that? GERAGOS: Uh-huh. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And the follow-up investigation was that they scheduled somebody, one of the detectives is Jon Buehler, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Scheduled an appointment for the lawyer for the guy who had threatened the DA, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then he went there to meet and the person never showed up; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And then, as far as I know, nothing else was ever done; correct? GROGAN: I don't know either. I know that was assigned to Detective Buehler to follow-up on, and that's, I don't have any other information than that. GERAGOS: Okay. I haven't seen any other information as well. Is it a fair statement that one of the photographs that this DA had provided of how she looked in late July, and I think you've got a color picture there, she was extremely large as of July 31st, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. She's obviously pregnant July, July 31st. GERAGOS: And she gave birth sometime in October, and as far as you know she took these threats extremely seriously; isn't that correct? GROGAN: It appears that she wanted to let us know about them, at the very minimum, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And as far as you know, as you sit here today, we know that she has a dog, the dog's a reddish brown Golden Retriever and it's got the same name, McKenzi, and that there was an appointment scheduled and the person never showed up. And that's basically where we stand today on this? GROGAN: From the information I have at this point, yes. GERAGOS: Did you ever run, by the way, the person who threatened her was convicted of a violent crime, correct? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: 236? Do you know what a Penal Code Section 236 is? FLADAGER: Detective, you might want to take a look at 17611. That's Buehler's report. GERAGOS: 236, a false imprisonment? GROGAN: Yes, looks like. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's what the person was charged with? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. Will you look at the, the charge is 236, and the threat occurred in early October, 2002? Is that what it says? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Now, what's the date on Buehler's report when he received that information? GROGAN: The – GERAGOS: The report was prepared when? GROGAN: The report was completed on January 6th of 2003. GERAGOS: Okay. And you've got a picture in your, it looks similar to the pictures that were, I should say the reports that were done look similar to the reports that were done for other people who were walking the dog; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So she was one of the people who was, let's see. This was part of the supplemental reports that were done in July when the officers went out and canvassed the neighborhood to find women who were pregnant or who had a Golden Retriever who walked their dog, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's why you prepared the report with her picture and the picture of the dog on it, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, and I'll get to some of the others. The, specifically when you talked to Ann Bird, you talked about that there were two people that had seen Laci walking in the park, or she asked you about that; isn't that correct? And that's on page 28 of 35. 36927. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you said that there was nobody that could say for certain it was her, and that there was another woman, a pregnant lady, that walks a dog over there, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, is that, is that back in February of oh three, were you operating on the assumption that the, you couldn't, that nobody had given a statement in which they were certain that it was Laci? And if they did, that you thought that it could have been a case of mistaken identity? GROGAN: Well, we were operating, operating under the understanding that there was no one that knew Laci Peterson, had seen her before, talked to her, knew who she was and saw her and identified her that day. GERAGOS: Okay. Recently, or more recently than that you've come across other people, have you not, that have claimed to have seen Laci walking the dog that morning? GROGAN: I think there's still tips that come in to that effect. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, and I think I talked to you on Thursday about the fact that you had originally ruled out, on the 24th, any tips about seeing Laci that didn't put Laci in the park; is that correct? Isn't that what you had testified to on Thursday? GROGAN: When we were talking about the map? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN One of the things we did look at is the known path that she took when she walked, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And is it a fair statement that you had ruled out, back in the earlier stages of the investigation, any sightings that took place on surface streets that weren't in the park? GROGAN: No. There's, there's some that are on Covena Avenue, or right down from Covena Avenue right near the home that we looked at also. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically there was as recently as, what looks like April of this year, somebody by the name, a young man who had called up and was interviewed by Mr. Bertalotto, who is one of the DA investigators? GROGAN: Yes, he is. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you remember or did you do anything in terms of following up on this interview of this person that claims to have known Laci Peterson, seen her walking before and seen her walking on the 24th? GROGAN: I think this may be the first time I've seen this report. I can read through it if you like. GERAGOS: No, I'm just asking if you, you haven't seen it before? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And can I ask you, there, there was a number of other witnesses that were provided to you, and I'll, I'll go through and give you an opportunity at the break so you can pull out your reports, but there was a number of other witnesses that, 40161. A number of other witnesses early on, Grace Wolf, Homer Maldonado, Tony Freitas. When was the first time that you were aware of one or all of those people? GROGAN: I, I can look that up. GERAGOS: Sure. GROGAN: The first one you mentioned was Grace Wolf? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: And I think the first that we heard about her was right after the preliminary hearing, around the time of the preliminary hearing, which was – GERAGOS: Last fall? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: And – GEGAGOS: How about, I'm sorry, are you not finished? GROGAN: And that was only due to discovery that we got from your office. GERAGOS: Okay. How about Tony Freitas, a gentleman who works as a driver for Orowheat who had been driving in the neighborhood that day? GROGAN: Mr. Freitas called in on December 30th of 2002 to the police tip line. GERAGOS: Okay. Were you able to verify his work schedule of work hours in any way that day, for where he was on the 24th? Well, if he called in on the tip line, can I ask you when was the next time that somebody from law enforcement contacted him? GROGAN: He was contacted on July 29th of 2004. GERAGOS: 2004? GROGAN: Yes, by a DA investigator. GERAGOS: So Mr. Freitas called in, was he one of the dots on the board that you showed, that we marked as an exhibit and showed to the jury? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he called in and he said that he saw Laci Peterson walking a Golden Retriever, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He called in the tip line, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And no, you now know that he was working for Orowheat at the time, correct? As a driver? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him from law enforcement between December, last week of December when he called in until approximately six weeks ago, during this trial? GROGAN: That's correct. I, we have the initial tip on December 30th. We have discovery from your office that we received sometime around the preliminary hearing, and then we re-contacted him July 29th of this year. GERAGOS: Okay. Was there anything initially in that tip that, I know you weren't, you stated before you weren't the person who was actually sifting through these things; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And you had somebody who was at least sifting through or going through these things, right? Filtering them? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that, if you had known about Mr. Freitas back in December, that you would have taken some action to have contacted him and to have interviewed him or have somebody from law enforcement interview him? GROGAN: Well, I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time in the investigation, but the intention always was to try to contact any of those folks around there, yes. GERAGOS: Now, when you say that you can't say that the sightings were, what was the term you used? GROGAN: A priority. GERAGOS: A priority. And you did apply for search warrants repeatedly in this case, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: In every single one of those search warrant affidavits, which are declared under penalty of perjury, there was a section that says there are no verifiable sightings of her on December 24th, correct? GROGAN: Something to that effect. GERAGOS: Okay. That it's a, I don't want to call it boilerplate, but it's a, it's a kind of a cut and paste on your word processor that goes from search warrant to search warrant to let the judge know, you're supposed to give the judge all the pertinent information in an affidavit for a search warrant, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And one of the things that's contained throughout virtually all of the search warrants is that there's no verifiable sightings of Laci Peterson, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. But it is also a fair statement that that was, sightings of Laci Peterson were not a priority at that point early in the investigation, correct? GROGAN: In the first few days the, the people that called in initially, most of those I think had been contacted or were contacted at the time, and then as more and more sightings continued to pour in, we used less resources to try to deal with all of that. GERAGOS: Okay. The, one of the first people that you had interviewed or that was interviewed was a Mark Peterson? Obviously no relation. Is that correct? GROGAN: That's the defendant's, the defendant's brother. GERAGOS: Okay. And he had told you about a gentleman by the name of Mike Chiavette? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And you talked to Chiavette? GROGAN: I did not. GERAGOS: Okay. One of the, you researched that interview; is that correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said he saw two people with the dog he believed to be the Peterson's dog? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And he said he had seen the dog before? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that he didn't know Peterson but he had apparently seen her before in the neighborhood; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Is that not, that, is there any way to either verify or not verify that information? GROGAN: Whether he saw McKenzie or some other dog? GERAGOS: Right. Did anybody show him a picture of McKenzie or anything, did a photo lineup of McKenzie and some of these other dogs that pictures were taken of? GROGAN: No, that was never done. GERAGOS: Okay. You did have, obviously the Modesto PD had the capability to take pictures of these other dogs, because there's at least 15 or 20 pictures of dogs in the discovery that's been provided, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: When we were following up with other people that were walking in the area, we took photographs of their dogs. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically did you interview Chiavette? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you see a report by Brocchini where, and this is, once again it says 9/18 where Brocchini says that you and Officer Nicolai interviewed Chiavette? GROGAN: Yes, I see that. GERAGOS: Okay. So that's not true, what's contained in Brocchini's report about you actually interviewing this particular gentleman? GROGAN: No, I didn't talk to him. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, you had also talked to Ann Bird specifically about Scott and where he was living; you wanted to find him at that point at the end of February, is that correct? It's actually the top of 36939. GROGAN: 939? GERAGOS: Yeah. 36939. Page 30 of 35. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Right. It starts, 377. That appears that's what we're talking about, yes. GERAGOS: Right. And she told you that specifically her, she wasn't going to tell you where he was because he needed a little privacy, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Did she tell you why? FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance. GERAGOS: The relevance is, FLADAGER: Speculation. GERAGOS: whether or not he was fleeing or whether or not there was another alternative reasonable explanation for his behavior. JUDGE: All right. I'll permit the answer. GERAGOS: And that would have been the paragraph right before that where you had asked where he's at. GROGAN: The paragraph before? GERAGOS: Yeah. On 938. Didn't he, didn't, didn't she say that, she said there really isn't much left in the house for him now with all the death threats and strange people and all the other kind of stuff, he just doesn't want to be there anymore? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she told you he was in a safe place but she didn't want to say where because she basically wanted to give him some privacy; is that correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Specifically you also asked her about other females besides Amber; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she told you that there was some other females and that it was when they were first married; is that right? The bottom of 36940. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You, in fact, did do some investigation as to other females that Scott may have been involved with; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically, refer to the one female that you interviewed who had called the tip line, actually looks like she called and talked to Brocchini; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. She had specifically said that she had a five month relationship with Scott Peterson back when he was first married to Laci; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, I believe that's correct. GERAGOS: And specifically Scott had never told her that he was married, correct? I've got 1222. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And the way she found out that Scott was married is she walked in on Scott and Laci in bed together, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, actually, she didn't even at that point know that they were married; she only found out after the fact when Scott's roommates told her this information, correct? It would have been, it's also 1223, last sentence of that second paragraph before the next subject. GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she was questioned specifically as to whether or not it was possible that Laci did not know about this confrontation, correct? JUDGE: Confrontation between this young lady? GERAGOS: Yes, this young lady, Basically the way she tells it is she walked in and Scott and Laci were in bed together, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. GERAGOS: And she says there's no way Laci couldn't have known because there was quite a scene; is that right? GROGAN: I don't, I don't see that in her statement in here. GERAGOS: Okay. I'll find you other one where it's got it. There was a, yet another, one other woman that was contacted by you; is that correct? Sometime in late January? GROGAN: There is one other. JUDGE: January 2003? GERAGOS: Of 2000 and 3. Is that, and you contacted her by phone? GROGAN: I did. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically she confirmed that she was aware of the case through news reports; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she had attended Cal Poly from 96 through 98; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that they met in the last quarter of 98 and they started dating in about two months? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said she learned that Scott was married in her conversation with him early on in the relationship, but he said he was separated from his wife or was in the process of divorce? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said that she found out at a graduation ceremony that Scott was, in fact, still married; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she found out when Scott, or Laci apparently came over, Laci had come over and placed a lei around Scott's neck? GROGAN: I'm sorry, that's not in that report. I'm going to try to find it. GERAGOS: Yeah. Find the other report where it is. FLADAGER: Bates stamp 1325. GROGAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Geragos, I'm not finding that. GERAGOS: 1325 did you say? FLADAGER: The third paragraph down, fourth – GERAGOS: I'll bring it up to you. 1325. GROGAN: Yes. Yeah. That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So what she specifically said is that on graduation day at Cal Poly she and Scott were sitting next to each other when a female walked up to Scott and put a lei around his neck and kissed him; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And specifically, specifically she said that's, at that point she realized or had some indication that Scott was married; is that right? Or seriously, or that based, it was obvious from the kiss that this female and Scott were seriously involved, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And after the kiss, Scott and Katy sat through graduation, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, one of the pictures that you seized during the search warrant; is that it? One of the ones that you and I had marked and given to Marilyn? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. That came out of the February 18th search warrant; and then it looks like a bag, 55 A? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I'd like to mark this as defendant's next in order. JUDGE: Just the photograph? GERAGOS: Just the photograph. I might as well put the, the envelope was just so Detective Grogan and I would know. JUDGE: All right. We'll mark the envelope and the photograph Defendant's 7 H GERAGOS: Does that appear to be the graduation picture with the lei around the neck? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: And then on, when you talked to the, this woman, this particular woman, that, this picture would tend to corroborate her story, would it not? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, you've also spoken to a Rene Tomlinson; is that correct? GROGAN: She's been interviewed as part of this case. I don't know that I, I've done any interviews with her. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it a fair statement that she said that she had talked to Laci about her sex life and that she was not having sex anymore and that it was not a priority for her because of the pregnancy? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was a conversation, she had apparently talked to Laci on or around December 20th of 2000 and 2? I'm sorry. I don't mean to do that to you. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And part of the reason for this report was to try to elicit information as to what was, transpired on that last phone call in December of 2000 and 2 between Laci and one of her girlfriends, correct? GROGAN: This is a report completed by Detective Bertalotto. I'm not sure what generated the interview. GERAGOS: Okay. You're aware of the fact of who Rene Tomlinson is? GROGAN: Yes, I know she's one of Laci's friends. GERAGOS: Okay. And you're aware that she had made that statement that's what Laci had told her a couple of days before she disappeared? GROGAN: From reading that report, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically when you finished with the interview of Ann Bird and Ann told you that Laci was walking around Disneyland and getting around Disneyland, that the wheelchair basically was just so Scott could pamper her; did that change your outlook in terms of her ability to walk, Laci's ability to walk? GROGAN: Well, I wasn't sure exactly how to take this because she is, of course, has a close relationship with the defendant. GERAGOS: Okay. She did specifically address the fact that she's got a close relationship with Mr. Peterson, didn't she? GROGAN: Yes. They were separated for many years, but I think she had started to have more contact recently. GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't she specifically at some point during this interview tell you that if he, that she thought for a minute he had anything to do with Laci, that she wouldn't have anything to do with him? Didn't she tell you something to that effect? GROGAN: I don't know. I can look through this. GERAGOS: Sure. If you could just take a look and see if you've got it. GROGAN: Do you know if that's in the summary, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: I believe it's in the interview itself. I'm just moving my stuff around here and I'll see if I can grab it real quick. I'll come back to it after the break. So you don't need to look for it. She also asked you about the insurance policy, correct? 36942. About the one, two, three, four, fourth sentence down by you. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you told her that your, your, well, you're not sure, but: I've never said that the insurance policy is anything. Was that, was that a true statement? GROGAN: That's accurate. GERAGOS: Okay. It's accurate in that that's what you said to her? Or it's inaccurate, accurate in that you don't believe that this insurance policy is a motive for anything? GROGAN: It's accurate that the insurance policy, I guess it depends on what the, what the defendant knows about the insurance policy. But it was purchased long in advance of this incident. It wasn't immediate, right before she disappeared, and there are conditions that are required in order for him to try to get any money from the insurance policy. And one is that he can't be a suspect in anything, and the other is that he needs to wait, I think, a period of, like, seven years, or something like that, in order to collect anything from it. GERAGOS: Is it also a fair statement that, until this trial, you were not aware that the insurance agent was the one who was kind of the moving force behind the insurance policy? GROGAN: I don't know that I even know that now. GERAGOS: Okay. You were not in here when it was, Brian Argain? GROGAN: That sounds correct. I wasn't here when he testified. GERAGOS: You weren't here when he testified. If I told you that he said he was the one, he had just become a financial consultant and he was kind of cold-calling, hitting, prevailing on his friends to make these sales, that was something that you were unaware of, correct? GROGAN: Actually it does sound familiar that he had, he had just got the job and was trying to make some sales. I had heard that before somewhere. GERAGOS: Were you aware, it's not in any reports of yours, though; is that correct? GROGAN: I've never interviewed him, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And is it also a fair statement, then, that until this trial you were unaware that Laci was the one, at least as testified to by Brian Argain, that had made the suggestion to give herself a 200 and 50,000 dollar policy? GROGAN: Yes, I had never heard that. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically the, there was another incident that took place on, well, I'll ask you, I'll ask you this way: Do you know who Sergeant Carter is? GROGAN: Yes. But we have two of them. GERAGOS: Alan Carter. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Is he your, was he your supervisor at the time? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, was there an incident, and I'm pointing to the yellow highlight. You want to read that to refresh your recollection before I ask you questions about it? And it's Bates stamped 21638. FLADAGER: 216. GERAGOS: 38. FLADAGER: 38. JUDGE: For the record, we'll admit defendant's 7 H. Envelope and photograph. GERAGOS: You, has that refreshed your recollection as to this particular incident? GROGAN: Yes. That's the first time I've seen that document. GERAGOS: Okay. You, it mentions, I'll lead into it and then you can get to your, apparently sometime in February of 2003, while this investigation was ongoing, there was a, Sergeant Carter and a gentleman by the name of Doug Ridenour. Is he your public information officer? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then apparently they were, had, during an interview with a gentleman from KGO Television; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the ABC affiliate, and that's, they were doing a story about outstanding missing persons cases. And specifically I guess eight missing persons cases that were out of the Modesto area, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now – FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd object at this point in terms of any interview that was going on with people that the detective had absolutely no knowledge of. GERAGOS: He had knowledge because, and I'll make the proffer that – JUDGE: Let's see. Do you have any knowledge of the interview? GROGAN: I've never watched the interview, no, your Honor. GERAGOS: Could I ask one question and link it up. You were asked to give a press response regarding the interview; were you not? GROGAN: I was asked by the public information officer. He was going to generate some sort of response because this interview went a little beyond the scope of what it was supposed to. And got into the, the Peterson case. The public information officer asked me to provide him some information on what he's supposed to say, basically, if he's called by any other media regarding it. GERAGOS: Well, basically what happened is what started out as a story about eight missing persons, females in Modesto, turned into, where it was cut and pasted where the sergeant was supposedly saying: Scott Peterson is our most viable suspect, correct? GROGAN: I don't know exactly what the media, what, what that interview actually contained or how it was broadcast later. I never saw either the edited or unedited version of it. JUDGE: He apparently doesn't have any first-hand knowledge of that. GERAGOS: Well, how, weren't you given this information, it says at the bottom: This necessitated a press response by Detective, I think it's misspelled, Crogan. That's you, correct? GROGAN: I think that's me. GERAGOS: Right. And Detective Ridenour regarding this interview, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't somebody explain to you what had happened or why this interview was a problem and why you needed to get involved to correct it? GROGAN: I, what was explained to me was that there was a number of questions that were being asked by the media regarding this case because of the interview, and I was asked how they were supposed to deal with it. GERAGOS: Okay. Wasn't they specifically, wasn't the specific problem is that it had been, Sergeant Carter's statements had been cut so that it would look like he was saying Scott Peterson is the most viable suspect? GROGAN: I don't know if that's the case or not. That's what that, that's what that document says, I think. GERAGOS: And wasn't that the reason that you were asked to give a response, because you were the person who was the lead detective? FLADAGER: Your Honor, I would object just as to relevance at this point. JUDGE: I'm going to sustain the objection. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, did you give a press response? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that was to try to correct the misinformation, the way that the information had come out? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: All right. I think we'll take the afternoon recess, Mr. Geragos. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take the afternoon recess until five minutes to 3:00, and we'll pick up where we left off. JUDGE: All right, let the record show these proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury. I hate to be like a broken record. I want to go back to certifying the record. We started at page 16884. I'm going to add a thousand pages, Mr. Geragos. That will put us up to September 23rd. 18166. GERAGOS: Slower. JUDGE: Eight volumes. We have got to get this done. GERAGOS: I need to grab a couple of exhibits. JUDGE: Go ahead. But you got to do – I asked you guys to do this Monday. I'll give you until Monday. I said I'll do it, otherwise I know who it is. The lawyers get way behind, it's like pulling teeth to get them to catch up. GERAGOS: Can I have a minute with Marilyn in the antechamber over there? JUDGE: You got to unlock it to get in there. You are going to show the – GERAGOS: Can I have one minute with the detective so I can explain to him what I'm doing JUDGE: Are we ready, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: Just one second. JUDGE: All right. I have to set this out. The record will show the defendant is present with counsel. The jury is in the jury box along with the alternates. When you are ready, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thanks, judge. Detective, at some point, part of, one of the theories that the police were operating under was that Laci had been wearing the same clothes the night before, and there was an effort to try to determine what she was wearing the night before, correct, on the 23rd? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And along with, looks like we marked this as evidence before. Show that for the jury. Three photos. Is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And the three photos were of three pairs of pants that you used as a photo lineup. GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: Show them to the jury. GERAGOS: Can I pass these around? JUDGE: I'm going to admit those into evidence because they were identified by Amy Rocha. So we'll admit 15A, B and C into evidence. GERAGOS: Now, specifically you took her in at one point to the search; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: On the 18th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she entered the home because you had requested that she would see if she could view the clothing and select what Laci had been wearing on the 23rd; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The idea being that if Laci was wearing what she was on the 23rd, that she had been killed on the 23rd in that clothing, correct? GROGAN: That was a possibility, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The first thing that she identified was what's previously been marked as People's 10, correct? That's the blouse. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: I don't know if it was the first, one of the things that she picked out? GROGAN: That's one of the items that she selected that day. GERAGOS: Okay. And then she also, she also found the scarf that we have seen before, correct? GROGAN: Yes. She found a scarf in the closet that we booked as evidence. GERAGOS: And then she was certain that she had found the pants and shoes, similar, if not the same, that she wore the same, correct? She identified some shoes and then some pants that she was sure were the same, if not similar; is that correct? Similar if not the same? FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. JUDGE: It is a couple of questions. GERAGOS: She picked out a pair of pants? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she was sure that those were similar, if not the same pants she had been wearing on the 23rd, correct? GROGAN: This sentence is talking, I think, about the scarf as an item that she was almost certain that Laci had worn, and that there were pants and shoes similar, if not the same. GERAGOS: That's what I'm asking, if she picked out a pair of shoes and pair of pants, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then, that was obviously in February. And so, specifically, at some point after Laci was recovered and you found the pants, you sent someone to go get a pair of pants, and that was, or a similar pair, correct? GROGAN: Yes. We took the information off the tag of the pants that were recovered with Laci Peterson's body, and a detective contacted Motherhood Maternity, and I believe those were mailed to us at the police department. GERAGOS: Okay. And these are a similar pair of pants that I'm holding, People's 11. GROGAN: They are similar. They are not the same size. Those are large. And I believe she wore a medium. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you obtained the three photos that the jury is looking at right now, correct? I can show them to you as soon as they have gone through it. Trust me that the same three photos I showed you at the break are the same three photos that the jury is looking at. You picked that out for a specific reason; is that correct? GROGAN: Yeah. I think we got the photos first, and then ordered the pants is the order of things. But we did get the photo off the internet to use to show Amy. GERAGOS: And was that because you wanted to see whether or not this pair of pants, what's marked as People's 11, is, whether that was the same pair of pants, photo number 3, that's what Laci was found wearing, you wanted to see if that was what she was wearing on December 23rd, correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Okay. And you videotaped an interview with her; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, I did. GERAGOS: I'd ask, your Honor, that you have previously seen. JUDGE: We have got to mark it next in order. Defendant's 7I. Video Marked as Exhibit D7I for identification. And also, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the transcript of what is being said is going to be shown is on the video, so we're not going to pass out a transcript, because it's superimposed on the video. GERAGOS: Just so it's clear, because the video of that room is from behind you, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So when you are showing Amy the three pictures, you have got the pants that are marked as People's 11, and it's photo number 3, they are going to be on your left, photo number 3, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And then the middle pair, photo number 2, is right here. It will be in the middle as you are showing it to her, correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: And then photo number 1 is going to be on your right; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Need me to just press "Camera"? NALJIAN: Un-hun. GERAGOS: I showed you photo number 1. When you show it to her, is going to be on, she is going to be looking at it to her left? Photo number 2 will be in her middle, and photo number 3 will be on Amy's right; is that correct? So when you push it at her, it will look like that? GROGAN: Yes, that's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. GERAGOS: Detective, the two photos, if I could, judge, I'm going to separate them. JUDGE: That's okay. Give them back to Marilyn. Just one question. Does that truly and accurately reflect the interview as you saw it? GROGAN: Portion of it, your Honor. That's not the entire interview. JUDGE: The portion that you saw? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: Okay. We'll admit that in evidence also GERAGOS: This is not one. What you did is, there is photo 1, photo 2, and photo 3, if I understand correct. Photo 3 is what's People's 11, correct? Which is the pants, the same style of pants that Laci was found in, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you showed them to Amy in this order, spread out just like this, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Assuming that Amy is where you are right now. Where are the jury is, that's what she is looking at? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: That she specifically said definitely not these two, correct? GROGAN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: And then starting to point and talk about these, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she specifically said that they did not have that line, did not have those cuffs, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. JUDGE: Just for the record, Mr. Geragos – GERAGOS: I'm pointing to number three. JUDGE: But which one did Amy Rocha identify? GERAGOS: Identified 15B as being most likely. JUDGE: 15B. A and C she eliminated? GERAGOS: That's correct. Now, that interview was done when? GROGAN: Some time in July of 2003. GERAGOS: July 23rd? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that eliminated, I guess at that point did you feel fairly comfortable that you had all of the clothing that, at least you had the blouse, you had the pants, you had the shoes, you had the scarf that Laci was wearing on the 23rd of December? GROGAN: The shirt and the scarf she was relatively sure about. As to items that she picked out from the house, is the shoes. I think she had some question about the height of the heel. There were some pants from the closet, and she looked at those pants and said they were most like the ones she saw in the house, most like what she recalled Laci wearing on the 23rd. And then with this interview she does say that, although the pants are like a cream-colored pant, and they are the Capri style, she did not recall the cuff or the line down the front of the pant, that seam, whatever it's called. GERAGOS: Did she specifically use the term, "These are definitely not the pants"? GROGAN: When she looked at those photographs, that's what she said. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically, at that point, that eliminated this idea, I guess you had gone through and investigated this theory that she was, that Laci had been in the same clothing that she was wearing on the 23rd; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Well, she never selected any particular pant with absolute certainty to say that they were the ones that she saw. She was able to tell me differences, things that were similar. GERAGOS: Didn't she pick out a pair of pants out of the closet? She looked in the closet when you went in there, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: On 2-18, on the pants statement, when she looked in the closet on February 18th or 19th, when she went in, she selected a pair of tan or cream-colored pants that were hanging in the closet, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And those pants were clipped at the cuffs right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And they were hanging upside down, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And they showed evidence of being worn, but they were not soiled, correct? GERAGOS: That's correct. They had some lines on the crotch area or the upper thighs. Like if you were sitting down in those pants at one time or another, it might crease there. Okay. So it didn't look like they had just come back from the cleaners. It looked like the, selected, the pants Amy selected looked like they had been worn fairly recently. They still this, some kind of creases in the crotch area? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said they also were clipped at the cuffs of the pants, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. We saw that together when we were looking at them. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically those pants, as you said, showed evidence of being worn, but they didn't look like they were dirty such that you would need to send them to the cleaners. That's why you said worn, but not soiled? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And she did select those pants on the 18th, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, did you compare those pants that she selected on photo number two, in this, I guess pants lineup for lack of a better word? GROGAN: Did I compare them? GERAGOS: Well, yeah. Did you? JUDGE: You said photo number 2. A, B, C? GERAGOS: It says photo two. You are right 15B. GERAGOS: Did you take those pants? Did you put them into evidence? GROGAN: Yes, I believe the ones out of the closet are in evidence. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever get those pants, the ones that are in evidence that the Amy picked out in February, and did you ever compare them to photo number 2 to see whether or not they were the same style, the same make, or color? GROGAN: I have seen, obviously I have seen this photograph. And I have seen photographs of the other pants. The color of the pants is, they are both a little bit darker in color than the pants that Laci was recovered in. The pants that she selected out of the closet did not have a cuff, nor did they have a line. GERAGOS: Okay. But these don't have a cuff, do they? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Right. So that's what I'm saying. Did you compare the pants she selected with this photo? Basically they, to some degree, matched, didn't they? GROGAN: Visually to some degree they do, yes. GERAGOS: And where did you get this particular photo? GROGAN: Off the internet. GERAGOS: Okay. You never showed her, or you didn't get the photo the pants that you had in custody or in evidence, did you? GROGAN: No. She had already looked at those. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ask her, or did you have, did you give her the opportunity to take a look at those pants again, once she eliminated, she said basically photos one and three are definitely not it, right? GROGAN: That's what she initially said, yes. GERAGOS: And then she told you that two was the most like it, except the fabric was not quite, didn't look to her like the fabric was quite right? GROGAN: She said, to the best of my memory what she said is that maybe the fabric didn't look right in those, and that the color was possibly a little lighter. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that the specifically. They didn't have drawstring, they didn't have pockets. And when she was talking about the pants that are People's 11, she said those are more like cargo pants to me. So they are not, they were all new in fabric. Is that what she said? GROGAN: Yes. That's talking about another pair of pants that are in the photos. GERAGOS: That was in the number one? JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, I hate to be picky. You keep saying them, ones we marked them as 15A, B, and C. And I know they have number on top. GERAGOS: Whatever you want me to refer to. JUDGE: 15A B, and C. GERAGOS: 15A. Right there. JUDGE: Right. GERAGOS: That's you marked as your photo number one? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's what she was referring to? GROGAN: When she is referring to the drawstrings, I think she is talking about at the ankle, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said those are more like cargo pants, definitely not those, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, she also told you that they came in together that evening, meaning Scott and Laci; is that right? GROGAN: On the 23rd? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And his appointment was at 5:45? GROGAN: I'm not sure, sir. Do you have a Bates stamp number? GERAGOS: Yes. 40781. GROGAN: Is that a transcript? GERAGOS: It's on the transcript at the top, on page 40781. GROGAN: I'm not sure if I have that one here. GERAGOS: I'll show it to you. I have got it right here. Top of the page. GROGAN: Yes. The appointment time was 5:45. GERAGOS: Is there anywhere in this interview that you had, the videotaped interview we just saw, we indicated just a small portion of that, that had to do with the pants; is that correct? There were other portions, as I indicated, that, where you talked about what time he got there for the appointment? Scott and Laci got there? GROGAN: In the July interview? GERAGOS: Yes. That's the one I just showed you. GROGAN: 4078 – GERAGOS: 40776 is where it starts. Page one of seven. What I showed you was specifically page six of seven. GROGAN: Thank you. Yes, we talked about that briefly there. I think there have been other interviews about that. GERAGOS: Now, one of the things you had done early on at the search warrant on the 26th is, my understanding is that you, that you had done, you went back in on the second search warrant to try and find these clothes with Amy, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on the first search warrant, he can't find it. I have got a copy. I'll just use that. On the first search warrant there was, there were pictures of the hamper taken, correct? GROGAN: Yes. On the 26th, 27th. GERAGOS: Yes. Specifically People's 7. This picture was taken on the, when the search warrant was executed on the 26th or the 27th, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: When the search warrant was executed on the 26th or 27th of December, at some point after the second search warrant did you show Detective Coyle this photo? Show you one of six. GROGAN: Yes, I showed him a series of photographs. I'm not certain that this photograph was in it. GERAGOS: You what? GROGAN: I'm not certain this photograph was in it at the time. GERAGOS: Okay. What was the point of showing Detective Coyle the photographs of the hamper? GROGAN: Well, we were trying to locate where the, this is after the February search warrants. GERAGOS: So you have – GROGAN: What we are trying to do is, we are trying to determine where the clothes were that we recovered here, where they were in December when we did the search warrant. And we didn't know that they were an issue at the time. So we're trying to see if anybody remembered seeing them. GERAGOS: Okay. So is it a fair statement that nobody had noticed, and specifically Detective Coyle for whatever reason had not noticed this shirt here, which is People's 10, the maternity blouse? GROGAN: In the 26th search warrant, that's correct. It wasn't listed in the search warrant. It wasn't really a reason to look for it, in particular, at the time. GERAGOS: Okay. I mean so the theory that came up about wearing the clothes on the 23rd took place after the search warrant took place on the 26th? GROGAN: Yes. This part of the investigation, when we were trying to determine where the clothes were that she was wearing on the 23rd, that came up after the first search warrant, and before the second. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you asked Coyle, Detective Coyle for his memory of that day. And he obviously said, look, something to the effect, I don't remember having seen that, even though it's there obviously in the photograph; is that correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, at one point, the other thing that you were looking for in there were the blue pajamas; is that also a fair statement? Looking for pictures that would show the blue pajamas in the hamper? GROGAN: Yeah. We were looking, because we found those in a bag on the 2-18 search warrant in the master bedroom. And we were trying to figure out if anybody had seen those, and where they were the first time around. GERAGOS: Okay. And when the, when you went back and looked at some of the video, you could see what, I assume if you are, People's 17, that's the pair of blue pajamas that you were looking for? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And did you go back and do a search through the video to see if you could find a better shot of the hamper here, and see actually two pictures, one before it was searched, and one after it was searched; is that correct? GROGAN: We did look at the video from the 26th search warrant, and we're talking about in time on, like in February when I was talking to Detective Coyle. GERAGOS: Right. I mean you went back and talked to Coyle after the second search warrant, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Because you were trying to put together this theory, or at least disabuse yourself of this theory on the clothing; is that correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: So you were trying to determine from Coyle if he had seen People's Number 10, if he had seen the blue pajamas, or anything else, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. Coyle tells you that, no, he's got no memory of it. But then when you show him the pictures, obviously it was there. I just don't remember it. Right? Something to that effect? FLADAGER: I'm sorry, the pajamas or the blouse? GERAGOS: Talking first about the blouse. FLADAGER: Blouse? GROGAN: As far as his interview. GERAGOS: Sure. That's the page three of six. GROGAN: He's talking about, all right. All right. I'm sorry. Your specific question was, sir? GERAGOS: You talked to Coyle about what he had seen in the hamper, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you specifically that he had not, that he had not noticed this, what we now believe is People's Number 11, the blouse; is that right? GROGAN: Yes, he didn't remember it. GERAGOS: This right here. You have another picture which was Quadruple O. JUDGE: You said 10. You meant People's Number 10? GERAGOS: Yes, I did misspeak. People's Number 11, the pants. Once again there is another picture which shows the hamper there with the blouse in it, right? Black and white, obviously. GROGAN: It appears to. I don't know that I have seen that black and white photo before. GERAGOS: Okay. How about Quadruple P1 and Quadruple P2, which looks like after that hamper had been searched. Maybe, I'll give you one of these to look at closer, because I have got two. Does it look to you like the blue pajamas are on top of that hamper? GROGAN: This is taken from a video; is that correct? GERAGOS: Yes. That's taken from the video, correct. GROGAN: And is it the entrance or exit video from 12-26, 12-27? GERAGOS: It was testified to as the exit video during the day. GROGAN: There is certainly a blue garment there, and that could be the pajamas. There is, also there was a blue shirt I think I have seen in photos. GERAGOS: Let me – GROGAN: In that hamper. GERAGOS: Let me show you Triple I. Defense Triple I. Does that look like the blue shirt, which is a different color than the blue pajamas? GROGAN: Well, I don't know if that's a different garment or not, sir, because we have light coming through here. This is slightly overexposed. That one is taken at night. The blinds are closed. Appeared to be night, or at least the blinds are closed. It's darker. So I don't know if that's the same item or not. GERAGOS: Let me, let's put it up on the board for a second here, which is Quadruple P, which is the same as what you were just pointing to, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: In this picture does not appear, we don't see People's 10, right? This is People's 10 right here. We agreed on that? GROGAN: Yes. And there is a blue shirt in there. GERAGOS: Right. There is a blue shirt right there. You can see the two buttons, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this is already been testified to, Quadruple P, as the exit video. And you would tend to agree with that, because it's light out as opposed to this, which appeared to be much darker, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, when we looked at Triple I, does that look like we're still looking at, see, right here, there is a belt right there. See that belt? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: You see that right there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You see this right here. Does that look to you like People's 10? GROGAN: I'm sorry, People's 10, is that the shirt? GERAGOS: The maternity blouse. JUDGE: Maternity blouse. GERAGOS: Does it look like this was taken some time, roughly the same time as this one was taken here? And you have got the blue shirt. We have got some pants up there. And then we have got the maternity blouse hanging out. And that looks like these two photos were taken some time in the evening, and then this photo after somebody searched the hamper, because we no longer see the maternity blouse. We no longer see the pants. We no longer see the blue shirt. If that's, in fact, the pajamas. That make sense? GROGAN: Yes. If that's the pajamas, that photograph does appear to me maybe that it was taken on 12-27 because of the light situation. The others are definitely darker. I believe the 27th photo – GERAGOS: 27th photo, just so the jury knows what you are talking about, this window here does not appear to be light here. Obviously it appears to be lit up, light coming through it; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you went back to Detective Coyle obviously to try to sort all of this out, is it a fair statement that you had not seen this video, this still from the video until this trial, that is marked as Quadruple P? GROGAN: Yeah, I have never seen a still from it. I have seen the video. GERAGOS: Okay. So as you, is it fair to say also that it now appeared, at least, that the blue pajamas were apparently in that hamper on the 26th and the 27th? GROGAN: I would say that's a possibility, sir, yes. GERAGOS: Certainly a reasonable possibility, wouldn't it be? GROGAN: Yes. I don't know that we can make a positive identification looking at what we have right there, but those pajamas are blue. There is a blue garment on top. GERAGOS: And it would appear that the maternity, one reasonable explanation for the clothes here is that, in fact, the clothes that Amy Rocha had identified as Laci Peterson as wearing on the 23rd, when she came home on the evening of the 23rd, that she got out of those clothes, put the blouse in the hamper, hung up the tan or cream colored pants, put her shoes away. She wore pajamas. She wore those blue pajamas. Got up the next morning, took the blue pajamas off and put them into the hamper. Is that an reasonable explanation, based upon what you have seen? GROGAN: That's a possible scenario, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Now, the specific clothing that she was wearing, one of the other, I guess, investigative things that you tried to do was talk to Amy about what happened on that evening, the evening of the 23rd, correct? GROGAN: Yes, I did interview her about that. GERAGOS: Now, you had never asked her specifically whether she was invited over to the house, to the Covena house on the 23rd, correct? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. Is there something else – GROGAN: Is there a – GERAGOS: I don't have any report that you prepared, at least, that shows that during the times, you interviewed her on multiple occasions, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I show, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have got January 3rd, January 4th, the 7th, the 9th, the 16th, the 20th, 27th, 30th, February 4th, February 5th, twice February 12th, February 18th. You were with her at the house February 25th, March 5th, March 14th, and July 23rd, which we just saw. Is that a fair statement of the number of times that you have talked to or contacted Amy Rocha? GROGAN: If you are asking if I can remember I talked to her on all of those dates, I can't. But, 811. I have got a series of reports that, I have culled through your thousands of pages of reports and yellow highlighted various dates. And I have got a kind of a little scratch sheet here. If you want to take a look and compare it and tell me if you could, real quickly, if you talked to Amy on those occasions, just by looking through these reports comparing the dates. GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. So all those dates that I rattled off, it's a fair characterization of times, at the very least, that you talked to Amy Rocha? Is that a yes? GROGAN: Yes. There is a 1-9 date that I didn't see the report for. But based on the note you had alongside, I think that's accurate. GERAGOS: Now, is it a fair statement that until October of 2003 that there was, she then did an interview with DA Investigator Bertalotto? GROGAN: Yes. I'm looking at a report dated October 13th. GROGAN: Okay. Is that the first time that you are aware of that anybody had asked Amy if Scott had invited her over for the evening of the 23rd? GROGAN: Yes, I think that's accurate. There has been discussion in some of my reports of them going, they were going to order pizza. That was done at the Salon Salon. And this is the only one I know of where anyone is told that Scott asked her over. GERAGOS: That would be significant, would it not, if the theory of, the prosecution theory of the investigation is that Scott had some plan to kill Laci on the 23rd, it would be significant, at least to the investigators, or you as the investigator, as to why Scott would then invite Amy over on the evening of the 23rd to have pizza? I mean that's a significant fact of some kind? GROGAN: Well, it would depend on the timing, I would suppose. GERAGOS: I don't dispute that. But would you agree that that would be something significant to the investigation? GROGAN: It is information that we, that I didn't have. But – GERAGOS: Okay. That is information you did not have at the time Scott Peterson was arrested on this case; is that correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: At the time that you applied for the search warrants and the arrest warrant, it was information you did not have, correct? GROGAN: Yes, correct. GERAGOS: Now, the surveillance at Salon Salon, when was the first time that you were aware that Salon Salon had surveillance cameras, do you remember? GROGAN: I think that was a conversation in about mid-January with the owner of the salon. GERAGOS: Okay. When you had that conversation with the owner of the salon, did you realize at that time this would that have been Mr. Johnson? GROGAN: Chris Johnson, yes. GERAGOS: Chris Johnson. Did you realize at that time that Chris Johnson had numerous cameras, up to ten cameras in the location? GROGAN: No. And I don't believe that he has ten cameras in the location. I think there is – GERAGOS: You think that his testimony on that is inaccurate? GROGAN: I do. GERAGOS: Okay. You are aware that he testified to that in this case; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You think that he's inaccurate when he testified to that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: You are aware that there was photos which have been previously marked as people's, series of People's 3; is that correct. Show them to you. