The unEvidence

Fortunately, the media trail in this case has been well-preserved, so we can identify many of the tactics the LE used to create the illusion of evidence against Scott. There is no difference in outcome between literally planting physical evidence and creating the illusion such evidence exists. Both serve the same purpose: to publicly convict the suspect. This index is bookmarked to bring you directly to specific items of interest.

The mop and mop bucket, and the smell of bleach -- Convince the public that Scott used them to clean up the murder scene.

Scott's fishing trip on the 24th -- First, plant evidence that the suspect's alibi is phony; then plant evidence that the suspect's alibi actually proves his guilt.

The Life Insurance -- Plant evidence of a financial motive.

The affair with Amber Frey -- Plant evidence of a lover-motive.

The blood-hound trails -- Plant evidence that scent dogs trailed Laci from the house to Scott's warehouse to the Marina.

Scott's December 24th timeline -- Plant evidence that the timeline Scott provided proves he is guilty.

The duct tape on Laci's body -- Plant forensic evidence.


The mop and mop bucket, and the smell of bleach -- Convince the public that Scott used them to clean up the murder scene.

According to Jon Evers, the responding police officer, LE suspicion towards Scott was first raised by a mop and mop bucket sitting outside near a door. When Scott was asked about the mop and bucket, he reported that Laci was getting ready to mop the entry-way floor when he left that morning, between 9:30 and 9:45.

Jon Evers first observed the mop and bucket within 60-90 minutes of the 911 call reporting Laci a missing person. Scott's and Laci's home did not have evidence of a struggle, or of a crime. Yet, a mop and mop bucket raised suspicion!

Detective Brocchini instructed another officer to remove the mop and bucket from the home, and to use special light sources to detect any other evidence. Scott was not informed of these instructions, and was not given a receipt for the items taken.

Brocchini and other detectives thought it unreasonable that Laci Peterson would have mopped her entry-way floor on the 24th when the maid said she mopped it the day before, on the 23rd. So, they assumed Scott mopped the floor to cover up Laci's murder. And, that is the story they put out to the media.

By mid-January, both the Globe and the National Enquirer were reporting the mop had traces of blood and vomit that matched Laci's DNA. These tabloids reported that LE suspected Scott had used the mop and bleach to clean up the mess caused by the murder. Reports began circulating that the house reeked of bleach when the LE first went there on the night of the 24th. Most stories said that Scott mopped the floor after he got home from his fishing trip.

And, of course, these stories are repeated as fact on countless hours of talk-shows and in countless posts on the message boards. Larry King Live was commenting on these stories on the January 13, 2003 segment.

If the mop had traces of Laci's blood and vomit, it would be circumstantial evidence that Scott murdered Laci.

However, the mop did not have traces of Laci's blood and vomit. It was a lie. Furthermore, the house did not reek of bleach when LE went there on the 24th. That, too, was a lie. Evers and Brocchini both admitted, under oath, that there was no smell of bleach in the house that night. Still further, Evers and Brocchini both testified under oath that none of the floors were wet, to indicate the floors had been mopped after Scott returned from the Marina. Those still convinced that Scott used that mop and bucket and bleach to clean up after murdering Laci hold out the hope that "other" police officers and investigators will yet testify at the trial that the house reeked of bleach. They just can't admit the whole mop, mop bucket, and bleach story is a lie.

All of the actual evidence points to Laci being the one to mop the floor on the morning of the 24th, just like Scott said it happened. He gave them a very reasonable explanation:

Because some male detectives can't foresee the need to mop a floor hardly constitutes justification for dismissing Scott's explanation--especially when they saw for themselves that

Even though every point of Scott's explanation has been verified, LE keeps planting this imaginary evidence in the minds of the public. The recent editions of National Enquirer continue to claim the mop is evidence Scott murdered Laci, based, of course, on sources close to the investigation -- LE.

Even if Geragos brings out expert witnesses to testify that the mop has no forensic evidence associated with it at all and is bogus, the mop as evidence of Scott's guilt has been indelibly etched on the minds of the jury pool.


Scott's fishing trip on the 24th -- First, plant evidence that the suspect's alibi is phony; then plant evidence that the suspect's alibi actually proves his guilt.

