The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Except for maybe him. Go ahead John, play that clip. The GMA clip.

(Video played)

Well, yeah, I expect people to believe that. I'm Scott Peterson.

I expect people to believe anything I say. That's what this guy wants you to believe here. You think, there's no arguing? No, not at all; I can't even say, well, I can't say she was okay with it; but it was not any big deal with us.

A woman's seven and a half months pregnant, her husband's out having an affair and she doesn't care at all? Does that appear to be anything that you heard about Laci Peterson in this case? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

No, it isn’t. Women have put up with much, much worse. Laci’s mother was divorced and has never married her partner, Ron Grantski. Why? There is no one-size-fits-all for relationships. Many are far, far stranger than this.

On December 20th Scott Peterson buys the only saltwater fishing pole that he has. It's right here. It's a lightweight saltwater fishing pole. And I'm going to talk about it. It's not at all set up for any of the things he was supposedly fishing for that day. But this is it. So the avid fisherman will run out to the Berkeley Marina from Modesto, 90 miles away on Christmas Eve, buys a fish, doesn't even own a fishing pole to fish there until December 20th. And he bought it as a prop. He didn't buy it to go fish for sturgeon that day, I can tell you that.

True. He was trying out the boat, not fishing. Even if he dragged out a line it was just for test purposes.

He also bought a two-day license and two lures. Here are the lures that he bought. Not even opened. I don't know anyone who's ever caught a fish with a lure that's still in the package. He bought this two-day license.

The only license you can buy in December – a fact which was in the testimony but which, once again, Distaso ignores. He is a very law abiding man and wouldn’t even go through the motions of fishing without a licence.

He told us and he told Detective Brocchini that it was a morning decision to go fishing.

Do you remember that? It was either go to play golf at the club or go fishing.

It was that morning he decided to go. If that's true, why is this license filled out for December 23rd and December 24th? Why would you fill out a license on the 24th for the day before?

He wasn’t going out on the 25^th. He may well have anticipated going on the 23^rd but something came up. How many people have put the wrong date on a check or misfiled some other form. What proof of homicide is this? Why does Scott Peterson have to behave more perfectly than any human who has ever walked the earth, and why is it that any deviation from utter perfection may be taken as evidence of homicide? What strange theory of Distaso’s is this?

John, pull that concrete picture.

Around the same time he talks about, he tells Detective Grogan and Brent Rocha that he makes one anchor at the shop. You know, there was a lot of talk about this picture and, you know, remember the defense made a number of jokes about it, oh, you know, the Rorschach test, I think, or hieroglyphs. I can't remember what words they used. You cannot tell me that someone makes, number one, this much mess on the trailer to make one eight pound anchor. You cannot tell me that.

Apparently you can’t tell Distaso much. Go to any building site and look at the concrete shuttering there. You can find anything you want. Look at the mess when people bake cookies or cakes. What does that prove? A mess is just a mess – and he had used that flat bed before to make other cement items.

That did not happen. Especially you put this thing in one paint bucket, right? How do you get concrete everywhere?

You add too much water.

The other thing, too, is, you know, when you go back there, we've been putting these pictures on the screen and they're kind of hard to see. Take a look at this particular picture. You've got concrete right here and right here in a circular pattern. You have concrete right here in a circular pattern. You have concrete right here in a circular pattern. You have concrete right over there in a circular pattern.

I'm not making this up. I'm not telling you to see something that's not there.

That’s exactly what he is trying to do. If he made the weights one at a time, why were they all spaced out separately? Why didn’t the supposed circles overlap? Why not use the same spot each time? Why not use a drop-cloth, or plastic bags, or even newspaper and dispose of it? Why make weights at all? No one else has ever done this, and it’s a lot of trouble. Two cement blocks would weigh more than six of the supposed weights they never could produce and would raise no suspicions. They are easy to obtain and no effort is needed to make them.

You go back and judge it for yourself. Don't take what I say about it and don't take what they say about it as, as what it is. Go back and look at it. And I'm telling you, though, when you do, you're going to see exactly what we've been describing to you. The defendant says he bought the concrete at Home Depot. He says that, remember, remember the video we saw of Grogan and him, you know, they put up their hands, something like a 60 or 90 pound bag?

Well, where is the rest of it? Where did it go? There's no left-over concrete there at the shop. It's certainly not in the driveway.

Evidence was given that it was, indeed, in the driveway. Why would he make separate weights? Why not push a piece of heavy wire through the bag from front to back, pour water in the rest of the bag and use the whole thing as one weight? By the way, even 90 lb would not have held a 153 lb body down (350 lb is the recommended weight) so the whole thing is moot.

It doesn't matter which of the experts you believe. It's not, you know, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and call it a 60 pound bag, okay? That's an eight pound anchor.

Let's say he uses too much. Two pounds more, so ten pounds. Where's the other 50 pounds of concrete?

