Scott Peterson: The New Evidence Part 1 Review with Aspen Conner

 NEW EPISODE True Crime with Tiff Kline
🎙️ SCOTT PETERSON: THE NEW EVIDENCE 
🎙️ PART 1 REVIEW WITH Aspen Conner
🎙️ Aspen and I sit down and watch Part 1 of the new 2 part docuseries on AE "Scott Peterson The New Evidence" 
🎙️ Join us while we witness  Chris Pixley and Ninette Toosby break down the so called new evidence with LA Innocence Project to prove Scott Peterson Innocent. 
🎙️ What new evidence will we discover? 

🎙️ Part two drops Monday July 20th

stream on
📺 YouTube audio and video 
🎧 Apple podcast
🎧 Amazon Podcast
🎧 Spotify
🎧 IHeart

🚨 Copyrighted audiovisual content owned by A&E Television Networks, LLC

🚨 We pausing to commentate and react under the fair use policy of the United States in accordance with

🚨 This podcast is an independent production and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsoredr by A&E Television Network

🚨 this podcast episode is not monetized

#truecrimewithtiffkline #aspenconner #lacipeterson #truecrimecommunity #truecrimepodcast #truecrimetiffkline #tiffkline #aspenconner #scottpeterson

Transcript

SPEAKER_11 0:00

Welcome to another episode of True Crime with Tiff Klein. I am here again with my partner in crime, Aspen Connor. Tonight we're going to be talking about one criminal who we're going to give all the disrespect to Scott Peterson. Scott Peterson has made the news again, unfortunately. And Aspen and I sat on a live panel at CrimeCon Vegas in the end of May to listen to the, I'm gonna try to be professional here, bullshit that came out of Mark Garragos' mouth. Mark Erigos is a defense lawyer for Scott Peterson. Now, everybody's entitled to a lawyer. He's doing his job. We get that 100%. Somebody has to do that job. But the thing where we have a problem with is one, when we watched him do the live panel and there was a good thousand people in the audience, he wore sweatpants when he walked out on stage and said the F-word multiple times and used a cell phone while his colleagues were speaking on stage. So Aspen got up and just left because he just couldn't deal with it anymore. I only went to hear the bullshit and see what other lies that they were gonna come up with to try to prove his innocence. And I'm a strong believer that Scott is 100% guilty, and I've been following this case since December of 2002. This was the first true crime case beside John Binet that I really dove into, and this is how I discovered Nancy Grace. And this is one of the cases that I know upside down, inside out, and I can tell you everything about it. So I really do believe Scott's the uh disrespectful criminal here. And now that ANE has released uh docuseries that we just aired last night and tonight, Aspen and I are going to watch it live together, and we're going to record our responses as we watch it. I we hope this is our first time recording a reaction video. So we're hoping that you can hear the audio with the track of this docuseries. So we're gonna wing it, hope for the best. This is we gotta start somewhere. But to catch you up with the Lacey Peterson story, if you haven't heard already, um this happened in December of 2002. Lacey went peep uh Lazy Peterson went missing, and she was pregnant with her eight eight-month-old baby, Connor, in Modesto, California. And her body washed ashore with Connor a few months later. And unfortunately, not all of her body was found. But Scott had a mistress and lied a lot, said he was in Paris, and then showed up to the the vigil and tried to help look for Lacey, but then he just started getting really weird. Dyed his hair, had a boat nobody knew about, was trying to flee to Mexico, and all the signs point to yes, he's shaking the magic eight ball to this piece of shit and killed Lacey. I mean, there's no other they're they're trying to come out now with all this evidence that there was a van across the street and a burnt mattress in the van and a robber across the street while somebody was away, and they're really they're really trying to use that theory to prove Scott's innocence, and even his sister-in-law went to law school to prove his innocence. And I watched or I read an article the other day with Sharon Roachos, Lacey's mom, and she's like, she's just tired, she is so tired, and there's no new evidence, which we know. This has been out for a while. I don't know why they're trying to make it new. You know, let Lacey and Connor rest. And he did, Scott did come off the death row. He had that charge flip. So he is in for life, he's not coming out. I don't care how much they try to say he's innocent, he's not innocent. So one thing that Mark Garagos had said at KremCon that still just blows my mind was he goes, I just can't believe 20 years later we're still talking about Scott Peterson. And then he said something like Mike about Michael Jackson. He's like, oh, 20 years later, we're now we're talking about how Michael Jackson isn't innocent, but Scott Peterson is. And I looked over at Aspen and I said, Who the fuck is saying that? Like, who is saying that Michael Jackson isn't innocent and Scott Peterson is? Like, I'm pretty sure the narrative has flipped. A lot of people think Michael Jackson was set up. I wasn't there, I don't know. This isn't about Michael Jackson, but the fact that he said that, I just said, I literally said out loud at the panel. I was like, who the fuck's saying that? Like nobody's walking around saying Scott Peterson's innocent except the Innocence Project and Scott Peterson's sister-in-law. And obviously Mark Garrigos. So we found it very disrespectful of Mark Garigos to walk out on stage in sweatpants with a cell phone and using the F-word while on stage. Like 7,000 people buy tickets to go to Crime Con, and he couldn't bother to, as a lawyer, a defense lawyer, couldn't bother to just dress up for an hour. And he was the only panel that they didn't let anybody do a QA with at the end because I think they knew better. A lot of people went to support Lacey's family and Lacey, not Mark and Scott. So I think there was some confusion there. Again, we only went because we wanted to see the bullshit they were gonna spew. And I've filed this case for over 20 years, and I had to go. I could not sit in there, but it was very hard to get through because I felt like it was just one big disrespectful. I mean, he couldn't even ask me. I don't know if you remember, but he couldn't even say, I'm sorry for the loss of Lacey and Connor through all of this. I pay my respects to her family. He I do remember him basically making Lacey out to be fat and called Amber Fry, who was Scott Peterson's mistress, a hussy while he was on stage. I remember that. It was just all around disrespect, and I vomited in my mouth. Like he does not need to come back to Crime Con. I'm actually really surprised he didn't call or have Scott call live while he was there, like he did to the Mendendez brothers in Nashville. And it could be why he had his cell phone out and maybe it didn't go through, but um don't come out in sweatpants. You are a Hollywood big-time defense lawyer, and you couldn't even put pants on. You just roll out of bed in CrimeCon, like up in your up in Caesars and just come in. Like you your colleagues are dressed to the nines. They're they're giving you their full undivided attention, but as soon as they speak, he's on his phone. I just that left such a bad taste in my mouth. And then we decided that we know that they only did that panel to promote this new show. So this new show is on AD. Part one aired last night, part two is tonight, and it's Scott Peterson, the new evidence. It aired on July 16th, 2026. And you're gonna see our reaction. Now, again, we don't like Scott, we're giving Scott the disrespect he deserves. And I just gave Mark Earragos the disrespect he deserves because he's just-I mean, again, I know he's doing a job, somebody in the world has to do it, and nobody wants to be that guy, but he's a smug asshole, and the fact that he couldn't even pay his respects to Lacey at the end, like to me, was just done. Like, I have no respect for that man. So without further ado, we are going to watch this, and every reaction you see is real because we have not watched this yet. So don't be surprised if you see me like throw something across the room or smash something, because I I get so mad at this. I just want Lacey to have respect, and she was a gorgeous girl. I read the book her mom wrote called For Lacey, and it's one of my favorite books. And hopefully this won't make us too sick to our stomach, but we will we'll see.

SPEAKER_15 6:48

So you know, I can so I just wanted to say to uh to kind of echo what you were saying, you know, I I like I think probably about 60%, 70% of the people that went to that panel at Crime Con in Vegas. And I would say, I would argue that it probably was one of, if not the busiest panels that they had. So I think for the fact that I heard that there were 3,000 people in the room. I don't know there's if the truth to that.

SPEAKER_11 7:16

I don't know.

SPEAKER_15 7:18

Because I'm spatial awareness, it's hard.

SPEAKER_11 7:20

There was a lot in there, though. I think there was as much in there as there was for Ninsky Grace.

SPEAKER_15 7:24

I do I do want to say quickly that, you know, like you said, the one of the things that uh that that stuck that stood out to me initially was that comment he made, in my opinion, about uh or that, you know, when I felt like he basically called um Lacey, you know, eight-month-old heifer pregnant, you know, fatty, and then called Amber Fryahussey. So and never once did they mention Connor's name in that panel. And that was something that stood out to me. I also do want to say it's hard because I do in a way have respect for the career that Mark Garagos has had. I agree the sweatpants was something I noticed quickly, of course. And being as close as we were, we were almost right up in front. And uh, you know, that was hard to and he kept looking at his phone, which is why I was like, oh, is Scott gonna call in? And I can talk about this later, so I know we can get to it. But I will say, I will say that I also do have a level of respect for Chris, the AE host and the female detective. And her name is escaping me right now, but I understand they knew they were walking onto a stage where they were going to be met with lots and lots of hesitation and opposition. And so I do want to at least acknowledge that's not an easy thing to do. And uh, and I thought that they handled the situation at least on the panel very professionally. Um yes, and I was and I was able later to actually even, you know, have a conversation with them. So, and that was something that I said, I mean, I was honest. I said, you know, I think like many, it'll take a mountain for you to prove to me that Scott Peterson is not guilty. But I am willing to watch the evidence that you have to present and hear what you have to say. And and I and I just wanted to let them know that I know that they could not have been comfortable at least going in front of that many people and not knowing what kind of reaction they were gonna get.

SPEAKER_11 9:14

I um I think that the reaction was actually the opposite of what I predicted. I mean, I thought people were gonna be angry. There was it was more just like a silence, like people didn't know if they should react or not. That from what I I felt like I was loud, but that's me having my remarks. And I remember the person sitting next to me is a believer that Scott is innocent. And it took all I took all I had to just be like, are you kidding? But everybody's entitled to their opinions. And again, I'm like you, I'm open-minded. If you can present evidence and convince me, I'm open to it, but good luck.

SPEAKER_15 9:45

And even if I don't agree, I mean, if you can present respectfully a compelling case, you know, one, I'm not on that jury. I'm not going to be on that jury. So no matter what, you know, my opinion really at the end of the day doesn't matter. But from what I have seen, like what they presented to that panel, I didn't hear any new evidence. Maybe they're saving it for what we're about to watch. I'm excited to watch it. Like I said, I I I I told them, Chris, I believe is the NE host that uh and uh and again, the the female detective, her name is escaping me, and I'm so sorry. Remember, but you know, you know, I said I will respectfully watch it, and I'm and and I'm very intrigued to hear what you have to say. But something I heard Mark Gargo say in an interview uh on a different podcast, it was just a short interview, but he said, you know, the he's like the difference, you know, in what happened to CrimeCon is, you know, he's like, I think we probably lost 25% of the audience during that panel. He's like 20 years ago we would have lost 50% or 70%. I can't remember what he said. But uh I was like, well, that's true.

SPEAKER_26 10:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 10:46

So, you know, there is a different sentiment when things are looked at through a different uh time frame through a different time. I mean, 20 years ago, a lot of us probably would not have thought that Menendez brothers may need to be looked at through a different like. I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that there, you know, there is more of a conversation happening there. And plus, we are in the year of, you know, Alex Murdoch getting, you know, a new trial, Adam Montgomery getting a new trial. There's another high-profile person I uh, you know, I that's getting a new trial I can't think of. You know, so I who knows what's gonna happen. But when we watch, maybe, maybe we're gonna walk away from this convinced he's in a sense.

SPEAKER_11 11:22

Um, and I do, I do want to say that I respect what Mark does as his career. So, like I said, somebody has to be that person, somebody has to take on these cases because as much as we don't like criminals, they're an entitled to a lawyer just like anybody else in the world is. So he's doing his job as a defense attorney. So that that's I respect that. I understand. That's not what I'm disgusted with. It's how he presented himself. And I don't and even though I don't like Scott, I feel like he didn't give his own clients the respect that he should have. And that's saying a lot because I hate Scott Peterson. So I feel like he didn't represent his client in the most professional way that he could, as well as getting on stage in front of thousands of people that pay money to come. He just had no just arrogance. That's it. For what he does for a living, I respect. But him as a person, right? No. That's so I wanted to clear that up. So all right. Right.

SPEAKER_15 12:14

Yeah, and I I understand that. And see, I mean, I I I quick really quickly I will say, you know, like I, you know, it's hard because I think both of us would consider ourselves victims' advocates and, you know, advocates of, you know, people that have gone through horrible um things. And, you know, and and it's it can be a difficult thing when you always support the victims to then be open to uh, you know, to be fully open to, you know, the rights that also of who you think is absolutely guilty. But, you know, that is one of the things that, you know, I think is good about our judicial system. There are lots of problems with it. But I do think that one of the things that is good, and I don't think it would ever work. I don't think it would work. And I don't think the entire system of of of the courts would even be possible without defense attorneys. And something I've heard Mark Ergo say in the past is that, you know, you know, a defense attorney's job is not to prove their client is innocent necessarily, it is to provide a fever, you know, dis defense and to basically keep the state in check to make sure there's not an over abuse of power. And that is something I do think is fundamental and very, very important.

SPEAKER_26 13:20

Yes.

SPEAKER_15 13:21

You know, because the burden should be on the state. I mean, these this is, you know, granted, we're when these situations happen, we're talking about Lacey's life, we're talking about Connor's life, but we are also talking about Scott's life. And so, you know, whether we think he's 100% guilty or not, it is important that that's representative that there's someone that is presenting the case that they feel is important to make sure things are free.

SPEAKER_11 13:46

Even if Scott, let's just say he is innocent, and I wanna I want to say this too, just to say he is innocent. Again, he deserves that right to be proven innocent, you know, until proven guilty. So he he also deserves, and I don't like saying it, but it's the truth, he also deserves the best defense he can get because that's what we're entitled to. So I feel like Mark probably isn't the best defense, but again, it's I'm not the jury, I'm not the judge, I'm not the family in the courtroom. I'm just from what I've watched over 20 years, and I I just I don't know. I think they're grass match straws at this point, and and Scott is doing everything he can to get out of prison, and it's possible. I mean, it is it's don't ever say never because it happens. So I guess we'll get started. Yeah, we'll we'll see. We'll see how it goes. And by the way, guys, if you haven't already know, Aspen has been on my show a few times. He's very familiar with the Delphi, Abby, and Libby case. He actually knows their families very well. He's attended their trials. And he recently was also at the uh Lexington, South Carolina Murdoch retrial hearing. So he'll be following that more too. He goes all over, he's lucky. I wish I could attend these court trials. But if if you ever want more info inside the courtroom, maybe you should have a podcast called Inside the Courtroom. I talk to Aspen, so he's he brings a lot of insight from the inside that we don't all get to see. So stay forward.

SPEAKER_15 15:09

I mean, thank you, thank you for that. And something else, I you know, having produced a um documentary for ABC News in Hulu on the Delphi case called Couching Their Killer, The Girls on the Hybridge, I also know a thing or two about being involved in a controversial project that people have very passionate mixed opinions about. So I, you know, so I'm very so that's one of the reasons I'm intrigued to watch this, actually.

SPEAKER_11 15:31

All right. Well, again, react the way you need to react. There's no filter here. And we have to edit something later, AKM, but I don't feel like I'm gonna have to edit because I like being raw and real, so but we'll give it a go.

SPEAKER_23 15:43

So a woman who is eight months pregnant disappeared Christmas Eve and hasn't been seen since.

SPEAKER_29 15:50

27-year-old Macy Peterson. Dozens of people searched for Lacey. There could be a body somewhere.

SPEAKER_13 15:56

There were questions about husband Scott.

SPEAKER_29 15:59

Scott said he left for fishing the day that Lacey disappeared.

SPEAKER_38 16:02

We have claims of an affair.

SPEAKER_36 16:03

Scott admitted he was cheating on Lacey. Scott Peterson now admits to both lying and cheating.

SPEAKER_41 16:10

Detectives have focused their investigation on Lacey Peterson's husband, Scott.

SPEAKER_20 16:13

It's one of the most famous cases in this country's history. For me, the Peterson case has been that category of unresolved things in your life.

SPEAKER_22 16:22

In the case of Lacey Peterson, police identify her body and arrest her husband for her murder.

SPEAKER_20 16:29

I've always believed that there are huge problems in this case. But what if everything we knew about the case was just wrong?

SPEAKER_36 16:46

Nearly 20 years after being convicted of killing his wife and their unborn child, Scott Peterson was back in court today seeking a new trial.

SPEAKER_20 16:54

The Los Angeles Innocence Project has taken on Scott Peterson's defense.

SPEAKER_04 16:58

Good morning, Your Honor. Paula Mitchell, Los Angeles Innocence Project, or Scott Peterson.

SPEAKER_20 17:02

When an organization like the Los Angeles Innocence Project takes on a case, it means that they believe that this is a wrongful conviction, and they are arguing that Scott Peterson is absolutely innocent. Paula Mitchell is an appellate attorney. She has deep knowledge of the facts and the evidence and the science. And when I read the filings, I was blown away. They have brought out so many new aspects of this case that were previously unheard of, undiscussed, and they are putting forward new evidence that suggests that Lacey Peterson's disappearance was completely unrelated to Scott Peterson. I'm going to really deeply investigate the Los Angeles Innocent Project's filing.

SPEAKER_06 17:46

It appears the detectives just decided to destroy this evidence.

SPEAKER_37 17:55

This is crazy. He did not know this.

SPEAKER_20 17:58

Do I think that we'll be able to answer this to whether Scott Peterson is guilty or innocent? I think we're going to get a lot closer than anyone ever has.

SPEAKER_01 18:43

Yeah.

SPEAKER_20 18:43

Why does the public find this case fascinating if it's so open and shut and it's just about a flandering husband who found a way to kill his wife so he could be with his mistress? If it was just that, it would have come and gone. This has been a mystery from day one. My name is Chris Pixley. I'm an attorney, and for over 30 years I've been doing trial practice. I'm a third-generation attorney in my family, and I was raised to believe actually that law is a noble profession and that can do a lot of good. I've done work on behalf of individuals like the Menendez brothers. I represented Eric Menendez for over 10 years, but the Scott Peterson case has always bothered me. I always believed that this was not a thorough investigation. A man is in prison for the murder of his wife. I'd like to find out if he belongs there.

SPEAKER_04 19:46

Police in Modesto, California have very few leads in a search for Lacey Peterson.

SPEAKER_13 19:51

Lacey Denise, if you're hearing Dag, we love you very much, and we want your home.

SPEAKER_20 19:56

At the time of Lacey Peterson's disappearance, I was a legal analyst for ABC's Good Morning America, Court TV, and CNN's Larry King Live. The prosecution may not only have to prove that Scott Peterson is a murderer, they may have to prove that he's a sociopath. I commented on the Peterson case from early 2003 all the way through the trial. Obviously, the judge did not agree with the DA. It wasn't evidence of scratch marks. Nobody called them scratch marks. It was a genuine mystery. For every piece of evidence that you marshaled against Scott Peterson, most of which had to do with his character, there were these unexplained questions about the actual physical scene of the crime. There were unexplained questions about how he could have gotten away with it.

SPEAKER_32 20:50

They were identified as Lacey Peterson and her unborn son.

SPEAKER_41 20:53

Scott Peterson says he launched his boat here to go fishing the day before Christmas.

