Thursday, November 15, 2007

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

All of you, I know you live here, obviously live here in the Bay Area. I have been here, of course, this whole time as well. I have driven through your neighborhoods. Your neighborhoods here are just like the neighborhoods that these folks lived in Modesto, your normal, everyday, middle class, middle of the road place. It's not some big scary place where pregnant women are getting snatched off the street.

What happened to Evelyn Hernandez?

That's not what's going on. That's not the evidence you heard. That's nothing that you saw about Modesto.

Candlelight light vigil, this tells you kind of about Modesto. For example, I mean this is New Years Eve, 2002. 800 to a thousand people show up to show their support and prayer and candlelight, and everything else, for a woman they have never even met. This isn't some scary, horrible place. But you want to know what this guy is doing on December 31st, 45 minutes before that vigil is supposed to start?

It's set to start at 5:00 o'clock. Everyone else is there helping to get this set up. They are dragging the stage out. They are doing what they have to do.

This is what he does. This is what he's doing 45 minutes before the vigil is supposed to start for his wife and missing son. Go ahead and play that December 31st 1618, Amber to, It's really funny. That's what he said. I'm not even playing that call for you just to highlight the Europe trip. We have been over that ad nauseam. You know why I played that call? Listen to his demeanor, and then put it in the context with what's going on in Modesto at that time. He's laughing. He's happy.

How is your New Years going? Amber asks. It's great. I'm having a great time.

My wife and kid are gone. That, to him, is a good thing. It's his demeanor that's important. And in the context of where this was, 45 minutes before 800 to a thousand people showed up there to memorialize his missing wife.

Demeanor isn’t evidence. Where is the evidence of homicide?

At the vigil, remember Mike Wilson helped. Remember, they helped move the stage out. Mike Wilson tells him, you know, Scott you really need to go and be with your family. He says, no, I'm happier right here. Happier down here with some guy moving the stage? His own family was up on the stage. Lisa Krueger said he was smiling. Remember Ken McCall said he seemed to be in a good mood, somewhat jovial. So much so that he thought it was kind of weird. He chose not to speak to him that day. You know, there is no playbook for grief. That's what people have told me when I talked about this. I agreed with that. Everybody grieves differently. Nobody grieves like that. That's just not true. Grieving, true, you want to see true grief, please like at that picture of Sharon Rocha. That's true grief. Look at those people. That's after the vigil is over. That's true grief right there, like somebody ripped their heart out.

This is just the opinion of Distaso – it is valueless as evidence.

That's not what you heard from that phone call with the defendant.

Now look at what the defendant looks like on that day. Yeah. He's feeling the pain there, isn't he? You know. Remember that call the defense played in their case? It was on the day of the defendant's arrest, April 18th, when he was supposedly going to go down and play golf, I guess at Torrey Pines.

Who goes down and plays golf when potentially your wife and unborn son have been found up there in the San Francisco Bay? You know. It would take a team of horses to hold you back to get up there to find out what's going on. Not this guy. I'm going to go, you know, he ends up not playing golf that day.

According to the phone call he is too concerned about how he is going to look in the press. I don't want a picture of me playing golf in the press. That's all he's concerned about. Not like they might have found my wife.

IF they had found Laci, would nobody bother to mention it – or would the news flash around the world?

Now, ask yourself. Is this the reasonable behavior for a man who didn't commit this crime, who is innocent? No way. That's not reasonable behavior. If it's not, then I have proven this case, and this man is guilty. Now, ask yourself this. Is it reasonable behavior for a man who did commit this crime?

Absolutely. Two interpretations. The one reasonable, one unreasonable. You must reject the unreasonable interpretation.

The unreasonable interpretation is that a man with no motive and a blameless record would kill the person he loved most in the world. THAT is unreasonable.

Here is some things he said about, sayings about Laci. One, Brian Ullrich, all I want for Christmas is my wife back. Well, apparently my porn and my girlfriend too. Private life, public life. Lies.

Talk about the porn channels. Do those mean anything, that he was getting porn?

Who cares if he was getting porn. Doesn't mean, that doesn't mean anything.

Finally a true statement. No, it doesn’t matter. IF he was guilty, he would have gone around with a bible under his arm and would have never ordered XXX channels.

You want to know what's important about that? It's that he got it on January 8th, got the Playboy Channels. Who cares if he got the Playboy channels.

That's not the argument. It's being upgraded on the January 25th to the Ecstasy Channel.

I don't care if he watches porn. Watch all the porn you want. You know what is important about that? The important thing is, he knew Laci was never coming home to see him watching those channels. Laci shows up on his doorstep on January 13th. Oh, honey, you were gone. My sex drive was so overactive I had to get the porn channels. Yeah, right.

They weren’t coming back to that house. Distaso is getting his own theories mixed up.

No. He got, he got those channels because he knew she was not coming home and he's moving on with his life. He created a fantasy life in his head, and he made it his reality. That's what's important about that stuff. He tells Diane Sawyer though, private-public. Public life, we had a glorious marriage. That's what he said. Glorious marriage. That's what he said.

He tells the Amber, though, on January 6th, she asked him, this is before the confrontation, did you have any problems of your own, Scott? She is kind of, at this point, wanting him to kind of own up to some of this stuff. Do you have any problems? No, no problems. She said, really? He says, yeah. No. This is a long call I was going to play for you. I'm not going to. It's too long on January 8th where they are talking about whether or not Laci and Scott went to bed in separate beds that night. And he never answered her.

She says, finally she says something to the effect of, let me tell, I'm going through in evidence pretty much from my memory. If I say something wrong, go with the way, like the judge said, go with what you remember and what you heard. Or, better yet, check the transcripts, or get it read back. I don't want to say anything here that's incorrect. If I do, I want you to go with what you remember. That's important.

But on this January 8th call, she said something to the effect of, did you go to bed in separate beds? I'm not going to answer that. Silence. You know. She keeps pumping him for it. Finally she says, why? It would too painful. Do you think it's going to be too painful to hear that you went to bed with your wife that night? I know you are married. Oh, no. He said something to the effect, you probably think the opposite. They didn't go to bed together that night.

He tells of the public statements about Conner, public and private. And in public he says, remember what he says about the baby's room to all those media folks. Can't go in there. Not going in there until there is a little guy to put in there. Can't, you know. That door is closed to me. It's not true.

Because when they went back there on February 18th, he turned that place into a storeroom. Go ahead play that video. It is on the 26th, the way Laci left it.

This is what it looked like when they went back. Can't go in there unless there is a little guy to put in there. Again, there is two lives, right?

Who used the room for storage? No evidence that it was Scott – once again all supposition.

Public and private.

Here's what he says to Amber Frey on January 1st. She asked him if he wants, she says, do you want another child? Because they have been talking about, you know, he wanted to have a vasectomy. Aiyanna, her child, is enough for me.

I don't want any more. Here's, look what he says. This is January 1st, midnight call, January 1st. She is asking him if he wants another child seven days after his wife and unborn son have gone missing. This is what he says. Go ahead and play that part. Just not my thoughts currently.

Who could even speak those words if he's not guilty? Seriously, I mean let's just throw all this argument I have made, and throw all the emotions out, throw everything out of this case. How can he speak those words? Could any of you?

You are all reasonable people. Could any of you?

Where, where we left off, we were kind of talking about at one point the two lives of the defendant. What I'd like to talk about now is kind of the defendant's manipulation of the media. Really, his using of the media.

What we've heard in this trial is a couple of things here. Either the defendant is manipulating the media, is keeping them around and keeping them on the hook, that's what he told Gloria Gomez. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said: You know, it's kind of a conscious decision for us to keep, keep the media around; or, on the other hand, the problem with that is either, either that's the truth, or the media is hunting him and driving him out of town. You can't have it both ways.

If the media drove him out of town, then he didn't purposefully keep them on the hook. If he purposefully kept them on the hook like he says, then the media had no, no impact at all on his, on why he did in January the things that he did. And that's the simple fact.

Now, look at it logically. This is a guy who goes on Good Morning America, you know, which is what, a national television show, probably viewed by millions of people, and he wants, he wants you to believe that he's somehow afraid of the media and they're hunting him and driving him out of town. I mean that's ridiculous.

Apparently Distaso has not been told about the “Man or Monster” billboards.