The defense expert said they pretty much picked up everything that was there and they, what, got 22 pounds maybe? I'm going to talk about that later, whether that's even correct or not, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that it is. Where's the rest of it? There's no empty bag of concrete found in his shop. I'll tell you where the rest of it is. It's in those anchors at the bottom of the San Francisco Bay.

There were no anchors. The $1 million search proved that.

The defense tried to make an issue with the concrete. Remember Mr. Geragos dragged in that, that bag of fence post concrete. You know, it was kind of funny, everybody kind of laughed. I even chuckled a little bit, you know. I don't blame anybody for laughing at that. But you want to know something else? Where is it? It's not in evidence.

Nobody testified to it.

Nobody testified that Scott made any weights other than the one he still had. Nobody testified that 30, or 40, or 80 lb would hold a body down in six feet of sea water.

You're going to go back there and you're going to go, look, I brought a whole bunch of evidence out here. You're going to go back into that back room and they're going to cart in that evidence. You know what?

You're not going to see that bag of concrete they brought in here.

It was used up and the bag was discarded.

Their expert never even spoke about it. In fact, their expert agreed with everything our expert said, except for the one thing, of course, well, the thing in the concrete. Never heard a word about this fence post concrete, or anything like that. You've got to ask yourselves why that is.

Going back to, you know, he said, he told Grogan he bought that concrete at Home Depot. The defense presented this, this as evidence, a receipt from Lowe's in November where he's returning some concrete. Not that he bought the concrete in December to make these anchors. Or the one anchor, I guess, but this is returning it.

What does this have to do with anything? So he returned some cement in November. Does that show that he made anchors somehow? I'm missing it.

And it still doesn’t matter. There is NO evidence that he made more than the one anchor. All the rest is imagination and guesswork with no evidence. No weights were found, no person saw the supposed weights, they never existed.

... To be continued.

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Continued . . .

The fantasy life with her continues. All the things that I just told you about.

All of that keeps going on. He also tells her something that's very important.

He says, you know: I'm going to be going on this, you know, great European trip, and I'm going to be with my family over the holidays in Maine, Kennebunkport, and then I'm going on this trip to Europe and I'll return at the end of January, and then we can resume our relationship, you know, maybe more intact then. Why do you think that's important? Why do you think he told her that?

Translation: “Thanks for the sex but it’s over and I won’t be seeing you after this (since I’ll have a new baby to help care for)”.

Because he knew what he was going to do. He knew what he was going to do all the way back in November.

Where is the evidence for any of this? Only in Distaso’s mind?

I'm going to talk about Amber and the motive in a minute, but did Amber, am I standing up here telling you that Scott Peterson killed his wife to go off and marry Amber Frey? You know he was very obsessed with her and lusted after her, and I'm going to show you a number of examples of that.

As Scott said, she was ‘down and dirty’ sex and nothing more. So much for being “very obsessed with her and lusting after her”.

I don't think he killed Laci Peterson to go marry Amber Frey, though. Amber Frey represented to him freedom. Freedom is what he wanted.

No evidence of this was ever offered. Once again Distaso is creating this from whole cloth.

The end-of-January comments is important because he knows what he's going to do and he figures, you know, he's not a stupid man. We've seen that. He knows there's going to be some uproar, some hoopla, over Laci going missing. He has no idea it's going to snowball into this huge mass that it became. He had no idea that was going to happen.

His parents loved their daughter in law and were looking forward to their new grandson with great anticipation. There was no way that Laci’s abduction would not have utterly shattered them, not to mention Laci’s family and their many friends. This would have been a body blow to both families. This is Distaso at his most ridiculous.

No one did. He thought: Yeah, everyone's going to, you know, a couple weeks will go by, everyone is going to be worried, looking for her, the police will do their standard thing, fill out a missing persons report, nothing will happen and that will be the end of it. How many times have we heard that?

How many times? Would never be the correct number?

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know. You hear it all the time: So and so went missing. You never hear about it again.

IF it’s a pretty, pregnant Hispanic woman like Evelyn Hernandez in Modesto, maybe. But white women in peril get the media very excited, and Laci was much loved by family and friends.

For some reason, and much to this man's detriment, this case blew up. It snowballed. It didn't go away. But he didn't know that back in November when he was setting this plan in action. He tells Amber throughout the month of December, you know, he doesn't want any children, her child's going to be enough for him.

Because they had no future.

It's a perfect relationship, of course, because her child doesn't mean anything to him. He has no connection to it, he has no responsibility to it, he can do whatever he wants. He can leave and show back up whenever he wants. He tells her he's talked about, he talks about getting a vasectomy, and he asks her at one point if she trusts him enough to make decisions for her in the future. They go out and pick out a Christmas tree together. Remember they go to Shawn's birthday party. The Christmas party where we've seen the pictures. The same day, of course, that Laci was alone at her Christmas party.