SPEAKER_20 20:58

Scott Peterson always maintained his innocence. And now the Los Angeles Innocence Project is arguing to the federal court that the constitutional basis of his conviction is not viable. First, they're arguing that new fetal biometric science suggests that Lacey Peterson likely didn't die on December 24, 2002, that she may not have died for many days or even weeks later. If they're right, it means that Scott Peterson is innocent. Secondly, new computational hydrodynamic modeling suggests that if Lacey Peterson's body had been placed in the bay in the location where Scott Peterson was fishing, her body and Connor's body would not have been recovered where they were. Of the criminal investigation, arguing that not only did the Modesto police not investigate the many, many witnesses that came forward with sightings of Lacey on the morning of December 24th, they also destroyed evidence in the case. If the Los Angeles Infants project's new evidence is reliable, it raises dramatic questions about the viability of the state's entire story. I'm going to talk to experts, some from the original prosecution, some who had nothing to do with the case, to get their unbiased views of the case. It's an exciting proposition to be able to really stress test both the factual evidence and the new science. This is the first time that we've really started to get an honest evaluation of what went on 20 years ago surrounding the Peterson case. He moved her body multiple times across a great distance in broad daylight.

SPEAKER_06 23:31

Nice to meet you as well.

SPEAKER_20 23:32

Thank you for doing this with me.

SPEAKER_06 23:34

My pleasure. I'm Nanette Tuesbee. I'm a retired LAPD detective. I was with LAPD for almost 25 years. After my retirement, I became involved with the LA Innocence Project as an expert, providing them with insight on police procedures.

SPEAKER_20 23:52

So the thing that we want to do today is go to all the locations that Scott Peterson is alleged to have traveled to in the course of disposing of his wife's body, and just determine how plausible that is with your expert eye on all of this.

SPEAKER_06 24:10

You know, you can read about something in a file, but it is never the same as when you go there and you actually get an understanding of the layout.

SPEAKER_20 24:20

One of the things that's important in terms of our starting point is that the events of December 23rd, the night before Lacey Peterson's disappearance, are undisputed. Scott and Lacey go to Lacey's sister's hair salon to get Scott a haircut. They get pizza, they bring it home, and they start a movie, and then Lacey calls her mother late night.

SPEAKER_18 24:44

We were going to their house, Christmas party, and she was looking forward to it. She and Scott are just so much in love, they just, they're just, I think everybody envies their relationship. They're just perfect together.

SPEAKER_20 25:26

And the next morning that he had the presence of mind to make searches on the computer for things that only Lacey would be searching for, to load her body into the back of his truck, cover it with some umbrellas, wave to the neighbors. And of course, the defense has always argued this is entirely implausible. And I want to see for myself. This is the Peterson home. This is essentially the same physical setup that it was back in 2002 when Lacey Peterson went missing. Generally the same time of day, the same general time of year. What do you first notice about this in terms of the alleged crime?

SPEAKER_06 26:13

It's not a particularly deep driveway, you know, so it's very close to the street, and it's very close to the house across the street, uh, because it's a narrow street, and then also how close the garage is to the neighbor. It was a one-story house then, so there isn't really a huge amount of privacy between the homes and just this whole in general.

SPEAKER_20 26:35

Christopher Wolf, what one of the witnesses reported seeing Scott that morning. She reported that his truck was facing into the driveway.

SPEAKER_06 26:54

If I were planning on carrying a body out, I probably would have backed in the truck. But even so, let's just say, you know, the truck was parked the way it was parked. To carry a body out and get that body into the bed of the truck in an area that is, all intents and purposes, quite open. It's a very risky endeavor if you want to go unnoticed. Even if the body was completely wrapped, it's gonna look like a body. It doesn't mean it cannot happen. It's just how likely is it that you could successfully do that without detection.

SPEAKER_20 27:32

Honestly, the state's theory, and it was what Scott Peterson was convicted on, is the idea that he loaded Lacey's body in the back of his pickup truck doesn't make sense.

SPEAKER_15 27:50

Um it was interesting. Um, you know, I definitely felt like, you know, there um it's definitely, I think, you know, gonna be a very narrative um take on the evidence that they're presenting. You know, like even the first thing that stood out to me was the um the indication that this is not a case that we would, you know, still be talking about if there weren't questions. I felt like that was a little bit of a leap. Um because I mean, I feel like we're more oversaturated because of social media today with cases that are similar or cases that take the public's attention. Whereas if you look back at 2002, with the way that news spread and the way that news was presented, um, we didn't have the access to 24-7 social media. We did, you know, cable news. Um, but you know, all if you think about there really are only a handful of those cases that from that time period that really stand out. And it's the ones that gripped the nation's attention. Um and it's not necessarily because there are questions, you know, like I would say Natalie Halloway, um, John Vinny Ramsey, that one there is questions. But I don't think anyone really had questions about Natalie Holloway or Lacey Peterson. Like I don't think that's what has kept the intrigue of this case. I think it's the horrendous nature of what happened to Lacey and Connor. Um, and the monster that we kind of watched in front of our eyes, at least, you know, that was our perception. Maybe they're maybe they'll change our minds here. But um, that stood out to me um right uh right away. Um and then I had uh lots of other observations that you know I can probably go over at different times, like because I don't want to take up too much time for each break, but um I definitely noticed they're laying the groundwork for, in my opinion, using very selective language and very um kind of almost cherry-picking the facts from the case that they're they're using to present. And if you look at the language, you know, narrow street, houses close together, we're here at the same time of day, at the same time of year, but we don't know when she went missing. You know, so like there's all of these contradictions already in what they're saying. They're you know, and and if the new evidence that they're really basing all of this off of is, you know, that one, they have they think they're that Lacey and could have potentially been alive for days after the 24th. But then they're also saying that, you know, the location that that's that Connor and Lacey were were were covered in in the water from how would they be able to track that without inputting a date into the program they're using to come up with where she should have come up. So I'm I'm intrigued to keep listening to hear more about that because I feel like that that that was a very um selective way to present that. And if someone wasn't paying close attention, they might be like, oh, that is new evidence. But you're only gonna get the result that they want if you put the date there, the date that fits their theory. And to my knowledge, they've never presented an an alternate date other than that it might not have been the same date that day.

SPEAKER_11 31:27

Yeah, um that that's what popped out to me more than anything in that first part was them not knowing exactly when she was put in that day. So they're saying it could have been the twenty-third, could have been the twenty-fourth, could have been a week later, months later, and I never really thought about that. Like with the 20 years watching this case. If she was put out later, I mean where was she? Who had her? Um, and that would kind of clear Scott, but I just still I just think there's too much circumstantial evidence for me. That's what I'm basing this case off of.

SPEAKER_15 31:59

Um but scientifically also Scientifically you couldn't deter I mean if you don't know when where if you don't know where when she when she was killed, then you should have no way of knowing where her body should have came up.

SPEAKER_11 32:13

Abs absolutely. Yep. The boat really aggravates me because of the cover. They're saying that the cover wasn't like the handles weren't stretched out enough and there was no wear and tear. But if it was brand new and you only used it one time, there's not gonna be rips and tears and dirt and stains on the cover. Okay. The boat being taken out in the water with a dummy and it just so shows that it sinks. I mean I think the reason why the judge threw it out and not being allowed in for evidence is because it had if it sank like that, did he just if he brought Lacey out, did he just let her sink with the boat and then he soaked and wet and like I I just don't understand. And going back to the old evidence with the five concrete anchors that he had, if he had those in the boat and Lacey and himself, that boat wouldn't even made it that far. So I don't feel like the weight of the boat it has anything to do with if he put her in it or not, because all the other factors of evidence that were in that boat, it wouldn't have left, it wouldn't even gotten past the dock with all that weight all the way out into the bay if the dummy alone made it sink. So then you have to add in the anchors, you have to add in Scott's weight, like it just doesn't like add up. And I I I keep hearing the net say, um, oh, he wouldn't have known who was here that day when he was at the warehouse, and he wouldn't have known who was at the marina if he frequented those places a lot. You know, a lot of people can stalk things out and see the time of day that's most busy, who comes and goes at certain times, what cars are there at certain times. So he could have been planning this out for a while and knowing, okay, this is the time and day that I'm least likely to get noticed. This is the time and day where I know there's nobody ever here at this warehouse, there's nobody ever here at this arena. I mean, I don't think this was a he woke up and pulled off the perfect crime. I think this was definitely a premeditated, lengthy process. I don't think he just woke up in December and was like, well, I'm gonna kill my wife. I think this was going on for a long time. So when Chris says, you know, what's the odds and it's luck that you could pull off a perfect crime and clean up four crime scenes and not leave a trace of evidence. No, I I believe somebody could do that. I I do. I think if he plotted and planned it long enough, he cleaned it up and he he just got away with it until he did. But that's I really just don't think the boat being a Christmas present to her dad has anything to do with it either. I I think he bought that boat intentionally to take Lacey out to that day. Um and that's that's why her parents never knew about it. So that's my thoughts on that.

SPEAKER_15 35:10

Yeah, I um, you know, I used to own a boat. Um and um I can tell you that I my boat I kept in the water. Um and um I over the years that I owned the boat, um, I think I had to buy two different covers because they do get war, even just like when they're when, you know, when they're just from the sun and stuff, they do get worn out. But um if you're using a brand new boat cover, first of all, I I've I I've also driven from Modesto to the San Francisco Bay. It's mainly freeway. It's not like you know, you're gonna be, you know, like causing a huge amount of wear and tear. The weather conditions, if I remember correctly, that Christmas Eve were were were were were cold for California, but not, you know, not like something that would cause that that you know that boat to, you know, if that boat cover or the straps to look so worn in the first hour they're used. So that to me is silly. Um again, I'm also seeing the contradictions in them using the, you know, they want to be very intentional in the language they're using as far as it being a shallow bottom boat, shallow bottom boat, and how she'd have to be under the cover. Lacey was a petite woman. So even if she was under that cover, she could go unseen underneath the boat cover in the boat. Not to mention, I have a million times been on the my dock and been on the dock, walked past boats, and never even thought to pay attention to what was inside the inside of another person's boat. Now, yes, I would notice a body, but if it's disguised, probably not. I also wanted to say the um the warehouse to me, first of all, it's somewhere that Scott frequented. Um the video that we saw, and this is 20 years later, that looked pretty private to me. I mean, it was in the back of the building. I mean, it didn't seem like there was a uh a huge um public presence in that area, not to mention it's Christmas Eve. How many people are at their warehouse at 10 30 a.m. on Christmas Eve? You know, a very, very easy time to probably show up at your warehouse. And you know what? Who's to say I mean, how long I mean if it was impossible to transfer a body from a house to a truck or a boat, then there'd hardly be any unsolved crimes. It happens all the time. People go undetected. We don't know that he didn't take if it's let's say it did happen on the 23rd. We don't know that he didn't m take her body out to the truck or the the bo boat the the truck in the middle of the night. You know, so yeah, you know, how many people are gonna, you know, and even if he did do it that morning, there's a lot of things that he could have there's a lot of ways he that you know he could have gone unnoticed with that. Um you know, w I want to know because I don't remember was the um were the inside was the inside of his truck um completely forensically tested and the bed of the truck? Because how do we know he didn't put her in the back seat? Like there's so many parallels now that I watch this with you know, now that I look at this through the lens of having also experienced Chris Watts, because I do find a lot of similarities in the two. Um, you know, she was in the backseat of the truck. Um was there, you know, was there forensic evidence of Shannon Watts found in the in Chris's truck? I don't know the answer to that. Um so I'd be curious to, you know, know what forensic testing was done on the inside of Scott's truck. And also I would argue that they keep talking about there are all of these different scenes and there's no forensic evidence. There's no forensic evidence. Well, first of all, Brian Cober, Brian Coberger walks into a house. Yes, there was victim um evidence, but he walks into a house and the only DNA that we that they found a tr that they found detectable of his was on a partial um on the sheath. So, I mean, and that was a brutal you know. I don't think what why would there be any forensic evidence in a strangulation? There's no blood. There's not you know, so any DNA they found in that home would be normal because she lived there. Anything they found in her bed was was there was there forensic evidence found in Shenan Watts' bedroom? No, because sh he she was strangled to death. And I'm not and I'm of course I'm just saying this allegedly, but I'm like, they're they're saying there's no forensic evidence of this, there's nothing, there's no hair, there's no blood, there's no DNA. Like well, that's because depending on the way she was killed, there may not be.

unknown 39:56

Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 39:57

Just like if she were wrapped in something and then moved from the truck to the to the um boat, whatever, why would why would there be then forensic evidence in the warehouse? And we don't know that she was transferred to ten different places. She may have been in the have gone from the truck to the boat and that's it.

SPEAKER_11 40:12

That's what I think. I that I think it's that simple.

SPEAKER_15 40:16

There, you know, so and I again and and you know, and may you know, is it is it possible that what they're saying um has legs? Yeah, it's possible. Is it probable? No, not from anything I've seen so far. Um I don't know. I just those were just some of the things that I that I thought. And also the 14 foot the um the the shallow bottom boat, um, they kept putting emphasis on that. Yet really, which again, I want to say um, I remember when they when when Markier goes to this with his poor law clerk, and I just I hope that that lock law clerk law clerk got a um very um lucrative job um because I'm sure he earned it having to be put out on that boat on the San Francisco Bay, um with I'm sure very strict instructions that this should work in the way that the defense wanted it to work. Yeah. And, you know, he probably had a lot of motivating factors into um making sure that, yep, it's not possible. Because you're working for one of the you're a law clerk for one of the most, you know, successful rich, you know, defense attorneys in the country. Yep. Um, and you know, nothing a test being performed one time by a party that has invested interest in the outcome. Um, yeah, I I'm not shocked that it was not considered scientific. I mean, now had they used an independent um if they had used an independent lab to test the entire thing and they had repeated it multiple multiple times as you do with most most scientific testing, maybe then there would be some validity to the results if they coincided with what Mark Garagos is saying. But putting your law clerk out there, who's you know, I'm assuming a 20-year-old kid, you know, who wants to impress his boss, I'm not shocked that he got the result he wanted.

SPEAKER_11 42:14

I think um James Cameron from Titanic needs to go out there and because he works with the um naval underwater people, and he's gone down a hundred times to see the ship, and he tested the joke the Jack and Rose theory. So um I think they need to send him out there. But no.

SPEAKER_15 42:32

Um it was I will say also a 14-foot shallow bottom boat is going to be less likely to tip than um than a bowed boat, than a bowed um bottom boat. Um and also the the the you know, they're saying like two people, you know, or I mean um Lacey and and and Scott's weight on that. I mean, how many times do you have you seen two grown men on a fishing boat? That's not uncommon. Like there's n like there's nothing uncommon about Lacey, like that's not a tiny, tiny boat. Yes, I mean, it's not a it's not a catamaran, it's not it's not at all a bit.

SPEAKER_11 43:08

Yeah, but like you said, she's petite. She was petite.

SPEAKER_15 43:11

She's petite, and you know, it's it'd be easy to balance that out, and they're in a shallow, flat bottom boat. So it does it is uh more likely to stabilize the weight. And that's even if you take the cement blocks out of the situation. And with Scott's you know, strength and weight, you could easily remove you know, l get get you know, like knock her out or take her out of the boat without tipping the boat over. Um in my opinion.

SPEAKER_11 43:40

Yeah, and he's a seasoned fisherman, so he knows he knows how to balance boats. He knows where to put the weight. He know I mean, it's just again, this is one of those things where I don't think the boat has relevance.

SPEAKER_15 43:52

I don't either. I I I don't either, and nor do I nor do I have like I th I I um like I've never thought that it actually has relevance. As to whether she died on the 23rd or the 24th. Maybe she did maybe he didn't kill her until the morning of the 24th. Maybe she did get up and make those searches. Maybe she did watch the Today Show with Martha Stewart. Why does it matter? She's still dead. It doesn't change the timeline as far as we know she talked to her mother the night before on the 23rd. We know that Scott showed up at the San Francisco Bay at on Christmas Eve and and Lacey was never seen again after that day.

SPEAKER_26 44:29

And don't forget.

SPEAKER_15 44:30

If so if so if she did if if she did make it through the night and she did and I know that, you know, part of the reason the set the the state theorizes that she died on the 23rd is because I believe the clothing she was wearing. I think you told me that one time when we had a dis when we were talking about this case, when we went to the panel, um they matched kind of what she was t she had been wearing on the 23rd, in my case.

SPEAKER_11 44:56

The clothes that she was wearing the 23rd that when she went to see her sister was tagged in a white shirt. That those are the clothes that they found in the hamper. I'm 99% sure.

SPEAKER_15 45:09

So she had changed. Because I rem I rem I do remember the defense saying, Oh, you know, well, she clearly went to bed because there was clothes in the hamper, and they, you know, they that was part of their whole thing about it not happening on the 23rd. And you know, I and I will say that, you know, I don't think the prosecution did themselves any favors by by, you know, putting weight on that, um, on that being the 23rd. I think that they, you know, I I again I don't I think it's inconsequential if it was the 23rd or the 24th. Either way, we know sometime between this time and this time, she died.

SPEAKER_11 45:41

I I I think he did it in the middle of the night. I think he put her in the boat in the middle of the night.

SPEAKER_15 45:47

I think it doesn't change the outcome.

SPEAKER_11 45:50

Yeah. And I think he left in the morning with the truck and just went right out to the marina, and that that would make it to where no one saw her. If he did it in the nighttime, I mean, look at Shenan Watts, same thing. And they did find her DNA in that truck because she her body released, you know, fluids and whatnot, but with Lacey, they didn't. So my my guess is he took her out in the middle of the night and put her in that boat, put the cover on, got up bright and early, jumped in that truck and left. That that it's that simple. Like I don't know why they're overcomplicating it. And well, I mean, I I know he had to go to the warehouse. He put her in that boat or that truck in the middle of the night. He he didn't do it in broad daylight. And if the boat was at the warehouse or he pulled up with the boat, I can't remember what they said. Like you said on Christmas Eve, how likely are people gonna be there? And two, if he goes there all the time, he knows what time people get there. If it's a routine. So I don't think anybody would have seen him carrying Lacey's body because I think he put her either in the boat with the truck in the middle of the night.

SPEAKER_15 46:57

Well when what you know, what if she was wrapped up in something? I you know, it's specul speculative, but what if she was wrapped up in something and you know, someone's even if someone saw him carry her out there wrapped up, she was petite, and then five minutes later they see him also then carrying wrapped up patio umbrellas out there, your mind wouldn't immediately associate the two. Like you're like, oh, nothing uncommon there, and then he's using those to cover, you know, even if she had been wrapping something, I'm I don't know for certain, but again, I don't think it really matters because like I said, if everyone that's ever taken a body out of a house and moved it into a vehicle or a truck w was seen by someone, we'd have no unsolved cases.

SPEAKER_26 47:42

Yep.

SPEAKER_15 47:43

Um but I um I you know, I think that it's I said those to me are just like facts that that people get hung up on, and I don't think they actually matter. Um now, yes, if the prosecution, I understand that their the benefit for them in saying it was the 23rd is that that can then dispel the stuff that you know we hear about with some of the defense bringing up other people that think they may have seen her or whatever, because they saw a pregnant woman. They saw a white pregnant woman with a golden retriever in California.

SPEAKER_11 48:15

Because that's so that's such a rare, that's such a iniquar.

SPEAKER_15 48:18

That's not a rarity. But um, and and I'm not making light of it at all, of course, because you know what what what Lacey and Connor went through are hell, and you know what um what all what all of them went through, or her family went through as hell. And you know, and if Scott Peterson is innocent, he's gone through hell. Um, you know, I'm not seeing anything yet to prove that to me. But I also do have one interesting question that I've never heard an answer to. And I um, you know, because I also think people talk about, you know, was he lying about you know, giving the boat to the to her dad? One, would that be an atypical type present for him to buy for his father-in-law? Um, like is, you know, like how much I would assume that would have been something that Lacey and him planned on, like it's a a a larger purchase, right?

