Latest / Legally Brunette / Killer Thriller Docu: Did We Get The Scott Peterson Case Wrong?

Transcript

Killer Thriller Docu: Did We Get The Scott Peterson Case Wrong? · Legally Brunette

0:13
Speaker 1: Hi guys, Welcome back to Killer Thriller DOCU edition. So
0:18
Speaker 1: today we are revisiting a case that shocked the country
0:21
Speaker 1: and became one of the most closely followed murder investigations
0:24
Speaker 1: of the twenty first century more than twenty years ago
0:28
Speaker 1: after the deaths of Lacy Peterson and her unborn son, Connor.
0:32
Speaker 1: The case against Scott Peterson is once again making headlines
0:35
Speaker 1: as new evidence, scientific analysis, and fresh legal arguments raise
0:40
Speaker 1: questions about the original investigation and conviction. So, you guys,
0:45
Speaker 1: we're talking about a and he's Scott Peterson. The new
0:48
Speaker 1: evidence and I am completely freaked out.
0:52
Speaker 2: I definitely. For years now, I have believed that Scott.
0:56
Speaker 1: Peterson murdered Lacy Peterson and their unborn son and Connor.
1:01
Speaker 1: And I after watching this, I got to tell you,
1:05
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I am baffled, I'm upset. I
1:09
Speaker 1: feel bad for Scott Peterson. But what if I'm wrong,
1:12
Speaker 1: what if he did do it?
1:13
Speaker 2: I'm a total mess.
1:14
Speaker 1: But I will tell you that this documentary is so
1:18
Speaker 1: unbelievable and so fascinating. And we're going to talk with
1:22
Speaker 1: Chris Pixley, who is an attorney that made the documentary. Hi,
1:26
Speaker 1: Chris Hi, Jenny Hi, I'm so upset. I feel so
1:31
Speaker 1: bad for Scott Peterson. I have to tell you. And honestly,
1:36
Speaker 1: I had him guilty until about two days ago, and
1:41
Speaker 1: I am so.
1:43
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I am convinced that he didn't do it.
1:46
Speaker 1: I hope that you know this, the work that you've
1:51
Speaker 1: done here changes things for him.
1:54
Speaker 2: I don't know how hard that's going to be.
1:55
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know, in terms of the legalities
1:58
Speaker 1: of that, but I am dumb founded. I mean just
2:01
Speaker 1: shocked by what you presented in this documentary.
2:04
Speaker 2: It's amazing.
2:06
Speaker 3: Well, I'm so appreciative of you saying that. And it
2:11
Speaker 3: was obviously a team of people and we stood on
2:13
Speaker 3: the shoulders of the work that the Los Angeles Innozen's
2:16
Speaker 3: project has done on this case. You know, they took
2:19
Speaker 3: a very flawed person in Scott Peterson, and they looked
2:23
Speaker 3: deeply at the flawed process and the flawed human beings
2:27
Speaker 3: that brought about a flawed result. And you know, you
2:32
Speaker 3: can point the finger in a lot of different directions.
2:35
Speaker 3: The media was involved in it. The criminal investigators were
2:38
Speaker 3: under tremendous pressure because of the media involvement. Because this
2:42
Speaker 3: thing sploated nationally and then internationally in a matter of days.
2:47
Speaker 3: You know, you can sort of understand how we came
2:51
Speaker 3: to this place, but you know, until you see the
2:55
Speaker 3: series and you see how all of it developed, I
2:59
Speaker 3: think it's it's hard to appreciate how many wrong justice,
3:07
Speaker 3: oh my gosh, and the injustice of it. That's right.
3:10
Speaker 3: It's a referendum on our system of justice. And and
3:15
Speaker 3: I'll be brief on that because that might may not
3:17
Speaker 3: on the surface be as interesting to people as the
3:20
Speaker 3: actual facts about the Scott Peterson case.
3:22
Speaker 2: Oh, I think it's interesting.
3:23
Speaker 1: And I've done enough of these now documentaries to see
3:27
Speaker 1: people that were kids that were convicted that you know,
3:31
Speaker 1: stayed in jail for years until some new evidence, you know,
3:35
Speaker 1: was discovered.
3:36
Speaker 2: But so I am interested in that. Please go ahead.
3:39
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, well you're right, and you know, but for
3:41
Speaker 3: the grace of God, any one of us goes there ourselves.
3:44
Speaker 3: And that's really the issue. That's why everyone should care
3:46
Speaker 3: about it, because you know, we have a highly politicized
3:51
Speaker 3: legal system and criminal justice system. Prosecutors are elected officials.
3:57
Speaker 3: Judges are elected officials. If you work in a prosecutor's office,
4:02
Speaker 3: you depend upon the district attorney being re elected or
4:05
Speaker 3: you're out of a job that gamifies the system. You're
4:09
Speaker 3: under tremendous pressure to win cases. The objective then is
4:14
Speaker 3: not to find the truth. The objective is to bring
4:18
Speaker 3: about a conviction as quickly as you can. And every
4:20
Speaker 3: district attorney when they run for reelection anywhere in any
4:23
Speaker 3: county in America, will tell you that they have a
4:25
Speaker 3: ninety five percent success rate or better. That's just that's
4:29
Speaker 3: built into the cake. They have to prove that. That
4:32
Speaker 3: should help people to understand the pressure that they're under
4:35
Speaker 3: and that the investigators underneath them feel. And then you
4:39
Speaker 3: add to that, you know, this media circus, this full
4:43
Speaker 3: on attention nationwide at a time in history. We forget
4:47
Speaker 3: what it was like twenty years ago. You know, media
4:50
Speaker 3: wasn't fractured the way it is. Everyone turned on the
4:53
Speaker 3: television and read People magazine to get their information. And
4:58
Speaker 3: what the television and People magazine were telling you from
5:00
Speaker 3: the from the early days of this because the only
5:02
Speaker 3: people that stood in front of the television uh and
5:05
Speaker 3: spoke to the magazines in the early days were the investigators.
5:08
Speaker 3: They were telling you, we're executing search warrants on Scott
5:10
Speaker 3: Peterson's truck. We're executing search warrants in the home. We
5:14
Speaker 3: think we know what happened here, and they were they
5:17
Speaker 3: made the pitch quite well. And it's an and and
5:20
Speaker 3: and sadly it's you know, many decades later that we
5:23
Speaker 3: see there was so much more to this story.
5:26
Speaker 2: Oh my god.
5:27
Speaker 1: I mean, I you know, it's interesting because you said
5:30
Speaker 1: we just started that Scott Peterson, I don't. I don't
5:33
Speaker 1: know the wording you use it. Basically, he wasn't a
5:35
Speaker 1: great guy. I mean, he had this affair. But outside
5:37
Speaker 1: of having the affair, and I'm not saying that's a
5:40
Speaker 1: good thing, believe me, but I'm just saying that he's
5:43
Speaker 1: not the only one in America who has ever had
5:46
Speaker 1: an affair. So and outside of that, though, I don't
5:50
Speaker 1: see where he was such an awful guy, you know,
5:53
Speaker 1: That's that's part of it. I mean, yes, the Amber
5:55
Speaker 1: thing I think was maybe part of what took him
5:59
Speaker 1: down in the or of public opinion. But I think
6:02
Speaker 1: also but just the way he handled it, his demeanor
6:06
Speaker 1: was not didn't work for him right.
6:08
Speaker 3: But anyway, No, no, those are all the circumstances that
6:11
Speaker 3: brought about his conviction. He brought about his own conviction.
6:16
Speaker 3: But there are circumstances, they're not evidence, and the problem
6:18
Speaker 3: is that there is real evidence in this case, and
6:22
Speaker 3: that evidence pointed away from him in a direction that
6:25
Speaker 3: the police weren't comfortable with because they had a theory
6:27
Speaker 3: that was built entirely around Scott Peterson wasn't involved. This
6:31
Speaker 3: was not a missing person's case. This was homicide investigation.
