Latest / Legally Brunette / Legally Brunette: Scott Peterson (Part 2)

Transcript

Legally Brunette: Scott Peterson (Part 2) · Legally Brunette

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to Legally Brunette. I will be your
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: host today Emily Simpson along.
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: With Shane Okay.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Today, I am excited because we are bringing to you
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: the much anticipated part two of our Scott Peterson episodes.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: I'm sure if you haven't listened to the earlier one,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: make sure you go back and listen to our first
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: episode on Scott Peterson. Actually, I'd had so many people
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: that were reaching out and requesting Scott Peterson, and as
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: I said earlier, I wanted to wait until we got
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: to the point where I felt like we could talk
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: about and had enough to really dig our I don't know,
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: dig our teeth into the filing by the teeth, think
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: our teeth into the filing by the Los Angeles Innocence Project.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: So now that they've been representing Scott Peterson, they believe
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: that he's factually innocent. There's been a two part documentary
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: that has come out on their new findings and what
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: they've come across over there. You know, I believe they've
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: interviewed like over one hundred witnesses and they've done their discovery.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: So more than two decades after Scott Peterson was convicted,
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: something unexpected happened. A team of lawyers decided to take
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: another look, and what they say they found was enough
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: to fill over eight hundred pages of legal filings. The
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: Los Angeles Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to overturning wrongful convictions,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: took on Scott's case in twenty twenty three, and in
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: the spring of twenty twenty five, they filed a petition
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: arguing that the jury who convicted him never heard the
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: full story. The police had tunnel vision, that evidence pointing
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: elsewhere was ignored, dismissed, and in some cases allegedly destroyed.
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: They claimed the science used against him at trial was wrong.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: They claim witnesses were overlooked. They claim there's a burned van,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: a blood stained mattress, and a nearby burglary that were
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: never properly investigated. And they claimed that if any of
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: it had come to light back in two thousand and four,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: things might have looked very differently. A judge has already
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: pushed back, but the Innocence Project is adamant on proving
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Scott Peterson innocent. All right, let's just go back through
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: a little bit of a timeline and just do a
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: little bit procedurally where we're at with Scott Peterson. So
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: two thousand and five to twenty nineteen. Scott continues to
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: maintain his innocence and pursues direct appeals in habeas Corpus
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: claims he has maintained his innocence this entire time.
• 2:25
  Speaker 3: They all do, they all do. You're right until they don't.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Right. Then we get to August twenty fourth of twenty twenty.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: I just want to jump ahead to the California Supreme
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: Court unanimously overturning Scott's death sentence. The court found that
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: prospective jurors were improperly dismissed merely because they expressed general
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: opposition to capital punishment. However, his murder convictions remain intact.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: In December eighth of twenty twenty one, he's resentenced to
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: life in prison without the possibility of parole for Lacey's murder,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: with an additional concurrent sentence for Connor's death. Members of
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: Lacey's family deliver emotion victim impact statements. All right, now,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: we're going to jump to January of twenty twenty four.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: This is when the Los Angeles Innocence Project announces that
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: it is representing Scott and investigating his claim of actual innocence.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Scott's attorneys seek additional DNA testing on several pieces of evidence,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: including items connected to the burglary across from the Peterson
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: home and a burned out van that was found in
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: the area. By May of twenty twenty four, a judge
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: permits limited DNA testing on duct tape recovered from Lacey's clothing,
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: but denies testing on most of the other requested items.
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: From twenty twenty five to twenty twenty six, the Los
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: Angeles Innocence Project continues to challenge Scott's conviction, arguing that
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: undisclosed or untested evidence could undermine confidence in the verdict.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: In April of twenty twenty six, a judge denies the
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: Los Angeles Innocence Project's petitions seeking to overturn Scott's conviction.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: The court leaves the first degree and second degree murder
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: convictions in place. They are obviously appealing that, of course,
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: you know. And my other question is, why wouldn't you
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: just test all of the all of the evidence.
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: Why some things aren't admissible? I don't know what that
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: might be in this case.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I just feel like we could end
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: all of the.
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: The Well, you know what else you can do to
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: end it all?
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: When everyone's born, You take their DNA and you put
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: it in a database, and then anytime there's a crime
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: you can slok it up. But there are reasons to
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: not do that because you got to you gotta draw
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: a line somewhere.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Well, I understand that, because that's a constitutional issue of
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: whether that's some type of you know, constitutional violation by
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: taking everyone's DNA when they're born. I don't know, However,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: I'm just saying, if there is DNA evidence, or if
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: there is evidence in this case that has been collected
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: and has been preserved, and here we are twenty years later,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: and it could be tested to see if it has
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: any of Lacey's DNA on it, which would completely exonerate
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: Scott or why not just or not? Or not?
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: What not exonerate him or not exonerate him?
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: Exactly, That's what I'm saying. All right. Then we get
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: to present day, this is very recently in twenty twenty
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: six A and he announces Scott Peterson the New Evidence,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: which examines allegations that authorities mishandled parts of the investigation
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: and revisits alternative theories and disputed evidence. Okay, so I
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: watched it's a two part it's long, it's two parts
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: on A and E, and it's basically it's two parts.
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: But you watched more than two parts.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: Well, I watched two parts, and then I went back
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: and watched half of the first part again with the
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: intention of watching the whole thing, but I ended up
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: falling asleep. But I did watch the two parts. I
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: also have the petition that the Los Angeles Innocence Project
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: filed on his behalf, which is eight hundred and fifty
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: four pages. I could not read the whole thing, but
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: I did go through and try to pick out a
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: lot of the allegations that they're making that I felt
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: were very compelling. As far as his I guess we
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: could say possible innocence in this situation.
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: Well before we get into it.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: I think it's very important that everyone listening be very
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: open minded because so many people when the La Innocent's
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: Project first announced that they were representing Scott Peterson, I
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: had so many people DM me and they were not
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: happy about it. And I would say, I don't know
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: this as a fact, but I would say the Los
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: Angeles Ennos's project probably has gotten their fair share of
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: heat from people as to why would they represent him.
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: He's a murderer, he's a horrible person, all those things. However,
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: if you ask anyone about Scott Peterson, the first thing
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: they will tell you is that he's absolutely guilty. He
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: did it. He murdered his wife. He's a horrible person.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: But then if you ask anyone what evidence is there,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: no one could.