SPEAKER_26 49:10

Yep.

SPEAKER_15 49:11

Um And why would he tell her? What did they get the um what did they get Sharon that year? What did they get his parents that year? You know, so I'm like, so if this big elaborate gift, you know, was going to his father-in-law, um, you know, that, you know, I'm just let's just go off the if if Scott was telling the truth and it was for his father-in-law, did Lacey know about it? Because I would assume there'd be re no reason she wouldn't, right? Like, why would you hide? Um, and two, if he took the boat out on Christmas Eve and then was going to give it as a gift less than twelve hours later on the next day, did he clean it? Was there things were there things in the boat? Because I mean, if you're gonna present someone with a boat, are you gonna like leave saltwater are you gonna leave like, you know, um bait like the bait the water from the bay all over it? Or did he come home and clean it? I've never heard that he did that. I've never heard that he cleaned the boat. So he's just gonna give his father-in-law a dirty boat?

SPEAKER_11 50:10

Yeah, no, it doesn't.

SPEAKER_15 50:12

We know someone cleaned the kitchen, we know someone cleaned the house. Yeah because it smelled like bleach.

SPEAKER_11 50:16

And don't forget, that morning he told people that he got up to go golfing first and decided it's too cold, so I'm gonna go out on the bay go fishing. Okay, so you can't golf, but you'll go out in the water with a breeze.

SPEAKER_15 50:30

How so he made that and so and they so he made that decision last minute because of the weather. However, we know also that he you're the one that told me this, I think, when we were at the panel uh in in Vegas, um, that he got that that um permit to go out on the bay for the 23rd and 24th. And I think you said he obtained it like on the 20th or 21st, which means it was the 20th, he got it.

SPEAKER_11 50:56

And it was for the 23rd and 24th.

SPEAKER_15 50:59

So I mean, I mean, he had a he had some incredible foresight um to you know have a last minute decision to go fishing and just so it happened to have gotten the permit to go on the exact dates that he went on.

SPEAKER_11 51:12

Yep. Yeah, so why would if he'd gone golfing to begin with if he had bought those bought that license on the 20th? So yeah, it's uh that's a big hole in in the story, but let's get back to it.

SPEAKER_15 51:23

Um much harder to much harder to weekend to Bernie's uh um someone out on the golf course.

SPEAKER_11 51:29

Sorry, that's funny. I mean, yeah, I mean it's I don't think it's not imp I don't think it's impossible for him to pull this off.

SPEAKER_15 51:39

I don't so I mean like I said if I mean most criminals when you say, oh, for the first time you you couldn't have pulled this perfect crime off. I can think of the top of my head five criminals who who you know would you know, other than their stupid mistakes, would have gotten away with it.

SPEAKER_11 51:59

So look at the John Bennet case.

SPEAKER_15 52:01

It's just like a lot Scott could be just like a lot of these people.

unknown 52:05

Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 52:06

You know, it's not that's not un unheard of at all. Um and it's not just dumb luck, it's all s it's all sorts of factors.

SPEAKER_11 52:13

Well, think of this. If he bought that vote license on the 20th and didn't plan to use it to the 23rd and 24th, that's premeditated right there. So I think he's been plotting and planning this for months. I that's me.

SPEAKER_15 52:27

Well, and again, what forensic evidence is there gonna be if Lacey went to bed that night? Had pizza, watched a movie, went to bed that night, woke up in the middle of the night with her husband on top of her, strangling her to death.

SPEAKER_26 52:42

Or poisoning her.

SPEAKER_15 52:43

Just like Chris Watts. Just like Chris Watts. It wouldn't leave any forensic evidence.

SPEAKER_11 52:50

Yeah, so what would but well, but why would the house smell like bleach though? Why would he clean bleach? Like how why would he use bleach if there was no evidence?

SPEAKER_15 52:59

You know, I mean, you could argue the bleach scene is never going to is never going to sway the case one way or another because you could say, okay, they're having company Christmas morning, the entire family is coming over Christmas morning, they're hosting, so maybe they used bleach to clean. You know, that's if I'm the defense attorney, that's what I would say. That, you know, that was normal for them to, you know, for Lacey to have. And you know, while Scott was out of the bay, you know, testing out the boat, Lacey was home, you know, um, getting ready with, you know, finishing up the nursery and cleaning for Christmas the next day, because they were hosting. I mean, most people, you know, you know, I get hyper anxiety and like a hyperfixate when I have to like am having people over because I hate hosting. And so like, and I clean every little thing and then I, you know, over overanalyze and overthink every little thing, you know, which is why it's not fun to host. But um, or was he cleaning up any signs of maybe him having to drag her off the bed onto a sheet, onto anything? I'm always wondered if there were any missing bedding from the house, any missing like maybe he even bought something to use, a tarp. Maybe he you he maybe he did buy something. He he had the fit he had the um the the permit to go out on the bay days before. What would have kept him from buying a tarp? That would have looked perfectly normal.

SPEAKER_11 54:22

I don't think that was the first time he took that boat out on the marina either. I think he had taken it out before he had he had to plot it and plans where he was gonna take her. Um and like I said, I told you before, I read Sharon Roach's book, Poor Lacey, one of the best books I ever read.

SPEAKER_15 54:43

I'd like to read it.

SPEAKER_11 54:44

And it was more of the perspective of their family, not what the media put out. And there were some things in there where she I if I remember correctly, there wasn't really any evidence in the house. Everything looked normal. There was no proof of a break-in, no proof of an attack, no proof of items left behind that weren't hers or things at a place, or it was just like she was she just went out to get coffee or something. So there was nothing in that room. I don't think anything was taken out of off the bed. I don't I think there was a tarp. I really do. I don't know why there would have been bleach unless she was cleaning and he was cleaning, but again, that's that that's circumstantial because you don't really know why they were using it. Um Right.

SPEAKER_15 55:30

So that's that's never gonna make or break the case. But um again, there was nothing out of other than the fact that in the Chris Watts case, um, he had removed the bedding. But you remember he also he also anticipated going home. He he got I mean, he would have taken more steps to disguise his actions had it not been for Nicole or um um the friend. Yeah. Nicole was a girlfriend, but I can't remember the fr um um Shannon's.

SPEAKER_11 56:02

Shannan's best friend was Nicole. That's who checked on her that morning.

SPEAKER_15 56:07

So that's and so because she came with the police, yeah, she that's so he because so that's why that there was no bed betting left on, you know, because he fully anticipated to come home and replace it.

SPEAKER_26 56:18

Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 56:20

Um so you know, I'm you know, I'm just you know, I'm curious, you know, were there any any any sheets missing from the linen closet? Or was there a tarp? He could have gone anywhere and paid cash. He could have had he could have had a tarp in his warehouse.

SPEAKER_11 56:36

Do you think it was do you think it was possible if he dismembered her before he took her?

SPEAKER_15 56:41

That well, that that I think then you would have you you would be you would you would you would leave a lot more of a chance for the blood and for forensic evidence. Plus, if you go if you're believing that he made the cement blocks, um what would be the need of them if you're dismembering that to me would actually make it less likely that they would be effective.

SPEAKER_02 57:03

That's true.

SPEAKER_15 57:04

But you're also having to think about the fact that you could drip blood anywhere. So you know chances are, you know, you you know, I'm sure I even if he didn't want Connor, chances are, you know, he probably didn't want to d dismember or you know, a eight-month pregnant.

SPEAKER_11 57:31

He probably did strangle her. That would be my yeah. All right, let's get back to it. Your near look so pretty.

SPEAKER_18 57:50

Lacey was just a loving, happy, generous, vivacious person. She just Lacey loves life, she loves people for family and friends.

SPEAKER_29 58:02

All painted this picture of this girl that was so looking forward to giving birth, and she was planning on the nursery that she was finishing the construction of and looking forward to being a mother.

SPEAKER_18 58:13

This is Lacey. Can you tell she's pregnant? Look at that stomach, it's really sticking out.

SPEAKER_29 58:20

She was structured, she was organized, she had things planned out, she was social, and so when she comes up missing, and there's no explanation to it, it signals there's something bad happened.

SPEAKER_22 58:35

Modesto police begin the search for clues in the bizarre disappearance of 27-year-old Lacey Peterson.

SPEAKER_21 58:43

There's so many inconsistencies.

SPEAKER_11 58:48

Don't forget he sold her car, too. While all this was going on, he sold her car, so keep that in the back of your mind. That might show up in the second half, but when we talked about this last time, I completely forgot. But why would you just sell your car your wife's car randomly if you thought she was coming home?

SPEAKER_15 59:04

Didn't he also um didn't he also repurpose the nursery?

SPEAKER_11 59:08

Mm-hmm. Yeah, he started using it as a storm.

SPEAKER_15 59:11

But like like within like within like weeks of, you know, like so, you know, clear and like and like not only using it to like for storage, but like got rid of the nursery items.

SPEAKER_11 59:23

Yes. And from my understanding, right. Not only was he he he sold the car, because I think they got it back, he was putting his house up for sale too. So if you anticipate your wife and eight-month-old or your eight-month pregnant wife and a baby to come home, why would you sell her car? Why would you put the house up for sale? And why would you start getting rid of the nursery? Ding ding ding. Those are if I if I was a prosecutor, those are the top three things that I would focus on.

SPEAKER_15 59:51

I'm telling you, there's a playbook out there that we haven't read, but I apparently it starts out with you know, have every blessing that life can can provide you with a wonderful spouse, you know, a loving family, in-laws that love you. Oh, but then get bored, have a pregnant wife, meet a girl, have an affair. Let's see, what goes next? Um, oh yeah, you know, continue the affair, live a double life. Plot and plan and plot and plan to murder your said wi your current wife, because she's just too much at this point. Yeah. Can't handle her anymore. She's getting kind of annoying. And if you have two little children, let's just get in, get rid of them too. Um, because the new girlfriend, you know, like you just want to be free. And the new girlfriend had a kid too. So let's just take a look at it. She could or could just want to go surfing like on the sand in California, you know. Um, but you know, either way, you just get rid of them, and then within hours, you um you contact about having them withdrawn from school, and then you put the house on the market, and you know, you sell the car. Um, you know, definitely probably check into the life insurance. Um, lots of also like you know, text and and calls, you know, that are vague to the new girlfriend to kind of make sure she's still on board, just because you're like, well, hope I didn't do all that. And then, you know, she's not in me anymore. Um, and then, you know, because she'll even let me do some stuff my wife won't in our secret, you know, like calculator app chat. Um, so and I'm and I'm of course I'm going back and forth between Chris Watts and I can relate to that a lot. So I feel like similarities in their um behavior. Yeah. And I'm and I'm not I'm not I'm not using confirmation bias either in and you know making Scott's Peterson's connected to to Chris's. Parallels in in it that I are I it's hard to um to at least not acknowledge. You know, I'm I'm you know, maybe Scott Peterson is innocent. I, you know, I respect Chris Pixley. Um I think that you know that female detective is a lovely Lynette, I think is her name?

SPEAKER_26 1:02:13

Lynette.

SPEAKER_15 1:02:14

Um yes. And um, you know, and if I'm ever accused of a crime, Mark Earchos is not some, you know, not not necessarily he's he's probably in the top three um people I'd want to call.

SPEAKER_11 1:02:27

Yes, no, I and I I told you this before. I respect his passion and his dedication to being a defense lawyer. Somebody has to do it, right? Like we said in the beginning, somebody has to do the job. Everybody's entitled to a an attorney.

SPEAKER_15 1:02:44

And without without his attorneys, the our justice system serves no purpose.

SPEAKER_11 1:02:49

It's just how he presented himself at crime con. I just thought it was so unprofessional. But that's that's his character, but it doesn't mean he doesn't do a good job at what he does for a living. Like there's two separate like there's the person and then how good he does his job. He could be a good guy, he could be a bad guy, but it doesn't take away the fact that he is a good defense attorney. So I I I do want to respect that side because I'm I remember at CrimeCon when he said that he was getting death threats, he was getting bombs, bomb threats. And people people took it out on him, but I have to agree with him when he says, This is my job, you know, and I know that I'm gonna get he even admits, he's like, I know I'm gonna get backlash for this, but this is my job. Um, so I do respect that because if I was in that position, I would I need a really good defense attorney. So somebody has to do it. Um, and I do I respect that, but just how he presented himself was what I didn't appreciate. That's it.

SPEAKER_15 1:03:46

Right. I know, and I always try I always try to play devil's advocate because I know of course I when he walked out and he was all playing on his phone the whole time in the sweatpants, I was like, dude, you're the richest guy in this room, probably. You couldn't bother to cut pants. But you know, again, then a nice jeans and a nice shirt, like I'm like, you know what? You know, he he's been to Crimecom before, but you know, when he went there last time, it was probably much smaller. He might not have expected there to be 3,000 people in that room. I don't think so. You know, he might he might be a little socially he might have been a little socially awkward and been like, plus, um, you know, having been a part, I will say, and it's because I think I I think I to I'm not sure if I told you this earlier or not, but you know, I had had a conversation with Chris and that um after the um panel later that evening. Well, I just happened to run into them. Um and we were in a not not in the crime plant area, we were just down in the um in the um in at Caesar's Palace, um, kind of over by Nobu. And um they were standing there having a conversation and and I um and I I approached them and I said, you know, I said I was at your panels today, and um I said, I'll be honest, it's gonna take a mountain of evidence to prove to me that Scott Peterson is innocent, from what I know, and and and what I've and what I you know what I feel confident about in this case. Um But I really did appreciate the professionalism that the two of them used and they and the guts that it took for them to go on stage in front of 3,000 people, if that's how many were in the audience, um, and present a narrative or a a case that they have to clearly uh I believe. Um, because they're also not naive or stupid. They they know that they're walking onto a stage where m many, many, many more than half of the people in that room are automatically thinking they're idiots or trash or wrong. They don't know what to expect. That takes guts. Yeah, it does. And I and I and I wish and I and I have respect for someone that that can do that and do it in a response. respectful professional manner. And um and even though I've never defended a a um convicted murderer, I um I have, you know, been part of a documentary, a docuseries um that what many would consider controversial. Um that would be, you know, the um um catching the killer the girls on the high bridge about Dolphi. You know, I so I've so I've experienced you know what it feels like to have people come judge you without even seeing something first. Or to think that you feel a certain way just because you presented different sides of something um and made that reflect, you know, almost like it reflected on your personal beliefs. When that's I I just don't think that's you know you know I d I don't think that you know I don't think that's fair to just you automatically you know pre-judge someone. And so I told Chris I said, you know, I said it's gonna take a lot to convince me but I am excited to watch um the A and E special. I'm excited to see what evidence you have to present and um and you know I'll I'll be I will just watch it with an open mind and I you know and and I will give it a fair um review. So that's my that's my goal and it's you know I'd yet to see anything that's changing my mind so far but that's not to be disrespectful towards um Chris Pixley. I just um I I I'm seeing a lot of subjective like cherry picking of information to um kind of fit into a very narrative storytelling um angle of nothing new that I've I've seen nothing new so far have you?

SPEAKER_11 1:07:59

No, no it's nothing so let's get back to the No I stopped it because I I wanted to talk about that because it when they showed them type taping off her car I was like oh yeah I forgot they they sold her car. So that I think that's important.

SPEAKER_06 1:08:15

So many small but important items that just don't add up that I want to go back to day one of the investigation and examine everything from the beginning December 24th in the morning Lacey was last seen by her husband God and we started an investigation on the 24th about 547 p.m after Lacey Peterson was reported missing one of the first investigators to come to the Peterson home is Detective of the Modesto Police Department one thing that's interesting to me about the early interactions on December 24th with Scott Peterson is how cooperative he was he agreed to searches of his home of his place of business the warehouse where he worked gave over his phone agreed to searches of his and his personal belongings it's a sign when somebody is cooperative with the police but there are people who are guilty who will cooperate with the police the reason for that is because they're guilty they're afraid that if they don't cooperate it'll make them look guilty. So as an investigator you have to be careful to not read into it too much.

SPEAKER_20 1:09:48

Not only did Broken focus on Scott Peterson from day one, but he did some highly unusual things in his investigation. One of the things that the LAIP filing shows is that Scott Peterson was asked on the evening of December 2402 as to whether or not he had weapons he told the investigator that he did have weapons he took him to location in his home that he kept his hunting rifles locked up he also told him that he had a 22 caliber pistol in the glove compartment of his car.

SPEAKER_06 1:10:20

Unbeknownst to Scott Peterson that investigator Detective Brochini went to his truck and confiscated that 22 pistol to remove a piece of property irrespective of whether it's a gun or anything else to me is not a sanction in investigative practice. The practice is either you get consent or you have a search warrant and as an investigator we thought hmm there's something I want to check out about this gun then I would have asked do you mind if I booked this gun? And then if Scott Peterson had said no well then I probably would have probable cause to get a search warrant.

SPEAKER_40 1:11:11

Rocchini was done with Scott for minute one there's no doubt that he had an agenda.

SPEAKER_20 1:11:18

Another problem is that the notes from Detective Rocchini for December 24th as well as his notes for December 25th went missing.

SPEAKER_06 1:11:28

And he testified at trial that he destroyed those notes I cannot come up with a single explanation why any investigator would destroy notes, particularly on a high stakes case like a missing person.

SPEAKER_20 1:11:47

I mean it makes sense to me and I don't want to try to read into his rationale for doing it it's just a bizarre thing to do and there's an inherent risk is there not that you have exculpatory evidence in there that's lost when police investigative notes or any materials are destroyed.

SPEAKER_06 1:12:08

Not only is that a risk but the other risk is also if that you sort of haphazardly as an investigator decide well I'm gonna keep these notes but I'm gonna destroy those notes over there now the integrity of your investigation is being put into question particularly when you go to trial because it just it's bad optics Scott Peterson has no criminal record and he has no history of violence. Right. If there had been a history of Scott being violent and abusive towards Lacey Peterson that would point to a much higher likelihood that in fact he was the one who killed her this guy who has lived his entire life without any kind of violence is just not in his makeup. Just because you're having an affair doesn't make you murder it makes you douchey a very unlikable unsympathetic character for sure but being that and being a murderer are two different things.

SPEAKER_15 1:13:13

There was no evidence to suggest that Scott Peterson had killed his wife other than the fact that he happened to be having an affair and he was her husband that's essentially it's I don't know I don't know if I missed a tumbling class but the mental gymnastics that I just feel like I experienced and and I don't mean that disrespectfully but okay I know but I will agree. I mean you're mischievous though you're a douche doesn't mean you're you commit murder just because you cheat on your wife doesn't mean you commit murder yes valid 100% but to say there's no evidence that he killed his wife other than he was having an affair I mean what what is she talking about?

SPEAKER_11 1:14:07

I don't know.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:08

I and I mean yes I I understand that that you know this is a case that no I don't think anyone has ever argued that this was a case that that DNA or forensics was going to solve because again if she was strangled there isn't going to be that kind of evidence. This is one of those cases that it was that you know if you uh take a circumstantial case which many many many many many cases are proved through circumstantial evidence and and can and overwhelmingly convincingly so to a jury um and but when you say that there's no evidence other than as a fair you're completely ignoring the timeline the location of his the location of his movements the motive which again doesn't go into you know doesn't go into doesn't out have to be proven in in a trial um or defended but um you're you're taking you're you're ignoring his behavior and how atypical it was from his normal behavior and how how it changed and yes he was trying to hide an affair I get that well um yeah they all do there's so many things that she she just I think she just really did a disservice to the audience by saying there's no evidence because yeah there's no evidence if you don't want to believe there is throw the throw the affair out the window and there's still evidence that points that he killed his wife. If you take I've I've said that all I've always said that yet I do think that it prevent it did it I think that you know wanting you know having that new hot you know whatever and or as Mark Ergos would say hussy um when you've got your you know pregnant eight eight month pregnant wi big wife at home um that that still bothered me but um you know I'm like yes to remove Amber Fry from from the situation altogether it still doesn't she has because she plays no part of the actions that you know that we know about well she I mean I'm just saying even her even if she didn't exist it doesn't change the movements and the actions that he took that day and the and the and difference in his behavior it doesn't change any of it. I mean it's Amber Fry is not the reason he ended up in the back of that car with his brother's ID on his way to Mexico if that's where he was going.