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, the last one which is 3, looks like is an N? GROGAN: 3N, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Where there is circles, there is cameras right there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on 3N it would appear that the camera in the space where Scott and Laci were would have been covered by the surveillance camera; is that correct? GROGAN: My understanding that is those cameras are used to check what employee, employee theft type situations, and that they cover that desk area. And then that there is a camera back in the office area where the safe is. GERAGOS: When we're talking about the cameras, we're talking about specifically here and here, where the circles are. JUDGE: Mr. Geragos did you identify what that is, 3N? GERAGOS: I thought it says 3N. JUDGE: I don't think so. GERAGOS: May I show it to you? Mine is a copy. This is a little lighter. This is the actual exhibit. It's part of the binder. JUDGE: Came out of the binder. All right. GERAGOS: Okay. If the surveillance video had been available, that probably would have put to rest all of this investigative effort; isn't that correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And, as far as you know, nobody alerted you to the fact that there was a surveillance video there? GROGAN: Not until I spoke with him. And I never been in the salon. And I didn't really think of the possibility of any kind of video in a hair salon. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically this would have been, looks like, maybe this will refresh your recollection. Looks to me like you spoke to Amy Rocha by phone on the 27th of January? I have got it yellow highlighted. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And was that, is that roughly the time when you became aware that there was surveillance footage at Salon Salon? GROGAN: I think it was before that from a conversation I had with Mr. Johnson by phone. And then when I next talked to Amy, I asked if she would check to see if they had determined if they had any video left from that time period on the 27th. GERAGOS: Now, specifically, you some time on the, when you did check it, by the way, did you ever send somebody in, any officer in to actually check the system? GROGAN: At that time? GERAGOS: At that time, right? GROGAN: No. I assume from these photographs someone took these photographs over there. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you also, in late February, had a theory, I'm referring to, at the top, his 5-26 handwritten looks like a 2-28-03 report on the bottom. You had a theory Christmas morning, when Scott left his home to go to the warehouse, that he may have simply cleaned up of all Laci's dirty clothing from the laundry hamper; is that correct? GROGAN: That was one thing that we were trying to determine, whether that was a possibility or not. GERAGOS: Okay. And the theory was, the working theory was that he was taking those clothes with him to ensure he obtained the clothing she was wearing on the 23rd, which he likely used for his description of her appearance on the 24th, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was one of the theories that you were working on, even after the second search warrant, correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I missed the date on that. GERAGOS: It says 2-28 on the bottom, and then it's led off with a statement that on Thursday 2-27 had a meeting and discussed timeline with – GROGAN: Yes. Somewhere after that second search warrant. GERAGOS: So some time after the second search warrant, you were still finding out about that in late February, correct? GROGAN: Trying to figure out what the story is with the clothing, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, when you went in on the 18th, there was some clothing that was bagged and in the second bedroom, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever ask anybody, any of the Petersons what that clothing was, or why it was there? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Did you ever follow up with, you talked to Jackie and Lee after that; isn't that correct? After the search warrant? GROGAN: I'm sorry, which are we talking about, the 26th, 27th search warrant, or the February 18th? GERAGOS: After either search warrant. Did you talk to Jackie, Lee, or Scott, I know you talked to Scott Peterson. We went through that this morning repeatedly. Did you ever talk to him, either about her clothing, or clothing that was found during the search warrant? GROGAN: No, I don't think so. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever talk after the 26th and the 27th about her clothing with Jackie or Lee? GROGAN: No, I don't think so, because they weren't, they were not there around that time period. GERAGOS: Okay. When you were investigating this idea that we talked about, about the break, about whether Laci was able to take walks, do you remember when we were discussing that this morning? GROGAN: The Yoga Village, and things of that nature, that she could walk up the stairs? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You interviewed Jackie and Lee at one point, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, when you interviewed them, were you aware that Jackie and Lee had accompanied Scott and Laci to Carmel the week before? GROGAN: I don't know if that's in that interview. It probably is. GERAGOS: Okay. I don't have it in front of me. I was just asking if you remember off the top of your head as you sit here. Do you want to take a look at it? GROGAN: I interviewed him on December 31st. Bates stamp number is 174. GERAGOS: During that interview, that's the day after, two days after you had interviewed Ron and Sharon, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. I think it's the day after. GERAGOS: The day after when you interviewed Ron and Sharon, we went through this, they indicated that Laci's daily routine was to talk every day, or every other day, correct? GROGAN: Yeah, that's what it says in that interview. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ask Lee or Jackie, when they were with Laci and Scott in Carmel the week before whether or not Laci had any trouble walking? GROGAN: I don't see the information even about Carmel in my summary of that interview. It is on the tape. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, is it a fair statement that, until this trial, you were not aware of the suggestion that Laci had been walking up a steep hill at Carmel there, and back to the beach from the hotel? GROGAN: Yeah, I never heard that, that she had been up and down a steep hill in Carmel. GERAGOS: Okay. You had never asked about, as far as you can tell from reviewing your reports, you never asked Lee or Jackie about Carmel, had you? GROGAN: I don't see anything in this summary. It's five pages long. GERAGOS: Were you a – GROGAN: That they, where they talk about. GERAGOS: Are you aware of the pictures of Scott and Laci, which were marked as People's Exhibit 5, which the prosecution marked right there? This picture? GROGAN: I have seen that photograph before, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Were you aware of People's Number 6, this photograph here? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever, were you aware of any information as to how, it appears, at least here, that Laci and Scott are at the beach, correct? GROGAN: Yes, appears to. GERAGOS: Appears here they are at The Lodge. That they stayed at The Lodge in Carmel, correct? GROGAN: I think we had information that they stayed there from someone. GERAGOS: Did you inquire as to anybody as to how it was that Laci got down to the beach from The Lodge? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And if you were to find out that Laci, or you now know there is testimony that Laci had walked, it was a steep incline there and back, that it was any where from three quarters of a mile to a mile, would that cause you some pause in this theory that Laci was not walking? FLADAGER: Objection. Misstates the testimony about where the walk started and ended. JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: You have heard, if I tell you that there is testimony that she walked, she walked at least three quarters of a mile, there is a steep area, you now see pictures where she is down at the beach, does that give you some pause as to this theory that Laci was not walking? GROGAN: Well, obviously I don't know how she got from the lodge down to the beach. I have no information about that, other than what I have heard recently. JUDGE: I think that's The Lodge at Pebble Beach, maybe. GERAGOS: Do you know where these are? JUDGE: This is The Lodge at Pebble Beach. GROGAN: I have seen those photographs before, your Honor. And I'd have do probably get into the computer upstairs to figure out where they were taken. GERAGOS: Take a look at that. Now, specifically have you sent anybody, you had, you, at some point, had heard during this trial that Laci and Scott, when they were at Carmel, had walked, correct, with Lee and Jackie? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question. But are you asking who would have said that? GERAGOS: No. I'm saying you have heard that they, that there has been testimony that they walked Lee Peterson testified they walked. They went on a steep incline, correct? GROGAN: I have heard that information second hand, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Has anybody ever investigated to see whether or not, in Carmel, to get to the beach from wherever they were staying, whatever hotel they were staying, what the distance of that walk was, whether or not there is an incline, anything to try to get at the truth as to whether or not Laci was walking during that week before she disappeared? GROGAN: Not to my knowledge. JUDGE: I think we'll stop right there. All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take the evening recess. Remember the admonition. You are not to discuss this case among yourselves or with any other person, or form or express any opinions about this case. You are not to listen to, read, or watch any media reports of this trial, nor discuss it with any representatives of media or their agents. We should be able to start right on time tomorrow at 9:00 o'clock, hopefully. We'll see you tomorrow. Have a nice evening.
September 28, 2004 JUDGE: All right. 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. Go ahead, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor. GERAGOS: Detective, when we ended yesterday I was showing you that picture. Apparently the judge has got more leisure time than me because he recognized it as Pebble Beach. (Laughter) GERAGOS: Looks like you – JUDGE: Go ahead. GERAGOS: I'll pay for it later, won't I. Did you ask Scott specifically on 12, you prepared a report on 12/28, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's the date on the report. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically he had, you had asked him what he had done the previous, I guess during that month, kind of a run down of where he had been, where he had gone; or, actually, looks like during the whole year; is that correct? GROGAN: Yeah, I think we were talking about trips in general. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that he and Laci had gone on a recent trip to Carmel and met his parents there where they stayed in a motel? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then it appears also that during the February 20, or the February 18th and 19th search warrant, that you picked up or a phone bill was seized with long distance calls for the month of December from the Covena Avenue address? And I'm looking at 1391 of the Bates stamp. GROGAN: It's Detective Brocchini's report, and it is dated 2/18, and yes. GERAGOS: And it shows a call to the Normandy Inn in Carmel? GROGAN: Yes. On 12/19. GERAGOS: Okay. Have you, I talked to you, obviously, this morning, and you've indicated you haven't, you haven't been to Carmel, and I assume you hadn't sent anybody out there; correct? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Have you done any investigation to see approximately how far away that Normandy Inn is from the beach itself? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: And specifically have you done any, I assume the answer is no, but you haven't done any investigation to see what kind of a grade that is, or hill, to get from the Normandy Inn in Carmel down to the beach where that picture was taken that was marked yesterday? GROGAN: No, I haven't. GERAGOS: Specifically when you talked to Scott on, I assume this was one of the early conversations, and you asked him where he had been, he told you about the Carmel trip; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And in August he said he had gone to San Luis Obispo to a place called The Cliffs? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And then he said that he and Laci had been in Hawaii with Aaron and Freidi, Heidi Fritz sometime in May of 2000 and 2? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said he had been out to Cairo in February for one and a half weeks? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Brussels, Belgium in June for one and a half weeks? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And southern Spain in October for one and a half weeks? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was all part of, what he explained it as part of his corporate meetings in connection with TradeCorp? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And specifically did you, somebody at some point started talking to his employer at TradeCorp, Nuno I think his name was? GROGAN: Nuno, I think so. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Did anybody confirm whether or not, in fact, with him Scott had been to those various countries during those time periods? GROGAN: I don't know. Possibly. GERAGOS: Okay. You don't have any information that what he told you about those countries was untrue, do you? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And on the 26th you seized Mr. Peterson's passport, did you not? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, do you know if anybody compared the passport with the locations to see if, in fact, he had been those specific spots? GROGAN: I know I've seen it at one point or another, and I don't recall what's, what's inside. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, there was a number of items that were seized, and you talked a little bit about theories that the prosecutor or that the police had. One of the theories was at some point that maybe Laci Peterson had been drugged; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. We looked into that. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the working theory was is that that would explain why there were no signs of a struggle or anything else, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically items were seized in connection with that, and specifically a mortar and a pestle that was seized on February 18th from the Peterson home by virtue of a search warrant? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And this mortar and a pestle was something, I guess, commonly used to do some kind of a, well, basically what you wanted to do is you seized it with the idea that you would have it tested to see if there was any remnants of any kind of drug, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And you specifically received back a report from a criminalist, Christine Schneider, regarding a mortar and pestle sometime in April of 2000 and 3? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. I'll show you what's been Bates number stamped 17525. And looks like one of your reports that's dated 4/10 of oh three? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And the report that you got back on testing for the mortar and pestle was negative for any kind of controlled substance? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically there was also at some point a theory that, I guess the fairest way to put it was there was a, you discussed with a Detective Phil Owen, he's also a Modesto PD detective that was part of the core unit; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And you and Detective Owen discussed the possibility of the boat, aluminum boat, being tied to something in the Bay to steady it for the possibility of a body dump; is that correct? GROGAN: That's something that we had looked at, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was specifically because the idea had occurred that if, well, specifically the worry was that if the body, if, in fact, this theory that Laci had been in this boat and then was dumped out of the boat, the theory was that the boat would flip over; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Well, what we were looking at was to see if there was any evidence on the boat that could tell us if it was tied up or not and give us a location to search for Laci's body. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically, and referring to, I don't have a Bates number stamp, but it look like a February 3rd of 03 report prepared by you, you suggested areas by buoys be searched as that would provide an area for both cover and to tie off the boat and avoid flipping the boat when putting the body over the side; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically one of your concerns was that, if your theory was true as to what happened here, that if the boat was not tied up, that when pushing the body out of the boat the boat would flip, correct? GROGAN: We considered that as a possibility. One of the, what we learned, though, is depending on the conditions out there, if you tie a boat to one of the buoys, it could actually make the situation more dangerous, depending on the, on the waves and the currents at the time. GERAGOS: Okay. So your concern, so either way, either tying it to a buoy or if the body is pushed out of a boat, either way it's dangerous and you run the risk of flipping over the boat, correct? GROGAN: Depending on the conditions out there, we were told by, you know, the experts in the Bay that that may not be a safe thing to do, tying it to one of the buoys, depending on what the tides and the currents and the wave action was. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically what you did is you went back and had somebody, I assume it was Detective Owen, take a look at the boat to see if there were any kind of paint transfers, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And they found something that looked like some small, some sort of paint transfer; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. He found some red paint on the side of the boat and in some of the threads of the screws on one side where the fishing pole holder was located. GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically samples of that red paint were taken, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then that was sent to the Department of Justice, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the Department of Justice came back, and then there was a sample of paint from the buoy that was also selected; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. One of the buoys. GERAGOS: Right. And then the comparison was done; and the result was it was not the same, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically there was, and I had pointed out to you in some of the pictures at the preliminary hearing that there was a red dolly that was on the side of the boat of the Modesto PD storage area; do you remember that? GROGAN: Can I see this? Yes. There is, there is a dolly in that photograph. GERAGOS: Okay. I'd like to mark this as defendant's next in order. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos? JUDGE: That will be – GERAGOS: It's a photograph of the interior of the boat once it's been impounded at the – JUDGE: Defendant's 7 J. Are you going to lay a foundation with him? GERAGOS: Sure. V Holmes is Veronica Holmes, who is a community service officer? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she's the person, one of the two people, I guess, she and Miss Ducot, who take the pictures of the evidence? GROGAN: There's actually several more, but she did take a lot of photographs in this case. GERAGOS: Okay. Does this appear to be the boat that was seized by virtue of the search warrant on the 26th or the 27th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And this appears to be in the Modesto PD, is this over at that one-story property? GROGAN: Well, that's what I was looking at in the photograph, and there's a lot of stuff in the background. I'm not certain where this boat was on December 30th, if it was, what facility it was stored in. GERAGOS: It was in police, it was in a police – GROGAN: It was in – GERAGOS: impound somewhere, right? GROGAN: Yes, it was in our, in our custody on December 30th. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the, kind of hard to see here. You lose a little bit of a color, but this is the red dolly right here? GROGAN: Yes, it appears to be. GERAGOS: Okay. Did anybody ever check to see if the red dolly or the paint from the red dolly matched the paint transfer on the boat? GROGAN: No, we didn't. But there was also some, some wood attached to some of the paint on that, so the dolly didn't necessarily make sense with, with that. GERAGOS: Well, the buoy came back negative, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And did somebody try to rule out the fact that the red dolly that's right next to the boat here could have been the object that, when somebody was backing in to the storage area there, that scraped against the boat? GROGAN: We didn't try to do that because of the exam that came back that said that there was wood attached to one of the, the paint flakes. So it appeared that the paint was on something that had a wood background, at least on part of it. GERAGOS: Okay. The, specifically the DOJ report didn't say that, did it? GROGAN: I don't know if it did or not. I remember talking to Sarah Yoshida about it at some point. GERAGOS: Okay. Looks like Sarah did the report, and she had said that there was no red paint consistent with the paint from the buoy, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And she said no red paint smears were observed on the fishing pole holder, correct? GROGAN: That's what it says, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the red specks from two of the paint transfer samples were a different shade from the paint sample from the buoy, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And the red substance from one of the paint transfer samples was translucent while the paint sample from the buoy was opaque, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And the red specks from the paint transfer sample were too small for a color comparison, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And it doesn't indicate anywhere in her report that there was anything about wood, does it? GROGAN: Not in this report that I, that I see. I do remember that, however. GERAGOS: Okay. She says the paint transfer sample consisting of a small piece of wood and some red specks, however, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then the other paint transfer sample consisting of a white substance, red specks and a translucent, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you know which side of the boat that the paint transfer was taken from? GROGAN: I believe it was the left side of the boat, which I think is they call the port side. GERAGOS: Okay. Is that the side that's closest to where the dolly is? GROGAN: I think it would be the opposite side. GERAGOS: And you're basing that on what? GROGAN: My memory of it. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, did you, the buoy that you had taken a paint transfer sample from, where was that? GROGAN: That's in the San Francisco Bay, buoy number four, up in the area of Brooks Island. Specifically, other than that I really couldn't tell you, I don't think. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you had also had discussions with a, somebody, a Paul, is it Andrieu from the United States Coast Guard? GROGAN: I did? GERAGOS: No, I'm asking. Did you have somebody go have discussions with him to try to follow-up on the painting of the buoys? GROGAN: Yes. I think someone followed-up to see what type of paint they used on the buoys. GERAGOS: Okay. And they got that information, would that have been Detective Hendee? GROGAN: I'm not sure. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to show you a, two page reports. 21691 and 21692. FLADAGER: Your Honor, at this point I'll interpose an objection. If we can have a foundation that the information Mr. Geragos is soliciting is, in fact, information that the detective was aware of and relied on in the course of his investigation. Otherwise, it's just hearsay. GERAGOS: I'd be happy to ask the witness. JUDGE: Yeah, would you, otherwise it's not relevant. He doesn't know. GERAGOS: Sure. I'm going to ask him. GROGAN: (Witness reading) GERAGOS: Just ask you, at the beginning it appears that you had a discussion, according to Detective Hendee, with him about these buoys; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you asked him to go out and find out if there was any kind of paint schedule or maintenance schedule; is that a fair statement? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did he come back and report to you anything that he had found out? FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos, do you have a Bates stamp number? GERAGOS: Yeah. 21691 and 2. FLADAGER: 216? GROGAN: 691. GERAGOS: 691. FLADAGER: Thank you. GERAGOS: If you don't remember, it's okay. I'm just asking you if you remember, based on you telling him or having had the discussion, whether or not there was any report that was then made back to you. GROGAN: I know that the information that he got was forwarded to the Department of Justice lab and that the paint from the buoys did not, did not match the paint off of the boat. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: That I can, that I can say. GERAGOS: So your, your memory of it is that the paint, your memory, as you sit here you don't have a specific memory of your discussion with Dodge Hendee, but you do know that you remember, at least, this theory that it had been tied to a buoy; and following up on it in terms of the paint transfers is that the paint didn't match? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to show you a picture which was taken, I think, by Veronica Holmes. Looks like it's a, February 5th? JUDGE: Has that been previously marked? GERAGOS: No. Does this look like a picture of the same boat? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Does that look, is there somebody there that's looking at one of the paint transfers? GROGAN: Well, that's Detective Skultety. GERAGOS: Is he, is that the area from where, from which the paint transfer was taken? JUDGE: If you know, Detective. GROGAN: I really don't know. I didn't collect that sample. GERAGOS: If that is the area from which the paint sample was taken, it would appear that the paint sample was, in fact, right over by the red dolly; isn't it? FLADAGER: Objection, speculation. GERAGOS: I'm asking him. He testified on his own about a specific side of the boat. JUDGE: But he doesn't know, so I'm going to sustain the objection. GERAGOS: All right. GROGAN: I'm sorry, I said that from memory and maybe I shouldn't have. GERAGOS: Okay. You said what from memory? GROGAN: When I was talking about what side it was collected on. You should probably talk to Detective Owen or Detective Skultety to be sure. GERAGOS: Okay. Can I mark this as next in order? JUDGE: Yeah, but there's no foundation for its admissibility. GERAGOS: I'll have Skultety back. JUDGE: This is a photograph of the boat? GERAGOS: Yes, it's a photograph of the boat – You do recognize Detective Skultety looking at the boat? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And this is Skultety that's right here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Once again, this is, the boat is, I assume these numbers on the bottom, that's for the date that the picture was taken and then who took it? GROGAN: Yes. It should be February 5th, 2003. GERAGOS: Okay. And you can see where the, can you see where the blue seat is in the back and the red and white seat is in the front? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I see the red and white seat in the front, and I missed the beginning of your sentence. GERAGOS: See the blue seat there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Let me show you, JUDGE: Just for the record, Mr. Geragos, that's Defendant's 7 K, the one we just marked, the one with Skultety. GERAGOS: Yes. 7 K. You lose a little bit of the resolution. You see the blue seat in the back here, and then the seat here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And in looking at these, does that give you an indication as to which side of the boat Detective Skultety is looking at in D 7 J? GROGAN: Yeah. He would be looking at, in, in that photograph he's looking at something on the right side of the boat. GERAGOS: Meaning the side that's closest to the red dolly, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So if we're looking right here, Skultety is looking on the right side of the boat, and that's D 7 K, and if we're looking right here, this is the right side of the boat, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then I'm going to show you a report of yours that's a, looks like February 4th of oh three. Would you take a look at that and refresh your recollection on that. February 4th would have been the day before, at least, the date on that picture? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: And I was wrong when I testified earlier. It is, the sample was taken off of the right, or starboard, side of the boat. GERAGOS: Okay. That's the sample, the side of the boat that's closest to that red dolly on this, on the picture that I was just showing you? Correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you specifically had gone to the location; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the location, you had had a conversation the previous evening with Detective Owen and Skultety; is that right? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: I'll stand up there with you. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos, do you have a Bates stamp number? GERAGOS: Can you read that? Is that 405? GROGAN: I think so. 405. GERAGOS: Looks like 405, but it's got 333 on top in handwriting, and it's page one of three. Looks like you had a conversation the day before you wrote this report with Owen and Skultety, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you, and then you walked down to the shop where the boat was secured, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's that shop that's in the picture right here where Skultety is taking, or looking at this sample; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. That's the, that's the shop at the new police building. I did walk, walk in there when they were doing this, and I talked to them just for a few minutes, but they were doing the evidence collection. I was in and out of there briefly. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: Well, does that photograph accurately represent the way the boat looked on the day you were there? GERAGOS: You want me to bring it up here so you can see it closer? JUDGE: Or whatever. You – GERAGOS: I mean if that's, you identified that as the shop in the new police building, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Is that how the boat looked on that, on the day that you went down there? GROGAN: I, I remember the defendant's truck was parked in there by the boat somewhere, and – GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: i thought that it was backed in, but, JUDGE: You can't be sure. GROGAN: I can't be sure. I'm not sure where the photo is taken from. Which, which side. And the truck's not there to, really, help orient me in the photograph. GERAGOS: Detective Owen showed you the red paint transfer, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you wrote a report that said it was found on the starboard, or the right side, of the boat, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And that it was on the upper outer edge of the boat, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically there's another picture here that I've got. Does this picture look like what was shown to you by Detective Skultety? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And does this picture represent what was shown to you by Detective Skultety? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. May I mark these as next in order? JUDGE: That will be Defendant's 7 L. How many have you got, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: Two. JUDGE: 1 and 2 GERAGOS: Okay. And showing what's been marked as D 7 K 2, this is the red paint transfer right here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. This is, I'm sorry, did I – CLERK: It should be L, I'm sorry. JUDGE: 7 L 1 and 2. GERAGOS: Should I just redo it? CLERK: Sorry about that. GERAGOS: That's okay. We've got D 7 L 1. This is a longer, I should say more expansive view of the side of the boat; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's the way it looked when Detective Skultety showed it to you? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then I've got D 7 L 2. And this is a closeup of the paint transfer sample as you saw it? It accurately reflects the way that it looked that day? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically in February, that same day that you, based on that conversation, and based on the fact that you saw that red paint transfer, isn't it a fair statement that the areas around the buoys in the Bay became a priority in the search? GROGAN: Between the time that we found the paint on the boat and we had results back from what, what was going to be tested on the paint, the buoys did become a priority, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The buoys became a priority then? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And specifically the results came back from the Department of Justice in, was that in July? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I don't remember. GERAGOS: Okay. You're talking about the Sarah Yoshida report, correct? Does that look like the Sarah Yoshida report that's dated July 28th of oh three? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So based on the fact that you found this red paint transfer on the boat, that became on that day, which was the 4th of February, correct? GROGAN:Well, whenever I think the next searches would have been done. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm just saying it started off with this. February 4th is the date that you discovered this; this is the day that you changed the priorities for the search areas to become around the buoy areas, right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And it became, and it remained that way until Sarah Yoshida came back and said that, in July, that the paint didn't matter, or it didn't match? GROGAN: Well, I probably shouldn't say that because they would have, they would have used the side-scan sonar to try to clear underneath the buoys, around the buoys. And if they were confident that they had done all they could with that, then they would move on to something else. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically there was another, there was a blue tarp that was recovered from the Bay at some point; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you remember when that was? GROGAN:I do not. GERAGOS: It was sometime prior to March 3rd of 2003, correct? Because the, it was submitted, the tarp was submitted to DOJ in March? FLADAGER: And, your Honor, again, I just interpose another objection. Unless there's a foundation this detective knew about this, relied on this. GERAGOS: That's why I specifically asked him if he knew it was a blue tarp. JUDGE: He's reading it now. Okay. GROGAN: What, what I can see from what I'm just looking at right here, Mr. Geragos, is this, this report was submitted after we, we obtained hair samples from McKenzie in the 2/18 search warrant, and I think the tarp was at the lab long before that, but I don't recall the date we sent it. GERAGOS: Okay. The blue tarp was found sometime after December and sometime before March, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And this is a tarp that was just found in the Bay, was your understanding, correct? GROGAN: Yes. It was found somewhere near the Berkeley Marina. GERAGOS: Okay. And so one of the things that was suggested to be done is that there was dog hairs on the tarp; is that correct? GROGAN: There were, there was dog and cat hairs on the tarp, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So when you did the search warrant on February 18th, one of the things or requests that you had asked the judge for was the ability to take some hair samples from McKenzie; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And in taking the hair samples from McKenzie, you could then, actually, that would, I suppose, limit the, or the area, the time period when this blue tarp was found; because you knew that you had some animal hairs on this tarp in February, right? FLADAGER: Objection. Compound, speculative, and lack of foundation. GERAGOS: I'll rephrase it. JUDGE: Rephrase it. I'll sustain the objection. GERAGOS: You knew at the time you requested the search warrant that you had the tarp, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's the reason you requested the samples of hairs from McKenzi? GROGAN: Yes. I think the tarp itself had already been examined, because we certainly wouldn't know whether it was dog or cat hairs on it without it going to a lab. And once it was examined, then we decided that we wanted to include McKenzi's hair as part of the 2/18 search warrant so it could be compared with the hairs that were on the tarp. GERAGOS: Okay. And then the, specifically the hairs were compared, McKenzi's hairs, with the hairs on the tarp, and McKenzi was excluded as being the dog that had shed its hair on this tarp, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the boat cover, and I asked you yesterday specifically, the boat cover you were told about, or Scott had told you where he had put it; isn't that correct? When you had a conversation with him? GROGAN: Where he put it when? GERAGOS: After he got back from the marina. GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. You located the boat cover, correct? GROGAN: It was, it was located during the search warrant, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And you wanted that tested because you had a theory that the boat cover may have been used to wrap a body; is that correct? GROGAN: That was one, one thing we looked at. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's, you also submitted that to the Department of Justice to follow-up on that theory, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you're aware that, when the boat cover was examined, that there was no blood, urine, feces or any other tissue that was found on the boat cover as well? FLADAGER: And, your Honor, if I might. This evidence already came in through one of the criminalists, obviously for the truth of the matter asserted, so could we have a reminder that much of this hearsay is not offered for the truth? GERAGOS: Well, I guess now if there's a, speaking, speaking objection. JUDGE: Yeah, it's a speaking objection. The question is, pending is whether or not he was aware that there was, that it came out negative, right? GERAGOS: Yes. JUDGE: And if he considered this in his investigation. And he can testify to it. Okay. Were you made aware, Detective Grogan, that, during your investigation that the boat cover came out negative for any blood? GERAGOS: Tissue, feces. JUDGE: Anything like that? Were you made aware of that fact? GROGAN: I learned that at some point, your Honor, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point the, you had also submitted, I believe, on, on the, at the time of the original search warrant the, another tarp that was found at the house, or at the shop; is that correct? GROGAN: You're referring to the blue tarp? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: I'm not sure. GERAGOS: Okay. As you sit here today, you don't remember if that's one of the things that you had requested that the Department of Justice examine as well? GROGAN: I think so, but, GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: You know, GERAGOS: Now, specifically you're aware that there was a sighting, or a purported sighting, of Laci Peterson in Longview, Washington; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically were you aware that there's been some slides or evidence presented to the jury about what Scott did or didn't do about trying to view those tapes? GROGAN: Am I aware of slides that the jury has seen about it? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: I have not, I was not here when that testimony came in, no, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you did discuss with Scott this sighting in Longview, Washington; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And specifically Scott had told you that, or you told Scott you wanted him to come down to the police department sometime in February, about the 19th, so that you could talk to him or have an interview; is that correct? 442 in handwritten on the top. FLADAGER: 442. GERAGOS: 442 handwritten. In a 2/19/03 report, yellow highlighted. GROGAN: Yes. We discussed Longview, Washington there. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically you had called him, this would have been the day either, while the search warrant was being executed; is that correct? Approximately that time period? GROGAN: Yes. I believe that was on, on 2/18 when we first started to serve the search warrant. GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point, when you asked him to come and sit down for an interview, he told you, you asked him would he be willing to do that interview, and he told you No, I'm not going to, correct? GROGAN: 442? GERAGOS: 442 in the handwritten, and it says page five of twelve? GROGAN: Thank you. GERAGOS: And in a 2/19, oh three. Yeah. That's it. GROGAN: Yeah. I asked him if he wanted to, to come in for an interview, and he said he did not. Or would not. GERAGOS: And he said, you asked him why, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he told you because you have not, "you" meaning the police department is what you interpreted, had not treated him fairly? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you asked him why, and he told you that you had been wasting time investigating him rather than following up leads on the case? Is that what he told you? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he went into questioning you about the Longview, Washington sighting of Laci, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And he told you that he wanted to know if you had the tapes, "you" meaning the police department, right? That's what you understood? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. He wanted to know if Modesto PD had the tapes, and you told him they were either booked in evidence in Longview, Washington, or had been forwarded to the police, Modesto police, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you told him someone had viewed the tapes and the witness involved had failed a voice stress analysis and left the interview, correct? GROGAN: That’s what I told him. GERAGOS: And you also told him that the Longview, Washington detectives had viewed the tapes and did not see Laci on them, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Scott told you that he believed he should have been allowed to view the tapes because he was a member of her family and he would be able to recognize her, right? GROGAN: Yes. Yes. GERAGOS: And you, you told him that there were no images that were brought to your attention as being even questionable as to whether they were Laci Peterson or not, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that he had not been fairly treated by Modesto PD, right? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: And he gave examples of the release of his boat and truck photos, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said why were you, basically why were you releasing those to the media after you had already found witnesses who verified he was at the marina, correct? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was in regards to what we had discussed yesterday, that at some point in the first week of January that specifically there were photos that were released and a story that was printed in the Modesto Bee seeking witnesses to verify the story, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And at some point the Modesto PD released the pictures of his truck and his boat, correct? GROGAN: Yes, we did. GERAGOS: And he expressed to you that he felt that that was done after you had already located witnesses who had confirmed he had been at the marina, correct? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that news release actually was a, something that was put together by the police department, the press information officer? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And what I'm showing you, does this appear to be the very same news release produced through discovery to me? GROGAN: Yeah. Bates stamp number 5053. GERAGOS: I'd like to mark this as next in order. I would stipulate that we can use a copy of it, because it's one of the three-whole punch. JUDGE: Defendant's 7 M.. Do you accept the stipulation, Ms. Fladager? FLADAGER: Yes. JUDGE: That we can use a copy? FLADAGER: Yes. JUDGE: This is Defendant's 7 M. What's the date of that press release? GERAGOS: January 2nd. JUDGE: Okay GERAGOS: Do you know who would have, would have put this out, this would have been Detective Ridenour? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then the idea the police are trying to corroborate Scott's trip to the Berkeley area, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the, at this point, January 2nd, it was approximately, you think that's accurate, 1100 tips since Christmas day? GROGAN: I assume it is, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on, was that discussion that you had with Scott, was that on the phone? Or was it in person, the one that we've just been going over? GROGAN: The February 18th discussion? GERAGOS: The one that you, that we just discussed, that we just went over? GROGAN: About Longview, Washington. GERAGOS: About Longview, Washington? GROGAN: That was in person, and it was I think in front of his home, 523 North Covena. GERAGOS: Did you have a tape recording device with you at that time? GROGAN: I did. GERAGOS: Okay. Did that device not work for some reason? GROGAN: It did work. What I'd done is I ran a recorder, I put it inside my jacket pocket, and from that there was a wire that ran down to the microphone that I clipped into my watch, and I tried to record some of the conversations that we had. Mainly I wanted to get if, if there was anything that we ended up discussing that day. GERAGOS: And did you, were you able to capture anything? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Specifically at some point you had talked to a Dr. Boyd Stephens; is that correct? Referring to 17448. GROGAN: Yes, I did talk to him. GERAGOS: And who did you know Dr. Boyd Stephens to be? GROGAN: He's the medical examiner for the City and County of San Francisco. GERAGOS: Okay. And you, he told you that he had examined numerous bodies from San Francisco Bay during the years he had been employed as the medical examiner, correct? 17448. GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that he also took part in some studies in the 70s regarding decomposition of bodies in the Bay, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. He said the reason that they never published that study was because the San Francisco Bay is such a unique system? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: Okay. And I assume that the reason, and you put it in your report, that the reason that you asked Dr. Stephens about this is that you had a, once again, theories about Laci Peterson and being put in the Bay; is that correct? GROGAN: Yeah. The reason I contacted Dr. Stephens is because I was told that he, he had done this research in the Bay, he was an expert on the Bay, and I wanted to give the search teams an idea of exactly what they could expect to be looking for after this much time had gone by. GERAGOS: Okay. You specifically described Laci's weight to him as being about a hundred and sixty pounds, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you suggested that she may be possibly wrapped in plastic and chicken wire? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And this was on April 2nd, was the, yes, April 2nd about 2:00 o'clock; is that right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And you said that she likely would have been put in the water somewhere near the Richmond Turning Basin; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And the conditions on that date was the southbound water flow of about four knots, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he specifically told you that in his opinion 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic, causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, immediately to go to the bottom, correct? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: And he told you that the victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights would catch something on the bottom or the currents would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for weights to begin to sink in the mud, correct? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: Okay. He also told you if the body was wrapped in plastic and if it had made it to deeper waters, that it was possible the body would still be in a pristine condition, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he explained that the pressures that come with depth in the water also aid in holding the body together and that the cold water associated with depth reduced the bacterial effects of decomposition, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. He also told you that he did not believe that a weighted, wrapped body would be covered in mud, right? 17450. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he also said that the, it would likely be floating off the bottom of the Bay due to gases and air trapped in the plastic, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said that a non-wrapped body would be skeletal remains that are disarticulated and likely covered in mud, meaning buried in mud at that point, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. He told you he was aware of cases of bodies that, JUDGE: I think that's an earthquake. Maybe we should take a recess. Let's take a recess until everything settles down. We'll just take a short recess. Give you your morning recess right now. Remember the admonition JUDGE: All right. This is People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. These proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury. During the recess I was advised by the prosecutor that the witnesses they intended to call tomorrow they are not going to call until Monday. So I'll let the jury know that when they come in, okay? So they can expect that we are going to finish with Grogan before we go on to something else. Right? Do you want to bring the jury in? JUDGE: All right, before we go on the record, I want to bring you up to date again about scheduling. There has been a change. So tomorrow the three witnesses that were going to be called out of order will not be called tomorrow. They are going to be called on Monday. So we're going to go ahead and finish with Detective Grogan, and then we'll have some other witness after that. Okay, we'll go back on the record. Mr. Geragos, go ahead. The defendant is present with counsel. And the jury is in the jury box along with the alternates. Go ahead. GERAGOS: Thank you. Detective, you still have 17450? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And when, Doctor Stephens specifically told you that they he knew of cases where bodies would travel a distance of five miles; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes, in The Bay. GERAGOS: In The Bay, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this conversation you had with Doctor Stephens on April 2nd, you still, even though you had the information back about the chicken wire, you were still talking about the chicken wire with him at that point; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. To give him, basically we talked about the various options. Plastic wrap. We talked about the chicken wire. And I think he made comments on whether an unclothed body, what would happen. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, on, by April 2nd, as we went over yesterday, you had already received back all the information that you and I went over the first day we talked, which was that Home Depot or Lowes only cut it in 25 and 50 foot lengths, correct? GROGAN: I think it only comes in 25 or 50 foot lengths from Home Depot, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And the fact that you had tested the wire cutters and the pliers, and that they came back negative, correct? GROGAN: The ones we tested came back negative, yes, sir. GERAGOS: And the fact that the chicken wire was, in fact, 24 feet six inches, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And the fact that you actually saw a cat scratching the trees, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: All of that information was known to you by the 2nd when you talked to Doctor Stephens, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, specifically going forward to the time when the, at the marina when the bodies were recovered, actually, let me go back to the December date. There were two K-9 search teams that were up at the marina; isn't that correct? On December 28th. I'm specifically referring to 2654. Maybe I'll speed it along, because you may not remember this. Do you know the a gentleman by the name of, have you been made aware of somebody from Alameda County Sheriff by the name of Ron Seitz, a dog handler? GROGAN: The name is familiar. I have never met him. GERAGOS: Did anybody alert to you the fact that Ron Seitz was up there at the same time as Eloise Anderson? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. So as you sit here today, if I hadn't been showing you somebody else's report, you don't have any memory of whether or not Ron Seitz or his dog had searched at the marina on the 28th. Is that unknown to you as you sit here today? GROGAN: I know there were searches done that day, I know. And I wasn't present for any of them. GERAGOS: Are you aware of any of the information that Ron Seitz, through his dog T-e-g-o, T-e-q-o-n, had elicited from being up at the marina on the 28th? GROGAN: No. I can look that up. GERAGOS: Okay. I think it would be met with an objection, if you don't, if you don't remember it at the time somebody telling you about it. As part of your investigation, do you remember at the time anybody telling you that Ron Seitz had been up there with his dog and had found no scent? Does that ring a bell? GROGAN: No, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically when the, when Conner was found, you received a phone call on the morning of April 14th; is that correct? JUDGE: While he's looking that up, since we left, took the recess because there was an earthquake, we better put something in the record, just so, in case you didn't know, the bailiff got it up on the internet. It was a 5.9 earthquake in Monterey County, apparently, and right on the San Andreas fault. Everything is back to normal. Here we are again. Go ahead, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thank you. Did you get a call, or did you talk to an officer by the name of Villalobos? GROGAN: Villalobos? Yes, I did. GERAGOS: Okay. And what's your Bates number stamp on that? GROGAN: 17528. GERAGOS: Now, when you talked to, you talked to Villalobos, what day was that? GROGAN: It was April 14th of 2003. GERAGOS: And he called you, or you called him, do you remember? Doesn't matter. GROGAN: He called me. But I believe it's based on a message I left him earlier that morning. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: And he specifically told you that they had recovered a male fetus; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that the baby was recovered at 4:30 on Sunday the 13th, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. He told you that he had heard from detectives, the detectives attending the autopsy that there was some evidence that the child may have been born alive, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he also told you that there was no umbilical cord attached, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And, specifically, you also then went on to talk to Doctor Peterson. I think you testified to that in the direct. Miss Fladager was asking you questions, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Okay. And Doctor Peterson and you had a conversation after he had examined the baby as well and done the autopsy, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he was unable to state for certain, this is what he told you, whether or not the umbilical cord had been tied at one point along the ragged end of the umbilical cord, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he also told you that he just was uncertain as to whether or not the umbilical cord had been tied along the ragged end, or whether it had come off as part of the decomposition, right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he also told you that he was, he could not say for certain whether the child had been stillborn, or had gone through a birthing process, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that the lungs were small and wet, and there was no determination if the child had ever taken a, breath that he couldn't make that determination, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And that there was no animal activity to speak of, which he considered odd; isn't that right? GROGAN: Yes, that's correct. GERAGOS: And he also said that he believed that the baby fell within a nine-month-old infant range? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: And that if you wanted to say that it was seven and half months old, it would be a somewhat large baby, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And during that conversation, that's when you became suspicious, or at least considered the possibility that that could have been Conner, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I believe this conversation took place after Laci's body was recovered. So, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, one of the next things that you did after talking with Villalobos and Peterson is, at some point, you went up to the marina; is that correct? GROGAN: Are you asking if I went up there anywhere around this time period? I don't believe I did. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, were you following up on what was found alongside the shore? GROGAN: No, I didn't go to the recovery site for either of the bodies. GERAGOS: I'm going to direct your attention to 17539. Do you have that in front of you? Bates number stamp. GROGAN: 17539? GERAGOS: That’s correct. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically at about 1:00 o'clock you met with Detective Brocchini, right? JUDGE: What date would this be, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: I assume that this is also on the 14th; is that correct? JUDGE: Well, trouble is that he got the phone call at 4:30. GERAGOS: Let's say April 15th. Does it look like it's April 15th at 1:00 o'clock? So is that accurate? You got April 15 on the bottom of the report. GROGAN: Yes, that's correct. It's the 15th of April. JUDGE: So it's the next day. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the next day you were informed at some point that a Target bag had been found near the location, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's what's been previously marked as the D5C series, these pictures here; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, looks like the same bag. GERAGOS: Okay. And one of the things that you did was ask that Detective Brocchini do some follow-up, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the report, you asked that Detective Brocchini, you asked Detective Brocchini if that plastic could, in any way, be linked to Scott Peterson or the bodies, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And you wanted to find that out, if it was more likely trash from the bay, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, at that point, now, at that point, let's see. Recently, within the last six weeks, you were present with me upstairs in the conference room of the DA's office here, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And we were present to interview two officers who were scheduled here to testify, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And those were, those officers were Officer Frazer, who has testified, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then an Officer Phillips, correct? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: Your Honor, at this point I'd object to activities which occurred during the course of the trial. It is not relevant to the course of his investigation. JUDGE: It would be a prior inconsistent statement. I think that's why it's coming in. GERAGOS: Of course. Now, Officer Frazer and Officer Phillips were interviewed by myself, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that was specifically because when Phillips and Frazer came here, Phillips and Frazer. FLADAGER: Your Honor, at this point I object. One of these officers has not testified. It would not be a prior inconsistent. I think that's – JUDGE: Wait a minute. Only person who testified was Frazer. If I understand what he told you upstairs, what he testified to here might be an inconsistent statement, but for the jury to determine. FLADAGER: Only as to Frazer. JUDGE: Only as to Frazer. He's the only one who testified. GERAGOS: Now, Officer Frazer, specifically when we were upstairs, and I asked him if he had smelled the decomposition in the bag, this Target bag, said that he had, didn't he? GROGAN: Officer Phillips made a comment. Officer Frazer said that it smelled like something that came out of The Bay, is what I remember. GERAGOS: So what you remember Officer Phillips saying is that it was decomposition, the smell of decomposition, just like what the body of Laci Peterson smelled like, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Hearsay. JUDGE: Sustained. The jury can disregard it. GERAGOS: Well, judge, could I be heard on this? It's a little bit more complicated than what she is saying. I don't mind just stepping in brief – JUDGE: No, it has to be on the record, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: I understand. But the problem is, is that, well, I'll get at it from another angle. JUDGE: Try it some other way. GERAGOS: Specifically did anybody tell you that Officer Phillips or Officer Frazer had made the observation at the time this bag was recovered that it smelled like the smell of decomposition, that was the same as Laci? Were you ever told that on April 15 or 16th? GROGAN: I never heard that until this trial had started. GERAGOS: Okay. And you never heard that until you were up in the conference room, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Hearsay. GERAGOS: I take that back. You heard it the day before when you were prepping the witnesses, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Hearsay. The witness is not here. GERAGOS: It's not hearsay. JUDGE: They have been excused subject to recall. This is Frazer. If you can confine your comments to Frazer. GERAGOS: I can't, in one sense. It will become apparent, judge. Frazer and Phillips were in together at the Coroner's Office. That is what Frazer told you, correct? GROGAN: They were both at the Coroner's facility that day, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Frazer says Phillips made the statement about this decomposition in front of two Modesto, Modesto PD detectives, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Hearsay. GERAGOS: Goes to what Frazer testified to. JUDGE: What Frazer, I'll allow that. GERAGOS: Frazer said when that statement was made it was in front of two Modesto PD detectives, correct? GROGAN: I don't recall that he said that, no, sir. GERAGOS: Do you recall that they identified that both Frazer and Phillips identified two detectives from Modesto PD, Dodge Hendee and one other detective? GROGAN: Yes. That there was two detectives from Modesto Police Department present at the Coroner's facility on that day when the item, when all of this was brought in. GERAGOS: When you say when all of this was brought in, those were the two, Phillips and Frazer, as far as you know, were the two officers that found the bag, that were there documenting the scene from East Bay Regional Park, correct? GROGAN: I believe that Ian Frazer was not the person who found the bag. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you believe that Frazer, I mean that Phillips was? GROGAN: That was my understanding. GERAGOS: Okay. And you have interviewed Phillips, have you not? That you were present when – GROGAN: I was only present when you talked to him, sir. GERAGOS: When I was there interviewing Phillips, you were there present in your capacity as the investigating officer, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: When I was interviewing Phillips he made the statement, FLADAGER: Objection. Hearsay. GERAGOS: I don't believe that, for the investigator. JUDGE: No, I'll let him answer this. Go ahead. GERAGOS: When I asked Phillips about this bag, specifically he said this bag had the same smell of decomposition that Laci Peterson did; isn't that what he said? GROGAN: And I'm sorry, Phillips or Frazer? GERAGOS: Phillips. GROGAN: Phillips said that, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Phillips said that, he remarked on that out loud at the time that he was there at Contra Costa on the 14th and 15th? GROGAN: I think he said that he made a comment about it, yes. GERAGOS: And he says that there were two Modesto PD detectives present, correct? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: Is there anywhere in any report, that you are aware of, any mention of the fact that Officer Phillips had said that the bag, the Target bag had the same smell of decomposition that Laci Peterson did? GROGAN: No, I'm not aware of that appearing in my report. GERAGOS: Now, specifically you did, however, instruct Brocchini to go out and see if he could do any, or in any way link Scott Peterson to the Target bag; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. It was two-fold. To see if there was any connection between the defendant and the bag, to see if that came from The Bay, or where the Target bag could have come from. GERAGOS: Okay. One of the other things that you did, or that you set out to do, was to take samples of the duct tape here that was removed from the bag, that was around this bag, and compare it to the duct tape, duct tape that was relating to Scott Peterson, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that was done. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was also to try to establish a link between this bag and Scott Peterson, correct? GROGAN: Yes. We had those samples. We wanted to do a comparison to see whether there was any match or no match. GERAGOS: Okay. One of the other things that you had Detective Brocchini do is to see if that bag had been shipped to Modesto to see if you could link the bag to Scott Peterson, correct? GROGAN: Yes, where those bags are used, what they are for. Any information we could get on the bag. GERAGOS: Okay. And when you came up empty on Scott Peterson at that point, is it a fair statement that the bag was no longer pursued? GROGAN: It was sent to the Department of Justice for the examination there, and there was never anything that linked that bag to the bodies. GERAGOS: Well, that was before you knew about Officer Phillips' testimony, correct? Or Officer Phillips' statement, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now that you know about Officer Phillips' statement, the bag was then re-sent up to Department of Justice at my request, correct? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's because Officer Phillips, Officer Phillips' observation as the person that who found the bags, he was also there, he was the investigator for East Bay Regional, correct? GROGAN: Officer Phillips, or – GERAGOS: Officer Phillips was there with Frazer. Officer Phillips is the one who prepared the report, correct? Prepared a report in regards to what he found; is that correct? GROGAN: I believe he did. I have not seen his report. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, do you know approximately how far away this bag was from the body of Laci Peterson? GROGAN: My understanding is it was several hundred yards. But I would be guessing. GERAGOS: That was found on the same day; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And, obviously, from the investigative standpoint, one of the things that piqued somebody's curiosity, I assume yours, was the fact that the duct tape, you had a bag, and it was wrapped, and it appeared that, depending on the angle of it, that a body could have been wrapped in this bag; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Well, we had to look at it to try to determine whether that was how it got there, if it was connected to the bodies. We did have duct tape for comparison, so we had that done, and we had an examination done of the bag. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically the only thing that was tested on this bag back in May was the duct tape; isn't that correct? There was no request for the bag to be checked for tissue, or blood, or anything else when you first sent it to Department of Justice, isn't that right? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't it your understanding that the only time anybody sent this bag up to be examined for tissue, blood, or anything else, was during this trial, after Officer Phillips made the observation, or has made the statement that he had previously told the people from Modesto PD, or in the presence of the people from Modesto PD, that the bag had this smell? FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. JUDGE: I'll permit him to answer it. Can you answer that? Do you understand the question? GROGAN: I think so, your Honor. The bag was sent initially for comparison with the duct tape on Laci Peterson's body and other duct tape recovered in the case for examination. And the information that we got back was that there was nothing that linked that bag to the bodies. Now, I don't know what the extent of the criminalist's examination was, exactly. GERAGOS: Well, when you say the first criminalist's report doesn't mention anything about, or, it was comparison of duck tape only, wasn't it? GROGAN: I'm not sure. Do you have that document? GERAGOS: I'm looking for it right now. If I can't lay my hands on it, I'll come back to it. The specific time, or you know for a fact that during this trial we sent it back up there to see if there remained any fingerprints on it, for example, correct? GROGAN: Yes, it was sent back. I know it was sent back to the lab again to be examined after that statement was made by that officer. GERAGOS: That was specifically to see if, you know, year and half later we could find some fingerprints on the duct tape, correct? GROGAN: I think that's one of the things that was asked to be done. GERAGOS: Okay. And are you aware that it becomes demonstrably harder to find fingerprints on something – FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. JUDGE: Well, he's not a fingerprint man. Sustained. GERAGOS: Well, the, you had testified yesterday that the decision was made not to take fingerprints at the house, correct, at Covena Avenue? GROGAN: Yes, that we, there was no specific item that we could say had been touched by anyone that we could process for fingerprints. GERAGOS: Well, nobody, there was an open door, French doors, correct, that were reportedly unlocked? GROGAN: And an unlocked door that was closed, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Did anybody, and I think I know the answer to this. Nobody suggested, or nobody did put powder on that door to see if there was a handprint on that door, or fingerprints on that door? GROGAN: No. There's been a number of people in and out of there since December 24th prior to the service of our search warrant. GERAGOS: Okay. And nobody did it, well, there are ways that you are aware of where you find people who are in the location, you get their exemplars, you give those to the fingerprint person so that he can eliminate them, correct? GROGAN: That’s something that can be done, yes, sir. GERAGOS: So there is nothing that stops the police from taking fingerprints on that door, taking fingerprints from the gate that leads into the driveway, correct? GROGAN: I don't know that you could recover fingerprints from wood. GERAGOS: Handle? GROGAN: Possibly. GERAGOS: From the handle. There is a possibility you could get a thumb or fingerprint of there, correct? GROGAN: Possibly. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically I'm going to show you two pictures. Can you tell me if you are familiar with these? GROGAN: I don't know that I have seen this one before. This is a photograph of the FBI Evidence Response Team. Would have been on the evening of the 26th. GERAGOS: Okay. Does this, I'd like to mark this next in order. Does that accurately – JUDGE: D7N-1 and 2 GERAGOS: Does that accurately reflect, one, kind of the way they were dressed and, two, the location itself? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you had called in the FBI, or had called in Terry Scott to give some assistance, or somebody on the team to? GROGAN: Yes, we made arrangements for them to respond. GERAGOS: And, specifically, is this photo, which is D7N-1, can you tell the jury specifically what that is? GROGAN: I think that's the French doors to the home. GERAGOS: The ones that were apparently open? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Unlocked? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And does it appear that what the, what they are doing there is some kind of a scientific testing is going on there? GROGAN: Well – FLADAGER: Speculation. Lack of foundation. JUDGE: If he was there. If he knows. Do you know what they were doing? GROGAN: I was not inside the home when they were doing the examination on the 26th. JUDGE: So you don't know what they are doing? GROGAN: I can guess if you would like, your Honor. JUDGE: I don't want you to do that. Objection sustained. GERAGOS: Did you ask them there to just kind of come through and just put on hairnets for no reason? GROGAN: No. They were part of the processing. Exactly what they are doing in that photograph, however, what's going on in their mind right there on – GERAGOS: Do you know if there is a reason that you called the FBI over there, was it specific, or specific task? GROGAN: Blood evidence, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And I assume that the Modesto PD has the capability for doing fingerprint tests, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, in fact, at some point the Modesto PD later did some fingerprint testing in that house, didn't they? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that was after the house was burglarized, right? GROGAN: Correct. We had a point of entry with a broken glass. We knew where the suspects had been in the home we fingerprinted. GERAGOS: Okay. And so you were able to take that door and do fingerprints two months later, three months later? GROGAN: Not that same door, no. The entry was made on the burglary at a different location. GERAGOS: So that you tested a different location than this door; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at some point did you seize the leash which had been used to walk or attached to McKenzie? GROGAN: Yes. That was taken in the first search warrant, I believe. GERAGOS: And was there anything specifically done to that, in testing, requested specifically of the leash? GROGAN: I know it was sent, I believe it was sent to the lab. And I'm not sure exactly what testing was done. GERAGOS: All right. Now, specifically on the report that was requested for the Target bag, the fact that the only items that were tested as of August of 2003 were the duct tape associated with the plastic tarp? FLADAGER: Objection. Lack of foundation or knowledge. JUDGE: Well, if he knows. GERAGOS: I'm asking if he knows. JUDGE: He's the investigating officer. GROGAN: I would probably have to review the criminalist's notes to find out exactly what she did with the bag, and/or, you know, she could be asked exactly what she did. Often they do a lot of examination, and they reduce that to a very small report. And they have lengthy notes that go with it. GERAGOS: Is there anything that you are aware of in the August, 2003, report that was done by the criminalist, other than you examined the duct tape and compared it with duct tape associated with Scott Peterson? FLADAGER: Objection. Same one. Lack of foundation. GERAGOS: I'm asking if he knows. JUDGE: If he knows. Do you know anything about, GERAGOS: Do you know if anything else was done besides comparing duct tape with the bag with duct tape associated with Scott Peterson? GROGAN: With regard to that bag? GERAGOS: Yes? GROGAN: I don't know. You would have to ask the criminalist. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ask the criminalist at the time? GROGAN: I had many meetings with the DOJ lab personnel as to, we had so many items of evidence in this case, what we could do, how best to use the their resources. I can't say for sure that we discussed this. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when the bodies were recovered, there were other items that were found in the immediate area; isn't that correct? For instance, there was a, did you review what else was found? GROGAN: In whose report? GERAGOS: In the East Bay Regional reports. GROGAN: I have read the reports at one point. I don't recall, I don't recall the entire report or what else was there. GERAGOS: Okay. Were you aware that there was, I'll ask Mr. Harris if you can grab the item marked when Detective Frazer testified, which is the schematic of the area. Were you aware that there was also a tarp that is found, a black tarp? JUDGE: There is, I think narrow it down. There was two different – GERAGOS: I'll pull it out and show him the schematic. Were you aware of anything else that was found on the shoreline on that day? GROGAN: Not that I can recall. GERAGOS: Are you, were you aware of a piece of brown fabric that was recovered just east of Laci Peterson? GROGAN: I don't recall that. GERAGOS: Okay. How about strips of elastic that were recovered from the rip-rap near her? GROGAN: I don't recall that. GERAGOS: Okay. How about the a pair of panties that were recovered just north? JUDGE: You are talking about Laci Peterson's body now? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: No, I don't remember that at all. GERAGOS: I'm going to show you what's the East Bay Regional Park Police Department property and evidence report. Have you ever reviewed, and this is 17142 and 17143. Have you ever reviewed that? GROGAN: I don't believe so. GERAGOS: Okay. This is apparently, do you recognize what this is? GROGAN: It's a property and evidence report from the East Bay Regional Park Police. GERAGOS: Okay. This appear to be all the items that they recovered at the time? FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd object. Lack of foundation by this witness. GERAGOS: I'm asking him if he knows. JUDGE: If he knows. If he doesn't, he can say, "I don't know." GERAGOS: Right. Did you ever review the report from East Bay Regional to see what it is they recovered about and around the body? GROGAN: I know I have read the reports. I don't recall the specific pages that you are hand go me. GERAGOS: Okay. How about the items that are listed on the pages? Do you recall any of those? There is numerous items: Clothing items, pieces of fabric, elastic, any of those. Or did you do anything with those, that you are aware of? GROGAN: There is four items here the appear to be photographs or video or CDs, and I really can't speak to those, whoever recovered this. JUDGE: That report doesn't refresh your recollection at all? GROGAN: No, your Honor. GERAGOS: Okay. So it a fair statement, as you sit here today you have got no memory as to whether or not anything was done forensically with any of these reports? GROGAN: I don't know that. GERAGOS: Forensically with any of those items that were recovered? GROGAN: Not that I know of. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to show you what was previously marked as D6T-1. Do you know what this is? Do you know what this is? GROGAN: I believe that's a sketch of the Point Isabel recovery site for Laci Peterson. GERAGOS: And could you see where there has been marked out a black plastic tarp that he portrays in the rip-rap there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Do you know if anything was done forensically with the black plastic tarp? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: I'm going to show you another schematic which shows that same area. You recognize this? JUDGE: You can lead him since it's cross examination. You can lead him. What does it represent? GERAGOS: Specifically this is one of the schematics that was done by Frazer, which shows items where Laci Peterson was found, storm drain there. The previous picture would have shown the black tarp right here. Then shows some fabric items. Do you see that? GROGAN: Yeah, I see what you are pointing at. GERAGOS: Do you know if you ever sent any of these fabric items, or the black plastic tarp that was found, what looks like, at least from, if I show you this like there, if this is where the recovery of Laci was right there, and black plastic tarp that was found right here, do you know if anybody did anything forensically, did you order them to do anything forensically to examine that black plastic tarp to see if it had any connection? GROGAN: I don't recall. I may have, I may not have. GERAGOS: Okay. As you sit here you don't have any memory of doing it; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Now, you had, how soon after the conversation with Villalobos did you obtain an arrest warrant for Scott Peterson in this case? Conversation with Villalobos was, the first one was on the 14th? GROGAN: I talked to him on the 14th. And I believe I prepared an arrest warrant on the 17th. GERAGOS: It was signed by you on April 17th, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And is it a fair statement that there was absolutely no forensic testing that had been done whatsoever on any of the items, whether it's the black tarp, whether it's the fabric, whether it was the Target bag, whether it was Laci, whether it was on the duct tape that was on her, whether it was on Conner, whether it was on the twine, that no forensic testing had been done at the time that you went to get the arrest warrant. GROGAN: Correct. Beyond the autopsies themselves. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically, going to point you back to the pictures and ask if you have been to a reenactment of the, you had somebody do a reenactment of taking a DA investigator and putting her into a toolbox in the back of the truck; is that correct? GROGAN: Did I have that done? GERAGOS: Did you have it done, or were you aware of it done? GROGAN: I was aware of it. GERAGOS: Specifically I'm going to show you a picture that's already been marked as D6M-6. Can you tell me what that box is right there in that picture? GROGAN: I believe that is a cardboard box that contains rain gauges. GERAGOS: And rain gauges are a product that Scott Peterson, it's your understanding, as the investigator, Scott Peterson had purchased from an outfit line that does business at the warehouse in that same area there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, was that box not inside of the toolbox when the car or the truck was impounded? GROGAN: You know, I didn't search the cars on the 26th, 27th, or any of the other subsequent searches. GERAGOS: Okay. When the truck is found, the truck is impounded, I'm showing you People's 116A. Does that appear to be what was inside, how the truck was? I'm also going to show you D6X-1 and D6X-2. GROGAN: When were these photographs taken? GERAGOS: The truck was impounded on the 26th of December, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And in those pictures, in the bottom of those pictures, are chicken wire and a claw hammer, correct? GROGAN: It's not a claw hammer. But I don't know what to call it either. It's some sort of a gardening tool. GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't this how the truck looked when it was seized by Modesto PD? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And is it a fair statement that this is the chicken wire that we have talked about ad nauseam in this case? GROGAN: That’s it, yes. GERAGOS: And then this is the, whatever we want to call it, some kind of a tool. And then I assume that when you talked about the samples that were recovered from the bed of the truck, that's what we're talking about there in the back of the truck, right? GROGAN: I assume so, yes. GERAGOS: And I'm, I have got another picture, which is D6X-1, which looks like it's taken from over the side of the truck this time with the tailgate up, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And in none of these pictures, I'll just show you D6X-2, in none of these pictures do we see the brown box, right? GROGAN: No, I don't see it. GERAGOS: Okay. D6M-6 is was on December 30th. And we don't see the chicken wire in there, nor do we see the tool, right? GROGAN: That’s correct. I don't see them in that photo. GERAGOS: And that's in 03, right? Is that roughly the time that that demonstration was done by the woman who was pregnant and was working at the time for the DA's office? GROGAN: In December of 03? GERAGOS: Yes. Right about the time that there was a court order ordering the truck to be returned, and demonstration was going to be done prior to the truck being returned? GROGAN: Yes. That wasn't December of 03 that we returned the truck. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, I'm going to ask you again, was the reason that the box was here was because, between December 26th when the truck was seized and it had no box in it, and just the chicken wire and the tool, and back on the, back on the 30th of 03, we have, all of a sudden got the box with the rain gauges. Is that, the reason for that because when you wanted to do the demonstration, somebody had to pull the box out that was in the toolbox? GROGAN: That’s possible, sir. I wasn't there for that. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to ask you, didn't the Modesto PD itemize what was found when they went through the toolbox? GROGAN: Through the toolbox specifically? GERAGOS: Yes. Through this box right here, the Greenlee toolbox in the back of the truck. GROGAN: I don't know if they itemized that separately. Whoever did that search could probably answer that question. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to show you People's Exhibit 255. Do you recognize those pictures? JUDGE: Just so the jury knows, that's, 255 has been identified as the contents of the toolbox, foundation laid by Pin Kyo. GROGAN: And 12-18 is the date. That is the date of the photographs. GERAGOS: Yes. 12-18 of 03? GROGAN: Okay. I think this is probably the first time I have seen these. But it appeared to be Pin Kyo's initials on them. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, is it a fair assumption that what happened here is that when you wanted to do this demonstration, that somebody had to remove the box which was inside of the toolbox. And can you tell me if there is any report that mentions the fact that that toolbox was in there? FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. Lack of foundation. GERAGOS: I'll ask him. Can you find any report which – JUDGE: Sustained. It's sustained, your objection, for the record. Go ahead. FLADAGER: Thank you. GERAGOS: Is there any report that itemizes the presence of that cardboard box filled with rain gauges? GROGAN: I can look for it, sir; but it's probably going to take a while. GERAGOS: Okay. You can do that over the lunch hour. GROGAN: Sure. GERAGOS: Okay. I'd ask you specifically if that was in the green toolbox, that the, that this box was in there, was inside of here. Is it a fair statement that you couldn't have, that you couldn't get anything else inside of that toolbox, let alone a body? JUDGE: Wait. You said get anything else? GERAGOS: You couldn't place anything else, if that brown cardboard box was actually inside of the green toolbox, was it a fair statement that you couldn't get much else in there? GROGAN: I would have to see a photograph of the box inside the box probably to answer your question. It looks fairly large, and you may be correct. GERAGOS: Isn't it also a reasonable assumption that one of the reasons that this box is tore up like this is because there is an inner tray in the green toolbox, and when you put the green toolbox down that it ends up ripping or jamming down the cardboard box? FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. JUDGE: Sustained. I'll sustain the objection. GERAGOS: You are an investigator, right? You are from Modesto PD, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, if this box was inside, the brown box, the rain gauge box is inside of the green toolbox, you wouldn't be able to fit a body in there, would you? FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. Lack of foundation. JUDGE: Overruled. It's a hypothetical question. If that box was in the toolbox, do you think you would be able to stick a body in there? GROGAN: And I guess the only way I could answer that, I'm not sure. If we put the box in, the cardboard box in the Greenlee box, and we take a look at it, I could answer your question. It does look like a fairly large box. It's – GERAGOS: Could you tell me where that box is right now, the rain gauge box? JUDGE: You mean today? GERAGOS: Today. GROGAN: I assume it's in evidence. GERAGOS: Are you going to check that out over the lunch hour as well? GROGAN: Yes, I can. GERAGOS: Okay. And can you tell me, is it standard practice when an e automobile or a vehicle is impounded, and you find it in one condition, is it a standard practice to just take some other piece of evidence and put it into the box itself, like this, in the back of the truck like that? Can you think of any reason, I'll ask you this way. Can you think of any reason that, if the truck was found like this, that if that brown box was not in the toolbox, can you think of any reason why somebody would put it into the bed of the toolbox? GROGAN: Well, like you spoke about before, if they were doing that examination, and they wanted to put someone inside there, that might be a reason why this was taken out. That, I don't know if there was other items taken out and photographed. I'm just not familiar enough with this whole thing, not being there, to answer your question. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it, if you were to see the picture of the demonstration that was done in this case, which was marked as 106P, would that help you determine whether or not that body could get in there along with the brown box? GROGAN: Say from looking at that, it would be unlikely. GERAGOS: Okay. So it's, is it a fair statement that if that brown box had been in there, the only way that this demonstration that is represented by 106P could have worked was to take out the brown box, correct? You said unlikely? GROGAN: Based on what I see in that photographs, I would say it's unlikely that box would fit in here inside the Greenlee box along with her. GERAGOS: When this demonstration was done were you consulted? GROGAN: I knew that we were going to return the vehicle, and that we sent it up to Department of Justice for one last go-through before we returned it. We took the items off of it, like the inner door panel where the blood was found, and we retained those. And we ordered another door panel to replace it. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to show you some pictures that were taken on 12, purport to be taken on 12-27-02. Once again, I asked you before, generally, if there is a code down below, you have got a name of Ducot. That would be Denise Ducot? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then inside of the Greenlee container on 12-27 of 02 what do we find? GROGAN: That cardboard box, the same one that's in that photograph, and it's inside the Greenlee toolbox and photographed on 12-27 by Denise Ducot. GERAGOS: And, okay. That accurately would represent how the Greenlee box looked on the 27th when the truck was impounded, correct? GROGAN: Yes, I believe so. GERAGOS: You wouldn't have her go and pull a box and then put it into Greenlee, right? GROGAN: I don't think that would happen, no. JUDGE: What's the date of that photograph? GERAGOS: 12-27-02, photos of the, JUDGE: How many you got there? GERAGOS: Two. JUDGE: All right. Be D7O-1 and D7O-2. GERAGOS: When the truck was impounded, this appears to be a picture taken on the 27th by Denise Ducot, is that, is this also in one of those Modesto Police evidence areas? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: You see that right there, what does that appear to be? GROGAN: That appeared to be the edge of possibly that cardboard box. GERAGOS: Okay. And then does it appear here once again that the cardboard box was originally, when the truck was seized, inside of the toolbox? GROGAN: Yeah. Based on the dates on the photographs. I would say that's a fact, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Does it also appear that when the truck, so if I understand correctly, the truck was seized, that's how it looks. The cardboard box is inside of the toolbox. It's then removed, correct? Somebody takes it out, and then it's photographed as if basically it was never in there, correct? And then you do a demonstration where the cardboard box is nowhere to be seen. You didn't do it, but somebody did, correct? GROGAN: Yes. All of those things happened. Pin Kyo's photographs would have been from one of her examinations, whenever her examination was. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, these rain gauges we don't have. And you are going to look to see whether this box is in evidence over the lunch hour. Specifically the way you learned about the rain gauges in this box was, you talked to a woman by the name of Rosemary Ruiz, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Rosemary Ruiz runs a place, works at a place called Adventures in Advertising, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And what these rain gauges are, are some kind of a give-away item, promotional item that have TradeCorp, TradeCorp printed on them, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: So that when, presumably when somebody goes around from place-to-place, they can pass them out as a promotional item? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And that would explain why you find these in the toolbox in the back of the truck that he's using in connection with the business of TradeCorp? GROGAN: I guess you could assume that he would keep them there, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically they told you that, let's see. This business was owned by Peggy O'Donnell; is that right? Adventures in Advertising? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you had specifically gone some time, looks like December 19th of 03, the day after Pin Kyo took these pictures, right? She took them on the, you identified December 18th? GROGAN: Yes. That's what it looks like up in the upper right corner. GERAGOS: Okay. And you went out to talk to Peggy O'Donnell on the 19th of December, correct? GROGAN: That sounds right. GERAGOS: Okay. And you confirmed that Scott was a customer of the business and had ordered 500 rain gauges as a give-away gift on, some time in the previous month or two; is that right? GROGAN: Yeah. I don't recall the date. But he did, I recall he made an order, and I believe it's five hundred. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, Miss Fladager had asked you on direct specifically about was giving you those questions about who knew about the boat, kind of one the things that raised your suspicion. And you said, well, the, I think, if I remember your testimony, that specifically only Scott and possibly Laci knew about the boat; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And what did you base the fact that Laci knew about the boat on, evidence? GROGAN: Based on his statement, and because Rosemary Ruiz said that Laci Peterson had been over in the industrial complex, and had come into her unit and used her rest room. GERAGOS: And that was when? GROGAN: December 20th. GERAGOS: That would have been the Friday before, Friday before Laci disappeared, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And so when you made the statement that potentially Laci knew about the boat, it was based on your interview that Laci had been there and had used the bathroom at this place, this Adventures in Advertising? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, that information, you interviewed Rosemary Ruiz December 22nd of 03; is that correct? I have got35667. Looks like, you can tell me whether one of these is a typo or not. I just don't know. There is a 3-23-2003, but it shows a 12-22-03 report. GROGAN: I think that should be December 23rd. GERAGOS: 23rd. That's a typo on the report, so I should ignore that. So you talked to her approximately on what day? GROGAN: That’s December 23rd, 2003. GERAGOS: So this would have been a year and three days after Laci had disappeared, correct, roughly? GROGAN: Year and three days? GERAGOS: Right. Roughly a year later. GROGAN: Roughly a year later. GERAGOS: Okay. And that specifically when you interviewed her, that's when you received the information, or you got the information that Laci had been in that complex on the Friday before, correct? GROGAN: Well, there was, that information came in on December, right around December 30th initially through a canvass done by Detective Dennis Holmes. And he completed a report on that. GERAGOS: He didn't talk to Rosemary Ruiz, though, did he? GROGAN: Not Rosemary Ruiz. Just Peggy O'Donnell. GERAGOS: And then about a year later you talked to Rosemary Ruiz who was, as I understand it was an employee for Peggy O'Donnell, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Rosemary Ruiz was able to pin down, I guess both she and Peggy O'Donnell were able to pin down the date that Laci had been at the warehouse, because that was Rosemary Ruiz's last day. That is what I understand, correct? GROGAN: I think so, I'm sorry, the Bates stamp number again. GERAGOS: The Bates stamps, 35667. GROGAN: Okay. I'm sorry, your question? GERAGOS: I was asking was that specifically they were able to pin down the day as the 20th, because that was Rosemary Ruiz's last day working there. I'm looking amount 35669. It's the last sentence of the third paragraph down. GROGAN: Yes, that's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Then specifically Rosemary was told about this, and Peggy O'Donnell, who is the one who actually let Laci use the rest room, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And that comported with what Scott had told you in his interview, that Laci had been over at the warehouse, he thought, on the previous Friday, correct? GROGAN: Yes. He said in one interview that it was on the previous Friday. And I think Laci Peterson, later on he gave a date range when I talked to him about when she might have been there. GERAGOS: And specifically that interview that he gave you, we talked about it yesterday, was early on in the first week that Laci was missing, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I'm not sure of the dates, which came, and which came first. GERAGOS: Okay. And he, you had specifically asked him, and I'm showing you once again the December, your December 30th report, which has got 96 on the top. You had asked Scott if Laci knew about the boat purchase. He said that she did, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Scott told you that Laci had been to his warehouse previously to meet him for lunch, and he believed she was at the warehouse on Friday before her disappearance? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that she had came, but he could not recall the reason why, can't recall if they had had lunch together that day, correct? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. He did not, Scott didn't direct you, he didn't say, oh, by the way, check with, you know, Adventures in Advertising, she used the bathroom over there, or anything like that, correct? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. That you found that information out as you indicated through, number one, through Officer Holmes who, did a canvass of the warehouse area, right? GROGAN: Yes, he did. GERAGOS: And then, subsequent to that, you went back a year later and interviewed obviously after Scott had been arrested, after the preliminary hearing you interviewed both Rosemary Ruiz and Peggy O'Donnell, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And when you interviewed them, you were able to corroborate, albeit a year later, specifically the date, what Scott had told you was true, that Laci had been to the warehouse and apparently had used the bathroom over at Adventures in Advertising? GROGAN: Yes. His dates are consistent with what they were saying. GERAGOS: Now, the – JUDGE: Are you leaving that subject? GERAGOS: Yes. JUDGE: We're going to take the noon recess. All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take the noon recess. Remember the admonition I have heretofore given. We'll pick up where we left off at 1:30. Have a nice lunch. <lunch recess> JUDGE: All right. 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. Go ahead, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thanks, Judge. GERAGOS: The, I had asked you before the break if you were going to take a look at searching for anything regarding the brown box that was in the back. Did you do that? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And what did you find? GROGAN: I found that the box is not, was not booked into evidence, and I did a search on the computer, a keyword search for cardboard box, and though there's several mentions, I don't see that box mentioned in any of them. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it a fair statement that out of this, I assume the keyword search is like mine: You can search basically all the of the printed documents out of the 42,000 pages, with the exception of the ones that are handwritten? GROGAN: Yes. As long as you spell it right and you use the right, if you, you have to search specifically for the word, and the spelling has to be correct, and, and it does not search any handwritten documents. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically does the, normally when you take any kind of, take in any kind of evidence, you fill out an evidence receipt, correct? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: And Modesto's got a specific form that does that, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And as far as you could tell it's not listed on any of those forms; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And as far as you know, in, the laundry list of items that were in that green box when the truck was seized is not listed there as well, correct? GROGAN: No, it's not, to my knowledge. GERAGOS: Okay. And in addition to that, I believe Detective Brocchini had itemized what he saw in that box on the 24th, correct? GROGAN: I, I think you're correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And as far as you know it's not listed in that report either, correct? GROGAN: You know, I didn't read that report, but it's not listed by "cardboard box" in that report, or I would have found it. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it also a fair statement that in the, whoever was the crime scene manager on the 26th or the 27th, when the truck was impounded, also did not put anything about it in their reports? Otherwise it would have popped up when you did the search? GROGAN: If I used the correct word, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And as far as you know here, other than, if I tell you that I got it back when the truck came back, and that's why I knew it was in the truck, other than me telling you that, you have no way of tracing where that box was? Certainly it's not in any of the reports, correct? GROGAN: It doesn't appear to be. GERAGOS: Okay. And so, just so that I'm clear, all these pictures I've been showing you of the truck, for that period of a year when it was in police custody, there's nobody who's, as far as you know, breaking into the impound and putting the box in the truck or anything like that, correct? GROGAN: No, not as far as I know. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically the collection of the concrete sample, we talked about that a little bit yesterday; do you remember? The one from the house? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Which was done after the search warrant? GROGAN: Yes. We still had the home secured, but I think most of the search warrant personnel had left. There was a police officer there, I think, still on scene, securing the house. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, as far as you know, all of the photos so far that we've seen over these four or five months that we've been here, there's usually a evidence placard that is placed down where something is taken up, correct? GROGAN: Generally, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, are you aware of any picture that shows the area where the cement sample was taken from? GROGAN: I think there is two photographs taken by Detective Brocchini on the night he recovered that. GERAGOS: Okay. And are you aware of, I'm going to show you a photograph. Is this one of those photographs? Or does it look like the same area that the photograph was taken in? GROGAN: Yeah, it looks like the same are GERAGOS: Okay. That would be the north side of the driveway, next to the house that Greg Reed's grandmother owned? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: And mark this as defendant's next in order. JUDGE: Defendant's next in order would be D 7 P. GERAGOS: Are you aware that any photograph, anywhere, any photograph anywhere that's got an evidence placard, one of those little numbers that shows where this was collected from? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And as far as you know that's because it doesn't e exist, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. Those placards are kept in the, in the evidence truck that is brought out when we're serving a search warrant, so I don't think that Detective Brocchini would have had anything like that when he went out there. GERAGOS: Okay. Sometimes they do makeshift, however. I think Dodge Hendee testified when he got into triple figures he would take two and put them together, correct? GROGAN: As far as the placards, yes. Those are the same placards that were, I think that came out of the truck that Dodge Hendee used. GERAGOS: Okay. And as far as you know there was no picture that showed with a marking specifically where this sample was taken from, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: As far as you know the, there was no note that specified exactly where, and no report that specified exactly where the area was that the cement was taken from, correct? GROGAN: I don't know what Detective Brocchini wrote in his report, if, if he was very specific about that or just, he generalized where it came from. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, in addition to that, the, there was a number of, some issue at some point about whether or not Brocchini had talked to a judge, a Judge Began, about a smell of bleach in the house; are you aware of that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Are you aware that Brocchini was asked specifically if he remembered talking to Judge Began about the Peterson investigation? FLADAGER: Your Honor, I object on, as to hearsay and relevance and foundation. GERAGOS: Goes to reasonableness of the investigation. FLADAGER: Not if he didn't rely on it. JUDGE: I'm sorry, what? FLADAGER: Not if he didn't rely on it. GERAGOS: How would I know until I ask him? JUDGE: He's got to ask him if he knows about it first. If he says no, then that's the answer. GERAGOS: I think I, didn't I just ask you if you aware of that and you said yes? JUDGE: Yeah, but he didn't answer it. GERAGOS: I would ask that the previous question and answer, that were asked and answered, be read back, the ones where he answered the question, if I could. JUDGE: Well, I have it here. The question was: Are you aware that Brocchini was asked specifically if he remembered talking to Judge Began about this, the Peterson investigation, and then there was an objection. GERAGOS: The one before that? Didn't, he didn't answer yes to that? JUDGE: Well, it's off the, it's off of the computer now. GERAGOS: Okay. I ask, JUDGE: Why don't you, she can either bring it up or you can rephrase it. GERAGOS: I'll just ask it. Are you aware that Brocchini had been asked if he remembered talking to Judge Began about bleach and bleach smell? GROGAN: Asked when, sir? GERAGOS: Sometime after this investigation started, December of 2003? GROGAN: By someone in, in our investigation? GERAGOS: Well, was there an investigation done that you're aware regarding that? GROGAN: I think that that was followed up on by the district attorney's office. GERAGOS: Okay. What was followed up on? GROGAN: The statement made by the judge and whatever follow-up was done from that. GERAGOS: Okay. The statement made by the judge was that she remembered, Judge Began is a she, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: In which she remembered that Brocchini had told her in December of 2000 and 2 that he had smelled an odor of bleach at the house; isn't that correct? GROGAN: I've heard, I've heard something to that effect, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: I haven't seen her report. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was specifically as to whether or not that was something, the investigation as to whether or not that was something that Brocchini had made up; isn't that correct? GROGAN: The investigation was, I, to determine if that, if that's what she heard, if it was exculpatory and if it needed to be turned over, I believe. GERAGOS: Okay. And the, did you follow that to determine whether or not that, that actually had happened, as the lead investigator? GROGAN: I know it was investigated by a DA investigator, not myself. GERAGOS: Okay. Shares your last name, Bill Grogan? GROGAN: Bill Grogan. GERAGOS: Any relation? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And when he followed up on it, did you get a report back on this investigation? GROGAN: I haven't seen one, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically, do you know who Judge Began is? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And specifically you're aware that nowhere in the reports, and there are no witness statements, that there was ever any smell of bleach in the house other than this statement that Judge Began had made that she heard it from Brocchini, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I, I don't, I've not heard that in any police report anywhere. GERAGOS: Okay. And you haven't, besides police reports, you certainly haven't interviewed any witness about it or made, you would have made a report if you had; isn't that correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry, the question again? GERAGOS: I said you haven't interviewed, you said it wasn't in any police report. What I'm asking you is, beyond, that no witness ever said that? No police witness, no civilian witness, correct? GROGAN: Not to my knowledge, no. GERAGOS: And if you had, that would have been a significant issue suggesting cleanup, or something like that, that would have been placed in a report, correct? GROGAN: Yeah, it likely would have been written in a report. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically early on in this case you also, there was an investigation of Kim McGregor; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Kim McGregor is somebody who lived around the corner from the Petersons? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she's the person that we talked about that had broken into the Peterson house at some point? GROGAN: Yes. Sometime in January. GERAGOS: Okay. And then did you send somebody over to do the investigation on this? JUDGE: Over to Covena? GERAGOS: Over to Covena. GROGAN: Did I? No, I was aware of it. I think I was contacted at home when it happened, and there was a follow-up done by a burglary detective, and they were assisted by Detective Brocchini. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, have you reviewed, well, you interviewed her at least once, or more than once; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. I interviewed her for a few moments at the conclusion of someone else's interview. GERAGOS: Okay. And initially she's the one who reported or said that she had discovered the break-in, correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry, that she discovered the break-in? GERAGOS: That she discovered the break-in. GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, there was a police report, do you know who Banks is? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You had done an interview because you wanted to see if there was any relationship between McGregor and Laci's disappearance, correct? GROGAN: Yes, I wanted to meet her. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically there was a voice message that she had left telling Scott Peterson that she had come to the residence to walk the dog and found that the doors were open; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. That's what that says. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically, when the burglary happened, Christmas presents had been gone through; is that correct? That was the initial report? Somebody had opened up the Christmas presents? GROGAN: I do recall that. GERAGOS: Okay. There was a, numerous items of clothing that were taken from the house; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was both men's and women's clothing, correct? GROGAN: I think so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The, specifically there is a, well, after, I think the very next day somebody had gone to a dumpster of some kind, or waste container, and found a bunch of property; isn't that right? GROGAN: Yes. This is Detective Banks's report, 21950; is that right? GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically contained in that, the items that were stolen from the house were women's thong underwear, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. I think these are the, these are the items that were recovered in the dumpster or in someone's trash can that Kim McGregor had taken them to. GERAGOS: Okay. Initially, as I understand it, her first story was that she had gotten to the house to walk the dog and then all of a sudden discovered this break-in, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. Based on the last thing I read, it appears to be the case. GERAGOS: She then changed her story the second time around, correct? And admitted to taking some clothes, getting drunk and taking some clothes, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And directed the police to where the clothes were, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And one of the items that was recovered was women's stretch pants, black, and with the make of GAP; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And women's underwear, and then men's jackets, things like that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Fleece pullovers, sweat shirts, assorted, at least, what, thirteen, or twelve different items of clothing? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. At that point she specifically had directed, that was after she was confronted with this. She confesses, but she basically says that she only took the clothes; that was your understanding, correct? GROGAN: I'm not sure what, what her first statement was. GERAGOS: Okay. The second statement is taken by Detective Brocchini; is that right? GROGAN: I don't, I don't know who talked to her first. GERAGOS: Okay. There was, we've had Amie Krigbaum here. Was she the person that reported seeing somebody break into the house, as far as you're aware? GROGAN: I know it was reported by a neighbor, and based on that description they ended up talking to Kim McGregor. And I don't recall who it was that made that observation. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it a fair statement that, after being confronted, that McGregor then said that she had stolen, admitted to stealing some jackets but had already thrown them away? FLADAGER: Your Honor, I would object at this point. It appears to be something that the detective does not have personal knowledge of. He's simply reading another officer's report. JUDGE: Well, he can use it to refresh his recollection. If he says I don't remember whether it was taken or not, he can use, you can use anything to refresh his recollection, but he has to say first that he doesn't remember. GERAGOS: Do you have, I'll ask you to read it and see if that refreshes your recollection. Do you have a memory of what she had initially told Brocchini? GROGAN: What, I was briefed on this investigation after, after it occurred and after her arrest. But as far as reading through all the documents on it, I, I, I'm not as familiar with it as maybe some other witnesses might have been. Detective Brocchini obviously knows more about it than I do, or Detective Banks. JUDGE: So reading that doesn't refresh your recollection, Detective Grogan? GROGAN: I have a very, very limited knowledge about it, your Honor, I'm sorry. JUDGE: Okay. We'll sustain the objection. GERAGOS: I'm going to ask you specifically, there was, one of the things that had piqued your curiosity, or your suspicion, when you went in in February for that search warrant was that, the item that we had that we were showing the jury yesterday, the maternity blouse had been turned inside out. Do you remember that? GROGAN: That it had been turned inside out? Or when we – GERAGOS: The sleeves? GROGAN: When we found it in February? GERAGOS: In February. That the sleeves had been inside out? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you didn't, you were aware at the time that, between the first search warrant in December and the second search warrant in February, that there had been a burglary at the house? At least one, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. We had, there was also, and you're chuckling; I think because you also know that there was at least an attempted break-in again on February 9th, or thereabouts, when the alarm code went off as well, correct? GROGAN: There was one other incident at the house that was followed up on also. I'm not sure of the date. GERAGOS: And that would be yet another burglary that happened with a woman who had gone into the house looking for souvenirs or something, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm talking about, I'm specifically talking about the time between December 26th and February 18th. As you're aware, the burglary that we're talking about happened between those two dates, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. The, the search, between the search warrants on 12/26, 12/27 and the February search warrants, Kim McGregor did enter the home sometime in mid January. GERAGOS: Okay. That, and took, and clothing was taken. That's what the majority of the items were, at least initially, that were taken out of that house were men's and women's clothing, right? GROGAN: Yes, there were some items. GERAGOS: Including, as I indicated, the black stretch pants and women's underwear, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at some point you get involved in this, in, and actually do a report, and I believe that it's, I don't have a Bates number stamp, but 239 handwritten, page one of five, and it's a 1/21 oh three report; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, this is January 20th, and I was first made aware of it on the 19th. GROGAN: That’s the day that it took place? Or it was reported? GROGAN: The day that it was reported. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: And then on the 20th I was briefed that Miss McGregor had been identified as the responsible party in that. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at that point when she was identified as the responsible party, had you, did you get involved well, you got involved to a certain extent, correct? GROGAN: To, to a certain extent. GERAGOS: Okay. You wanted to, obviously you had some degree of concern about why she's breaking into the house, why she's taking clothes, correct? GROGAN: Well, she, she had certainly brought some attention to herself, and we needed to do an investigation. GERAGOS: Okay. She then told you that she had had, or that she was under psychiatric care; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that she had tried to go back to work in November but the doctor recommended that she stop working in December; is that right? GROGAN: I don't know. Is that from one of my reports? GERAGOS: It is. It's that same report, page three of four, and it's, the bottom says 1/22 of oh three. FLADAGER: Page 313. GROGAN: Thank you. And I'm sorry, your question again. GERAGOS: I was going to ask you. She said that she had been, she had been under treatment for psychiatric problems, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And what you learned was, is that she, you had asked her about a recent alcohol consumption; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that she said she had not started drinking again until the night before this incident? GROGAN: Yes. January 18th, at the bottom of the page? Is that what you're referring to? GROGAN: That’s what I'm referring to. On the next page she said she denied drinking any alcohol on Christmastime at the time that Laci Peterson had disappeared, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Then she told you that she was taking all of her medications in Christmas of 2002 and she had no lapses around that time, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And she denied having any violent incidents in her past, correct? The third sentence from the bottom of the page. Page four of four. GROGAN: Yes, that's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she also signed a consent form so you could go take a look at her psychiatric records, correct? GROGAN: She did. GERAGOS: Then on the next page, one of four that I've got, at least the 1/23 report, on the 22nd you spoke with Doug Ridenour, who is the public information officer, correct? Under the heading Camcorder slash Video. GROGAN: Thank you. Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. This is the very next day after she had already stated that the only things she took were clothes. You then get a call, Ridenour says somebody from a place called MOAB, Meal on a Bun, restaurant had called and said that he found evidence that he believed was connected to the Laci Peterson case, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said it was in a 55 gallon drum containing grease that they kept in the rear of the restaurant, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, where is this restaurant, College Avenue, in Modesto? I mean I've got, we've got a map there of the City of Modesto. Can you tell, or point to the jury specifically where that is? JUDGE: If you want to use the pointer, Detective Grogan. Why don't you use the pointer, because that's easier for the jury to see. First show the Covena residence for the jury so they can see. GROGAN: Okay. The Covena residence is 523, and it's the blue dot. And I believe this restaurant is at College Avenue and about Roseburg. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, somebody, somebody, or Ridenour went out and met with the witness to get this Camcorder and eight millimeter videotape, correct? GROGAN: Yes, he did. GERAGOS: Okay. And I assume from, the jury understands that the videotape that we saw the other day here that was kind of, that was played that had Scott and Laci on it and that had the traffic video on it, that's the same videotape that was recovered out of this grease barrel at Meal on a Bun, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that also, and you described it, the video, because you viewed it, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And it had all the things that I just described and that we just said, saw, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically the, how far away is that camcorder, where it was found at Meal on a Bun, from where the clothes were found? GROGAN: I, I don't know. Do you have a report with an address for where those clothes were found? GERAGOS: Sure. The intersection of is it Bowen, B-O-W-E-N, and Enslen, E-N-S-L-E-N. GROGAN: This is, this is Bowen Avenue. And I'm not sure where Enslen crosses it through here, but it's between Kelly and McHenry. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at that point did you ask to do some further, or did you want further investigation done as to Kim McGregor and what was going on with her? GROGAN: Yeah. I think I spoke to someone about the videotape and asked them to find out what the story was with that. GERAGOS: Okay. Then you did a draft press release, I guess, that Wednesday; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was to quell what you termed media rumors, incorrect rumors going on about the burglary in the media? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then on January 29th you received a call from Larry Suter; is that correct? 131, page one of three. GROGAN: Page 380? GERAGOS: Yeah. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: And Larry Suter was her psychiatrist and told you that at that point she had withdrawn her consent for the release of psychiatric records? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you had indicated that you discussed the subpoena and a court order process for obtaining those records; is that, was that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever obtain those records? GROGAN: I don't think we did, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically when she said that she, where she was on December 23rd and 24th, did you ever inquire as to where her, what her alibi was, where she was? GROGAN: I think I was told that she had some corroborative witnesses to say where she was during at least portions of that time. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it your understanding that at one point that she had given false information to the investigators about where she was on the 23rd and the 24th? GROGAN: Is it my understanding that she did? GERAGOS: Yes. That she had given false information. GROGAN: I think there was, and I'd have to look at the report, but if, my understanding is she was trying to figure out which day she did which thing, and I don't know that I can say that she was lying or if she just couldn't remember exactly where she was. GERAGOS: Okay. Did she lie to you about the criminal record? GROGAN: About her criminal record? GERAGOS: Right. She denied that she had any violent incidents in the past. And did you later find out that that was not true? GROGAN: I, I don't know. If you have a document showing – GERAGOS: I was going to ask – GROGAN: something. GERAGOS: specifically during this trial, at some point when she was scheduled to be a witness, wasn't there some records that were produced showing that she did, in fact, have a past criminal record? For the first time during this trial that was discovered? GROGAN: Her, yes, her criminal history was discovered. I don't know if there's anything, I don't recall if there's anything violent on there. GERAGOS: Fighting or challenging to fight in a public place? GROGAN: Yeah. There's a docket for a misdemeanor challenging to fight. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically at the time when she denied when she had any kind of a violent past, the, this was unavailable to you; is that correct? GROGAN: Her criminal history, no, that could have been run. GERAGOS: Okay. At the time you didn't have it; is that correct? GROGAN: I didn't have it right at that moment, no. GERAGOS: Okay. You were also, you also received a call in July of oh three from a witness who you knew from a prior case; is that right? A Sharon Aikers? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Sharon Aikers called to tell you that she knew Kim McGregor, and you knew who Kim McGregor was? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that when Kim begins drinking she starts to act crazy? Is that what she told you? GROGAN: Something like that. GERAGOS: Show you what's Bates stamped 30874. Does that refresh your recollection as to the information you received in July of oh three? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You later learned that she, in fact, had started drinking and had been drinking the night before Laci disappeared; isn't that correct? She had denied drinking until January 18th. Wasn't it a fact that she had, that you later discovered, or one of the investigators later discovered that she lied about that and that she had been drinking the night before? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Who was in charge of running down Kim McGregor and whether or not Kim McGregor was involved in this case at all? GROGAN: Well, the burglary aspect was handled by Detective Banks, and he and Detective Brocchini worked together on the, on the aspect of clearing her out in this investigation. GERAGOS: Okay. Wasn't one of the things that, that Brocchini finally do, or did you ever review what Brocchini did in regards to this investigation? GROGAN: I have not read all the documents on that, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Was there any concern on your part, at least one of the things that I had mentioned to you before is that clothing was in different spots in the house when you executed the second search warrant, correct? GROGAN: That they had moved? The items had been moved? GERAGOS: Items had been moved, correct. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you knew that Kim McGregor at least had admitted to being in the house between the time of the first search warrant and the second search warrant, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. You had suspicion that the movement of the clothes may have had something to do with Scott Peterson, correct? GROGAN: Yes. We wanted to find out what, how those clothes had got moved. GERAGOS: Okay. And then, but you did not, as far as you can tell, interview Kim McGregor as to whether she was one of the ones who had moved these clothes around when she had burglarized the house, did you? GROGAN: I think she was talked to about what she took out of the house, and I, I think that she was talked to about that. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, one of the things that she was talked to is that she first said that she had taken only clothes, correct? That was your understanding? GROGAN: I think that's what you showed me a moment ago. GERAGOS: Right. And then she, and then you found the camcorder, which had this tape in it, and then she copped out to that, correct? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: And then she at that point said That's all I took, nothing else; right? GROGAN: I think, I don't know, does it say that? GERAGOS: I'll ask you to take a look at Brocchini's report of 1/19 and see if that refreshes your recollection as to the permutations on her story. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: Does that refresh your recollection as to the various changes in the story? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. First she said, as I understand it, that she only took some, well, the first thing she said is she discovered, discovered the burglary, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Then she admitted that she was the one who was, that had actually done the burglary, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Then clothes were found and she admitted to the clothes, correct? GROGAN: I think she admitted to the burglary and then led the detectives to the clothes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then at that point denied taking anything else, correct? That's your understanding of what happened? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then at the Meal on a Bun you find this tape, and then she admits that she took the camcorder, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And then you, after that she's confronted again, and she admits that, in addition, she took Laci Peterson's social security card, ne correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then she gave a, several different stories as to where she was on the 23rd and the 24th, correct? GROGAN: I'm not sure where her statements about the 23rd, 24th came in. I don't think I've seen those yet. GERAGOS: Okay. And then at some point you get a call and the release of information for her psychiatric records is revoked, and you discuss with the doctor either getting a search warrant or subpoena; but as far as you know nobody followed up on that, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: All right. Now, did you discover at some point that, in fact, that she had been drinking? Contrary to what she told you or told the detectives on the 23rd, the night of the 23rd? GROGAN: I'm, I'm not familiar with that part of the investigation. Sorry. GERAGOS: That would have been Detective Brocchini? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. As far as you know she lives, what, approximately two doors, or three doors up and two doors over from the Peterson residence on Covena? GROGAN: Yeah. She lives on Encina, not too far from the Covena. I've not been to her home. GERAGOS: About 75 yards away, basically? Two houses up, two houses over? GROGAN: It would be hard to make an estimate. That's possible. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Having not been there. GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically she's called, she was at the volunteer center almost immediately on the, or she was at the house on the 24th; is that correct? You do some investigation and determine that she, in fact, was over at the Peterson's house on the 24th? GROGAN: I believe that she was there that evening after someone doing the neighborhood canvass had contacted her at her home. I think she went back over there with some coffee, or something like that. GERAGOS: Okay. And then it was your understanding she was daily at the volunteer center after that? Or on numerous occasions at the volunteer center? GROGAN: I, yes. I believe that's where she met the defendant. GERAGOS: Okay. She said that she was familiar with Laci Peterson before, didn't know her but had seen her before the 24th? GROGAN: My understanding of that is that they had sat next to one another one time somewhere. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, I'm going to direct your attention, you've got that, what is that marked? As People's what up there? 228? GROGAN: 267, I believe. GERAGOS: The, that's the list of sightings. Did you help put that together? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And how did you determine what sightings would go on that map? GROGAN: Well, Detective, or Investigator Kevin Bertalotto went through the sight, or through the tips and tried to cull out the tips that had to do with sightings. The ones that had enough information that we could plot them, we plotted. GERAGOS: Okay. Was one of those sightings by a woman named Grace Wolf? And I believe, you have the, have the, there's an index to these, I take it? You've got – GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Number four on that chart, I can't see it from here, but I assume those little dots have numbers on them? GROGAN: Yes, they do. GERAGOS: Okay. Number four is right here where I've got my pen? GROGAN: That’s number 9. GERAGOS: Oh, I can't see. There's number 4. Okay. Where, where is the house? GROGAN: Right there. GERAGOS: Okay. So how far away would you say number 4 is from the house? Two blocks? GROGAN: Roughly two blocks, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, Grace Wolf was interviewed; is that correct? GROGAN: She was interviewed recently. GERAGOS: Okay. And she specifically, and she was also, did my, did my office provide you with a video interview of her also? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And specifically she was interviewed on that she had seen, I wish I had, you don't have this on a smaller version that I can blow up, do you? GROGAN: Well, the attachment right there, that was done on a computer, but it's really difficult to tell what's going on by looking at that. So I put it on this other map, the old-fashioned way. GERAGOS: Okay. She said that sometime between 9:00 and 10:00 on the 24th, closer to 9:30 than to 9:00, that she had seen Laci Peterson; is that correct? GROGAN: I have, well, she never contacted the Modesto Police Department. What I have is a report from one of your investigators to go from, and what's on the video from that interview. GERAGOS: You also sent out, after, at some point during the trial you, the DA's office sent out somebody to interview her also, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she specifically said that she had left her home before 9:00 o'clock to drive her son to a location in Modesto, correct? GROGAN: Are you looking at the DA's office report? GERAGOS: I'm looking at the DA's office reports. There's a report that somebody had gone to talk to her; is that correct? Once again, Bill Grogan, no relation? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And how, one more time. You've got 4 there and then the house 52, got 523 on the blue dot, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have that in front of you? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, she said that she had seen, she had made a sighting of Laci between 9:00 and 10:00 o'clock, closer to 9:30, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: She also said that the previous Sunday she had seen, she was working in her yard, right? Last paragraph, page four. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that on that previous Sunday, when she was working in her yard, she saw the same lady and dog accompanied by a white male, and they walked by her residence sometime between, what is that, 3:30 and 4:00 o'clock, and that the woman was wearing the same black pants and blue nylon jacket, correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the clothing description here. GERAGOS: Okay. The woman was wearing the same black pants and blue nylon jacket and the man was holding the dog's leash; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She exchanged hellos with the couple. The couple was walking south, on the west side of Phoenix Avenue; they were holding hands and they seemed very happy, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. She said she saw them again walking past her house, southbound, on the west side of Phoenix in November before Thanksgiving, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And she said at that point her granddaughter was with her in the front yard and the granddaughter told the couple that she liked their dog, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: She said after the 24th, when she had looked at the photos of Scott and Laci in the paper and on television, she was convinced that the couple that walked by in November and December were the same, correct? GROGAN: That’s what she said. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, one of the things that the Investigator Grogan did, DA Investigator Grogan, is he went over to this woman, Dempewolf, who was also pregnant and walking in the area, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he interviewed Dempewolf, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: To see if maybe Dempewolf, he interviewed Dempewolf to see what her knowledge was regarding Grace Wolf, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he did that in August, last month? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: And specifically what he wanted to know is whether or not she had walked during the months of November and December, and whether her husband would take walks with her and her dog, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And specifically she didn't remember ever talking to a young girl on Phoenix Avenue; they showed a picture of Grace Wolf, they had one of the driver's license photos of Grace Wolf, showed that to the woman, said Did you ever talk to her, and she said no, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in addition to Grace Wolf there was the gentleman that we talked about yesterday; he was Tony Freitas, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, Tony Freitas, as I understand, had called in early on. Is that what your testimony was yesterday? GROGAN: I think it was somewhere around December 30th. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he was interviewed. Was that also by Grogan? DA Investigator Grogan? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that was July 29th, during this trial, the DA investigator went out there and he met with Tony Freitas, who said that he was a truck driver for Orowheat, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said that his route takes him in the mornings from Perko's restaurant on Yosemite, can you show the jury where that would be? If you're going from Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's Restaurant on Downey and McHenry? GROGAN: Perko's on Yosemite? GERAGOS: Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's on Downey and McHenry? GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: He's driving toward town on La Loma? On La Loma? GROGAN: This is El Vista Avenue. Slightly east of that, between there and Riverside, would be the, the restaurant, first restaurant you mentioned, I believe. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Perko's. GERAGOS: Now, if you were to take that and go towards the park located on La Loma and Santa Barbara GROGAN: That would be he traveled down Yosemite, this is La Loma Avenue, and it comes across this way, and that's where it intersects the park. GERAGOS: Did you put a dot there for that particular sighting? GROGAN: I'm sure I did. GERAGOS: Looks like number 10? GROGAN: Number 10's right there. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that, when he called in, his description was jacket and pants of an unknown color, because he wasn't asked for that description, right? Nobody asked him for a description; is that right? GROGAN: I don't know. Let me look here. GERAGOS: According to your, you've got this legend that you use. That's the information that's on there. Is that accurate? GROGAN: It should be, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And it states on there that the jacket and the pants were an unknown color, and he was not asked either of them, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he says that as he approached there's a small triangular, triangle of a grassy park located at La Loma and Santa Barbara, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he saw a woman walking her dog, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she was wearing light-colored pants, a dark-colored jacket or pullover sweater, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And he could not see a blouse or the type of shoes that she was wearing. He said the dog was reddish brown in color and the dog appeared to be pulling the woman; is that right? GROGAN: That’s what he said. GERAGOS: Okay. He also said that he looked to his right and noticed two dirty-looking males in the park; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. One sitting on a bus bench, the other squatting next to the bench; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that both were dirty and their clothing ragged and they did not appear to fit in the neighborhood; is that right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, Tony said that he spoke to a female at the police department, right? Last sentence, or next to the last sentence on the next page. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And the female told him that a detective would call at a later date; and a detective never called him, correct? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: Okay. With that we'll take the afternoon recess. The jury has been here an hour. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take a recess until 3:15. Remember the admonition I've heretofore given. JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the jury is present in the jury box, along with the alternates. The defendant is present with counsel. Mr. Geragos, I just want to clear something up for the jury's edification. I'll ask Detective Grogan. As I understand it, all of those red dots, Detective Grogan, are all sightings on December the 24th? GROGAN: Yes, your Honor. JUDGE: The green ones are within a range like the 23rd, 25th, 26th, 27th? GROGAN: Yes, those are date range. JUDGE: Just wanted to make sure. That is sort of unclear whether Mr. Freitas, I know he reported on the 30th. GERAGOS: I was going to have him make it a little easier. I have got what appears to be a, let me just show it to the detective. Is that about the same area where most of those red dots are? GROGAN: Yes, I'd say so. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: Do you want these all marked? GERAGOS: No. What I was going to do is, for the ones that I'm specifically going through, maybe he could just put a little X on here, if that's okay with the Court. JUDGE: Okay. Do you want to mark that map next in order? GERAGOS: Yes, I could. JUDGE: That would be D7 GERAGOS: Detective, could I ask you to, you just set down on that document. Could you write, just put a little, got a pen there? JUDGE: Can I make a suggestion? We have him mark the residence in some color like green or purple so there is some reference to where these other places are. GERAGOS: I was picking up my – JUDGE: I don't know if yellow is going to show up on there. GERAGOS: I don't know. I was going to see if we could get a couple different colors. Do you want to do the same that you have got over here, and do the house as blue? JUDGE: Can you put the house in there, Detective Grogan? CLERK: Has that already been marked as exhibit? JUDGE: Does that have any ink in it? I don't see it if it's purple. DISTASO: Right there, judge. JUDGE: Is that it there? GERAGOS: That's it right there next to the "22". JUDGE: All right. GERAGOS: Make sense? JUDGE: If it's right by the 22. GERAGOS: Yes, exactly. GERAGOS: Then can you mark where the Grace Wolf was as well. This is it right here, judge. JUDGE: I got that figured out. Can you mark the other ones in red, Detective Grogan, so we can – GERAGOS: I gave him the, I gave him the red pen? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: You are going to mark the Wolf one first. I assume you are going to mark the Freitas one second. GERAGOS: That's correct. GROGAN: Might be quicker to check here. JUDGE: Do you want to take that with you? Take it with you. GERAGOS: For Grace Wolf, do you want me to give it the specifics that she says in? GROGAN: I think I can use this. GERAGOS: Okay. Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. She is heading eastbound on Encina. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: Okay? And then Freitas has that triangle that is shown, triangular park area that's there on that map? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. South side of La Loma GROGAN: I think it could be the north side. It would be the north side. GERAGOS: Put that back up there for a second so the jury cansee it. Now, specifically, the, straighten that up just a little bit. And this first one, which is Encina and Santa Barbara, who is that? GROGAN: That’s Grace Wolf. GERAGOS: And then this right here, this is La Loma, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the on the La Loma, this, the triangular area where I have got my finger, that's a grass area that's kind of a little mini park that's there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And this area here, the house is right here, the other park is right up in there? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, specifically the, I'm going to ask you about, I'm going to start with, back with Freitas for a second. When Freitas calls in, you know, you said it was on December 30th? GROGAN: I think that report – GERAGOS: Why don't you sit back up there so they can hear you. I'm specifically referring to 14818. JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, so we can keep those red dots – GERAGOS: I'm going to put something next to them. JUDGE: I'm going to give you this red pen. Put W-1 and F-1 next to them. I think the red pen, you can see better. Put, you know, F-1 for Freitas and W-1 for Wolf right next – GROGAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Geragos, you wanted me to look up on Freitas. GERAGOS: 14818. I want to go through, he had originally called in. He's on with, so the jury understands, you have got these sheets that are tip sheets, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Like I'm holding up. The tip sheets are whoever is taking the calls or a particular day types in the tips as they are getting the information from the person, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So Freitas calls. Freitas calls up. He's on the tip sheet. Gives his phone number. Says he saw Laci on December 24th at about 10:00 o'clock on La Loma, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he says that there were two guys across the street from her, one was Hispanic, the other African-American, sitting at the bus stop, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: And whoever is taking this down, I assume they got some instructions to try to take it down verbatim as to what people are telling them, right? GROGAN: I assume so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So he says they look like low-life people, and Yosemite to stoplight, triangular park there, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He says Laci was on the south side of the street, on the street, on the walk, walking the dog in a northwest direction going towards town on La Loma, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So going towards town. Those of us who don't live there, right along this way? GROGAN: Yes. That would take you to the downtown area of Modesto. GERAGOS: Okay. And on the south, I mean the north side here? Is that the north side? GROGAN: That is the north side, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he says that he stopped at the stoplight. There is a stop light there, right? GROGAN: I think there is a stoplight at Haddon and La Loma GERAGOS: Okay. And at the one guy was sitting on the bus bench, the other was sitting on the grass. And he specifically says their clothes were really ragged, right? Is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, and I know I have asked you this twice. But just to make sure there is, somebody culls out these tips and forwards them on to the investigators if they think they are worthwhile, right? GROGAN: Correct. The way it was established, we had an investigator going through the tips. And he would give them to a sergeant who would he assign them out to investigators to follow up on. GERAGOS: Okay. Then I think you said yesterday that sightings were not the top priority at that point; is that a fair statement? GROGAN: Early on when those items were coming in they were followed up on pretty quickly. And as there became so many of them coming in, they became less of a priority. GERAGOS: Okay. But, early on, this is, we're still talking December, it still is not a top priority; is that correct? GROGAN: By December 30th? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: I think we'd had quite a few at that point. GERAGOS: Now, specifically the next within a day or two, you then get a tip from a Homer Maldonado; is that correct? That's on January 1st? I'm looking at 14865. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, he specifically saw I'm going to ask you to step down again just to make a little dot on here. He and his wife, they phone in. Get their phone number. They say between 9:45 and 10:00 o'clock he and his wife got gas on Miller Avenue, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And Miller Avenue is right here; is that right? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Gas station is where right where my pen is? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Back? GROGAN: It is at about Camelia, right about there. GERAGOS: Right there. Okay so he is at the gas station on Camelia right here; is that fair? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: Why don't you mark that M-1 for Maldonado. GERAGOS: And this right here is Covena, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he says in his tip that they got gas right there, and that he said there was a tan van at the gas station, correct? The van had one occupant in it. The van was tan with yellow somewhere around it. He said he noticed a pregnant woman walking her dog near the corner of Miller and La Loma, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Miller and La Loma would be right about there; is that correct? GROGAN: Yeah. A little bit further up. There you go. GERAGOS: Right there? GROGAN: One block more, block up. GERAGOS: This is La Loma? GROGAN: That’s La Loma. Miller. GERAGOS: Borrow your pen. That's Miller right there. So this would be Miller and La Loma on my pen. GROGAN: No. Miller is east-west. GERAGOS: Isn't this Miller right here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: That is La Loma right there. Miller and La Loma? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then he said that he noticed a pregnant woman walking her dog near the corner. He said it appeared the dog was pulling her. His wife had commented that the she hoped the woman didn't fall down. The dog had long hair and was blonde in color; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically he was, looks like on the tip sheet, at least, his was referred to a Detective Stough; is that right? GROGAN: Yes, Stough it's pronounced. GERAGOS: Is it Stough, S-t-o-u-g-h? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Do you have any indication that he contacted Mr. Maldonado? And can I show this? When you are saying that, if somebody is notified, they just put it right there below the tip, right? Like I have got right there. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, I don't see anywhere where Detective Stough, or Detective Stough talked to Mr. Maldonado. Are you aware of that? GROGAN: I don't think he did. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, Maldonado was then interviewed by, and you have received, I assume you saw this, a report by Gary Ermoian, who is an investigator, the same investigator that Scott had hired? GROGAN: Yes, he was. GERAGOS: Okay. And this was a report where Mr. Ermoian on January 10th made contact with Homer and Helen Maldonado, correct? GROGAN: Well, I don't know. I don't know when your investigator completed the report. GERAGOS: Okay. I have got a report that's dated 1-10-2003. Did you get, that's the same one, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you reviewed that report which says Homer said he was at the USA Mini Mart gas station, right, near the corner, he calls it the corner of Covena and Miller, right? GROGAN: That’s what he says. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: I have seen the videotape interview. GERAGOS: So he's got himself placed right there. Do you know where the gas station is? The could it be right there, Covena and Miller? GROGAN: No. I believe it's, well, yeah, it's a little, it's on the corner of that Camelia and Miller. And it would be to the bottom left hand side of that corner, right about where the "C" is on Camelia GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically he gave, for the most part, the same statement to Mr. Ermoian that he had told the officers, that he had seen her and the dog, described her. Said that she was located about the second house from the corner of Miller; is that right? That she was on the west side of the street. The way he describes it is, he's driving west on Miller past Covena. So that would be west on Miller. Past Covena would be right there, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And he says that he observed this beautiful young woman he described as very pregnant, with a Golden Retriever dog, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that he commented to his wife that it looked, something, I hope she doesn't fall, because she is having some trouble with the dog. Right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, as he is driving in this direction, he says that he described the woman as being dressed in dark pants and light top, that she had dark hair, right? GROGAN: Dark pants a light top. Dark hair, yes. GERAGOS: And he had seen photographs of Laci Peterson, and he is sure the person he saw with the dog was Laci, right? GROGAN: That’s what's what the report says, yes. GERAGOS: He also said that he continued to drive. And he recalled looking in his rearview mirror to see if she crossed over Miller. And that he did not see her cross over Miller, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Now, he then described where he went from there. That he went over to a co-worker's home on Grape. Is that a street in Modesto? GROGAN: I'm not familiar with it. It might be. GERAGOS: He dropped off a Christmas gift. Then he says he and his wife went to Save Mart, and then to Longs, right? GROGAN: That’s what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he actually provided, and I provided a copy to you, his receipts from Save Mart and Longs. You have got them right there, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And this receipt I'd like to marked as defendant's flex in order. JUDGE: Defendant's 7R. Receipts from Save Mart and Longs show that on December 24th at 11:33 he was in the Save Mart, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that would be specifically, right there, correct? And then, GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: went over to Longs. And he provided a receipt that showed a 12:06. Right there. He was over at Longs Drug Store, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said that they were in the Save Mart for quite a while, because the store was extremely busy due to it being the day before Christmas; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. That's what this says. GERAGOS: He also says he phoned the Modesto Police Department on January 1st, which would comport with this tip sheet, correct? The tip sheet I have got shows, 14865, shows on the head, calls for 1-1-03, right? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I'm not keeping up with you here. GERAGOS: I'm going to show you the tip sheet, which was marked 14865, Homer Maldonado, says January 1st on this tip sheet is when he called him, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, this tip sheet, the defense didn't have this obviously at that point. This wasn't public record of any kind, right? You know no discovery was provided in this case until after the arrest, which was in May. And, obviously, if this interview took place in January, Mr. Ermoian didn't have access to the tip sheet, right? FLADAGER: Objection. Compound question. JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: This tip sheet is something maintained by Modesto PD? GROGAN: This is something that we were given after the preliminary hearing around December of 2003. GERAGOS: Okay. So you didn't even have it before December of 2003, right? GROGAN: This report from Gary Ermoian, no. GERAGOS: I'm telling you, the tip sheet itself where Homer Maldonado is on there saying he called, that you got a record showing he called in on January 1st? GROGAN: Yeah, we had that record. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically Homer Maldonado said, when he telephoned the police on January 1st, he said he didn't receive a call back. So then he went to the Command Post to report the matter, correct? GROGAN: That’s what it says. GERAGOS: And he said that he then told the same story to the Police Chaplain; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on June 14th of 2003, this was an interview that was also done with a Cathy Albert; is that correct? Did you get a copy of that? GROGAN: And this is a sighting? GERAGOS: This is somebody who works at that same gas station, that USA Gas Station that's on Miller that we just showed. Were you provided that? GROGAN: I don't know that I have seen that. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, did you do anything in order to confirm whether or not there was, well, I'll ask you this first. Did you do anything to determine whether or not the Save Mart receipt and the Longs Drug receipts where legitimate? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. You don't have anything to suspect that they are not legitimate, do you? GROGAN: Not based on what I see, no. GERAGOS: It would seem to corroborate, at least, that the timeframe that Mr. Maldonado says he was in the area, would it not? FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. GERAGOS: I'm asking for investigative expertise. JUDGE: Overruled. GERAGOS: Tends to corroborate his story that he was in the neighborhood, and that is where he had gone, and a timeline, doesn't it? GROGAN: Well, Oakdale Road is in a different direction than the direction he said he was traveling. GERAGOS: How about Grape? Where is Grape? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Did you do anything to follow up on this that you are aware of? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Now, did you do anything to follow up, to go to the USA Gas Station to talk to the woman Cathy Albert who was there? GROGAN: I didn't. I don't know if Detective Stough did or not. GERAGOS: Okay. Are you aware whether or not she had seen this, a similar van to the one that was described by Mr. Maldonado? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: You know that there was an issue of a van spotted in that neighborhood at roughly that same time by at least three witnesses, correct? GROGAN: I know that there are some sightings of a van on Covena Avenue, yes. GERAGOS: Some sightings of the van on Covena were on 12-24; is that correct? GROGAN: That they were supposed to have seen it? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And at least three separate witnesses, correct? Three that see it on Covena? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Right? Now, specifically there was a flyer that was put out at one point for information leading to finding or locating that van and three gentlemen who were associated with it, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And as far as you know, as you sit here today, that van has never been identified; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Certainly not for lack of trying. Attempted to try to find the van; isn't that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. You have done, I believe you have run various, have you gone through various investigative techniques in order to try and find this brown van, or it's been variously described as kind of not quite white, a little bit darker, or tan; isn't that correct? FLADAGER: Objection, your Honor, as to the form of the question. Assumes the fact that it is the same van. There has been no evidence of which van we're talking about, when or where. JUDGE: I think he's asking for the description of the van that he was trying to track down. And did you get a description of the van? Was it, what was the color description that you finally determined it to be? GROGAN: Described as white, as white, possibly brown. And another witness described a van as blue, I think. GERAGOS: As what? GROGAN: As blue in color. GERAGOS: Now, this van was what you were looking for, one of the things that was done was attempt to check records in Modesto for any vans that had been in an accident, or had been ticketed in the month prior; is that correct? GROGAN: That may have been done. That was, Detective Stough was working on that, I believe. GERAGOS: Was there also some work done in terms of vans that had been stolen within that one week period of time? Would that also have been Detective Stough? GROGAN: I believe so. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you follow up, or did you keep, as the lead detective, was that something that you followed up on? GROGAN: That’s something that I talked to him about. And I know that we made some efforts to try to locate that van, or figure out what people were seeing. GERAGOS: Okay. And, in addition to that, the van that Homer Maldonado had described at the USA Mini Mart was an older, dull, brownish-yellow van. That's what he described it as, is it not, when he was interviewed by, he was finally interviewed in July of this year, correct? By I'm looking at 41913. GROGAN: I'm sorry. Yes, that's what he said in that interview. GERAGOS: Okay. And that interview was with one of the DA investigators that had gone out. That was, as far as you know, the first time that Mr. Maldonado was interviewed by somebody from either Modesto, or by the somebody representing the prosecution? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he specifically said that when they went, they went, or they were at the USA Mini Mart gasoline station, right? GROGAN: Okay. You are on 41913, correct? GERAGOS: Uh-huh, 41913. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: He noticed the, noticed the van there, correct? And he described it as an older, dull, brownish-yellow van parked at the island across from his vehicle, right? GROGAN: Yes. Said he was at the gas station and he saw that vehicle. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, one of the other witnesses that you contacted at some point, somebody by the name of Tom Harshman; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: You contacted Tom Harshman when? GROGAN: I think I have got that listed. GERAGOS: I show 4527. Looks like Tuesday, May 18th, 2004. FLADAGER: Given the date of it, I would object. It's not related to the scope of this detective's investigation at that time. GERAGOS: Clearly is, because Mr. Harshman phoned in on December, JUDGE: I can't hear you. GERAGOS: Mr. Harshman phoned in on December 28th. JUDGE: Did he talk to Grogan? GERAGOS: He talked to Detective Grogan on May 18th of this year. JUDGE: All right. Overruled. GERAGOS: Is that correct? He phoned in to the police on May or, on December 28th; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when he phoned in on December 28th, the message said, I'm at 14791. He gave his address and phone number, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he said he was driving on Scenic just east of Coffee, he saw a woman being forced into a van, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: A van was an older white van with three windows and a tan stripe on the side, approximately a foot wide, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He described the woman, the victim as dark hair, red shirt, black pants, and a white, with suspect, white male, forties, ball cap? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that call came in at 6 [lost text]. That’s at least what was, actually this looks like calls that were referred to a detective; is that right? GROGAN: I think on the 28th the way the system worked is, we had a detective on 24-hours-a-day. And they were present to take the calls and type the information. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically there was, on February 14th of 03 there was a New York detective who called in and said that a woman fitting the description of Laci and a van had seen her being forced into a van; is that correct? GROGAN: That he was passing on that information, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Second or third hand. GERAGOS: New York City police detective who was saying, look, we have got a witness. I have talked to this woman. She hasn't been contacted. Basically it's Tom and Elizabeth Harshman, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And they have witnessed the incident, and don't know if they have called Modesto PD yet or not, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: Does he say what time of the day that was? GERAGOS: This was at 10:08? GROGAN: That would be 10:08 a.m. GERAGOS: So, at this point, Mr. Harshman has called on the 28th at 6:50 said he saw a woman being forced into a van, gave a description of the van. Then approximately two months later a New York City police detective says, I have talked to, presumably, Harshman's wife who may have witnessed the incident, correct? GROGAN: Yes. He got the information from a friend of Miss Harshman's, Mr. Harshman's wife, I believe. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you contacted him on May 18th, 2004, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And he, when you contacted him, he told you that the same day he called into the police department. You put it down at 12:28, right? GROGAN: Yes, based on that tip. GERAGOS: I don't think you ever saw this. I'm just going to show this to you. When I went through the tip lines, at 14789, it looks like somebody called in, but the name that was written down was Thomas Harsh. Do you see that? GROGAN: I see it. GERAGOS: Okay. You hadn't seen that before right now, had you? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. It says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. Caller given to Detective Holmes. You were not aware that Harsh had indicated that it was three or four days prior to the 28th when he had actually phoned in; isn't that correct? GROGAN: No, I don't think so. GERAGOS: Okay. This is the first time that you have seen that, because when the caller, whoever took down the information, they just wrote Harsh as opposed to Harshman, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that he, specifically, on the same day that he had called in, he had seen a van parked on the south side of Scenic, west of Claus, which he described as a 70s, American-made model, beige in color, correct? GROGAN: Is that the tip that you are reading from top? GERAGOS: No. I'm at 4527. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, can you show the jury, is it on this where, I do not have a map that's got space where Scenic, and Scenic Drive west of Claus Road is? Is it on this map here? Do you have – GROGAN: It's not on that map. GERAGOS: Where would that be on this map? GROGAN: It's right here. GERAGOS: Right here. Does that count as Harshman, 41? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now – JUDGE: So, wait a minute. So this witness puts Laci Peterson or dark-haired woman way over there? FLADAGER: At 10:08, judge. JUDGE: A.m. GERAGOS: That was a phone call. JUDGE: What I want to know is, what time did he see this incident? Because Maldonado has got her over here at M-1. GERAGOS: He has got, Maldonado has got her there at 10:00 o'clock. JUDGE: I know between 9:45 and ten. I'm just curious what time Harshman, GERAGOS: What time did Harshman tell you that he saw it? GROGAN: One moment, please. He said that he saw this on December 28th between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. GERAGOS: You put down December 28th because you put on the same date he called in to Modesto PD, correct? GROGAN: Yes. He said it was the same day. There was other factors that went into that as well. GERAGOS: And he had said, and as I indicated, when he first called in, you were unaware of this. His name was captured as Harsh, as opposed to Harshman, correct? GROGAN: Yes. Based on the tip that you just showed me, if the phone numbers match. GERAGOS: That says given to Detective Holmes. That's specifically who the tip was given to, correct? To Detective Holmes? GROGAN: Yes. That's his report from December 28th. And the tip, I think the Harshman tip is, or the Harsh tip – GERAGOS: The Harsh tip. GROGAN: Is from the 28th also. GERAGOS: It says three or four days ago is when he saw this, correct? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically he describes this female as having a, he describes the van as being extended higher than normal, correct? GROGAN: Yes. The top of the van had a fiberglass top that raises it up over the standard height. GERAGOS: Okay. And he describes one of the people as being thirties, tall, thin with a ponytail, three-to-four-day growth of beard, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Says the female was squatting with her back against the chainlink fence, correct? And described her as might have been urinating? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And said that she had a scared look on her face when he looked in her direction? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Saw the female walk to the driver's side of the van with the male subject, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And a second male reached out the open driver's door with his hand and held the female's hand, pulling her into the van at the driver's door, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He said he was traveling at about twenty miles an hour when he drove past them, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And it looked to him like the female may have needed assistance, line and he thought the male was trying to stay close by her, trying to control her, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He said that she was pregnant. She was wearing a red shirt and black pants, correct? Top of 4528. GROGAN: Pregnant, wearing a red shirt and black pants, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he had described himself as a reserve police officer for the Martinez Police Department back in the early 70s, correct? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: With that, Mr. Geragos, we'll take our afternoon recess. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take the recess. Remember, you are not to discuss this case among yourselves or with any other person, or form on express any opinion about the case. You are not to listen to, read, or watch any media reports of this trial, or discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents. Be in recess then until tomorrow morning, same time, 9:00 o'clock. And we'll pick up right where we left off. See you then.