Alibi is a Latin word which means "elsewhere." The accused proves his or her innocence by proving that he or she was somewhere else when the crime was committed, and thus could not have committed the crime. This proof of being elsewhere can be from witnesses or from documents.

We have enough information from the Preliminary Hearing and from public statements by Ron Grantski to conclude that LE used the fishing story early on to create suspicion in the minds of Laci's family first, and then in the collective mind of the American public.

In the preliminary hearing, Jon Evers testified: "I was standing in the front yard of the residence, and Scott was standing next to me, and a gentleman walked up, he said he was the stepfather of Laci. He asked Scott if he was able to go golf today or golfing today." When Scott said that it was too cold, and he went fishing instead, Ron responded: "You mean going -- going fishing 9:30 or 10:00 in the morning. Boy, that's late to go fishing."

At first we gave Ron the benefit of the doubt, and assumed this innocent chit-chat, probably a very sincere effort to lighten the moment a little, to make it a little more tolerable for those he loved. But this innocent chit-chat is turned into "evidence" by the LE. Evidence that Scott was lying about where he was that day. We feel this encroachment on the conversation between Ron and Scott to be at least cold and insensitive, if not inhumane. What is remarkable is that now we know that Ron himself was fishing at the exact same time as Scott and under the same circumstances. It was a last minute decision, he didn't tell anyone about it ahead of time, and he didn't go until around Noon. Furthermore, unlike Scott who chose a fairly visible place to fish, Ron was fishing in a secluded fishing spot known only to him. How Ron had the audacity to call attention to Scott's fishing trip in such a negative way is beyond our understanding.

LE worked early and hard to create the illusion that fishing on the 24th was evidence of guilt. Was it LE pressure on Laci's family what prompted Ron to ask Scott, on December 26th, if he had a girlfriend, or was Ron acting on his own? He relayed the substance of that conversation on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (February 11, 2003):

I -- I talked to Scott two days after Laci was missing, and I -- I asked him then. I said, you know, if you -- if you had an affair, was seeing somebody, I think this is time to say something because I know the police are going to bug you about your fishing story, and he said, no, no problem. And so I let it drop.

Why would Ron think the LE were going to bug Scott about the fishing trip unless LE were repeatedly raising questions about it? And just two days into the investigation? And knowing his own fishing trip was under similar circumstances?

Ron brought up the fishing trip on Larry King Live (January 13, 2003), supposedly to dispel suspicion about the fishing trip. But why didn't he mention his own fishing trip. Seems like that would have been the most effective way to dispel suspicion.

Larry: So, therefore, Ron, there is no thought in your mind obviously people always suspect the most immediate family member or something like this and the husband has not been released from that suspicion and no one, this program has not indicated that he is, but there was no question in your mind that he's not involved, right, Ron?
Ron: Well, that's correct. I, you know, it might seem unusual he went fishing by himself, but I go fishing by myself a lot. Heaven forbid something happen here because I do it all the time.

The very first caller demonstrated just how effectively LE had convinced the American people that Scott's fishing trip was proof he was responsible for Laci's disappearance.

CALLER: Hi. Yes, I was asking about the polygraph, but I want to know if anyone feels it's strange that he went out on Christmas Eve because most people have a lot to do Christmas Eve, and especially with a pregnant wife. Go fishing, you know, that's why I think a lot of people think it's him, because he did something crazy on Christmas Eve.

Indeed, to make the fishing story look crazy and ridiculous has been the major thrust of this investigation. DA Distaso repeated the LE mentality at the hearing on the 995 motion:

DISTASO: The defendant's story that he went fishing in the San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve -- you can just look at that, and that by itself is ludicrous. Somebody who buys a small aluminum boat and then on Christmas Eve, in the late morning, decides to take a fishing trip on a whim because, as he told some of the other people, that it was too cold to go golfing -- who in their right mind does that? (LKL, emphasis added.)

Well, Ron Grantski did the same thing, except he went land fishing in an isolated location that would have been much more suitable for dumping a body than the public Berkeley Marina. His fishing trip was also last minute and at the same time of day. Furthermore, Brocchini didn't even know Grantski had gone fishing on the 24th until Ron testified at the trial.