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: Answer that you've tested that.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: No, I'm just saying I think that's a common note.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Well in the episodes, you know, I mean, they have
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: the comments.
• 6:49
  Speaker 3: Okay, well five years ago when you thought he was guilty,
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: and if I were to ask you why you thought
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: he was guilty, what would you say?
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been able to name any evidence that
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: I felt like was compelling enough.
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: I would have to say you found him guilty.
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: I did because I went along with everyone else. It's like,
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: always a horrible person, and he was having an affair,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: and he looks horrible in his interviews, and his demeanor
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: is off, and he doesn't seem to care, and he
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: seems cold, and he seems disinterested, and maybe he is.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: Maybe he didn't.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Care that she was gone.
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: Maybe he thought he got lucky.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Maybe he was like this nic, this is great. Now
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: I can go ahead and have this affair with Amber Fry.
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: And maybe I hired those robbers to kill her.
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: Well I never and then that didn't work out, And
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: now he's upset and he's like, that didn't work out.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: Well I never thought about that. But that's a different theory.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: All right, let's talk about the evidence at that the
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: Los Angeles Ennocence Project is providing and why they think
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: that he is factually innocent. So again, I just want
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: to reiterate, there's no forensic evidence in the house, the truck,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: the boat, or the boat cover, and there's no viable
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: evidence against Scott. Basically, what they were saying is that
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: there's only demeanor evidence. What do you think that means
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: when they're like, there's just all this demeanor evidence.
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: A meaner evidence. I don't know. Basically it looks like
• 8:02
  Speaker 3: a jerk.
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Basically, yeah, demeanor.
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: Evidence, which isn't really evidence.
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: So the LA Innocence Project, there's really two types of
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: evidence in this situation. For me, it was there was
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: the scientific evidence that they put forward that they say
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: that what was used in the trial was outdated and
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: not at and not it was more like junk science basically.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: And then there's also evidence of malicious prosecution of evidence
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: being destroyed.
• 8:29
  Speaker 3: But what's the junk science in this case.
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: Well, there were two things, so let's talk about those. First,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: there was the fetal growth charts that were used. That's
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: the first piece of evidence that they really talk about.
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: They say that there was so they during the trial,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: there was a doctor who was the expert witness for
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: the prosecution. His name was doctor Devour I believe, and
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: he testified for the prosecution that based upon you know,
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: some fetal growth chart I assume he's an obstetrician that
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: he used. He calculated that when they found Connor's body
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: that his date of death would have in December twenty fourth.
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: So obviously the prosecution wants to nail.
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: Down when did they find this body.
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: It was found in April, I know, so in April. Yeah,
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: it's been in the bay or.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Something in the bay water, yes, for four months, and.
• 9:13
  Speaker 3: They're able to determine specifically December twenty fourth.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Well, that seems very far fetched to me, but that
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: is what he testified to during the trial, and so
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: he was the expert witness for the prosecution, and that
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: he testified that the date of death for Connor was
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: on twelve twenty four, which obviously him testifying to that
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: means that there's no alternative. It doesn't mean that she
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: was abducted. It can't have any other interpretation other than
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Connor died at the house because she was home on
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: the twenty fourth, Right, Yeah, So that was very compelling
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: for the jury to hear. Right, And I don't believe
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: that the defense had any type of rebuttal witness or
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: rebuttal expert to go against what he was saying. So
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: I have seen where they've interviewed jurors who said that
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: that testimony weighed very much in their decision. Now the
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: Innocence Project is saying the growth charts that he used
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: or whatever academia that he used, was from nineteen eighty four,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: it was outdated, and that it's not reliable, and now
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: there are these updated growth charts that should be used.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: And if you use these updated growth charts now it's
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: more of a range that he had possibly died sometime
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: between December twenty fourth and January fifth, something like that,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: which seems obviously more viable too, because you're talking about
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: a range, we're talking about a gestational age of unborn child.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: So that's one scientific evidence that they put forward in
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: their petition. The second thing is that was very compelling
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: for the jury was that a expert, I think it
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: was doctor Chang maybe testified during trial that the point
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: of entry where the bodies were dumped was right where
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: Scott had been fishing.
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: How do they know that?
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: He said he used water patterns or something.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's not what this expert used for a trial.
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: He only used wind analysis or something to say that
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: if the bodies were that the bodies were dumped where
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: Scott had been fishing, because then based upon the wind
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: during that time period of those four months or whatever,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: then the bodies would have come up where they found them.
• 11:26
  Speaker 3: This guy has a job where he just says the
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: wind carried the body this way.
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, may I paid like top dollar to testify that.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: Well, I I he's an expert whatever that means. But
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: to me again, using wind patterns and then miraculously saying that, yeah,
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: the bodies would have been dumped right where Scott was fishing.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: And he's he's, you know, testifying for the prosecution, it.
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: Seemed didn't didn't the bodies have anchors on him? Sender
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: block anchors or something, or cement block anchors. Yeah, did
• 11:56
  Speaker 3: he calculate that in the wind patterns?
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: I don't know, that's a good question, but it seems
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: very interesting that he testified as an expert. The jury
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: used that testimony for their decision, and he used some
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: type of wind pattern. Basically, the La Innocence Project said
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: that there's much updated information and scientific information now. They
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: used a different you know, expert who used some hydro model.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: I don't really understand it. I'm not a scientific expert,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: but anyway, he used some different type of modeling system
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: that's much more updated that uses wind and titled data,
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: and basically he came to the conclusion that the bodies
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: would have been dumped into the bay in this point,
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: this place called Point Loma, not where Scott Peterson was fishing,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: a different entry point.
• 12:39
  Speaker 3: Still, that's I don't know about that. Even I don't know.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: I'm just telling you those are two scientific arguments that
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: the innocence at.
• 12:47
  Speaker 3: The common sense argument that's too like far fetch that
• 12:51
  Speaker 3: you can just look at the wind and determine how
• 12:54
  Speaker 3: a body maneuvered over months?
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: Are you talking about in the original testimony.
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: About any of this test money either even the rebuttable one,
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: even the new one sounds like junk science.