He also goes, right in that same time period, Good Morning America he's on, and then he goes on, he gives two that you saw. Let's see, Gloria Gomez and Ted Rowlands interviews. Two local interviews. So this is a guy who is so afraid of the media that they're driving him out of the town, that he's going to give interviews that are going to be broadcast around the entire world.

I mean, again, that just not consistent, that's what the defense is, it's what they want you to believe. They're trying to explain why he's doing all the wacky things he's doing. Selling his house. Selling Laci's car.

After the MPD stole his truck.

Getting a post office box. Breaking his lease. All because the media is hounding him.

It's just not true. That's a fact.

How many, you know, you are all reasonable folks. You people, I would think, would be kind of nervous about going on Good Morning America. But you've seen him. He wasn't nervous a bit. He looked her right in the eye and told a bald-faced lie.

This is not a guy who is intimidated by, really, anybody, or anything. He's certainly not intimidated by the media.

The reason he did those things is it was part of the plan. He's still working the plan. The plan was, remember at the end of January he's going to come back and start up again with Amber? He's still working the plan. He's taking off out of Modesto.

What is the plan? Where is the evidence?

Who of any reasonable person, your wife and unborn son, your pregnant wife, I guess I should call her, call Laci that, goes missing on December 24th. Who is going to want to put their house up for sale on January 14th? Who is going to want to put their house up for sale, and as he told Brian Argain, his friend, Hey, on January 22nd, Hey, what about selling my house? Hey, can we keep it quiet?

How can anyone be convicted on psychobabble from a lawyer with an axe to grind, a lawyer with NO evidence of guilt?

I'm not making any of this up. It's all in the transcript: Can we keep it quiet.

Then he talked a little bit more, and he says: Hey, you know, can I sell it furnished?

So he's not only going sell his house, the media, of course, is driving him out of his house. This is what he told Gloria Gomez, I guess what he wants everyone to believe. But he's not only going to sell Laci's house and car, he's going to sell all of her stuff. You know, honey, you know, what if miraculously, let's assume he's innocent, which there's no evidence, the evidence is overwhelming he's guilty, but take his story for a second and let's assume he's innocent, what's he going to tell her if she shows back up: Oh, honey, you know, I know it's a little odd, but, you know, a couple weeks into this I decided to sell the house, and, well, all your stuff, too.

The reason he's doing all these things is because he knows she's not coming back. And he's just separating his life from Modesto, his life from Laci, his life from Conner, and he's starting anew. It was all part of the plan that he started way back in October.

Before we leave that, I do want to play one clip. Actually, a couple clips for you. Here's a clip of the defendant as he's being interviewed by Detective Brocchini the night this happened. Before you play that, John, let's put this into perspective.

This is the night that Laci Peterson allegedly got abducted. This should be the most horrible event that he has ever experienced in his entire life. It would be for any of you. It would be for any of all of these people out here. It would be for me. It would be for anybody sitting at that defense table, except for him. That's the way it should be.

And let's take a look at what his demeanor was on that night. I only pulled a small segment out, but you know what, I would actually suggest that you go back and watch this whole interview if you have any question at all about this, because it's a very telling interview. And pay attention to how he looks.

Go ahead.

Calm, cool, collected, chuckling at times. Where, where is any concern at all? Oh, she told me what she was going to do for the day. You know, no big deal. Yeah, she's gone. No big deal.

Now, let's look at the, what, when Scott Peterson wants to present this false image to the public, let's show how he portrays that. I mean, this guy is like a master actor there. Go ahead and show me the next clip, the Good Morning America clip.

He can turn the tears on when he wants to, though, can't he?

Let's talk about the, into January, the trips to the Berkeley Marina, what those mean. You saw there was a number of them. January 5th, 6th, the 9th.

This is the chart for the 9th. The 26th, the 27th. And let's see what, what did the defendant do with those trips.

Let's actually put this in perspective first. Why is the defendant going to the Berkeley Marina? Remember he had never been there before. This is, the fishing trip was supposed to be his first time there. So this is not a place he frequents all the time

Why were the MPD searching it? Scott knew his wife wasn’t there – her car was still where it was when he left. The search proved him correct – she wasn’t there until the bodies were dumped in April.

.So let's go with what was kind of insinuated by questioning, I guess, or what Mr. Peterson's version would be: Well, I'm going there to see if somebody saw me. I guess, you know, whatever, let's take that for a second.

Well, if you're going to do that, don't you think you'd stop at the office and talk to somebody? Don't you think you'd go and look for that maintenance man who saw you? Don't you think you'd do any of those things? Don't you think you'd spend more than a couple minutes there?

He knows during this time, what's the real reason he's going there? Let's don't pull any punches. What's the real reason he's going to the Berkeley Marina. And doing what he does, there's the GPS track. He comes down, drives around to the lookout, drives back around to the lookout.

He's there for just minutes. You know, he drives in, checks it out, drives back around, checks it out. That's what he's really doing. He knows the police is searching the Berkeley Marina. He doesn't call them up and say: Hey, you guys searching the Berkeley Marina? Anything I can do to help you?

You didn't hear any evidence of that at all. All you heard was he made these secret, surreptitious trips out there to check up on them. I mean, he wants to know if they're looking in the right place.

You heard the testimony where the anchor was found. That was found down, I'm pretty sure it was testified to it was down at the end of the Berkeley Marina there. Well, that's, they're not looking in the right place. So he's satisfied on that trip.

You know, let's look at what he did. He, on January 5th he hops in that silver Subaru, a car that's not associated with him at all. Hops in there, changes his clothes you heard after doing his, the two lives things again, doing his little public thing, going around, laying out flyers, doing that. And then all of a sudden goes in, changes his clothes, jumps in that silver Subaru, and bam, he drives straight to the Berkeley Marina. He drives just around this overlook here, and bam, straight back to Modesto.

I mean, that's a long trip to go, remember he was driving 85, 90 miles an hour. That's a long time to spend a couple minutes out at that overlook at the Berkeley Marina. He's not going there to look for anything. He's not going there to help anybody. You're going there to check up on the cops and see what they're doing. That's why he did it.

January 6th, well, this time in a little more surreptitious fashion. He actually drives his Land Rover. Remember we heard Oh, he can't, the reason he sold the Land Rover is because it was so tore up.

That is ridiculous. Go back and listen to some of that or have read back to you some of that surveillance folks' testimony. He drove that Land Rover all over the place. The there was nothing wrong with the Land Rover at all. The only thing the police did to it when they seized it is pulled the headliner out to test it. That doesn't affect the way the car drives at all. He was driving it all over the place.

But not on January 6th. He drives to the Enterprise Rent a Car place, rents a red Honda, bam, back out to the Berkeley Marina. Spends a couple minutes there.

And remember they lost him downtown sometime in Berkeley. He's not a guy who's going out to these areas to look for, you know, to talk to people, to do anything other than check on what's going on. He goes again on the 9th in a rented car. Remember it was that Dodge, I think it was a Dodge that day. No, Chevy S-10.

On January 11th, remember when he was lying on all those calls, remember what he did that day? He rented a silver Saturn and went out to, remember what he did. Jill, Agent Henry testified to this. He goes out to the Land Rover.

Remember he was looking underneath it, he walks all the way around it, he looks under it again.

What do you think he was looking for? He's not a stupid man. He knows, you know, he made the surveillance. He knew they were following him. He was looking for a tracker. That's why he wasn't driving the Land Rover. That's why he kept renting cars, why he kept going out there in cars that weren't associated with him.

On January 26th he drove his Land Rover out there. And then on January 27th, remember he drove out not to the Berkeley Marina, I should have brought that chart out, but I didn't. He drove out here to the frontage road to look out at the Bay and see where, that's what the GPS showed. He's not going to find the maintenance man for the Berkeley Marina out there on the frontage road.

Go back and, and, you know, look at those boards. The GPS tracks are clear as day on there. You can see exactly where he went. And that's, that's the reason why he was doing those trips.

Now, let's talk about the, some of the physical evidence and other evidence that you heard in this case. Let's talk about, first, Laci walking.

Were we trying to present to you that Laci was an invalid, that she couldn't walk anywhere? Of course not. There's no evidence to support that at all.

The question is was Laci walking on December, on a cold morning on December 24th with a big dog. I mean, that's the question.

Vivian Mitchell saw her as did her husband – after Scott left.

And let's look at what the evidence was. Well, she had been walking in November, on November 6th and November 8th. It's in her medical records. And she got dizzy and I think she said she almost threw up or almost passed out, or something like that, in the park.