6:34
Speaker 3: And by the evening of December twenty fourth, the police
6:37
Speaker 3: who carried out four different lengthy interviews with Scott Peterson,
6:41
Speaker 3: three of which happened before that one that we all
6:43
Speaker 3: saw on television where everybody asked, why doesn't he.
6:46
Speaker 2: Have I couldn't get over that.
6:47
Speaker 3: Why doesn't he seem he was exhausted at that point,
6:51
Speaker 3: he'd been being rinkled for.
6:52
Speaker 1: Out and taking a telephone call and it was his
6:55
Speaker 1: sister in law, and then showing that he was taking
6:57
Speaker 1: a telephone call like he's taking it from, you know,
7:00
Speaker 1: from Pizza Hut.
7:01
Speaker 2: It was just crazy.
7:03
Speaker 3: But to your point, he was not a good representative
7:05
Speaker 3: for himself. One of us know, we're on a camera
7:08
Speaker 3: and we've been grilled by these guys all day, and
7:11
Speaker 3: they definitely think we did it might say this is
7:13
Speaker 3: my sister in law, this might be about Lacey. I
7:15
Speaker 3: ought to take this. He doesn't think that way, and
7:18
Speaker 3: so you're right. He took a phone call.
7:21
Speaker 1: I've did so many interviews and with I don't know again,
7:25
Speaker 1: like I'm thinking of one in particular that we did
7:27
Speaker 1: something called the Yogurt Shop Murder and it's a new documentary.
7:30
Speaker 2: And these kids who.
7:32
Speaker 1: Were and I don't mean to but they were accused
7:35
Speaker 1: of it. They went and sat down with the investigators
7:36
Speaker 1: and they admitted to it.
7:38
Speaker 2: They didn't do it, but in.
7:40
Speaker 1: That hot seed, in that hot box, whatever happened in there,
7:44
Speaker 1: they they admitted to something they didn't even do.
7:47
Speaker 2: I mean, it's crazy.
7:48
Speaker 1: So okay, my head is spinning because I have to
7:51
Speaker 1: tell you this has been since I watched the only
7:54
Speaker 1: thing I can think about. So the La Innocent's Innocence Project.
7:59
Speaker 1: There's a federal one, right or a national one.
8:01
Speaker 2: Excuse me.
8:01
Speaker 3: It's a national movement that where we have innocence projects
8:06
Speaker 3: in most of the state's states. Now you know, Check
8:10
Speaker 3: and Neufeld in New York City started it and they
8:15
Speaker 3: had such great success getting exonerations using DNA evidence that nationally,
8:22
Speaker 3: we all became the public became aware of it, and
8:25
Speaker 3: it spawned innocence movement and innocent movement around the country.
8:29
Speaker 3: And these innocence projects, all of which are independent and
8:32
Speaker 3: loosely affiliated. So the Ely Innocence Project runs their own cases.
8:36
Speaker 3: They choose the cases that they take. You know, I
8:39
Speaker 3: make the point that it's worth making. In the state
8:43
Speaker 3: of California alone, there are more people incarcerated than there
8:46
Speaker 3: are in any other nation in the world, with the
8:48
Speaker 3: exception of Russia. That's just California alone, that.
8:51
Speaker 2: Is so messed up.
8:54
Speaker 3: Well, it's an interesting statistic, but it tells you something
8:57
Speaker 3: about the number of people and prisoners and their families
9:01
Speaker 3: who are reaching out to the La Innocence Project asking
9:05
Speaker 3: to have their case reviewed. So when anyone says, why
9:08
Speaker 3: in the world would they ever take Scott Peterson's case?
9:11
Speaker 3: The innocence projects are supposed to defend innocent people and
9:13
Speaker 3: indigent people, and why would they do this? They are
9:17
Speaker 3: incredibly discerning in what cases they take. They have to be.
9:21
Speaker 3: They just don't have the resources to take every case
9:23
Speaker 3: or anything close to it. So one in one thousand
9:27
Speaker 3: or one in ten thousand actually gets accepted, and they
9:30
Speaker 3: accept them on the basis of this standard, that the
9:33
Speaker 3: California standard, that they believe that they can prove actual innocence.
9:38
Speaker 3: So when the La Innocence Project takes this case in
9:40
Speaker 3: the first place, when they announced that they had taken it,
9:42
Speaker 3: you knew, and they had done about a two year day.
9:44
Speaker 1: They don't do it for nothing, right, not wasting their time.
9:47
Speaker 1: There is no time to waste. Who presented it to them.
9:49
Speaker 3: The Peterson family brought Yeah, the sister in law, right,
9:52
Speaker 3: That is my understanding. And I wasn't in the room.
9:54
Speaker 3: I know Paula Mitchell fairly well, the director of the
9:57
Speaker 3: La Innosent's Project. But my understanding is the Peterson's brought
9:59
Speaker 3: it to them, and they got about and did a
10:02
Speaker 3: good job packaging, and they got about five minutes into
10:04
Speaker 3: it and.
10:05
Speaker 1: They said, yeah, we'll take it. So you guys just
10:07
Speaker 1: to our yeah, to our listeners. So this is we're
10:09
Speaker 1: talking about Scott Peterson's brother's wife, right, right, Chris.
10:13
Speaker 2: She became a lawyer for this very reason.
10:17
Speaker 1: At least that's what I've heard, am I correct in
10:19
Speaker 1: that because they are so convinced of his innocence, and
10:24
Speaker 1: you guys if you're.
10:25
Speaker 2: Listening, I hope we've already watched it.
10:27
Speaker 1: If you haven't watched it and you're listening, I don't
10:30
Speaker 1: you know, there's not much I can't really give anything away,
10:32
Speaker 1: right this is real life. Like you know that you
10:35
Speaker 1: know who Scott Peterson is, you know what he was
10:38
Speaker 1: accused of, you know what he went to jail for,
10:40
Speaker 1: and this documentary is about the fact that he got
10:42
Speaker 1: screwed so completely.
10:43
Speaker 2: Royally, tell me what why you got attached to it?
10:47
Speaker 1: Because I know that you were on this case way
10:50
Speaker 1: back in the day, right where you were like Good
10:51
Speaker 1: Morning America, I remember seeing And how did you feel
10:56
Speaker 1: back then? Did were you convinced of his innocence back then?
10:58
Speaker 3: I wasn't convinced of his since back then, but almost
11:01
Speaker 3: from the jump I was making the point on Good
11:06
Speaker 3: Morning in America. I did evening hits on Larry King Live,
11:09
Speaker 3: and I would do afternoons with Catherine Fryar Live, and
11:12
Speaker 3: I had been doing that, you know, prior to the
11:16
Speaker 3: Peterson case coming about. What I was uncomfortable with was
11:22
Speaker 3: the scope and the scale of the attention on this case,
11:25
Speaker 3: and the fact that almost all of the attention right
11:28
Speaker 3: from the jump was on Scott Peterson and the theory
11:32
Speaker 3: that Scott Peterson for some reason had murdered his wife.