The stories that circulated freely in the media made these challenges to Scott's claim to be fishing on the 24th:

Where did these stories come from? From sources close to the investigation -- LE.

These claims -- all lies -- made Scott's fishing story look ridiculous. Other fishermen and the pundits had a heyday laughing at Scott's fishy fishing story. Exactly what LE wanted.

It is so blatantly obvious that LE/DA are spinning this fishing story anyway they can to convict Scott. They know he didn't dispose of Laci's body on that fishing trip on the 24th -- they have eye-witnesses that saw Scott and Scott's boat, very absent a body. But they just keep spinning the story to make him look guilty because they don't have any real evidence against him.

On the one hand, they argue that Scott's purchase of the fishing license on the 20th is PROOF that Scott premeditated the murder. On the other hand, they argue that Scott's going fishing was a "whim." Which is it, Mr. Distaso? If going fishing was a whim, why didn't Scott purchase his fishing license on the 24th?

The truth is, fishing on the 24th wasn't a whim. Scott thought about it on the 20th -- seriously enough to go out and buy a 2-day fishing license. He also thought about going golfing, and favored golfing over fishing as late as the evening of the 23rd when he and Laci were at Salon Salon. Not until the morning of the 24th, however, did he make up his mind and decide to go fishing instead of golfing. We guess the LE and DA can't relate to a married man having more than one option for how to spend a day off, and then waiting until the last minute to finally decide.

Neither was purchasing a license on the 24th part of a premeditated murder. We really don't think Scott would have bothered to purchase a fishing license if the only reason he was going to the Bay was to dump Laci's body. After all, if a game warden caught him, fishing without a license wasn't going to be his problem.

What evidence did Scott provide to prove he went fishing?

Plenty! A timed receipt from the Berkeley Marina, for the time he said he was there. Three eye-witnesses that place him there when he said he was there--a gardener, and two fishermen. Cell phone records for multiple calls made from points near the Berkeley Marina, beginning at the time he said he left the Marina, and tracking him homeward.

What did Scott tell LE about his fishing trip?

Certainly not what was reported in the media. In the Preliminary Hearing, Evers recounted his initial conversation with Scott, which took place at the park, before 6:10 p.m.:

Evers' next mention of the fishing trip is the conversation he overhead between Ron Grantski and Scott at the house, discussed previously.

The third mention of the fishing trip by Evers is the conversation he overheard between Officer Spurlock and Scott at the house. Spurlock asked Scott "what he was fishing for." Evers said, "he couldn't say." Now, that sounds pretty incriminating, that Scott can't even say what he was fishing for.

However, Evers' testimony is very selective, and under cross-examination the truth comes out. McAllister asked Evers specifically where he was in relationship to Spurlock and Scott when the conversation took place. Evers replied that the group was walking down the hall in the house, and he was ahead of Spurlock and Scott. Evers heard Spurlock ask Scott, "What were you fishing for in the Bay Area?" When pressed by McAllister, Evers admits that Scott did answer Spurlock, but he, Evers, "didn't hear exactly what [Scott's] response was."

Now, there is a bit of difference between Scott "couldn't say" what he was fishing for, and Evers "didn't hear exactly what his response was." Quite a bit of difference.

Furthermore, McAllister specifically asked Evers if he saw Scott "make any gestures describing some size or some aspect of the type of fish that he was fishing for?" Evers said he did not see that.

The truth extracted from Evers is that while Scott could not "name" the fish he was fishing for, he was attempting to describe it with "gestures."

Under redirect, Evers said Spurlock told him "that Scott didn't know what he was fishing for." Spurlock was not called by the Prosecution as a witness at the Preliminary hearing, and the Defense did not call witnesses. Therefore, we have to wait for the trial to get the truth out of Spurlock.

LE wanted to leave it at that, with the public believing Scott could not identify the kind of fish he was fishing for on the 24th. However, the transcript of Brocchini's interview with Scott puts us back to the truth.

Brocchini: Did you buy bait?

Scott: Nope, I'm not a bait fisherman.

Brocchini: Did you troll?