SPEAKER_11 1:16:47

With five thousand um with all the cash bleaching his hair and his goatee and don't forget Amber Fry Don't forget Aspen that they don't they didn't mention this yet and it might come out in part two when he met Amber he said he had lost his wife before Lacey ever even went missing I lost my wife first Christmas without her she thought she thought that he like she died. So um then he changed his story down the road with her and said I never said she died and like it's just it's conflicting because he he already had he knew this was gonna happen.

SPEAKER_15 1:17:26

Like so again throw Amber out the window he could have told this to anybody right and that's just you know and I also want to you I also want to go back to something that Chris Pixley has mentioned several times about Scott's behavior being bold. Um you know like I think that's that's a you know I think you would probably describe it as arrogant.

SPEAKER_11 1:17:48

I think a lot of people would probably describe his behavior as arrogant arrogant and cocky and and bold yeah risky.

SPEAKER_15 1:17:55

But you know I'll use bold I'm gonna use I'm gonna use the word bold to describe Scott Peterson's behavior and I would say that yes you know would it be bold to take your wife out and put her in the in into the bat in under the the cover of your boat and transport her and then tie her down with weights in the San Francisco Bay and think you're gonna get away with it. Yep that's bold is it bold to have an open affair in the same town that you live in with your wife and almost born child or no well I mean so close close by but he posed I mean he voluntarily posed for pictures with his girlfriend while he had a pregnant wife at home like there are so many examples of him being somebody I know he was at the vigil he was at the vigil for his missing wife and child and pretended to be at the Eiffel Tower on New Year's Eve in Paris to the point where he even was like it's getting it's loud here it's almost midnight like it's you know like our yeah it's beautiful here in Paris and the whole time he's off on the side of the vigil for his wife and dead baby and Lacey's mom never yeah that she watched him do that that is the epitome of bold he then went to the police and said they had a wonderful relationship. He'd handed over his phone never thinking that he was good that they were going to find out about Amber Fry and they didn't find her from his phone. She came for it. You know it wasn't until she came for and but I mean he was so bold that he then thought he was going to get away with that scot-free that she wasn't even gonna see it and then what he did he's he was so bold that so bold he didn't think she would turn him in he was so bold that he continued to talk to Amber Fry while she was recording it for the police he was then so bold as to agree to a polygraph and then just like most bold people do it called master manipulation he heard remember it wasn't his fault it's it his dad didn't his dad didn't want him to take that polygraph he was he's so bold he wanted to do it remember oh yeah so I mean there are countless examples of of Scott Peterson's boldness um I would like to I you know like Lacey's mother and father whole family loved Scott they you know they themselves said that you know it was like a fairy tale they thought lacey had met her friends they were all looking forward to Connor's birth and almost immediately they started to notice changes and differences in the behavior of their son-in-law who they loved read the book we're lazy and there is a part in there where Sharon talks about that. Yeah and so again you take Amber Fry out of the equation altogether so like she said it the only thing the only evidence about him killing his wife is the affair. Um when you the people that are the closest to you in the world start to notice differences in your your behavior, your attitude your your your character your your your your uncomfortable all the time your demeanor that that again that's not going to you know like you know I wouldn't say I would not send someone to death road for that for that fact alone. But when you put all of these things together it builds a circumstantial case and you know something that Nicholas McClellan in the Delphi case you know explained is that yes you know when you take w fact one fact and you put it by itself it might not prove beyond a reasonable doubt but when you take the totality of evidence in a circumstantial case and you present that to a jury the jury's able to look able to look at it you know piece by piece yes each piece is important but when there's so many pieces that then fit you know and there's no contradiction in them like they all lead to the same conclusion. Um that to me is is you know is is me just spending ten minutes say um trying to disprove why she said there's no evidence um that he could have killed his wife other than having an affair. That's that because I again you can remove Amber Fry from this from the scenario altogether just like I think you can remove absolutely it doesn't change it does not change the totality of evidence police have not been able to rule out Scott as a possible suspect.

SPEAKER_22 1:23:00

The shocking news of Scott's affair splits two families is there anything you'd like to say no there's nothing thank you.

SPEAKER_01 1:23:07

When was the moment you knew Sat Pearson was your man first day I had a gut feeling that something isn't right.

SPEAKER_20 1:23:13

From the Jump police were suspicious of Scott and they have justified those suspicions on the grounds of his demeanor all along you have a very nonchalant attitude with me. They were suggesting that his behavior was not the behavior of a grieving or panicked husband whose wife has gone missing you have no idea where this is a lot of things that added up that said to me I better talk to this guy with a tape reporter running.

SPEAKER_29 1:23:49

Scott was a person of interest from the start because he didn't do all the things that we asked him to do. And of course there was a stark contrast in Scott's behavior with everybody else that was so close to Lacey.

SPEAKER_20 1:24:02

The Los Angeles Innocence Project argues that the police are conducting an investigation that it's not a missing person investigation but a death investigation and they are focused with tunnel vision on Scott Peterson right out of the gate. They were determined to get a conviction they had tunnel vision that it was Scott to the exclusion of any logical rational explanation otherwise we're on our way to meet with Mark Godze Mark is a former federal prosecutor and he is now one of the co-founders of the Ohio Innocence Project Mark Godsey I think may be one of the people who can best speak to this idea investigators and for that matter prosecutors can very quickly be caught up in one narrative and the impact that that has on their ability to look objectively at the remaining evidence as it comes in with the Scott Peterson case I was very much like the member of the public uh at the time I thought he was guilty.

SPEAKER_08 1:25:24

It didn't occur to me at least that he was innocent. But I wasn't there and guess what? Neither was the judge neither were the prosecutors neither were the detectives the idea that the investigators had on the first day was that Peterson's our guy.

SPEAKER_20 1:25:39

That's crazy right you you can't know that that quickly but how quickly can the investigators get caught up in tunnel vision?

SPEAKER_08 1:25:49

Very quickly we, you know it's not because they're bad people saying I think I want to convict an innocent person. It's because they're good people who see themselves playing a crucial role protecting the public.

SPEAKER_13 1:25:59

We've taken the entire focus of the department if not 99 100% of the investigation unit is out currently working on this case.

SPEAKER_08 1:26:06

And the more high profile it is the pressure it is to solve the case because of the media attention. And so that first thing comes in that suggests that somebody did it and boy that's the best news I've heard all day. It's human nature you're gonna roll with it particularly if the evidence is weak. And you start ignoring signs and evidence that start coming in that start pointing the other way. And you just see that repeatedly in this case.

SPEAKER_04 1:26:31

This case is starting out in the press and he's already guilty.

SPEAKER_33 1:26:35

He is such a despised individual in the public's eye this was a nationally covered case you couldn't escape it.

SPEAKER_14 1:26:43

And so because of the media coverage there was a lot more dramatization that led to roles being played and Scott was definitely the bad guy.

SPEAKER_08 1:26:54

The way I look at it is guilty 100% confirmation bias is the human tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms our pre-existing belief because they're coming in with this default that it's probably the husband and somebody close to her that's what their experience tells them statistically. Before they've seen any of the evidence.

SPEAKER_19 1:27:13

Absolutely how do you take a polygraph test? What about the allegations of a girlfriend?

SPEAKER_08 1:27:18

So when you look at the Peterson case it's clear that they latch onto his demeanor I don't really care what those people out there think.

SPEAKER_02 1:27:26

Do you really expect people to believe that an eight and a half month pregnant woman learns her husband has had an affair and is casual about it?

SPEAKER_35 1:27:35

Yeah we don't know no one knows our relationship but us.

SPEAKER_08 1:27:39

We don't know what stopped Peterson's thinking maybe he was in shock. Maybe he wasn't that upset. Maybe he's a jerk. There's a million things that might have contributed to his demeanor and the demeanor evidence is frequently used because the evidence is weak the prosecutor will get up and say like look at his demeanor that's not how somebody acts who just Lost their wife. And that sometimes seems very compelling to the jury, but human beings are about 54% accurate. So barely better than a coin flip at determining whether someone is telling the truth or not.

SPEAKER_12 1:28:13

He's lying to her about being on business while a community prayer vigil is being prepared for his then missing wife, Lacey.

SPEAKER_09 1:28:21

Okay.

SPEAKER_24 1:28:23

I'm lying.

SPEAKER_20 1:28:26

From your perspective, why is the Scott Peterson case so important?

SPEAKER_08 1:28:30

It's a microcosm of what goes on everywhere. You see them consistently ignoring evidence that contradicts their theory and sort of shaping it to fit their theory. Cops are trained to believe that they can make up their mind very early on. This person's lying, it's baked into the system. They don't like his demeanor, they don't like the way he's acting. They're making up their mind pretty early. This is probably our guy. There was not enough evidence to make that conclusion.

SPEAKER_20 1:29:02

What comes of a conversation like the one we had with Professor Godseat is that we have to be open to the possibility that there are many wrongfully convicted people who, because of our biases, are sitting behind bars. And of course, the question here is whether Scott Peterson is one of those men. I'm starting to get a feeling that the investigation was infected by bias and tunnel vision. That kind of conduct is enough to turn the tide of the case.

SPEAKER_11 1:29:59

Everybody immediately assumed it was John and Patsy Ramsay and Burns. And over the years, because that that case is one that I can talk about for days, but I've done so much research on that and I've read so many books because I'm very open-minded. I want to read both sides of the evidence. I want to hear both sides of the prosecutor and the defense. So it's kind of like Scott. I mean, they're saying confirmation bias. I mean, I think that applies more to the Ramsey family rather than Scott. Um yes, the media, and Joe Petito is a he will stand on this. The media plays a role, the mo the the biggest crucial role on what they want us to see, what they want us to hear, and what they want us to piece together. It's the media's fault to get headlines. They don't care if it's leaked, they don't care if it's not true, they don't care if it's on the you know, vic the family of the victim. It all starts with the media. So if there is confirmation bias, I think that's where it starts. I think you know, the media's gonna put out what they want, but then he's saying, well, everybody from the beginning just immediately tunnel visioned saying that it's Scott. Okay, I get that. I can agree with that to an extent because of the media, but not because they automatically just said, Well, wow, like my shirt, the husband did it. Um there's so there's so much evidence leading up to Lacey disappearing that I don't care if you're tunnel visioned or not, it's right in front of you. Like and I remember, I remember this being all over magazines, the tabloids, the news. I mean, my grandma had this on CNN every single night with with Larry King or Nancy Grace and you couldn't escape it. You could not escape this case. It was as big as OJ, it was as big as John Bennet, and Scott's, like you said just in our last break, Scott's actions throw the affair out the window, led everything up to this point where she disappeared. Now, if you took all his actions and threw those out the window and he only had Amber, I could kind of see that maybe he didn't do it. But because of all his premeditated steps to get there and actions and body language and demeanor and character and facial expressions, and you know, you know, he gave Brocini access. Okay, here's my weapons. Because we don't think he used weapons on her. We think he used his hands. So, okay, of course, take take the guns because there's no evidence there. Look in my truck because there's no evidence there, and Lacey's in my truck all the time, so of course you're gonna find her DNA. I don't understand how it can be confirmation bias, but you can step in here and explain that. I just I think it all starts with the media, but it doesn't negate the fact of all the actions he took to show us 99% he probably did it. That's just that's all I want to say.

SPEAKER_15 1:33:18

Um I have very strong opinions about this. Um and I feel like which, you know, I will say, Any, thank you so much for flashing the definition of confirmation bias on the screen several times, just in case we weren't paying attention and we needed to remember what confirmation bias is. Um I I would say that what I just witnessed um was a was a a bold um example of compounding um information. You know what? I think it actually we just witnessed a good a good a good a good example of confirmation bias because there's a very, very, very stark difference between having an hypothesis. Let's take the a crime out of this. Let's say you believe that you could create an antibiotic that would revolutionize the entire healthcare world, you are going to start your theory with a hypothesis. You then test that hypothesis. If throughout the testing of that hypothesis you do not receive the results that you had anticipated or that you were were were following or investigating, your hypothesis is disproven. And now to go back to this being a crime, uh long before Scott Peterson, long before it's not it's not like it's a new thing that when, you know, and I'd love for you to find an investigator that would disagree with this. You know, I'm not law enforcement, I'm not a lawyer, um, but I did stay at a holiday and express once because everything else was booked. Um, but I um I will say you, you know, it's typical you start an investigation from the inside out. And yes, I will say, you know, the reason that that that they did, and that I feel like they did this very intentionally. I feel like they they you know they laid out that so many people are wrongly convicted. True. Absolutely true. There's confirmation bias and there's tunnel vision in so many investigations. Not all police officers get it right. Um and you know what sometimes ego gets in the way. Sometimes people do form an opinion, and it doesn't matter whether the facts follow their follow the evidence, they keep going with it.

SPEAKER_26 1:35:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 1:35:58

That's why we have the juju the ju yeah, judicial system. I apparently need to need the um the English language, uh, but um judicial system that we that we do um is to have checks and balances in place for those types of things. So, you know, if you have a woman that goes missing, you are going to inv you're going to probably speak to the people closest to her first.

unknown 1:36:23

Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 1:36:24

The people that the people the last person to have seen her, which in this case, to our knowledge, was her husband. If they then pick up on inconsistencies or things in his demeanor, things in the things he's saying that are not consistent or that do not line up with other things that people in her family are saying, that is going to then tell you, if I'm an investigator, it's going to tell me, okay, this, you know, keep let's, you know, let let keep going down this avenue. That doesn't mean you have tunnel vision. It means you're following the leads and and the investigative tools that you have been that you're using. And as long as the things that you're looking into all continue to point in that direction, it's not tunnel vision or confirmation bias to continue investigating that avenue. It is not confirmation bias to look into someone, find inconsistencies, dig deeper, find more inconsistencies, find lies, find um uh omissions, find um geographical um, you know, uh oddities in their behavior. All sort all the all of the things that, you know, we can say were evidence in this case are all things that if I'm an investigator, I'm going to continue looking into Scott Peterson. That's not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias would be if you decide Scott Peterson is innocent and you are going to only use information that you want to use without giving any details because you believe it. Such as saying, well, this new science means that, you know, she we don't know, she could have been alive for days after after the 24th, but she shouldn't have popped out of the water where she did. You're you you're you're creating you're creating data that is that is being cherry-picked from the in from the for the you mean to get any result in in any program, I don't care if it's in 2002 or 2026, you know, you have to input information into whatever program you are using to then calculate the result that you get. The prosecution, you know, they used the location that Scott went, and you know, and all of the the wind and the tidal patterns from that day until April when she was found. So in their so they, you know, those are things that, you know, the hypothesis they were going off of, and it lined up with where she came out of the water. Um the defense is now saying we don't know when she went in the water, but she couldn't have popped up where she popped up because that means Scott didn't do it. That means they're that means to get that result, they're having to put some I mean if they're if I if they're putting the twenty fourth in in in in the the new science that they're using to get that to get that that theory, um then yes, that that is an inconsistency and that is something that needs to be looked into. But I don't I mean, how do you say in one sentence, we don't know when she went in the water and then two, say she absolutely couldn't have popped up where she did if Scott if Scott was in the area he was fishing. I mean you you can't that's not science. You can't get it you can't get that result without putting in a specific without putting you know knowing all of the factors.

SPEAKER_26 1:40:12

Yep, yep, absolutely.

SPEAKER_15 1:40:14

So they're so they clearly had to put something into that program to get the result that they got. Just like you know, they get you get you know, the a whole, you know, oh it's impossible to not tip the boat over. Yes, you did you did a scientific um you did a scientific demonstration to get the result that you wanted.

SPEAKER_11 1:40:39

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_15 1:40:40

Without showing us, and do and does law enforcement- do investigators do that as well? Yes, but guess what? That's why that's why it's a that's why a defense attorney is going to present an expert that's going to shoot that down. That's why they have separate ep um experts. And you know, just like I would I would love to I I would love to see the data that they're using for this new science. I because I'm a dork and I I would want to read it. I would want to read the chart. I'm not a scientist, I'm so I don't but I I would love to look with my own eyes to see what information they put in to into that program to get that result.

SPEAKER_11 1:41:15

I I agree. Yep.

SPEAKER_15 1:41:16

Because that's what they're forming this whole thing on. And I'm sorry to interrupt.

SPEAKER_22 1:41:19

No, it's okay. For the first time, the jury got to hear Scott Peterson speak in a taped interrogation with detective Al Brochini.

SPEAKER_20 1:41:28

One of the things that was presented as part of the state's case at trial was the custodial interrogation of Scott Peterson the same day that his wife went missing.

SPEAKER_35 1:41:41

Just tell me about the moment. Uh Lacey got up and went and um has that she has a chill for breakfast.

SPEAKER_11 1:41:56

The state argued that the portions of that these are things that 20 years watching this case are little things that are now popping out. I wish they could have tested her digest digestional track at some point if it wasn't, you know, months later. Like if it was immediate and they let's say she wasn't in the water and they found her somewhere else, it would have been interesting to see if she had fragments of cereal in her in her stomach. That's just that's what my mind goes to because it once again it brings it back to the John Benny Ramsey case where they found pineapple in her stomach. Does it solve and say that this is what happened? But that would it could debunk a you know his his testimony here of okay, well no, she didn't have cereal. Do you see what I'm saying?

unknown 1:42:41

Right.

SPEAKER_15 1:42:42

Same if there's pizza, same if the you know the most recent thing had been pizza. Yeah. You know, I mean that but um you know, again, to me it's inconsequential whether it was the 23rd or 24th.

unknown 1:42:52

Yep.

SPEAKER_20 1:42:53

A grieving husband who was concerned at the disappearance of his wife, but instead that it was a man who lacked any affect.

SPEAKER_22 1:43:00

At times he leaned back in his chair with his hands in his pocket. He even took a cell phone call.

SPEAKER_21 1:43:07

Amy Sonata. What the public hasn't been made aware of is the fact that that phone call was coming in from Lacey's sister, Amy.

SPEAKER_20 1:43:20

Sister-in-law. What the state did was roll out very limited pieces of Scott's on-camera interview, and his answers and responses just seemed out of line with the gravity of the circumstances.

SPEAKER_07 1:43:37

When did you realize you were gonna go fishing?

SPEAKER_35 1:43:41

Oh, I said it was an morning decision.

SPEAKER_11 1:43:47

Remember, he bought the fishing license on December 20th for December 3rd and December 24th, but he's telling Brocchini that he decided to go that morning. So just keep that in mind.

SPEAKER_15 1:44:12

I can laugh in awkward situations. Like I'm not the person you want to sit next to at a funeral because I could be emotionally wrecked, but like I will nervously laugh.

SPEAKER_26 1:44:21

Same.

SPEAKER_15 1:44:21

And you know, so I don't I don't I don't ever, you know, d I don't ever damn someone for the fact that he's holding it looks like a coffee mug. He clear you know, he clearly probably had a very busy night the night before and morning that day, and it's 12 something at night now um on Christmas Day. And again, taking the phone call from the sister-in-law, again, he was with the police for hours.