11:35
Speaker 3: Of course, when Amber Fry came along, just that sort
11:39
Speaker 3: of shut the book on it. The public was still
11:41
Speaker 3: fascinated in it, but they were more fascinating I think
11:44
Speaker 3: with his comings and goings and with the dyed hair
11:47
Speaker 3: and all the rest, and not really that inquisitive about
11:53
Speaker 3: the facts. As a legal analyst and someone who was
11:56
Speaker 3: brought on because I handled these cases, I was what
12:01
Speaker 3: I was pointing out throughout it all was we don't
12:04
Speaker 3: know how she was murdered. When the body was found
12:08
Speaker 3: in particular, we started talking about we don't know how,
12:10
Speaker 3: when where this woman was murdered. So and what we
12:16
Speaker 3: did know is that there was absolutely no forensic evidence
12:18
Speaker 3: in the home, or in Scott Peterson's truck, or in
12:21
Speaker 3: the boat, all of which were considered to be the
12:24
Speaker 3: vehicles for this crime. So that was what And there
12:28
Speaker 3: was not a large group of us that actually stood
12:31
Speaker 3: up and said, all right, I'm going to take the
12:33
Speaker 3: defense side on this. Most of the defense attorneys that
12:35
Speaker 3: talked on the Scott Peterson case spoke pretty flattering things
12:40
Speaker 3: about the prosecution they all sort of convicted him as well.
12:43
Speaker 3: There weren't a lot of us. The other reason though,
12:45
Speaker 3: that I was brought in on this is not only
12:47
Speaker 3: was I there at the time and reporting on it
12:50
Speaker 3: all the way through the trial, but I handled I
12:53
Speaker 3: was one of three attorneys that handled the Menenda's brothers
12:56
Speaker 3: petition for rid of Habe's porpoise and RPO all the
12:58
Speaker 3: way to the ninth Circuit. So wow, this is a
13:02
Speaker 3: habeas corpus argument as well. These are constitutional arguments. And
13:05
Speaker 3: so you know I've been in that arena.
13:08
Speaker 1: Right, Oh my god. So there are so many things
13:11
Speaker 1: about this that just freaked me out. And you know,
13:16
Speaker 1: when the fact that there were so many witnesses that
13:20
Speaker 1: saw her walking that buffing dog after he left it.
13:25
Speaker 2: And then you guys, if you haven't watched it, I hope.
13:27
Speaker 1: You just have because I'm getting myself into a hole
13:30
Speaker 1: tizzy here.
13:30
Speaker 2: But you know what I'm talking about.
13:31
Speaker 1: But there are so many witnesses who saw her walking
13:35
Speaker 1: her golden retriever. This is after Scott left with the boat. Right,
13:40
Speaker 1: that in and of itself is enough that my mind
13:44
Speaker 1: was changed. Right, I'm where nobody called those witnesses. Nobody
13:48
Speaker 1: knew about those witnesses. Those witnesses, not all of all
13:51
Speaker 1: of them, but they called in tips and they were
13:52
Speaker 1: basically ignored because they did not support what the prosecution
13:56
Speaker 1: wanted them to support, which was that Scott Peterson did it.
13:59
Speaker 2: But there I'm sorry, go on.
14:03
Speaker 3: No, no, it did. It blew up the prosecution's theory
14:06
Speaker 3: of the case. And because of that, the investigators themselves
14:11
Speaker 3: didn't follow up with the vast majority of those witnesses.
14:14
Speaker 3: In fact, there were two or three witnesses that they
14:18
Speaker 3: had follow up conversations with the rest of them, though
14:21
Speaker 3: the statements were clear. Though you can track the eye
14:25
Speaker 3: witness sightings of Lacey to a route that she would
14:29
Speaker 3: take when she would walk her dog, all within a
14:31
Speaker 3: couple of miles of her home, a circle around the home.
14:36
Speaker 3: The police, nonetheless, it didn't follow up with any of them.
14:40
Speaker 3: And the defense also lacked a lot of the critical
14:44
Speaker 3: evidence that has come out in the past twenty years
14:48
Speaker 3: now was being delivered to them in the course of
14:51
Speaker 3: the trial. They didn't know that on the day that
14:55
Speaker 3: the verdict came inceived, they were still receiving them.
14:58
Speaker 2: So receiving tips.
14:59
Speaker 1: I've remember Mark Argo said that right in the documentary,
15:02
Speaker 1: he's like, I don't know how to defend this guy.
15:04
Speaker 1: When I have tips and news being brought to me
15:07
Speaker 1: every single second, I can't even get through it. So right, right,
15:10
Speaker 1: I thought that was so awful. But also so let's
15:15
Speaker 1: like put aside for a moment the fact there were
15:18
Speaker 1: those witnesses.
15:19
Speaker 2: No, but the defense didn't even know about the van.
15:21
Speaker 3: The defense knew about this burglary across the street.
15:24
Speaker 2: From that the van burned.
15:26
Speaker 3: Didn't know it was No, they didn't. You're exactly right.
15:28
Speaker 3: They knew, and that was why the van manders them.
15:31
Speaker 3: They knew that that a burglary had occurred across the street,
15:34
Speaker 3: directly across the street from the Peterson home, at the
15:36
Speaker 3: Medina home. They knew and believed that it had happened
15:39
Speaker 3: on the twenty fourth. The criminal investigators for the Modesta
15:45
Speaker 3: Police Department had came out very early on and said, no, no,
15:48
Speaker 3: there's no there there, it's not related. It happened on
15:50
Speaker 3: the twenty six. But as we demonstrated, and as the
15:53
Speaker 3: defense knew, there were news trucks up and down that
15:57
Speaker 3: street with reporters reporting in the dark of the early
16:01
Speaker 3: morning hours on December twenty sixth, So there was no burglary,
16:04
Speaker 3: There was no parking space on the street to go
16:07
Speaker 3: to go go, and there was nobody caring about safe
16:09
Speaker 3: out of the house at seven in the morning on
16:13
Speaker 3: the twenty sixth. It happened on the twenty fourth. The
16:15
Speaker 3: defense knew about that, and they and they believed that
16:17
Speaker 3: this van was involved in that burglary. What was withheld
16:20
Speaker 3: from them is the fact that the following morning, Christmas morning,
16:25
Speaker 3: a van was found burning the resulted arson a mile
16:28
Speaker 3: from the Peterson home in the Airport district, in this
16:32
Speaker 3: cedy alleyway.
16:33
Speaker 1: With faint traces of blood on a mattress. Like it's
16:36
Speaker 1: so wild, it's wild. I can't it's so it's so
16:42
Speaker 1: insating because I I've said, I've talked about this a
16:45
Speaker 1: lot now with my friends who haven't seen it. I've
16:47
Speaker 1: said that to them, like these burglars, well, they went
16:51
Speaker 1: in at the time because they knew that nobody would
16:53
Speaker 1: notice them if they went into a home. While there
16:57
Speaker 1: were all these you know, the news and the media
16:59
Speaker 1: was all surrounding and the investigators were all surrounding the house,
17:02
Speaker 1: they felt confident that they can get in and get
17:04
Speaker 1: out without being noticed. I think I thought that too
17:09
Speaker 1: until I saw this.
17:10
Speaker 3: I love taking on all the theories because you know,
17:13
Speaker 3: reasonable minds are going to differ on these things, and
17:16
Speaker 3: it's worth discussing the problem that I have with that theory.
17:20
Speaker 3: And I think something that.
17:22
Speaker 2: You're heard that theory too.
17:23
Speaker 3: Of course, yes, yes, What most of the public doesn't
17:27
Speaker 3: know is the actual They haven't seen the itemization of
17:30
Speaker 3: what was stolen from the Medina home. People do know
17:33
Speaker 3: about or some people know about this. About the safe.
17:35
Speaker 3: They don't know the size of the safe, which was considerable.
17:38
Speaker 3: They don't know that there was thirty thousand dollars in
17:40
Speaker 3: the safe. But almost everyone I've talked to doesn't realize
17:46
Speaker 3: that they were taking lawn equipment out of the garage
17:50
Speaker 3: that they stole lawn wars and all kinds of tremors
17:54
Speaker 3: and every kind of heavy piece of equipment. They robbed
17:57
Speaker 3: the home. They did damage to the home, They broke
18:01
Speaker 3: in and broke out. Uh, they actually did damage on
18:05
Speaker 3: the on the way out, in the garage and in
18:07
Speaker 3: the back of the house. So there was no other
18:11
Speaker 3: ingress and egress except through the that covena.