Men lie for sex.

Now, in December some other things happen that are very important that causes the defendant, if he wasn't going to actually, he's thinking about the plan, but if he wasn't actually going to carry it out, there's some things that solidified it in his mind and he had to do it. One of which is Shawn Sibley calls him and says Hey, what's the deal, on December 6th: Are you married or not? He says No, denies it completely the first time. Says No, I'm not married at all. He then, he then calls her back and tells her, sobbing hysterically, was what the testimony was, or on the answering machine. Says I lied to you; I used to be married, but actually I lost my wife. That's what he tells her.

Men lie for sex.

To show you how twisted this guy's sense of reality is, I mean if that's not clear in this trial already, there's nothing I can do to convince you of it now.

But let me show you a little example of that. To show you how twisted Scott Peterson's sense of reality is, he actually tells Amber in January, on January 12th, she asks him: You told me that, that Shawn Sibley called you; what did you tell her? He says: Well, I told her I lost my wife. No, before that. He says: Well, you're right; you're right; I initially lied to her and denied that I was married. That's what he said: I initially lied to her and denied that I was married; then I called her back and told her the truth, that I lost my wife.

This is on December 6th: I told her the truth that I lost my wife.

Men lie for sex.

Of course, he hadn't lost his wife until he actually killed her, but in his mind, you know what? Maybe that was the truth. She was dead to him a long time before he killed her. Go ahead and play that clip for me, John. It's January 12th, 1804.

(Tape played)***

Recently dead. That's what he said. Those are his words. On December 7th he researches boats, waterways in Northern California, both freshwater and salt water. On December 8th he looks up Bay charts and fishing information.

Because he wants to try out his boat, he does what a prudent and experienced boater would do. Where is the research on how to kill without evidence? On how much weight it takes to sink a body?

This short period of time in December is the only fishing and boating information on his computer. So the avid fisherman apparently never needs to look up any information at all about fishing. And we're going to talk about his fishing abilities in a minute.

He is trying out his boat, not fishing.

So December 9th he buys a boat.

The fourth he has owned in his life.

On that same day he goes down to Amber's home crying, tells her that he's sorry, he's lied to her, he actually had been married and he lost his wife.

He is trying to dump her.

In marked contrast to that, to the defendant's actions in putting this plan into place to kill Laci, the two lives going on here.

Remember what Laci went out and did on December 9th? Remember what the testimony was for that? She went out and bought his Christmas present. That's what Laci Peterson was doing on December 9th. She spent 534 dollars on looks like a ten-inch professional table saw.

Now, Scott Peterson told the news media, and I think he might have told the police, I don't remember, but he told the news media for sure that he told Laci about his affair with Amber in early December. He says she knew all about it. I don't think there's a single person in this courtroom who believes that.

Why? What proof was offered? Laci knew he had cheated before.

... To be continued

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Continued . . .

We're going to talk about that more at length. He backs his boat down in the trailer. He's got the cover on. He goes and puts the truck away.

Taking several minutes and leaving the boat tied up to the dock with the body inside and him away up in the parking lot. This at a dock which has many other boats tied up to it and where people can walk by at any time.

And then how hard is this? He takes the cover off the boat and stuffs it around her body.

Once again, no evidence was offered that the boat could be towed with the cover attached, in fact the opposite was true.

So he uses the cover to cover up. Who is going to see that? Who is even going to suspect it? Who cares if somebody is driving out in the Bay with the cover stuffed in the boat? People do that probably all the time.

Probably? Based on what? Distaso’s wish that it be true?

He drives out to Brooks Island. He dumps Laci out. It takes him all of, what? He gets there at 12:54. We know from his cell phone records he's back at the marina at 2:12. So it takes him less than an hour. Probably 30, 40 minutes at the most.

How did he dump the body without overturning the boat? The prosecution refused to test this because they were extremely apprehensive that they would fail. When the defence tested it and overturned the boat doing it the prosecution had their tame judge prevent the video being shown, on the grounds that the conditions weren’t exactly the same as they were on the 24^th. Yet when the jurors ‘tested’ the boat on the trailer in a garage (conditions clearly different from in the water) the judge still refused to allow the video to be shown.

He drives home and reports her missing. Nothing mysterious or out of the ordinary or even anything about this case. It's simple. It's a simple case where a man murdered his wife.

Without leaving the slightest evidence anywhere. That is far from simple. Even policemen, doctors and forensic technicians have failed to manage this.

Now, let's talk about who is going to suspect him. Everybody thinks he's the perfect husband, right? That's what they think. Go ahead and click on that.

They think, you know, the perfect couple. They're living the American Dream.

They're madly in love. We heard all of this stuff. Remember he's the perfect gentleman. The perfect husband. Well, you know what? Show me something that's perfect and I'll show you something that's not. And it's not perfect here. Go ahead and click on that picture. This is what people thought of them. This is what his family thought. This is what Laci's family thought. Two lives going on here with Scott Peterson. Two lives. The one in the public perception, and, you know what, that's a theme that goes through this whole case. And I'm going to show you a bunch of examples. Two lives.