You heard from all her friends. You heard from Rene Tomlinson that she felt big. She was taking it easy. Stays Boyers said on November 14th Laci told her she stopped walking. Terry Western said that Laci told her on December 14th that she was tired a lot, it was hard to walk. Sharon Rocha testified to the same kinds of things. And even Karen Servas, the neighbor, who saw Laci last, I think it was the last time, she might have seen her on the 23rd, but saw her on the 22nd when she was in the backyard and the defendant was mowing the lawn, she said that Laci told her she felt really tired and she almost fell into the pool because she got dizzy.

Now, is that the kind of person that's going to go out on Christmas Eve morning and to go walk a big dog? It's just not. I mean, that's a simple fact.

The only person who testified differently than that, the only one, is the defendant's mother, Jackie Peterson. And she testified that she and Laci had done that walk down to the beach and had walked, you know, two hours kind of up and down the hills in Carmel.

Well, you saw Mrs. Peterson testify, and you saw her medical condition, which she had at the time, and is it reasonable for you to believe that that happened?

Is it, I mean, really, is it reasonable?

It's just not. You know, Laci and Mrs. Peterson did probably drive around town, they probably drove down to the beach, they probably drove up to the shopping center, but those folks were not walking around Carmel up and down those hills for two hours. It just didn't happen.

Yet the testimony stands. It did happen – and Distaso has no witness to prove it didn’t.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

This public, two lives things hits home hard during the end of January. He tells Mike Richardson, there is some testimony, oh, Mike I'm so lost without Laci. Lying, you know, public Scott. Wants to be the grieving husband.

Private Scott, wants the fantasy life. On February 7th he says, because, you know, he's still pursuing her. February 7th, 2003. Can we sit down and see each other? I'm asking to see you. How about Lake Arrowhead? A possible place he wants to have a meeting with her in Lake Arrowhead. He tells her on that call, there is one thing I want to tell you. It's so special, I can't tell you over the phone. We can guess what that is.

You know. He's never told her he loved her. I don't think Scott Peterson did love her. Scott Peterson doesn't love anybody but himself. Didn't love Laci.

He adored Laci. Criers’ book is filled with page after page of examples of this.

How could he have done all the things he did and love Laci?

Bill Clinton. Frank Gifford. Kobe Bryant. Brad Pitt. Burt Reynolds. Jesse Jackson. John F. Kennedy. John Walsh. Martin Luther King, Jr. And on and on and on and on ….

Didn't love Amber.

Didn't love his parents.

Where is the evidence of that?

He lied to them constantly.

That is a lie and a violation of the oath Distaso took.

His friends, he lied to them too. Scott Peterson loved himself, no doubt about that. February 8th. I care about, I want to be the second-most joy. February 8th he says you will have all the answers to the things you want to know. You will get the answers to all of them. It's going to take time and trust, well, not trust, but time for me to be able to tell you.

What did he mean by that? I would, then she figures it out, and you and Laci were having problems, you are probably going to come up with some lie about how she ended up dead. I don't know. That's what he tells her. On February 10th, it's her birthday. Weird series of calls. Called me when you are driving past the hospital, that kind of thing. And he leaves, gives her a birthday present.

Scott Peterson is an interesting guy with presents. There was some testimony about, remember we made the everyone laugh about that star theater thing?

It's so cheap, or whatever it was, that he gave Amber for Christmas? Scott Peterson gave her inexpensive gifts, but very sentimental gifts. He is a very manipulative man.

The star theater thing. Do you remember one of the first dates they went on, they went hiking, they sat on the back of the truck, who could see the first star? Well, that gift meant something to Amber Frey. Same thing with this, with the birthday. He gave letter a little cross. You heard some religious references there. He gave her some bird seeds, some other stuff he knew she would like. He gave her a Nora Jones CD, which is right after he's been trying to get her to come down to Lake Arrowhead. The Nora Jones CD, I think the title of it, "Come Away With Me." Let me look for sure. Yeah, Nora Jones, "Come Away With Me." He's a very manipulative guy. Scott Peterson knows next exactly what he's doing at all times.

He is a man.

Let's talk about his lies. A lot of people have told me, well, you know, the guy had an affair. That doesn't mean he killed his wife. That's true. Doesn't mean he didn't. A lot of people use that like that's a positive thing. Oh, yeah, he had an affair. That's great. You know. Doesn't mean he didn't. Puts you in the race, right?

No, it doesn’t. 7 in 100,000 pregnant woman are victims of homicide. For a married white woman Laci’s age the number is much lower. 70,000 out of 100,000 married men will cheat. The killers are not all from the adulterers – they are evenly spread over the whole 100,000. There is no cause and effect.

A lot of people said, well, he had an affair, lied about it. That doesn't mean he killed his wife. Doesn't mean he didn't.

Not only does that put you in the race, now you got a fair, you have lied about it. Now you are a little bit ahead. Pretty soon with all these things that he's done, you are a little bit ahead, and a little bit ahead, and a little bit ahead. And, guess what? Pretty soon you did kill your wife.

Even further into fantasy land. All of the evidence proves the reverse. It is just as reasonable to say that the men who won’t cheat will kill their wives to enjoy other women. Distaso appears to be making this up as he goes along. Perhaps a remedial course in statistics is overdue?

All the lies he told Amber, I'm not going to go through them. All the holidays, the Europe trip, all that. But, you know, I'd like this one. I'll play this one for you to show you how manipulative he was. Even after he told Amber about Laci on January 7th, she says, she asks him, okay, are you going to tell me the truth? Oh, yeah, from now on everything I tell up is the truth. And I can't remember, maybe twenty, thirty seconds later, this is what he tells her.

Go ahead, play January 7th, 1613.

Guess what? That was a lie. He hadn't gone to Alaska for Thanksgiving. He tells, now, why lie about the affair? Remember, he supposedly told Laci about the affair. If he told Laci about the affair, there would be no reason tolie about it because she would already know. There is no reason to cover. Oh, gosh, I'm scared my wife going to find out I'm having an affair. Supposedly he already told her.

Men lie for sex. This is news?

He is lying about the affair because he killed Laci. He doesn't want anybody to know about it, because that's going to cast suspicion on him. He tells the police, Detective Brocchini, you guys have any marriage problem? No.

Everything is good? Yeah, un-huh.

Agent Mansfield. Any third parties involved in the marriage? No. He tells those in the interview with Grogan as well. Eventually calls Detective Grogan on January 25th and admits that he was lying about that. Which is very interesting, because then he goes on national television, and, John, play that GMA Clip Number 4 for me, and lies to them about it.

Men lie for sex. Still.

Two lives catching up on Scott Peterson. He wants, in public, everybody to think he's doing the right things. He's the grieving husband. He's cooperative with the police. He is helping out. He's doing the things. None of it is true.

Two lives: Private life, public life.

Like millions of men – and women. Who knew all of these preachers would be caught having sex with women – or men?

He tells Ron Grantski on December 26th, Mr. Grantski asked him, he says something is fishy about your fishing story. Doesn't make sense. He thinks it's because Scott Peterson is having an affair, Scott Peterson was really down on the 24th with his girlfriend. Scott Peterson says no, no, that's not it at all.

Where was Ron Grantski? Where (or who) is his ‘fishing hole’? Why was Ron suspicious when he, Ron was doing the same thing – or was he?

He lies where he was on January 11th. Why is that? Cue up that January 11th call, 12:55. Why is that a significant date, January 11th? Why is he lying to people about where he was on that day? Because on January 11th, people are, the Modesto Police are searching the San Francisco Bay. Searching the San Francisco Bay. It's been reported in the media that they believe they might have found a body. So this guy is going in high overdrive right out there, thinking they found Laci, and they found her quick.

So what does he do? Remember, he is down that Gilroy, Hollister area. That's what the cell site tells us. He tells, his mom calls him at 10:48. She says, where are you? He says Fresno, or West Fresno, something like that. His dad calls him later in the day, where are you? Oh, working down in Bakersfield.

His friend Aaron Fritz calls him. I'm sorry. Not Aaron Fritz. Guy Miligi called. Mike Richardson. He's in Button Willow. He's in Bakersfield. He's not in any of those places. He's hiding out waiting to see what, if anything, the police found; because if the police found Laci, he's gone. There is no way this guy is hanging around at that point. So he finally gets a voicemail message from Sharon Rocha, and telling him that they find an anchor. This is what we get. Go ahead and play it. John, Play the end of that again for me

I wish I could whistle like that. It would sound better when I'm standing up here, but I can't. But he's like "Whew," close. Almost got me.