18:15
Speaker 2: Abbat walking out with safes and about it right right.
18:20
Speaker 3: Right, and I think when you could so, once you
18:23
Speaker 3: consider the list of what was stolen and how much
18:26
Speaker 3: it was, I think it starts to poke some serious
18:30
Speaker 3: holes in the idea that this was done with all
18:33
Speaker 3: of this attention and all of these people and cameras
18:37
Speaker 3: on the street, and the and and the criminals here,
18:40
Speaker 3: the burglars were drug addicts. These are not people that
18:43
Speaker 3: are making counterintuitive, sophisticated decisions about the best time right
18:50
Speaker 3: right right slip into a home. These are people that
18:52
Speaker 3: would These are guys that were casing that neighborhood and
18:56
Speaker 3: there were and there were many sightings of them casing
18:59
Speaker 3: the names doors on the lead up to Christmas Day,
19:04
Speaker 3: and they were doing it on bikes. If you you know,
19:06
Speaker 3: if you came through the neighborhood that morning and you
19:09
Speaker 3: saw all these news crews up and down the street,
19:12
Speaker 3: you're not gonna as a drug addict was just looking
19:14
Speaker 3: to get their next shit. They're not They're not going
19:16
Speaker 3: to decide to burglarize that home that day.
19:19
Speaker 1: No, I mean, imagine what it would take that Matt,
19:22
Speaker 1: I don't think kutzpa is the right word, But I'm
19:24
Speaker 1: like with the ball, I don't think that's I don't
19:26
Speaker 1: know what the right word is, but for even a
19:29
Speaker 1: sophisticated criminal that's not a drug addict to say, you
19:33
Speaker 1: know what, I'm going to choose this day, this is
19:36
Speaker 1: the day I'm going to get away with it. I
19:37
Speaker 1: just think that that is so and I believed that, Chris.
19:41
Speaker 1: So that's a story that's been told to me for years,
19:43
Speaker 1: and I went for it. So much of this That's
19:46
Speaker 1: why so much of this blew me completely blew me away.
19:50
Speaker 3: There's a there's a similar but there's a similar story
19:53
Speaker 3: also or along the same lines, because you you talked
19:57
Speaker 3: about the number of eyewitnesses that saw Lacy Peterson the
19:59
Speaker 3: line fifteen or something Rightot Peterson fifteen I witness that
20:04
Speaker 3: saw her walking the dog at a point in time
20:06
Speaker 3: when after Scott Peterson has already left for the San
20:08
Speaker 3: Francisco Bay, meaning that it entirely exonerates him. You will
20:12
Speaker 3: start hearing in response to our series what has always
20:17
Speaker 3: been the pet response of the criminal investigators, all of
20:21
Speaker 3: whom wouldn't talk to us.
20:22
Speaker 1: Oh you couldn't, honestly, Chris, you if I saw that once,
20:26
Speaker 1: I saw it twenty times and I knew what you
20:27
Speaker 1: were doing like you are hammering it in that no
20:31
Speaker 1: one wants.
20:32
Speaker 2: To talk about it. All of these people that are
20:34
Speaker 2: so convinced that Scott Peterson did.
20:35
Speaker 1: I have to say I started to almost giggle about
20:37
Speaker 1: it after a while because it just kept flashing up.
20:40
Speaker 3: Well, that is a decision that was made by Maya Norris,
20:42
Speaker 3: the showrunner, and I thought.
20:44
Speaker 2: I think it's great. I think it's brilliant.
20:46
Speaker 3: It is such a such a problem that they have
20:49
Speaker 3: been so willing to talk to everyone for the last
20:51
Speaker 3: twenty years, and they wouldn't talk to us, right, and
20:54
Speaker 3: they don't want to talk because they don't want to
20:55
Speaker 3: face what's in the Los Angeles Innocence Projects filing here.
20:59
Speaker 3: But they you will start hearing there were lots of
21:01
Speaker 3: pregnant women walking dogs. There were two pregnant women in
21:04
Speaker 3: the neighborhood. One had long, dark hair and she didn't
21:06
Speaker 3: have a dog. The other had long blonde hair, was tall,
21:11
Speaker 3: and had a dog that doesn't look like Lacey's stalk.
21:13
Speaker 3: So when these people come along and say I saw
21:17
Speaker 3: short woman was short, black hair, and they give description,
21:21
Speaker 3: and they all give the same description. We need to
21:25
Speaker 3: be aware of the details about this alternate dog. Walker
21:28
Speaker 3: that the police wants you to believe is the end
21:30
Speaker 3: of the story.
21:31
Speaker 1: Right, talking about how they all said Lacy couldn't control
21:34
Speaker 1: the dog.
21:35
Speaker 3: And exactly they all said the same thing which was
21:37
Speaker 3: known about Mackenzie the dog, right, that.
21:39
Speaker 2: You couldn't controlled. And I thought that was very interesting.
21:42
Speaker 1: They didn't know her, they didn't know the dog, and
21:43
Speaker 1: yet everybody, almost everyone said that, and so like, that's
21:48
Speaker 1: to me, and none of it, none of it, none
21:51
Speaker 1: of it was used.
21:52
Speaker 2: It's so it kills me. It's so freaking heartbreaking.
21:57
Speaker 3: We talked to Diane Jackson. She's one of them, and
21:59
Speaker 3: you will remember her. She's moved out of Modesto. She
22:02
Speaker 3: said at one point when I was talking to her
22:05
Speaker 3: that it has ruined her life. And she went on
22:09
Speaker 3: to explain, look, I had all these friends in Modesto.
22:12
Speaker 3: I was alive.
22:12
Speaker 2: Yes, I heard, I remember that.
22:14
Speaker 3: And and she said, and they all said, you're trying
22:16
Speaker 3: to help.
22:17
Speaker 1: This guy, right, and he's right, he's a murder and
22:19
Speaker 1: you're trying to help him, right, right, I remember that.
22:21
Speaker 3: And she had a move, yeah, and she said, look,
22:23
Speaker 3: I'm not trying to help him. I'm just telling the truth.
22:26
Speaker 2: That's what she said, I'm just telling you what happened.
22:28
Speaker 3: But she goes on. She goes on to say, you know,
22:31
Speaker 3: it's not just that she doesn't stop with So I
22:34
Speaker 3: just had to tell the truth. Twenty you know, nearly
22:37
Speaker 3: a quarter century later, she in talking to me says,
22:41
Speaker 3: and I didn't just have to tell the truth. I
22:43
Speaker 3: just I have to say. There's no way these two
22:46
Speaker 3: things are unrelated. I saw these burglars in front of
22:49
Speaker 3: the Medina home that morning, and as I drove by,
22:52
Speaker 3: they all stared at me and they wanted me out there.
22:55
Speaker 3: And now that same day, Lacy Peterson goes missing. You
22:58
Speaker 3: cannot tell me that those two things are unrelated. So
23:00
Speaker 3: here's this woman who says I want nothing to do
23:02
Speaker 3: with this, who said, don't come to my home, don't
23:05
Speaker 3: knock on my door with cameras. She was gracious to
23:08
Speaker 3: talk to us because she's going through chemotherapy, she's in
23:11
Speaker 3: late stages of cancer of a difficult cancer diagnosis. She
23:15
Speaker 3: had no energy. But when we got talking about the
23:20
Speaker 3: importance of her statement, she said, all right, I'll tell
23:24
Speaker 3: you everything. And she didn't just tell us the fact.