This assumes that Laci was not aware of that Scott had cheated. No evidence of this was shown, in fact evidence showed that she had known he had done this before.

All the facts of Scott’s life show that he adored Laci. All of it shows that he was the person who loved Laci more than anyone else. There is not the slightest hint that he would ever harm her. Idle comments to an acquaintance at a party hardly comprise a heartfelt confession of his innermost secrets. There is no evidence offered that he had the slightest thoughts of a separate life from Laci – all of the evidence shows the reverse.

Click out.

Now, let's go to how, the defendant's reality. Go to that, John.

Here's how well the defendant in his mind was perceiving himself. Not his fantasy world, because we're going to talk about that, but this is how he felt about his reality. He thinks he's facing midlife. The guy is turning 30, but he thinks he's facing midlife. But that's what he tells Amber in one of the calls.

I'm old, he said.

He said: I kept hoping for infertility. I looked at the quote last night.

It's actually: Kind of hoping for infertility. That's what he tells Rose Rocha when Laci announces her pregnancy:

Distaso is postulating all of this on a Jay Leno quip? What if he had said, “Take my wife – please”?

Darn, she got pregnant; I wasn't, I didn't want that to happen.

Really? He ran home to have sex with her every time she was at a fertility peak. He was prepared to pay for her fertility treatments out of his own pocket. THIS is a man who DIDN’T want it to happen?

He tells Brent Rocha: You know, I'm doing bad at my job, I'm turning 30 and becoming a father all in the same year. Boy, life really stinks for Scott Peterson. You know, most people would be overjoyed to have this. Maybe not the lousy salesman part, but the rest of it for sure. But not this guy.

Once again no evidence of this was offered. It is all Distaso’s fantasy.

Click out.

The two lives of Scott Peterson. Click on that. Scott Peterson created a fantasy life for himself. Scott Peterson, in his fantasy world he was rich, he was successful, he had a beautiful girlfriend, he was a jet setter. Remember, vacations in Kennebunkport, fishing in Alaska, jetting off to Europe.

A man lies for sex. Good thing that’s never happened before!

And you know what? He liked that life. That was a fun life. Who wouldn't like it, right? So in Scott Peterson's mind the only way to continue that life, he had to have a plan: Don't want that dull, boring married life with kids that's coming; I need to have a plan. In October he starts making a plan.

No evidence of any ‘plan’ was offered.

Go ahead and click on that.

In October he's looking for another relationship. That's obvious.

What is obvious is that he wanted to know if he still has ‘it’. Once he had a phone number of a willing woman (‘pulled a bird’ as the English say) he made no effort to follow up on it until prompted three times.

He talks to Shawn Sibley. He tells her a bunch of things. Remember, the whole fantasy life thing. The rich, the successful, the jet setter. He tells her it all. He says he owns the company. He actually says he owns TradeCorp. He says one of my name tags attracts women. I'm rich. Horny bastard. Remember that that was his nickname, HB, in every one of his e-mails. And this I think is the most important thing, though, of all those things I just told you. First off he tells her he's looking for another relationship. Okay, we got that. Then he tells her this. In October, I don't remember if it was the first meeting. I line don't remember the exact time he tells Shawn Sibley this. He says, she's talking to him about his, her fiancé, and saying Oh, he's my soul mate, you know, and whatnot. And Scott Peterson tells her this, he says: You know what, I once was with a woman who was my soul mate.

Many men like to BS women. Most women will confirm this. Amber Frey is surely the poster child for this. Where is the evidence of a crime? This is evidence of a guy who likes to impress women – and he is not alone in this.

This is in October. We're going to talk about the December ones in a minute, but it is in October: I was once with a woman who was my soul mate, but I lost her. That's what he says. He's talking about Laci then in October. Laci Peterson was dead to Scott Peterson a long time before he actually killed her.

Now, November the plan continues. He starts a relationship with Amber Frey.

THIS is the ‘plan’? A plan that includes starting a relationship with Amber Frey? Is this the stupidest plan in history? Who would be so incredibly foolish as to start a relationship like this while contemplating murder? What possible benefit to the ‘plan’ could she have provided? As it is, she was the main (or only) reason he was convicted, something any adult would anticipate. Surely starting a relationship such as this is rock solid evidence of the absence of any such plan or intent.

. . . To be continued

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Continued . . .

Go ahead and click back on that picture.

This is where the defendant said, remember this is where Dr. Cheng said the bodies had to be because of the shallow area in here, because of the currents?

Dr Cheng stated in his testimony that he could not connect the body of Laci Peterson to any reasonable location that the defendant was. Once again the prosecutor is misstating his own witness testimony.