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: It's enough to raise doubt.
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: I agree. The scientific evidence for me is the least
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: compelling in the LA Innocence Projects filing, because, first of all,
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: I'm not a scientific person, so when I read it,
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: I have to read it multiple times to even understand
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: what it is. My takeaway is basically what they're saying
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: is they used out dated information from the prosecution on
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: these experts to come up with these scenarios, and that
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: it's basically junk science, and that now there's much more,
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: you know, more scientific, better ways to figure these things out.
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: Now, don't Gara goes challenge it at that time.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I have a lot of questions about
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: the first trial. I mean, there's a lot of things
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: that I think were.
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: I mean, it's not like it's if it's considered outdated.
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: Was it not outdated in four it was out it
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: since been outdated?
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: No, I would assume. I mean, these growth charts that
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: he used for the gestational age of the baby were
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: from like nineteen eighty four, so I think that it
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: should have been challenged at that point. Maybe he did.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know. All I know is that they I
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: know the Innocence Project interviewed the jurors and that the
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: jurors admitted that that scientific evidence that was presented by
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: the prosecution was very compelling and led to a guilty verdict.
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: So I'm saying, if you could now rebut that scientific
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: evidence and say it wasn't done well, it wasn't done correctly.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: You know, there's more science that's better apped being able
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: to figure this out, and it doesn't lead to the
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: same conclusion. It leads to the bodies being dumped at
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: a different point, which is Point Loma, which actually makes
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: more sense because the Point Loma where this new scientific
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: information is saying that's where most likely the bodies were
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: dumped from. I think dumped that sounds I don't know
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: what you do it with. The body were placed into
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: the water is more of a hidden area. It's not
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: a marina type with boats and boats and things like that.
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: It's more wooded and remote, So that makes more sense anyway,
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: if someone's going to put a body into the water,
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: that it's done from an area like that, as opposed
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: to a busy marina where they claim Scott Peterson put
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: the body into the water.
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I just find that all very not compelling one
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: way or another. Like I would just toss all that
• 15:22
  Speaker 3: out and be like, right, show me the DNA.
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: All right, let's get into some other things that they
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: talk about. This is not everything. I would suggest everyone
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: watched the A and E special because I cannot get
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: into absolutely every argument that they make, or we would
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: have an episode that was ten hours long. But I've
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: just pulled some things out that to me I found
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: compelling in their arguments. Also, there's the boat cover, So
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: the prosecution claims that the boat cover was used to
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: conceal Lacey's body. They had to say that the boat
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: was covered, because how else do you have a very shallow.
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: Tin boat as you call it.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah, aluminum, small fishing boat attached to his truck that
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: he drives ninety miles to a busy marina with lots
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: of people around, and he's having conversations with people about
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: fishing in that day, and you have a body in
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: the back of the boat unless there's a boat.
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: Maybe that's the genius of it. Maybe he thinks, Hey,
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: if I go have all these conversations with these people
• 16:27
  Speaker 3: with my boat attached to my car with a body,
• 16:32
  Speaker 3: I would be like, how would I have this body
• 16:35
  Speaker 3: when I talk to all these people. Maybe he's that smart, Yes.
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: But they've interviewed people that had talked to him that
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: day and no one noticed anything in the.
• 16:42
  Speaker 3: Boat because it was covered.
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: But he has to take the cover off at some
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: point to launch the boat into the water. You can't
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: launch the boat.
• 16:48
  Speaker 3: I didn't do it while he was having conversations with people.
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: I don't know, So the prosecution exactly, you don't know
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: that the boat cover was used to conceal Lacey's body. However,
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: now the La Innocent's Project has tested the boat cover
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: and it looks as if the boat cover was never used.
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: It has no wear and.
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: Tear, never used.
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: When was it acquired, Well, it was acquired with the boat,
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: so it was not used once.
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: He could have used it once to cover the body.
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: He drove ninety miles, so where and back through I
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: don't know.
• 17:19
  Speaker 3: So where was the boat cover? Where was it found?
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: I don't know where it was found. I don't I'm
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: just telling you these.
• 17:24
  Speaker 3: Are good questions. Are because you're saying it was never used.
• 17:28
  Speaker 3: You're saying they said it was never used.
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: They're saying that, and if he used the boat cover
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: to conceal it like the prosecution has claimed, because the
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: prosecution has to say he used a boat cover, because otherwise,
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: how do you how do you just or how do
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: you say that he drove from his house all the
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: way to a marina ninety miles with just a body
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: in the back.
• 17:47
  Speaker 3: Fair enough?
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: So they come up with, oh, he used a boat cover.
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: Fair enough.
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: So now they're rebutting that, saying he didn't use the
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: boat boat cover because we have the boat cover, and
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: the boat cover's never been used. There's no wear in.
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: The boat cover. And they said they've never been here us. Right, Well,
• 18:01
  Speaker 3: is there any DNA or anything that was in the boat.
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: No, there was no DNA found in the boat none zero,
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: No hair, no fiber, no DNA, no bodily fluid nothing zero.
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: And there's no blood, no DNA, no, no bodily fluid, no,
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: nothing found in his house. Also, there's no blood, no DNA,
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: no body, nothing, skin, sells, hair, nothing found at his warehouse.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: So again we have to in order for him to
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: be guilty. He has to be a complete mastermind criminal
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: who managed to clean four separate sits, four separate criminal
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: sights before that evening, and not while having an affair.
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: It's impressive.
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: It is impressive.
• 18:49
  Speaker 3: And selling fertilizer, and he sold fertilizer, and then he
• 18:52
  Speaker 3: sold her car.
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: And he sold that was later, but he did sell
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: her car.
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: This guy is a multitasker, yes, all right.
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: So Also it came out in this LA Innocence Project
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: filing that the lead detective, his name is Detective BROKINI
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: destroyed his investigative notes from December twenty fourth and twenty fifth.
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: He admits that on the stand in the first trial.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: I don't know why they were destroyed. There's no, there's
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: no he doesn't say why. It just happened. He just
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: destroyed them. I don't know why. Very suspicious though. Also
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: we talked about this in the first part the recorded
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: interrogation of Scott on twelve, twenty five oh two. We
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: talk about his demeanor, and that's what a lot of
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: people see because whenever you watch any kind of documentary
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: about Scott Peterson, they always show that interview and that's
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: where he's laving.