Scott: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know ---

A lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water . . . this says it all. Did the public hear this explanation? No, not until the National Enquirer published Brocchini's transcript. And, even then, it was surrounded with claims, citing LE sources, that Scott murdered Laci and Conner.

Did Scott have fishing gear with him on that fishing trip?

Yes, he did. But, we didn't find that out until the Preliminary Hearing. All the months before, we were encouraged, by the LE, to believe that Scott didn't. Even in the Prelim, LE attempted to diminish the real evidence by repeatedly emphasizing the unopened pack of lures.

Brocchini testified that Scott had, in the boat, 2 fishing rods and a small tackle box which contained old fishing jigs and lures. The boat came equipped with a fish finder and a small trolling motor. So, Scott had everything with him necessary to troll fish, which is what he said he was doing.

Did Scott tell LE he went fishing for sturgeon?

One of the most oft-repeated stories in this case is that Scott told LE that he went fishing for sturgeon.

Neither Evers nor Brocchini testified at the Preliminary Hearing that Scott even mentioned sturgeon. In fact, Evers claimed that Scott couldn't even identify what he was fishing for. Brocchini said he never asked Scott what he was fishing for. In the transcript of Brocchini's interview with Scott, fishing for sturgeon is never mentioned.

It appears that LE planted this false evidence by getting Scott and his family to defend and explain the fishing trip. Even though Scott produced a Berkeley Marina receipt for the time he said he was there, LE asked the public's assistance to prove Scott's story was true.

On the 26th, reporters at a press conference were already pressing Scott for more information about the fishing trip. LE did not provide any support for Scott, or give the reporters the information Scott had already given them about the fishing trip. Instead, they chanted their now-infamous lie "At this point, he is not a suspect."

On the same day the media blasted pictures of LE searching the warehouse where Scott kept the boat, and LE reported their visit to the Berkeley Marina to verify Scott's alibi. Officers said they found no one who could report seeing Peterson on the 24th, nor did they find any other clues. At the same time, LE reported that Laci had not gone for a walk in the park, as Scott claimed, and that the boat was being examined for evidence.

Police said they were still investigating receipts that Scott turned over from his trip, one for launching his boat and one for gasoline in the Bay Area. "What we're trying to do is eliminate Scott Peterson from being a suspect," Cloward said. No, Mr. Cloward, that is not what you were trying to do.

They published pictures of his boat and pickup and asked for any witnesses that could verify his whereabouts between the 23rd and the 25th. Of course, the very fact that they published pictures destroyed any opportunity for them to use vehicle descriptions as a way of weeding out the crank tipsters. Now it is so very easy for anyone wanting 15 minutes of fame to contrive an eye-witness scenario.

Did witnesses come forward to say they saw Scott at the marina, when he said he was there -- with testimony that would exonerate Scott? Yes -- 3. A gardener and 2 fishermen. Did they see Scott with a body in his boat? No, absolutely not.

LE also obtained cell phone records to verify Scott's presence near the Berkeley marina, when he said he was leaving the Marina to return home, and traced his route home.

But, LE wasn't interested in verifying Scott's alibi or eliminating Scott as a suspect. LE was already 100% convinced Scott was guilty. They just couldn't prove it. Problems do abound when such certainty has no real evidence to back it up.

Their efforts to use the fishing trip to prove Scott's guilt worked, however, as Scott and his family felt compelled to explain the fishing trip. Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, offered the explanation that the boat was new, and Scott was anxious to get it out onto the water. That is exactly what Scott told Brocchini. Susan Caudillo, Scott's sister, explained that Scott's interest in the Bay was piqued when he read an article about sturgeon fishing.

From that innocent statement, the media derived the "Scott told LE he went fishing for sturgeon." Because it served their purpose so well, to bring ridicule and sneering into play against Scott's proven alibi, LE allowed the lie to spread like wildfire.


The Life Insurance -- Plant evidence of a financial motive.

On January 17, 2003, both the ModBee and the FresnoBee reported

Modesto police told Laci Peterson's family that her husband was having an affair and recently took out a $250,000 life insurance policy on her, a family member said Thursday. (Relative Voices Suspicion)

The Preliminary Hearing revealed that this life insurance policy story was a bald-faced lie and that LE detectives attempted to use this lie to manipulate Scott's friends into being their spies.