Or “Whew”. Thank god it isn’t my wife. There’s still hope.

And listen to Sharon on that call. You know. I mean if that's not one of the saddest things you have ever heard? Because she is excited. She is relieved.

She is still clinging on to hope that Laci is coming home. And all we get from Scott Peterson is, "Whew," almost got me.

Distaso is a mind reader? He knows what this means? Why can’t it mean to Scott what it means to Sharon? Where is the evidence of guilt?

He then has the, Peterson then calls her right back, talks to her. Oh, yeah, you know, the police are searching The Bay. The fools found an anchor. He doesn't say those words exactly. He says, he talks about that. She says, "Hey, you know, am I going to get to see you tonight? Where are you?" And he says, "I'm down in Bakersfield." He lies to her to again for the first time.

Remember that false sighting of Laci in Longview, Washington? He lies to a number of people about when he contacted them up there, you know. Why is that important, is that you can, didn't mean anything. It wasn't Laci up there.

Only it turns out he wasn’t lying – it was the MPD who were.

Just further evidence of two lives. You know. He wants everyone to think he's doing something. Oh, yeah, talked to detectives, got a hold of them. Hadn't even called them yet.

Only it turns out he wasn’t lying – it was the MPD who were.

But he has to keep that persona going. He's got to keep his public persona for what people perceived him. Got to keep that going, even though he doesn't, it doesn't mean anything. His mom called and she's excited about this sighting. And this is what we get out of that. Go ahead and play that 1:31, Longview call. You know, he laughs at the end of that call.

Thank god it isn’t my wife. There’s still hope.

Rachel is up putting up posters and he laughs. Just amused by it. His mom is excited. Similar, quite frankly, kind of emotions that Sharon Rocha made in that other call. Why don't you get up there? Do you want to get on a plane, go check this thing out? Maybe it's her. It wasn't. But, no. Just, huh, huh, that's funny. Rachel is up there putting up posters.

He lies to his supporters too. And do you remember the call where he's down at bar in San Diego, then he calls the next day to Joan Faria where he's, play that call. 2-2, 1703.

The very next day he calls one of his supporters in Modesto. This is the line message he leaves on her machine the very next day. I'm just leaving that session now. Been up in grief counselling for four days in the hills.

When, of course, we know that's not true. And why is he saying that? Again, why is he saying this? Saying he is just a pathological liar? No. He knows he has to hide his involvement in this case. And to do that in public, and with his supporters, he has to be the grieving husband, and that's the reason why he's doing it.

He's not lying just because he can't tell the truth. He can tell the truth.

Some things he said was true.

Almost everything, actually. It was the MPD who were shown to have told lie after lie – to everyone.

He did go to the Berkeley Marina. The reason he's doing this is, he has to keep his supporters on the hook to keep his support base behind him, to keep the pressure off of him, and the suspicion away from him. That's why he's doing this. That's why these lies were important, not just because he's lying, because of who and what he's lying about.

Joan Faria, he's not lying to her about Amber Frey. Lots of people said so. He lies about the affair. So what? That call has nothing to do with at all with Amber Frey. Nothing at all. Longview, Washington, nothing at all to do with Amber Frey. January 11th stuff, nothing to do with Amber Frey. So it's not just, I'm just lying about my affair. That's not what's going on here. Not by a long shot.

Men lie about sex.

He lies to his friends. Remember, he told Mike Richardson, he showed up in blaze orange hair, orange goatee, the orange eyebrows. He said he got that swimming in Aaron Fritz's motel room. Everybody knows that's ridiculous. Just another lie that he told. Has nothing to do with Amber Frey.

He colored his hair to avoid the public and the media. The chlorine changed it to orange.

“Plunge Into a Pool, But Protect Your Hair” << LINK

Let's take a look at his behavior. Remember the candlelight vigil? I can't remember exactly what the testimony was, but something like 800 or a thousand people from the community in Modesto. You know, let me talk about Modesto for a minute. You know, you heard about Modesto. And you heard about, early on, they contacted the 290 sex registrants. And there is some homeless folks there. You know what, there is sex registrants and homeless folks in every community. But, you know, you saw the video of Modesto as a place. You saw a video where their house is, their neighborhood. That looks like every middle class neighborhood.

Modesto has a terrible reputation as a hotbed of criminality, including car theft, drugs, home invasions and homicides. So much for the appearances.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Wait until, you have heard, I'm going to talk about some of things he said about that in private.

Those two lives, things coming up and grabbing him.

The reason that he killed Laci Peterson was Conner Peterson was on the way, you know. If it was just Laci, he could do this two-life thing, okay? Wasn't that hard, really. Only one that even, if she even, if she found out, you heard some testimony that there might have been some other affairs. It was hearsay. You can't consider it for the truth. Quite frankly, I don't care if you do consider that part of it for the truth. So what if, so he had some other affairs? When it was just Laci, that's okay for him. If she finds out, he's only hurting her. No big deal to Scott Peterson.

But when Conner came along, things were going to change. No more of this running around living this double-life thing. Couldn't divorce her. Remember, he wants to live the rich, successful, free-wheeling bachelor life. Can't do that when he's paying child support and alimony, and everything else.

We're going to talk about his finances, and what, and the spin that was tried to put on this. It's not like this guy was rich. Although his parents gave him a ton of money. I guess they could bail him out. But he wasn't making a ton of money. He didn't want to be tied to that kid for the rest of his life. He didn't want to be tied to Laci for the rest of his life, so he killed her. It's as simple as that. It's no big secret here. There is no big mystery here. Here is what he told Amber Frey on January 1st, late. This is 12:01. She's been missing seven days.

Give him the benefit of the doubt. Call it eight days. Doesn't really matter.

He tells Amber Frey he's quoting from a book he read, Jack Cadillac. I had never read that book. It is about a guy that hitchhikes across America. Has a great time living, free wheeling, bachelor kind of life. Here's what he says.

This is what Scott Peterson, direct quote. I never had a prolonged period of freedom like that from responsibility, and this is interesting to me, and something you could incorporate into life.

And the point is? What you tell a temporary bed mate is evidence of nothing except that that’s the line you are feeding her. How many women have been told that the guy is a test pilot, doctor or whatever?

This is on January 1st. The most horrible, just incomprehensible event has just occurred to him, and he's like, you know what? This is kind of cool. I never had that prolonged period of freedom from responsibility. Well, you know what?

He just got it for himself, and he knew he did. And even though the media was kind of building up, and even though things were getting a little out of control, he was still working the plan.

Remember he is still in Europe, still working the plan. And in Scott Peterson's kind of fantasy world, things were going to work out for him. Never had that prolonged period of freedom from responsibility. That's what this guy wanted. That's what this guy had just gotten.

Now, there is going to be no dispute that Scott's lust and obsession with Amber Frey increased after Laci went missing.

The reverse is true. It is totally disputed. He wanted to dump Frey, but wondered if she was somehow involved. That’s why he wanted to have her take a polygraph.

Look at these calendars. 56 minutes in November they talked. Eight hours in December. December was going up, especially at the end there. And then look at January. This is after Laci Peterson is missing. Right? When, remember when, the spin that's going to be put on Amber Frey is that she was nothing to him. It's going to be the spin that you are going to hear, that she was just an affair.

You know, Laci was pregnant. Weren't having sex any more. Got this overactive sex drive that he has to fulfill. My guess is that would be the best spin they can put on it. But that's what they are going to say, something like that.

That she meant nothing to him. Well, for meaning nothing, he talked to her sixteen hours in January. Talked to her six hours in February. She meant nothing to him, though.

Here's some of the things he told her January 1st, that same phone call I told you about. We could care for each other, fulfill each other for the rest of our lives. You are so lovely, it's unreal. Our relationship will grow, have confidence in that.

On January 2nd, those two lives, thing happens. Two lives with Scott Peterson.

Got the private life where he does what he wants. You got the public life where he puts on this fake persona that he wants people to grab on to; to manipulate.

Very manipulative man.

Liars aren’t killers by default. Where is the evidence of homicide? If there was any, the jury would not have been fed all of this nonsense.

On January 2nd he tells Detective Grogan, he says do you think when Laci has the baby I'll get half my family back? Do you remember? We heard that testimony.