• 19:40
  Speaker 3: It's also the only interview he's ever done, I imagine.
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: Well with the police, right, right, and it shows him
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: and everyone hates him because he's very nonchalant in the
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: interview and he's like leaning back in his chair. He
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: takes a phone call in the middle of the interview. Anyway,
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: what people fail to realize, which was in this filing,
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: is that that was his fourth interview that day. They
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: did not record the first three. So this was his
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: fourth one.
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: What were the first three? Four?
• 20:08
  Speaker 3: Were they with law enforcement?
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: Yes? This that was his fourth with law enforcement. He
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: had been interviewed multiple times and asked the same questions
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: over and over.
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: So by the time, how is this repeating the answers?
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: Right, So, by the time they recorded this interview, which
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: is the one they show repeatedly over and over, this
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: was his fourth time answering the same questions over and
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: over about what did you do that day? Where did
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: you go? What did Lacy do?
• 20:30
  Speaker 3: Interesting, So just something to.
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: Keep in mind. Also, one of the big arguments that
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: the prosecution made in the trial and that led to
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: him being convicted of a first degree premeditated murder, was
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: that they very they very much led the charge that
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: the boat he purchased, was done in secret, and it
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: was done with the premeditation.
• 20:51
  Speaker 3: What is what proof is there that it was done
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: in secret for them to make that claim, Well.
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: They just they claimed that no one knew about it,
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: that Lacy didn't know about it, and that no one
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: in his family knew about it.
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: How many men out there have bought themselves a boat
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: or something fishing gear and not tell her wise?
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sure a lot, right, But the point.
• 21:12
  Speaker 3: Is doesn't make them a murder.
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: The prosecution hammered very much in the trial that the
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: boat was bought in secret and it was bought with
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: the intent of using it to So where was.
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: The defense team?
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: What did they say?
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: Well, I do know that the defense made a video
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: using that same boat. I don't know if it was
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: the exact same boat where they bought a replica of
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: the boat, but they actually took that boat out into
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: the marina and then they put like his it was
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: Giagros's like law clerk or something that I think weighed
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: the same as Lacey. They put him into the boat. Yeah,
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: and they tried to recreate whether Scott.
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: Would dump him or her in where they claim it
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: was dumped and wait four months and see wind patterns
• 21:56
  Speaker 3: proved them correct.
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but the wind patters and the title patterns would
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: have to be the same exactly.
• 22:00
  Speaker 3: No one knows even there's someone out there recording exact
• 22:04
  Speaker 3: wind patterns. Doubt it any federal wind patterns for the
• 22:09
  Speaker 3: city or kind of for the weather, but not like
• 22:11
  Speaker 3: and then it went over here three feet and then
• 22:14
  Speaker 3: it went over here, and that's right.
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: Anyway, back to the boat. They were hammering in that
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: the boat was bought in secret. However, the La Innocence
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: Project has uncovered evidence in Lacy's handwriting that she had
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: written down notes about the boat and marina and things
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: like that. So this is when they talk about new evidence.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: This is some of the new evidence that they have,
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: which then disputes the fact that the prosecution is claiming
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: that he bought it in secret with the sole purpose
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: of using it to get rid of her body, that
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: he had planned to kill her, bought the boat with
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: the intent of then getting rid of the body. So
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: I don't think they had anything at that time during
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: the first trial to refute this accusation that the prosecution makes.
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: Now they do. They have hand written notes by her
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: about the boat.
• 23:02
  Speaker 3: Which does say about the boat.
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: I don't know. They showed it in the in the episode.
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: I don't I couldn't like to see. No, I don't
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: even know. It's just like she's just writing things down.
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: And they did like a whole hand handwriting analysis with
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: a you know, an expert in handwriting to confirm that
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: it was actually her handwriting and not Scott's handwriting. But
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: I mean, the handwriting analysis was confirmed by their expert
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: that it was her handwriting. It was about the boat.
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: There you go. It wasn't a secret. He didn't buy
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: it to get rid of her body.
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: If that those writings were about the boat and were
• 23:38
  Speaker 3: down by her, then yeah, she was aware of a vote.
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: This to me, This next, this next evidence that we're
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: going to talk about, for me, is the most compelling
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: as far as Scott not being the culprit. So the
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: Innocence Project has uncovered and this has talked about in
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: other documentaries that I've watched, but not to this detail
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: that there were or at least fifteen witnesses that saw
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: Lacey out walking their dog that day, sometime between the
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: timeframe of nine forty five am and ten thirty to
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: eleven somewhere like ninety five and eleven, and the police
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: never followed up on these sightings. Why do you think
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: they didn't follow up on these sightings? I don't know.
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: This is what they talk about. They talk about confirmation bias.
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: Have you ever heard of that confirmation bias?
• 24:24
  Speaker 3: Well, was that when I think it's someone, so they
• 24:25
  Speaker 3: just zero in on that person, so all the evidence
• 24:28
  Speaker 3: leads to that person.
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: So confirmation bias is a people a person's tendency to
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: process information by looking for or interpreting information that is
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: consistent with their existing beliefs. This bias approach to decision
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. So I
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: think one of the biggest arguments is that the police
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: department narrowed in on Scott right from the get go
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: because of his demeanor. They just didn't like him, they
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: don't like the way he answered the questions they add
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: and then the rest of the investigation was tainted by
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: confirmation bias, meaning that anything else that came up in
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: their investigation that could lead away from him they chose
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: to ignore and to not.
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: Well, he made it easy for them too. I mean
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: he's selling her car the way you know, he his
• 25:21
  Speaker 3: allegations of having an affair, then claiming she knew, like
• 25:26
  Speaker 3: you said in Part one, doesn't look good.
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: No, it doesn't look good. And I think that's why.
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: All and he did a lot of things to make
• 25:33
  Speaker 3: himself look bad. Whether he did it or not, those
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: things make him look.