Sometime on or before January 7, 2003, LE received a tip that Scott had recently purchased a life insurance policy on Laci. Det. Buehler assigned Officer Owens to assist FBI agent Terry Scott in finding out about the policy, to see if there was a financial motive for Laci's disappearance.

Armed with a Federal subpoena, Owen and Scott met with Brian Ulrich, who brokered the policy. Ulrich explained that the policy was taken out on June 25, 2001, 18 months previous to Laci's disappearance, and almost a year before Laci became pregnant. Additionally, they took out a policy on Scott for the same amount, $250, 000, and they were both investment policies, connected to their IRA or retirement accounts.

Owen and Scott served the subpoena, and three days later, on January 10, 2003, LE received the life insurance policies. As McAllister suggested in the Preliminary Hearing, LE had succeeded in debunking the life insurance rumor.

We'd like to know who pointed the police towards that life insurance policy in the first place. Was it an anonymous tipster who called into the hotline? Or someone who very much wanted Scott to be the primary suspect?

Of course, the story doesn't end here. Instead of being thrown into the trash can, where all debunked rumors should go, the life insurance policy became planted evidence.

LE knowingly told Laci's family the life insurance lie, amplified to be a double indemnity policy, and then encouraged them to relay it to the media. That is inhumane, to take advantage of the worry and grief that a family is feeling, to use them as pawns to plant lies in the media -- if this is an acceptable LE tactic, it must be stopped. A victim's family should never be subjected to this kind of abuse.

The story that was given to the media is that the police went to the Rocha family on January 15 and told them about the life insurance policy and the affair. The Rocha family first leaked it to the media as an anonymous "family member." Ron Grantski confirmed the meeting and the life insurance policy story on America's Most Wanted, January 25.

Detective Brocchini didn't let the story sit unused for those 10 days, however, from January 15 to January 25. At 6:40 a.m., January 17, on the very day the story broke in the Modesto Bee, Brocchini called Mike Richardson, Scott's best friend, and asked him if he had seen the Modesto Bee. Since Richardson didn't live in Modesto, and wasn't aware of the story, Brocchini recommended he go online to read it.

Brocchini specifically admitted in the Preliminary Hearing that he wanted Richardson to read the story about the life insurance policy and affair. He also recommended that either Mike or Heather call Sharon Rocha for more information. McAllister suggested Brocchini told Richardson that Scott was no longer welcome at any of the Rocha's or Laci's friends. Brocchini was so persistent that he called Richardson back later in the day to see if he had read the article yet.

When McAllister asked Brocchini if he knew, on the 17th when he talked to Richardson, that the life insurance story was a lie, Brocchini said, under oath:  "Are you asking me, when I said that to him, did I know it was false? Absolutely not."

What is this? How could he not know the story was false? Officer Owen and Agent Scott had possession of the life insurance policies on the 10th! Did they conceal those policies from everyone else?

Did they sit back and watch LE feed the Rochas a bald-faced lie, and then watch as the Rochas provided the media with the same lie? Did Detective Buehler never once ask, "Oh, by the way, Officer Owen, what did you find out about that insurance policy?"

Either Brocchini perjured himself or the Modesto Police Department is terribly inept. Or both.

When Scott went on national TV, and told the truth about the life insurance policies, he was ridiculed and called a bald-faced liar. Well, now we know who told the truth and who lied. Yes, the Preliminary Hearing certainly did open some eyes.

But, the plot thickens. Evidence about the Rocha trusts that Laci enjoyed a 1/3 share in came to light during the opening days of the trial. If Scott had a financial motive, it was to keep Laci or Connor alive. Besides her share of the jewelry inherited from Grandmother Rocha, valued at from $50-100K, Laci was set to inherit a total of over $557K from her Grandfather's estates. Scott had no financial interest because with Laci's and Connor's deaths, Laci's share will be divided equally between Brent and Amy.