That's January 2nd. Laci has been missing eight days, grieving husband. You go, oh, God, do you think they took her for the baby?

That’s what the evidence shows. SOMEONE cut the baby out of Laci’s living body. Why else? It has happened more than once before.

For one thing, you know, when I first heard that statement, you got to be kidding me. Do you think I'll get half my family back? Who wants half their family back? Anybody who has kids, you know, some of you have kids. Who would ever say that? But, to him, that's a good thing a grieving husband would say.

A man who was irrational with grief might well say that.

Let's go with that for a minute.

Let's look at the private. Let's look at what he was saying in private to Amber Frey on January 2nd. Play January 2nd. You heard, would swoon.

You would laugh in stitches. And, you know, I can't remember something, do something for hours. But to Detective Grogan, do you think when she had the baby I'll get half my family back? Remember, he is still in Europe at this time. He's in Modesto. You know that. Play 2242. This is when he says, calls her back that same night. On January 2nd, 2242, this is what he says then

I'll think about you, and I'll feel your lips. Laci Peterson had been missing for all of, what, nine days? No one can tell, no one should get up and tell you that this man wasn't completely obsessed with Amber Frey, lusting after her.

Happy with what he's done, because he's finally gotten what he wants.

Without proof of homicide we are supposed to believe this nonsense? Where is the evidence?

It continued even after this, of course, when he hasn't told Amber yet. But it continued even after she confronted him. She finally confronts him on January 6th. He tells the media in some of those interviews that, yeah, I told Amber.

I called her and told her. Right. He says a few days later. Actually thirteen days later. And what he says to her, only reason he calls and tells her this, he doesn't, it's not like, oh, jeez, I got this change of heart. I have got to own up to it. She puts him up to it. She's telling him in there, hey, Sauki is calling me.

You guys can listen to these calls again. You can read the transcript. But saying something to the effect, when she is working with the police, then they say, see what he's going to say about this. Sauki calls me from New York, might be something wrong. What's going on? And during that call, I think it's 10:16 on January 16th, he realizes, I don't know what you are talking about? I don't know anything about it. Then he calls her back. The worst thing in the world. Then he owns up. Probably figured that she knows.

But even after that, January 6th, 2302, I'm longing to hold on to you. At 2329, you changed me this last month. You are so special. You are amazing.

January 7th. I hope in my heart there can be some future relationship with us.

On January 14th she asks him, why do you want a relationship with me, Scott?

You know. You got this missing wife. You are the only one on this planet hasn't figured that out yet. This is what he says. He says I desire to make you happy. So this is the, I think that's the call when something, I want to be a joy for you. I want to learn from you. He goes on and on.

This is also the same day that he inquires about selling Laci's house for the first time. He asked Terri Western on January 14th about that. He says, oh, I can't bring Laci home to this house. Of course, she's only been missing three weeks. I want to sell the house so she has nowhere to come home to.

That house would be the last place in the world she would want to be. A home with memories of the baby ripped from her womb? How could any of them live there after this?

He tells her on January 25th, you have such an amazing character. This is after the press conference, because the media is bugging her so much that Modesto Police Department has her hold a press conference on the 24th. It's either the 24th or the 25th.

He says that you have such amazing character. I actually had to pull over and threw up when I heard you cry. Give me a break. I pulled over and threw up because I heard you cry at the press conference. This is what he is telling her.


Monday, November 12, 2007

When the defendant's fishing story started falling apart, he told the officers kind of intermingled things. But he also told them that, well, I also went just to get that boat in the water. I think that might be a direct quote from Detective Brocchini's transcript. I don't remember exactly. But I just wanted to get that boat in the water, you know.

That’s true.

He told Agent Mansfield he never fished in the San Francisco Bay before.

That’s true.

He said he only wanted to put the boat in the water to ensure there were no problems with it.

That’s true.

Click that "Numerous Fishing Locations".

Nobody in their right mind is going to take a small aluminum fishing boat that they have never used before, remember, now, we're off the fishing story here.

He had owned four boats before. I’ve been out in similar waters in a hand rowed 8 foot plywood boat. Men have fished for a living from similar boats out in the open sea – see ‘Dory Fishing’ (

You are just taking the boat to make sure it's working right. Who, in their right mind, is going to drive the ninety miles, out in the middle of San Francisco Bay, in winter, all by yourself, the first time you have ever used it, when you have what, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. And look at all the other places that aren't even marked, all within close distances. Here is one only 9.8 miles away. If you are in a lake, you take boat out for the first time in a lake, something goes wrong, you know, it's not that big a deal. You will eventually get to hit land in your lake.

None of those was salt water. None matched the conditions in the bay. If you want to test a race car you don’t go to a go kart track.

You might have to walk a ways to your car. You are going to be okay. Same thing, any of these places here.

You take your boat out in the San Francisco Bay, you have a problem. You never used it before. You know what, you get swept into one of the shipping channels, you are toast. You get swept up in the deep water channel, in the currents, you are out under the Golden Gate. Who is going to take that risk just to take their boat out, someone who is just taking it out for the first time? No way.

Who would take all of these risks with an untried boat to dump a body in a place they had never been to before? You get rescued with your wife’s body in the boat – how do explain that away?

Somebody who is going out to dump their wife's body? Absolutely. Is it a risky thing to go out in the San Francisco Bay by yourself in a boat you have never used before? Yes.

Insanely so. Where are the examples of others who have done this? Why not drive to Nevada that night and bury the body in the desert and then make the boat trip? Where would the police search?

Is it a risky thing to kill your wife and you have to get rid of her body? Yes. If you are going to take someone out there, get rid of them, you will take the risk. If you are just going out for a pleasure cruise, your maiden voyage, no way. No way one can believe that's true except for maybe this guy, in his fantasyland kind of mind, he might believe it's true.

There’s fantasy here for sure. In Distaso’s mind, trying out your boat for the first time by trying out your boat for the first time is insane, but trying out your boat for the first time by dumping a body from it is perfectly sane. It’s hard to follow this distorted line of thought.

Going back to the defendant's story. As he's driving back, remember he calls Greg Reed, his good friend. Never mentioned, hey, just took my new boat out, went fishing. Then Greg Reed told you he's a big hunter. Any man, that would be like a natural thing to talk about. He never mentions it.

Talks to his father twice, never mentions, hey, I just got back from fishing.

Scott knew he had the boat. Laci knew he had the boat. The seller knew he had the boat. The state knew he had the boat. That was enough people who knew until he could surprise Ron Grantski by offering to go fishing with him.

Yeah, I had a great time. Now, when the defense was questioning Lee Peterson about that, the reason he gave for it is he is not really interested in it. Of course you saw him in August fishing. So you decide whether you find that testimony believable or not. A guy actually goes fishing on occasions, once in a while, with an, on a lake with his son, don't you think his son would tell him, hey, I just went out fishing, if that's what he really did?

He says he goes home. He sees McKenzie in the backyard with the leash on. He says the door is open. He comes in. And before he does anything to look for Laci, he gets some pizza. He said he's been out all day, hasn't eaten. Who takes an all-day fishing trip, doesn't take any food or water?

It wasn’t an all day fishing trip. He is distorting his own evidence.

He says that he washes his clothes. Only his clothes. Now, why are you going to do that? The reason he gave, I think to the media and to everybody else, well, I got some salt water on it. So what?

Laci was a neat freak – Martha Stewart wannabe. Scott was well trained.

You got a, you are going to take the time when you know you have to be at your in-laws, you know, like in an hour. Your wife's not there. The dog is in the backyard with a leash on.

There is all these weird things going on. Oh, better wash my fishing clothes. I got some salt water on them.

What was weird about it?

Do you think that's really why he washed his clothes? Or do you think he washed them because he wanted to make sure he didn't leave anything on them? What's makes more sense to you? What is more reasonable to you?

It is reasonable that he didn’t want to upset his wife by leaving damp clothes around. Now the theory once again is that perfection = evidence of guilt. Go figure.

Anybody, I'm sure there is people on this jury that have gone fishing before. I'm sure when you come home you might have got something on your clothes. And I doubt that you took things out of the washer and took off just your clothes and washed them. It's not reasonable.

It is reasonable.

What the law says about this, because there is going to be two interpretations. I'm sure they are going to get up here and argue all this stuff makes sense. What the law says about this, if there is two reasonable interpretations you must go with the one that points to innocence. Absolutely do that, if they are both reasonable. That's the cornerstone of our legal system. However, if one is reasonable and one is not reasonable, you must reject the one that is not reasonable. That's what the law says. Nobody goes out on their maiden voyage into San Francisco Bay under these circumstances unless they are dumping their wife's body.