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: Bad, all right. But let's talk about the timeline. So
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: the prosecution in the first trial hammered home that Scott
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: left his house around nine to fifty in the morning
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: in order to get to work by ten o'clock. Because
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: he logs into his work computer around ten. That means
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: that Lacy had to have been murdered, had to been
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: killed in the home before nine p fifty. Now you've
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: got fifteen different witnesses out there that all claim that
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: they saw walking the dog Mackenzie between nine forty five
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: and eleven around eleven in the morning. That those sightings
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: all refute the fact that she was killed before ten
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: am when he left for work. So they were not
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: investigated by the police department. But how can you have
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: fifteen different people all within and a third mile of
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: this area where she walks the dog and this I
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: think it's called the neighborhood Lo Loma Park where she
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: goes to walk Mackenzie. And they're all saying they saw
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: a pregnant woman who looks like Lacey, with shiny black hair,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: who has a golden retriever. They also several of them
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: claim that she was struggling with the dog and that
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: she had black pants and a white top on. You
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: cannot not investigate that. That completely kills the idea, sorry,
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: pardon my pun, that he murdered her before he left
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: for work. There's all these sightings of her after that timeframe.
• 26:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah, there's enough to doubt it.
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: Wait, where are those fifteen people now?
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: Well, they interviewed some of them for this documentary, and
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: it was very interesting to me because when they interviewed them,
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: they were adamant about what they saw. They said, I
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: know it was her. It's the girl from the poster.
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: She looked like this. This is what she was wearing.
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: I saw her at this time. And it's all within
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: it's not and it's not crazy, different sightings in all
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: these different areas.
• 27:22
  Speaker 2: It's always enough, and it's not reports like months later.
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: No, it's all on It's December twenty.
• 27:27
  Speaker 3: Five during the investigation right after the missing person report,
• 27:31
  Speaker 3: there was.
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: Another witness that they interviewed in this documentary. His last
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: name is Phrtis fri I t As. I don't have
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: his first name written down, but they did have his
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: statement and they showed it to him and it was
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: altered and signed by him, but he never He says
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: that he never wrote that and he never signed it.
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: So not only were people ignored who said that they
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: saw her, and they were not investigated, they were not
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: followed up on, they were not called, they didn't get
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: statements from them, they were not in trial. They didn't
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: And I don't understand. I don't know what happened with Geragos,
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: why he wasn't aware of these fifteen people, and why
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: they all, all of them weren't lined up in court
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: to testify for the defense omissible.
• 28:13
  Speaker 3: I don't know what would be make it inadmissible.
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: This is what she was wearing. She was struggling with
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: the dog. This is the time I saw.
• 28:19
  Speaker 3: They probably draw a map of the approximate times they
• 28:23
  Speaker 3: believe they saw her to see if there was some
• 28:25
  Speaker 3: pattern for walking the dog. They did that normally she
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: would follow right some trail.
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: And they did that. In the documentary, they do that.
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: They actually make a timeline and they show the different
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: witnesses and where they're located in what her route was.
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: There was one person, her name was Diana Campos. She
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: saw Lacey walking the dog. And I guess her testimony
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: is more I don't know, more concrete, because she knows
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: exactly what time she saw her walking the dog because
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: she had to clock in at eleven am for work.
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: So she knows that she saw Lacey at ten forty
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: five am because she saw her while she was outside.
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: Reason what time? Over right, she.
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: Could pinpoint exactly what time it was because she said
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: that I believe she was standing outside smoking a cigarette
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: or something, waiting to go in to clock in, and
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: she clocks in at eleven, so she knew that she
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: saw her at ten forty five am. Again, the police,
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: the prosecution has Scott leaving the house by about nine
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: to fifty to get to work by ten and saying
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: that she was already dead at that time. And now
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: you've got all these sightings outside of that window of time.
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: The other thing is the burglary across the street. The
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: police have said that it happened on twelve twenty six.
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: That makes absolutely no sense. I know that the family
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: the Medina, it's called the Medina House. It's directly across
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: from Lacey and Scott's house. There's no way it could
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: have happened on twelve twenty six because Lacey went missing
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: on twelve twenty four. By twelve twenty six, her entire
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: neighborhood was covered with news vehicles, police yellow caution tape,
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: all the things. So there is no way that a
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: burglary took place directly across the street from a house
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: with a huge police presence and news trucks. That makes
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: absolutely no sense.
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: Maybe that's the perfect cover up. There's so much chaos
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: that one more van in this mix. No one would know.
• 30:22
  Speaker 3: But regardless, you're right, burglars would probably refrain from going
• 30:27
  Speaker 3: to an area where law enforcement is canvassing the area, right.
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: The La Innocence Project claims that the burglary took place
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: on twelve twenty four, and that they have nine new
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: witnesses that connect Lacy to this burglary.
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: And usually burglaries wouldn't they take place more likely the
• 30:44
  Speaker 3: day before Christmas of the day after.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: Well, it only makes sense to me. I mean, you
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: talked about this before in the first episode, but it
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: does make sense, Yeah, that the burglary would have taken
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: place when they left the family. The Medina family left
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: on twelve twenty four, all right, and it would only
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: make sense that it happens before Christmas, because what you
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: just want to steal all the Christmas gifts that are
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: under the treeation wait right, not wait till twelve twenty
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: six when everything's I don't know opened and put away
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: and I don't know. That doesn't make any sense to
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: me either. Anyway. The La Innocence Project claims to have
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: nine witnesses that saw a van in the area and
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: also saw an interaction between Lacy and people and some
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: men I guess two men driving the van. The van
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: is interesting because I know in the interview in this
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: new documentary, Garaghos talks about how he was looking for
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: this van because that was their defense, right, That's what
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: they were hanging their hat on for the defense. They're like,
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: we got to find this van. We got to figure
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: out when this burglary was. We got to That's how
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: you get reasonable doubt, is we have to connect the
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: two How do you have two major crimes across the
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: street from each other and they're not connected in any way.
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: That makes no sense, doubt right, So we have to
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: connect them. So I know he was looking for this van.
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: I don't know why he could not find the van,
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: but it now the La Innocence Project has information that
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: the van was actually found on twelve twenty five and
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: it was burnt and within this burnt van and it
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: was found it.
• 32:17
  Speaker 3: Was burnt burnt. Okay, So like possibly the criminals burned
• 32:22
  Speaker 3: the van, yes, okay.