Go ahead and click on it. This is what it into likes. This is the tip of Brooks Island, that tip with the seagull in it, so you know we're looking at the same spot. This is just right off the tip of Brooks Island, looking back towards the shore. Those are all buildings. This little, tiny, there's a little, tiny blue thing that you see there? That's that huge, I mean you can't even see it. I mean I see people squinting. You can't even see it from this far away.

That's that huge U.S. postal building that's blue where Laci Peterson washed ashore. You can't even make it out in the picture from Brooks Island. There's no way, I don't care if it's bright, this is a bright daylight. Look at this picture. There's no way that anyone that's on that shore can see a single thing that anybody's doing out in the Bay. It's impossible.

Once again a dishonest statement. You cannot make this judgement based on photographs.

Go ahead.

Now, what does the evidence show as to how the defendant committed this crime?

It's very simple. The defendant strangled or smothered Laci Peterson the night of February, January, December 23rd, or in the morning while she was getting dressed on the 24th.

Where is any evidence of the manner of death? The prosecution has produced none to this day. He is assuming a method of death and then using his assumption to prove guilt and thus to support his assumption.

I can't tell you when he did it. I can't tell you if he did it at night. I can't tell you if he did it in the morning.

He can’t and didn’t offer any serious proof of the time of death at all. The evidence is strong that Laci died around the 15^th of March.

I'm not going to try to convince you of something that I can't prove. I don't have to prove that to you. I only have to prove that he did it.

But where is the proof? None was offered.

What did the doctor tell us about strangling and smothering? It's not going leave a bunch of evidence.

So the complete absence of evidence is proof of the method of death? A reasonable conclusion is that Laci was neither attacked nor killed in the home. Why was the small bedroom in the Medina home trashed – as if a struggle had taken place?

Remember this whole, went through all of this evidence. Where's the bloody crime scene? Remember what the doctor said? As crude as this sounds, and I hate to say it: If you don't put another hole in somebody, not going to get a big, bloody crime scene. It's just not going to happen.

But if you kill someone their bowels will usually loosen – a pregnant woman even more so. Where is that forensic evidence?

When he was ready to leave the house, he wrapped her up in that blue tarp. And I'm going to talk about that later. He backed up his truck to the gate. Take a look at the diagram. And you've seen the pictures so I'm not going to spend a ton of time on this. You back a truck up to the gate here at the house, and this is Laci's Land Rover parked right there. You back a truck up right there, you got, you got a fence and house on one side, you've got his house on the other side. Nobody can see a single thing that you're doing.

He carries Laci out, he puts her in the back of the truck.

Why didn’t he go to the warehouse, get the boat, and move her one time? Why all the extra risks and effort of moving her twice? As Distaso says, the home was much more private.

Remember what he said he did that morning? He said he loaded a bunch of patio umbrellas into his car to take to the warehouse, which, of course, he never took to the warehouse that day because they were still in his car that night. He said he was doing that, Well, I'm doing it because of the rain. Of course, the patio umbrellas, here they are, and you can see how big they are, those full-size patio umbrellas, everybody's seen them. He says he took the patio umbrellas, they're folded up. He said he was going to take them to the warehouse and, because it was starting to rain. That's what he told the detectives. The real reason why he said that was because he wanted to have a reason why they were still in his truck all day. He loads Laci into his truck. He puts these patio umbrellas on top of her. She's got the tarp on her.

With all of that weight on her, why is there no evidence in the truck? No bodily fluids?

No one is ever going to know what's going on. It's not that difficult to do. This is not some big mystery. You know, I mean, look at this. We got cameras in the courtroom, we've got all these people out here as if we're here for some big murder mystery. We're not. It's a very simple case.

If it is so simple why can he not offer proof of anything? He has only offered supposition and suspicion.

He puts Laci Peterson in the back of the car, he snaps the leash on the dog, and he leaves the gate open and he drives away. And, you know, like most dogs, I have a dog, and probably a lot of you do, you put a leash on my dog he's going to say, Hey, we're going for a walk.

Why would he do this? It makes no sense. Is it because Distaso is trying to force the solution to fit the facts, even though it does not?

He followed her out into the, he followed the truck out into the street as Scott Peterson drove on down the road.

Of course, that's when Karen Servas found the dog, right as Scott Peterson went away.

Where is the proof of this? Once more it is all supposition with nothing to back it up.

The defendant drives to his warehouse, opens up the door, backs his truck into that open space. I don't think I put a picture out for that, but that open space right where the boat was. He backs in, he unloads her into the boat, he shuts the door.

He moves her from the truck to the boat out in the open in a place with many, many businesses next to a highway where anyone can come by at any time? This was not a holiday, this was still a business day.

Now he can do whatever he wants. He puts her, she's in the boat. He attaches the weights to her.