Wow! We REALLY have gone to fantasyland now. “Nobody goes out on their maiden voyage into San Francisco Bay under these circumstances unless they are dumping their wife's body.” This is the stupidest statement so far. Everybody who has gone on a maiden voyage into San Francisco Bay has gone on a maiden voyage into San Francisco Bay!

Let's go to Amber Frey and the affair. Go to that. Go to those pictures. This is the life that Scott Peterson wanted. Click again, one more time. Not necessarily with Amber Frey, although he was completely obsessed with her.

If he was obsessed with her why was he trying to dump her?

But this is what he wanted. He didn't want that dull married life, got-to-stay-at-home- with-the-kids, thing that he had coming with Laci

All of the evidence is that this was EXACTLY what he wanted. He wanted Laci, he wanted his baby, he wanted to try to get Laci and her family to reconcile their differences and he wanted everyone to get along together. That doesn’t mean that if someone offered him free sex he wouldn’t be tempted, but 70% of married men are like that. After all, if Halle Berry and Christie Brinkley’s husbands would cheat on them, why is it impossible to imagine that Scott might fail at times?

People were, look, well, shoot, a lot of people are like that. Why doesn't he just divorce her? He's still tied to her for the rest of his life. Kids don't just go away.

He didn't want Conner Peterson. He didn't want a baby.

He made strenuous efforts to get Laci pregnant. He was prepared to pay for fertility treatments out of his own pocket. He put a nursery together with his own hands for his new son. All of the evidence proves that Distaso is 100% wrong.

To be continued ...

Sunday, November 11, 2007

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Continued - after a long gap!

And the defendant had no choice but to go with that. Remember what the Berkeley Marina was like on the 24th? You heard from the employees. Cold, chilly, hardly any activity. The marina manager: It was a slow day, nobody came to the office.

Cold and cloudy. The, cold, windy, one of them said. Not busy at all. Gary Friedman, the guy who works at the bait shop, says no fishing trips were booked that day. December is a very slow month for fishing. Most fish are out of season. There was nobody there at the Berkeley Marina that day.

Remember this receipt? This is from the 23rd to the 27th, only three tickets were sold. Three tickets that whole time. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Three tickets; one of which is sitting right here in court. Only two other people launched a boat from the Berkeley Marina during that whole period. Now, there was some I think attempt by the defense to make it seem like the Berkeley Marina is the most happening place on the planet. Well, it wasn't on that day. That's a proven fact.

No, it wasn’t proven at all. Where are the photographs of that area on Dec 24th? The witnesses as to who might be there? It’s all supposition.

Let's talk about his fishing gear. He told, he couldn't tell the first responding officer what he went fishing for. He wasn't able to do it. He finally tells Officer Spurlock: I, when he asked him what kind of bait were you using, he puts his hands out and says: Oh, a silver lure, you know, about like that. Well, that matches the description of the silver lure that he bought, but he sure didn't use it. And remember what the expert said about this? The fishing expert? You can't use this in San Francisco Bay. You can't catch any fish on it. It's used for fishing off shore. This striker lure you can use in the San Francisco Bay. Not at this time of year. What you use in the San Francisco Bay, because what the defendant eventually goes with, he says: I was fishing for sturgeon or striper. It appears he was really going for the sturgeon angle, which is, of course is, quite frankly, a great fact for the prosecution, because there's no way that that guy was fishing for sturgeon on December 24th. That just did not happen.

Remember what the expert told you? He said: Look, here's a sturgeon. You know, we're not all fishermen here. I didn't know what a sturgeon was until this case came about. But this is a sturgeon, okay? This is what he said he was fishing for. Look, this is the fisherman. Look at the rod he has. It's got that big open-faced kind of reel like that. I can't remember what he called that. A casting reel, maybe. A big, big heavy pole. It's not this. You don't fish for sturgeon with this. Remember what he said this was? This is a freshwater bass lure. You don't fish for sturgeon with one of those. You know what else about this pole? See how it's apart? That's the way it was on December 24th in the defendant's boat. This pole wasn't even put together.

The whole sturgeon theory was invented, based on an offhand remark. Scott was trying out his boat. I doubt that Laci would be thrilled with him bringing home an actual fish – or more than one.

Here's the pictures that Detective Brocchini took on December 24th. There's 70.

This is 70 Q. When you go back there, take a look at it. Here's that pole right there. There's one half of it. There's the other half. It's not even put together. So either the defendant took it apart when he got home for whatever, who knows why you would do that; the other pole's not apart. So he either took it apart, or it was never put together to begin with. You're not going to catch a sturgeon on a rod that's not put together.

What else do you need to catch a sturgeon? What else do you need, actually, to catch any fish in the San Francisco Bay, sturgeon or striper, in December.

Remember what, remember what the experts said? The fish, it's cold. The fish are feeding on the bottom. You need one of these. Terminal tackle. This goes on the end. You put a big fat, called I think he said grass shrimp or mud shrimp. I don't remember exactly. But put a big fat shrimp on the end of there, it's got this big fat sinker, and you throw it down there and let it sit on the bottom. That's how you catch a sturgeon or striped bass in December in the San Francisco Bay. It's not what the defendant had. That's not what the defendant was doing. Because remember, if you're an avid saltwater fisherman, so avid that you're going to drive out in the middle of the day to fish in the San Francisco Bay, at the drop of a hat on Christmas Eve, even though you have plans later in the afternoon, because all this has to be true for his story to work, you're going to have the right equipment. The reason it doesn't work is the story's not true.

You know what else, remember what else the fisherman said? This chart right here, I can't remember if this is the one he used or not but it will work.

Remember where you fish for these fish? Up in the San Pablo Bay. You don't fish for them down here at Brooks Island. If you know what you're doing, and, you know, in order for his story to work you have to know what you're doing, then you go fishing in the right spot. That's not what he did.

Once again Distaso is relying on his ‘Any imperfection = evidence of guilt’ theory. Applying this theory would make almost every human guilty of anything.

The reason all this doesn't work is because Scott Peterson didn't go fishing on December 24th. He went to go dump his wife's body in the San Francisco Bay.

Where is the evidence? The witnesses?

... To be continued.

Monday, August 6, 2007

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Let's talk about the defendant and his fishing. This defendant rarely goes fishing, contrary to what I suppose Mr. Peterson would want you to believe. The fishing licenses that were found, a couple of two-day, I think there's three two-day licenses, including the one that he bought for this particular trip, as well as a year-long license from 1994. So what was that, eight years prior. The equipment that he had, when he does go fishing, it's freshwater fishing. You saw the last time he had been prior to this, August 2002, you saw him fishing in a lake with his dad. He goes maybe once or twice a year.

He has owned four boats during his life. That implies some interest in boating and fishing.

Remember Ron Grantski testified he asked him, I can't remember exactly how many times, but he asked him numerous times to go, and he said that he, he said that he went one time with him in 2001. He said he turned him down every other time. He never asked Ron to go fishing with him even though Ron is, like, that's his main thing. He carries a fishing pole with him wherever he goes.

After that one trip in 2001, remember what Ron Grantski testified to? He testified that Scott Peterson left his fishing pole, which is a very nice, expensive fishing pole in his garage where it sat there for 18 months, and never wanted it back. If I was an avid fisherman and had an expensive pole and went fishing with somebody, I think I'd want it back. There's no evidence the defendant had ever recently gone saltwater fishing, which is what is at issue here. The best that the defense could come up with is that Lee Peterson testified, I think the quote is that it appeared that he enjoyed it. That's what he said.

If you get that section of testimony read back where he's talking about the defendant going out on, as a boy on, I call them party boats, but I think he called them cattle boats, on the Bay, where you go out for a day of fishing, he did that as a boy. We're not talking about 2002 here.

Once again Distaso is relying on his ‘Any imperfection = evidence of guilt’ theory. Applying this theory would make almost every human guilty of anything.

We go back to the defendant's story on 12/24. He leaves his warehouse sometime, sometime after 11:00 a.m., drives to the Berkeley Marina. Which is about 86 miles away. He gets there at 12:54 p.m. Almost 1:00 o'clock. You have to buy this ticket, you have to back your boat down and launch it, and put your, put your truck away. You got to go do what you're doing, come back. We know he's back on his phone checking his voice mail at 2:12. So he drove an hour and a half, minimum, probably closer to, probably left right around 11:00, probably took him about until right when he got there, because he's driving with a boat on the back, and you can bet anything on the fact that he didn't exceed the speed limit that day.