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: And there is an area there is a mattress in
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: the van that has been tested which tested positive for
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: having blood on it. And the blood part is what
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: the Innocence Project wants tested. They want the DNA tested.
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: I believe with today's standards and how advanced the technology
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: is that they could test it for DNA. I believe
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: they're not. I think they've been declined in that area.
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: That's the part that doesn't make sense for me. If
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: you have a burned out van that was found in
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: the Airport district, which is right by Lacy Peterson's house,
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: which is the area where she walks her you've got
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: nine witnesses saying that they saw the van parked in
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: front of the Medina House on twelve twenty four. You've
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: got other witnesses claiming that they saw Lacy have an
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: interaction with these people that were getting into the van.
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: There is an actual former Reserve police officer, his name
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: is Tom Harshman, who has given statements that he saw
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: a pregnant woman being put into a van by two men.
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: He's given this statement a sworn affidavit that he saw
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: this on twelve twenty four between two and four pm.
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: That's a different timeline than her walking in the morning.
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: My question is why was all this not admitted because
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: it was suppressed?
• 33:37
  Speaker 3: Why though.
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: Rule of evidence was it suppressed.
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: It's not suppressed under any rule of evidence. They're claiming
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: that it was prosecutorial misconduct, that the police department was
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: honed in so much on Scott Peterson and that they
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: wanted him to be guilty, that all other evidence that
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: pointed in any other direction.
• 33:56
  Speaker 2: Is now available today when it wasn't gone back.
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: And they're interviewing witnesses and they.
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: Are okay discovery, But the interviewed witnesses came from a list, right,
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: I had to have it has to be in the
• 34:11
  Speaker 3: police report of some sort, the witnesses, the reportings. I
• 34:15
  Speaker 3: understand that they let it go and they they worked
• 34:17
  Speaker 3: around it and they dismissed it. But why didn't the
• 34:21
  Speaker 3: defense team see this list back then?
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: That's my question. Why wasn't it entertained back then?
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: I don't know. You'd have to ask Geragos about that.
• 34:29
  Speaker 3: I'm going to next Friday, all right.
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: You get on that and you ask him.
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: So it might be valid reasons.
• 34:35
  Speaker 3: I just wanted to know what they were.
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: No, they're not claiming there's valid reasons. They're claiming that
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: the evidence was suppressed and deleted and destroyed and gotten
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: rid of anything that takes anyone outside of the possibility
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: that Scott did. It has been destroyed, suppressed, hidden, not
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: followed up on right, So I don't Also, there's another witness.
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: Her name's Kristin Dimpwolf. I thought she was a really
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: interesting witness too, and I don't believe she testified or
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: not because of her last name, Dimpwolf is an interesting
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: last name, though I kind of like it. I wish
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: my last name was dump Wolf anyway. She is a
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: neighbor of Scott and Lacey, and she has stated that
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: she saw Scott the morning that he was leaving for work,
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: and that he was putting umbrellas like outdoor umbrellas in
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: the back of his truck.
• 35:29
  Speaker 3: But that I mean, is there an indoor umbrella?
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I don't know, like the big kind, like
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: the big outdoor umbrellas. You know that you pat umbrella. Yeah,
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: that he was putting them into the back of his truck.
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: But she claims that when she waved to him and
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: said hi and chatted with him a little bit when
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: he was putting these umbrellas in the back of his truck,
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: that the back of his truck was facing the road
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: so that she could see into the back of his truck.
• 35:54
  Speaker 3: Let me guess, Let me guess she didn't see any
• 35:56
  Speaker 3: dead bodies.
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: No, she didn't see any dead bodies. However, during the trial,
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: the prosecution claimed that the way he got the body
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: into the truck was that the truck was turned around
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: the other way and that the back of the truck
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: was hidden into the garage and that's how he was
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: managed to get the body from the house into the
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: back of the truck.
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: This sucks as it was today, there'd be a lot
• 36:18
  Speaker 3: of ring footage, there'd be something right to show other
• 36:23
  Speaker 3: than just the testimonies of the witnesses.
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: You're right, in two thousand and four, there wasn't any
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: of that. So it's now you're relying on people saying,
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: like fifteen different people saying I saw her here and
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: here and here and here and here, and then you're
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: trying to put a timeline together, and you're trying to
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: put a path together and draw it out on a
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: map to actually figure out where she was and if
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: she did leave the house. There's also some evidence and
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: I tried to find this again. I saw it the
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: first time I watched it where there was a correctional
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: officer who I believe reached out to the police. You
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: know how when the people that were arrested for the burglary,
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: because there were two men that were arrested for.
• 37:14
  Speaker 3: They were Yeah, when were they arrested, like like obviously
• 37:18
  Speaker 3: after the van burned, they burned the van.
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: Then they got caught later, Yeah.
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: They did get caught and they were arrested, and I
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: don't know they also.
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: I also maintain their innocence.
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: No, but they maintained that they had nothing to do
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: with with Lacy Peterson right, But I think they But
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: I do believe, and people find this suspicious. I don't know.
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: You can say whatever you want, but the fact that
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: they were caught, and I believe that they caught, they
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: took a plea deal immediately. There was no trial. It
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: was like, yeah, we did it, we did this burglary.
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: It was all wrapped up in all nice and neat.
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: Because I think that, I mean, I don't know. Maybe
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: it's because it's the assumption that you don't want them
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: to go to trial and you don't want them to
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: talk about things. You don't want other evidence to come out.
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: If the police department wanted to button that up really.
• 37:55
  Speaker 3: Quid and be done with it, right.
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: So there's some other evidence of a security guard who
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: was in a prison I believe where those guys that
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: were busted for the burglary were in prison and were
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: having conversations over the phone and recorded phone calls talking
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: about Lacy and talking about a pregnant woman, and he
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: told I don't know exactly what the conversation entailed, but
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: he told police I believe, on two different times that
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: he had evidence of it. And I don't think the
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: tapes were ever found or they were ever pursued. That's
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: more evidence that maybe something possibly happened between the burglaries
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: on twenty twenty four.