23:27
Speaker 3: She said, I look at this case and I think
23:29
Speaker 3: it's a miscarriage of justice. She actually made it clear
23:33
Speaker 3: that she's convinced that the Medina burglary and Lacy Peterson's
23:37
Speaker 3: disappearance are connected, and she said that, you know, with pain,
23:41
Speaker 3: because she doesn't want to be involved as a witness,
23:45
Speaker 3: and she doesn't like the damage that her honest, factual
23:49
Speaker 3: statement did to her friendships in Modesto. So there's a
23:54
Speaker 3: human element to so much of this story. It happens
23:58
Speaker 3: again and again, and of course, you know, I can't
24:03
Speaker 3: say that and leave out the roach of family who
24:07
Speaker 3: have suffered so greatly. But I don't believe that we're
24:10
Speaker 3: doing a disservice to the roach of family by bringing
24:14
Speaker 3: to light all of this.
24:15
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly, that they would want justice to be served,
24:19
Speaker 1: and if the guy who actually murdered their daughter is
24:22
Speaker 1: out there, they want to know that. I mean, I
24:25
Speaker 1: think that I would want to know that, right. I'm
24:28
Speaker 1: sure drudges up so much for them. But but so
24:31
Speaker 1: there was there's so much to point to the dogs,
24:35
Speaker 1: how the way that they used I keep thought, I
24:38
Speaker 1: have to keep explaining. I hope that who's ever listening
24:40
Speaker 1: has actually seen this documentary. But that was another part
24:44
Speaker 1: that I found absolutely fascinating. So you so you explain
24:49
Speaker 1: it to us how the dogs picked up on the
24:51
Speaker 1: scent of Lacey in airport is it.
24:54
Speaker 3: Called airport in the airport district.
24:57
Speaker 1: In the airport district where the van was, and they
25:01
Speaker 1: let it go. They didn't bring it in as an evidence.
25:04
Speaker 1: How does that happen?
25:05
Speaker 3: That's right. So we've talked about this brain van, which
25:08
Speaker 3: the defense was never made aware of, which the public
25:10
Speaker 3: wasn't made aware of, which we've only learned about in
25:13
Speaker 3: recent years. Now you've raised the point of the dogs
25:17
Speaker 3: scent evidence. Because there was no forensic evidence discovered in
25:22
Speaker 3: the home. The police went the next step and they
25:25
Speaker 3: got these dog trainers to bring in cadaver dogs and
25:31
Speaker 3: sent dogs two slightly different kinds of dogs. One does
25:35
Speaker 3: just what it sounds like, it will. It is trained
25:38
Speaker 3: to identify if there is the scent of a cadaver
25:41
Speaker 3: a dead body. They brought in a cadaver dog into
25:44
Speaker 3: scent dogs. The dogs arrived at all of these different conclusions,
25:49
Speaker 3: but interestingly one of the dogs. None of the dogs
25:52
Speaker 3: alerted in the home. The dogs didn't alert at Scott
25:56
Speaker 3: Peterson's truck, and they didn't alert at the boat, meaning
25:58
Speaker 3: that they didn't get any scent of Lacy Peterson or
26:01
Speaker 3: of a cadaver in the home, the truck, or the boat,
26:05
Speaker 3: the three places that the prosecution says that Lacy Peterson
26:09
Speaker 3: absolutely was before she wound up in the San Francisco Bay.
26:13
Speaker 3: One of the scent dogs alerts at the Berkeley Marina,
26:19
Speaker 3: that is the one that that who's that the jury
26:23
Speaker 3: was allowed to hear from the handler of that handler
26:27
Speaker 3: had given that dog one of Scott's slippers, thinking that
26:30
Speaker 3: it was Lacey's slipper. So the dog all we really
26:34
Speaker 3: need is Scott identified Scott sent at the Berkeley Marina
26:38
Speaker 3: where Scott placed himself right, the judge disallowed the jury
26:44
Speaker 3: hearing from the from the other sent dog, which trapped
26:48
Speaker 3: Lacy Peterson sent all the way to the airport district.
26:51
Speaker 2: But Chris, why what did the judge? I mean? Are
26:53
Speaker 2: you do you have doubts about the judge?
26:55
Speaker 3: I have concerns anytime judges allow scent dog evidence in
27:00
Speaker 3: to these trials at all, because, as we've discussed, you
27:04
Speaker 3: know this, these are this is the sixth Amendment issue.
27:07
Speaker 3: You know, you have a right to confront your accuser.
27:09
Speaker 2: You can't confront a dog right.
27:11
Speaker 3: And you can't, and you're ultimately left, uh, prosecution and
27:16
Speaker 3: defense to examine a dog handler someone who says, I
27:21
Speaker 3: know what Rover means when he's when he when he
27:23
Speaker 3: scratches his all this way when he times right. And
27:27
Speaker 3: there's no uniform training uh for dog handlers. The training
27:33
Speaker 3: is very minimal. You know, we have television shows about
27:37
Speaker 3: sent dogs, and so we know that the public's interested
27:39
Speaker 3: in it. And all of the research shows that jurors
27:42
Speaker 3: believe believe dog handlers. They believe it, uh, and so
27:47
Speaker 3: the you know, one of the many problems, one of
27:51
Speaker 3: the consistent problems in this case is that the jury
27:53
Speaker 3: heard testimony that is either incomplete or inaccurate. That evidence
27:59
Speaker 3: was presented to the defense while other evidence was with
28:03
Speaker 3: or destroyed the dog sent evidence. It's the same situation. Okay,
28:08
Speaker 3: so we heard the jurors heard about a dog alerting
28:11
Speaker 3: at the Berkeley Marina, which makes you think, Okay, Lacey
28:14
Speaker 3: was at the Berkeley Marina, Scott must must have done it.
28:17
Speaker 3: They of course, the judge, I don't believe you knew it.
28:22
Speaker 3: And the defense didn't figure out at the time that
28:25
Speaker 3: the dog handler had given articles of Scott's articles and
28:29
Speaker 3: Lacey's to this dog which contaminated the whole result. But
28:33
Speaker 3: the judge did make the decision to disallow the competing
28:36
Speaker 3: evidence of another dog that went to the airport destroy
28:40
Speaker 3: of course would go to another another theory. So it's
28:44
Speaker 3: all of this is probably it's beyond problematic. I mean,
28:47
Speaker 3: this is the reason that we are arguing. Los Angeles
28:49
Speaker 3: Iness Project, whose shoulders were standing on, argues that this
28:52
Speaker 3: was not a fair trot.
29:07
Speaker 1: Speaking of the marina, speaking of water, speaking of where
29:10
Speaker 1: they found Lacey's body, are you kidding me?
29:14
Speaker 3: So?
29:15
Speaker 1: Before I watched the documentary, I remember that Lacey was
29:21
Speaker 1: found in the water. It made complete sense that where
29:24
Speaker 1: the boat was, he would have dropped Lacey's body and
29:28
Speaker 1: she would have come up on shore at that exact spot.
29:31
Speaker 1: And now, all these years later, as science has caught
29:36
Speaker 1: up with the evidence, it turns out that she would
29:41
Speaker 1: not have been not have turned up where she did.
29:44
Speaker 2: Right that she turned up somewhere? Was it very shallow,
29:47
Speaker 2: you'd say it to us again?
29:49
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah. The prosecution put on an expert hydrologist by
29:55
Speaker 3: the name of doctor Ralph Chang. Doctor Chang's background in
29:59
Speaker 3: hydrology was appropriate to testify and to opine on where
30:04
Speaker 3: the Lacey's body was likely placed in the bay, given
30:08
Speaker 3: where it ultimately washed up and where Connor's body washed up,
30:11
Speaker 3: which were along the Richmond shoreline, two separate locations, one
30:16
Speaker 3: at Point Isabelle and one directly on the Richmond.