What weights? Where are the weights? Why didn’t the prosecutor produce them? What did he use to attach the ‘weights’ to the body with? Why was that not produced at trial?

He gets, in the process he gets some of her hair caught in these pliers. And let's talk about that. I'm going to talk about it a little more later, but just right out of the gate: Your hair does not fall into and wrap around the teeth of pliers. That doesn't happen.

How many of you sitting on this jury operate pliers on a regular basis, probably most people. Everybody uses needle-nose pliers for something. How many times does your hair fall into the pliers and wrap around through the jaws? That doesn't happen.

And his own witness, the police officer, testified that the hair did not ‘wrap around the teeth of pliers’. It was squeezed in them, probably when and as the office picked them up.

After he gets the weights attached, he puts the cover on the boat. Here's what it looks like. You can't see into the boat with the cover on. Straps it down, just like Bruce Peterson said you can do. You just put some bungee cords, it's got those little hooks on the side.

Where are the bungee cords? Why weren’t they produced? What witness testified that the cover could be attached with them and how? The evidence at trial was that the boat could not be towed with the cover on, it would blow off.

You guys are all going to able to see this evidence. I'm not telling you anything that's not right here. He puts the bungee cords on, straps it down, and he drives off to the Bay. Nobody can see a single thing that this man has done. And everything that he did that I just told you took probably about the length of time that I took to tell you, which is, what, maybe ten minutes?

Then why did he stay at the warehouse for two hours, putting together a machine, sending Xmas cards and doing other things? Distaso is once again misstating his own evidence.

He drives out to the Bay, and, you know, everyone is thinking like, Well, gosh, he drives out to the Berkeley Marina, you know, in the middle of the day; boy, that's risky. Of course it's risky. It's risky to kill your wife. I'm not going to tell you it's not.

It’s even more risky to stop at a corner store and go inside for some shopping leaving your wife’s body out in the uncovered boat yet that is what the prosecution would have you believe, although Distaso is avoiding pointing this out.

On the other hand, he drives out there on a day when there's no one around.

Who says there is no one around? Where is the proof of this? Pictures?

... To be continued

The Prosecutor's Case

One way to look at the prosecution case is to study the closing statements. This is where the prosecutor can expound on his theory and show how the actual evidence makes his theory the only one which fits all of the facts. In this case it is shocking to see how poorly the theory and facts fit together, and how often the prosecutor resorted to trying to testify himself, testimony not supported by anything except his own opinions.

Trial Proceedings

Prosecution Closing Arguments given by Rick Distaso

Monday, November 1, 2004

MR. DISTASO: Thank you, your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for your time. I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing that because I want to spend time on the evidence. I want to thank you for your time you spent in this case. You've been here a long time and everybody in the trial really appreciates it. I think in this case an important place to start right from the beginning is hearing from Laci herself.

So go ahead, John. (Video played)

That was Laci Peterson early in her pregnancy; happy, as you can see, obviously; not aware of what was about to befall her some months down the road; obviously in love with Scott Peterson. And I think that's the biggest part of this case. The betrayal aspect of Scott Peterson. Laci Peterson had no idea what was coming from this man. And, in fact, she probably trusted him more than anybody else, I think is what the evidence showed us.

But this is not what the evidence shows. Distaso is assuming the guilt of the defendant, then trying to use it to prove the guilt of the defendant. It is up to the jury to convict based on the evidence, not based on assuming guilt. This is circular causation, a logical fallacy.

Now, let's go to the next picture, John, Laci in life at the Christmas party. This is probably one of the most telling pictures in all of the trial. Laci sitting alone at that Christmas party, by herself, teetering in on those big high heels, even though her feet are swollen with an advanced state of pregnancy, with a smile on her face, making the best of it. That pretty much describes in a nutshell Laci Peterson's life in December of 2002.

Once again Distaso is using prejudice to convict.

Go to the next picture, John.

Of course, here's where we ended up. Laci Peterson washing ashore on the San Francisco Bay around Point Isabel and found at that dog park on April 14th.

Laci Peterson didn't wash ashore totally alone in the San Francisco Bay, of course. She washed ashore with her unborn son, Conner, about a mile north on April 13th.

No evidence was offered that Conner ‘washed ashore’. In fact there was overwhelming evidence that he was placed exactly where he was found.

Go ahead, John. Show that picture. Okay. Click out of there.

It's no mystery how we got here. Scott Peterson is the one who brought us to this place.

Once again Distaso is using prejudice to convict.

Like I told you in the beginning of this case, when we did opening statements, this is a common sense case. It might have seemed complicated. You know, it took a long time to put on. It's not.

Distaso took 5 months to put on a case that expert lawyers have said should have taken one week, at most two. What is his point?

It's a very simple common sense case. Go ahead, click on that, John.

The most important fact in this case, go ahead and click on "common sense", the most important fact in this case is, and the one fact that cannot be refuted, no matter what anybody says, no matter what any interpretation of the evidence you want to believe, you cannot deny one particular fact, and that's that the defendant went fishing right here off of Brooks Island. Or he said he went fishing.