The affair with Amber Frey -- Plant evidence of a lover-motive.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that attitudes about Scott Peterson changed drastically after Amber Frey's January 24 joint press interview with the Modesto Police department. The whole purpose of this press conference was to announce to the world that Scott had a lover-motive for murdering Laci -- Amber Frey.

In that press conference, Amber stated that she did not know Scott was married and that when she realized he was "involved" in Laci's disappearance, she went immediately to the police.

The impact of that press conference was immediate. This is the description the Modesto Bee gave of Scott's behavior at the New Year's Eve vigil for Laci before Amber's press conference:

Peterson's husband, Scott, who told police that he last saw his wife at 9:30 a.m. Christmas Eve when he left for a fishing trip, attended the vigil but did not sit with other family on the stage. He did not address the audience.

He tearfully greeted friends and family after the ceremony but declined an interview with The Bee.

This is the description the Modesto Bee gave of Scott's behavior at the vigil after Amber's press conference, and with this picture:

"He did not sit with family members at a vigil for his wife that was held on New Year's Eve. Instead, he mingled with friends and family in the crowd, laughing and smiling a good deal of the time."

Some reports even suggested Scott was drinking an alcoholic beverage, when in reality the cup in his hand housed the vigil candle.

LE accomplished what it wanted -- the mainstream media now had a very different attitude towards Scott. When the media signaled it might be losing interest in this case, all that was necessary was for Amber to hit the headlines again. Leaks about Amber, interviews by Amber's father, pictures of Amber's sister with a PI looking for Laci's body, reports of the secret tape recordings, logs of phone calls to and from Amber -- all aided and abetted LE in perpetrating a fraud.

In reality, instead of being viewed as a motive, Amber Frey should have been scrutinized as a suspect.


The blood-hound trails -- Plant evidence that scent dogs trailed Laci from the house to Scott's warehouse to the Marina.

LE claims that Scott murdered Laci, used his Ford pickup to move her to the warehouse, took the boat to the Berkeley marina, and used the boat to take Laci's body out into the Bay to dispose of it.

They claim to have bloodhound (scent dogs and cadaver dogs) to prove this scenario. This is the logical premise they have succeeded in planting in the minds of Americans:

Of course, LE counts on us to not be too discriminating, to not look too closely at the evidence, to not ask too many questions.

The fact of the matter is, a careful look at this "evidence" shows that it is purely fabricated -- made up and planted in the minds of the American people to make Scott look guilty.

The fact of the matter is, the bloodhound evidence exonerates Scott.

If Scott had murdered Laci and used his boat to dump her body in the Bay, and the bloodhounds were well-trained and reliable, then the bloodhounds would have traced her scent from the Covena house to Scott's warehouse.

Did they do that? No! None of the bloodhounds used by LE traced Laci's scent from the house to the warehouse. Not one!

This is a map of the bloodhound trails.

The orange line is the first bloodhound trail; the blue line is the second. The large green star is the location of Scott's warehouse, and the red star to its upper left is the location of his storage unit. As plainly shown, the bloodhounds did not go from the Covena home to the warehouse.

The National Enquirer, LE's spokesmedia, explains away the problem by using the adverbial phrase "near the warehouse." Well, "near" isn't good enough. If Scott transported Laci's dead body from the Covena home to the warehouse, then the dogs should have been able to follow her scent from the Covena home to the warehouse. It is as simple as that.

Furthermore, the route the dogs tracked is not a good route for Scott to get from his home to the warehouse. And, Hwy 99, not Hwy 132, would have been a better choice for getting from the warehouse to the Berkeley Marina.

Nor is it insignificant that Twist the cadaver dog only showed "mild interest" in the boat.

Ernest Spokes, a former Stanislaus County prosecutor now in private practice in Modesto as a criminal defense attorney, said he's struck by the fact that a cadaver dog used by police showed only "mild interest" in Scott's boat.

"That's supposed to be where she traveled the last four miles of her life, either dead or alive," he said, adding that no matter where she was killed, "you can't get around the last four miles (to the middle of the San Francisco Bay.) He couldn't have taken her out there in the truck." (The Case Against Scott Peterson)

How could Twist not detect Laci's scent in the boat if Scott used it to carry her body from the Berkeley Marina four miles out into the Bay? Because Scott did not murder his wife and he did not dump her body in the Bay.