30:18
Speaker 2: Shore They hadn't take into account the tides, right, Yes.
30:21
Speaker 3: They asked doctor Chang to take into to testify as
30:25
Speaker 3: to where the bodies were likely placed in the water
30:27
Speaker 3: using his background studying tides, and he testified. First of all,
30:32
Speaker 3: he was qualified to testify. He discussed all of the
30:36
Speaker 3: papers and the research that he's published on this topic
30:40
Speaker 3: of hydrology and title action, and then on the basis
30:43
Speaker 3: of his expertise in title action, he told them, yes,
30:46
Speaker 3: the bodies were placed in the bay exactly where Scott
30:49
Speaker 3: Peterson was fishing that morning, where just south of Brooks Island.
30:54
Speaker 3: That fit hand in love with the prosecution's theory. The
30:57
Speaker 3: problem was that he could not using the technology that
31:02
Speaker 3: was available at the time, in that limited space between
31:05
Speaker 3: Brooks Island and where the bodies were found, he couldn't
31:09
Speaker 3: make a determination using tidal action, and so he was
31:12
Speaker 3: He testified that he's the right person to talk about this,
31:15
Speaker 3: that he has all this background in hydrology, but he
31:18
Speaker 3: did his analysis on the basis of wind action, and
31:20
Speaker 3: he used a wind tower that was behind a mountain
31:24
Speaker 3: as opposed to using a wind tower that was out
31:26
Speaker 3: in the San Francisco Bay to arrive at the wind
31:29
Speaker 3: calculation itself. All of which tells you he knowingly testified
31:34
Speaker 3: to the jury that about the location of Lacy's body
31:38
Speaker 3: being placed in the bay to support the prosecution's case,
31:42
Speaker 3: knowing that he was literally lifting his thumb to the
31:46
Speaker 3: wind and making a guess.
31:47
Speaker 2: That is sick.
31:48
Speaker 3: And now we have and to your point, now we
31:51
Speaker 3: have this new technology, delved three D technology that didn't
31:55
Speaker 3: exist at the time that does allow us to backtrack
31:59
Speaker 3: from where the bodies were found to where they would
32:01
Speaker 3: have been placed in the bay. And it's not out
32:03
Speaker 3: in the middle of the bay where Scott Peterson was.
32:05
Speaker 3: It's from a land based location which was accessible at
32:09
Speaker 3: that time. It had just it had been turned from
32:11
Speaker 3: a garbage dump. It was being transitioned into a public
32:16
Speaker 3: park and it had just opened the month earlier and
32:20
Speaker 3: you could drive a car out there. We walked it
32:23
Speaker 3: and the paths are still drivable and the new del
32:27
Speaker 3: three D technology and the experts that operated can show
32:31
Speaker 3: you in the same way that we look at the
32:34
Speaker 3: way you know, the likely direction that a hurricane is
32:38
Speaker 3: going to move, and we see all those different colored lines.
32:42
Speaker 3: DELT three D technology does that with wave action. And
32:45
Speaker 3: when they do the analysis based on where the bodies arrived,
32:50
Speaker 3: they were able to show they were launched from land
32:54
Speaker 3: literally a stone from where, from from where they were found,
32:57
Speaker 3: not near where Scott Peterson was. And similarly, if you
33:00
Speaker 3: do the analysis of a body being placed in the
33:03
Speaker 3: bay where Scott Peterson was, it washes out to the
33:05
Speaker 3: golden gates right and never never to a.
33:08
Speaker 1: Bit unreal and the gestational age of the baby and
33:12
Speaker 1: that all of that. It's the evidence seems irrefutable that
33:18
Speaker 1: he did not do it.
33:19
Speaker 3: It is overwhelming. It is let me ask you.
33:22
Speaker 1: Something on that. Do you I know, I think I
33:24
Speaker 1: know what you believe? Do you would you bet your
33:26
Speaker 1: ranch he did not do it? Do you completely believe that?
33:31
Speaker 3: But two things, well two things. I'm gonna give you
33:33
Speaker 3: the lawyer's answer, which you won't like and no one
33:35
Speaker 3: in the audience will like either. But the issue just
33:40
Speaker 3: to put this in proper perspective. The issue here that
33:42
Speaker 3: is being challenged is whether Scott Peterson got a fair trial.
33:45
Speaker 3: I can say he did not on equivocently, he did
33:48
Speaker 3: not get a fair trial. The experts that testified on
33:51
Speaker 3: behalf of the state, one of which you just touched on.
33:54
Speaker 3: And we haven't even talked about the gestational age of
33:56
Speaker 3: Connor Peterson at the time of Connor's death. Connor was
34:00
Speaker 3: and Utero hadn't been born yet. Lacey was eight months
34:02
Speaker 3: pregnant when Lacey died. Connor would have died not before
34:05
Speaker 3: or until, but not after either. And the Los Angeles
34:09
Speaker 3: Citizens Project has demonstrated that Connor Peterson likely passed away
34:13
Speaker 3: sometime between December twenty eighth and early January of two
34:16
Speaker 3: thousand and three, at which point in time Scott's under
34:19
Speaker 3: constant surveillance. He didn't take his wife and put her
34:21
Speaker 3: in a closet for four or five days and then
34:23
Speaker 3: killed right and of course, of course, so he couldn't
34:26
Speaker 3: have had anything to do with it. So on the
34:29
Speaker 3: issue that is that the Los Angeles Citizens Project it
34:33
Speaker 3: has taken on, you know, the challenge to his trial
34:37
Speaker 3: and the constitutionality of that trial, and whether that verdict
34:40
Speaker 3: is reliable, I can say unequivocally is it is not
34:42
Speaker 3: a reliable verdict. And were it not for the fact
34:45
Speaker 3: that this is such a hot potato, I think every
34:48
Speaker 3: you know, every prosecutor, and every judge looking at it
34:52
Speaker 3: would have to tell you the same, right, the separate
34:56
Speaker 3: question of whether I think he's guilty or innocent. Having
35:01
Speaker 3: studied it at the time almost a quarter century ago
35:05
Speaker 3: and spent I mean, we would go on this was
35:07
Speaker 3: back into the TV days. We would go on Larry
35:10
Speaker 3: King Live three nights a week talking about the Peterson case.
35:12
Speaker 3: We talked about everything else as well. Martha Stewart got
35:15
Speaker 3: convicted during that time period. Michael Jackson got tried during
35:21
Speaker 3: that time period. Kobe Bryant was accused of rape and
35:23
Speaker 3: Colorado during that time period, we would talk about all
35:26
Speaker 3: those other cases. There was no case we talked about
35:28
Speaker 3: as much as Scott as Scott Peterson's case. Having studied
35:31
Speaker 3: it then and then seeing all of the evidence now
35:34
Speaker 3: that was never turned over that was unknown, and the
35:38
Speaker 3: new science as well, I'm comfortable saying no, I don't
35:42
Speaker 3: think that he did it. I think that, as I said,
35:45
Speaker 3: this is necessarily person who did a lot of bad things.
35:48
Speaker 3: But on this issue whether he committed this crime against
35:52
Speaker 3: his wife and his unmore child, no, I don't think
35:53
Speaker 3: that he did.
35:54
Speaker 2: Right.
35:54
Speaker 1: Having an affair is not murder. But you mentioned that again,
35:58
Speaker 1: did a lot of bad things outside of the affair.
36:01
Speaker 1: Was there something that I don't know about that he did?
36:02
Speaker 1: I mean, he was never accused of any violence. He
36:04
Speaker 1: was never right.