Scott is a very law abiding citizen who has never received a traffic ticket. This is proof of guilt?

He didn't want anybody to stop him on that day.

He is a very law abiding man who has never committed a crime – has never even had a parking ticket. He does not get stopped ANY day.

So he gets to the Berkeley Marina. He, it took him longer to drive to the Berkeley Marina than he actually spent fishing. He goes, on Christmas Eve, all the way out to the Bay to fish for, what, 35, 40 minutes, alone. Nobody does that.

Once again a totally evidence free statement. Where is the proof? This is all invented by Distaso.

That just did not happen here. Now, he does that, he decides to go fishing, even though he has told Amy Rocha that he can pick up that gift basket at Vella Farms. Remember that? So he knows he's got to be back, but he's still going to leave to go fishing on Christmas Eve, when he has to be back, number one, to pick up that gift basket, and number two, get to dinner at Ron and Sharon's house, six p.m.

Which is a more than compelling argument that Scott never had the slightest intention of harming Laci – on that day or any other.

When he comes back, you know, we heard what happened. He makes a phone call, he looks around, he talks to the neighbors. And the first people he contacts are Amie Krigbaum and Terra Venable across the street. Remember that? They have no stake in this either. They just live across the street. They probably kind of wish they didn't live across the street.

Slander in place of evidence?

But the defendant goes up to their house and, you know, he's kind of frantic, or as I prefer to put it, pretending to be frantic, because this guy can turn it on and off in an instant.

Where is the evidence of this? None was offered.

And we will see some examples of that. But he goes up there, he says: Hey, have you seen Laci? No, I haven't seen her. Okay, he turns around to go. They ask him: Where have you been all day? Oh, I've been out golfing.

EVERY police officer without exception testified that Scott said he was at the bay, fishing/boating. What a couple of people may have misheard is evidence of nothing.

Nobody, I don't care how upset you are, nobody forgets that they just got home from fishing at the Berkeley Marina. That didn't happen. So why did he tell them golfing?

He didn’t. They misheard him, possibly because they knew him as a golfer. However it was much later when they came up with this statement. Why would he tell them one thing, and tell all of the police officers the truth? For what purpose?

That's a much more important question, because that's where the defendant was originally going to go. He was going to get out there, dump Laci, get back, go hang out at the club, maybe have a drink at the bar, you know, screw around a little bit. It just took him longer than he planned. He was going to say: Yeah, I was at work checking my computer; yeah, I was there, see?

Where is the evidence? This is all supposition, without a shred of evidence to back it up.

And I went to the club and, you know, you'll have some people that saw him, and that was it. He just screwed up. He screwed up his alibi. That's all that was.

Where is the evidence? This is all supposition, without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Now, why did he change his alibi? That's a good question, because I know a lot of you are sitting here thinking Well, shoot, if I had just dumped my wife in the San Francisco Bay, that's the last place I'm going to tell the police I was.

Precisely. What other person has ever done this?

It's a legitimate question. And, you know why he did that? He tells us on, on tape.

He said nothing of the sort. Everything he said checked out, all down the line.

Go watch Brocchini's interview again, or read the transcript. You can have that back there. He told Detective Mansfield this also. He said he bumped, when he was picking up the boat, coming home, so he's got the boat down there, tied up to the dock, Laci's long gone, she's under the waters of the San Francisco Bay, he says he bumped his boat up against, up against a piling, or something. He said there was a maintenance man there who saw him who was laughing. He said a couple guys saw him there at the marina.

Once that happened he knew: I got to go with fishing; I have to go with fishing, because if I say anything other than I was here at the Berkeley Marina, and people saw me and can recognize me, I'm toast. It's a big bay. You saw those pictures. The Bay is huge. He thought he got her into deep water. You heard what the experts say, you get her into the deep water channel, she's going out under the Golden Gate. You heard how difficult it was to search the Bay.

Where is the evidence? This is all supposition, without a shred of evidence to back it up.

We're going to talk about that. It's no big deal to tell them: I was out fishing in the San Francisco Bay; how are they ever going to find her.

And they never did – even after spending $1 million trying. They never found the slightest trace of evidence. However dog walkers found the bodies within hours of them being dumped, months later.

... To be continued.

Sunday, August 5, 2007

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Going back to the defendant's fishing story. You know, we talked about the, the umbrellas being in the back of his truck at the end of the day. Remember he took those umbrellas to the shop, according to him, so he could keep them in the shop there and get them out of the rain. Of course, they're under a patio cover, so I don't know why you would do that to begin with.

But besides that fact, let's say he did that. Why didn't he leave them in the shop? Well, I forgot. That's what he told Detective Brocchini on the tape: I forgot. Okay, so let me get this straight here. You've got a whole stack of umbrellas in the back of your pickup truck. You have to back your pickup truck up to hook the boat up. How are you not going see those, number one. You then drive all the way out to the Berkeley Marina with them in the back of your truck. You have to back the truck down to put the boat in the water. Of course, you don't see them then, I guess. You then drive all the way home and you have to put your boat away. They're still there in the truck. If your reason for taking them there that morning is to put them in the shop, then put them in the shop. But, of course, he doesn't do that, because that was never his reason for putting those umbrellas in the truck.

Distaso never forgets anything it seems – except to come up with some actual evidence of guilt. However ordinary people forget things all the time.

Once they served their purpose of covering Laci's body, he didn't care about those umbrellas anymore. He only cared been Detective Brocchini started asking him about it. Because it is, it's suspicious: What do you got those in your truck for, you know; but he's a good liar. He comes up with a story quick.

Much quicker than me. You can tell if I'm lying. It's all over my face. Not this guy. He can look Diane Sawyer straight in the eye and tell her a bald-faced lie.

He says he leaves at 9:30. The evidence strongly supports he left much later than that. You know, remember the Martha Stewart thing and the meringue. You know what? I'm going to tell you straight up, that was an embarrassment to me personally because I told, because I stood up here in opening statement and told you something that wasn't correct. I told you there was no mention of meringue in that Martha Stewart tape. And you know what? We were wrong.

You know what, though, the truth is a good thing. The truth about that Martha Stewart reference to meringue is one of the best facts for the prosecution in this case. The defendant says: I saw a segment of Martha Stewart where she was making some cookies of some sort, something to do with meringue. That segment did air on December 24th. Do you know when that segment aired? What was the testimony? 9:48 in the morning. If this guy saw it, and it appears he did from the description he gave, he was in his house at 9:48. Now, nobody at ten minutes to 10:00 or twelve minutes to 10:00 says they're leaving at 9:30, so he's lying about that.

No, Distaso is lying about this. Apparently he has never heard anyone say, “Good heavens, look at the time. I didn’t realise how late it was”.

Let's talk about that cell phone call. Pull up the, that cell phone chart, John, if you could. Let's talk about the cell phone call. Remember the cell phone call that he made at 10:08? We had a lot of testimony about the cell towers, and got really back and forth. Voice mail, incoming voice mails when someone calls you, outgoing voice mails when you're checking your voice mails.

Remember that?

Well, it all boils down to this: The main cell tower for 523 Covena is 1250 Brighton. If you leave, and it's overlapped coverage with 10th and D. If you leave Covena and you're driving towards where the shop is, you fall into the 10th and D coverage area. Remember what the expert said? How do we know that the cell tower information for this particular day and this particular call at 10:08 is accurate?

We don’t. These are billing records, not standard time transmissions from the NIST.

Well, here's, this is 203 G. This is a cell phone, I mean, yeah, a cell site chart that Investigator Jacobson did. It's in Eastern Standard Time.

Remember what you heard? The cell site stuff comes in Eastern Standard Time.

Invoice calls comes whatever time you're in. Here Pacific Standard Time.

That 10:08 call voice mail retrieval, it's right here in the records. I'm not making any of this up. This is 203 A 1. You guys can go back there and check this all yourself.

Voice mail retrieval, that call starts at 1250 Brighton, it ends at 10th and D.

At 2:12 there's another voice mail retrieval, and remember Investigator Jacobson wrote VMRT, voice mail retrieval whenever it is, puts him in Berkeley. Well, we know for a fact, by his own statement and by the receipt he was in Berkeley at that time. So that's accurate.