SPEAKER_26 1:44:44

Yep. Um before this.

SPEAKER_15 1:44:46

So it doesn't seem odd to me at all that he would he was probably he probably got a lot of phone calls in those hours. His wife's missing. Yeah. Everyone still loves him, everyone's still in her family, and they know he's with the police, so he might get he might he might have information they're not getting yet. Because he's there being you know, spoken to. I wouldn't say interrogated even. But you know, and I also don't think it would be uncommon that they would interview him several times on that initial day. Take us to your warehouse, take us here, take us, take us about your day, show us where Lacey would go. Those are normal things you do in a missing person investigation in the first few hours. What was Lacey's normal pattern of behavior? Show us where she would walk the dog, show us where, you know, where you were. And they probably did talk and have qu and you know, interview him throughout that entire process. So, you know, maybe they continued to interview him because maybe his answers weren't consistently. To my knowledge, this was the first one that was recorded that we at least have publicly, correct? But it wasn't first.

SPEAKER_11 1:45:52

It wasn't the first interview, but it was the one that they showed us.

SPEAKER_15 1:45:55

Yeah, this is the first one that we saw recorded publicly.

SPEAKER_11 1:45:58

Yes.

SPEAKER_15 1:45:59

Um so you know, so I'm you know like I said, I assume they'd been talking to him for hours before this in several occasions.

SPEAKER_11 1:46:05

And you get and and even if you're guilty or not, you're gonna get exhausted. You're going to get mentally fried, and they do that on purpose to see if you're gonna, you know, switch up anything in your stories. And sometimes they exhaust you and they exhaust you and they exhaust you until you just say, and there are people who have done like, yes, I just did it because they're just so tired they just want to get out of the room. And I've seen that on multiple cases. You've seen that before. So it's they get and I'm not saying he's innocent, but I I can't at this point say he's guilty, but he's probably if he didn't do what they said he did, he's probably exhausted and he's not going to act the way that we would think he should act. You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_15 1:46:43

Like and guilty or innocent, if you have a long pattern of bold behavior, um, that a lot of times can go hand in hand with, you know, you want to be the good guy. Because you really, I mean, one one thing that I mean, every narcissist that I've ever encountered in my life, um, and and lots of the narcissistic murders that I've studied and um and covered in on cases, they want to be liked. They wanna, they almost want to be, they want to help. They want to be the good guy, they want everyone to love them, they don't want anyone to think bad of them, they want to be buddy buddy with everyone. You know, they're just they're just a you know, charming guy. Just, you know, and that's usually their downfall too, because that's where they slip up and they don't even realize they're slipping up because their boldness gets in the way of them realizing they're being inconsistent.

SPEAKER_26 1:47:38

Yes.

SPEAKER_15 1:47:39

So, you know, I even you know can see this demeanor as him being like, no, I'm just this good guy that you know I you know, I'm just you know, we're gonna I'm just I have nothing to hide. Look how look how relaxed and nonchalant I am. I just want to find my wife.

SPEAKER_11 1:47:55

Yep. Well, they tell themselves lies and they believe it too. So if he's if he's such a manipulator and a narcissist, he can calm himself down and just be like, you know, like this, like I didn't do it because he's so confident in himself his own cockiness that he's just like, prove me wrong. You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_15 1:48:12

And don't he didn't have to worry about his girlfriend interfering during these days because he was in Europe.

SPEAKER_26 1:48:19

Yeah. Yep.

SPEAKER_15 1:48:21

So again, premeditation to like not have her in the midst of it all. She's not gonna be calling and bothering him when he's being interviewed by the police, because you know what, guess what time it is in Europe? It's only it's 5 a.m. Oh no, wait, they're in California, so it's eight a it's just now eight a.m. probably in Paris at this time.

unknown 1:48:43

Okay.

SPEAKER_20 1:48:51

When the state argues that Scott Peterson isn't acting like a grieved husband who's worried about the disappearance of his wife, they are leaving out important facts about the number of hours that this man spent answering questions before he actually went on camera. Peterson reports that in the day of her disappearance, he was interrogated four separate times, and it was only the fourth time at the station on camera that the rest of us have been able to see. Detectives met with Scott at the home, and they went with Scott to his warehouse. Scott Peterson says police drove him around for hours, peppering him with questions to the point of exhaustion. Would it have made sense to take a suspect asking the same questions over and over again, taking them around to different locations and so forth?

SPEAKER_06 1:49:47

Back in the early 2000s, in any kind of high stakes case, it was not unusual for detectives to conduct lengthy, multiple interviews of a person that they maybe thought was the suspect.

SPEAKER_15 1:50:00

In the room, the presumption was I just want to say really quickly, um I don't think having someone take you through the steps of their day or retrace where their wife may have gone is is in is making them endure lengthy uh interrogations. I mean, they just had him driving around to the places that they would do the same thing today. And just like today, they would have conversations throughout that process. Yes. That is not the language she's u using is very intentional. You know, and like I said, I I've I've seen this being having been in the producing world, like you know, you have to pick up on the on the on their choice of language because you know having someone take you through their day and tell you their events and asking them questions regarding their day and their wife's behavior or her patterns is not a lengthy interview or interrogation.

SPEAKER_11 1:51:01

And and they they're doing that on purpose because they have to lay out a storyline. So why wouldn't you want to walk it walk with him throughout his day? I mean that's right.

SPEAKER_15 1:51:14

They don't have him handcuffed to a table with a light bulb above his head, you know, for twelve hours.

SPEAKER_11 1:51:19

The dudes would be like I think I read somewhere. When did I read? I don't know if it was in the book or if it was on another documentary that they got in McDonald's or something.

SPEAKER_15 1:51:32

No, that was the arrest. No, that that was when that was literally moments after they to they told him that they recovered Connor and Lacey's body, and that they confirmed it was them. He got he wanted in and out and he wanted a I remember his order even. Um but it was so it wasn't during this time. It was it was literally it was literally when um like an hour after they confirmed that that that was his dead child and wife.

SPEAKER_11 1:52:02

Yeah, okay, that's right. Alright.

SPEAKER_15 1:52:05

And he was like, Can we get in and he's the one he did what and he was like, Can we get in and out?

SPEAKER_11 1:52:13

Yeah, it was something I remember watching something. I don't know if it I think I think it's the Lacey Peterson documentary on Netflix is where I saw that. I I I think that's I think that's where it's at.

SPEAKER_20 1:52:29

What the Los Angeles Innocence Project has pointed out is that by the time Scott got into his custodial interrogation at the police office in front of the camera, the guy was so exhausted and tired of the same questions over and over again that he lacked the affect and emotion that he would have had spontaneously.

SPEAKER_33 1:52:46

You have no idea where this is.

SPEAKER_31 1:53:09

Peterson's comments and behavior have put him under the microscope from the very beginning.

SPEAKER_22 1:53:14

Scott Peterson may be his own worst enemy.

SPEAKER_20 1:53:17

When I say Scott Peterson's cooperation with the police is significant, what am I talking about? Well, he agreed to multiple interviews on the day of her disappearance.

SPEAKER_33 1:53:25

Did you check neighbors? Who you didn't know with? Karen Service. What concerns me the most is the fact that your dog came home with a leash on it. That bothers me. I mean, no question.

SPEAKER_35 1:53:38

Yeah. Um, what concerns me the most is doing anything I can to further progress. I agree with that.

SPEAKER_20 1:53:48

Peterson also agreed to turn over to them all of his devices, the phones and computers. He agreed to give them a lie detector test.

SPEAKER_33 1:53:58

Just to eliminate you as a suspect, would you be willing to take a polygraph then?

SPEAKER_06 1:54:04

For a suspect to say right out of the ghetto, sure, I'll take a lie detector test is a good sign.

SPEAKER_33 1:54:13

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I it's not not that I can be used against you, but yeah, I believe they're accurate. Certainly will.

SPEAKER_06 1:54:21

Nothing is an absolute, but particularly because most people really believe that the test is infallible, to agree to go through that process is a much stronger indicator that this is a person who has nothing to hide.

SPEAKER_20 1:54:36

Later on, his father told him, I'm not comfortable with you taking lie detector tests.

SPEAKER_21 1:54:41

So no polygraph was ever administered.

SPEAKER_20 1:54:43

And there's the question of why Scott Peterson would not think that the police would discover that he was having an affair. It's reasonable to argue that the reason that he didn't tell him he was having an affair was it's just another fact that would have led them to believe that they've got their man and stopped looking for. There's also the more common human explanation that when we're doing something wrong, we're not quick to admit it.

SPEAKER_33 1:55:16

Do you have any questions?

SPEAKER_35 1:55:19

No, I mean I've asked you a couple of times what to do.

SPEAKER_03 1:55:25

There's not more we can do right now with the cans. Oh, we can do it a lot.

SPEAKER_20 1:55:32

The fact that Scott Peterson cooperated with the police extensively on the day of his wife's disappearance and in the days that followed lays the groundwork for a pretty decent argument that this guy was doing everything he could to find his wife.

SPEAKER_04 1:56:05

God says he left off his missing wife, Lacey, on Christmas Eve when he left to go fishing. Police yesterday released photos of his pickup truck and boat in the hopes that someone may have spotted it.

SPEAKER_33 1:56:35

So if you got to the about five minutes to one and you get your boat in, how long you think you stay in the water?

SPEAKER_07 1:56:42

Uh fellow like an hour and a half or so.

SPEAKER_20 1:56:48

About two weeks before Lacey Peterson went missing, Scott purchased a 14-foot aluminum fishing boat. The prosecution's position at trial was that Scott Peterson got the boat with the express purpose of murdering his wife and using the boat to deposit her body in the San Francisco Bay.

SPEAKER_29 1:57:05

He keeps the boat quiet from everybody. He doesn't tell anybody that he bought the boat. It seemed to us that there was some premeditation going on.

SPEAKER_20 1:57:14

But Scott Peterson said he was taking the boat out to test it and try it out because he had purchased that boat for his father-in-law, and it was going to be a Christmas gift. The prosecution throughout the trial, they argued to the jury that the purchase of the boat would absolutely was not known to Lacey. The notes have the phone numbers of local marine supply stores written on them. And the LAIP has looked to a forensic document examiner, handwriting expert, Dr. Linton Mohammed, because they believe that it's Lacey's not Scott's handwriting on those notes that were found in the home. If true, that means that she was not only aware of the boat, but that she participated in the purchase of accessories for the boat. And if she knew about Scott's boat, the whole argument at the time of trial that he premeditated her murder and purchased a boat in order to carry out the disposal of the body is false. I want to stress test this with an independent handwriting examiner who can tell us whether or not this is Lacey Peterson's handwriting.

SPEAKER_10 1:58:59

So after I look at the question document, I'm now looking at the known sample set. So first we have Scott Peterson's sample set.

SPEAKER_20 1:59:09

And these are pages from a diary.

SPEAKER_10 1:59:11

Yes. Do you notice anything particular about the writing style of all the entries in the journal?

SPEAKER_26 1:59:19

He prints.

SPEAKER_10 1:59:21

Block print the entire time. We don't see lowercase style of printing, which is what we do see on the question document. So the style of writing is inconsistent with his known writing. Now, does that mean that he did not write the document? No. It may mean that we just don't have that particular style of writing represented in his known sample set. We really only have a few letters that are comparable. The R that's represented in the question document on Richard, the loop is very narrow. It meets in the middle. In the known writing, that loop of the R is usually very wide and round. The other is the B. You have that little tail at the very bottom of both B's. You don't see that in his writing here. There's not a lot of similar features, and the ones that are are very general in nature. The conclusion that was rendered by the expert in this particular case was that it is probable that Scott Pearson did not write the question material seen on these post-it notes. And I would agree with his conclusions.

SPEAKER_20 2:00:37

When I look at all of these entries in his daily journal, they're all very neatly within the lines, written in small block print, very legibly. Does that say anything about Scott Peterson's personality?

SPEAKER_10 2:00:53

A lot of people think that we can determine personality from handwriting, but there's no science behind that.

SPEAKER_20 2:01:01

Now, the next thing that you did is compare the questioned document to the samples of Lacey Peterson's handwriting.

SPEAKER_10 2:01:09

So when we look at the known samples for Lacey Peterson, we have a couple of lists with hand printing material. We also have a calendar with a lot of handwritten material as well. So her writing style is a print style using upper and lower case. Some of the features I noticed was that the I is smaller than the C in the question document. When we look at Lacey's writing, you see that I is consistently smaller than the C. The other is that the C and the H in the question document are connected. And when you look at Lacey's handwriting, that CH combination is oftentimes connected. So that would be another similarity.

SPEAKER_20 2:02:04

What do you see in this evidence?

SPEAKER_10 2:02:07

Based on the evidence submitted, I would have arrived at the same conclusion that Lacey Peterson probably wrote the question material on the post-its.

SPEAKER_20 2:02:20

The comparisons that Jennifer was able to make was extraordinary. It really adds to the credibility of the Los Angeles Innocence Project's argument that her handwriting proves she had knowledge of Scott Peterson's boat. And it shoots a big hole in the prosecution's theory of the case. The prosecution has a theory that Lacey Peterson was calling marine supply stores to buy real marine supplies as part of the nautical theme that she had for Connor's nursery room. But these are not notes where she wanted to buy some small rubber duckies. These are notes where she's pricing out a live anchor. Now that's not something that you're going to hang over the baby's crib. The Los Angeles Innocence Project makes the argument that this is evidence of the fact that she knew about Scott's boat. Therefore, Scott's boat is unlikely to be part of a premeditated murder plot.

SPEAKER_14 2:03:16

If Lacey knows about the boat, that is critical evidence as concerns the Innocence Project of undercutting the prosecution's theory and that violated Scott's right to due process and a fair trial.

SPEAKER_20 2:03:30

It becomes virtually impossible for Scott Peterson to get due process because the defense wasn't aware of these post-it notes until 2024.

SPEAKER_40 2:03:39

It was clear to me that she did know about the boat. The PD deep six everything they could that wasn't consistent with Scott being the culprit. They were not going to be deterred.

SPEAKER_11 2:03:59

How does Lacey knowing about the boat have anything to do with if he took her life or not? Because again, if he bought this for her dad and she's helping him buy the accessories, so to speak, for that boat and it was a gift, of course she's not going to ruin the surprise to her parents. Because let's say it was a present for both her parents. We're both gonna use it. Why would she tell her mom? I mean, okay, go back to the book. That book before Lacey really ties up a lot of this stuff. She told her mom everything. Like there was nothing that she'd never told her mom. I think that the boat in Scott's mind was a gift. That's what he told the cop to her dad. I think he bought this boat until Lacey. Maybe Lacey just didn't think to tell her parents that they were getting a boat. Maybe not until they actually got the boat. Maybe she wanted to surprise him and say, hey, we got a boat, we can all go fishing. I I don't I don't know. But I don't think there's any relevance to Lacey knowing about the boat or not that led to her death. Okay, we see the post-it notes. That's the first evidence right there that I never knew about. And obviously they said they were never released until 2024. But I still don't see how that can say, oh, Scott didn't do it. I mean it's his boat. Maybe he did tell her it was a gift and they just both wanted to surprise her dad. I I don't I don't know, but from the book, she told her mom everything. So if she told her mom, and the mom obviously isn't gonna ruin the surprise for the Christmas present.

SPEAKER_15 2:05:48

I think it's I can see why even she wouldn't tell her mom about a Christmas present, though.

SPEAKER_11 2:05:54

I mean I don't know. There's something missing from that. There's something like something just doesn't line up. If she knew about the boat, she w I think she would have told Sharon.

SPEAKER_15 2:06:07

But unless it was a surprise for them.

SPEAKER_11 2:06:10

From both of them. And Scott's leaving that part out.

SPEAKER_15 2:06:14

They're doing the nursery and nautical theme. You know, well, I don't think he but I don't think his intention on buying the boat was ever to give it to his colleagues. I would I would like to know if he washed the boat. Because if he's giving it to him the next day, did he clean the boat after he tested it out? Um but if Lacey did know about it, why does that why it it doesn't change anything? It's very conf I mean i I don't well, that's because there it's mental gymnastics that you have to say because the la because Lacey, you know, may have may have known about the boat, that means it couldn't have been pre-premeditated and Scott is innocent. Now I will say it was probably I you know I don't know why the um prosecution would have put a lot of emphasis on the fact that she didn't know about the boat, other than maybe they just went off of the pr the the evidence they could prove and they couldn't prove this handwriting thing at the time. Um and so they might not have even they might might not have even analyzed the handwriting. Um I guarantee you there are ample amounts of of samples of Scott's writing in the last 20 years, because I mean I don't think there's been any shortage of men and women that have written him in prison that he's written back. Um but again, I don't think it matters because even if Lacey knew that her husband bought a book, and maybe he you know, maybe he didn't tell her about it at first, maybe she found out about it. Or maybe he told her because it's a big purchase. They had money, they didn't have that much money, they were just starting out. So that would be a purchase where it would be hard to hide that from your spouse. Granted, he is bold, so we know he is able to hide things. Um, you know, so you know, Lacey maybe, you know, so maybe it was something that they used both their money for, and maybe the reasoning he gave her was that it was gonna be a present for her dad, and that was gonna be something that maybe him and Connor when he got older and and Lacey's dad could all go do together. You know, grandpa, son-in-law, and and little boy fishing, you know what a good guy he is. When in reality, he's like, Well, I you know, she's gonna know about this boat, so I gotta give her a reason. Does that mean then Lacey might have known about the boat, doesn't mean she knew she was going to end up dead in it.

SPEAKER_11 2:08:45

No, I don't I agree with you on that. But something is eating at me that she would have told her mom.

SPEAKER_15 2:08:52

Doesn't and it doesn't mean that I expect someone's going to use it to kill me.

SPEAKER_11 2:08:56

No. But that leaves the plot hole that in my stomach, because I read this book, I've heard her mom talk. Lacey told her mom everything. So if it's something that they were doing for her dad and for Scott and Connor, she would have been excited to tell her mom. So why didn't she tell Sharon? And that I feel like that right there is the missing piece. Why didn't she tell her mom?

SPEAKER_15 2:09:20

I don't see the importance on that that you do, but that's but you know, I'm not I'm not invalidating that. I'm just saying that, you know, I'm like I I you know, like I tell my mother everything, but you know I mean when I but you know, it's also a broad thing to say. I mean Sharon also might have thought Lacey told her everything. Lacey might not have told her everything. Sharon's giving the Sharon's giving I mean, there is there any way to know whether Lacey actually told her everything? No. Because, you know, and Sharon also thought that Scott was a wonderful guy. We don't know what actually happens behind closed doors in anyone's home. So someone might think that they're being that their daughter shares everything with them. But I guarantee you there's parts of her life she didn't tell her mom about it. Well the only reason why I keep bringing that up is there, you and you would you understand this. There are parts of especially when it comes to relationships, there are always parts that we even the people that we are the very closest to in the world that we tell everything to that we don't tell them especially if they're things that we don't want to sway on that person.

SPEAKER_11 2:10:32

But something exciting like that, I feel like she was. Because again, if you go back to the book, she even surprised for this. She dated a guy before Scott that she fell in love with, I think, through high school, Kenny. Kevin Kenny, I think Kenny was his name. And he was very territorial, he was very controlling, she wasn't happy with him. Um she told her mom about that stuff. Now we do know that she's a little bit. I wonder how long into the That was through into college, so she finally broke up with him.

SPEAKER_15 2:11:05

But how long into the relationship did she tell her?