Scott stated this over and over, however it is important to note that ‘fishing’ and ‘boating’ are often used interchangeably. In this case it was clear Scott was testing out his ‘new’ boat. What is Distaso’s point?

That's where he took his boat that day. Laci Peterson washed ashore right here at Point Isabel.

Conner Peterson washed ashore right here at the Richmond shoreline in that marshy area.

No evidence was offered that Conner ‘washed ashore’. In fact there was overwhelming evidence that he was placed exactly where he was found.

The only man, or only person that we know without any doubt that was in the exact location where Laci and Conner's bodies washed ashore, at the exact time that they went missing, is sitting right there. Not another soul do we, have you heard any evidence fits that description. That alone is proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

You can take that fact to the bank and you can convict this man of murder.

To describe this as an utterly extraordinary statement seems somehow inadequate. Clearly any one or more of 200 million people could have abducted Laci Peterson during the day she disappeared. Equally, any one or more of 200 million people, the same people or others, could have dumped the bodies of Laci Peterson and her baby within a day or two before their discovery. Scott Peterson was 90 miles away from Laci when the abduction occurred. He was 400 miles away when the bodies were dumped. The state failed to even try to prove that Scott Peterson was the one and only person who could have been involved in both actions, yet they appear to be trying to do just that, based solely on the fact that Scott knew Laci. I don’t think any ‘bank’ would accept that for any purpose.

Go ahead and click on the pictures.

Remember what he told us? He said he went fishing off an island two miles north. He said there was some broken-down piers. You can't see them on the screen, but that box shows, and the picture's there in evidence and you'll see them there. He said there was a no landing sign. Click on the other one, john.

There's a no landing sign on the island. There it is. Go to the tip of Brooks Island.

This is the tip of Brooks Island. Another no landing sign and some trash on the shore. He also described that area. So we know without any doubt this is where he went. Now, look, here's what I know some of you are thinking. Look how far Brooks Island is from that shore. Those are buildings. Some of you are thinking How do you take a boat out in the Bay and nobody can see what you're doing? Well, look how far Brooks Island is off the shore. I'll show you another picture in a minute, but, these are buildings. Now, put it in people size, and put in a small 14 foot boat. No one on the shore can see a single thing you're doing a mile and a half out in the Bay. It's impossible.

What is impossible is to make any sort of judgment of what is visible based on photographs. An honest test would be to place a boat in the vicinity the state or the defendant claimed was his location, then observe him from the closest point with binoculars or a telescope. There is no indication that this was done, and this appears to be a fraud on the court.

... Next Post

Bodies - Bay - Boat - The Flaws in the 'Logic'

Many believe that finding the bodies of Conner and Laci in the same body of water where, almost 4 months earlier, Scott was fishing somehow proves something towards his guilt. Although they are unable to formulate a logical reason for this belief somehow it persists - perhaps because of the complete lack of probative evidence against Scott in this case. Let us examine that.

Let us suppose that the body of Conner was found on the front lawn of the Peterson home but 4 months after Laci was last seen. Then, a day later, suppose that the body of Laci was found about a mile away in the park where she was last seen. How would that serve to convict Scott?

Let us then suppose that the body of Conner was found somewhere in the woods around Millinocket, Maine but 4 months after Laci was last seen. Then, a day later, suppose that the body of Laci was found about a mile away from that of her son. How would that serve to convict Scott?

In the first case Scott spent much time there. Would that make the belief in his guilt more or less likely? In the second case, Scott presumably cannot be shown to have ever been in Millinocket, Maine. Would that make the belief in his guilt more or less likely?

So exactly what is it about the location that makes his presumed guilt seem possible? There was never anything but a theory that his wife was transported to the bay at the time she went missing - not a molecule of proof was ever offered.

What is the radius of the circle within which he cannot be assumed to be guilty but outside of which he may be? What is the radius of the larger circle outside of which he cannot be assumed to be guilty but within which he may be? And what is the center point of either or both circles?

Ultimately, where the bodies were found doesn't imply Scott's guilt. It doesn't because all it proves is that Laci and Conner's bodies were put where they were found by one of approximately 200 million people who had access to Modesto and to the bay. But we already knew that because whoever abducted her was also one of those 200 million people. What we don't have is any evidence that allows us narrow that number down to one and only one person. That was completely missing from the case and the trial.

However, what it does so is add some considerable weight to his claims of innocence. It does this because the bodies were found separated in space but within 24 hours of one another. This is extraordinary, because it is so unlikely. What we should have heard if the prosecution's theory was correct was that one body was found in one location and that the other body turned up several days or even weeks later. The sea does not yield her flotsam in a synchronized manner. It took the interference of some person or persons for these two to arrive within a 24 hour period after 4 months in which no trace of anything was found.