36:06
Speaker 3: No, no, And you're right. And when I say multiple
36:09
Speaker 3: bad things, it cuts both ways because one of the
36:12
Speaker 3: things that came out in this deep investigation that was
36:15
Speaker 3: being done back in two thousand and two and two
36:17
Speaker 3: thousand and three with respect to Scott Peterson was the
36:19
Speaker 3: fact that he had had another affair when he and
36:22
Speaker 3: Lacey were married but students at at at cal Poly,
36:28
Speaker 3: and it seemed to have been a pattern with him
36:32
Speaker 3: there for the time that there was that there, that
36:35
Speaker 3: there were more than these two affairs. So that's what
36:38
Speaker 3: I mean that that and all the bad decisions that
36:42
Speaker 3: he that he made in terms of how he handled
36:46
Speaker 3: himself in the immediate aftermath for disappearance, including his decision
36:50
Speaker 3: which he says was to try to keep everything copathetic
36:53
Speaker 3: with Amber. And that's he says why he maintained those.
36:55
Speaker 2: Phone Yeah, agree that was gross.
36:58
Speaker 3: But the phone call exactly. The phone calls go beyond
37:01
Speaker 3: trying to keep things, you know, So there were there
37:05
Speaker 3: are all kinds of decisions that he made that were
37:07
Speaker 3: terrible decisions. I think, knowing the evidence the way that
37:10
Speaker 3: I do, though, I'm not at all uncomfortable saying that
37:15
Speaker 3: those are bad decisions. Some of them speak to bad character.
37:19
Speaker 3: But there's absolutely no evidence that he committed the crime.
37:21
Speaker 3: And when the other thing that we looked at is
37:24
Speaker 3: how difficult it would have been for him to commit
37:26
Speaker 3: the crime. You know, this is all done in broad daylight,
37:30
Speaker 3: and he moves the body three times, so he has
37:32
Speaker 3: to move the body from his home into his truck.
37:36
Speaker 3: The eyewitnesses Christ Debenwolf, who saw him that morning waved
37:41
Speaker 3: to him when she was out on the street, says
37:43
Speaker 3: that his truck was pointed into the driveway with the
37:46
Speaker 3: bed of the truck open.
37:48
Speaker 2: Right like, why wouldn't he turn the truck around?
37:50
Speaker 3: He didn't turn the truck around and back it in.
37:52
Speaker 1: The boat would have sunk that the body. I don't know,
37:55
Speaker 1: when you there's a is a cadaver obviously heavier once
37:59
Speaker 1: to what's just dead.
38:01
Speaker 2: Is it heavier than a body that's alive.
38:03
Speaker 3: And it's a pregnant woman, and you have to and
38:05
Speaker 3: you would have to anchor the body down as well.
38:08
Speaker 3: So there, you know, the defense attempted to put into evidence, uh,
38:14
Speaker 3: this recreation where they had someone attempt to take a
38:18
Speaker 3: body with anchors of the same weight and size over
38:23
Speaker 3: the side. The judge just allowed it. At the time,
38:26
Speaker 3: I tended to agree with him only because the re
38:30
Speaker 3: enactment was sort of hamhanded, and you know, and the
38:34
Speaker 3: boat turns over and the guy falls in and all
38:36
Speaker 3: the rest. But it's definitely a difficult feat to take
38:43
Speaker 3: a pregnant woman of that size and weight, put anchors
38:46
Speaker 3: on her, put it and take her out in a
38:48
Speaker 3: shallow bottom boat in San Francisco Bay. This is not
38:52
Speaker 3: some small estuary. This has got major wave action. And
38:56
Speaker 3: he of us have done escape from Alcatraz to triathlon
38:58
Speaker 3: it's done out there. Know that it's freezing cold and
39:01
Speaker 3: the wave action is huge. You get knocked about if
39:04
Speaker 3: you try to swim in San Francisco. So it's the
39:10
Speaker 3: idea that you would take that boat out toward Brooks
39:12
Speaker 3: Island and lift that body out anchored down and keep
39:17
Speaker 3: that boat that shallow bottomed fishing, right, It's not that
39:22
Speaker 3: that reasonable. So I don't I don't differ with the
39:24
Speaker 3: fact that the defense wanted to present that to the
39:26
Speaker 3: jury and the judgement allow them to and that's a
39:29
Speaker 3: that's a legitimate decision.
39:45
Speaker 1: I have questions for you about what happens now, but
39:48
Speaker 1: I can't help in my head is spinning with the handwriting,
39:51
Speaker 1: because that was a big thing, right, Like, why didn't
39:54
Speaker 1: anyone know that he was buying this boat? He was
39:55
Speaker 1: buying it for his quote unquote father in law for Christmas.
39:59
Speaker 1: That doesn't seem that doesn't seem feasible. And she didn't know,
40:02
Speaker 1: Lacey didn't know about it. And then you see the
40:04
Speaker 1: post it notes talking about what's needed for the boat.
40:08
Speaker 1: I don't know whether it's the anchors or whatever. And
40:09
Speaker 1: it's Lacey's handwriting. Come on, exactly, you made the points,
40:15
Speaker 1: not me. I'm just completely blown away about it. I
40:18
Speaker 1: can't like what is going to happen now. So do
40:22
Speaker 1: you think he has a shot is this?
40:24
Speaker 2: I do you think that.
40:25
Speaker 1: Your work, your documentary is going to take off? I
40:29
Speaker 1: hope and open people's eyes. Do you think that it's
40:32
Speaker 1: going to help exonerate him. What do you think is
40:34
Speaker 1: going to happen now?
40:35
Speaker 3: When I represented Eric menandez I for over a decade,
40:40
Speaker 3: I used to tell him that until the narrative surrounding
40:44
Speaker 3: his case and his story in Lyle's story changes, it
40:48
Speaker 3: will be difficult to get relief. This, I think is
40:51
Speaker 3: a similar situation. We won the appeal for Eric and
40:58
Speaker 3: Lyle all the way up to the circuit decision. There
41:03
Speaker 3: it took Ryan Murphy's Monsters to change the narrative surrounding
41:08
Speaker 3: Eric and Lyle's case, and now they're parole eligible thanks
41:14
Speaker 3: to that story and that re examination of their entire background.
41:20
Speaker 3: I believe that this case needs to have the narrative
41:24
Speaker 3: re examined as well. I do think that this series,
41:27
Speaker 3: which is based on the work that the Los Angeles
41:29
Speaker 3: Citizens Project is doing, achieves that and is likely and
41:35
Speaker 3: should change the discussion. And I think it's necessary to
41:39
Speaker 3: change the discussion if you're going to get relief from
41:42
Speaker 3: the courts. Right now, this case is on its way
41:46
Speaker 3: up to the California Supreme Court, and there's a distinct
41:50
Speaker 3: possibility that the Innocence Project will have to go to
41:54
Speaker 3: the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals with this. If they're
41:57
Speaker 3: denied at the state court level, and the way that works,
42:00
Speaker 3: you know, your chances get narrower and narrower. But this
42:04
Speaker 3: is one of those cases that has issue upon issue
42:07
Speaker 3: upon issue, and new evidence upon new evidence.
42:11
Speaker 2: Yeah. Are you nervous for the blowback?
42:14
Speaker 3: Yeah? I think there will. First of all, we're going
42:16
Speaker 3: to have a version of the blowback that we had
42:19
Speaker 3: twenty four years ago for the next few months. And
42:23
Speaker 3: that's why I you know, raised the issue of the
42:25
Speaker 3: dog walker and you know, other pregnant women walking in
42:29
Speaker 3: the neighborhood and all the old stories that you used
42:31
Speaker 3: to hear that it turned out didn't really have any
42:33
Speaker 3: viability at all. I do think ironically though, the criminal investigators,
42:39
Speaker 3: we talked to them, we discussed, you know, the parameters
42:42
Speaker 3: of an interview, We did everything we could to accommodate them,
42:45
Speaker 3: and ultimately they chose not to step forward and talk.