The rest of these are in the invoices. These are calls tracking his movements.

He's in Berkeley. Berkeley. He's in Oakland. He's driving home. At 2:34 he's in Oakland. At 2:40 when he calls his father, Lee Peterson, he's in Castro line Valley. Driving back to Modesto. At 2:45 when he calls his father again, he's in Grassland Avenue in Castro Valley, driving home.

There's an incoming voice mail. 3:44. That one is not in the invoice records.

You can't track people through cell sites for incoming voice mails. Remember what the lady said? You got to use the records together.

Here he's in Livermore, makes a call to his home. And then at 5:44, when all this is reported, we know he's in front of his house, 1250 Brighton. Those calls that became an issue that were a problem, remember we had all that discussion about, those are all incoming voice mails. They're not in these invoice records.

The next call that is in the invoice records, another voice mail retrieval where he's calling, checking his voice mail. Guess what? Puts him right at 1250 Brighton at 6:29 when he know he's standing in front of his house. This cell site information for that 10:08 call is completely accurate, and it's backed up by the records themselves.

Now, Karen Servas, put that clock back up, John. Karen Servas finds the dog no later than 10:18.

Karen Servas is perhaps one of the most unreliable witnesses ever. She changed her testimony three times, and based it on her ‘expert’ reconstruction of her shopping trip times on the day before Christmas, and based that on the receipts from the store – a store whose registers were shown to be as much as a day off. However Vivian Mitchell is a much more reliable witness. She saw Laci walking the dog between 10:00am and 10:30am and this does support Servas’ testimony. Of course it also eliminates Scott as the abductor of Laci.

How do we know that that's true? Let's talk about Karen Servas for a minute. Karen Servas has no stake in this case at all. She's just a neighbor. She's not an agent of the prosecution. In fact, if anything, before this all started, she was a friend of the defendant's; remember? She had been over to his house a couple of times, or numerous times, really. Her kid had even swam in his pool. He would help her with stuff if she needed it. They had no ill will between them whatsoever.

She originally tells the police, because they call and ask her, who found the dog. She tells the police: I found it exactly at 10:30. That's a fact. That's what she originally told them. She didn't deny anything here, like: No, I never said that, or, you know, I tried to back out, or anything else. She said: Yeah, that's what I told him. I originally told him it was right around 10:30.

But then you remember what she said? A day or two later she found that Austin's receipt. Austin's Christmas Store, 12/24, 2002, 10:34 a.m. She said: I found that receipt and I realized, you know, my time, I might be off on my time a little bit.

Then clearly she is wrong and has impeached herself.

And she said: I wanted to make sure for him, not for the prosecution, not for the Modesto police, not for any other reason but for this guy, for Scott Peterson, I wanted to make sure that my time when I found that dog is exactly accurate, because maybe that's going to have something to do with what happened to Laci.

Now, the fact that it turned out really badly for Scott Peterson doesn't mean anything as to why she did it. She did it because she was trying to help him out. So she went and back-tracked everything she did. Remember what she said she did initially? Here's the chart. She finds the dog in front of her house, looking down the street. She, she walked back over where she did to the gate, she walked back around, she then went back to her house, remember she made the motion of putting the dog away, put him in the gate, left the a leash on him.

She went back to her house, pretended to wash her hands, got in her car, drove downtown, drove twice around the bank parking lot. That's what she said she did. She didn't go into the bank at that time. Drove twice around the bank parking lot. She couldn't find a place to park. She went down to Austin's, went in, pretended to buy an ornament, came out, and from that point on that's when she stopped her time.

And then she just back-tracked how long that took from 10:34 and back-tracked, and she said she found that dog no later than 10:18. How do we know that 10:54 receipt is accurate? Because remember what she told you? She said: After I left Austin's, I made a phone call. Her cell phone records says she made that phone call at 10:37 in the morning, exactly as, as she said. Buy an ornament at 10:34, make a phone call when I go outside on my cell phone. It's right here in the records, 10:37.

These are billing records, not standard time transmissions from the NIST. The cash register record is not accurate either.

She then said she went to Starbucks, got some coffee, or whatever she said she did there; I don't remember. Then she said she went back to the bank and made her transaction.

If you remember at the end of the trial the defense asked Investigator Bertalotto about that additional record that she just got, which was at 10:53, completely supporting exactly everything that she said. Karen Servas is not lying here. Karen Servas is not doing anything here except being completely accurate to you all. And that's what we want. That dog was found no later than 10:18. And if that's the case, then this is what had to have happened in ten minutes, in a ten minute time. Laci would have had to get up, put on all her jewelry, because the defendant tells the police and some other folks, the dog tracking people and stuff, that they had on diamond earrings, the diamond changes, but the general description was diamond earrings, a diamond ring, a diamond watch.

So she puts on all of her jewelry to then, I guess, go mop the floor. Because he says, when he says he leaves, she's mopping the floor, she's got on a white shirt and black pants, and she's barefoot. So she has to have put her jewelry on, finish mopping the floor, put on her shoes and socks, changed her clothes, because remember, when she's found, Laci Peterson is not bearing black pants.

Because she changed them AFTER she got back from walking the dog. That’s why the black pants were found in the house with grass clippings on them – from Laci’s walk to the park with the dog.

Laci Peterson is wearing a pair of pants just like these. No one confuses these pants with black. Except for maybe him. Because that man confused Modesto with Paris, Brussels, Normandy, France, and everywhere else.

Cheap sarcasm. The mark of a great litigator? His OWN witness says they were NOT the pants she wore to the salon. There is no reason for Scott to say she was wearing black pants – except that it is the truth.

But nobody would do that. So she changes out of these nice pair of capri pants, I mean she changes out of her black pants she was wearing when she was mopping, into these nice pair of capri pants so she can go walk the dog.

No evidence of this was ever offered.

She has to then get abducted by these mysterious, homeless, 290 registrants, you know, we're going to go through all these crazy theories that have been proposed to you. But she gets abducted by somebody. This is all in ten minutes.

Nonsense. She could have been abducted up to, say, 5 minutes before Scott returned home.

The dog then has to, of course, nobody sees or hears, even though that dog barks like crazy. The dog then has to be able to come home in the ten minutes time, because she's now done all these things, been abducted, the dog comes home and has to be found by Karen Servas, all in ten minutes, all in a ten minute window, because at 10:08 the defendant is just now driving away from his house.

This whole time theory is based on utterly false assumptions.

One thing I forgot to tell you about that 10:08 call. Another reason why you know it's accurate, Investigator Jacobson tested it. He got a cell phone in the exact same network, he did it three times. He made a phone call, he drove for a minute and twenty-one seconds, the length of time for that call, and every single time, 1250 Brighton it started, 10th and D it ended.

He even went to the shop, because remember that's where Scott Peterson is supposed to be, he's supposed to be at the shop. He even went to the shop and he made phone calls. Every time 929 Woodland. Never 1250 Brighton, never 10th and D. Actually, I want to make sure I'm completely accurate. I know that that, that those cell phone calls from the shop started at 929 Woodland. I can't remember off the top of my head exactly where they ended, because those coverage areas are very clear. So I don't want to tell you anything that's not accurate.

Too late. That ship has left the dock – and exploded in flames!

So regarding those Jacobson calls at the shop, use your own memory for those because I can't remember up here off the top of my head exactly where were those.

Before I leave Karen Servas and the timing, I want to talk about the only defense attack that they made on, on the timing was this: A couple receipts that were introduced by, by Bill Austin, kind of, and you really need to go back, if you're at all wondering about these, go back and get his entire testimony read back. It's very enlightening about these, this particular exhibit. But two receipts from two different days in January of 2004.

From purchases made ten minutes apart. This is a deliberate lie and a fraud on the court.

From testimony: However, the next Christmas season, Mark Geragos sent a private investigator to Austin's Christmas store to test the accuracy of the cash register. In front of Bill Austin, the owner, Jensen had two no-sales receipts rung up ten minutes apart. The receipts, however, showed a discrepancy of 49 minutes (Austin) and recorded two different dates (Austin). The two no-sales receipts are Defense H. In his testimony, Austin said he could not remember the details of when the two receipts were made.

Somehow we're supposed to believe that this document makes Karen Servas's time line inaccurate.

No other conclusion is reasonable. Cash registers are not precision chronometers, and those who set them are not always careful.

... To be continued.