It is unbelievable that nothing else turned up for another 4 months -- or in fact ever. It is much less likely than two very different people going on an 8 hour walk following different routes but crossing at a mid point and within 2 minutes of each other. That is too much of a coincidence.

If there were overwhelming and convincing evidence of the prosecution theory then this coincidence might be reluctantly accepted as very unlikely but not beyond all bounds of possibility. However since the prosecution was unable to provide even one molecule of evidence that their theory had any validity it is one more circumstance that puts the lie to their case.

---

Why were the bodies handled so differently? There must have been a reason. Perhaps whoever had Laci didn't want to actually murder her but they couldn't let her go either as she could identify them. When first Conner and then Laci died their problem was solved. At some point one or more of them decided to dump the bodies. As Laci was so deteriorated they dropped the remains into the sea off the Albany Bulb, wrongly assuming they would go out to sea and never be found (all identifiable parts of the body were missing and have never been found - this may be significant).

However they placed the baby where he was found, above the highest high tide mark, in the hope that the search was continuing (it wasn't) and that the family could bury him at least. That's why the bag was removed from him - so he would not be mistaken for garbage. Logical? Not very but nothing about the crime was logical. Sometimes criminals are just very, very lucky no matter how stupid they are.

What about the forensics?

Comments by a forensic pathologist to the Abolish list:

"That Doctor DeVore is trying to sell junk science to the jury. His opinion here is not based on fact, not based on personal observation, and not even based on a valid set of statistics. Given the estimate of a fetal age is based on several parameters such as weight (not possible here), length (probably not possible here) and ossification centers (that may be possible, but with a wide variation), all estimates have to be iffy. Each fetus grows at a different rate; for example, my second son was born at about six month's gestation, weighed just under 1 kilogram but was 55 cm long. Other fetuses can also display anomalous parameters.

Where did this "expert" come up with the conclusion that he use an "average" of two or three estimates, and come up with a conclusion to even a reasonable medical possibility (note that the law requires a "reasonable medical certainty" in most states, and a reasonable medical "probability" in other states) in all medical opinions. If California follows Daubert, his testimony would be laughed out of court. It would be hard to accept even under FRE section 700 and following.

The prosecution here must be desperate to try to get in such raunchy evidence. As it stands now, we will never know who killed Ms Peterson unless there is a confession. First the Simpson case, now this circus; what has happened to the courts in California?"

G M Larkin MD

FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST

Abolish Archives

---

"Read Hicks v Oklahoma, 447 US 3 - Conviction cannot be based on conjecture alone.

The people do not have

1. a place of death (the indictment may come from the wrong jurisdiction);
2. a cause of death ("maybe she was strangled";
3. a time of death ("maybe December 24th".
4. a weapon of death ("maybe this or maybe that."
   

They cannot prove the corpus delicti in the fetus's death, or make a reasoned estimate of how mature the fetus was.

The state did not allow a highly competent forensic pathologist to testify for the defense, a pathologist who would seriously challenge both the fetus and whether it had an independent existence.

While the state does not have to prove motive, Mr Peterson's raunchy affair and demeanor doesn't make him a murderer; he was convicted on moral grounds rather than evidence.

If I remember correctly, circumstantial evidence is a powerful tool -- if there is no other plausible reason to explain an occurrence. If the explanation favors the defence, the jury MUST determine it for the defense -- the so-called Sanhedrin Rule, or the Golden thread.

This points to "reasonable doubt"; a commodity too often lost is our court today. With regard to your question, could it be that the jury reached a compromise -- guilty, but with a life sentence?

The judge's firing two jury members the way he did is also a wee bit questionable; could they both be holding out for acquittal?

I agree with you that there was no evidence linking Peterson to the crime, and insufficiency of evidence will loom large in an appeal. Having not read the transcript, there might be other errors to work with.

Today, forensic evidence must be rigorously analyzed and challenged on virtually every word.

The determination of whether the fetus/baby breathed is certainly open to challenge, and it is possible that no conclusion can be made, even with the most sophisticated tests.

Again reasonable doubt. I do not know if Peterson is de facto guilty or not: the people have not proven it to my satisfaction."

G M Larkin MD DABFM FACFE

Forensic Pathologist

Abolish Archives

---

Here is a summary of Daubert:

FOUR DAUBERT STANDARDS FOR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

The Daubert Supreme Court decision suggests four questions that judges should consider in determining whether an area or field of science is reliable enough to be used in the courtroom. The decision says this list should not be regarded by judges as "a definitive checklist or test," opening the door for judges to employ criteria of their own.

1. Is the evidence based on a testable theory or technique?
2. Has the theory or technique been peer reviewed?
3. Does the technique have a known error rate and standards controlling its operation?
4. Is the underlying science generally accepted?

What, of the evidence offered in Scott's case, qualified under these rules?