42:49
Speaker 2: Yeah.
42:49
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that ultimately that's on them. These are
42:53
Speaker 3: people that have been willing to talk about this case
42:55
Speaker 3: for the last quarter century, and now that the Lost
42:58
Speaker 3: Citizens Project has shined this enormous light on how they
43:02
Speaker 3: handled the case, they don't want to so there's going
43:04
Speaker 3: to be there will be blowback, and and there is
43:08
Speaker 3: a large segment of the population who feels really very
43:12
Speaker 3: strongly about Scott Peterson also, so it's going to redo
43:15
Speaker 3: those discussions. What I what I hope you can avoid though,
43:19
Speaker 3: is a lot of talk about evidence that isn't evidence
43:23
Speaker 3: and old stories that aren't that aren't true. You know,
43:25
Speaker 3: we did everything we could to look top to bottom
43:28
Speaker 3: at this at the case, and you know, good with
43:32
Speaker 3: the bad.
43:32
Speaker 1: You know, I was I I'm telling you, I went
43:35
Speaker 1: from believing he did it to believing he's innocent.
43:38
Speaker 2: And I didn't expect that really. You know, my producer,
43:42
Speaker 2: one of my producers, Christy, She's like.
43:44
Speaker 1: I think maybe he was Amanda knoxed and we were
43:48
Speaker 1: it's but but but you know, my producers, more than
43:51
Speaker 1: more than I have, have done a lot of interviews
43:54
Speaker 1: about this case, all right, and they've produced a lot
43:57
Speaker 1: of podcasts on it, and I think that they were
44:02
Speaker 1: convinced as well that he did it. Everyone thinks he
44:05
Speaker 1: did it. I don't think so anymore. And it's heartbreaking,
44:10
Speaker 1: and I'm like nervous, I'm nervous for to come out.
44:13
Speaker 1: What's going to happen now I'm nervous for him, and
44:16
Speaker 1: you know, also, God forbid we ever take anything away
44:20
Speaker 1: from the pain of what Lacy's family has been through.
44:24
Speaker 1: And I hope that we're right that they maybe if
44:28
Speaker 1: there are doubts, they'll be you know, relieved to figure
44:33
Speaker 1: it out.
44:33
Speaker 2: And who actually killed their daughter?
44:36
Speaker 1: That does that is hard, you know, that's kind of
44:37
Speaker 1: a hard pill to swallow, just drudging this up in
44:39
Speaker 1: terms of them. But I watched it with honestly not
44:43
Speaker 1: an open mind. I was biased and I am now
44:46
Speaker 1: convinced that he did not do it. And regardless, he
44:49
Speaker 1: didn't get a fair trial.
44:50
Speaker 3: And there's never there's never been anyone that's given treatment
44:53
Speaker 3: to this story like this series. And because I'm involved
44:58
Speaker 3: in it, that sounds like a self serving state. But
45:00
Speaker 3: I you know, everyone that has looked at at the
45:03
Speaker 3: same reaction, and I mean you you are on the
45:06
Speaker 3: short list of the exclusive interviews that we've been giving
45:09
Speaker 3: about this. But everyone that is looking at this series
45:14
Speaker 3: that's about to premiere tomorrow night and getting some advanced
45:17
Speaker 3: looks are all saying the same thing, which is it's
45:22
Speaker 3: this is groundbreaking. It sort of changes the whole story.
45:24
Speaker 3: Well it does, and that's the work of the La
45:26
Speaker 3: Innocence Project, and I have to give the credit to them.
45:29
Speaker 2: Well, you have many, many, many times.
45:31
Speaker 3: When we were able to bring into experts to it
45:33
Speaker 3: though and get their feedback, it was it was amazing.
45:37
Speaker 3: It would many times not only agree with the findings
45:41
Speaker 3: that support Scott Peterson, but they would they would make
45:44
Speaker 3: their own findings and sort of expand on what the
45:47
Speaker 3: Innocence Projects done. And the series sort of almost takes
45:51
Speaker 3: it a step further with all of these independent experts
45:54
Speaker 3: who had nothing to do with the case at all,
45:57
Speaker 3: their findings were amazed.
46:00
Speaker 2: Listen.
46:01
Speaker 1: I mean, look at the Menendez brothers and I understand
46:04
Speaker 1: they're still behind bars, but you brought the whole country.
46:08
Speaker 2: You know, everybody.
46:10
Speaker 1: I well, I when I saw what happened, shifted my
46:14
Speaker 1: thought and I think I always had some feeling for them.
46:18
Speaker 1: Right to kill your own parents. Something went down there
46:20
Speaker 1: that was not right. But I definitely feel like they
46:26
Speaker 1: should be out of prison now, and that's because of
46:28
Speaker 1: the work that you did then and the work that
46:30
Speaker 1: you're doing now. I hope it gets I think it will.
46:33
Speaker 1: My bet is that this is going to change a
46:35
Speaker 1: lot of people's minds. I hope that it does, and
46:38
Speaker 1: I mean, I appreciate it. You are a truth seeker.
46:42
Speaker 1: So I don't know, I just I hope that everyone
46:46
Speaker 1: watches it because I'm telling you now, I'm I'm just
46:50
Speaker 1: stick for Scott Peterson. And it's weird to say that,
46:52
Speaker 1: right because I know the laziest parents out there, and
46:55
Speaker 1: I don't know.
46:56
Speaker 2: How that would be received.
46:57
Speaker 1: But I saw this thing, and I saw all the
47:00
Speaker 1: evidence you presented, and you've convinced me.
47:03
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, thank you.
47:04
Speaker 1: I I.
47:08
Speaker 3: Don't know what to say, uh, except that the team
47:11
Speaker 3: of people that were involved in this starting but the
47:17
Speaker 3: team of people at left, right and any are amazing.
47:20
Speaker 3: And I've been doing television for the last quarter century
47:24
Speaker 3: and it was the best experience I've had doing TV.
47:27
Speaker 3: They gave us the resources and the time, and they
47:30
Speaker 3: brought the best expert I mean, we went around the
47:32
Speaker 3: country meeting with, uh, some of the most esteemed experts
47:36
Speaker 3: to bring these questions to them. That takes a lot.
47:38
Speaker 3: They have a lot of other things on their plate.
47:40
Speaker 3: And so you know, you you know, because you produce,
47:45
Speaker 3: you know, your own show on this ongoing basis, which
47:50
Speaker 3: can't I can't fathom. We said it was going to
47:55
Speaker 3: be a month. No, I can't fathom. Because we said
47:57
Speaker 3: it was going to take a month to produce this,
47:58
Speaker 3: and it took six months. I can't imagine doing different stories,
48:03
Speaker 3: you know, and and back to back.
48:06
Speaker 2: And I appreciate, I appreciate that.
48:08
Speaker 3: So you should you shouldn't look as young as you do. Okay, Okay,
48:12
Speaker 3: well off, I mean that really sincerely.
48:16
Speaker 2: You know, not all heroes were capes Chris, Okay, but.
48:20
Speaker 3: Really I want to pay credit to all the people
48:21
Speaker 3: that weren't involved, because you know, it really really brilliant people,
48:28
Speaker 3: UH put their lives on hold to try to get
48:31
Speaker 3: this this right and to put it in front of
48:34
Speaker 3: right experts. And every time we went out, we came
48:38
Speaker 3: back saying, I can't I can't believe we got that interview.
48:41
Speaker 3: I can't believe what they had to say.
48:43
Speaker 1: That's just that's the whole thing it was. I can't
48:46
Speaker 1: believe it. I can't believe it. I can't believe it.
48:48
Speaker 1: Over and over and over again while watching this. All right,
48:51
Speaker 1: my friend, thank you, thank you so much for coming on,
48:54
Speaker 1: and thank you for doing God's work right