September 29, 2004 GERAGOS: Judge, I just need to clear up one thing. JUDGE: Go ahead. GERAGOS: Clear up, correcting something from yesterday. JUDGE: Go ahead. It will save some time GERAGOS: Good morning, Detective. How are you? Good morning. The, yesterday when you were talking about the Harshman tip, the, specifically there was, we were talking about exactly where that was, and I think, you and I talked after the jury left yesterday and then again this morning? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: I think you misspoke yesterday; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So that the jury understands, this dot that you had referred to as 41 is not the Harshman tip, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. It's in that general area there, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And what we were just talking about, I don't know if all the jurors can see it or not, but there's, this is a park area right here, this white spot; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. It's a bank that goes down into the, into the Dry Creek area. GERAGOS: Okay. So if the jurors can visualize some of those bigger maps that we had before that showed a park, that's this white area right in here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the part that we're talking about has been variously referred by a couple of names? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: La Loma or Kewin and all the others? GROGAN: (Nods) GERAGOS: And so when you're talking about the Harshman tip, he lives, I think you indicated to me, somewhere in this area right here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And what he told you was that he was driving along this route where my finger is? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then as he was driving along here, the way he described it is when he had stopped at a stop sign, I guess there's kind of a T there, a T intersection there? GROGAN: Yes. There's a street that runs north/south and intersects it on the north side. GERAGOS: Okay. And when he looked over, what he saw was this van that he described to you as being an older van, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: An older meaning a, maybe 20 years old, something like that? GROGAN: That sounds right. GERAGOS: Okay. And that specifically what he saw is he saw a female with a male who was next to her, and it looked like she was squatting down by the fence? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And that this male was around her and he surmised that she was urinating; is that what he told you? Something like that? GROGAN: He said it looked like that was a possibility, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that when she was done, this male looked like he was kind of trying to take control of her to get her back to the van itself. I assume we're talking about right about here, right? GROGAN: Yes. Right in that area. And he walked with her from the chain link fence back to the driver's side of the, of the van. GERAGOS: Okay. And the chain link fence is the fence that's right up against the park, or bounds to the park? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that what, and then he, what he described is that as she was getting into the van with this gentleman kind of with his arms around her, basically, or kind of shepherding her in? He used some term, didn't he? That she walked to the van with the male that he saw, and then he saw, he made some other observations, which was somebody from inside of the van reaching out and kind of pulling her in. GROGAN: Yes. The, the male that was standing with her by the chain link was beside her. He walked with her to the, to the open door of the van, or the door opened on the van on the driver's side. He saw a male's hand reach out and take her hand and pull her, help to pull her into the, into the van, with the other male standing behind. GERAGOS: In the van. Okay. Now, and then he said he was able, when it looked like she was up against the fence, to get a look at her face. That's what he had concentrated on; is that his statement to you? GROGAN: Yes. That he had seen her face. GERAGOS: Okay. And that he commented specifically that there was a look on her face? Do you remember? You've got the tip open to you, and I think your interview as well. How did he describe the look? Scared look on the face, I think is what you had said, at least in your notes. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he, he described her as pregnant. He told you she looked like she was going to pee, the hands were on both, above the shoulders on the fence; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So if I understand, she was actually, if this was the fence, she was squatted down, and then the way he described is that the gentleman was up like this, around her like that? GROGAN: Yes. That he had his hands against the fence, over the top of her. GERAGOS: Okay. He said, so that I get this correct, he says that his wife had a relative in New York; is that right? I'm looking at the top of your notes, the handwritten notes. The wife had a relative in New York who she made contact with them, and then the wife told the friend in New York; he thinks that's why the New York PD called you? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The New York PD talked to her friend about it; is that right? GROGAN: Yes, that's my understanding. GERAGOS: Okay. So, so that we understand how it actually came e about, the first thing that you got was, the first thing that showed up was this call log on 12/28, correct? That you, to understand how this developed, you went back sometime during this trial to look back at some of the tips, correct? GROGAN: Correct. To try to plot them, and Detective, or Investigator Bertalotto and I were doing that. GERAGOS: Okay. When you went back, and yesterday I had asked you about this Thomas Harsh, and you said that you didn't think you had seen that before yesterday. Now, upon reflection, you think you might have? GROGAN: Yes, I think so. I didn't realize his name was spelled different. I didn't, I didn't realize there was two tips, I guess. GERAGOS: Okay. I'll just lead it through what the discovery shows, and we can try and reconstruct it. Basically, when you go back to plot this map, you take a look at the call sheet, and on the call sheet for 12/28 there's this entry for a Thomas Harsh, and that it says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. The caller given to Detective Holmes; right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then we've got, what, the next sheet, which is the calls for Detective Holmes. I assume, if I understand correctly, you get a whole lot of calls that come in and then certain calls that sound interesting get pulled out and given to a detective, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So the second page is Tom Harshman, this is one of the calls that's then put on this call sheet. Tom Harshman, gives his information. He was driving on scenic, and I don't want his phone number broadcast all over the place, but it says just east of Coffee, saw women, a woman being forced into a van, and, specifically, the van was an older white van, 80s, with three windows and a tan stripe on the side, right? And then described the victim as dark hair, red shirt, black pants, and then it gives a description of a suspect that says white male, adult 40s, and a ball cap, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, apparently, as far as you can tell from, and I can tell from looking at the discovery, he was not contacted by Holmes, right? GROGAN: I, I think he was. It looks like the first call is to the, to Pam Gallagher, and then he's called just moments later by Detective Holmes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that would have been, okay. On 14791? GROGAN: Yeah. Two pages away from the one that lists his name correctly. GERAGOS: Okay. And then also it looks like later on you get a call, which was I think yesterday when we were talking about it, and that's when your Honor asked the question about 10:08, Judge, what we were referring to was this call from a New York PD detective had come in at 10:08 back on February 14th. The, later on when you talked to Harshman, he, when you interviewed him he said that what he saw was between 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this call comes in from a detective, and this is in February; and this, once again, is another one of your call sheets? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically the, you, after you go back to plot these, you then, obviously this particular one deserves some follow-up; and you do that, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And when you take a look at this, you're able to find him or locate where he is? GROGAN: Yes. Eventually. GERAGOS: Eventually locate him. It took you a little bit, I guess, to locate him because he was traveling around? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And it turns out that his wife was, apparently, also a witness to this. That's the woman who ended up having the friend in New York and that's why the detective called, at least as far as that's the story that was told to you? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then at that point you go out and you interview him, and that was sometime, well, you tell me. Is that May 18th of this year? GROGAN: Yes. I did a tape recorded interview with him by phone when he, when he responded to one of my messages. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: He called me back here. GERAGOS: Okay. Do, the, when, when you say "here," when you were here in the middle of this trial? GROGAN: Yes, it was in, well, in May. GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever seen him in person or talked to him in person? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And so then you have a interview with him and he gives you the, basically what we had gone through just now in terms of his statement of what he saw, the time and everything else, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the interview with him in, takes place, you transcribe it and then provide it over so we have it and the prosecution has it at that point; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. There was an audiotape of that, of that interview that was provided to everyone. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, I believe there was also some, he had said that he had gone to the command center also; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Sometime during this trial there was some notes that were produced, which were not in discovery, from Sergeant Cloward, and it turned out in those notes that Sergeant Cloward had, in fact, had some kind of encounter with Mr. Harshman at the command post, that he showed up there as well, correct? GROGAN: Someone at the command post did, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was not in the discovery, the "discovery" meaning any of these first 40,000 pages? That was something that was produced during the trial? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And so he had told you that, in his interview, that, because he had called and he hadn't gotten a call back, that he had gone down to the command post to try to alert the people to that tip as well? GROGAN: Yes, he did say that. GERAGOS: Okay. And then obviously that was corroborated once these notes came out during the trial itself, as Sergeant Cloward testified? GROGAN: Yes. Once Sergeant Cloward showed up with his binders, they went through it looking for everything with Bates stamp numbers, and I think they found some documents they didn't have. GERAGOS: And contained in those documents of Sergeant Cloward's was the contact that he had with Harshman? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Harshman was not somebody that I pointed you out to or the defense pointed you out to; that was something that you had discovered while you were going through and trying to plot this out and look through the tips for, to prepare the exhibits for trial, correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. I think Detective, or Investigator Bertalotto found this originally, and I followed up on it. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was in preparation for the trial, obviously? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, we talked about Homer Maldonado, we talked about Tom Harshman. There was also another van sighting, and that was by a Diane Jackson; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, this is a, Diane Jackson, can you show where she lives on the map? If you want to step forward and show me. JUDGE: You want him to show it on this one, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: Yeah, I'd like to have him mark, JUDGE: I think the jury can see. GERAGOS: where she lives. GERAGOS: And then I'm going to ask that you make a marking as to where she described the van as being. GROGAN: Okay. I haven't talked to her. I can search on the computer and try to find her address, if you would like. GERAGOS: Okay. You had put some of that information that Diane Jackson provided to you in your affidavits; isn't that correct? For search warrants? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So if you would do that so that we could show the jury exactly where she had spotted the van. Okay. Just point to that, roughly where it is on this map, if you can. GROGAN: It's, it's a fairly long street through there, so I'd have to see where that hundred block is. GERAGOS: Okay. Says Edgebrook right over here, does it not? GROGAN: Yes. It is, but it runs off of that map, also. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Is there, GERAGOS: Rather than delay it, I'll just, Edgebrook is here; and she lives somewhere on Edgebrook, 1400 block is what you, what your understanding is? GROGAN: Well, from looking at that map, it looks like that's the 1100 block and maybe the 12. 13 might be the dead end above Pierre Park. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: 14 may be, GERAGOS: Over this way? GROGAN: over above Whippoorwill. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, she saw the, she saw the van, this is the Peterson house, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Your Honor, at this point I would raise an objection. There was a prior court ruling about Ms. Jackson's testimony. GERAGOS: Right, that it comes in. FLADAGER: That it, GERAGOS: That it comes in. JUDGE: This is the one that I think I already ruled on her as, GERAGOS: Right. JUDGE: under, as it being Brady material? GERAGOS: Yes. FLADAGER: I think the ruling, though, was through the defense investigator. GERAGOS: No, the ruling was not. JUDGE: No, I think Mr., I think the ruling I made is that, since it was Brady material, it would have to come in. I thought it would be error to keep it out. So that was my ruling about three months ago. Do you remember that, Mr. Harris? HARRIS: Both parts. And what counsel, what both counsel's indicated. JUDGE: All right. GERAGOS: Now, the, specifically the van, can you point to where the van was seen? Or, actually, draw it with a red dot, and if I can write, if I can borrow the court's red pen. JUDGE: Yeah. You want the court's red pen again? I'll have to get more than one. I'll limit you, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thank you. GROGAN: Somewhere in that area GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to put a D 1 for that. And that was on Covena itself, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically she had phoned in a call to the command center as well. And pointing you to 14765. And she said that on 12/24 at 11:40 she saw the van and a safe being removed from the house, correct? FLADAGER: Your Honor, at this point, I hate to do this, but I'd ask to go side bar. JUDGE: We can't have it side bar because we have to have it on the record. We have to go into chambers. If you want to come into chambers, we'll get this sorted out and do that now. I'm going to ask the jury to remain seated. You don't have to get up. This won't take very long. I think I've already ruled on this, in my recollection, back in the cobwebs of my mind. I think I already ruled on this, but I'll be glad to revisit it again so everybody's on the same page. So why don't we just go into chambers, and I'll entertain everything you've got to say; and (to the reporter) you bring in your, okay. JUDGE: All right. Let the record show these proceedings are taking place in the courtroom. The defendant is present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. Ladies and gentlemen, the court has made a ruling about the introduction of this evidence. The district attorney's requested me to remind you again that this evidence is being offered to explain the reasonableness of, GERAGOS: Actually, this is not. Diane Jackson is for the truth, is what the court did indicate. JUDGE: I don't think so. GERAGOS: I think so GERAGOS: Diane Jackson JUDGE: No, no. We'll have to go back in there, because, GERAGOS: Okay. Diane Jackson is for the truth. JUDGE: No, I don't think so. GERAGOS: Okay. We'll go back in? JUDGE: Then we'll go back in because if it's for the truth, there's a real issue whether it's going to come in. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: All right. We'll have to go back. We didn't decide that issue, okay JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead. GERAGOS: Crystal clear. JUDGE: Right GERAGOS: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And who is he? GROGAN: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go – JUDGE: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you. GROGAN: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel. GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct? GROGAN: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on. GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. And then apparently they called Sergeant Zahr. Who is Sergeant Zahr? GROGAN: Sergeant Zahr was my supervisor in this investigation. GERAGOS: Okay. And then Sebron Banks? GROGAN: Is a detective assigned to burglary. GERAGOS: Okay. And to call Diane Jackson to tell them that they would contact her on Monday, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Then apparently at about 6:30 to talk, detective, is it "Stow"? GROGAN: Stough. GERAGOS: Stough took follow-up information, said he would work the case? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, that provided, this witness statement by Diane Jackson provided the, some of the information that led to the flyer for the information leading to, a $1,000 reward leading to the burglary that took place at the Medinas'; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Once again, the people who, as we indicated yesterday, you've never located a van that comports with what she saw; is that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: And specifically the description that Diane Jackson had given was also placed on the flyer of the people who were in that van, correct? GROGAN: I think so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I'll have to ask that Mr. Harris see if he can find the flyer that was marked as an exhibit. Now, specifically Diane Jackson was then interviewed by Detective, I keep misprouncing this, Stough? GROGAN: Stough, yes. GERAGOS: And then also, in addition to that, she gave this description, and I'm at 2091, your, you've got that up on your computer? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Stough had gone out there, I guess, as it says from the tip line here, at 6:30 on the 27th? GROGAN: Yes, it appears so. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she was driving by 516 Covena. Now, 516 Covena is directly across the street from the Peterson house, correct? GROGAN: Yes. It's, I don't think it's, GERAGOS: The Medina, the Medina house, which is, I guess if I'm standing on the, on the driveway of the Peterson house and I'm looking across the street, it's going to be just at a slight angle right across the street? GROGAN: I think if you were standing in the driveway you would see, yeah, the north, north property line of the Medina residence. GERAGOS: Okay. That's 516 Covena, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that as she drove by she saw three short of stature dark-skinned but not African American guys in the front yard of the residence, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. GERAGOS: And she stated as she drove by the guys turned and looked at her and that they were standing near a van; is that correct? GROGAN: That's what it says, yes. GERAGOS: And when asked to further describe them she said that's all she could remember and she wasn't thinking about that, until she called the police? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And asked if she was able to identify any of these subjects if she saw them again, she stated she didn't know but she doubted it, correct? GROGAN: That's what it says, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then your, she was asked if she saw them at the back of the van or the yard, and she said that the van was parked on the street in front of the house and not in the driveway, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: She stated that two of the individuals were standing at the back of the van, and one was standing in the front yard near the van, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And she thought it was unusual because they looked, let's see, because they looked, or initially she thought that they were landscapers and that landscapers normally would continue working, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: But that they didn't and looked at the traffic going by, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And that when she first saw the van, when she first stated that she had seen it, she first told the officers she believed the van was white, but, upon thinking about it, she thought it was darker than that, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And then I guess at that point she said she thought it was darker, either a tan or a brown color, and stated it was an older van, it had a door, or both doors would open at the rear she didn't really remember, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically the reward poster was previously marked as Defendant's double N, and I think I've got all this up here. This, for the most part, for the most part the information on double N was taken from Diane Jackson's, or at least, I should say, the information that is, the information that's up here, 500 block of Covena, three dark-skinned males, not African American, short in stature, older model, full sized van, tan or light brown in color, one or two possibly two doors that open at the rear; all of that came from Diane Jackson, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: This information is what was stolen from the Medina residence as reported by Mrs. Medina or Mr. Medina? GROGAN: Correct. JUDGE: For the record, Ms. Medina has already testified. She was witness number 21. GERAGOS: Right. GERAGOS: And then there was, somebody had gone back, I think it was also Detective Stough, to talk specifically with Susan Medina to see if she knew who that van could have been, correct? FLADAGER: Bates stamp? GERAGOS: Yeah, 2091 and 2092. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that, that she did not, correct? She was specifically asked about a van. She said a similar description. She said no, she had had a crew, construction crew the year before, but that construction crew had used a truck. So she didn't, she didn't recognize that van or that description, and did not recognize the description, she described a full-sized pickup truck that had been there doing some work on her house, but nothing with a van, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Without asking you to compare and take all the time, Defendant's Exhibit I is the Kemper Auto and Home policy that was marked before for the Medinas. This has much of the property that's listed in this reward document. You didn't list everything that was reported stolen; is that correct? GROGAN: Yeah. Whoever took the initial report, I believe she filled out this with her insurance company – GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: as a separate thing. GERAGOS: Now, the, there was also a interview with Kristen Reed; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically, JUDGE: Just for the record, now, this is not coming in for the truth, again. This is coming in to explain the reasonableness of the officer's conduct, okay? GERAGOS: And Kristen Reed was interviewed by Detective Brocchini in September of 2000 and 3? GROGAN: I don't know. I'm sorry. GERAGOS: 39987. I've got it here if you just want to go through this. And she had suggested that when she had come down the street, she also saw a van that was parked across the street; is that right? I'll lead you through it, if you want. She described, when she was talking to Brocchini, it wasn't a white car, I know it was a larger vehicle parked across the street, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And then Brocchini asked her it could have been a truck, do you know whether it could have been a truck; she said no, it was a van, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said it was a larger type vehicle, it wasn't white, but I know for sure there was another vehicle on that street, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And specifically she said it was older, it was either an older Chevy Astro or it was older like a Dodge brown van; it was one of those two, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said Yeah, it was like a brown metallic for the Dodge, seemed like it was a Dodge kind of make; it was tapered up is how she described it, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's part of the description. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, she, she had testified, or she had not testified, she had said, as long as I've got it I'll put it up here. On People's Exhibit 32. This, when I was asking you before about the Medinas, this is the Covena house here, or the Petersons', correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And this is a picture from the Medinas' residence, across the street, looking across the street at the Peterson house? GROGAN: I believe so. Yes. It is slightly south of, of the Covena residence, so I, I think that's accurate. GERAGOS: Okay. And Kristen Reed, when she was interviewed, she had also indicated that when she walked she always walked with McKenzi, correct? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: She had indicated that Laci had told her she had always walked with McKenzi, and she didn't let him off the leash, let her off the leash because she couldn't control McKenzi like Scott could? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, there was also a woman by the name of Victoria Pouches? FLADAGER: Bates number on that? GERAGOS: 2423. GERAGOS: And this is the woman that was apparently contacted by Officer Beffa? GROGAN: Yes, it, I'm sorry, can I see it? Yes. GERAGOS: And this was the woman who on Christmas day said she was on East La Loma Park. That would be this park here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she says that she was in that park and she saw the dog barking like crazy, and she described it, and she said between 9:30 and 10:00 o'clock? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point you had not put out any kind of a press advisory, correct? On the 25th? Do you know when the first, wasn't the first press advisory on the 26th, at Modesto PD? GROGAN: Well, on the 25th, when I came in at 1:00 o'clock there had been some contact with the media by Detective Brocchini and members of the family. And I don't recall exactly what they put out in that initial, I think it was a television broadcast. GERAGOS: Okay. Did anybody ever follow-up with Victoria, pronounce the name as Pouches or "Pooches," P-O-U-C-H-E-S. Do you know if anybody ever followed up with her? GROGAN: I don't think so, but I can run it and check. GERAGOS: Okay. And the description was that the dog was on the north side of Dry Creek and was pacing back and forth, barking like crazy. It was a gold colored dog with a leash on, and she saw the dog was west of El Vista Bridge. Do you know where that is? Is it on this map here? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Can you point to where that, could you put, the judge gave you a different red pen. Would you use this red pen and show me where that is. GROGAN: The park doesn't, doesn't appear in this, in this map. But this is El Vista Avenue. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: And the park would be up in this are GERAGOS: Okay. Do you want to mark just a – JUDGE: Maybe just write "park" there. GERAGOS: Right. And then put a stop, El Vista I assume carries straight up or, in that same direction? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then just put a P slash, a P-1? GROGAN: (Witness complies) GERAGOS: Now, there were, there was also a, some investigation done recently regarding some other tips that came in this year; is that correct? GROGAN: I'm, I'm sure there has been. GERAGOS: Okay. The follow-up, who's in charge of the follow-up now in, is that still you, as the lead detective? GROGAN: Yes. I would probably know about it. There are, there are tips that come in to Modesto Police Department that are probably assessed there as well. GERAGOS: Okay. And the same as, as what we were speaking about before, that they get culled out and given to you, depending on what somebody thinks is important or not? GROGAN: Well, not necessarily given to me. Through most of this process it's been where we had an investigator in place to review the tips, and he would give those to a sergeant, who would assign them to various detectives to follow-up. I wouldn't necessarily see them. I might be made aware of them. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, yesterday I had asked you about some of the investigation that was done in regards to the vans, or a van and the sighting of the van. And in the course of this investigation, as we've gone through, there were a number of tips that had talked about a van being in the neighborhood at the time that Laci went missing, correct? GROGAN: Yes. There's, there's some. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically there was investigation that was done to see if they could, you could locate the van that was seen in and around at the time Laci was discovered and reported missing, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the descriptions had been various, as we've indicated, from white or off-white to a tan to a dullish brown color, correct? GROGAN: And, yes. I think there's blue in there, also. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at one point, the Modesto PD has a person that's a senior crime analyst named Carol Uyeda; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she was asked to research traffic collisions involving vans for approximately two months prior to Laci's disappearance, correct? GROGAN: Yes, it appears so. GERAGOS: Okay. And then there were a series of cases that were generated; looks like about nine, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Some that you were able to get full information on in terms of a license plate; others it appears there was no further description, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: In fact, on the Friday before there was apparently a hit-and-run collision, a van at Yosemite and North Santa Cruz? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's in that neighborhood as well? GROGAN: Yes. It's on that major street, Yosemite, that intersects with La Loma Avenue. GERAGOS: Okay. And I indicated, or you had indicated yesterday that you were unable, at least, to locate, at least at this point, the, the vans that had been described or, through the tip sightings, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, there was also, one of the other methods by which somebody would try to research what was going on was to run all of the various calls for service from Modesto, or to Modesto PD. And when I say calls for service, if somebody called the police, that's what you'd call a call for service, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And there was at least, starting on the 10th of November, all of the calls for, basically that go in that immediate vicinity were called up; is that correct? GROGAN: I don't know what the parameters were. That was done by Detective Buehler it looks like. GERAGOS: Okay. Then I'll wait and ask him about the specifics of it. That was one of the methods by which to try and determine whether or not there was anything that was going on in that neighborhood? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the calls that were produced, at least 24 of them, for a period of time surrounding the time that Laci went missing? GROGAN: Yes. He did complete a report documenting those. GERAGOS: Then there were, also it looks like, was a, on the 26th of December there was a list of people that was compiled; is that correct? Of who were arrested in that park area and going from what you call the Yosemite Boulevard corridor to the downtown area? GROGAN: This Bates stamp number 3254, I don't know, it doesn't even have the officer's name on it. I'm not sure who compiled that. GERAGOS: Have you ever seen this? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Does it appear to be some kind of a document that was compiled showing the DMV records of all the people who were arrested and their rap sheets and/or DMV records who were arrested for a period, frequent contacts and persons who were arrested either in Kewin Park, East La Loma Park, Moose Park, or the surrounding areas? GROGAN: Yes, that's what it appears to be. I'm not sure who completed it or did the report or the analysis, however. GERAGOS: Okay. But as far as you know, nobody ever, you didn't assign this to anybody to follow-up with these people? GROGAN: Well, those, I don't know if that falls into that, the follow-up for that 290 list or not. ine GERAGOS: Now, on, Detective Ron Reed was a, I'm sorry, may I have a moment GERAGOS: Now, Detective Reed was who? GROGAN: Ron Reed? GERAGOS: Yeah. GROGAN: He was a detective at the at the time, and I think he was assigned in economic crimes. I'm not sure, I, I don't remember what his assignment was then. GERAGOS: Do you have 3219 up on your computer? Bates number stamp. GROGAN: 3219? GERAGOS: Yeah. Page 3219. Detective, let me move to one other area. There's a Detective Reed also, you had people canvass the area; is that correct? GROGAN: Covena Avenue? GERAGOS: Right. GROGAN: Yes. It was canvassed several times. JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, don't get cozy because the jury won't be able to hear you. GERAGOS: Okay, I was going to show him. This is taking too long, I think, to pull it up. GROGAN: I'm on 3219. GERAGOS: Now, he had made contact with a person by the name of Ikerd, I-K-E-R-D? FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos, do you have a Bates stamp number? GROGAN: 2425 A as in Adam. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this is, this is a person who said that a few weeks prior they had seen or heard Laci yelling at two women who were in front of the Peterson residence, telling them to stop fighting and that that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in the neighborhood. GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. And the, did Ikerd, Ikerd was a neighbor on Covena? GROGAN: You know, I'm sorry, I didn't look at her address. GERAGOS: I didn't want to give it out. GROGAN: So, Yes. She was contacted at her residence there. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the investigation at that point, early on, on the 26th, that's when you took over; is that correct? The 25th is actually when you took it over? GROGAN: The 25th, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Now, if I can move you back to the February date of the search warrant, there were a number of items that were taken out of the truck during the search warrant; is that correct? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And there was a report that was prepared that itemized that. And that's normally what you do when you search the vehicle is to itemize what's found in there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. One of those was, and I don't know if I've got it here. Actually, I do. Are these the items that were, flip through the pictures, if you would. Are these the items that were taken out? GROGAN: Is that this, GERAGOS: Sure. I've got the list there. If you want to do them as we, the first item is listed as what? GROGAN: A brown paper grocery bag containing 100 Laci Peterson missing, missing persons pins. GERAGOS: Is that what it looked like? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then a succession of other items that's listed, and I'm just going to ask you to take a look and tell me if this looks like it fits with the rest of those. And then I'll mark those all as one package, your Honor. FLADAGER: Do you have a Bates stamp number? GROGAN: 32260. FLADAGER: Thank you. GROGAN: I don't know what that is. GERAGOS: These are the ones you recognize that are listed? GROGAN: Yeah. There's shoes listed. I saw a picture there. GERAGOS: Okay. Shoe holders maybe? Well, why don't I do it this way. Most of these, these pictures look like they're the pictures of items as they were pulled out of the truck and then placed on the ground and then photographed by somebody by the name of B Smith? GROGAN: Yeah. Based on the, on the date on the photographs, it appears to be the case. GERAGOS: Okay. I'll mark these as a group exhibit. JUDGE: That will be Defendant's 7 S. And how many of those do you have, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: I'll count them. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos? GROGAN: Obviously, Mr. Geragos, I wasn't there, so I'm not certain if all those photographs were taken there or not. JUDGE: Do you intend to mark all those? Or a select few? GERAGOS: It's 25. I intend to mark them all just as one set, because it appears that it's a, JUDGE: All right. 1 through 25 GERAGOS: Detective, there's also, next in order if I could, was a photo that I believe was also taken on the day of the search warrant. Do you recognize that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And is that on February 18th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's a picture of you and Scott Peterson? GROGAN: That’s correct. JUDGE: That's Defendant's 7 T GERAGOS: And this is the 25. JUDGE: You know, while she's marking those, the jury has been here over an hour. We better let them go. Take the morning recess. We have to switch reporters. Take the recess until five to 11:00 while she's marking those. Remember the admonition I've heretofore given you. See you at five to 11:00 JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. The jurors are in the jury box along with the alternates. I have had a request from the jury to pass on to counsel that standing up looking at the exhibits while they are projecting something on the screen, the jury can't see. So I'd ask you to bear that in mind. Okay? Go, ahead Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor. Detective, I have got a couple of things that I want to talk to you about. The vandalism at the warehouse, Scott's warehouse, you were trying to determine the date yesterday. Got a Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office report. Would it help refresh your recollection as to when the warehouse was vandalized? GROGAN: Looks like the report was completed February 8th. And it was vandalized somewhere between January 30th of 03 and February 8th of 03. GERAGOS: Okay. It was discovered on the 8th, basically? Nobody had been there for a week? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And the items that were taken from the truck that we marked earlier, those 25, actually first, this was D7T, correct? GROGAN: That's right. JUDGE: That's D7T. GERAGOS: That's you with my client, D7T, February 18th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Then the items that were taken from the truck was this bag of "Laci Missing", buttons, correct? GROGAN: Yes, I think that was listed. GERAGOS: And then there was, JUDGE: What's the number of that one? GERAGOS: That's D7S-25. JUDGE: D7S-1 through 25, GERAGOS: I'm going to mark, JUDGE: That's number 25. GERAGOS: Number 25. This is item 24. GROGAN: There is some black shoes listed in the report. GERAGOS: This is the one, you weren't sure of what that was? GROGAN: Yeah, I don't. I don't know about that. GERAGOS: 22, clothing was listed in the report? GROGAN: I believe so. GERAGOS: Okay. More miscellaneous clothing listed in the report? That's 21. GROGAN: It's hard to say what, by miscellaneous clothing. The photographer and the date is consistent. I wasn't there when they searched the vehicle. However, it was searched at Modesto Police Department. GERAGOS: Okay. B Smith and this marking on the bottom, that's consistent, that is somebody that's there, consistent with somebody who would have taken the pictures at the time? GROGAN: One that's mentioned in that report, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. These items, pictures here as well? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: That was 19. This is 18. Looks like this is a standard way that the Community Service Officers take the pictures is to lay all the clothing ne out and then photograph it? GROGAN: Yes, it's not unusual. GERAGOS: Okay, 17 and 16. This appears to be kind of a side view of all the clothing that they had taken close-ups of before? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: 15, a backpack, sleeping bag, and some kind of gear, camping gear? GROGAN: Appears so. GERAGOS: 14 is this Laura Recovery Center manual; is that correct? CDs around it? GROGAN: That's what the photo is. GERAGOS: Okay. Once again, these also have this B Smith. 13 and 14 have B Smith and the numbers on them indicating that they are in, that they are a series that the Community Service Officer has taken photographs? GROGAN: Yeah. I didn't look on that backpack, if it had a date on it or not. GERAGOS: This one? GROGAN: Yeah. GERAGOS: Does this, does this look like, this item here next to this item here, which is B Smith, 22, look like the same item? Then looks again like you have got it right there on 16? GROGAN: Yes, it appears so. GERAGOS: Ones that are marked there, also this one doesn't have, looks like somebody took it out, put it up next to the truck that Scott had at that point? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: That was 14, 13. Looks like, 10 looks like where all this stuff was in the truck? GROGAN: I would be guessing. I assume that's what that photograph is, yes, if it's taken on that day. GERAGOS: That's 9. 8. Is it standard procedure for the photo tech to, when they find the items, to photograph them where they are? That's 7. That's 7? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: This is a truck, is this over at some impound place? GROGAN: I think that's the shop attached to the Police Department, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's item number, picture number 5. And then, once again, picture 4 is another one over at the impound place? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Picture 3, you said you didn't know what that was? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Picture 2. You don't know what that is. And 1 you don't know what that is? GROGAN: Those appear to be child books. I don't know what's in the package that's wrapped there. GERAGOS: Is it also a safe bet that if it's got that same number, I assume that's the Modesto case number, a date, B Smith, and then a number of the photos are randomly put on there? GROGAN: Yes. That photo appeared consistent with the 2-18 date. JUDGE: Is the prosecution objecting to the admission of these photographs? FLADAGER: No. JUDGE: Do you want to move those in, Mr. Geragos, get those off our plate? GERAGOS: Yes. JUDGE: D7S-1 through 25 will be admitted in evidence, take the same number GERAGOS: Just to clean that up. You didn't compare every single photo, there is a laundry list from 1 through 7, and then A through O that lists, or a bunch of stuff, correct? GROGAN: There is, yes, and it doesn't say miscellaneous clothes or something on that. GERAGOS: Talks about gift wrapped presents containing three children's Easter books? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, and that was a report that was prepared by McGill, who was one of the officers there? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Specifically one of the reports that you had indicated that, with your, during your interview with Scott, I did tell you, actually I think it's your affidavit, that during your interview with him, he told you he was fishing for Sturgeon or Striper, and he was using freshwater lures, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He told you he inadvertently left the salt water lures he had purchased for the trip in the truck, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I don't know which search warrant that is. GERAGOS: 22217 Bates number. That appears to be one of your search warrant affidavits? GROGAN: Yes, I think. GERAGOS: You have done extensive research in the background of Scott and Laci Peterson that revealed no evidence of prior domestic violence by either Stanislaus County or San Luis Obispo County, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And those are the two counties where you, that you knew them to reside in during the time they were married? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, on the day that you executed the search warrant, Miss Fladager asked you this, but after you had been inside of the house, you vacuumed the floors of the home prior to leaving because grass clippings had been tracked into the house during the service of the warrant? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And one of the other things that you had asked for during the, one of the items that you had specifically asked to be analyzed was the vacuum debris. We went through that, correct? That was in the vacuum, not the vacuum that you had vacuumed up, but the vacuum at the house? GROGAN: Correct. On the first search warrant we did have the vacuum and vacuum bag examined. And I think we used his vacuum on the next search warrant to clean up after ourselves at the house. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on January 6th you were advised that there was a search at Tulloch Lake; is that correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry what date? GERAGOS: January 6th. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Is Tulloch Lake on this map? When I say this map, I have got, holding People's 58. GROGAN: It's not on that side, I don't think. No. No, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Where is Tulloch Lake? GROGAN: It is, I would say, approximately 40 miles from Modesto into the foothills area east of Modesto, before you reach Jamestown and Sonor 500. You have taken dogs up there, correct, to Tulloch Lake? GROGAN: Yes, they were there at one point. GERAGOS: Okay. They alerted up there; isn't that correct? GROGAN: A cadaver dog? GERAGOS: Yes, at Tulloch Lake? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically on January 6th when you were searching, Scott Peterson had telephoned the Chief's office. What's the name of the Chief of Police? GROGAN: Roy Wasden. GERAGOS: And Roy Wasden. Scott wanted to meet with him. The Chief was informed about that, correct? FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos, could you give me a Bates stamp on that, please? GERAGOS: 222. GROGAN: Thank you. Yes. GERAGOS: That's correct. He'd asked to meet with Chief Wasden. Chief Wasden said he couldn't meet with him that day? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, during the time that you interviewed Scott youtook some notes, correct? Some of the interviews I should say. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, on the interview that you did with he and Mansfield, that was on the 26th of December? GROGAN: That was the 25th. GERAGOS: 25th of December, okay. Now, he told you at that point that Laci would usually carry Mace with her; is that correct? GROGAN: There is an indication Mace was usually in her purse. He bought it four or five years ago. ne GERAGOS: When you searched the purse, which has been marked as an exhibit, the purse is the way that it was found on that day the search warrant was served; is that correct? GROGAN: Are you asking if it's the same way right now as it was then? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: Well, it had been gone through by Chris Boyer during that process, whoever searched the purse to recover some of those articles. GERAGOS: Anybody recover any of the Mace? Did you ever find any Mace? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Pepper spray, anything like that? GROGAN: Not that anybody ever said to me, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically there was, looks like some pictures of the truck and some measurements; is that correct? That where somebody had obtained the pictures, and then done some measurements of them? GROGAN: That's what this appears to be. This is Bates stamp number 33682. And I'm not sure who did this. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did you ever try to do an experiment if anybody could, mark these, I suppose, as next in order. JUDGE: D7U. What are those, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: It's a picture of, diagram of the truck with some measurements around it. JUDGE: All right. Diagram of the truck with measurements. This is the Dodge truck? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: Are those Dodge Hendee? GERAGOS: I believe these are the one that Dodge Hendee, prior to the truck being released he was asked, I guess, to document measurements and things of that nature; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Now, did anybody ever try on either one, either one of these pictures to attempt to open the tailgate when the boat was attached? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: All right. Do you know if it's even possible to open the tailgate when the boat and trailer was attached? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I don't know. GERAGOS: Same stipulation on this, because they are three-ring punched. JUDGE: You have only one D7U? GERAGOS: Yes. JUDGE: You have no objection to that going in evidence? FLADAGER: No. JUDGE: D7U will go in evidence, have the same number. GERAGOS: Also make a third part of that, which is a picture of the Game Fisher boat. JUDGE: D7U. Mark it 1, 2, 3. The one he's Xeroxing now is number one. We'll make that number 1. Then there will be 2 and 3. GERAGOS: That's another picture of the boat of his along with some measurements so you could show how high off the ground it was? Easy for me to say. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically this picture is with the cover on it; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the engine portion there as well, and then the trailer and hitch? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And measurements, once again, were done by Detective Hendee, is your understanding? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: That's 7U-2. We'll admit that also. Take the same number. GERAGOS: Now, there was one of the warrants, actually, you know what the 72-hour reports are, the wiretaps? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And in one of those, on page ten, which would be the 72-hour report that's dated, FLADAGER: Your Honor, I object to questions with this detective about this. This is Investigator Jacobson's reports. He did these. This detective had no knowledge of them. GERAGOS: Before she testifies for him, I'd like to ask him the question. JUDGE: What's the question, then we'll see? GERAGOS: The question is, were you aware that, as of January 30th, the arrest of Scott Peterson was being planned? JUDGE: Objection is overruled. You can answer that. GROGAN: As of January 20th, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And I asked you specifically, I'm sorry if I misspoke the date. I thought it was January 30th. As of January 30th, were you aware that there was a plan to arrest Scott Peterson? GROGAN: No, there was not a plan to arrest him at that point. GERAGOS: Okay. So was it a fair statement that the affidavit on the wiretapping, 72-hour report that says there was a plan to arrest Scott Peterson on January 30th is incorrect? FLADAGER: Objection. Facts not in evidence and speculation. GERAGOS: I'm asking him if that statement is incorrect. JUDGE: Overruled. GERAGOS: Is that incorrect? JUDGE: Is the statement, not that it's a true statement. Based on your knowledge of your investigating the case. GROGAN: Based on my knowledge of the case, there were points where we wanted to present this case to the District Attorney's office. And I don't think that you could say that an arrest was planned. You could not say that on that date. GERAGOS: Okay. So that was incorrect. You also, I believe Miss Fladager asked you about an incident where Scott Peterson was in Berkeley in April 03; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. What that incident was, is that he had reported some kids who had tagged the, or were doing graffiti; isn't that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And a police report was actually prepared in which Scott Peterson gave his name and all of his information, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that you obtained that police report, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And it appeared that he had made certain statements to the officer and identified himself to the officer as of April 1st of 2003? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You got a copy of that report faxed to you, or asked that it be faxed to you, correct? GROGAN: Yes, we got it somehow. There was a fax sheet I saw there. GERAGOS: Okay. And it didn't appear that he was trying to hide from law enforcement at that point in April of 2003, did it? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: And specifically there was a news release that was issued by the City of Modesto on 12-26; is that correct? That's what we'd talked about just a little bit. GROGAN: There was a press conference that day. GERAGOS: And you issued, not you, but there was, there were several news releases that were issued, one being Thursday December 26th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And this is the news release. Do you recognize it to be the Modesto PD news release? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And, Bates stamp number 5036. How about this one, 5040? Do you recognize that as well? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Bates stamp 5042. Do you recognize that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Bates stamp 5032? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Bates stamp 5034. These are all documents that relate to the press releases on Laci Peterson's case; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. And 5047. I don't know what, that appears to be an e-mail. GERAGOS: Where it says news release at the top, does that mean it usually goes out? GROGAN: Yes. Maybe a news release that came on somebody's e-mail and was printed out. GERAGOS: Okay. And mark these documents, judge, as next in order. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. JUDGE: All right. These will be Defendant's 7V-1 through 6. These are news releases from the Modesto Police Department? GERAGOS: That's correct GERAGOS: Yesterday you had indicated that, when I was talking about the Kim Fulbright demonstration in the toolbox, is this, I'm showing you 38276. Does this refresh your recollection as to whether or not you were present? GROGAN: This is, I believe this is where she got into the boat and her photographs were taken. It's not when she entered the truck. That was at a different location. GERAGOS: Did you at that point talk to, or had you talked to Dodge Hendee about the, specifically about doing a demonstration in the boat with a weighted object to see if the boat would flip when you tried to push it out? GROGAN: Did I talk to Dodge Hendee about that? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: That's possible. We have had discussions about that. GERAGOS: You say "we". Did that include members of the DA's office? FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance. JUDGE: Pardon me? FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance. JUDGE: Overruled. GROGAN: Yes. Early on, I think, in the investigation, and later. GERAGOS: And a decision was made to not to try to attempt to push an, either a body or a weight out of the boat; isn't that correct? GROGAN: That’s correct. GERAGOS: Now, there is I think, been up here so long I almost forgot. We played a number of videos of various interviews that Scott Peterson did with news people, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: One of those was with Gloria Gomez; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Gloria Gomez in that one, I believe, was the complete start-to-finish video; is that right? That you got the raw footage, for lack of a better word? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. GERAGOS: The way that you obtained that raw footage is that Gloria Gomez struck a deal with you; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. We were looking for raw footage of a video. And, yes, must be that one. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm showing you a report that says Gloria agreed to allow us to review the footage if we agreed to the condition of filming us watching the footage, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Footage we saw of Diane Sawyer was not raw footage, correct? GROGAN: No, I don't think so. GERAGOS: That was the, what was broadcast after it had been edited, or whatever else. You never saw, were unable to get what's called the raw line footage, meaning the uncut version, correct? GROGAN: Yeah, I haven't seen it. GERAGOS: And I assume that they never offered to make you a deal at ABC to have Diane Sawyer watch you watch the footage in trade for giving you the raw footage? GROGAN: Nothing like that. GERAGOS: Specifically there was an indication in one of your affidavits that Scott Peterson had whistled on January 11th. Do you remember that on a taped phone call? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And I suppose you thought there could be two interpretations to that, correct? GROGAN: I guess it could be argued more than one way. GERAGOS: There is also, on February 2nd in the wiretap, the HIDTA reports, that's what we called the wiretap logs, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. There is another occasion where he whistles; isn't that correct? GROGAN: That's the first time I have seen it. GERAGOS: Okay. You had never, at least at the time when you were preparing the affidavits and felt that the whistle was suspicious, you had not seen that he had, whether he had whistled on another occasion, had absolutely nothing to do with Laci or Laci being missing, or anything else, correct? GROGAN: No, I hadn't read through all of these. GERAGOS: We are now during, you had interviewed Brent Rocha; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, a few times. GERAGOS: One of the times that you interviewed Brent Rocha early on, Brent had said he believed that Laci had voiced her opinion regarding a proposed street project in the area at a city council meeting, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he, so he knew about this fact that she was involved in this proposed street project, right? GROGAN: Yes. I believe we were talking about the Encina project. GERAGOS: He doubted it was likely that she would have been harmed for that, but thought that he wanted you to know that, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And he specifically told you that he had never seen Scott or Laci in an argument, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And neither of them had ever appeared angry or argued in front of him, and he said Scott did whatever Laci asked him to do; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said he believed Laci was somewhat frugal, but said they had been spending a lot of money to make their home nice since they moved into it, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Let me show you another picture that, looks like Doug Lovell took on the 24th. I'm assuming this is the 24th, wouldn't you as well? Because it's got that telephone book that you and I talked about out there on the table? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, I'm pointing to an object right here. Do you know what that is that's on the counter? GROGAN: This right here? GERAGOS: Yes. See if I can zoom into it. GROGAN: I'm sorry, I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: Has that been marked? GERAGOS: I'd like to mark that as defendant's next in order. FLADAGER: Could I take a look at it? GERAGOS: Sorry. JUDGE: Defendant's 7W. GERAGOS: The item that I'm asking you, that I was asking you about there is that right there. Do you know what that is? GROGAN: Mr. Geragos, I don't know. GERAGOS: And specifically at the time, some time in March, there was a discussion by you that if evidence recovered with the body had indicated that Scott Peterson was, in fact, a suspect in her death; is that correct, dealing with whether or not to notify the family. You wanted to make sure that the evidence recovered with the body indicated that Scott Peterson was, in fact, the suspect? GROGAN: Let me try to figure out this context here. GERAGOS: Sure. FLADAGER: Do you have a Bates stamp number, please? GROGAN: The number at the top is 710. GERAGOS: 710. GROGAN: I'm sorry, your question again? GERAGOS: I was asking if one of your thoughts was, is that once, or if a body was recovered that one would need to examine the evidence that was with the body to determine whether, in fact, Scott Peterson was the suspect in her disappearance and death, correct? GROGAN: Yes. If there is any evidence that could be recovered that would lead us to that conclusion rather quickly, such as anchors. GERAGOS: Okay. Or, I assume, forensic evidence? GROGAN: Mainly I think what I'm talking about in that report is the, I had made a sketch and gave some size parameters for the anchors, so that, at least the anchor that was at the, inside the boat, to determine if her body was recovered with anchors attached to it, we could see if those matched that size or not. GERAGOS: Now, you had obtained, one of the 41 reasons that you had for suspecting basically Scott's involvement, one of those was the, one of those was a thirteen-dollar gas purchase; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that thirteen-dollar gas purchase, did you take a look to see what other kinds of purchases Scott Peterson made in terms of gas? JUDGE: On what date? GERAGOS: On any dates. GERAGOS: I mean, you know, before, the month before, month after; months before, months after. GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: You had available to you in the discovery, and the search warrants, his records, his financial records, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And I have got a bunch of blue Post-Its here which show with yellow highlights various purchases. And I, do you want to take a look at it at your leisure, in terms of this? GROGAN: Okay. Okay. Okay. GERAGOS: And this would be months, 2004, JUDGE: I don't think the jury can hear you. GERAGOS: I said months, 2004? GROGAN: Year was 2002, and from February through September. GERAGOS: September. Does it appear that there is, at least ten times at least, that there is gas purchases of thirteen dollars or less? GROGAN: There is ten listed that you showed me highlighted. Some of them are stores. Most of them are gas stations. And doesn't say what the items purchased are. But you are correct in the amounts being somewhere in that range, yes. GERAGOS: Most of them say either Union 76 or 71 Quick Stop Mart, things like that? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And Chevron or Shell. What's Sunrise Rock? GROGAN: I'm not sure. GERAGOS: And Griffin Shell. Another Quick Stop. That's a gas station in Modesto? GROGAN: Yes, store, gas station. GERAGOS: Okay. There was a list that you have got for the 41 reasons. Is this the list that Miss Fladager was talking about? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Can I mark this as Defendant's next in order? JUDGE: Defendant's 7X. GERAGOS: Now, were you present when Brian Peterson testified? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Were you aware that one of the questions that was asked about him was how death could be produced with basically no trace evidence? How to produce death? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question. GERAGOS: Well, was there some suspicion on your part at some point that Laci had either been smothered or asphyxiated? GROGAN: That was considered as a possibility, yes. GERAGOS: Did you collect the bed linens when you went in to search the house on the 26th of December? GROGAN: We collected the duvet cover on the 26th and 27th search warrant. And we did not collect the bed linens, the sheets, at that point. We did collect them on the next search warrant. GERAGOS: So you, they were collected on the search warrant on the 18th of February? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Were those ever sent to the California Department of Justice for testing? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Is it a safe bet that, as the lead detective, if they had been sent and somebody found any evidence on the sheets or on the bed linens or anything else, that you would have been the first to know, or actually the second or third to know? I assume somebody would have called you pretty quickly if they had found any evidence on any of the bed linens or anything else, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically that theory was proposed or was bandied about once it became apparent that there was no other evidence in the house; isn't that correct? That there was no blood evidence recovered? There was no blood. I mean the FBI was brought in. The Luminol was done. There were things that people thought might be blood or something else; turned out it was not, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Then there was the theory about drugs or poisons, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. That didn't pan out, correct? GROGAN: Yes. There is no evidence of that. GERAGOS: Okay. Then the theory was maybe she was asphyxiated or smothered, correct? GROGAN: That's a possibility, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. But you did have bed linens and sheets and other stuff. And none of that, as far as you know, produced any evidence. And as you sit here, you don't even know if it was sent up to the Department of Justice to be tested, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I don't know what the results of that were, if they were sent, at this point. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, one of the other, judge, I have only got, believe it or not, just a couple more items. But I do want to talk to my client if I could. And I could wrap it up probably by 1:40 or 1:45, if that's acceptable. JUDGE: You want to go to 1:45? GERAGOS: No, I want to, Actually, do you mind? Do you want to skip lunch? JUDGE: I going to let the jury have lunch. You can come back. And you are telling us you are going to finish at 1:45? GERAGOS: You can just shut me down at 1:45. JUDGE: I'll write that down. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: Then we'll take the noon recess. We'll reconvene at 1:30. And then when Mr. Geragos is done, then Miss Fladager will take the witness back on. DISTASO: Just somebody from the back. I do have a witness that I need to put on. And I was hoping we could put him right in between the redirect and the cross. JUDGE: That's okay by me. DISTASO: Okay. JUDGE: You have somebody out there you want to put on? GERAGOS: I told him that – JUDGE: So between your cross and Miss Fladager's redirect we'll put another witness on. Who will that witness be? DISTASO: Department of Justice Agent Ron Schweitzer. It will be fairly brief. JUDGE: Ron Schweitzer. Is he on your list here? Okay. So we're going to squeeze somebody in between when he gets done and when she starts up again. Okay. Remember the admonition. We'll see you at 1:30. JUDGE: All right. Let the record show the defendant's present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. And go ahead, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thanks, Judge. Detective, did you find that mention of where the corrected report is? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I'm looking. I do have one of the reports up. JUDGE: What's the number, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: This one is D 6 W 1. JUDGE: Defendant's 6 W 1. Car closeup, front seat, license number and notes. GERAGOS: Right. JUDGE: There's five photographs. GERAGOS: Five? JUDGE: Yes. Including notes, four photographs then there's some notes. GERAGOS: Right. We sealed the, 3, 4 and 5. JUDGE: 3, 4 and 5 are in evidence. GERAGOS: Right. JUDGE: All we have left now is 1 and 2. CLERK: We sealed it already? JUDGE: Yes. 1 and 2 is left. CLERK: I have to go get it. GERAGOS: Yeah, that's all right. I just need to get it out so I can show them to him so I can lay a foundation. JUDGE: Okay. She's got it in evidence. GERAGOS: Detective, while she's getting the other photographs, I asked you to take a look at something. Did you find it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Specifically, not this yet. Specifically sometime, was it in May of 2000 and 3, after the arrest, was a request made of you to turn over the safe from the burglary at the Covena residence? The Medinas' house? GROGAN: It was actually in July of 2003. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you remember the date? GROGAN: I received it on Friday, July 18th, 2003. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was something that Mrs. Medina had filled out authorizing turning over the safe that was recovered from her burglary over to, to our office so that we could do some forensic testing on it? GROGAN: That's right. GERAGOS: Okay. Once that, once you received that, one of my investigators gave it over to you to, so you could release it. You did something in terms of asking that, before it gets released, that they do some forensic testing on that safe, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: You had requested they do latent prints, which means pull fingerprints off of the safe? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And whatever other testing? Was there some other testing you had asked for? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you were later told on what date that somebody had destroyed the safe? GROGAN: I received your request on the, on July 18th. I contacted our technical service people on July 25th. GERAGOS: July 25th? GROGAN: July 25th. GERAGOS: Was that when you made the request that somebody at technical services do the fingerprinting of the safe? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: And she, she got back to me the same day saying the safe had been destroyed as part of that burglary investigation. GERAGOS: Okay. As part of the burglary investigation that took place, the burglary across the street at the Medina's house at 516 Covena? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, were you present on, on the date that Scott was arrested? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I've got five photos which have been previously marked D 6 W 1. Do you recognize the car? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Is it the car that he was driving? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Do you recognize the interior of the car, the way it was when it was photographed? GROGAN: Yes, I believe so. GERAGOS: Okay. And I've got D 6 W 3, another photograph taken by Brocchini of a notebook that was lying on the seat of the car? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: There's a close-up of the notebook where it was lying on the seat of the car? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And this is part of the notebook that was recovered from the interior of the car? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: Okay. We might as well move in 1 and 2 now because they've been identified. 3, 4 and 5 are in evidence and sealed because they have the license plates of the undercover cars. GERAGOS: Right. I believe I already passed these around to the jury, so they've already seen 4 and 5, so I'll just show briefly, JUDGE: Want to publish 1 and 2? GERAGOS: Yes. Publish 1 and 2. GERAGOS: And, Detective, all of these items were recovered, those were the two that were under seal? JUDGE: There's three under seal. GERAGOS: Three under seal. JUDGE: 1 and 2 are not. GERAGOS: I'll just show this on the projector so we can all see. GERAGOS: And, Detective, the item, just so I understand, when, when Mr. Peterson was pulled over, obviously he's in the driver's seat, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And the notebook with the page that I just showed you was on the passenger's seat to his right? GROGAN: In that photograph, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And open to the page like it was in D 6 W 2? GROGAN: It appears to be the same page, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And is that how the car was when you, when you arrived? GROGAN: Yes. It was parked along that curb. That's consistent with that first photograph. GERAGOS: This one? D 6 W 1? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then somebody opened the door and then took that picture, the D 6 W 2? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: There is the car where you stopped it, correct? I mean the door is opened, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. A photo of the notebook that's sitting right there? GROGAN: Yes. That's the notebook. GERAGOS: Close-up of the notebook with those license plate numbers on it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then the two that are sealed have the specific, the close-up of the sheet itself, the ones I showed you? JUDGE: 3, 4 and 5 are under seal, including the one you just showed. GERAGOS: The one I just showed you, which is sealed, we put it under seal for the license plate numbers, but the ones that the jury already saw before are the, are the, that's a close-up of the notebook, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And then this one is the note that was found in the notebook also? GROGAN: Yes. That's a separate document from what's photoed. GERAGOS: I have no further questions. And I want the record to reflect that it's 1:42.
Redirect Examination by Birgit Fladager JUDGE: Ms. Fladager, I want to remind you to keep your voice up. FLADAGER: I will give a try. Remind me with a note. JUDGE: Okay. FLADAGER: All right. Detective Grogan, I'd like to go back and ask a few questions talking about the defendant's level of cooperation and some of the statements that he made to you. Mr. Geragos asked you did the defendant volunteer all of this various pieces of information during the interview you had with him on December 25th. Would you characterize that as volunteered information? GERAGOS: When? FLADAGER: December 25th. GERAGOS: Can the term "volunteered" or "voluntary" be, JUDGE: Well, it could have been the result of a question he asked him, rather than him volunteering something. Go ahead. FLADAGER: That's what I'm getting at. JUDGE: Okay. Overruled. Go ahead. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan? GROGAN: Mostly a question and answer interview. FLADAGER: All right. For example, there was a question didn't he volunteer that he had been doing research on the Internet regarding fishing, is that right? Do you remember that question? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. There's, in one of my reports is documented that he volunteered some information. FLADAGER: And do you recall whether or not, during the service of the search warrant at his shop on December 27th, that there was, in fact, a piece of paper found on his desk that was a printout from the Internet dealing with, GERAGOS: Objection. It's leading. JUDGE: No, I'll permit it. Overruled. Go ahead. FLADAGER: Thank you. Piece of paper on his desk at the shop dealing with a research on the Internet on fishing? GROGAN: I believe there was something like that, yes. FLADAGER: During the time that you had these various contacts with the defendant that Mr. Geragos asked you about, did there come a time when the contacts essentially became the defendant simply wanting something from you? GERAGOS: Be an objection. It's leading. JUDGE: No, I'll let her, I'll let her. He can say no to that. That's capable of a yes or no answer. Overruled. You can answer. FLADAGER: Go ahead. GROGAN: I'm sorry, the question is? JUDGE: Okay. You want to, want to state the question again? FLADAGER: I will. I'll try and rephrase it a little bit. The nature of your contact with the defendant in the terms of his cooperation with you change? GROGAN: Yes. We spoke many times. We did in some of our, our later conversations, dealt, some with return of property, return of records, return of his vehicle. That sort of thing. FLADAGER: Did he ask you, did he make any inquiries of you, say, on a daily basis about the status of your investigation into his missing wife? GROGAN: On a daily basis? FLADAGER: Yes. GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Did he make those kinds of inquiries of you on a weekly basis? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Would you say he made those inquiries of you on a monthly basis? GROGAN: That's, that's possible, yes. FLADAGER: At some point when you were doing the initial investigation, were you interested in taking a look at jewelry that was being held at Edwards Jewelers? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And is that jewelry that Laci had dropped off to have worked on? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And did you ask Ms. Sharon Rocha to retrieve that jewelry? GROGAN: I, I believe I may have. We wanted to look at that, that jewelry, and I think what happened is I sent some people over to try to collect it and we couldn't get it, and there was some photos taken later, something, something like that. FLADAGER: All right. Going back to the defendant's statement on December 25th, Mr. Geragos asked you when the defendant told you it was primarily to take the boat out and put it on the water, is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And he said that he did that for an hour? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: On Christmas Eve? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: By himself? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: On a day that was too cold to golf? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: 90 miles from home? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And this is a boat he had never put in the water before? GERAGOS: Be an objection. It's leading. It's argumentative. JUDGE: Well, that's a leading question. Sustained. Try not to ask leading so we can avoid all the objections. Had he ever told you that he had put the boat in the water before? GROGAN: No. That it had been, he had started the motor dry once, I believe was his statement. FLADAGER: Thank you. During the interview that you had with him, there was some conversation and Mr. Geragos asked you about him backing, backing the trailer down. Do you remember that? GROGAN: During one of my conversations with the defendant? FLADAGER: Yes. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And was that before or after he had talked to you about the fishing experience that he had in the Bay? GROGAN: That was after. FLADAGER: And did he put that in any kind of context for you? GROGAN: Yes. That, just that he had talked about, we were going through it in a chronological order what had - - what had happened that day, and it was after the, after the fishing and before he had left the room, yeah. FLADAGER: Okay. You had an opportunity, opportunity, did you not, to take a look at the videotaped interview that Detective Brocchini did of the defendant? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And during that interview did you observe the defendant make a telephone call to his wife's cell phone? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And are you familiar whether a password is required in order to access a cell phone message on someone else's cell phone? GROGAN: Yes. I think you have to key in numbers on the phone to get access and to get the, the voice mails off. FLADAGER: In that interview, I have two photographs I'd like People's next in order. JUDGE: Okay. That will be People's 281 A and B. Mark them 21 A and B. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, I'm showing you what's been marked 281 A and B. Do you recognize what those are photographs of? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: Start with 281 GROGAN: 281 A is a photograph that's been printed out off of a video that, it appears to be at the Modesto Police Department interview room, and it's an interview between Detective Brocchini and the defendant on December 25th. In the early morning hours. The second photograph is essentially the same thing, except it's, same interview, just a slightly different time period in the interview. And it's 281 B. FLADAGER: In those photographs, Detective, can you clearly see the clothing that the defendant is wearing? GROGAN: Yes, pretty well. FLADAGER: And is he wearing brown trousers and a blue shirt? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And a brown belt? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Showing you what's been marked People's Exhibit number 7, clothes in a hamper, do you see those items in that photograph? GROGAN: Yes, they appear to be the same. FLADAGER: When you interviewed the defendant on December 25th and he gave you the chronological rundown of what he had done that day when he came home from fishing, do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: In terms of the order of that, when was it he first noticed that the dog, McKenzi, was in the backyard with the leash still attached? GROGAN: That's when he's on his way into the home. FLADAGER: And the first thing he does when he gets in the home? GROGAN: I'd need to look at my report to be sure. JUDGE: Go ahead. GROGAN: It appears he noticed the bucket and mops inside the door by the washer and dryer, and he, I have here that he routinely emptied those out for Laci. FLADAGER: Did he, GERAGOS: What page are you looking at? GROGAN: 114. GERAGOS: Thanks. FLADAGER: And he gave you a series, series of events that he did inside the house, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: When in the series of events that he gave you did he check the phone machine for messages? GROGAN: I think that is after he had eaten pizza, taken a shower, and started to wash his clothes. Then he checked the messages on the phone. FLADAGER: I'm showing you what's been marked People's Exhibit 37 double C. Can you describe that photograph? JUDGE: People's 37? FLADAGER: 37 double C, taken December 24th by Officer Lovell. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: What's in that photograph? GROGAN: Appears to be the washer and dryer in the Peterson home, in that converted garage area. FLADAGER: So putting on the screen 281 A that you described, is that the defendant? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Is he wearing brown pants and a blue shirt? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And this was taken in the early morning hours of December 25th? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: Taking a look at People's Exhibit 7, do you see what appear to be the same brown pants and the same blue shirt? GROGAN: Yes, they appear consistent with what's in the photograph, from the, from the interview. FLADAGER: Showing you what is 37 double C, are those the dirty rags that you told us that appeared to be on the top of the washing machine? GROGAN: Yes. That's something that I think he told Detective Brocchini. FLADAGER: All right. During your interview with, with the defendant on December 25th, he told you about the maid that they had, is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And did he tell you the schedule that she had for when she would come to the home to clean? GROGAN: Yes. He said from about 9:30 in the morning until about 2:00 in the afternoon on Mondays. FLADAGER: On December 26th, after you had secured the search warrant, you said you met the defendant at his home, is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: During the interview that you had with him, he said something to you that Mr. Geragos asked you about about the smell of Laci in the bed, do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. I think that's on a, a different day, however. FLADAGER: Okay. Can you find that for us? GROGAN: It's on page 140. GERAGOS: Thank you. GROGAN: And it's the, on the evening of the 26th. JUDGE: It's what? GROGAN: On the evening of the 26th. JUDGE: This is an interview with the defendant? GROGAN: Actually, it's a phone conversation. JUDGE: It's a phone conversation. You had an interview with him on the 26th, and then he called you or you called him on the 26th? GROGAN: An interview on the 25th and on the 26th, after we served the search warrant. JUDGE: After the warrant? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: Did you call him? Or did he call you? GROGAN: He called me. JUDGE: Called you. Go ahead. FLADAGER: During the course of that conversation, did you ask him the question that led to this response? GROGAN: Yes, I did. FLADAGER: What did you ask him? GROGAN: I asked him if he had been able to get any sleep since this started, since Laci's disappearance. FLADAGER: And his response? GROGAN: He told me he didn't sleep well in a different bed, and at least, he at least at home had the, the comfort of the smell of Laci in their bed. FLADAGER: Were you aware that he was talking to Amber Frey during this time period in December? GROGAN: At that time I was not, no. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos asked you about Laci Peterson talking to a broker in San Luis Obispo, and that's Bates stamp 22376. Do you recall that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And what was the time frame for that inquiry? GROGAN: Since the, the inquiry that Laci made in San Luis Obispo, correct? FLADAGER: Yes. GROGAN: That was May 13th of 2002. It's, it's dated. FLADAGER: And the price range of property that was being looked into was what? GROGAN: The price range was 400 thousand to 600 thousand. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos also asked you a question about an interview with Rene Tomlinson that was done by Kevin Bertalotto, Bates stamp 10459. During, do you have that interview in front of you? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: During that interview didn't Ms. Tomlinson indicate that Laci, GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. JUDGE: That's leading. GERAGOS: All these questions are leading. I'm not objecting to every single one, but, JUDGE: I understand, but you objected now, so I have to sustain the objection, okay? FLADAGER: What, if anything, was said regarding Laci staying at home? GROGAN: There's some indication that Laci planned to, to be a stay-at-home, mom and some information that Laci had said she was feeling tired or run down. FLADAGER: Did she indicate whether she, was there any indication about whether she would be working or not? GROGAN: It says that she wasn't planning on working after she had the baby. FLADAGER: We're going to talk a little bit now about Laci walking. Specifically regarding the interview that Deputy Boyer had with her that you were present for. GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: And he made some inquiries about when Laci would walk, is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Did you inquire of the defendant or did Boyer inquire of the defendant when it was that Laci last walked in the Dry Creek area? Third paragraph from the bottom on 136. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: When was that? GROGAN: He said it was Friday, to the best of, of his memory. FLADAGER: Okay. And what did the defendant say about the very last time was that he had walked with his wife? GROGAN: That he had last walked with her a week ago Monday, which I, I noted as December 16th in the report. FLADAGER: Was that prior to the trip to Carmel? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: You were asked some questions about an interview and Laci being pushed in a wheelchair at Disneyland? Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Did you ever have the opinion that Laci Peterson was incapable of walking? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Did you ever have the opinion that she couldn't walk? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Or that she wouldn't walk? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: What were your thoughts about her walking or her taking walks in relation to this case and your investigation? GROGAN: Just that the, the information we had from the, the records that she had with her doctor and, and in other family members or witnesses, there wasn't anyone, aside from the defendant, that said that she had walked recently that I'd seen. FLADAGER: Okay. Now, you write fairly detailed reports, is that correct? GROGAN: I try to. FLADAGER: And take detailed notes as well? GROGAN: I try to. FLADAGER: When Chris Boyer was indicating the items that he were going, he was going to take as scent items, you indicated earlier that you were writing each of those items down, is that right? GROGAN: Yeah, I think so. FLADAGER: And the defendant was happy about that, or pleased in some fashion? GROGAN: Yes. I don't know that I'd, GERAGOS: I would object to the characterization. That is leading, argumentative. JUDGE: It is leading, sustained. FLADAGER: How was, describe the defendant's reaction to your writing down the various items that were being taken by Deputy Boyer. GROGAN: I think, I don't know. The way that, that went was we had started to go through what items were going to be taken, and, and I was continuing to take notes. And he just, he looked at me and he said I want something to the effect he was glad that I was writing it down or I was keeping track of what was being taken. FLADAGER: And at some point a receipt was mentioned, is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And was one prepared? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: During the course of that, did you observe the defendant's reaction to something being written on a table? GROGAN: Yes. I saw that, to my memory Boyer was writing out a receipt on the table, and something was slid over for him to put under it. FLADAGER: By the defendant? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Were you present or were you made aware of the defendant's reaction to Detective Brocchini opening the Land Rover door into his truck side? GERAGOS: Objection. That's compound. JUDGE: No, overruled. GROGAN: I was not present. I was made aware of it. FLADAGER: And what was it that you were made aware of? GROGAN: That when Detective Brocchini was searching the defendant's truck on the evening of the 24th, he opened the door of the truck and that it swung out far enough that it struck the vehicle next to it, or was leaning against the vehicle next to it, and that the defendant asked him to put a glove or something between the door so that it wouldn't touch the other vehicle. FLADAGER: And this is while his wife is freshly missing? GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. Argumentative. JUDGE: Well, GERAGOS: Argumentative. JUDGE: It's argumentative. Sustained. The jury can draw their own conclusions. FLADAGER: This is the evening of the 24th? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: On December 30th you interviewed Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski, is that correct? GROGAN: December 30th? FLADAGER: Yes. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And we'll take a look at Bates stamp 164. Mr. Geragos asked you about what Sharon knew of Laci's plans for the day, is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And you detailed those on page 164? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And what were those? GROGAN: I have here that Sharon told me that on the day of Laci's disappearance she planned to walk the dog and bake gingerbread cookies. FLADAGER: Did you subsequently prepare a correction to that report? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Referring to Bates stamp 40508. And what was the correction? GROGAN: After Sharon Rocha had read through some of the reports that, where I had detailed statements that she made, she made some corrections to the, to the statements, or added information. And on that she said that she only knew that information about Laci's plans when I asked her on the 30th, because that's what the defendant had told her on the evening of the 24th. FLADAGER: You had an interview with the defendant that you tape recorded and you inquired about the jewelry that Laci had been wearing when he last saw her, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Why is it that you tape recorded that interview? GROGAN: Well, he, he had been interviewed by the first responding officers to complete the missing persons report. He completed the missing person report with Boyer. He had done an interview with myself and Agent Mansfield, but no one had anything on tape or documented on tape that would have his exact statement as to what he said she was wearing as far as jewelry. FLADAGER: And during that interview that you had with him on December 30th, did he specify the exact jewelry that she was wearing when he last saw her the morning of Christmas Eve? GROGAN: Yes. He made some, some comments about it, yes. FLADAGER: Okay. If you need to pull that report, go ahead. I believe that was a December 30th. Page 167. GERAGOS: On page two of eight of the transcript? FLADAGER: No. In the report. GERAGOS: In the report, not the transcript? FLADAGER: Right. GERAGOS: Can I just ask what Bates number. FLADAGER: 167. GERAGOS: 167? GROGAN: He told me that she was wearing diamond earrings and that she had two diamondencrusted wrist watches, were gold, and that she was wearing one of them. And I think that's all that was discussed in that. FLADAGER: These areas that we've talked about, the older, the screw-back diamond earrings, are those earrings that were reportedly inherited from the grandmother? GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation. JUDGE: If he knows. Are they reported to be inherited from the grandmother? GERAGOS: How could he possibly know what screw-back diamond earrings she was wearing? JUDGE: That's not, that's not what she asked her. Not what she asked him. She asked him whether or not those diamonds were the ones that he found out were inherited from her grandmother. Right? FLADAGER: Yes. JUDGE: Yes. As a result of your investigation. GROGAN: Through the investigation, the large screw-back diamond earrings were an inherited item. Those are the, the ones that are missing. FLADAGER: I'm going to ask you a couple questions about the boat. Preface it with how long have you been a police officer again? GROGAN: 18 years. FLADAGER: And are you familiar with the laws as they relate to driving registered or unregistered vehicles on the highway? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: If you drive a car with no current registration, can you be pulled over by the police? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: If you drive a car and tow a boat with no current registration, can you be pulled over by the police? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos asked you if you were able to determine where the second boat was, the other boat the defendant looked at and did not purchase, do you recall that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And a follow-up investigation was done in regard to that boat, is that right? GROGAN: That's correct. FLADAGER: And was it determined that fairly, some repair work was needed on that boat? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Was that minor repair or major repair? GROGAN: Based on the report, it was fairly minor repair. FLADAGER: Whose responsibility is it to fill out a change of registration form when a vehicle is purchased? GROGAN: The seller completes that form. FLADAGER: How about the release of liability versus the registration? Can you give me the difference between the two? GROGAN: Well, the release of liability is a document that's filled out by someone who sells a vehicle or a vessel, and, and it releases them from civil liability for the vehicle. They complete it, they send it in to the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that, then it's up to the person who has, has title or has purchased the, the vehicle or vessel to get it registered. FLADAGER: So it's the buyer who has the duty to register? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: When the defendant was talking to you about looking for this boat that he wanted to purchase, he mentioned to you about looking for, how, how did he look for it? What did he tell you? GROGAN: I believe he said that he looked in the Modesto Bee online. FLADAGER: Did he ever mention looking in the Fresno Bee online? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: In December, the end of December, did you know what had happened to Laci Peterson? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Did you have pieces of information or items of physical evidence or circumstances that you were trying to put together? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: How do you go about doing that? GROGAN: Well, you start with the information that you have in an investigation, along with anything else evidencewise that supports, that tends to support something or tends to disprove it. And you work your way through that while interviewing people and seeing what makes sense and what doesn't. FLADAGER: In hindsight do things tend to make more sense? GROGAN: Certainly. FLADAGER: For example, you talked about this idea that maybe chicken wire was somehow involved, do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: What was your thought process at the time? GROGAN: Just the, the fact that it was in the truck and that he said it was new, 'he' being the defendant, and that it had the one wire that was loose and kind of hanging off, it wasn't wrapped tight, it looked like it had been released, I didn't know whether it had been used or not. It just didn't really match exactly with what he was saying. And then the fact that it's in the truck on December 24th, with all of the other things that were going on on that day. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos asked you about your theory as it related to the boat cover. Did you have some thoughts as to whether the boat cover had some kind of evidentiary value? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: When did you begin to get that idea? And tell us why. GROGAN: Well, when we served the search warrant on the 26th/27th, and we found it in the shed with the gas blower on top of it that was leaking, that seemed pretty odd. FLADAGER: Why did that seem odd? GROGAN: Well, it's not stored back with the boat. It was in fairly good condition, based on what the prior owner had said, and it was last in the truck on the evening of the, the 24th. Why it was moved out and put there and why it, why a leaf blower was on top of it seemed strange. FLADAGER: Where was the boat cover found in relation to the blue tarp that was found at the house? GROGAN: They were found in two different sheds on two different, two different ends of the property. FLADAGER: Completely different sides of the house? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: In the backyard? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos asked you some questions about whether you thought she might be wrapped in it, do you recall that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Was that a thought that you had? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: In your experience as a police officer, have you been involved in the investigation of suffocation deaths? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Strangulation deaths? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Would you, necessarily, in your experience, expect to find blood or urine in a case where someone has been smothered or strangled? GROGAN: Not necessarily. FLADAGER: Were you trying to eliminate the defendant as a suspect in his wife's disappearance? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: That was one of the goals? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: At any time were you able to do that? GROGAN: No, ma'am. FLADAGER: Why not? GROGAN: Because we continued to gather evidence, rather than the opposite. FLADAGER: When you say you continued to, let me ask you this: When the defendant would talk to you and tell you things, could, did you eventually determine that some of those things just didn't add up? GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. It's argumentative. JUDGE: Overruled. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: I want to talk about the cement. The defendant said he purchased cement to make this anchor, do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: What was it about that particular thing that he told you that didn't add up for you? GROGAN: Well, the amount of concrete debris on top of the trailer. The rings on top of the trailer. Where, where - - where is the remainder of the concrete from the bag? Those are some of the reasons that it didn't add up. FLADAGER: Now, the defendant did tell you that he made the anchor, the one anchor he talked about, in a plastic bucket, correct? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: Was a plastic bucket ever recovered at his shop that matched that anchor? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Did you find any other plastic buckets that matched the anchor? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Did you consider it a possibility that the defendant had lied to you about whether he actually went to the Berkeley Marina on December 24th? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Was that a factor in the searches that were ongoing in other bodies of water? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Why? GROGAN: Well, there was a time period there from 8:30 p.m. on the 23rd, when Laci last spoke to her mother, and, by the defendant's statement, about 9:30 the next morning, that that was all open time period where we didn't know what was going on during that, that time. We considered the possibility, the possibility that something had happened to her late that night, that, that he had taken her somewhere or taken her body somewhere on the late evening, early morning hours of the, the 24th, and then used the fishing to Berkeley Marina as, as an alibi for what he was doing that morning. FLADAGER: And that she might turn up someplace else? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Now, the 41 reasons that we talked about and that Mr. Geragos mentioned earlier, were those 41 reasons, let me ask it this way. Those were 41 reasons that what? GROGAN: That we believed that Laci Peterson would be found in the San Francisco Bay and reasons why we should GERAGOS: Did you press the silence button? GROGAN: Why we should search, we should focus our search efforts on San Francisco Bay. FLADAGER: And was that the San Francisco Bay as opposed to other bodies of water? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Lakes? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Reservoirs? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Canals? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: Rivers? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos asked you about an e-mail that the defendant sent to Sharon Rocha. Do you remember that? GROGAN: I think so. FLADAGER: Bates stamp 409. Do you have that in front of you? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Now, that's associated with a flyer that's also attached there, which is Bates stamp 410, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: A flyer referencing a national Search for Laci Day to take place on Sunday, February 9th? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: Would you read that e-mail for us. GROGAN: Out loud? FLADAGER: Yes, please. GROGAN: It says: Mom, I have never taken the opportunity to apologize to either Ron or yourself for lying to you about my infidelity to Laci. I am truly sorry that I was not forthcoming with you immediately. I know that both our goals is to find Laci and Conner, I am hoping together we can do more than separate. I understand you are organizing a search this coming weekend, and you know that we are trying to put together a national search day this Sunday (I have attached the rough draft of the press release). I am wondering if you want to keep the two separate or try to combine them. Have you spoken with Sergeant Cloward, and, and has he given you an idea on where to search? I am hoping that any search is one that directs people's efforts towards finding her safely, targeting medical institutions, houses and the like, and the only possible end to this is them back in our arms. I received the change of address form for the fund and obviously will not contest this. I also received a message from detective Grogain (sic) regarding the lamps and photos, of course I am willing to share with you, correction, willing to share any photos with you, Laci loves her lamps and they should be in our home when we bring her home. For all of us, and more important for Laci we need to find her and bring her back where she belongs, among us, we can do this if we can communicate and work together. Scott. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, do you remember when it was, approximately, that you first got word that the defendant was trying to sell the house? GROGAN: I believe it was within about two to three weeks of Laci's disappearance. FLADAGER: And was there, did you also learn of a request by the defendant of real estate agent Brian Ullrich to attempt to sell the house furnished? GERAGOS: Misstates the evidence. It's Argain, not Ullrich. Ullrich is the insurance agent. JUDGE: I think so. Rephrase it. FLADAGER: Did you learn through the wiretap or through some other source that the defendant made an inquiry about selling the house furnished? GROGAN: Yes, I'd heard that. JUDGE: I'm going to take the afternoon recess, Ms. Fladager. Okay, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We'll take the afternoon recess until 3:00 o'clock. Remember the admonition I've heretofore given you. JUDGE: Let the record show the jury is in the jury box along with the alternates. The defendant is present with counsel. Miss Fladager. FLADAGER: Thank you. FLADAGER: Detective, going back to the February search warrant. At the conclusion of that warrant, or at some point during the service of that warrant, did you talk to the defendant about allowing Sharon Rocha into the house? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And what was his response? Bates stamp 529. GROGAN: He told me that he wasn't going to allow permission for anyone to come into the home to look through items. FLADAGER: Did you ask him if that specifically related to Sharon Rocha? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And what did he say? GROGAN: He told me that he didn't want, told me that he would possibly meet with her in the future. But he didn't want her in the home on that day. FLADAGER: And this is ten days after the e-mail you talked about, approximately? GROGAN: I think that's correct, yes. Yes. FLADAGER: During the course of the conversation that you had with him on February 18th, Mr. Geragos asked you about the defendant inquiring about the Longview, Washington, sighting. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: To your knowledge did the defendant go, ever go to the Modesto Police Department and ask to sit down and watch those tapes? GROGAN: Not to my knowledge. FLADAGER: In the course of your experience as a police officer, you told us you worked homicide cases, correct? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: And you worked missing persons cases? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Have you ever, in the your career, seen a response that you had at the Covena address on February 18th and 19th in any other missing person case? GERAGOS: Objection. Vague as response to what? JUDGE: Sustained. I don't know what you are talking about. Response to what? FLADAGER: Media response. JUDGE: Change it to that then. FLADAGER: In terms of the media response to 523 Covena on February 18th and 19th, had you ever seen anything like that before in any other missing person case? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos asked you a series of questions about an interview that you had with Ann Bird. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: She's a half sister of the defendant, is that correct? GROGAN: I believe so, yes. FLADAGER: And the various things that you were telling the jury, were those all things that Ann Bird said that the defendant told her? GROGAN: I don't recall everything that I testified to in that, but the majority of it I believe were statements of Mr. Peterson to Miss Bird, yes. FLADAGER: Did you put a lot of faith or weight in the various statements that Miss Bird was giving you? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Why not? GROGAN: It was something that the defendant was telling her. And, you know, based on the information we had in the wiretaps it was clear that he didn't always tell everyone the truth. FLADAGER: Did she tell you about a baby shower that was held for Laci down in Del Mar the day before Thanksgiving that year? GROGAN: Did she say that? FLADAGER: Yes. Bates stamp 36930. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And so the baby shower down there before Thanksgiving was the same time as the Disneyland trip that she had been talking to you about, is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And for this Thanksgiving trip then, the defendant was in Disneyland and Del Mar, correct? GERAGOS: There will be an objection. That's compound. JUDGE: Sustained. FLADAGER: Was the defendant down in Southern California during the Thanksgiving period? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos showed you, it appears, some clips or transcripts of some interviews by family members of Laci shortly after her disappearance. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And he asked you whether they made references to her in the past tense? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Could you, do you recall the context of any those particular statements as you sit here today? GROGAN: You know, I don't remember. I'm sorry. FLADAGER: Do you recall whether any of those that he showed you had a family member correcting themselves from past tense to present tense? GROGAN: I didn't see that. FLADAGER: When Mr. Geragos asked you about prior girlfriends that the defendant had had while he was married to Laci, and he asked you if the defendant said to those women, what the defendant said to those women, did he tell any of those women, any of those two women that he lost his wife? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: I want to talk to you a little bit about this blouse. I'm going to show you what's been marked, again, People's Exhibit 7, and Defense Exhibit Quadruple Zero, which appears to be a black and white image closeup of the same photograph. I'm going to ask you if you would take a look at the sleeve portion of the blouse in those two photographs. GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: Do you see in the sleeve portion of the blouse an area where there is a hem? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And is it fairly obvious in the photograph where the hem is? GROGAN: Yes, it appears to be. FLADAGER: And have you take a look at People's Exhibit Number 10. GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: Have you had an opportunity to examine the hem? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: What can you tell about the hem as it relates to the photographs that you have there? GROGAN: It appears that the line in the photographs is fairly dark, and the stitching on the inside of that is black. It appears that the sleeve in these photos is likely inside out. FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd ask, if I could, to publish and pass to the jury the blouse and the photographs. JUDGE: I think it's already in evidence. But if not, it's already been identified by Miss Rocha, and she's identified as that similar to the one the victim was wearing on the 23rd. GERAGOS: I have no objection. JUDGE: All right. There is no objection, so it can come in, publish it to the jury. Number 10 is in evidence. FLADAGER: I'll pause for a minute to let them look at that. JUDGE: Let them look at it. You gave them the photographs too? FLADAGER: Yes, I did. JUDGE: What are the numbers of the photographs? FLADAGER: People's 7 and Defendant's Quadruple Zero, Quadruple O. JUDGE: Do you have any objection to 7? That was identified by Miss Rocha as the blouse in the hamper. Do you have any objection, Mr. Geragos, just for the record? GERAGOS: None. JUDGE: All right. Number 7 can come in, take the same number. And what was the other number, Miss Fladager? FLADAGER: People's Number 7. GERAGOS: Quadruple O. JUDGE: Quadruple O. That goes to the defense. Okay. JUDGE: That's a photograph of the hamper with the clothes identified by Ducot. Go in evidence with the same number. JUDGE: Go ahead, Miss Fladager. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about recovery of the Target bag that Mr. Geragos asked you about. Did you have an opportunity to take a look at the diagrams that were prepared by Deputy Phillips in conjunction with his report? GROGAN: Those are the ones that were shown on the screen? FLADAGER: Yes. GROGAN: Yes, I saw them in court. I don't know if I have them here. FLADAGER: Going to refer you to Bates stamp 17053, which is the report itself. Did you have an opportunity to take a look at that? GROGAN: I did look through this. FLADAGER: Anywhere in that report does Deputy Phillips ever mention that he mentioned the smell of decomposition in that Target bag? GROGAN: Not that I saw when I read it, no. FLADAGER: In that report does he talk about running cadaver dogs by that bag and they don't hit on it? GROGAN: Yes, there is mention of that. FLADAGER: I'd like to show you next a photograph that's been marked as Defense Exhibit seven-zero, or 7O-2 and ask you if you remember looking at that photograph yesterday. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: I'm going to put it up on the screen. Okay. At the bottom of the screen do you see some information, a date, perhaps some numbers, and a name, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And the name down there is what? GROGAN: Ducot. FLADAGER: And she's one of your Community Service Officers, ID technicians? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And you indicated yesterday that she took that photograph, or you assumed she did, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And is that because her name is at the bottom on this defense photograph? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: And, in fact, do you see someone next to the truck in the upper left hand corner? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Who is that person? GROGAN: That's Denise Ducot. FLADAGER: So the name that's at the bottom of this defense exhibit is not, GERAGOS: Wait a second. Defense exhibit? This was given to me by the prosecution. Is she trying to prove that, JUDGE: The exhibit's marked, GERAGOS: that is Rumpelstiltskin? I'll stipulate, JUDGE: The exhibit's marked by the defense. GERAGOS: It was given by them. JUDGE: Do you want to move that into evidence? GERAGOS: Yeah, I definitely want to move it into evidence. I'll move it in right now. I'll stipulate that they don't know what they are doing. JUDGE: Grogan identified both of those yesterday, so we'll admit Defendant's 7O-1 and 2 into evidence, take the same number. FLADAGER: Now, Detective Grogan, you weren't here earlier, I think, with some of the other witnesses. The numbers that are shown in some of these photographs that appear on the bottom of some of them, can you say whether or not, now that you have seen that photograph, they actually indicate who took the photograph, or the date of the photograph? GERAGOS: You know, this is a dangerous road to go down, because they previously admitted maybe 50 of the prosecution exhibits based upon this is what the normal practice is. So are we going to now challenge every single exhibit we have had for two and half months? JUDGE: Those are already, GERAGOS: I believe he's now going to testify that the number on the bottom is meaningless. JUDGE: Then it goes to the weight that the jury wants to put on it. If they come in evidence, it doesn't have to be the person who took the picture. GERAGOS: Right. JUDGE: Only somebody has to, I could even say that truthfully and accurately represents the scene as I saw it. You don't have to be the photographer. FLADAGER: Correct. JUDGE: If somebody testifies that, that's the way it looked, and that's a true and accurate representation of the way it looked on the day this event took place when he's observed the item, that lays the foundation. You don't need the photographer. I don't care whose name is on the bottom as long as the other part is identified. So you can go ahead and ask him anyway, but then the jury can put whatever weight they want. FLADAGER: The only question I want to ask, Detective Grogan, is, as far as the numbers on the bottom, at least of that particular photograph, or the names associated with it, do you know, can you say that that's the person who took the photograph? GROGAN: Clearly Denise Ducot didn't take that photograph. And the photographers really would be the people to try to identify them. FLADAGER: As far as who took what photograph and when? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: Thank you. Let's talk a little bit about the buoy that Mr. Geragos brought up the other day. And I'm going to direct you to Bates stamp 36381. GROGAN: 36381? FLADAGER: Yes. First page of the DOJ report. GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: All right. And in the summary portion of that particular report, is there information that led you to decide to check the buoys in the San Francisco Bay? GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation. It's vague and ambiguous. JUDGE: He checked, he testified yesterday he checked buoy number four, not all the buoys. FLADAGER: Let me ask the question another way. In the report that you have before you, Mr. Geragos asked you yesterday about you said there was some wood associated with some of the red paint that was found on the boat, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And you made a comment that, looking at the notes of the criminalist might help, or that may also refer to the wood being present. GERAGOS: He testified yesterday that the report said small piece of wood and some red specks. That's what he said. JUDGE: He testified to that. FLADAGER: And is there an indication there, as far as whether the wood was painted, or the wood was just in the red paint? GERAGOS: Well, there is an objection. Now she's asking him to testify as to what the report says. He's not the person who prepared the report. JUDGE: Again he considered it in his investigation. I'll permit it. GROGAN: Well, this says that there is paint with a small piece of wood and some red specks. FLADAGER: And is there an indication there as to the nature of the paint? GROGAN: That it's an enamel paint, and listing some of the uses. FLADAGER: And does it indicate that it contains lead? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And does it indicate that lead-based paint is still used for industrial, marine, and military uses? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: How about maintenance, which it says in the report? FLADAGER: Next, Detective Grogan, I'm going to, we're going to go back and talk about Mr. Harshman that we started out this morning talking about? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: Okay. Now this is the individual that Mr. Geragos asked you about a taped conversation that you had during, I guess in May of this year, is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And during the course of your followup investigation into Mr. Harshman's reported sighting, of seeing a man basically braced over a woman against a fence off of Scenic down by Claus, and then walking with her, or escorting her to the van, that whole series of events. Were you able to determine the day or the timeframe where he would have seen that? GROGAN: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. FLADAGER: And why is it you come to that conclusion? GROGAN: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he made those observations. His call into the Police Department is on the 28th. Also, he said something initially. He estimated it was probably a week after she that she, being Laci Peterson, disappeared that he made these observations. And he said something about already seeing her in the media and there were flyers up. So clearly it wasn't the 24th. FLADAGER: He reported seeing the flyers and the information in the media prior to actually seeing this event occur? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: And in your investigation into Mr. Harshman, did you also review the daily log of contact at the Command Center that was provided by Sergeant Cloward? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And did you review the report from January 3rd, 2003, contacts from that day? GROGAN: Yes, I have seen it. FLADAGER: Specifically looking at the top of Bates stamp 41006. GROGAN: I'm sorry just a moment FLADAGER: And I have a copy I'd be happy to share with you if you can't find it. GROGAN: That would help. FLADAGER: Was there anything this that report, detective, which reaffirmed for you that this sighting, alleged sighting, GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. JUDGE: Well, I think it's, the way it's going is capable of a yes or no answer, so I'll permit it. FLADAGER: Was there anything that report, detective, which confirmed for you that this sighting of Laci Peterson, in fact, occurred after December 24th, and was on or about December 28th? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: What was that? GROGAN: The log from the Command Post, which is dated January 3rd. When Mr. Harshman contacted somebody at the Command Post on that day, he said it was six days prior which, I believe, would be the 28th. FLADAGER: 28th? Thank you. Next I have a couple of questions for you regarding Grace Wolf who we also talked about yesterday, or this morning. Do you have that information handy? GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, in her statement, let me go back. The first report she made to law enforcement about the sighting she thought she saw was when, to law enforcement? GROGAN: Well, that was recently when we sent an investigator out to speak with her. FLADAGER: So in December of 2002 she did not contact the Police Department? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: And in January of 2003 she did not contact the Police Department? GROGAN: No, ma'am. FLADAGER: When she was finally interviewed either by the defense or by the Police Department, did she make a statement about when she had last seen the defendant walking with Laci, person she believed to be Laci? GROGAN: And we're talking about her first interview that I have documented, which is a defense investigator's report? FLADAGER: Do you have that? GROGAN: I do have that. And you asked the time of day? FLADAGER: The date when she said she saw the defendant Scott Peterson walking with Laci Peterson, she had contact withthem. And I refer you to the bottom of the last paragraph of the investigative report by Mr. Ermoian. GROGAN: This must, yes, a subsequent report. I'm not seeing a date attached to it here. Let me see if it's in the report by, FLADAGER: I have a report I can bring to you which might help. GROGAN: Okay. JUDGE: Maybe you ought to share it with Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: He has it there. He's got the same report. I looked at hers and looked at his. GROGAN: Okay. I'm sorry, yes, it says the Sunday, prior to 12-24. FLADAGER: Let's go back and talk about Mr. Freitas as well. Mr. Freitas who was driving the bread truck on Lola Loma Avenue. GROGAN: Yes. Okay. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, do you remember the video that we showed the jury that showed the traffic within the La Loma neighborhood? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: And we saw traffic going up and down La Loma Avenue, is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And the traffic as it headed into town at one point, did you, there was actually someone videotaping as a car was driving. Did it go up towards the round-about? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And is that just north of the bridge that, where La Loma crosses over the Dry Creek waterway? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: The traffic that runs through that area, are you familiar with it? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: That is a fairly busy street? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: The location of La Loma that Mr. Freitas indicated, about how far away would you say that is from the Covena address? GROGAN: It would be an estimate. I would say maybe three quarters of a mile. I think it's the, it's about six blocks. FLADAGER: From the Covena house to where Mr. Freitas indicated he thought he saw Laci Peterson? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: Let's talk a little bit about Homer Maldonado. Is he another person who claimed to have seen Laci Peterson? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And his claim was that he saw her up by a gas station by Covena and Camelia? GROGAN: Miller and Camelia. FLADAGER: In the various statements, let me back up. Did Mr. Maldonado give different statements on different days? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And initially did he give a description of the clothing that this woman was wearing? GROGAN: In his initial tip, no. FLADAGER: Did he later then call in again, or talk to someone else, and then say that she was wearing black pants? GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. JUDGE: Overruled. GROGAN: Yes. In an interview with a defense investigator, he said that she was wearing dark pants and a light top. And it appears it was in an interview in January. I have seen the videotape of this as well. FLADAGER: And the timeframe where he indicated he saw Laci Peterson was what? GROGAN: In that report, or the initial tip? FLADAGER: In the initial report. GROGAN: In the initial tip it was 9:45 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. FLADAGER: On the area that you have indicated for the jury earlier, correct? GROGAN: Yes. One of the dots up there that's marked. FLADAGER: And Grace Wolf indicated that she saw the person she thought was Laci Peterson on December 24th between 9:30 and 9:45? GERAGOS: Objection. That misstates the evidence. And it's leading. And it's assuming facts not in evidence. JUDGE: It's leading. I'll sustain the objection. What date, what time did Miss Wolf tell you that they saw Laci Peterson? GROGAN: Sorry, your Honor. One moment. 9:30 and 9:45. FLADAGER: And did Ms. Wolf put this person in black pants as well? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And Ms. Wolf indicated she saw this person at the intersection of Encina and Santa Barbara? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And approximately how far away is that from where Mr. Maldonado indicated that he saw the person he saw at 9:45, between 9:45 and 10? GROGAN: Encina and Santa Barbar FLADAGER: Where is that little one you put up, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: You have the other one you marked. JUDGE: I think the other one is more helpful to the jury, the one Mr. Geragos marked. She can project upthere, and I think it's, do you want to give her the number? GERAGOS: She's got it. JUDGE: I think it's there. That's much better. FLADAGER: All right. I'm just going to point what. JUDGE: M-1 is where Mr. Maldonado said he saw her. And, FLADAGER: M-1 is Homer Maldonado. GERAGOS: M-1 is Maldonado. F is Freitas, and W-1 is Wolf. FLADAGER: Okay. Detective Grogan, on these particular sightings that we have been talking about, as well as the various other ones which are indicated on the diagram up there, do you consider any of these verifiable sightings? GROGAN: No, ma'am. FLADAGER: Of the ones that we are look at here on the screen, Homer Maldonado, Freitas, and Grace Wolf, given the timeframe of 10:08 to 10:18, would any of these work to be Laci Peterson? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: With the distance between these locations and the Covena Avenue home, well, let me just ask it this way. Why wouldn't they work? GROGAN: Well, none of them fall within that time range that I, that you just spoke of, 10:08 to 10:18. And they are spread out quite a distance away. La Loma Avenue, if you, when we watched the video the other day, starting from the house and driving over to La Loma, it takes a few minutes even to drive that. I didn't time it, but you watched it I think in real time at least once. It's a distance to walk. FLADAGER: The various people who report seeing Laci Peterson, the majority of them and the folks we're talking about here specifically, put her in black pants? GERAGOS: Be an objection. It's compound. JUDGE: It's leading. GERAGOS: It's leading. JUDGE: What color description did the majority of the informants give you as far as what she was wearing? GROGAN: I would say the majority match with black pants or white shirts, with the description that was released to the medi FLADAGER: And of the people, talk about these folks here. Did any of them personally know Laci Peterson? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Is there any reason for you to think that any of these actually, and I'm referring to People's Exhibit 267. JUDGE: The red dots. FLADAGER: With the red dots and a few green dots, is there any reason to believe that any of those sightings are any more reliable than the dozens, GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. JUDGE: Overruled. He can answer yes or no. FLADAGER: Is there any reason for you to believe that any of the sightings in that particular diagram within the City of Modesto are any more reliable or less reliable than the sightings in Exhibit 268B? JUDGE: Which is, for the record? FLADAGER: Which is for the sightings in the United States and various countries. GROGAN: You know, the only factor that adds any additional credibility to those at all is that it's at least in her neighborhood. GERAGOS: I would think so. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos also asked you about an interview with a woman named Kristin Reed. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And do you have that report in front of you? Bates stamp 31183. GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Does that relate to an interview with her which was conducted on September the 12th of 2003? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: And does Ms. Reed say anything there that gives you pause as the investigator in the case to really question her memory on this particular report? Referring specifically to the last paragraph on that page. GROGAN: Yes, she does say that it could be the power of suggestion or something that I read when she's talking about her memory of the vehicle that she saw on the 24th. FLADAGER: Mr. Geragos also asked you about a sighting by a woman named Victoria Pouches. And that's at 2426. GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: And did she give a timeframe for her reported sighting that Mr. Geragos described of the dog running loose? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And what was that? GROGAN: Between 9:10 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. FLADAGER: Did you have an interview with Sharon Rocha, I'm referring to Bates stamp 158, where you discussed whether Laci carried Mace or not? GROGAN: Just one moment please. I found it. Just give me one moment to look through it. Yes, that's part of the December 30th interview, and we did discuss that. FLADAGER: What was discussed specifically related to walking with or without Mace? GROGAN: It said that, she said that Laci seemed to feel safe with the dog and did not carry OC spray or Mace. FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it. JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other. GROGAN: All right, I have that report. FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview? GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes. FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary? GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related. FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van? GROGAN: Yes, it appears so. FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic? GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them. FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena? GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report. FLADAGER: On the 24th? GROGAN: 11:40. FLADAGER: During the search warrant of February 18th and 19th, and I'm going to refer you to Bates stamp 2159 and 2242. GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: Was there any linen, or specifically were there any pillow cases, anything reported to be missing or not present? GROGAN: There is an indication here just of a pillow with no pillowcase. FLADAGER: And there were several indications of pillows with pillowcases? GROGAN: Yes.
September 30, 2004 FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, I have three fairly quick things. Referring you back to what's been marked People's Exhibit 267, the map of the City of Modesto with the various sightings listed. Previously when Mr. Geragos questioned you we talked about Mr. Harshman, and you placed him or identified it was dot number 41 on that map as being Mr. Harshman. GROGAN: That's correct. FLADAGER: Is he actually on another map instead of this map? GROGAN: Yes, he is. FLADAGER: Is he on the, basically the state map, the larger map for December 24th? GROGAN: No, he's on the U.S. map. FLADAGER: Okay. That one is 268 B. And why is it that you had him placed on that map? GROGAN: The, the other map in Modesto is strictly for the 24th. Since it appears it's the 28th for that sighting, he was listed on this one, under the California column. And number 41 on that other map is right in the same area, which is what I was looking at, why I got confused. GROGAN: Okay. And I'd like to return just real quickly to Grace Wolf, who we spoke about yesterday. In order to clarify, I think I asked you if she had seen, reported seeing Laci and Scott Peterson walking on the Sunday before Christmas? Do you recall that? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And in that report did she indicate that she was sure that she saw Scott Peterson and Laci Peterson? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And did that figure into her thought that she was sure she saw Laci Peterson? GERAGOS: Objection. Speculation. JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: As, FLADAGER: Did she indicate why she was sure she saw Laci Peterson on December 24th? GROGAN: That she recognized Laci from the contact they had on that Sunday. FLADAGER: December 22nd? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And the last time that Scott Peterson said he went walking with Laci Peterson was on what day? GROGAN: December 16th, I believe. FLADAGER: And the last thing I have, I'd like to ask this be marked People's next in order. GERAGOS: Same one you showed me, right? FLADAGER: It is. JUDGE: This would be People's No. 282. GERAGOS: 282? JUDGE: 282. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, have you take a look at that. Mr. Geragos showed you a photograph, maybe it was yesterday, of yourself and the defendant; do you recall that? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: And does this appear to be essentially the same photograph, but clearer? GROGAN: Yes. It's not quite as digital-like. I think it's a little bit clearer. FLADAGER: Okay. I'll go ahead and show that to the jury. And so this was a photograph that was taken during the service of the search warrant in February? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Recross Examination by Mark Geragos JUDGE: Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Sure. I have a number of photos that I want to mark, if I could, Judge. JUDGE: Okay. Defendant's 7 Y. And how many do you have? GERAGOS: If I could just lay a foundation for it first. JUDGE: All right. GERAGOS: Good morning, Detective. Good morning. The photos that I've got in my hand that are coming out of envelopes, these are the ones that were seized during the search warrant; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes, I believe so. GERAGOS: Okay. And what you did is you marked on the outside of the envelope what the pictures were or where, where they came from; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. Which evidence item they came out of. GERAGOS: Okay. And the first three pictures came out of the search warrant on February 18th, and then number 55 A; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And I'm going to mark them all as a group in a moment. And then the second envelope has got 218, and that's out of bag 55 B; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The third is 218, 55 C, and I've got two photos, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And 218, 55 A, I've got one photo; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: And then 218, 55 A, I've got two photos there. I'm leaving two in the envelope that I'm going to give back to Marylin. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. These were all pictures that were seized in the search warrant service on February 18th? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Those pictures all show Laci Peterson, for the most part it looks prior to her being pregnant; correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And in all of those photos, with the exception of two of Scott, who's out camping, it appears that she's wearing earrings and a pendant; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You and I went through these, what, two or three weeks ago? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And we went through those to see if we could determine, or at least if I could determine that she was wearing screw-on earrings and a pendant prior to the time of the inheritance, correct? GROGAN: Yes. JUDGE: Just so we don't mess up these. This is the D 7 Y envelope number 1 and contents? GERAGOS: Yeah. I think what I'll do is I gave the envelopes back to Marilyn. I've identified them and got them in the order that he and I pulled them out. JUDGE: Just want to mark them 1 through – GERAGOS: 1 through, exactly. JUDGE: Okay. 1 through, how many photographs are there? GERAGOS: Nine. JUDGE: Nine. Okay. 1 through 9. (Defendant's Exhibits D 7 Y 1 through 9 marked for identification) GERAGOS: Okay. You lose a little bit of the clarity when I'm blowing it up, but when you look at it you can see she's wearing some earrings that look to be diamond earrings; isn't that correct? GROGAN: I think so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. This is, and that, the one that I just put up there, obviously D 7 4 1 (sic), I'm sorry, Marilyn, you didn't mark that one. Okay. And then this is D 7 4 2 (sic). JUDGE: It's D 7 Y 2. GERAGOS: Yeah. D 7 Y 2. You see in that a pendant and/or earrings? GROGAN: Yes. It appears she has something on a chain there, and, and she does have earrings in. GERAGOS: Let me show you D 7 Y 3. This is the same way. Appears that she's wearing a pendant on there as well? GROGAN: Correct. And earrings. GERAGOS: And earrings. So D 7 Y 2, this is the one wearing both earrings and a pendant you can see when you look at it, the picture itself? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: D 7 Y 3, you can see the pendant and earrings when you look at it; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. D 7 Y 4, this is one where you can see the earrings; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. You could tell they've, there are earrings. GERAGOS: Okay. This is one in a series of photos. I didn't bring the other one, but I specifically asked you to take a look at it because they were at a ballgame; do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And I showed you in one of the pictures of the ballgame Mike Piazza was still playing for the Dodgers? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And I asked you do you remember how long ago it was that Piazza was playing with the Dodgers and you told me you'd go find out? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You found out that Piazza hasn't been on the Dodgers for a little while, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. I looked on the Internet and I believe it was around 98 or so. GERAGOS: This picture is also somewhat hard to, D 7 Y 5. Do you see ne anything in there? GROGAN: It's difficult to tell. I think that's, that's a necklace. GERAGOS: Yes. Does that appear to you – GROGAN: Yes. It appears she has some, some necklace on. GERAGOS: Okay. D 7 Y 7? GROGAN: Yes. I don't see earrings. Her hair is over her ears, but she is wearing a necklace with a pendant that appears to be a stone in it. GERAGOS: That's D 7 Y 7. What you're referring to right there, a pendant with a stone in it? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. You also recovered some photos that appeared to be Scott out camping; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's what it appears. GERAGOS: Okay. Another photo here, him with a backpack as well? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that's D 7 Y 8. Now, the, yesterday also the district attorney asked you specifically about chicken wire; do you remember that? JUDGE: Can we go back just one second? GERAGOS: Sure. JUDGE: 5 and 6 – GERAGOS: 5 and 6 I showed him, they're not, it doesn't matter – JUDGE: You're not going to be offering those? GERAGOS: Well, I, he's identified them as the pictures that he saw. I, there's no point in blowing them up because you can barely see it as you look at it. JUDGE: All right. I'll just X that out. I want to keep track. I don't want to lose track of these photographs. Go ahead. GERAGOS: Okay. GERAGOS: Now, yesterday the district attorney asked you about chicken wire, again; do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she I think specifically was saying, in terms of tying evidence together, in hindsight do things kind of make more sense; and you said certainly, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you also said, she asked you, for example, you talked about this idea that maybe chicken wire was somehow involved, right? She asked you that yesterday? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically even in the previous, your direct examination, before I got up in cross, she asked you back on September 20th, when you first started testifying, was there anything about that chicken wire that piqued your interest and you were trying to get some answers to. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he had told you that he had bought it at Home Depot. And then she asked you is it a 90 degree cut to the base of the chicken wire. Do you remember that question, back on direct? GROGAN: Yes, I think so. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically when she asked you that question, she, you said that you sent Ron Reed out to Home Depot to try to find out how it came packaged, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Then she asked you have you dealt with chicken wire yourself before. You said yes, on a few occasions. And she asked you if you purchased it has it ever come with that kind of jagged edge, and you said not that I've seen, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And nowhere did she ever ask you to explain the fact that Ron Reed had actually gone out to Home Depot and found out that the chicken wire is cut in 25 or 50 foot specific sections? Was that ever asked you on direct? GROGAN: Was that question asked on direct? I, I don't think so. I don't recall. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically when I asked you about it, when we talked about it, you felt that it was still, I think you indicated that it was still somewhat suspicious that the, or the one thing you found to be suspicious was the single wire that came from the chicken wire, correct? GROGAN: Yes. There's a loose wire off of the, the chicken wire. I don't, I don't believe it, it might be hooked in it, but I don't believe that it is part of the chicken wire itself. GERAGOS: Did you ever ask Ron Reed, or did you ever go to Home Depot and ask them, when they cut the chicken wire and they roll it up, do they then take yet another piece of wire and wrap it around so that it won't unwind? GROGAN: I don't, I don't know that they cut it at Home Depot. I think they do it at Lowe's. I believe it comes prepackaged in 25 or 50 at, foot lengths at Home Depot. GERAGOS: Well, specifically didn't it look like that wire in the picture, that you said still looks suspicious, didn't that look like that was a wire that had been wrapped around it in order to keep it bundled? GROGAN: That's a possibility. GERAGOS: Okay. And that would tend to negate any suspicion about what was going on with that chicken wire; isn't that correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. GERAGOS: I'm asking him regarding his investigation. JUDGE: Overruled. You may answer. GERAGOS: And specifically you've got Dr. Cheng on deck to testify. And when you gave him, and I went over this with you, you gave him the theories in February, you told him possibly wrapped in chicken wire or some form of plastic wrap, correct? GROGAN: Yes. He was given that information. GERAGOS: Okay. Was any, did anybody, after you sent Ron Reed out to Home Depot and to Lowe's, did anybody ever tell Dr. Cheng Forget about this, you know, the, or, Dr. Cheng, we solved the chicken wire problem, it's no longer one of our theories? GROGAN: I don't know. Detective Owen had most of the contact with him. GERAGOS: Okay. The, when you say Detective Owen had most of the contact, the, did you, did you talk to him? To Dr. Cheng? GROGAN: Not around that time period. I have met him recently. GERAGOS: Okay. And did anybody, did you tell Owen You better, you know, talk to Dr. Cheng and tell him that that chicken wire theory no longer is in play? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did you, did you tell Boyd Stephens, you talked to Boyd Stevens, correct? GROGAN: Yes. One time. GERAGOS: Okay. When you talked to Boyd Stephens, did you tell him about the chicken wire also? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: Objection. Beyond the scope of redirect. GERAGOS: She asked about the chicken wire. JUDGE: Yeah, I think so. I'm going to let him go on with it. GERAGOS: You told Boyd Stephens about the chicken wire theory as well, right? GROGAN: I asked him questions and given, gave him chicken wire as one possible scenario, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever call him back afterwards and say We no longer are following up on that, or We kind of disabused ourselves of that chicken wire theory? GROGAN: No, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. You've only spoken to him once; is that correct? To Boyd Stephens? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, one of the other things that you mentioned yesterday, I shouldn't say you mentioned it; Ms. Fladager asked you about was people correcting the, themselves? I think she asked you past tense to present tense; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, do you know what difference that makes if they've corrected themselves? GROGAN: Well, it, I guess if you correct yourself, again, it's the state of mind of whoever is speaking, but if you correct yourself, then I guess you realized that what you said is not, not what you wanted to say. GERAGOS: And that, is correcting yourself suspicious? Or is not correcting yourself suspicious? GROGAN: Well, it's, I guess it depends on the circumstances. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, I have Sharon Rocha's interview, and it appears to me that she goes from past tense to present tense in the same sentence. Does that qualify as correcting yourself? I was going to say she was, and then She's happy, which is present tense? GROGAN: Yes, it does say that. GERAGOS: Okay. So I mean certainly you don't think that it's suspicious, anything about Sharon Rocha's statement, because she corrected herself from past tense to present tense, do you? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you, I showed you the specific tip sheet that was 14751 that was a call from, that was a call from Marna Davis, who was a reporter, who said that Brent Rocha, that she thought it was odd that Brent Rocha spoke about his sister in the past tense, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you never listened to that interview, correct? GROGAN: No, I haven't. GERAGOS: So we don't know if Brent Rocha himself corrected himself from past to present there, correct? GROGAN: No, I don't know that. GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever watched any other people whose loved ones have gone missing speak about their loved ones on TV or in interviews? GROGAN: I'm sure I have. GERAGOS: Have you ever seen that that's, that that's something that happens sometimes? GROGAN: I would have to say it does happen sometimes, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then I think when I asked you about it you specifically said Well, it depends on at what point; you know, at a certain point you may lose hope, or things like that. The caller on Brent Rocha called in on, and this is 14751, she called in on 12/26, on the day after Christmas, and said that she thought it was odd that Brent was talking in the past tense, correct? GROGAN: That's true. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: That's what that says. GERAGOS: Yeah. Now, specifically the, I mean so ultimately that doesn't mean a whole lot of anything, does it? GROGAN: Probably not by itself, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, I mean even, even in context, or if you've got every single person, they've got Brent the day after Christmas, you've got Sharon correcting herself, you've got Amy in your own reports using the past tense and then using the future tense in the same sentence, and I mean that doesn't mean much, does it? GROGAN: Yeah; there's a lot that goes to it. It depends on, I guess, you, on how the question is worded, whether they're talking about events that happened in the past. There's a lot of factors to consider on something like that, yes. GERAGOS: One of the factors to consider was that Scott Peterson, by the time he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer was late January, correct? GROGAN: It was, yes. GERAGOS: Yeah, and he had already asked you whether or not you, in fact, he asked you in early January what you thought, you know, if she was still alive, and you had already told him that each day that you thought there was getting less and less hope of that, correct? GROGAN: Something very similar to that, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, yesterday Ms. Fladager was asking about whether Scott called and asked you about the investigation. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. If I'm not mistaken, did you say that it was once monthly that he was calling, on average, to ask about the investigation? GROGAN: I think that's what I said. It's, the options were weekly or monthly, and I'd say it's probably somewhere in between. GERAGOS: Okay. And, in actuality, Scott Peterson was talking to police every single day asking about the investigation? Let me, let me see if I can refresh your recollection. There's a volunteer center, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. What did Modesto PD do at that volunteer center? GROGAN: We did send a sergeant over there. GERAGOS: Every day, right? GROGAN: He was there for, yeah. I don't know when he started. I believe he was there almost every day. GERAGOS: Right. He was, and you gave him a name, I mean he had a name, obviously, when he came there; but you gave him even another name, which is called a liaison officer, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And the liaison officer, by definition, is to liaison between the person, or the public, and the police, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he was at the command center, he would go over there, presumably, every morning? That was part of what his function was, correct? GROGAN: Yes. His function was to be there. GERAGOS: Okay. And his function was to liaison? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And did you talk to him and ask if he talked to Scott on a daily basis? GROGAN: I spoke to him once, maybe more than that, and I don't know if he talked to him every day. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, certainly Scott would talk to you, and we went over all the conversations he had with you, correct? GROGAN: Have we gone over all of them? Is that – GERAGOS: Well, we went over quite a few of them, didn't we? GROGAN: Quite a few of them, yes. GERAGOS: And by my calculation it looks like, and you tell me if I'm wrong, that you and he spoke at least eleven times in the first ten days of her being missing, correct? I kind of did a little cheat sheet for myself. You can take a look at it and tell me if that looks like that's accurate, the number of times that you two talked. GROGAN: You counted eleven times in the first ten days, correct? GERAGOS: I think so. Did I count right? GROGAN: It's right in that area, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, wouldn't you say that he spent a total time with you of about, I don't know, I added it all up, but it looks to me like over ten hours' worth of time? GROGAN: That's possible. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you also, once the, the volunteer center was shut down, didn't he specifically, didn't you pick up calls where he would talk to Sergeant Cloward or call Sergeant Cloward? GROGAN: Did we pick them up on – GERAGOS: On the wiretap? GROGAN: On the wiretap. GERAGOS: Let me show you, see if this refreshes your recollection. I've got, I've got a call, what looks like calls to Sergeant Cloward on 1/13, January 13th, again on January 13th to Sharon Rocha, January 13th to Sharon, then we've got calls Sergeant Cloward on the 13th again, Sergeant Cloward on the 13th, Sergeant Cloward on the 14th. Those are all calls that are picked up on the wiretap, correct? GROGAN: Yes, it appears so. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, on the 14th you've got information that Scott is asking if Cloward can give him any direction, right? GROGAN: As far as the search? GERAGOS: Yeah. He states that the police department will give focus on the law enforcement stuff, such as tip lines and working with outside agencies, and Scott wanted to know what to do; get some direction from Cloward, correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. On the 11th he's calling Sharon Rocha and Sharon Rocha's informing him what Cloward is telling her, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. On the 12th, calls Sharon again and they talk about what's going on with the investigation; do they not? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: On the 13th he calls, Scott calls Brent Rocha, and he says, he says: I'm just wondering how much contact do you, do you have? What's going on with the investigation, or are they keeping you out of it; right? That's what Brent's asking Scott? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Brent's asking him about the investigation, did they ever follow-up on the van or did they, and Scott is saying They won't tell me a damn thing; right? GROGAN: That's what he's saying. GERAGOS: And Brent says They won't let you, um, they won't tell you anything, huh? And Scott says The only one that there's even kind of talking to, that they're even kind of talking to is Kim Peterson; right? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically on the 13th he calls Sergeant Cloward again, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Then he calls, on the 13th, Sharon Rocha again, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. They start talking about things that are going on in the investigation; calls Sharon Rocha back again on the 13th, talking about that, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So would it be, I think would you like to just say that, based upon what you were asked yesterday, that that was somewhat misleading about how much information Scott, what kind of contact Scott was having with trying to get information on the investigation? GROGAN: It does appear that he had contact with other individuals besides myself. At least Sergeant Cloward by phone. I can assume that he talked to, to Sergeant Steele at the volunteer center, but, GERAGOS: The liaison officer. And it does appear, at least now that you have got the full picture, that he was talking multiple times every single day with either representatives of the Modesto PD or making requests, including on January 6th when he made a request to talk to Chief Wasden and Chief Wasden turned him down, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Argumentative and compound. JUDGE: Overruled. GROGAN: That report does say that he tried to have contact with the chief, and he, the chief was unable to meet with him that day. GERAGOS: And that report was authored by you, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So then we get this idea that, well, let's estimate how often he was asking about the investigation, and the answer comes back is once a month, that certainly is not what was going on, correct? GROGAN: I'm not sure if the question was only directed at me or the police department in, in general. I don't remember how it was worded, but as far as, I was speaking mostly about my contacts. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, your contacts were at least, as we said, more than eleven times in that first ten days, correct? GROGAN: Yeah, it appears so. GERAGOS: And I could continue to go on and show you time after time in the, on the 14th, on the 15th, and just go page after page from the wiretap and show you yellow highlights, couldn't I? Of people that he talked to, that he asked about, specifically, the investigation? Has anybody ever done that with the wiretap information? GROGAN: No. I didn't look through that yesterday, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, isn't it a fair statement also that the, that you had told him early on that there were some things that you could tell him about the investigation and others that you couldn't? GROGAN: Yes. That's probably a fair statement. GERAGOS: Okay. And wasn't that one of the reasons for that was is that you were looking at him as a suspect, correct? I mean that's, you didn't tell, necessarily tell him that, but that was what was going on, right? GROGAN: Well, I didn't share details about the investigation with, you know, outside of law enforcement, for the most part. I would, I would talk a little bit in general, generalities. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, we also heard, and I'm not going to play it again for the jury, but let's put this in context how one time we heard this tape where he calls you up and he's asking about this, and then you say, you have some concern over his mental health at that point, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you were, you were concerned that, with this kind of whirlwind going around, that he was going to do something to himself; weren't you? GROGAN: I was asking him to find out what his mental state was, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And in that very same conversation then you tell him, basically you say you know what's happened, you make the accusation to him? I mean it wasn't exactly veiled, was it? I mean you let him know, you wanted to let him know that you thought that he did it, that he did this, right? GROGAN: Yes, I think that's clear in that conversation. GERAGOS: Okay. Would you expect at that point that he's going to come to you and ask for status reports? I mean is that, wouldn't that be something suspicious? Wouldn't you think that was odd behavior? GROGAN: Well, yeah, he may not feel quite as comfortable talking to me, GERAGOS: He's not going to be real warm and fuzzy with you, is he? GROGAN: Possibly not. GERAGOS: Okay. Possibly not? I mean, he's already told you and Brocchini the day after, when you're in Judge Ashley's chambers, that he's more than a little upset. He's already voiced his concerns. Then he's asking you, or coming to you and asking you for information and you're telling him basically We think you did it. Would you expect that he's going to call you up and say How's the investigation going at that point? I mean, that really wouldn't be a thing that you would expect somebody to do, would it? FLADAGER: Objection. Argumentative and compound. JUDGE: It's compound, sustained. GERAGOS: Okay. The, you then, on the 19th, you come in and do the search, right? The search warrant, 18th you actually come in and do the search warrant? GROGAN: Yes. In February. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, as I understand it, what's happened at that point is there's been, by the time the second search warrant happens, you've had two search warrants at his house, correct? GROGAN: No. We, we served one search warrant there on the 26th, and we didn't leave until the 27th. GERAGOS: Okay. Then you do another search warrant on the 18th? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And both times you searched not only his, his house but his warehouse, his storage locker, correct? GROGAN: Yes. We didn't, we did not include the warehouse in the 2/18 search warrant, but we did search a storage locker on that date yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. He had people on his front lawn with bullhorns, you know, calling him a murderer correct? You were aware of that? GROGAN: That happened at some point in the end of January, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Some people from the media were out there with bullhorns on his lawn, calling him a murderer; we had people breaking in, repeated break-ins into the house, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I know of two. GERAGOS: Okay. And we had somebody who rammed their truck into his warehouse, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. We had his automobiles, both seized, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. We had his, at some point, let's see, the 9th is when the, or the 8th I think is when the warehouse was bashed. We then have you show up for the second search warrant. In fact, one of the first things that was asked was Where is the dog, right? Somebody asked him, you know, We have, part of the search warrant on the 18th of February was to take hairs of the dog, right? GROGAN: Yes. I think, I think I asked him that. I'm not sure if it's one of the first things I asked, but, GERAGOS: One of his responses was What, are you going to impound my dog, too? GROGAN: He may have said that. I, I'd have to look at the transcript, or something. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the fact of the matter is that yesterday there was also some suggestion by Ms. Fladager that, I don't know, is there some distinction between answering questions and cooperation that you're aware of? She was asking questions about Well, was this question and answer, or was he volunteering. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You, specifically, and I think she said, she wanted to talk about the defendant's level of cooperation, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, you specifically would tell him that he did not have to participate in interviews, he was free to leave, and you would appreciate it if he would assist in the investigation; correct? GROGAN: That's what I told him on the 25th, yes, sir. GERAGOS: And he said he would stay and he wanted to help, right? GROGAN: That's what he said. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that, also there was some suggestion yesterday that this Internet research that you, that had been discovered at the warehouse, he's the one who told you about it, right? GROGAN: He, he did tell me about the, that he had been on the Internet in a conversation we had on December 25th, yes. GERAGOS: On December 25th, right? Before you had been to the, before you had actually been to the warehouse, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. He also told you something else; specifically didn't he tell you that the research, let's see if I've got it here. Didn't he tell you that the research was on the Internet? That the Internet research was over at the house? I mean over at the warehouse? I'm going to show you your notes. GROGAN: Okay. GERAGOS: 24064. Didn't he say Look, not only did I research it on the Internet, but the printout is over at my work? GROGAN: Yes, that's what those notes say. GERAGOS: Okay. That's in your notes. It doesn't make it into the report, though; is that correct? I didn't see it anywhere in the report. I saw it in the notes. GROGAN: It may not have. GERAGOS: Okay. But this idea yesterday that was suggested, or this intimation to the jury that somehow this thing was discovered during the search warrant, that wasn't correct, right? GROGAN: That it was discovered during the – GERAGOS: Well, it was discovered during the search warrant, but you knew about it going in. Before you froze the location you sat down with Scott, Scott told you Hey, at work I've got the printout for the research I did on the Internet? GROGAN: Yeah, it appears so. GERAGOS: Okay. It was not something, as was suggested yesterday, that happened Well, you know, he, he said it, but we had already seized the document over at the warehouse, right? That isn't how it happened. You knew it was there. That's one of the reasons you wanted to go to the warehouse, right? Because he told you about it. GROGAN: Well, in that first search warrant we wanted to go to the warehouse to try to verify some of the information that we had. And he had obviously told us about that research on the, on the Internet prior to that date, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, there was also some idea, or some suggestion, once again by Ms. Fladager yesterday, that, that somehow there was, there was something suspicious about being too cold to golf but going fishing; do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you now know, you didn't know at the time, but you now know, after this trial started, that Ron Grantski went fishing that same day, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Do you know, did you check what the difference in temperature was between the Bay area that day and Modesto? GROGAN: It may be somewhere in one of those binders there, but I don't know what the difference is, no, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Did, do you golf? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: I don't golf either, but golfers tell me when it's cold out and you swing and hit that ball, when it's real cold, that something happens when you, to you, similar to when you've got an aluminum bat with a ball. Do you know what that might be? Kind of a stinging action? GROGAN: Okay. I – GERAGOS: Never, anybody ever, did you ever inquire of anybody, any golfers – JUDGE: I don't think he's ever hit a golf ball. (Laughter) GERAGOS: Have you ever, have you ever talked to a golfer about whether or not they like to go golfing when it's 38 or 39 degrees out? GROGAN: No, sir. I don't know much about it. GERAGOS: Okay. So when we start talking about this idea that, wow, it's strange to go fishing but not golfing on a particular day, when we know that Ron Grantski went fishing that same day, and we don't know anything about golfing, neither you nor I do, maybe we're making some assumptions, huh? FLADAGER: Objection, your Honor. The form of the question. JUDGE: Argumentative. Sustained. GERAGOS: Well, now as you sit here, it may not be, now that you know Ron Grantski went fishing that same day, it may not seem all that suspicious, huh? GROGAN: The circumstances between the two events are a little different. GERAGOS: Well, the circumstances are that he didn't tell anybody he was going fishing until the middle of this trial, and Scott told everybody, including the police, he was going fishing within an hour, within five minutes of the police showing up, right? GROGAN: (No response) GERAGOS: Well, I'll ask it a different way. The circumstances are different in that, when Ron Grantski came up, the police thought that he was serious when he said it was a little bit fishy that you were going fishing, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So I, I would agree with you; the circumstances are different. The, specifically also yesterday there seemed to be some kind of indication, by Ms. Fladager, that, she asked you a series of questions: What was the price range of this house that Laci was looking at. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that, that this house was 400 to 600 thousand; homes in that range, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then the next question was and she wanted to stop working, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Something like that. GERAGOS: And then somehow all of this was going to come crashing down: She wanted to stop working, she was going to have a baby, and, and she wanted a more expensive house, and this was, I mean the suggestion, at least to you, is there a working theory that Scott decided he was going to off Laci, FLADAGER: Objection. Argumentative. GERAGOS: I'm asking him what his theory is. JUDGE: I know, but I'm going to sustain the objection. GERAGOS: Is there a theory that you had that, because she wanted a nicer house and she was going to stop working, that therefore that was going to cause Scott to be the motivation to kill her? Is that your theory? GROGAN: No. I think that could add to motive. GERAGOS: That could add to motive. But at that time did you understand that Laci was going to get one third of the sale of the house? To the tune of a hundred and sixty thousand bucks? You didn't know that at that time, did you? GROGAN: At what time, sir? GERAGOS: Well, early on in this investigation, as you're focusing on Scott Peterson, you've got this theory that, because she wanted a new house, God forbid that a wife wants a better house, that that's – FLADAGER: Objection. Argumentative. GERAGOS: going to, I'll strike that. JUDGE: It is argumentative, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Did you know at that point that she was due to get a hundred and sixty thousand dollars as her share of the proceeds? JUDGE: Of what? Of what? So he knows what you're talking about. GERAGOS: On the proceeds of the sale of the house? GROGAN: My understanding of that is that she could receive that money and that that was up to the attorney that was covering the estate for her grandparents. And there were several people that had to agree that, that the house would be sold and where that money would go to. GERAGOS: Okay. Was it your understanding also that she just inherited a good deal of jewelry? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. That you estimated, at least in the reports, to be worth upwards of a hundred thousand dollars? GROGAN: I think there was an estimate by the jewelers, and it was substantial. Somewhere between fifty and a hundred thousand. GERAGOS: Right. Do you think that maybe if she had sold a substantial amount of that jewelry, if she had gotten that hundred and sixty thousand dollars as her share of the house, and they had sold their house in Modesto with whatever equity they had in it, would that have been such a financial drain to then move to a house in the 400 to 600 thousand dollar range? GROGAN: Well, there's several, there's several other factors that go with that. I don't know if Laci was aware of what was going to happen with the house sale and whether she was going to get that money or not. GERAGOS: Do you know why it was, GROGAN: And I know that, I think even with that, I mean there's people that could speak to it better than me, she wouldn't receive anything until she was 30 years old. GERAGOS: But the, do you know why it was that, in May, that she decided to look for another house outside the area? GROGAN: Do I know why? GERAGOS: Yeah. GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Did, did it occur that if the, she was trying to get pregnant in May that that would have been the time that she was looking for a new house? GROGAN: There was some information that she wanted a new home that came from someone, and I can't recall right now. GERAGOS: Okay. Came from Sharon Rocha, too; correct? GROGAN: I think you're right. GERAGOS: Okay. And it also came from the tip line, from the real estate broker who Laci actually talked to? GROGAN: I did see that document from the real estate broker, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The document was a, they actually had a file that they opened up, and she called the tip line and told you about it, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I think, I think the source of that's a tip. I don't recall for sure. GERAGOS: Now, the other thing she asked you, part of this theory or equation was Laci planned to stay at home or be a stay-at-home mom; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: She wasn't planning on working, right? GROGAN: Yes. I think that came from more than one source. GERAGOS: Okay. Can you tell me, can you tell me how much did she earn in the year 2000 and 2? GROGAN: I'm sorry, I have no idea. GERAGOS: About six thousand dollars, wasn't it? GROGAN: I have no idea. GERAGOS: Scott had just gotten a raise that exceeded that, didn't he? GROGAN: I don't know. You'd have to talk to – GERAGOS: Well, if this was part of the working theory as to that there was some kind of financial pressures, wouldn't you want to know how much she had earned in the year 2002, how much Scott had earned and what he was scheduled to earn in 2003, so you could see whether or not these financial pressures actually played a part in any of this? GROGAN: Well, I think even excluding that, and based on the information we had about the losses in the business, that still, the financial pressures still, arguably, exist. GERAGOS: Well, have you listened to the testimony in this trial on the financial pressures? GROGAN: Very, very little of it. GERAGOS: Okay. Have you talked to any of those witnesses since they were made aware of what the realities were? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: All right. Now, the, there was a question to you about, and there were two pictures that were shown yesterday about Scott doing an interview with Brocchini; do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that somehow he knew Laci's cell phone password? Did I get that right? GROGAN: Yeah. There was a question about that, and I remember watching on the video that he was able to access her, her voice mails somehow. Or his voice mail. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Through that phone. GERAGOS: Okay. Was that suspicious? That a husband knows his wife's cell phone password? GROGAN: I don't know. My, I don't know my wife's password, but I'm not sure she even has voice mail. (Laughter)*** GERAGOS: Is that suspicious that she doesn't have voice mail? GROGAN: That my wife doesn't? GERAGOS: Yeah. Are you suspicious about that? That she doesn't have voice mail? GROGAN: No, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you tell me he was wearing brown trousers and a blue shirt and he put that in the hamper, right? You were shown a picture yesterday, GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: about, People's 7, correct? And specifically the brown trousers and the blue shirt, correct? GROGAN: Yes. It appears consistent with what's in that, that video. GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: Obviously they don't – GERAGOS: When was this picture taken? GROGAN: I think that's on the 26th/27th search warrant. GERAGOS: Okay. Which would have been after the interview with Brocchini, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. So right now we can assume that if these are his shirt and his trousers, sometime after he wore them he put them in the hamper? GROGAN: That would be my guess, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Is that suspicious? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Then we got a, and I don't know where People's 10 is. Here it is. The, we were, this was passed around to the jury to show that maybe this picture here – JUDGE: You want to identify it for the record? GERAGOS: This is quadruple O. That maybe what that shows is that the sleeve was like this; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically that it would have been inside-out; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. When you turn this inside-out, what's one of the things that you notice about it? GROGAN: The, there is a black like, I think you call it a bodice, GERAGOS: Okay. GROGAN: in, inside. Doesn't include the sleeves, but it goes through the body portion of the shirt. GERAGOS: Okay. Is it suspicious that somebody, if they take off their blouse, that they, and they put it in the hamper, and as far as we know, by the way, all we see is something that looks like a hem, correct? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Do we know if that's the hem, and I'll show you, hold it up to the light. Do you see the hem coming through? There's a window that's right next to there, correct? GROGAN: There is off to the left-hand side of that photograph. GERAGOS: Okay. When I hold this up to the window you can see that hem, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. GERAGOS: Okay. Do we know if you're seeing it like this? Or do we know if you're seeing it like this, as I've got it, inside-out? You can't really tell, can you? GROGAN: I can't say for sure. The line does look dark there like it's possibly inside-out. GERAGOS: Possibly. But you can't say for sure because you certainly don't see what's right here in that picture, right? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And that would be the, that would be the edge of the fabric where it was sewn together, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I don't, I don't see that there. GERAGOS: And frankly, the officer who searched that hamper, which was Coyle, doesn't have any memory of it whatsoever, correct? GROGAN: No, I don't think so. GERAGOS: Right. So now, or sometime two years later, we're supposed to speculate as to whether or not it was inside-out and that has some relationship to this case? GROGAN: I'm sorry, the question is? GERAGOS: Whether it was inside or out, does that, does that, did that factor into your theory early on in this case? GROGAN: Did it factor into it on the 26th/27th? Absolutely not. We didn't know that that shirt had anything to do with anything. And then later, when we were trying to, after the February search warrant, we found it in a drawer, we were just trying to establish if, if it was inside-out or not. Prior to that. GERAGOS: Inside-out prior to you finding it in the drawer in February, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically, as I said, as you sit here as the investigating officer, we can't tell whether that's inside or out; and we really don't know whether or not it was inside-out on that date and whether it was inside-out when it was put in the drawer and who put it from the hamper into the drawer, do we? We don't know any of that, do we? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Then there was this picture that was shown you yesterday. 37 double C. Haven't we at this point, after four months, gotten to the point where we've gotten beyond the rags on top of the washer and dryer? FLADAGER: Objection. Vague and argumentative. JUDGE: Well, it's argumentative. Sustained. GERAGOS: Okay. I, the rags provide no evidence, forensic evidence, correct? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And if I'm, if I'm mistaken, please correct me. Weren't these what originally spurred the suspicion of the, one of the things that spurred the suspicion of the officers on the evening of the 24th? GROGAN: Yes, I think so. GERAGOS: Okay. Because they thought that the rags were used by Scott to clean up a crime scene, correct? Or that was one of the suspicions? GROGAN: That was a suspicion, I believe, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then it was later confirmed that Margarita Nava had actually cleaned the house, put those things inside the washer and dryer, correct? Or inside the washer, correct? GROGAN: Yes. She used the rags, and I believe she put them in the washer. GERAGOS: Okay. And then Scott has said that he took them out when he put in his clothes that he had worn when he went fishing, right? GROGAN: I believe he told that to Detective Brocchini, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Is there any reason that you can think of now, in hindsight, as to why this is suspicious? GROGAN: It does seem odd that he decided to do his laundry at that time, under the circumstances. GERAGOS: Given the fact that he had just gotten back from fishing and he puts his clothes in the washing machine? He's been in a boat in the Bay? Does that seem odd? GROGAN: It does, it does seem odd that he comes home, he finds that Laci's not there, that the dog has the leash attached, and that's one of the things he decides to do. GERAGOS: Okay. Does the, does it seem odd that he might have come home and assumed that she would have been over at her parents' house or somewhere else and that he wanted to get out of the clothes that were damp and take a shower and then become progressively more concerned? Isn't that just as reasonable an explanation for what happened? GROGAN: That's one scenario. I don't know if it's as reasonable. GERAGOS: Certainly reasonable, isn't it? Whether it's as reasonable in your mind, it's certainly reasonable? GROGAN: It's a possible scenario. GERAGOS: All right. Now, the, there was also some questions that you were asked yesterday about this theory that she was, that Laci was not walking. There was, there was an indication at some point in this investigation, in fact, I believe at the beginning of this case, the suggestion was is that she didn't walk after the end of November? Wasn't that the position of the investigators? Namely, you? GROGAN: There's several parts to that question, but I think we did receive information from her medical records early on in the investigation that suggested there was a possibility she wasn't walking. And then we had, we had the information from, from people that she had spoken to that said she got ill while she was on walks, and then we didn't have anyone that really had seen her walking recently. GERAGOS: Well, you had, specifically, Kristen Reed telling Brocchini that Laci was very specific about the conversations she had, that she walked on a regular basis, She told me she was going down to the park, I always kind of cautioned her, you know, gosh, neighbor I haven't jogged down there by myself for years, and she says, You know, I've got the dog and I just walk and I'm all right. Isn't that what Reed told Brocchini? GROGAN: Yes. That's what was said in September of 2003. GERAGOS: Right. And then she said right after Thanksgiving, it was the very first part of December, she said She was back, you know, trying to because she was really concerned about her weight, because she had gained so much weight with the pregnancy; correct? GROGAN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: Okay. And she also said that She always walked McKenzie with her because it was a safety feature, she didn't let him off the leash because she couldn't control him like Scott could; correct? GROGAN: That's what it says, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You also had the Yoga teacher telling you, at least initially, before she changed her story, that, FLADAGER: Objection. Argumentative. GERAGOS: That isn't argumentative. It's demonstrable that she's changed her – JUDGE: Yeah, she did change her story. GERAGOS: Wolski told you originally that on 12/4 Laci had mentioned she had gone for a walk, she had been dizzy, she said she had shortened her walks, and that Wolski had suggested she drink more water, right? GROGAN: That she told her on that date about a walk that she had taken in late November, I think is what that says. GERAGOS: Okay. And that she had shortened her walks and that Wolski suggested she drink more water, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you had also, on December 30th, a specific interview with Ron and Sharon in which Ron and Sharon told you that her daily routine was to walk, correct? GROGAN: That was my understanding on that date, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in addition to that, you said yesterday, Ms. Fladager asked you Oh, didn't you provide a correction to that report? Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Can you tell me when was the correction to that report? The original interview was it looks like on December 29th, and you're told that Laci's daily routine is to walk the dog every day or every second day, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And isn't it true that the corrected report took place after this trial, after jury selection had already begun in this trial, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Sharon then said that the only information she was providing was information that she had from Scott, correct? GROGAN: In, yes, in, as far as what Laci was doing on the 24th of December, she said that she only knew that based on what the defendant had said. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, she also told you in another interview that she was aware Laci had planned to walk that day and to bake gingerbread cookies, correct? GROGAN: That may be the same interview. Isn't it? GERAGOS: You tell me. I don't know. GROGAN: Yes. That's the December 30 interview. GERAGOS: Okay. Sharon was asked to make a correction on the report back in January of oh four, correct? She was advised because she testified at the preliminary hearing, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And did she make that correction that she made in May, back in January? GROGAN: In this, this interview with Detective Bertalotto, that's not a correction that was made that day, no. GERAGOS: Okay. I assume what you do, what you do when you make corrections is you hand the witness a report that's been filled out based upon the interview, have them review it, correct? GROGAN: I'm not sure how, how many of her reports she was given at that time. I wasn't there for that meeting. GERAGOS: Okay. The report that I just showed you, Bertalotto's report, specifically was about walking the dog, correct? GROGAN: That one, one portion of it, yes. GERAGOS: Yes. And that's specifically what your correction in May was about, correct? GROGAN: Yes. I think the correction that I wrote had to do with what Laci was doing on the 24th. GERAGOS: Now, specifically, you also had indicated that you couldn't find a white bucket, a white plastic bucket, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Now, this is the white plastic bucket that Scott told you that he used to make the anchor, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And did you ask him what he did with the plastic bucket? GROGAN: You know, I didn't. GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever used a plastic bucket to do cement work in it? GROGAN: I think I've, I have poured left-over cement into five gallon buckets before. I've never actually made anything intentionally in a bucket, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Are you aware that one of the ways that you, after the cement sets, that you remove the bucket is to just, especially if it's a plastic bucket, just to tear it off? GROGAN: Well, you certainly can't do that with a five gallon bucket, and I'm not sure you could do that with, with this, these type of buckets either. GERAGOS: We have it here; but you bought one at Home Depot, correct? GROGAN: I bought a few of them, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you're telling me as you sit here, you've never tried it but you're not sure whether or not you could just break that off of the, the cement after it had set? Is that what you're saying? GROGAN: I would be surprised if you could just break that with your hands. GERAGOS: The plastic bucket? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically there was also this idea of the boat cover that you found, you were asked that again. The boat cover being at the house, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And once again, I just want to ask you, wasn't that boat cover tested? GROGAN: Yes, it was. GERAGOS: Okay. And when the boat cover that was tested, gasoline leaking or no gasoline leaking, there was no blood, no urine, no feces, no tissue, nothing on there except miscellaneous debris, correct? GROGAN: Well, it does, it indicates some other things that were found here. Just dirt debris, fibers, partial hairs. GERAGOS: Okay. Was there absolutely anything of any evidentiary value found on that boat cover? GROGAN: Not to my knowledge, nothing. GERAGOS: Okay. JUDGE: All right, Mr. Geragos. Let's take the morning recess until five minutes to 11:00, okay? Remember the admonition I've heretofore given you. And then I want to stay in session after the jury leaves because I want to know about, if there's some tapes you're going to play. GERAGOS: Just one. JUDGE: One tape. Okay. You guys can go ahead. I just got to hear about this tape JUDGE: All right. The record show the jury's filed out for the morning recess. Mr. Geragos, excuse me, you have Raffi here now, and are you going to be showing a tape? And a tape of what? Or video of what? GERAGOS: He keeps doing this (gesturing). JUDGE: What's that mean? GERAGOS: He says he's got everything ready. JUDGE: Okay. And how many tapes have you got, for the record here? You've got one tape, and this is going to be impeaching the testimony, GERAGOS: Four and a half minutes. NALJIAN: With transcripts on the screen. JUDGE: With transcripts on the screen. And this is going to be a tape of a phone call between – GERAGOS: Want me to have him just play it for you? JUDGE: Yeah. Why don't you just play it. If it just takes four and a half minutes, I might as well look at it. I'll just look at it. FLADAGER: Do that in chambers? JUDGE: What? FLADAGER: After the break, in chambers? JUDGE: Well, I tell you what. It's so much easier just to do it out here. If you want I'll clear the courtroom, if you want. FLADAGER: I might object to it. It's not even a conversation with this officer, doesn't relate to the questions I asked this specific officer. JUDGE: Well, let's ask if it's a conversation between this officer and the defendant. DISTASO: You know, Judge, the only thing about that is I'm pretty sure this was already played with Investigator Jacobson. GERAGOS: There was one Aja that was played. JUDGE: We did play one. HARRIS: This is the second. JUDGE: We did play one. Is this a conversation between your client and this witness? GERAGOS: Aja. We go into the request on Longview, Washington. Which is – DISTASO: Yeah, that's February, like, 2nd or 3rd. JUDGE: Did we play – DISTASO: I think we already played it. GERAGOS: No, there was two, two phone calls. JUDGE: Well, if you can play it on the computer, I can look at it in chambers, right? GERAGOS: Right. JUDGE: All right. Well, let's go into chambers and I'll take a look at it. And if you want to make any objections, we'll bring the court reporter in and you can make your objections on the record and I'll rule on it. JUDGE: All right. This is People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show these proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury. And the defendant is present with counsel. The Court has viewed the tape of the conversation between the defendant and Detective Aja. And my understanding is the District Attorney has no objection if the matter is played on the recross examination to Detective Grogan. FLADAGER: That's correct. JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Geragos, how much longer will you be with Detective Grogan? Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: I'm sorry, judge. JUDGE: How much longer will you be with this witness? GERAGOS: Just trying to figure that out. JUDGE: Can you give me a clue? GERAGOS: Before noon. JUDGE: Before noon. One minute to twelve, right? Okay. Because we have other witnesses. You have other witnesses standing by? FLADAGER: Yes, they are. JUDGE: Okay. Let's bring the jury back. JUDGE: All right, let the record show the jury is in the jury box, along with alternates. The defendant is present with counsel. Go ahead, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thanks, judge. Could I have just one second? GERAGOS: You were asked also yesterday about this Longview, Washington, situation. GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And you and I went over the fact yesterday about, before Miss Fladager asked you about it as to whether or not Scott had asked you, correct? Did ask you about it? We went over that, right? GROGAN: Yes. He asked me about that on February 18th. GERAGOS: Right. And specifically you went over the fact that he had, was that on a telephone call? GROGAN: No. That was during a conversation at his home during the second search warrant. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically I think you were asked yesterday by Miss Fladager, did he ever come to the police department to try to view it. He had asked you, correct? We went over that. He asked you. You said that you hadn't seen it, but you had it on good authority that it wasn't her, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. If somebody comes to the Police Department, do you encourage people to just show up to the Police Department and insist on viewing things? GROGAN: Generally need to call first and make sure someone is around to take care of something like that. GERAGOS: Now, specifically I have got a, you are familiar that he did call Lieutenant Aja, right? GROGAN: Yes, I have been made aware of that. GERAGOS: And you are familiar with the fact that when he called Lieutenant Aja, he specifically asked to listen, right? GROGAN: To look at those tapes. GERAGOS: To look at the tapes and view them, correct? JUDGE: Before you play it, let's mark it next in order, 283, and transcript. GERAGOS: 283? JUDGE: It's 283. You want to mark it as a defense exhibit? GERAGOS: Right. JUDGE: Be defense exhibit, got to find the book here JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this is a phone conversation, so you will see it. There won't be a transcript. You will see it projected on the board JUDGE: What was the date of this phone call? GROGAN: I'm not sure, your Honor. GERAGOS: I'll find it. Do you have the date? It's a February 3rd date. JUDGE: February 3rd? GERAGOS: February 3rd at 1533. GERAGOS: Now, the, specifically before that call from Aja on February 3rd at about, looks like, what, 3:00 o'clock Scott had called over to Modesto PD and reached a woman by the name of Juliana; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's when he left the message specifically requesting Lieutenant Aja to call him back, so that he left a voicemail message? GROGAN: Yes, appears so. GERAGOS: That he said he didn't trust anyone other than himself to review the tapes? GROGAN: That's what it says, yes. GERAGOS: And did anybody ever call him back, specifically did you ever call him back to tell him you had the tapes there, he could review them? GROGAN: Did I? No, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically, he asked you on the, this was on the third with Aja. And did he, on the 18th, ask you at the house? GROGAN: Yes. We talked about those tapes, and I think he asked to see them. GERAGOS: Okay. And you never allowed him to see the tapes, correct? GROGAN: At the time I didn't know if we had them yet or not. Detective Buehler was in contact with Longview, Washington, folks. And we were told that there was nothing on the tape that even matched what the lady had said originally. GERAGOS: Did you ever look at the tape? GROGAN: Did I ever look at it? No. GERAGOS: Did Lieutenant Aja, to your knowledge? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Did Detective Buehler, to your knowledge? GROGAN: I don't know if he did or not. GERAGOS: Okay. As far as you know, nobody from Modesto PD has ever looked at it; is that correct? GROGAN: Not that I know for certain, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, and it is certainly not in the report in any of the 42,000 pages, correct? GROGAN: I don't know if it is or not. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically we have got this issue yesterday, you were asked again by Miss Fladager about Ann Bird, and that she said all these things were statements of Peterson, that Scott had told Ann, that told you that the majority of them were. That's not accurate, is it? GROGAN: I think I tried to parse that out and say only there was some statements in there that are attributed to Scott, and there are some statements that Ann made about separate things that were her own observations. GERAGOS: You interviewed her, specifically I thought we went there, that when I started questioning you, you specifically asked her about Thanksgiving and what had happened to Disneyland, and her observations, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: They specifically told you that Laci was being pampered by Scott. That was her impression. That was wasn't what Scott was telling her, right? GROGAN: That's what I recall, yes. GERAGOS: And all of the, I mean there is 35 pages in this interview. I'm not going to go over all of it. A good portion of this interview are Anne Bird's observations of what happened at Disneyland on the Thanksgiving holidays, correct? GROGAN: We did talk about that, yes, sir. GERAGOS: And when you talked about that, she specifically was telling you what her observations were? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. She wasn't saying Scott told me that when I was at Disneyland. This is what I saw, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, you also had indicated yesterday, put it up here again. JUDGE: That's been marked already. That's the trunk? GERAGOS: Yeah, D7O-2. Okay. Now, yesterday I don't know what was being suggested; but this says Ducot down here, correct? GROGAN: Yes, it does. GERAGOS: Okay. And this is Ducot herself right there, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the defense didn't go in and take pictures there, right? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: So that's a secure police area, right? You, presumably if you got evidence in there, you didn't let the public come in, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Every time I want to see any evidence, I got to give you a list. I go to the place. You bring it out one item at a time, whatever. Then these are photos that were produced, or that were taken by somebody at Modesto PD, right? GROGAN: Yes. They have to be taken by someone from Modesto Police Department. GERAGOS: Okay. All of these pictures that we have had hundreds and hundreds of pictures that have been marked here during this case, and they have all got various markings down below here. That I assume, I would before assuming all along FLADAGER: Objection, your Honor. GERAGOS: What's the objection? FLADAGER: To suggest there are numbers at the bottom of all these photographs, because there are not. Some of them have – GERAGOS: For the Modesto PD photographs, there are numbers on the bottom, are there not? GROGAN: When you pull them up with, on the computer there are numbers on the bottom. GERAGOS: Okay. Then these are printed out on a color printer, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And generally what you do is, there is a date presumably they are taken on, the person who takes them, and then a number on there that just indicates what number of that particular roll or digital output is being taken, right? FLADAGER: Objection. Calls for speculation by this witness as to how those numbers are placed on the photograph. JUDGE: Okay. If he knows. Do you know how the numbers get placed on the photographs? GROGAN: Your Honor – JUDGE: You have said when they come out of the computer. They are assigned a number? GROGAN: I know what the end result is that what we have in the computer has those dates on it. I don't know about the numbers off to the side. And I know it gets downloaded at Modesto Police Department, that the entire process, how all that works I don't know. JUDGE: You don't know. All right. GERAGOS: Is there any suggestion whatsoever, I don't know if that was being suggested this way, that any of these photos are anything but Modesto PD photos, the ones that have been produced in this trial. Have you seen any photo here that looked to you to be fabricated, or not be a Modesto PD photo, any of the exhibits? GROGAN: Well, I. GERAGOS: Of the ones you have seen. GROGAN: I have seen some photographs that were printed out off of videotape or that sort of thing also. But – GERAGOS: All these exhibits that we have been playing around with for whatever number of months, aren't these the photos that come from Modesto PD? GROGAN: This one, for instance, I don't know if this is a Modesto PD photograph or not. GERAGOS: And this is a photograph that you have already identified as D7G. It's how it looked outside of the house on the day of the search warrant on February 18th. That's an accurate photo, correct, in terms of how it looked? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Okay. All of the other photos that have been marked that have the either Brocchini's name, or Ducot's name, or B Smith's name, those are photos that appear to you to be Modesto-PD-produced, correct? GROGAN: Well, I haven't been here when all of those photos were marked. I would have to guess at that, sir. But I know that we do have something like 5,000 photographs in this case. GERAGOS: Okay. And you, then those photographs are given to Modesto PD, to the prosecution, and who then gives them over to me, right? GROGAN: Yes. Other than photographs taken by other agencies, and that sort of thing. There was different circumstances for that. GERAGOS: Specifically Miss Fladager asked you yesterday about the East Bay Regional people, Frazer and Phillips. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Now, she asked you if it was in a report about the smell of decomposition. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, there was a specifically an e-mail that was produced. Did anybody ever show you this e-mail? GROGAN: No, I have never seen that. GERAGOS: Okay. And that purports – FLADAGER: Your Honor, I'd object if the witness hasn't seen – JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: You have never seen an e-mail that describes Frazer's and Phillips' own observations. FLADAGER: Objection. JUDGE: Getting around the objection. Sustained. The jury can disregard it. GERAGOS: Did anybody, you were present when they were interviewed, correct? You talked about that? GROGAN: When you interviewed them upstairs, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Right. And specifically Officer Phillips said that the bag and the body, Target bag and the body had the same smell, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you also had mentioned, Miss Fladager asked you, did the cadaver dog alert on it, right? GROGAN: Yes, she did. GERAGOS: Okay. You said no, right? GROGAN: Based on the report that I was reading, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The cadaver dog did alert on some of the fabric pieces, did it not, that were also found on the shoreline? GROGAN: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. GERAGOS: Okay. As you sit here, did anybody, are you aware of, at any point in the investigation, you knowing at a certain point that the cadaver dog had alerted on some of these pieces of fabric? GROGAN: I don't know that, no, sir. GERAGOS: Let me show you 17054. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not the cadaver dog alerted on a piece of fabric that was 528 feet north of the scene where Laci's body was found? GROGAN: Yes, I see that in here. GERAGOS: Okay. Did anybody ever ask that that fabric be sent to DOJ for any kind of analysis? GROGAN: Not to my knowledge. GERAGOS: Now, there was also this time period that Miss Fladager was asking you about yesterday. Do you remember that? 10:08 to 10:18? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: You are aware that originally Karen Servas said she was sure they picked up the dog with the leash at 10:30, correct? GROGAN: I know that's the time she originally reported. I don't know about the word "sure". GERAGOS: Okay. Well, she said she had checked her watch; isn't that what she said? And it was 10:30, right? GROGAN: I don't recall that. GERAGOS: She never, do you remember when it was that she then said, or changed it to 10:18? GROGAN: Do I remember when? GERAGOS: Yes. Do you remember when that was? GROGAN: I think, well, she did that obviously after the initial report. And I'm not sure of the date. GERAGOS: Okay. That would have been some time after we had all of these sightings that you have now, or at least a good portion of the sightings that were up right here on the People's Exhibit 267; isn't that correct? GROGAN: It would have been, yes. Slightly after at least some of those. GERAGOS: The great majority of them, because I believe most of these came in early on in that first couple of days; isn't that correct? GROGAN: I would probably agree with you, if we went into like the first week of January, or somewhere in there, that most of those probably do. GERAGOS: So at that time, at least, the only information you had was that Karen Servas had picked up the dog at 10:30, and that Scott had said that he left the house about or around 9:30; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So you had the one-hour window which you were dealing with on when these calls that are right here came in, the most, or the e majority of them. I don't want to misstate it. But the majority of them, when you initially were investigating this case, it was a one-hour window that you were working on, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this 10:08 only came about, JUDGE: 10:18? GERAGOS: 10:08. The moving the 9:30 to 10:08 came about because some time, six or seven months later, you got some phone records, correct? GROGAN: I'm not sure of the time period. It was later, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Was substantially after the time that this case had been investigated and Scott was arrested. It was not before May that you started to formulate this theory about 10:08, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Compound and argumentative. GERAGOS: I'll break it down. JUDGE: Break it down. GERAGOS: You didn't have 10:08 prior to the arrest, right? GROGAN: I think you are correct in that, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. 10:08 became this theory by Jacobson that when he's driving – FLADAGER: Objection. Argumentative. GERAGOS: This isn't argumentative. JUDGE: You are trying to ask him to read Jacobson's mind. GERAGOS: I'll ask him. GERAGOS: Where did you get 10:08? GROGAN: From an analysis of those records and what I was told by those that did that. GERAGOS: Okay. So you, that was what moved from 9:30 or 9:45 over to 10:08, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Are you aware that the 10:08 time is conditional on this idea that you are using the cell sites and voicemail retrieval. And are you familiar with any of that, the background into that? GROGAN: I would think that most everybody in here knows more about that than I do at this point. GERAGOS: Isn't it a fair statement, if that's the case, if this voicemail retrieval and the 10:08 is not accurate, if that, in fact, does not reflect Scott moving, that the only thing that you do know at this point after this trial has started is that Martha Stewart, or a comment about meringue was on Martha Stewart; is that correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. JUDGE: It is several questions. GERAGOS: Let me ask you this. The one thing that you know for sure about the start time is that the Martha Stewart tape, you now have a Martha Stewart tape, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you are reasonably certain that there is now a mention of meringue on that tape, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that happened somewhere at about 9:45, 9:46, right in there; isn't that correct? GROGAN: 9:48, I think. GERAGOS: Depending on whether the commercials, or what commercials are shown, correct? GROGAN: I don't know. GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the one thing that you do know, because obviously, in order to know that there was a meringue, somebody would have had to have heard those words before leaving, correct? GROGAN: Well, are you saying that, I don't know about the, about the other records, because I still have that information. GERAGOS: Well, I think you were very candid in saying that practically everybody in this room knows more about the 10:08. The jury has heard. We have heard all of the testimony regarding that. I'm not going to relive it. I just asked you what you know now, in the middle of the trial, is that, or at least after the opening statement, is that meringue was mentioned at a portion of the tape, correct? GROGAN: I know that meringue is mentioned at a portion of the tape, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you also know that you are basing 10:18 on Karen Servas. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Karen Servas is basing 10:18 on an Austin's Store, Austin's receipt, correct? GROGAN: Yes. And I think some other factors that, she retraced basically her activities that day. GERAGOS: Working backwards from a receipt that said 10:34 from Austin's, correct? GROGAN: I think that's the right time, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did anybody ever go in, or actually I know the answer to this. They went in, somebody went into Austin's in September of 2003, correct, to talk to Bill Austin about the timing on that machine, the cash register; is that right? FLADAGER: Your Honor, I object at this point in terms of going really far beyond the scope. GERAGOS: It's not beyond the scope to question about the 10:08 to 10:18, what investigation he did to bracket the 10:18 time? GROGAN: I don't think he went to Austin's. I would have to find out if this was part of his investigation that he determined. GERAGOS: That's what I would, JUDGE: I'm going to overrule the objection then. GERAGOS: Did you do anything to determine whether Austin's accurately, the time accurately was printed? GROGAN: Did I personally? No. GERAGOS: Did you direct somebody, or were you aware of an investigation being done about that? GROGAN: I think someone went out there. I can't tell you who or when. GERAGOS: Now, you also mentioned that there was a pillow missing; is that correct? Pillowcase missing? GROGAN: That is noted in the 2-18 search warrant. GERAGOS: I'm going to show you a series of photos. JUDGE: Have they been marked already? GERAGOS: No. JUDGE: Mark them Defendant's next in order. That would be Defendant's 8A. Quadruple, no, Double Quadruple A. Defendant's 8A. How many photographs? GERAGOS: Hold on, judge. I'm going to see if I can, JUDGE: 8A GERAGOS: Two photos. JUDGE: One and two. . GERAGOS: Does this appear to be photos that were taken by Doug Lovell on December 24? GROGAN: That's what it says at the bottom. GERAGOS: Do you see any pillowcases missing from the pillows? GROGAN: Not that I can tell, no. GERAGOS: Doug Lovell was the first Modesto PD Crime Scene Technician who was called to the scene? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Also asked you about the. JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, just a second. Since there was no objection, might as well, since the District Attorney didn't object to the Aja tape, we played that to the jury. Might as well put it in evidence. GERAGOS: That's fine. JUDGE: Okay. Exhibit D7Z Admitted in Evidence. GERAGOS: Now, specifically, the, at the time that you were doing this investigation of the witnesses, did you ask them, or did you do any investigation regarding the 9:30 to 10:30? GROGAN: During the time these tips were coming, is that your question? GERAGOS: That's my question, yes. GROGAN: I think, you know, the initial information went out at 9:30 to the media when Laci first disappeared. And we had 10:30 with Karen Servas and her initial estimate of what time she left. GERAGOS: Miss – GROGAN: I think that was reported as well. GERAGOS: Miss Fladager asked you about Grace Wolf, and asked you if Grace Wolf had ever called law enforcement; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And Miss Wolf made a statement. Specifically she said that the reason she was hesitant to call the police is because they were discrediting anyone who claimed they saw Laci; isn't that correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance, lack of foundation, and hearsay. GERAGOS: Relevance? FLADAGER: Hearsay. JUDGE: It's not irrelevant. And it's not, again, being offered for the truth. It's being offered to explain his conduct. Objection is overruled. Is that what you found out from her? GERAGOS: Isn't what Grace Wolf said? GROGAN: This is what she told investigator, an investigator at one point, with Mr. Gary Ermoian. GERAGOS: Miss Fladager was asking you yesterday about things from Gary Ermoian's report, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: The one thing that wasn't mentioned is that the reason that she was hesitant to call the police is that they were discrediting anyone who claimed they saw Laci, right? GROGAN: That's what that report says. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically there was also recently, I just received recently, I guess not so recently, April, there was another gentleman who came forward who said that he had read where in the Modesto Bee, the prosecutors had intended to present evidence that Laci was not walking her dog during two months before she went missing, right? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: And that he had seen Laci walking her dog on Encina approximately five times, right, starting after October 15th? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that the last time he saw her walk by was approximately two weeks before Christmas, right? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: And that he didn't want to be a witness. He didn't even want to be fronted in the media, right? GROGAN: That's what it says. GERAGOS: Okay. And he was somebody who apparently did know her and recognized her, correct? GROGAN: I didn't see that. I haven't read that report, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm not going to go through every one of the 41 sightings. But is it a fair statement that there wasn't a whole lot of investigation done regarding people in this area who say they saw Laci on the 24th? GROGAN: As far as beyond the initial information that they called in with, it is fair to say that a few of those people were contacted, ones that telephoned in early on; and others remained as tips with the information that they provided and the description they provided. And that was the only information we stored. GERAGOS: Right. And that wasn't really followed up on, correct? GROGAN: Not really. GERAGOS: And Laci sightings, as you said, were not a priority, correct? GROGAN: At some point they did not become a priority in the investigation. GERAGOS: And ultimately you put out a press release on January 2nd, however, asking for Scott sightings, correct? GROGAN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And that included release of the boat and the photo of the truck, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: You had indicated before that you were worried that these the Laci sightings were contaminated because there had been information that was placed out in the media, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Vague. GERAGOS: I'm asking specifically. JUDGE: I don't think so. I can understand it. Were you worried about those contacts had been tainted because of the stuff that had been printed in the media, that maybe people were getting suggestions and, following up on it, giving you tips that were unfounded? GROGAN: Well, yeah. And, actually, what we're talking about right now is sort of the first true understanding we had of the problem that we potentially had there. Because when we asked for the information about the truck and the boat, and we released those photographs, we had sightings all over Central California. GERAGOS: And one of the problems was, is that you were not, for lack of a better term, following up on the Laci sightings. You were more concerned with trying to pin down Scott sightings; isn't that correct? GROGAN: It's a very brief time period between when she disappeared, we released those photos, and we, and then we had tips pouring in, both sightings of the defendant the vehicles, Laci Peterson. GERAGOS: Well, the time period, as I understand it, is January 2nd, is when the press release goes out, correct? January 2nd and 3rd with the photos of the truck and the boat? GROGAN: I would agree with you, somewhere in the first week of January. GERAGOS: And you had already, by December 30th, determined, I think you testified yesterday, by December 30th that Laci sightings were a product of the media so, therefore, you discounted the Laci sightings by December 30th. Wasn't that your testimony yesterday? GROGAN: I don't think so. GERAGOS: Now, specifically there was also a question about Scott letting Sharon Rocha into the house; isn't that correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, specifically that was a, that was not, maybe I misheard it. But that did not occur at the beginning of the search warrant, correct? GROGAN: No. The conversation with the defendant? GERAGOS: Yes. GROGAN: Is that the question? GERAGOS: The conversation did not take place at the beginning of the search warrant, right? GROGAN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. That happened after, this picture here, this is what the scene looked like, right, on the 18th and the 19th? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And you had been in the house for two days, correct? GROGAN: Yeah. We were in there on the, I think it was the afternoon of the 19th. GERAGOS: Okay. Until the afternoon of the 19th. And then you asked him at that point whether he wanted to let Sharon come in and take items, correct? GROGAN: Our first conversation about that I'm not sure. I believe it was, I believe it was on the 19th. GERAGOS: Okay. And I believe you testified that you had never seen anything like the media response to that search warrant; isn't that correct? GROGAN: That's very true. GERAGOS: And the specific, do you have the specific page where you wrote in your report about what you asked Scott? FLADAGER: Page 229. GROGAN: Thank you. Yes, I have it. GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically it was you already, you had already left; isn't that correct, or you had already closed up the house? GROGAN: No. Looks like we were there for at least few more hours. GERAGOS: Okay. And when you, at that point had you told Scott that you were going to, that you were going to close up the place? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Had you told him that yet? GROGAN: I didn't, I did tell him that in later conversation. We discussed how to secure the home and all that. GERAGOS: And specifically you had told him that he was giving, or he told you he was giving no one permission to enter his home, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And he said he may meet with Sharon to give her specific items she wanted from the home at a later time, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: He was not giving anyone permission to enter the home, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And you told him that any release of property is between Sharon and him, and you would not bring her into the house, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And you also explained he would have to be present in order for Sharon and he to discuss what items she should take? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Scott said he would possibly meet with her in the future, but he did not want her in the home on that day, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Is there a, with that kind of a media presence, having Sharon come over to the house and start removing items, did you think that was a good idea? FLADAGER: Objection. Speculation. Relevance. GERAGOS: I'm asking. JUDGE: Overruled. You can answer. Did you think that it is a good idea for her to come over and start taking things from the house with the media there? GROGAN: I guess it depends on what she wanted to take, and if the defendant wanted to meet her there or not. That would be up to them, not really me. GERAGOS: Did you think that was a good idea, that with that kind of media presence there, to have Sharon pull items out of the houses? FLADAGER: Objection. Relevance. JUDGE: I think he answered it the best of his ability. GERAGOS: Now, Kristin Reed, you already mentioned that she was a friend of the Petersons, and that she had said that Laci was walking, correct? GROGAN: I think that's in one of the reports, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And repeatedly you were also asked yesterday about strangulation or smothering, would there necessarily be blood or urine, correct? GROGAN: I was asked that question. GERAGOS: Okay. You are certainly aware that in many cases, if not most where there is smothering or strangulation, that there is forensic evidence of some kind, or trace evidence of some kind; isn't that correct? GROGAN: I know that there can be, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Have you ever handled a case involving smothering, or asphyxiation, or strangulation? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And wasn't there trace evidence in that case? GROGAN: There was, there was, yes. There was DNA evidence in that case. GERAGOS: Okay. And in addition to that, there was other forensic type evidence that showed that there was specifically a means or cause of death; wasn't that correct? GROGAN: There is a young woman with a cord wrapped around her neck. GERAGOS: Okay. And you had other evidence besides that, not just the cord. You had other evidence involved in that case after postmortem, correct? GROGAN: There was an autopsy done, yes. GERAGOS: And there was evidence that showed, that gave you some indication that confirmed obviously what happened, right? GROGAN: That the cause of death was strangulation, yes. And there was DNA evidence recovered, yes. GERAGOS: Now, you also mentioned that the driving a boat registered versus a non-registered, that could be pulled over by police, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you said something about Scott Peterson not registering the boat, actually the trailer. That's registered, isn't it, if you are talking about something with CHP, or somebody going could pull you over on the freeway? GROGAN: That's true, yes. GERAGOS: You are aware that after you buy a boat trailer that you have 30 days in which to register it? Are you aware of that? GROGAN: I am, no, sir, I'm not aware of that. Standard on vehicles is ten days. I don't know if there is a difference in boats or not. GERAGOS: Okay. And the, specifically you had impounded that boat on the 26th, basically frozen the warehouse on the 25th, and the boat was not going anywhere from the 25th on, correct? GROGAN: The evening of the 25th, that's correct, sir. GERAGOS: From Christmas evening on, that boat wasn't going anywhere, right? GROGAN: Right. GERAGOS: Now, the other thing that Miss Fladager brought up was this idea of Scott writing down items that Boyer was taking. Do you remember that? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that was two-fold, I guess. The fact he slipped some papers under the receipt, correct? And you thought that was odd when the guy's wife is missing, that he would slip papers under so it doesn't make a mark on the table? GROGAN: Yes. That he did hand some papers over to him to slide, to put underneath the receipt. GERAGOS: Okay. And was Jackie Peterson there at the time? GROGAN: I think she was, yes. GERAGOS: Did you ever ask her if that was her table? GROGAN: No, I didn't. GERAGOS: Did you ever ask her if that's a pine table, and she's been scolding him about writing on that table? GROGAN: I didn't ask her that, no. GERAGOS: Did you ever ask Scott, you say, look, I thought that was a little odd why did you slip the papers under, and find out whether or not that's something that Laci was akin to, or that she did not like people writing on there and making markings on the table? GROGAN: No, I never asked that question. GERAGOS: Okay. You said it was odd that he didn't want the car dinged. Is there something that you know of, an investigative manual or policy anywhere, that says that if you don't want your property damaged, that that means that you are more guilty than not? FLADAGER: Objection. Argumentative. JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: You found that to be odd that he placed a glove so the car wouldn't get lit? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically, if I understand correct, when Miss Fladager asked you yesterday about that Scott wasn't happy that Boyer was writing a receipt, you just said, you gave assent that that was a good thing; is that correct? GROGAN: I'm sorry, can you repeat that question? GERAGOS: They asked you yesterday, was he happy that the, that Boyer was giving him a receipt, correct? FLADAGER: Objection. Actually misstates the testimony. JUDGE: I think there was an objection interposed yesterday too, if I'm not mistaken. That's within the – GERAGOS: I'll ask the, can I ask you a question? Were you aware at that point that Brocchini, that Brocchini, the day before, had taken items without telling Scott, without a warrant? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Wouldn't that be a reasonable explanation for why he, at this point, was not averse to getting a receipt? FLADAGER: Objection to speculation as to what's in the defendant's mind. GERAGOS: He's the one who was testifying it was odd. JUDGE: Overruled. You can answer. GROGAN: Do I think it would be reasonable based on what happened the night prior? GERAGOS: Right. GROGAN: The defendant did make comments about that, that he's concerned about the items that they used for scent articles. I'm not sure what, I'm not sure what he would think that we would do with them. GERAGOS: I'm not saying, the night before Brocchini came in and specifically had taken gun out, a gun out of the glove compartment, had Lovell take the mop and the buckets and some other items and had not told him about it. Were you aware of that? GROGAN: I think they did have a conversation about that later, at least about the gun. But, and I was aware of it both by Detective Brocchini and by the defendant. When we came in on the 26th, he made some comments about that. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm asking you once again, isn't that reasonable the next day that a receipt is being made out that somebody would at least be not put out by it, that given the history of the night before, that that would be something that they would want? GROGAN: I guess you could argue that, yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically the pillow without a pillowcase. You would say, you collected that in February; is that correct? GROGAN: I think, yes. I think last notation in one of those Crime Scene Manager's reports, or something on that. GERAGOS: Did you have that pillow tested, the pillow itself? GROGAN: We collected it. I don't know if it's been tested or not. GERAGOS: Was it fair to say that if you had tested that pillow, and if there had been anything of any evidentiary value on that, that we would have had it or heard about it here in court? GROGAN: If it had been tested, yes. GERAGOS: If it had been tested, is it a fair statement, as the lead detective, that you had heard about any of this, if there had been evidence on that pillow, whether the pillowcase was there or not, that you would have known about it? You would have been, at some point somebody would have alerted you as the lead detective? GROGAN: Yes, I should know about it if there is something critical involving the pillowcase. GERAGOS: As you sit here today, do you have any evidence whatsoever from the Department of Justice, that they have produced, that shows smothering, strangulation, or asphyxiation? Is there any of the Department of Justice reports that are consistent or that come back and say this is consistent with smothering, strangulation, or asphyxiation? GROGAN: There is no report that says that, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Is there anything in your, you are aware that, in the autopsy, that there is no, either no time of death, no cause, or no manner of death; is that correct? GROGAN: I believe that's true. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
2nd redirect Examination by Birgit Fladager JUDGE: Miss Fladager is writing. I assume you have, FLADAGER: As much as I would like not to, I'm going to have a few questions. JUDGE: Go ahead. We have got five minutes. Get started. This will be the last go-around. FLADAGER: Can we go a little bit past noon? JUDGE: He's going to have some recross. FLADAGER: Maybe not. JUDGE: I wouldn't bet on it. If you are going to ask some questions, go ahead. FLADAGER: Detective Grogan, Mr. Geragos asked you, showed you some photographs of Laci Peterson wearing various items of jewelry; is that right? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: And we have a photograph of jewelry which has previously been marked People's Exhibit 8. Does that photograph show two necklaces with diamonds in them? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: And those are now in evidence; is that correct? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: When you examined Laci Peterson's jewel box, did you also find a third necklace with a diamond in it? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: When you examined her jewelry box, did you also find a diamond – GERAGOS: There is an objection. It's all leading. JUDGE: It is leading. FLADAGER: I'm trying to speed it up. But – JUDGE: I have to sustain the objection. I guess I wouldn't have to, but I will. Go ahead. FLADAGER: In the jewelry box, did you find any diamond earrings? GROGAN: Yes, there is two sets inside there with what I believe to be diamond stones. FLADAGER: You talked about, in response to a question by Mr. Geragos, he asked you about the difference between Scott Peterson fishing on Christmas Eve and Ron Grantski fishing on Christmas eve. And, in your mind, is there a difference between those two people fishing on Christmas Eve? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: What is that? GROGAN: Well, like we were talking about early on in this, you are looking for behaviors that are out of the normal. And it's very normal for Mr. Grantski to go fishing. But I think there is plenty of witnesses that can say that, that he enjoys fishing. He goes all the time. The defendant, as far as I know, I know that he was making maybe an annual fishing trip, and lakes, streams, that sort of thing. And as far as I know, he'd never fished in the San Francisco Bay previously. And so it appears that that's something that's out of the normal for Mr. Peterson. FLADAGER: Do you have handy in front of you a report where you talk to Doctor Boyd Stephens? And I would refer you to page 15449. GROGAN: Okay. FLADAGER: Okay. All right. You were asked, you indicated that you asked Doctor Stephens about what you might expect if the body is placed in the San Francisco Bay, correct? GROGAN: Yes, ma'am. FLADAGER: And you gave him different ideas of conditions that the body might be in when initially placed in the bay, correct? GROGAN: Yes. FLADAGER: One of those hypotheticals was an unwrapped body, correct? GROGAN: Correct. FLADAGER: And what did he tell you about that? GROGAN: He told me that an unwrapped body after a three-month period would likely be skeletal remains, and that those would be disarticulated. And he also told me that, however, if the body was clothed or wrapped, animal activity wouldn't take place where the clothing or wrappings were, and that those areas wouldn't be as rapidly to decompose. FLADAGER: And the last question, Sergeant Ed Steele who was assigned as volunteer, to the Volunteer Center was working on the investigative portion of this case that you were working on? GROGAN: No. FLADAGER: I have no further questions.
2nd recross Examination by Mark Geragos JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, how long is your examination to go, the last go-around? Do you have a lot of questions you want to ask on just those limited areas? GERAGOS: Let me just finish. I'll do it in two minutes. JUDGE: All right. I'll watch. GERAGOS: Get ready, get set, go GERAGOS: Sergeant Ed Steele is the liaison, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. Whether he's working on the investigation or not, he's similar to what a PIO is, correct? Public Information Officer is someone who liaisons with the press, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. That's the person that's supposed to talk to the press about what's going on, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: In this case Ed Steele is the liaison with the Volunteer Center, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: He's the person Modesto PD is supposed to, or puts out there to liaison with the family and the volunteers, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically when, on at least two occasions in the reports, I'm not going to pull them up, people asked you, including my client, certain things, you said that's going to take time away from doing the investigation, right? GROGAN: Yes, I think you are correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And Ed Steele's function was to be the liaison, the person who is to talk to volunteers and family about what's going on, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you talked to Boyd Stephens, he also told you and he was the San Francisco, or still is the San Francisco Medical Examiner. He told you that in cases previously where bodies have bloated with decomposition, that they pulled as much as eighty pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the Bay, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, once again, you gave him, and this would have been on April 2nd, of 2003. You gave him the hypothetical of the chicken wire, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that the water flow southbound was at four knots, right? GROGAN: In one particular area we were talking about, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he also said that, in his opinion, thirty pound of weights would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy in the plastic to immediately go to the bottom, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's one of the things he said. GERAGOS: And he said victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights could catch something on the bottom, or the current would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for the weights to begin to sink in the mud. GROGAN: Yes. When talking about the Richmond Turning Basin area, there. GERAGOS: If it had made it to deeper waters, it's possible the body would still be in pristine condition, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions. FLADAGER: I have, JUDGE: No. GERAGOS: That's it. JUDGE: That's it. He's only been here seven days. FLADAGER: I know. JUDGE: I say that is the last go-around. That's it. |