This bloodhound evidence fully exonerates Scott, but LE continues to plant it as evidence AGAINST him. They do so by using their favorite spokesmedia, the National Enquirer, to keep the image of Scott transporting Laci from the Covena home to the warehouse to the Berkeley marina in the minds of the American public. In the same issue that carried excerpts from Brocchini's interview with Scott, in blatant violation of the gag order, NE headlined the planted bloodhound evidence: Heroic Tracking Dogs Prove Scott Lied to Police: Canine searchers discover damning evidence at house, warehouse and marina. (Jan. 6, 2004)


Scott's December 24th timeline -- Plant evidence that the timeline Scott provided proves he is guilty.

LE began scrutinizing Scott's timeline that very night, with detailed questions about where he was, when he was there, and what he was doing on December 24, 2002. That is expected. Since Scott might have been the last one to see Laci alive, they were duty-bound to determine if he actually was the last person to see Laci alive. Not only to rule him out as a suspect, but to determine when Laci was abducted.

Since Scott proved that he did indeed go to the Berkeley Marina when he said he did, and since three eye-witnesses confirmed that he did not have Laci with him, either dead or alive, the best advantage for the LE is to identify some discrepancies in the timeline to make Scott look like a liar.

If Scott is lying, then he murdered Laci. That seems to be the logical fallacy they are trying to permanently affix in the collective American mind.

In the hearing on the 995 motion, ADA Distaso focused specifically on the 10-minute window from 10:08 a.m. to 10:18 a.m.:

Karen [Servas] finds the dog at 10:18. So we're talking about, if he left at 10:08, as his cell phone records show, not as he told us, we're talking a 10-minute time window when Laci Peterson must have finished mopping the floor, changed her clothes, gotten -- gotten the dog together, gone on a walk, gotten far enough away where then she got abducted and had time for the dog to come back. All of these things were impossible. If those things are impossible, then this man murdered Laci Peterson.

The problem is, if Mr. Distaso is going to rely on cell phone records to call Scott a liar and put his departure time at 10:08 a.m. instead of the 9:30-9:45 time Scott gave, then he has to likewise call several other people liars, including Sharon Rocha, Officer Evers, and the Modesto Police Department.

This chart highlights some significant conflicts between the cell call times and other witnesses. These are calls made from the Covena home (Brighton tower) after Scott returned home from the fishing trip. The call sequence is established by Jacobson's testimony at the Preliminary Hearing. We can't give times for several of the calls because Jacobson's testimony does not provide that detail. Obviously, our chart could be much more exact if we had access to the same records as Jacobson.

Event / Call Brighton Tower Time Other Source Time Other Source
Scott called a 209 # 5:44 pm    

Scott called Amy

ca 5:45    
Scott called Sharon 1st time ca 5:46 5:17 pm Sharon Rocha, Prelim Testimony
Scott called Greg Reed ca 5:47    
Scott called Guy Miligi ca 5:48    
Scott called Sharon 2nd time ca 5:49    
Unidentified incoming call to Scott ca 5:49    
Another unidentified incoming call to Scott 5:57 pm    
Scott called Sharon 3rd time 5:59 pm 5:32 pm Sharon Rocha, Prelim Testimony (it is unclear from Sharon's testimony if this time is for the 2nd or the 3rd call)
Ron Grantski called 911   5:48 pm Officer Evers, Prelim Testimony
Sharon called Scott, told him to meet her in the park.  She was in Sandy's car going over the bridge at Scenic and Oakdale   5:49 pm Sharon Rocha, Prelim Testimony (she originally said 5:32 in direct, then corrected to 5:49 in cross)
2 successive incoming calls, unlisted numbers 6:03 pm    
Scott called 911 6:10 pm ca 5:48 pm Modesto Police Department, original missing persons alert
Evers arrived at the Park   6:00 pm Officer Evers, Prelim Testimony
Evers spoke with Scott in the Park   6:04 pm Officer Evers, Prelim Testimony

It doesn't take an Einstein to recognize that the Brighton tower cell phone times are way out of sync with times provided by other witnesses -- by 22 to 30 minutes. Even if we allow for the first call to Sharon to be from the landline -- Scott called Sharon after hearing Ron's message -- the Brighton tower times still present problems. If we are to believe the Brighton tower times, we have to believe that Scott called 911 six minutes after he met Officer Evers in the park, and that he is calling Sharon the 1st time at almost the exact same time that she is already in a car on her way to the park to look for Laci. 