SPEAKER_11 2:11:12

It was when they were in college, but there were some points in high school where she told her to. So we know that Lazy didn't tell shit. Lazy knew that Scott she thought Scott was cheating because she had told one of her friends. She didn't that's something she didn't tell her mom. So you're you're right on that, okay. But something exactly. Because I've like, I've not told my mom everything of dad that I went through. I didn't tell her all the things my two exes did to me. But the exciting stuff I told her to make people think of this p picture perfect marriage, this I'm telling there was something here with this with her not telling her mom.

SPEAKER_15 2:11:54

If you were gonna if you were gonna surprise your mom and dad with something, it would be just as ample, easy equilibrium. Reason to just keep because it's of no consequence. She's you're you want to see the excitement on her face on Christmas morning. Well, it's especially especially when it could, you know, you also are they gonna take her in and show her the nursery that you finished. That's also nautical themed. If Scott needs to bring joy to the first grandchild, right?

SPEAKER_11 2:12:18

If Scott told Lacey that it was a present for both of her parents, that clears that up right there. She's not gonna tell her mom because he's turning around and telling the police that, oh, I bought this for her dad. That's where the loophole is. So he may have told her this is a present for both of your parents.

SPEAKER_15 2:12:36

Yeah, or he may have said, Oh, you know, I got I'm gonna get this for your dad, and she might have like, oh, it'll be from both of my parents. So in his mind, he could have still been like, Oh, well, you know, plus Scott, you know, Scott lies.

SPEAKER_11 2:12:45

Yeah, so that that's where I'm getting at.

SPEAKER_15 2:12:47

It's either she knew it was for both of her parents, or I don't see her owing or not knowing about the boat being consequential to her death, and I don't see her telling her mother or not telling her mother as being anything, any even any kind of No, I don't think it has anything to do with her death, but I think it leads up to the lies that he tells. And and again, I don't think it I don't think it I don't think it was a is a determining factor in his guilt or innocence, either way. Um I'm although I'm not sure did Patsy Ramsey write those notes? I'm kidding.

SPEAKER_11 2:13:28

Listen, I'm gonna sidetrack here real quick. I've met John. I've exchanged glances with Berg, don't think those two did it. I'm just gonna say that.

SPEAKER_15 2:13:43

You meant you met Patsy?

SPEAKER_11 2:13:45

No, I met John and I exchanged like smiling eyes with her.

SPEAKER_15 2:13:50

But Oh yeah, I know. I I met Berg and didn't know who he was. Like I because I in my head he's an eight-year-old. And so when I was when I when I was having a conversation with him, he told me his name was Burke.

SPEAKER_11 2:14:01

I used to think Burke before I was ignorant and didn't put all the look at everything. Um but then when I met them in person, it was just this whole other vibe. But I never I'm only going to say I don't think those two did it, and I'm leaving it at that.

SPEAKER_15 2:14:25

So people get very, very, very passionate about that case. Um and I will say again, I I met um I met like I said, I met Burke as well, and again, I'm in I was this is how dumb I am. I'm and and how I don't know who anyone is. I was having a conversation with he's like, oh my name's Burke. And still doesn't dawn on me.

SPEAKER_11 2:14:49

Who else is named Burke though? Like, when I didn't realize it was him until Nikki Schmidt told me.

SPEAKER_15 2:14:58

I'm like, so well, and then um I was with um I was and this was in Denver at Crime Crown in 2025 in September. And so uh I um I was with um Libby German and Abigail Williams, or the families from Delphi and the um and and Jerry Holman um and Nicholas Smith and the prosecutor and lead investigator from the Delphi case. And um the the their meet and greet the meet and greet, um, so we were you remember like the meet and greet room, like where like all of everyone was. So we their meet and greet was directly after John Ramsey's. And so, you know, he had a long line, of course. Um, and so we were standing against the wall next to him um while he finished at meet and greet.

SPEAKER_26 2:15:44

Yep.

SPEAKER_15 2:15:44

And I and it I shouldn't I shouldn't say this, but I um I leaned over to one of the uh family members um from Delphi and I was like, I was like, who is that old man? And they were like, that's John Ramsey. And I was like, no, he's old.

SPEAKER_26 2:15:59

Well yeah. And then I was like, John the next one.

SPEAKER_15 2:16:03

Look just I know, I know. And I don't mean that in I don't mean that insulting, but it was just like that. I literally I also asked um this year in Vegas, I asked Peter Vansant if he was Joe Kenda. I I'm ba I you know I'm I I I I I put my I I call it my I carried a watermelon moments from dirty dancing.

SPEAKER_11 2:16:23

I asked um I think Susan Hendricks looks like that other that other reporter that I always get mixed up with, and I can't think of her name right now, but there's one that I always think is Susan, and it's not. It'll come to me.

SPEAKER_15 2:16:35

Bill O'Reilly? No kidding. Um I love Susan. That's a joke. Um, but I also asked um, I think, you know, Stephanie Rule, who is a giant, you know, true crime podcaster. I was like, oh, do you have a podcast? Are you on YouTube? Are you monetized? Like, give me a give me my foot. I will stick it in my mouth.

SPEAKER_11 2:16:52

Well, I didn't know who she was until my cousin pointed her out, and I was like, who? And she's like Stephanie Harlow of Crime Weekly. And I'm like, just because we follow just because we follow true crime doesn't mean we know who every single person is in true crime. But John Ramsey, I'm kind of like, come on, Aston, like I know who no one is.

SPEAKER_15 2:17:12

I know who no one is. I know who no one is. Like, I I mean, you know, unless you call me sugar, I don't know who you are.

SPEAKER_11 2:17:22

I'm gonna go ahead and say I didn't know who Annalise was from serial sleigh until someone goes, Oh, it's Annalise, and I was like, who? Kendall Ray, I didn't know who she was until Denver Crime Con. She has like seven million Facebook fans, and I'm like, who? So it I I get it. Like I I do. We don't know who every single person is.

SPEAKER_15 2:17:41

No disrespect. I didn't I I um I don't I mean I met um is it Anne or Annie? Annie Ann Annie or Anna? Anne?

SPEAKER_11 2:17:50

Ann Elise is how I say it. Annalise? Anna?

SPEAKER_15 2:17:54

Annie Anne?

SPEAKER_11 2:17:55

Elise.

SPEAKER_15 2:17:56

So I met her no, it's Annie, I believe. I I met her briefly in in Denver. And then I think you pointed out, true. We were at the table we were at the table next to her in in Vegas. Yep. Um, because a good friend of mine was um two of my two of my friends um have previously worked for her, but I didn't know who I uh you know again didn't know who she was.

SPEAKER_11 2:18:16

Um we're getting off track, but it has nothing to do with that.

SPEAKER_15 2:18:22

It's always it's always nice when you meet people, you know, and you get to know them. Um but again, I'm like, oh, are you on YouTube or do you have a podcast? And she's probably like, um, I make like she's probably like, um, I make like hundreds of thousands a month.

SPEAKER_11 2:18:35

I'm just I don't I don't I don't know that I'm saying, but I'm over you know, like I don't know how we got on this topic.

SPEAKER_15 2:18:43

Sorry, anyway, let's go let's skip it.

SPEAKER_11 2:18:45

I'm really tired too.

SPEAKER_15 2:18:46

So sorry, let's get back to this was our this was our inter this is our our our our um intermission.

SPEAKER_11 2:18:52

Yeah, yeah. We needed a break for a second to like reset ourselves. I was up until 2 a.m. Back up at nine. I'm exhausted.

SPEAKER_15 2:19:00

I have two more podcasts to do today, and I'm just like Well we've been watching we've I mean we've been watching an hour of nonsense, so we might as well talk some nonsense. I'm kidding. I'm kidding.

SPEAKER_11 2:19:12

Oh, I know how we got on that topic. We were talking about handwriting from Lacey and Scott versus Patsy Ramsey that somehow ended up on Annalise.

SPEAKER_15 2:19:23

I still can't believe you blamed Patsy Ramsey for writing the note in the Scotty Edison case. Wow. I mean, the poor woman I think was already gone. No, she wasn't.

SPEAKER_11 2:19:33

I think she I think she played a part in this, and that's all I will ever say. I will not go into why I think that, what I think. But I do not think John did it, and I don't think Burke did it, but I think Patsy helped cover it up. I will say, I will admit that. So back to it. Back to Lacey.

SPEAKER_20 2:20:01

Chang, who was a title expert. Dr. Chang testified at trial that for the bodies to have washed up on the Richmond shoreline, the most likely launch point would have been exactly where Scott Peterson was fishing. Now, that was a powerful narrative, but new science is challenging the viability of that narrative.

SPEAKER_41 2:20:23

Scott Peterson says he launched his boat here to go fishing the day he says Lacey disappeared.

unknown 2:20:44

Dr.

SPEAKER_20 2:20:45

Fagan, the Los Angeles Innocence Projects expert, has done something called computational hydrodynamic modeling. Using the Dell 3D modeling system, he ran various simulations, trajectory simulations, wind simulations. And the conclusion of the title expert is that the new type science places the body being inserted in the body from a yellow water location, likely the Albany Ball. To my right is Point Isabel, where Lacey Peterson's body was found. Just north of that is the Richmond shoreline where Connor's body was discovered. A few miles in this direction is Brooks Island. That is where Scott Peterson places himself fishing on the day of her disappearance. And the Berkeley Marina, where Scott launched from, is to my left. And of course, the Los Angeles Innocence Project believes that all of the new scientific evidence points here to the Albany bulb as a possible place where Lacey's body would have been placed in the water in order to wind up where she was found at Point Isabel.

SPEAKER_38 2:22:04

In 2002, when Lacey Peterson went missing, I was a faculty member at Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo. I worked with uh San Francisco State University in San Francisco Bay.

SPEAKER_20 2:22:16

So you you you know this body of water because so much of this case centers on the question of where Lacey Peterson's body was placed in the bay. Now there was a storm event between April 11th and April 12, 2003, that both the defense and the prosecution seemed to believe may have been the triggering event that brought the bodies up. The body was anchored, and when it washed up, it was in a condition uh that indicated that it had been there for weeks or months.

SPEAKER_38 2:22:49

That story is the most plausible. The bodies were lodged on the seafloor for some time and likely released during that storm event.

SPEAKER_20 2:22:59

I want to start with Dr. Chang's testimony at trial that Scott Peterson anchored Lacey Peterson's body in the bay somewhere near this location where he was fishing. Dr. Chang as the hydrologist. Is that a fit for doing the general analysis, backtracking from where these bodies were located to where they might have been placed?

SPEAKER_38 2:23:22

Absolutely. He he has the background to do this for Dr. Chang's model. What you do is you grid the entire bay at 500-meter resolution. So each grid space is a 500-meter block. And basically looking at the adjacent block, whether it has a flow of water into it or not, and then translating that flow to the next block. So it's like uh pixels, if you will, in a picture. So as water moves from one pixel to another, it actually creates that flow field or the tidal flows in the in the base. But one of the odd things about the trial testimony was that Dr. Chang only used wind uh as a as a factor to backtracking the bodies. He only used wind. There's problems with that. He cited his title paper in the testimony, but then again, never used it.

SPEAKER_20 2:24:16

So the conclusions that he arrived at, which he testified to, were based entirely on wind and not tidal action.

SPEAKER_38 2:24:22

Right. Why he didn't use tides is sort of a mystery because that's his background, and that's the reason he's an expert to testify. In the bay itself, it's a very tidally driven system.

SPEAKER_20 2:24:36

And tell me, if you will, your confidence level in Dr. Chang's conclusions that the body were placed here. Um zero. And what's your confidence level with the current day model? Dr. Fagin's theory that Lacey Peterson's body was placed in the bay, somewhere off of the Albany bulb. And of course, Dr. Fagin has the benefit of using the Dell 3D model.

SPEAKER_38 2:25:05

Yeah, Delft 3D is the model. It's astronomically different. It's able to take in high-resolution data to help you drive the model. It integrates freshwater inputs, it integrates wind, it integrates the tidal forcing. All of those things gave me much more confidence in believing the model output.

SPEAKER_20 2:25:28

Also, Fagan has looked at the conclusion that Dr. Chang arrived at, and he's done some modeling of where that body should have ended up if in fact she had been anchored or where Dr. Chang testified that she was anchored.

SPEAKER_38 2:25:43

Starting in the position of that location, you see the body would have gone behind Brooks Island and then it would have been shot through this channel and then oscillated here in the tides. Possibly to the Golden Gate Bridge and the and out. But the bodies couldn't have ended up where they were found based on where Dr. Chang put the position in the trial. I think it's important to remember Dr. Chang uh did not have the tools that are available today. You know, I think at the time he was the person to call if they were going to deal with tides, but it's bizarre that tides weren't used in his testimony.

SPEAKER_20 2:26:23

Now, the big question, based on what you've seen, where do you think Lacey was likely placed in the water?

SPEAKER_38 2:26:30

Oh, that's a tough question. It's possible that it is here, as Dr. Fagan shows, but I think there's some nuance that have some bearing on the actual location. If the position of the body was here, this is a very protected area, sort of shielded, if you will, from the storm event. So it could be a little further south along the coast here.

SPEAKER_20 2:26:54

Right along the coast here in Albany and Richmond. Yeah. And not anywhere in the water near or off Brooks Island where he was fishing that day.

SPEAKER_38 2:27:02

Right. Highly unlikely that the bodies were anchored in this location.

SPEAKER_20 2:27:07

We went down the trails. The trails are ostensibly wide enough to take a car down. He didn't need a boat to dump the body in the Albany Vault. He wouldn't have launched the boat at the Berkeley Marina if he intended to deposit her body at the Albany Vault. He wouldn't have needed to. What if he wasn't fishing off of Brooks Island? What if he just took the body over to the area of the shallow water and dumped it there? If you are a first-time criminal, where does it seem better to dump a body? Way out in the bay in the deepest waters or in shallow waters 10 feet from the shore. What's interesting about this area is there was a search that was done of the bay, but the water here is very shallow, so shallow that this area at the Albany bulb wasn't searched. Since the shallow waters weren't searched, it's possible that Lacey's body could have been there for months. The state refutes these claims, saying that the area of the Albany Bulb was in fact searched with side scan sonar and that the LAIP cannot demonstrate that there was a lack of search effort. The states argue that the Los Angeles Innocence Project is arguing something that was known to science as early as 2003. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, of course, points out the fact that they're using new Delft 3D technology. We are light years more advanced today than we were in 2003. I thought I would be more skeptical when I came out because it would take about a 10-minute walk to bring a body here in this location. But in walking out here, these are wide paths. You could get a vehicle down them, and it's not impossible to conceive at all of someone easily bringing a body and placing it in the water. It seems much easier to have accomplished that here than out of the Berkeley Marina via a boat where there are so many people. There's no suggestion that he drove his car out in that direction. If you're going to entertain an alternate theory, and of course the Los Angeles Innocence Project is asking us to entertain an alternate theory, that someone else is responsible for Lacey Peterson's death. And that's where everyone starts to roll their eyes. But being here physically, coupled with the title maps and the modeling that I've seen, says to me that the Los Angeles Censons Project's theories make a lot of sense. It not only works for the scientists, but visually it works for a layman like me.

SPEAKER_21 2:30:03

One thing about this case is that it's a timeline case.

SPEAKER_20 2:30:06

And the state established their entire timeline on the basis of the testimony of one person, Karen Service, the Peterson's neighbor. But was Karen Service's testimony as critical as prosecutors made it out to be?

SPEAKER_29 2:30:55

When I got there, the first person that I talked to after meeting Scott was his next door neighbor, Karen Service.

SPEAKER_20 2:31:05

Karen encountered the Peterson's dog, Mackenzie, with its leash attached to it, unattended in the front yard on the morning of December 24th.

SPEAKER_23 2:31:15

So you took the dog, put her in the backyard, closed the gate, and went on your merry way.

SPEAKER_21 2:31:21

After placing Scott and Lacey's dog, Mackenzie in the backyard of the Peterson's home, Karen's service had errands to do.

SPEAKER_20 2:31:27

One of those errands was to go to a Christmas store by the name of Austin's.

SPEAKER_11 2:32:16

This leads me to believe that Scott took him for Mackenzie for a walk. Had the leash on. Let him let her go in the backyard. Okay, didn't fully take the leash off or take Mackenzie in the house. He was hacking the boat, packing the truck, with Lacey's body and everything else he was taking with him. And when he left that warning, the gate didn't close all the way and McKenzie got out. Um I also want to go back because I know this was a little longer of a clip. There was some contradiction, unless I'm just missing what I just heard with Chris Pixley saying that um, you know, you could you could bring a body to a shallow shallow water ten feet from the shoreline, or you can take it out in the middle of the bay. What would you do if you were trying to get rid of a body? I mean, I would take it out to the middle of the bay. So why would why would Scott take it to the to the shallow end? Like it makes no sense to me. Why does like I think her body floated there? I honestly still think, I don't care what the tides say, I don't think he's that dumb to just leave her right there in the shallow part of the water.

SPEAKER_15 2:33:29

Can we also use their own words that they've said many, many times throughout this program so far, and we're not even halfway through this episode, I guess. But in broad daylight, we're thinking that Scott drove his big four door truck with his boat attached to it down a pathway along a shoreline with his water on both sides, so you're completely in view of pe of anyone that's out there, so that you. Can dispose of a body 10 feet offshore? First of all, how do you get the body 10 feet offshore? Are you launching your boat to go 10 feet? Um is that more plausible than a body going into the water somewhere by the set by Brooks Island? And I while while we were looking that up, I also I just I just wanted to clarify, because again, when we talk about narrative storytelling, um what they just presented to us as as evidence and information of Dr. Chang's testimony and how they can discredit it. Um first of all, he did use title and wind techno um in his in in his testimony. Um and so what he actually said um is that based on wind and title information, the fetus's body, whether still inside the mother or not, was put in the bay between Brooks Island and Berkeley Marina. He cautioned though, this is a high prob the highest probability location. He was then asked, can you predict with any certainty within inches feet whether these bodies where these bodies would have started from? And he said, No, I'm afraid not. So he acknowledged on the stand that he can't say for certain that is where they went in the water. It's just the most probable. So what they just presented to us was that he testified that this is where they went to water and how that's impossible. So he never conclusively said this is 100% what the truth. He said this is what the to the best of my knowledge, the best of the information we have where it would have made most sense. He also acknowledged that he couldn't reproduce the trajectory of Lazy Peterson's body, only a possible path for the fetus, saying that it was probably it was easier to determine that because of the lighter weight and the fact that it was unencumbered. Prosecutors believe um, I'm not gonna go into the details after the you know, after it was expelled. Um and then the only other thing I want to say is that um defense um Garagos asked Cheng, um, said, are your findings assumptions? To which um Chang uh Cheng said most scientific information is initially uh based on assumptions. So the the way that I feel like that they presented the uh the information by Dr. Cheng, I felt like we were just told, like, and if you don't look into these things sometimes, you if you just if you just automatically believed oh yeah, so that you know they totally discredited that the you know the state's expert from the from the you know quote quoted testimony he actually gave they misrepresented what he was saying. You know, he was giving his bad he was giving them the best assumption scientifically that he could give them the information that they had. Just like the defense is now doing. And I really, I really, really again have to s argue for the defense to even have an argument, they have to input a date that she goes into that water. And they don't know that date. So whatever findings they're getting are an assumption that's way, way based more loosely on the truth or facts that we do know than anything the state has has has shown.

SPEAKER_11 2:37:57

I don't I don't think um that shallow part of her body being found can prove anything. Because like we don't have a definite day of when she was dumped in that way.