• 38:32
  Speaker 3: You're just trying to cast a little bit of doubt. Yeah,
• 38:37
  Speaker 3: that's all you need. So it's not he's innocent, it's
• 38:43
  Speaker 3: he's not guilty, which means there's not enough evidence to
• 38:47
  Speaker 3: find him guilty. It does not mean he did or
• 38:49
  Speaker 3: did not do it. When you find someone good, people
• 38:51
  Speaker 3: always say that about court cases. Oh he was found innocent,
• 38:54
  Speaker 3: Oh he was in it. No, he was not guilty
• 38:56
  Speaker 3: by a matter of law.
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: Well, the La Innocent Project is working to find him factually.
• 39:02
  Speaker 3: However, they don't have to go that far.
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: But you're correct that in the first trial, all Garrigos
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: had to do was present reasonable doubt. And now that
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: we're talking about all these other witnesses, the van, the fire,
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: the DNA, the mattress, the bloody mattress, all these things
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: create reasonable doubt as to Scott Peterson. But why they
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: weren't presented, I assume, is because it was suppressed and
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: he did not have access to any of these things,
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: and therefore he could not use them at trial. The
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: question is should he get a new trial? Based upon
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: this new evidence that's come out. That's the question.
• 39:37
  Speaker 3: You told me it wasn't suppressed. When I say, asked
• 39:39
  Speaker 3: why it was suppressed, you said, the law enforcement just
• 39:42
  Speaker 3: didn't pursue it.
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: It's a combination. It's a combination of them not pursuing
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: leads and also suppressing evidence.
• 39:50
  Speaker 3: What would be the strongest piece of evidence that would
• 39:52
  Speaker 3: show guilt show guilt?
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: Well, obviously all the evidence against him is circumstantial, there's
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: no direct.
• 40:00
  Speaker 2: What's the one that's the most damning.
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: The one that's the most damning for me from my perspective,
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: is the fact that the bodies did surface right where
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: he was fishing in the bay like that, I mean,
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: it can be coincidental. Also, you know, there is if
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: you take the new scientific evidence, which places the gestational
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: age of Connor at more of a range between December
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: I believe it was like December twenty fourth and January fifth,
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: then you can go with the possible theory that she
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: was abducted by the burglars because she confronted them and
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: she saw them, and then they grabbed her and put
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: her into the van and then they were like crap,
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: now what do we do? We got to get rid
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: of this witness, and we got to get rid of
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: this body, and then they ended up dumping her where
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: her dumb ex husband or her dumb husband was fishing,
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: because they did report from the very very beginning, the
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: media reported where he was fishing.
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: So everybody knew is that.
• 40:58
  Speaker 3: Had a permit.
• 41:00
  Speaker 2: He had a permit, and he said, I thought it
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: was on record.
• 41:02
  Speaker 3: I think he didn't deny it, right.
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: And when he was questioned, what were you doing, he said,
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: I went fishing, and this is where I was fishing.
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: And so immediately when she was missing and the news
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: were reporting it, it was known by everyone globally that
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: he was fishing in the Berkeley Marina on twelve twenty four.
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: So I'm saying you could say possibly that if she
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: was abducted by the guys that were involved in this
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: burglary and she was put into a van and then
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: she was killed in the van, and then they had
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: to get rid of the body, the smartest place to
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: get rid of the body is where her husband was
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: fishing that everybody knew about. I don't know if that
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: sounds far fetched or ridiculous, but okay, it's always a possibility,
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: all right, just one more thing I want to talk about.
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: They used cadaver dogs. And you know, we've talked about
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: cadaver dogs before because it was like, how long does
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: the body have to be dead before a cadaver dog
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: can pick up that scent. I've always wondered that, Right,
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: We've talked about that before. Yeah, anyway, they used cadaver dogs.
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: The caver dogs did not hit on any of the
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: places where supposed.
• 42:06
  Speaker 3: They have the cadaver dogs swim around the bay.
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: Well, they didn't swim in the bay. They went to
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: the bay.
• 42:11
  Speaker 3: Then they could find the patterns of where the body
• 42:14
  Speaker 3: floated around.
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: Right, No, but the cadaver dogs did not hit in
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: the house, They didn't hit in the boat, and I
• 42:19
  Speaker 1: don't believe they hit at the marina.
• 42:20
  Speaker 3: But there does not mean there was nobody there. It
• 42:22
  Speaker 3: just means they didn't pick up a scent.
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: Right. But also there is a difference between cadaver dogs
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: and scent dogs. So not only did they use cadaver dogs,
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: they use scent dogs. Now, a scent dog did pick
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: up a scent at the marina, and I believe in
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: the first trial this was another thing they used to
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: convict him or the jury placed a lot of weight
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: on was that her scent was supposedly picked up at
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: the marina, meaning that he had transported her there. However,
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: now someone claims that the slipper that they used for
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: the scent dog to pick up her scent wasn't her slipper,
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: it was Scott's slip, which would mean that the scent
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: dog was at the marina picking up scott scent and
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: not hers. Anyway, that's just another piece of information to
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: throw out there.
• 43:09
  Speaker 3: Slippers.
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I knew that's where your mind was going to go,
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: not to like the legal analysis or the scent dog.
• 43:16
  Speaker 3: But why does he have slippers?
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: He wears he looks like a guy that would wear slippers,
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: doesn't he.
• 43:21
  Speaker 3: It's not a good look.
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: I know it's not a good look. He looks like
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: a slipperman.
• 43:24
  Speaker 3: Wait were these slippers unisex? Were they not brown leather slippers?
• 43:30
  Speaker 3: And they thought they were hers? No, they were brown,
• 43:32
  Speaker 3: and so did they think they were hers?
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: I don't know. The scent handler, the scent dog handler
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: picked up a slipper and assumed it was hers and
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: used that and then they picked the dog picks up
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: the scent at the marina.
• 43:42
  Speaker 3: But junk science.
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: Junk science, just some more information that was put into
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: this new filing. So we're just picking apart all all
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: the prosecution's arguments the first time around. All right, well,
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: for you all this new evidence that we went through,
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: which was not all of it by any means, but
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: it was some of the things I picked out. What
• 44:01
  Speaker 1: is the most compelling for you?