When Sharon Rocha testified at the Preliminary Hearing, she was very confident of the time Scott first called her to ask if Laci was there. She was expecting her dinner guests at 6 p.m.

And that's why I remember the time because I was in the kitchen and I saw the clock on the stove that said 5:15, And I remember thinking I needed to get myself put together before everybody got there.

She was also confident about the time she called Scott to tell him to meet her in the park. She said she looked at her cell phone clock.

Ron Grantski said that he called 911, and the address Officer Evers was originally sent to is the Grantski residence. Before Evers arrived at the residence, he was directed to go to the Park. This re-direction may have come from Scott, as he also called 911, and the Modesto Police Department information indicates that Scott called at about 5:48 p.m.

Modesto, CA On 12-24-02 at about 5:48 p.m., Modesto Police received a phone call from a man claiming that his pregnant wife had not been seen since 9:30 a.m., Christmas Eve. Scott Peterson, of Modesto, left to the Bay Area to go fishing. His wife, Laci Denise Peterson, 26 years, stayed home to shop for dinner that evening and to walk their dog at Dry Creek Park.

This information was issued on December 25, at 10:30 a.m., by Ed Steele, Office of the Chief of Police.

Why is it that every other source is in agreement on the times, but the Brighton tower is off by so much?

How does that impact the timeline for the rest of the day?

Mr. Distaso is trying to lock Scott into a 10-minute timeline for the morning of December 24. I will repeat his claim at the 995 hearing for clarity's sake.

Karen [Servas] finds the dog at 10:18. So we're talking about, if he left at 10:08, as his cell phone records show, not as he told us, we're talking a 10-minute time window when Laci Peterson must have finished mopping the floor, changed her clothes, gotten -- gotten the dog together, gone on a walk, gotten far enough away where then she got abducted and had time for the dog to come back. All of these things were impossible. If those things are impossible, then this man murdered Laci Peterson.

That 10:08 a.m. time Distaso insists begins the 10 minute period is a Brighton tower time. Yet we know that the Brighton tower times are off from other prosecution witness sources by 22-30 minutes. If we correct the time accordingly, we get a much longer window of time for Laci to do all Scott said she did and still make it to the Park. 10:08 counting backwards 22-30 minutes gives us a time frame of between 9:38-9:46 a.m. Scott said he left the house between 9:30-9:45 a.m.

Mr. Distaso, it's rather obvious that the problem is with the Brighton tower times, not with Scott's truthfulness. It is also quite obvious that you must impeach your own witnesses in order to impose this fictitious window of time. We're quite certain the reason is because you don't have any real evidence with which to convict Scott, so you must rely on this imaginary evidence.


The duct tape on Laci's body -- Plant forensic evidence.

LE, through their spokesmedia, The National Enquirer, made much ado about the duct tape found on Laci's body being put there intentionally by the murderer, supposedly to prevent Connor from being born. Reports also circulated that LE had fingerprints from the duct tape, and NE provided its readers with a short explanation of how many "points" are necessary for a fingerprint to be accepted as evidence, and created an anticipation of real forensic evidence in this case pointing decisively to Scott.

Of course, this was all exposed as another falsehood during the pre-trial hearings on February 18. Complaining that the Prosecution had just turned over thousands of pages of discovery to the defense, itself an outrageous situation, considering the time it takes to digest that volume of information at this late stage, Geragos specifically told the Court that pages and pages of that discovery dealt with tests on hair found on the duct tape. The tests were very detailed, and excluded Scott "at every single point."

Geragos did not specifically mention fingerprints, suggesting they either didn't exist in the first place, or that they, too, exonerate Scott, or Geragos simply doesn't want the murderer to know what forensic evidence exists to identify him or her. In the trial, we found out that the duct tape didn't have usable fingerprints on it.