SPEAKER_15 2:38:12

But but but for so for them to say there's no way she could have c you know that that's where she would have come up if they had to, you know, they they had to have inputted a date and that would all then change the conditions of it. And then in one breath they said that that's that that I think the word he used was tidally. Um that the you know, but then they were like, oh, but but this area was um very protected from the wind and the tidal patterns. Then I'm like, wait, is it boat like which one is it? And you know what in shallow water, you know, tidal patterns of course are going to be a very important part of it. But I can see where there would be emphasis put on the wind, the wind b um, the wind factor in a more shallow area if there had been a recent storm, because that would have an effect especially on a lighter, more easily movable um object such as a a full-term baby. So I you know, like putting them putting emphasis on the wind the wind um as well as the tidal patterns, I think is important, especially since they're had it in that storm. But again, Dr. Ching on the stand you know acknowledged that you know most scientific uh um findings begin with assumptions. So that was not represented that way in what we just watched.

SPEAKER_11 2:39:42

Yeah, no, I agree.

SPEAKER_23 2:39:44

Yeah. Karen Service was completely credible. I have found nothing to suggest that she was lying. I was working at the time for the Midas to be, I was a reporter, and I was assigned to cover the case.

SPEAKER_20 2:39:57

So you're the only person that's ever interviewed Karen Service. What was it about Karen Service's testimony that was so credible?

SPEAKER_23 2:40:05

Karen Service was an important uh witness for the prosecution because she established the timeline. I knew Karen Service prior to the trial, and she was entirely credible.

SPEAKER_20 2:40:18

The possibility exists that because she didn't go knock on the door and give the dog back to Lacey, that Lacey was alive and well and inside the house. The scenario doesn't require Karen Service to have lied. It simply says that putting the dog behind the gate is not an indication of whether Lacey's alive or dead at all. One possible scenario is that Lacey prepared to take the dog on a walk, that she had gone back into the house for some reason, and Karen Servus came and found the dog unattended and put it away. Karen Servus's testimony tells us nothing about whether Lacey Peterson walked her dog that morning. It only tells us that the dog was prepped to go for a walk and was in the front yard, and Lacey wasn't there at the moment. Also, Karen was not the only eyewitness that morning. Central to the Los Angeles Innocence Project's case is the fact that there were 15 eyewitnesses who said they saw Lacey Peterson walking her dog on the morning of December 24, 2002, after Scott Peterson had already left for the San Francisco Bay. If they are to be believed, it paints a much clearer picture of what happened that day.

SPEAKER_03 2:41:33

I'm Gary or Moyne by the investigator. I'm with Vivian and Bill Mitchell, with uh Grace Yule, with Tony Fratis.

SPEAKER_20 2:41:45

And the people that stepped forward, they came forward immediately. But according to the LAIP, most of their statements were never followed up on by the investigators for the Modesto police. This is the first time I've seen a video interview with any of them. And it's the first time they've been shown outside a courtroom. Gary Remoyan is a local private investigator in Modesto, California, hired by the defense team to interview the many eyewitnesses that the police did not speak to in the run-up to the trial. Some of those interviews were recorded on tape.

SPEAKER_17 2:42:21

Some card did you mean 940, you know, 945, they uh you saw the late 60s uh walking down to that guy? Yes, yes, yeah, to see that woman, you know, she's pregnant, she's struggling with the dog.

SPEAKER_31 2:42:35

And she had uh dark clothing on, and her hair was real shiny, shoulder length black. I had seen the posters, and I knew that was the woman that I had seen that day.

SPEAKER_20 2:42:45

It was definitely Lacey Peterson. These are just people who are giving contemporaneous statements, honestly telling the investigator what they remember.

SPEAKER_16 2:42:55

They kept asking for anyone who had signs, and uh so eventually I decided that I probably should report it.

SPEAKER_21 2:43:04

There were a lot of witnesses who came forward, but the investigators didn't follow up with the vast majority of them.

SPEAKER_05 2:43:10

We're going down the low mouse and this lady walking her dog. She looked too pregnant to be out in the cold.

SPEAKER_34 2:43:16

When I saw the news on Christmas night that they showed the Peterson dog, and that's when I turned to my wife and said, I saw that dog in the park, and in my mind's eye, I see a round person with black leggings and a white smock.

SPEAKER_20 2:43:32

Fifteen witnesses came forward with eyewitness sightings of Lacey. The sheer number of eyewitnesses, that's compelling.

SPEAKER_07 2:43:41

The time was about sometime after 9 45.

SPEAKER_09 2:43:44

Somewhere between 10 and 10:30. Around 9:30, that could have been 9:45.

SPEAKER_05 2:43:51

It was between 9 and 11 a.m.

SPEAKER_34 2:43:53

It could be 9.45. It could have been 10:15.

SPEAKER_20 2:43:57

The witnesses place Lacey Peterson walking her dog in her neighborhood after the time that Scott Peterson would have left for his warehouse and for the Berkeley Marina. The majority of the witnesses contradict Scott's and the state's timeline of events.

SPEAKER_21 2:44:11

Because Scott claims Lacey was home watching Martha Stewart at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER_20 2:44:17

That's not something that you can dismiss, but it was actively being dismissed by the investigators. The Modesto police disregarded most of the eyewitness testimony. That is an indictment of the type of investigation that was done here. I mean, it challenges whether this was a thorough investigation.

SPEAKER_29 2:44:34

I don't remember anybody seeing Lacey walk the dog, because I don't think that ever occurred. I don't think she walked anything because she was dead by then.

SPEAKER_27 2:44:42

A sergeant that was in charge of the Lacey thing, I gave him a statement. We were interviewed by a motorcycle policeman. Nothing happened. And then nobody talked to me after that.

SPEAKER_05 2:44:53

Yeah, I was surprised that the Mudicial police didn't come talk to me.

SPEAKER_27 2:44:57

Their eyes were on Scott Peterson himself.

SPEAKER_23 2:45:05

There were a number of people in the neighborhood who I talked to soon after she disappeared, who told me about their supposed sightings of a pregnant woman and a dog on uh Christmas Eve. There were uh hundreds and thousands of tips coming into police. Most of them were well-meaning and some were were earnest.

SPEAKER_20 2:45:29

Without asking you about names of specific witnesses that you talked to, I'm I'm interested in knowing whether any of those witnesses are cited in the LAIP's filings.

SPEAKER_23 2:45:42

I did interview some of the people who were cited in the appeal. I ended up questioning their credibility. They would use words to the effect of, well, in my mind's eye, I can see a blur over here, and I think it could have been a person with a dog, and that person might have been pregnant, and I just can't really say.

SPEAKER_19 2:46:08

I never thought that there would be anything interesting to say about a case that has been poured over like no other case I've ever seen for decades. And the more I read, the more fascinated I became. I'm upseting memory for a long time and bringing that understanding of the basic science of memory, how memories are formed in the brain to the real world, especially of eyewitness memory.

SPEAKER_20 2:46:31

What time frame are we talking about when you reference the reliability of memory early on?

SPEAKER_19 2:46:37

I usually say days and weeks after the event, maybe months, but once you're talking about a year and certainly two years, those memories they might be true, they might be false, you just can't tell. That's the methodology that I applied to the evidence in the Scott Peterson case. And I focused on the earliest reports from these witnesses that I could find. Days, maybe weeks, that's it. What they were saying at that time. What's most interesting to me from these very early reports are common features jump out across independent witnesses at a time when memory's most reliable. A pregnant lady, a dog, time frame after she was supposedly murdered by Scott Peterson.

SPEAKER_20 2:47:18

So we took the drive around Modesto and followed up the location of these eyewitness statements. We're passing the gas station where Homo Modernado and his wife stopped to get gas. As they came down this road, he said he was driving slowly.

SPEAKER_28 2:47:38

And I noticed a young pregnant woman struggling with a golden retriever.

SPEAKER_19 2:47:46

The dog was holding her, and that's relevant because that keeps coming up.

SPEAKER_20 2:47:52

What was the next witness that stood out to you?

SPEAKER_09 2:47:56

My name is Vivian Regine Mitchell.

SPEAKER_20 2:48:00

This home to my left has a kitchen window that looks out on La Sombra.

SPEAKER_37 2:48:07

Hey, I was standing right here. Watching the dishes. He pulled his curtain back. There was this beautiful lady and her beautiful dog walking up the street.

SPEAKER_19 2:48:23

Vivian said that she saw a lady between 10 and 10:30 a.m. and that she was almost positive it was Lacey. Same time frame as the witnesses were saying. It's early reports of memory when memories are most reliable. So I'd pay attention to this myself.

SPEAKER_09 2:48:38

He was wearing a white top with long sleeves and black flags.

SPEAKER_19 2:48:47

I understand that Vivian Mitchell was elderly, and you might jump to the conclusion that therefore we shouldn't listen to anything she has to say. But that would be the wrong way to think about it. Science-based evidence of the effects of aging on the reliability of confidently reported memories does not show that it has no information value. It's still useful information, just not as useful as from a younger person.

SPEAKER_09 2:49:10

That morning, we didn't know there was anything wrong.

SPEAKER_20 2:49:13

She was relatively confident early report. In the case of Karen Service, her timeline played an outsized role in that case.

SPEAKER_19 2:49:22

Well, I mean, I congratulate the prosecution for focusing on the early reports of an eyewitness in this case, service, but I can't think of a reason to focus on her selectively. There's so many witnesses who claim to have seen Lacey. And I just want to keep emphasizing that doesn't mean Scott Peterson is innocent. I don't know. But you know, the prosecution's particular theory is running into some serious headwinds, I would say. Really serious headwinds.

SPEAKER_11 2:49:49

I want to say that um the fact I just said is just, you know, people saw her walking doesn't prove his innocence. And we don't have the maps to show how far apart these houses were, what directions they were going and saw her in. Because she can't be the only pregnant girl walking her dog around the desktop. Like there has there's more than that. And and we know that if it they could have saw somebody two days prior and thought, okay, yeah, that's who I saw. They could have saw somebody that morning that maybe had red hair, but because they saw Lacey was missing, they automatically think she had brown hair. Or you know, maybe her leggings were like a navy blue and not really black, and it's it's really hard. That's all I got for that one. Um and the the dog being returned by Karen, obviously she knew them very well. So that's that's the only thing on that. But though all the rest of the witnesses, I'm you can't prove that they all saw Lacey.

SPEAKER_15 2:50:56

And they and they may they may think that they did. They but you know, you know, they people can easily misremember things very quickly. You know, I mean, I always use the example of like I did this this um one time on a live stream where I'd been on for an hour and and I um I turned my camera off and I said, you know, I said, what color shirt am I wearing?

SPEAKER_26 2:51:16

Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 2:51:16

It was amazing. The I could probably get 10 different answers from people. And I'd been on camera for an hour. And you know, and I did it intentionally, just I turned my camera off and I waited a minute or two, and then I just you know, I think so a f a few people got it correctly. You know, got it correct. But so I mean, you can literally be sitting there watching someone for an hour and like and like in your mind completely create the different color shirt that they're wearing.

SPEAKER_39 2:51:42

Yes.

SPEAKER_15 2:51:43

Or just not remember, you know, and I'm not in that so I'm just not discrediting, you know, that they may have thought they did, but they did show um, or they you know, they did show um, or I have seen a map of the the spottings where she was at, and several of them can't be her because they're at the same time, but in miles away. So, you know, we we we know that not all of the sightings were lacey if she was walking Mackenzie. Um but again, we people typically live in an area with people that are also their peers. You know, you're in the you're you know, people are in the same, you know, style of homes because they're usually at the same kind the same point in life, you know. So lots of new families were in this area. And like I said, there are lots of white pregnant women with golden retrievers in Modesto, California. I'd like to actually see the statistic of how many people own a golden retriever.

SPEAKER_11 2:52:42

I would like to know if any of those I would like to know if any pregnant women with golden retrievers that walked their dogs that morning ever came forward to say I was out walking my dog, and did they leave that out of the evidence?

SPEAKER_15 2:52:54

No, well, no, because they probably ended up with a newborn baby within a month and they were like, I'm busy.

SPEAKER_11 2:53:01

Yeah, but still, like if I knew I was out that morning and I saw this missing woman, I'd be like, yo, I was out too. Like, I don't know.

SPEAKER_15 2:53:08

Yeah, but you know, you're also looking at it through the lens of like a missing person. A lot of people don't think the way that we do, first of all. And a lot of people also don't think that they don't make the connection in their head. Like, you know, like I you know, like they could be like, oh hey, if you were in this area, you know, did you know, did you know, you know, I might be like, oh, so-and-so, you know, Matt looks like me, but I might that doesn't mean I'm gonna call the police and be like, oh no, no, I I did stop and get gas at this place. You know? I just you don't you don't naturally you don't normally or you or you don't want to insert yourself into it because you assume the police know what they already know.

SPEAKER_11 2:53:47

Well yeah, I mean people come out 20 years later and saying, Oh, I witnessed this. I mean, you you never know.

SPEAKER_15 2:53:53

And and and how you know, we don't know, you know, we you know, I don't we don't know I remember how fast it was publicized that there were 15 people that said they saw a pregnant woman and a dog.

SPEAKER_26 2:54:03

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_15 2:54:03

So, you know, I mean, by the time that came out, the people those women might have not even remembered they walked their dog that day. Pregnancy brain.

SPEAKER_11 2:54:13

Good point.

SPEAKER_33 2:54:15

Walking that dog early in the morning.

SPEAKER_20 2:54:18

Lacey's typical dog walking route took her past Vivian Mitchell's home and into Laloma Park, where Lacey was seen by a number of witnesses.

SPEAKER_21 2:54:27

According to the LAIP, these witnesses were also ignored by investigators.

SPEAKER_19 2:54:31

I want to find out of all the Lacey sightings, which if any of those stood out to you because there is really no one witness who stood out far above all the others, but I'll say that you know, one witness who's seems just pretty compelling to me is Campos.

SPEAKER_20 2:54:52

Diana Campos is someone who saw Lacey walking her dog out on the Dry Creek Trail, which is part of the East Baloma Park.

SPEAKER_19 2:54:59

She also, the time, she has it at 1045. And when you look back at the early reports, that's what she's saying, and she's saying it because she had to be at work at 11. That's how she knew it was 1045.

SPEAKER_20 2:55:09

And this is somebody who is a custodian at Stanislaus County Hospital who had to clock in at 11 o'clock and is able to show I clocked in that day at 11.

SPEAKER_19 2:55:18

That lends credibility to the time. This one's more anchored to a documentable event. If you're trying to get at the truth of the matter, you should weigh that more than you weigh other accounts, perhaps.

SPEAKER_20 2:55:31

The state's theory is centered around this Karen service receipt, which allows them to backtrack to the time that she placed the Peterson's dog in their backyard, and they base their entire theory on the idea that Lacey Peterson was dead by the time Karen Service discovered the dog. But Diana Campos had a card showing what time she stamped in for work, and she saw Lacey walking the dog when she was on a smoking break before she started. Why isn't Diana Campos's timeline?

SPEAKER_15 2:56:00

And sorry, I've always had a problem with this because you have someone that knew the family very well that's that put the dog in the in the backyard at 10 34. Yet Chris, and I apologize, I respect him, but Chris is up here now saying we need to take this total stranger word who who said she saw a pregnant woman or dog at 1045 as more credible than the woman who knew the family and put the dog in the backyard. I mean so but and literally for no reason other than they're just saying they believe they should that we we should take their her the stranger's account more seriously than the person that knew them. I would like for them to explain to me why we're supposed to take that more seriously, other than the fact that it fits their narrative.

SPEAKER_11 2:56:52

I would like so to hear that too.

SPEAKER_15 2:56:54

I've yet to see them pro I I just want to see one piece of proof. I'm begging that. We're like an hour and a half show. I'm like, uh give me one like show me the proof. Don't tell it to me. Like show it to me. Show me the information you're getting using to get this information. This is not new. None of this is new. Sorry.

SPEAKER_11 2:57:14

Well, none of it is. I agree.

SPEAKER_20 2:57:18

Her receipt as important as Karen's services. So I thought we'd take a walk in Oloma Park and just get a feeling for what it's like around the same time of the morning.

SPEAKER_06 2:57:33

Right.

SPEAKER_20 2:57:35

We do have a number of witnesses that saw her here, including Diane Campos. You have other witnesses like John Brazil. This is somebody who's a Park Service worker, and he says he saw Mackenzie pulling on Lacey. Now that's a commonality among a number of these 15 eye witnesses who saw Lacey and the dog that morning. Mike Chevetta said that he saw Lacey Peterson walking her dog.

SPEAKER_06 2:57:58

I mean, from an investigative standpoint, I would bring a witness here to the park, say, okay, this is the park. Where were you? And when you were there, where was Lacey? And then that would give us a sense of the distance. If we don't know that, then it's very difficult to really provide a reliable assessment on how reliable their sighting was.

SPEAKER_20 2:58:26

I'm interested to know if proximity to the event that you cite matters in terms of witness memory. It does.

SPEAKER_19 2:58:35

It reduces the likelihood of getting a confident report. Yeah, that happens. They become more likely to be wrong and they let you know by saying, I'm not sure. And when the distance is long and witnesses never the less saying, I confidently saw that face, it doesn't reduce its reliability. So Campos was far away, I guess. It's less likely that she would have been confident, but she was confident. And when they are, it tends to be reliable. So you still want to put weight on that, and you just have to factor it in with, I don't know, 20 other witnesses or something, what they also remember from that early morning and see if you can make a sensible picture.

SPEAKER_20 2:59:13

All of these sightings are around the same time on December 24, 2002. All of them are given by these 15 eyewitnesses to the police within days of her disappearance. The times of some of the eyewitness sightings of Lacey walking her dog overlap in places that would not have been possible. But there are enough eyewitnesses that police had a reason to pursue an alternate timeline.

SPEAKER_06 2:59:40

Considering the potential of these witnesses and the fact that they were not taken seriously leads me to really only one conclusion, and that is that if you think that you already know who did it, then spending time interviewing and bringing out maps and having a witness explain where they were and provide you with their entire narrative is a colossal waste of time. That's the only logical explanation I can come up with. That at that time the investigators must have felt really sure that they had their man.

SPEAKER_31 3:00:36

Yes, that is correct. And so I called and said that I had seen her uh walking her dog, and that the reason I was calling was because I knew that it was after 9 30, and that was the last time she was seen.

SPEAKER_20 3:00:50

There's so many factors here that help with this testimony. He drives the same route every single day. He knows that it it would have been at least 9 45. I mean, Tony's just there, you know, he's wearing a tank top. He's just, you know, all right, you want me to tell you what I know? I'm I'm here to tell you.

SPEAKER_03 3:01:08

Had you ever seen the same woman before? Never.

SPEAKER_20 3:01:40

Did you have a standard route that you were on?

SPEAKER_32 3:01:43

Yeah. When you run a regular route like that, you're always on the same schedule pretty much unless something drastic comes up where there's an accident or something like that. And I knew it was after 9:30, you know, and it was before 10 o'clock that I had seen her walking.

SPEAKER_20 3:01:59

Did your company keep logs or did you have timesheets that showed when you dropped off at each of your locations? Yes.

SPEAKER_32 3:02:05

In our trucks, uh, we had a printer and we print out the time, the stop.

SPEAKER_11 3:02:10

How did everybody see her at the same time? Did they all live next door to each other? Did they all work next door to each other?

SPEAKER_15 3:02:18

They said several of the several of the sightings were all around the same time, but in places they she couldn't have been because they were miles apart. They showed the map, even. So that's what I'm saying. They're like all these 15 to 20 witnesses, and I'm like, and then like Chris Pixley himself was like, you know, but many of them couldn't be true because they were all at the same time in in different locations. Yeah, sorry.