• 44:03
  Speaker 3: The witness testimony that coupled with the timeline that didn't
• 44:08
  Speaker 3: really add up, like he went to work really quickly. Yes,
• 44:11
  Speaker 3: and he was supposed to do all this When you
• 44:13
  Speaker 3: have a guy like Chris Watts in Colorado who killed
• 44:16
  Speaker 3: his wife and two kids in them and then he
• 44:17
  Speaker 3: went to work, right, and then it was very quick
• 44:20
  Speaker 3: to be reported that she was missing, and YadA, YadA, YadA.
• 44:23
  Speaker 3: That guy didn't have any time to hide, to conceal
• 44:28
  Speaker 3: bodies and evident all the bodies. He did the evidence
• 44:32
  Speaker 3: and everything. He had no time to come up with
• 44:35
  Speaker 3: a game plan. But yet Scott Peterson supposedly masterminded everything
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: and buttoned up all the cleaning and everything and managed
• 44:45
  Speaker 3: to go fishing and go to work and do all
• 44:47
  Speaker 3: at the same time.
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: It's tough, yeah, and to clean all of those sites
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: where the body supposedly had been. It would have been
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: at home, it would have been it would have been
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: at work, and it would have been in the boat
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: he and there's no evidence DNA evidence are for or
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: anything in any of those places. So yes, he would
• 45:03
  Speaker 1: have had to have been a criminal mastermind that was
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: able to murder his wife in the house without leaving
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: any type of forensics behind, and then transport the body
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: without anybody seeing it ever, and then managed to not
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: have any DNA forensics or anything in any of the
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: places he took the body. And he did this in
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: the middle of the day at ten o'clock in the morning,
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: supposedly allegedly with neighbors walking by people waving to him,
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: taking her body to work where he would pick up
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: the boat, which was a busy area with a very
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: small space for him to back his truck in with
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: other businesses all around, at ten o'clock in the morning
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: where people are there, and then take the body to
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: a busy marina in the middle of the day with
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: light out and people talking to him about fishing. What
• 45:57
  Speaker 1: is the chances of him being able to do that
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: without leaving any forensics behind and without anyone ever seeing
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: a body, and a body is heavy and she's pregnant.
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: How do you get a body into the back of
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: your truck and then get the body out of the
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: back of your truck, and get the body into the boat,
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: and then get the body out of the boat.
• 46:17
  Speaker 3: And nobody sees any of this. That's the question only
• 46:19
  Speaker 3: Scott Peterson can answer. Oh, wait, he's not guilty. I forgot.
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: Is he guilty or not guilty?
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: I I think he's not guilty, and I'll probably get
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: a bunch of crap from people because of that. But
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: based upon everything I've read and the new evidence in
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: the filing by the La Innocence Project and all the
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: witness testimony, the fifteen different people that saw her walking
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: after this ten o'clock timeframe where he went to work,
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: and she had to have been dead by then for
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: him to have done it. She has to be dead
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: before ten am in the morning on twelve twenty four
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: for Scott Peterson to be guilty of her murder. Because
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: he goes to work and logs in on his computer
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: at ten o'clock in the morning, She's never seen again
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: after that. I mean, as far as what the prosecute
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: claims so that means that he had to murder her
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: in the home if she could have.
• 47:04
  Speaker 3: Been the night before.
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: When was the last time she was known to be alive.
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: Well, she had a conversation with her mom at eight
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: thirty in the evening on twelve twenties.
• 47:12
  Speaker 3: Three night before.
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: But then they also there's computer activity on their home
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: computer that following morning, and it looks as if it's
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: her computer activity because it's like the gap and it's
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: some she's looking at, like an umbrella that has some
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: flowers on it, and I.
• 47:27
  Speaker 2: Mean an outdoor umbrella.
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: An indoor umbrella, Oh, an indoor umbrella. I don't know,
• 47:31
  Speaker 1: but I'm saying it's things that she would be interested in,
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: not him. So either he had the wherewithal to do
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: an internet search to make it look like things that
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: she would be looking at, or she's on the computer
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: looking at them. Well, but how do you disregard fifteen
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: different people saying that they saw her walking in the
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: lo Looma park area with a dog, struggling with a
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: dog like the dog was hard to control, with black
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: pants and a white top on, and she was a
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: pregnant lady. How do you disregard all those witnesses that
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: saw her after ten am were supposedly, according to the prosecution,
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: she was already dead and he was putting her into
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: the back of his truck.
• 48:17
  Speaker 3: Y'all, I'll have to ask the Modesto police department.
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: That's enough of Scott Peterson. But I'm interested in hearing
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: your thoughts. If you've read the filing or looked at it,
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: if you know anything about the la Innocent's Project and
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: their representation of Scott, or if you've watched the A
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: and E. The new special it's called Scott Peterson The
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: New Evidence. I'm very interested in your thoughts if it
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: has if you were one of those people like me
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: that was just I don't know, just adamant that he
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: was guilty, because that just seemed to be like the
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: logical choice. But once you get into the other evidence,
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: it is very interesting and it does leave a lot
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: of questions open, especially again the burnt van, the mattress
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: with blood on it.
• 48:55
  Speaker 3: And I think the big thing is isn't really did
• 48:59
  Speaker 3: he do it? It's more is there evidence to show
• 49:01
  Speaker 3: that he did it? That's what you have to remember.
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: There isn't DNA evidence that shows anything happened within that house. Right,
• 49:08
  Speaker 1: there's no DNA evidence that shows that there was a
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: body in the boat, and there's no DNA evidence that
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: there was a body in his truck or at his
• 49:15
  Speaker 1: place of work.
• 49:16
  Speaker 3: The only thing we know is his slippers left a scent.
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, his slippers. We know we wear slippers. We know
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: that he cheated on his wife. We know that. I
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: don't know if Lacy wears slippers. I don't know. It's
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: detective he no, it is the scent handler. The scent
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: dog handler used a slipper to get a scent, but
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: apparently it was his. So that's why the sense the
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: piece of evidence. I don't know anyway, all right, So
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: I'm very interested in all your thoughts. Let me know.
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: You can find me on Instagram. Also, if you have
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: any cases that you would like us to discuss, please
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: feel free to recommend. We really appreciate that, and make
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: sure to listen to Legally Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts,
• 49:59
  Speaker 1: and make sure to follow our feed legally Brunette, and
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: please be sure to tell your friends and family thank
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: you so much for listening.