SPEAKER_11 3:02:44

I was I was dealing with a tips, and I completely missed that.

SPEAKER_15 3:02:47

I unmuted it, I unmuted and said, There's your map. Because they showed, you know, the but um sorry and again, I'm counting um, you know, and again, we don't know that they didn't investigate these witness statements. But they might have looked into them and found nothing. But guess what they did guess what they did look into and find Scott Peterson. So you follow the lead you followed the investigative leads that that actually lead you to the next clue or the next uh lead. Sometimes Cyril McCall always says, follow the evidence. Nothing comes up, you know, they may you know it or they're like, oh, this couldn't have been her because she was across town or it wasn't a golden retriever. Or, you know, they we have this woman on a traffic cam and they were wrong. She's not pregnant, she's just big. Um, you know, we you there's so many factors in it. Or that was two days before. But um, again, I'm gonna I just I'm I'll keep my mouth shut. I'm just gonna watch um and wait for something to be presented to me that is not subjective and is and is not cherry-picked. But I do will say that the driver that just said that, yeah, his route might have been the same every day, but unless something extraordinary happened, like it being Christmas, where you know, maybe not all your locations that you delivered to are open that day.

SPEAKER_26 3:04:10

Yep.

SPEAKER_15 3:04:12

So maybe your day.

SPEAKER_32 3:04:27

And when I seen the poster, I go, that's the same woman I seen walking a dog, same build, same eye, same haircut, everything.

SPEAKER_20 3:04:34

So it's your friend that was the spark that caused you to report it.

SPEAKER_32 3:04:39

Um originally he reported it. He told me I'm gonna call and tell them that, you know, I have a friend that had seen it and stuff.

SPEAKER_20 3:04:48

So your friend made contact with the police and made a report about what you saw? Yes. And he left your information with them and your contact?

SPEAKER_32 3:04:57

Yes, as far as I know, yes.

SPEAKER_20 3:05:01

And did you ever go to any of the volunteer centers or to the police to make an in-person report? No. So what was the first time then that you did talk to anyone from the police? At some point somebody contacted you?

SPEAKER_32 3:05:22

Not that I ever remember that anybody from the police department or nothing.

SPEAKER_20 3:05:27

So you had visits from reporters and you had visits from the defense investigator, Gary Remoyne.

SPEAKER_32 3:05:34

Yes.

unknown 3:05:34

Okay.

SPEAKER_20 3:05:35

To your recollection, you didn't have anyone that identified themselves as a police officer or investigator who visited you?

unknown 3:05:41

No.

SPEAKER_24 3:05:42

No.

SPEAKER_20 3:05:43

There's a report that Bill Grogan filed suggesting that just prior to the trial of Scott Peterson, he came and spoke to you.

SPEAKER_32 3:05:57

Your statement is right here. So he spelled my name wrong. And then it says Tony could not see a blouse or the type of shoes. How could I not see a top that she was wearing? I mean, that doesn't make sense. She was wearing a light-colored sweater. And it wasn't light-colored pants, it was dark pants that I had seen her walking in. So I don't know why that says that.

SPEAKER_20 3:06:24

So basically, there are aspects of that report that purports to be a conversation with you that are not accurate.

SPEAKER_32 3:06:32

Yeah.

SPEAKER_20 3:06:36

Do you r now recall that conversation at all?

SPEAKER_32 3:06:39

No. Um, this could have been a possibility, but I don't remember that. The only thing I remember was basically just getting the subpoena.

SPEAKER_20 3:06:50

Do you recall who subpoenaed you to testify to? The defense tick.

SPEAKER_32 3:06:55

Yes.

SPEAKER_20 3:06:56

You were called in to testify, but they didn't ultimately examine you before the jury. Did you ever get an explanation from anyone as to why they didn't put you on to testify?

SPEAKER_40 3:07:08

Never. The witnesses that saw Alicia on the 24th, I think, were telling the truth. But at the time, I thought that we had debunked their case.

SPEAKER_09 3:07:21

You didn't call them because you felt like you had already debunked?

SPEAKER_40 3:07:24

Not only we debunked, people get sidetracked by the fact that there was no evidence in this case.

SPEAKER_20 3:07:32

The defense team made a decision not to bring forward those eyewitnesses known to the defense. Garagosa's team isn't putting any of these people on the stand. You have to wonder if the trial would have had a different outcome had the defense called even some of these 15 witnesses. How'd you feel when the when the verdict came out?

SPEAKER_32 3:07:51

I just shipped my head. Like anybody I ever kind of talked to, you know, saying, you know what? Oh no, you're wrong. There's no way that she he this guy did it. He did it. He did it. Well, if he said that Scott was already gone and I see her after that.

SPEAKER_20 3:08:10

It means he didn't do it. It means that he didn't do it. You said your confidence level that that it was Lacey Peterson that you saw that morning was 99% at the time. I still feel the same that that's who it was. Would you be willing to testify that you were never contacted in any way, to your knowledge, by anyone that identified themselves as being from the Modesto Police?

SPEAKER_32 3:08:33

Yeah, I would still stand by that.

SPEAKER_21 3:08:37

Tony's statement to us and Tony's statement to Gary Ermoyan back in 2003 are not without some problems.

SPEAKER_07 3:08:44

And so I called and said that I had seen her.

SPEAKER_20 3:08:48

One of the problems is that when Gary Ermoyan came around to meet with him back in 2003, Tony told him that he called in to the tip line originally. Tony's now saying that it was his friend who made the call to the tip line. What matters is is he believable? I found Tony to be very believable. There's just so many new aspects of this case that were previously unheard of, undiscussed, that got very short shrift, if any attention at all, in the trial, either by the prosecution or the defense. The reality is that you had 15 eyewitnesses, and none of these witnesses testified at trial, and we have no clear answer on why they were not called. You have the investigators destroying investigative notes now arisen with Tony Freitas publishing reports about witnesses that you met with, where the witness says, I never met with any investigators. That's another level. This is entirely what the LA Innocence Project was called upon to do, to test the constitutional reliability of this verdict. But I still have questions. I'm eager to keep digging into these claims and looking into the new evidence.

SPEAKER_22 3:10:09

He says was never turned over by prosecutors.

SPEAKER_20 3:10:13

They had a theory and they were going to get rid of everything that didn't support it.

SPEAKER_01 3:10:17

The fetal expert testified that baby Connor died on or around December 23rd, 2002.

SPEAKER_02 3:10:23

How many other experts consulted in order to find one that gives them the answer that they like?

SPEAKER_19 3:10:30

There are multiple witnesses talking about an unusual van. What the hell? This changes everything.

SPEAKER_40 3:10:37

I never ever had a doubt that he didn't do this.

SPEAKER_06 3:10:42

To not consider that there might be a correlation is investigatively negligent.

SPEAKER_37 3:10:51

Something is going on across the street.

SPEAKER_11 3:11:05

It's crazy. Okay. One thing that stuck out with me all of that. That guy said that they never investigated him, that he's basically saying they put that in there and he never said that. But the other part that Chris just the other part that Chris just said is there's so many new things, some there's so many new pieces of evidence that lead to this blah blah blah. What new evidence did we get? All I heard was that Lacey wrote on the post-it note and that there was 15 witnesses that say they saw a girl in black leggings walking a golden retriever. I really didn't get anything else from that episode.

SPEAKER_15 3:11:49

They're using I think that they're I think that their sh their main basis that they are going off of is that they that they truly believe that this new technology that they're using to determine the locations the bodies came out out of the water not fitting where the defen where the prosecution said they went in at is what they're hinging this all on. The other stuff is all just complete injecture. But again they are determining that this this this thesis or you know this theory based on information that they are putting in to fit it. And I'm like, I'm sorry, but I'm like, you know, Chris just also said, you know, we don't know why these 15 extra these 15 witnesses weren't called as Jen. We do, because 30 seconds prior to that, Mark Gergo said we didn't call them because we thought we debunked the prosecution's case. Not to mention that you know that guy was a problematic witness. He con his friend called, then he said he called. He didn't remember giving a report. He wasn't relying on then he claimed the information in the report wasn't what he remembers. But yet, how do we take any credibility? So they're they're they're saying we need to believe him, but we can we can discount everything an expert doctor said going off of the science that they used at the time. So that's that that's not credible. But this dude that delivered you know bread or whatever it was, you know, that didn't remember even, you know, had writing a statement and then doesn't agree with what the statement said.

SPEAKER_11 3:13:36

I think about something I did 20 years ago.

SPEAKER_15 3:13:39

I mean that's the credit that's where we put the credibility. Just like, oh, we put the credibility on the woman that said she saw the dog and Lacey, who didn't know them 15 minutes after or 20 minutes after the woman who knew them actually put McKinsey back in the yard.

SPEAKER_26 3:13:55

Yep.

SPEAKER_15 3:13:57

Like like I mean, how do you that the mental gymnastics that you have to use? And I hate that I hate that I'm being so skeptical on this because I really uh want to want to be objective. I really want to hear information that at least makes me question this.

SPEAKER_11 3:14:14

Yeah. Me too.

SPEAKER_15 3:14:16

And I'm fine, and because I'm I was so willing to to be open to not not that I really thought anything was gonna change my mind on the on the on the innocence of cult, but if there's evidence that that proves his innocence, then absolutely I would. But I mean I don't want to be disrespectful, but no, that that episode didn't. Any case I could take any case out there and I could make this exact same docuseries. I I could do this about Jean-Benny Ramsey and I could make every single bit of it sound like um it was John Carr, whatever his name is, um John Mark Carr. Because you could be like, oh well police didn't do this, or they didn't do this. Or, you know, why wasn't this person in question or why did they drop this? Because maybe the evidence didn't lead to it. But they're not le they're not you know, they're not saying that.

SPEAKER_11 3:15:17

You know, they're cherry-picking, like you said, and there's nothing about that episode that made you go, huh. Maybe Scott really is innocent.

SPEAKER_15 3:15:29

If you really want to prove something, especially I mean, because you they know going into this that they that they're up that they are up against the public, you know, public public opinion is is is strongly still that Scott Peterson is guilty. So for if you you know, if I am going to with my whole heart believe that the public is wrong and that I can prove it, yes, presenting new evidence and information is very, very important. But you have to then not pretend your audience is an are idiots. You have to then explain why that evidence is is is valid and real. You can't cherry pick the information and just assume they will believe you because that's treating your audience like they're idiots. And that's what I felt like I which I felt like I just had an hour and a half of my life wasted and talked to like I was an idiot that was just willing to believe anything that I watched.

SPEAKER_11 3:16:25

Almost as if we're we were people who never knew anything about this case at all.

SPEAKER_15 3:16:30

And I hate to say that because again, I respect Chris Pixley. I think that she's a very good investigator, and I respect Mark Gargoy's even. So but I mean, not and then I also would say you have to, if you want to change the public's opinion on something, you have to take the pieces of evidence that the public holds as fact, and you have to be able to then disprove them.

SPEAKER_26 3:16:54

Yep.

SPEAKER_15 3:16:54

So why not why did they bring up the hair and the pliers? Is it because they can't is that because they can't explain that away?

SPEAKER_11 3:17:03

They didn't bring the anchors up yet, so maybe in part two.

unknown 3:17:06

Right.

SPEAKER_15 3:17:06

Well, and I'm waiting I was waiting for the van. I mean, I know I mean that I knew the van would come out because that's something I've always been very, very interested in that aspect of it. There was actually even a short time that I I considered, okay, that is odd. What if, you know? But you know, when I and it's been it's been a couple years now, but but when I really did the research of the from uh information from the case, um I mean unless there was just a catastrophe of errors. Um and that could could have happened. I mean the the the defense and I am assuming now them they are going to um are going to present a very, very suede um Portrayal of the whole burglary across the street thing. And I have a feeling we're not gonna get all of the facts.

SPEAKER_11 3:18:08

I will say this. I'm looking forward to seeing maybe we'll change our minds in episode two. Maybe there'll be some kind of jaw-dropping evidence, like, but I haven't seen anything on Facebook floating around that anybody had watched this and said, Oh my god, I can't believe this, or any news reports that had, oh, breaking news on the Scott Peterson case. Here's the new evidence. Like, I haven't seen anything in the past 48 hours. So to me, it's leading me to believe, and that's just my assumption, that there's nothing new about this.

SPEAKER_15 3:18:37

You didn't read my freeze free Scott Peterson Reddit page. I'm kidding. I'm not on there.

SPEAKER_11 3:18:43

No. But I'm I'm just gonna assume that nothing is nothing is jaw-dropping in part two. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But there's nothing new about any of this to me. So part two, we're gonna do the same thing. We'll dive in, we'll listen to the defense, we'll listen to the prosecutors, we'll listen to the evidence, and hopefully.

SPEAKER_15 3:19:04

I will try to be quieter. I will try to not to I will try not to look at as annoyed. And I I and I apologize because I can get I really, really won't I really I really went into this very open-minded and objective. And I still I still I'm supposed to be I want but I just don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. Yeah, don't don't don't show me some because I mean I already sat there, I already sat there an hour ad for this of the crime con. And now I feel like I just sat there an hour and a half of you know someone telling me uh their side of a story without I don't know, I don't know.

SPEAKER_11 3:19:43

Without proof, without the receipts.

SPEAKER_15 3:19:45

But all right guys, we will lead into the like like I'll leave you. Just show me how you got there.

SPEAKER_11 3:19:52

Well, hopefully in part two they'll show us. Maybe maybe we'll get lucky and say, oh shit, oh okay. No, I don't think so, but I can't say I went into this completely open-minded because I am a hundred percent still believer that Scott did this. Um I don't think he had to be.

SPEAKER_15 3:20:11

I I mean I and that's what I said to Chris that evening. I said, you know, it's gonna take a mountain to change my to you know to move my my opinion on this. But I'm going into it with an open mind, I'm willing, and I'm looking forward to hearing how the information and evidence you have to present.

SPEAKER_11 3:20:29

I mean, they have to have some kind of um they have to have some kind of evidence to be able to make a two-part series and really build this up that there's evidence to show that he's innocent, and I'm not seeing that. Why would you make a docuseries? Why, just because you want to make it relevant and keep Scott in the spotlight? Because the LA Innocence Project is working on it.

SPEAKER_15 3:20:53

And I will say also, the LA Innocent Project, their involvement in this. The the Innocence Project serves a very important purpose. So I mean, you know, I think a lot of people hear that and they think there's automatic legitimacy to it. The Innocence Project is not, to my knowledge, from my understanding, is not saying Scott Peterson is innocent. They are looking at what has happened in his case and trial and wanting to make sure that everything is fair and done the way it is. So that the judicial system is held the way that it should be. The reason his death penalty was overturned is because there was some juror misconduct that they found. You know, I think some people still would disagree that that wasn't um misconduct, but the person misrepresented themselves, if I remember correctly. Um in in in some of the responses they gave when asked about questions about uh um was it infidelity or um I remember the juror it was, but but that's pretty much what overturned his death penalty. Granted, it's also California, so the death penalty is pretty much just an indefinite stay. So and you know, I used to live in California, and like I said, I would I would drive by, he's not there anymore, but I I would wave or I would give a hand gesture to um to Charles Manson and Scott Peterson every time I would drive by Stan Quentin, because it's right off the interstate, um so you can see it very clearly from the road. Um, and it was always weird to know that they were, you know, like two of the most infamous people like that. But Menendez, no, I don't know if they were there, but several there um were there at the time. Like I said, Scott Peterson's not there anymore, he's been moved.

SPEAKER_11 3:22:40

But um I really think they go into the second episode talking about the the anchors because I do want to talk about that Nancy Grace. I um I researched that from that old episode where she was there was concr, and I'm not being like there is a pun intended here, but there was concrete evidence left behind from making those anchors. And I know he claimed that he only took one, but there was five castings in the garage or something. And um she thinks the biggest piece of circumstantial evidence for this entire case. So I hope it's brought up in this next episode, and I hope the pliers with her hair on it are brought up in the next episode.

SPEAKER_15 3:23:18

Um the body would have had to have been anchored as or or caught in something that would have prevented it from coming to the surface sooner.

SPEAKER_11 3:23:28

Well, he had he had the concrete mixed bags in his garage too. So I don't know. We're gonna leave into season or part two of this. Um, we're gonna take a short hiatus because and they have the pictures.

SPEAKER_15 3:23:41

They I mean you can see the pictures of the of the of the spilt um cement. They're still out there.

SPEAKER_11 3:23:47

Yeah. Um, I don't know if you guys have watched part one or part two or both. I do want to know your thoughts about it in the comments. Um, if you think Scott is guilty, if you think he is innocent, um we don't know. Okay, we weren't there. We're not here to prove Scott's innocence or guilt. We're just here to break apart the evidence of how it could lean one way or the other because obviously we're not crime scene investigators, we're not a juror, we're not a judge, we're not an attorney, but I I don't know about the husband, how long you follow this case, but I've been following this since 2006. So it's one of those it's not where I just jump on here and talk about something I just watch. It's not like I had no information about this case and then reviewing this. Like I'm I'm open-minded to hearing the opposite side, but as of right now, I have not my mind has not been persuaded, and there was no new evidence. And the the two pieces that I think would be new, I don't think serve a purpose. Hopefully, in the part two, we're we're gonna see and hear more of why they're claiming he's innocent with this new evidence.

SPEAKER_15 3:24:56

I hope so. I hope so. And I just for anyone out there that is that wants to make a true crime documentary or anything, don't underestimate your audience. Don't treat them like they're idiots. Um, I mean, because it I will say it's invested in this case as I've been since 2002. Like in either case, now that I've been on the other side of that world and I've sat in these meetings with people with these suits from networks, like you know, like that you know, are that are in it, they're completely all financial. They're it's it's very, very, very cutthroat business and I I will say um, I I have to watch I watch these things through a slightly different lens now where I can't help but pick up on on things that yeah, you see it from a different perspective than me. I mean and I mean not that it ever not that it takes away for because I might focus will always something else on the on on the truth on the you know justice, the truth. And if someone's innocent, I want to know. But you know, I want the victim. Um I want I I like to see things where the focuses on the victim um and the remembered um and you know, but again, like it it is it is something I can't help but but um but focus on a little bit too as far as like like part of me watching this was I'm like I don't know how it got past some of the legal team but because I know the discussions that it I mean it was insane in just in my personal experience with the documentaries I did. Um not that we were doing anything problematic, but I mean it was like every little the thing I mean had to be reviewed by by a legal team. And we had a news organization behind us. Yeah, we were ABC News, so I mean they're gonna hold it to a different standard. Um and I'm not I'm not discrediting Aggany at all. Um I'm just it's it's an interesting, it's an interesting um it's it's an interesting take. So I'm excited to watch part two. I hope they change my mind.

SPEAKER_11 3:27:00

All right. Well, guys, we'll be back with part two very shortly. In the meantime, check Aspen out on YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook under Aspen Connor. You can also follow me on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook under True Crime with Tiv Klein and my other podcast, turning the corner for a better tomorrow with Klein's Corner. We are on Apple, Amazon Podcast, Spotify, iHeart, and YouTube, and all your other favorite streaming platforms. I want to send out love and respect and prayers to Lacey Peterson's family and love to Lacey and Connor. And in the back of my mind and heart for this whole case, it's not about Scott. It's giving Lacey the love and like she deserves. And I feel like this is very perspective, yeah. Yeah, and I I think, you know, Sharon Rocha have it said, you know, she's tired, there's no new evidence. Let Lacey rest in peace. He's been convicted. There's no as of right now, I haven't seen anything, but again, we'll see that in part two, and we will be back soon.