Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - SCOTT PETERSON SHOCK CLAIM: UNBORN SON CONNER PROVES "I'M INNOCENT"

Episode Date: April 30, 2025

Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, Conner, in 2003. He was sentenced to death, but the sentence was later overturned. He is now serving life in prison without parole. The Los Angeles Innocence Project has filed a petition to overturn Peterson’s conviction, citing new scientific evidence and witnesses who support his innocence. Attorneys with the Innocence Project argue that the break-in at the Medina home across the street from the Petersons’ and the subsequent arson of the burglars’ van were not properly investigated. They also allege potential Brady violations by the Modesto Police Department and the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office. The attorneys further claim that medical research has advanced since Peterson’s conviction and now indicates Conner’s fetal growth was consistent with a date of death later than prosecutors presented at trial. Prosecutors maintain that Conner was likely expelled from Laci’s decaying body shortly before the remains were discovered. Joining Nancy Grace today, Mike Belmessieri - Juror #4 in the Scott Peterson trial, Former Chief of Staff at Marine Corps, League Department of California, Facebook: @mike.belmessieri Troy Slaten - Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney, Slaten Lawyers, APC; X @TroySlaten Dr. Jorey L Krawczyn - Psychologist, Faculty Saint Leo University; Consultant Blue Wall Institute, Author: Operation S.O.S. Jon Buehler - Former Detective in Scott Peterson Investigation, Former Detective for Modesto Police Department Al Brocchini - Former Detective in Scott Peterson Investigation,  Former Modesto Police Detective Tami Ballard - DNA and Crime Scene Consultant, Crime Scene Investigation and Reconstruction, Former DNA Criminalist in the San Francisco Police Dept. Crime Laboratory Joseph Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author of "Blood Beneath My Feet" and Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;" X@JoScottForensic Kristine Lazar - Emmy award-winning investigative reporter at KCAL CBS Los Angeles, cbsla.com, Instagram & Facebook: @cbslakristine See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Scott Peterson, shock claim that his unborn son, his unborn baby boy, Connor's body proves he's innocent, that he did not murder Lacey Peterson and their unborn child, Connor. Really? Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. Yes, my son-in-law called. He went to say he was all. Morning, 9.30. My daughter's been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk from the park. The dog came home with just a leaf shock.

So the dog came back without your daughter? Right. What's your stepdaughter's name? Peterson. No, no, no, your stepdaughter. Lacey Peterson. Lacey, P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N, right? P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N. And she's white, black, Hispanic, Asian?

She's Portuguese and white. How old is she? She's 26. What time did she leave the house and then come back? That we don't know. We just got a call from her son-in-law. Said he left at 930 to play golf. He left that home about a half hour ago.

Nowhere around. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away? Walked it in and then walked out. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away. She walked it in and then walked out. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away. She walked it in and then walked out. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away.

She walked it in and then walked out. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away. She walked it in and then walked out. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away. She walked it in and then walked out. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away. She walked it in and then walked out. She said he left this morning at 930 to play golf. He left that home about a half hour ago. Nowhere around. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away? Walked it in me in that park. And she's eight months pregnant, you said? Pardon?

You said she's eight months pregnant? Yep. Eight months pregnant. Did it ever strike you? Joining me, an all-star panel. But there are three guests that everybody wants to talk to, no offense to the other guests. Joining us is juror number four, and I guess we can reveal his name now, Mike Belmasieri joining us. Also with me, Al Brachini, detective on the case.

That name is dedicated to memory forever and also tattooed on my brain. John Buehler, another detective on the Scott Peterson case. I mean, let me just start with you, John. Did it strike you at the very beginning? Why isn't her husband calling 911? Well, yeah, there were a lot of things that struck us with him. His behavior was very unusual from the start. And even when Al was dealing with him, there were a lot of things that came up that we just don't see that often when we're dealing with people that are suffering a loss like this.

Even though he didn't know she was, well, he knew she was dead, but nobody else did. You say something like that, John Buehler, you can't just drop a bomb and then not put out the fire. What thing struck you right off the bat? Well, he, when, you know this Nancy, and most of your viewers do too, when people have a emergency like this in the family and somebody they loved is missing and they just, they're frantic. They're just all over the place.

They got a hundred questions for us. They're constantly bugging us about what, why aren't you doing this? Why aren't you doing that? We only have so many resources available and we're trying to answer their questions and do the job at the same time. But the only one of all these people, whether it was Lacey's friends or family or any of the associates, the only one who wasn't frantic about this the whole time was Scott. And that is unusual. We've seen it before.

It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's just one more piece of circumstantial evidence that convinced us that he did it, putting the case together. And then obviously it convinced Mike and the other juries, the other jury members, that he had done it. Well, I'll tell you one thing you told me about Buehler that I didn't know. Lacey and Connor's bodies had washed up on the shore. Her in horrible decomposition and baby Connor like a pristine little baby doll, like one of those plastic little baby dolls you get at the Dollar Tree. He was in perfect shape. You tell Peterson, we just got the DNA back. The body is lacy.

And what did he say within minutes? I'll take a double double with cheese fry and a vanilla milkshake at the in and out. Within minutes, he wanted a double double. You know what? When I was told my fiance was killed and at that moment, I didn't know it had been a murder. I thought there was a car crash. I don't think I ate again moment, I didn't know it had been a murder. I thought there was a car crash. I don't think I ate again for, I don't even know how long. I lost down to 89 pounds. I remember the first thing I consumed. It was some orange juice. I don't

know how much longer after that, but he was happy to get a double double within minutes of learning that dead body. Those horribly decomposed remains were Lacey. Al Burkini joining me, a name that many people have only read about or heard about. Al Burkini leading along with Mueller the investigation into Lacey and Connor's disappearance. Al, did it ever strike you right at the get-go, why is it Peterson calling 911? I don't know if that struck me as much as some of the other things, but I mean, he was out, his father-in-law told him, go check the neighbors. He did what he was told. He forgot what he was doing. I mean, he first neighbor,

he thought he was golfing when he was fishing, but that didn't strike me. But what did strike me was he wouldn't take a polygraph. He said he would on that night, on December 24th, and he refused on the 25th. And then he made us get a search warrant to search his house on December 26th, search his phone, search his computer. And it was all, I told him, it's like, we want to just check and see if maybe she had a stalker. Maybe she had a boyfriend you don't know about. Maybe there was some strange things in the house that we couldn't look for on the 24th. And he went, you know, he made us get a warrant.

And so that was, and he refused the poly. So those were some red flags right in the beginning, still didn't push me over the edge thinking that she was dead or that he did it but those were besides coming straight home from fishing and taking the dirty clothes out of the washer and washing his own clothes just his clothes i mean those were all red flags too just his clothes okay that's a whole nother can of worms right there that he suddenly turned neat-nick and only wanted to wash his clothes. See, I knew he did laundry, but I didn't remember. He only washed his own clothes. Mike Bill Macieri joining us. Juro number four, former chief of staff with the

Marine Corps. I remember in jury selection, I wanted you because chief of staff, Marine Corps, okay, they don't play. All right. Mike, did it strike you right at the get-go when you're sitting there listening to that 911 call and you think, where was he? Why didn't he call the moment he realized his wife was missing? Well, Nancy, for myself, I like to listen to everything and finish the story and make a decision. My feeling was I wasn't there. I didn't know what was going on, but it was strange. But not so strange that I would think he was doing anything that wasn't right, so to speak. Could have been out looking, could have been doing a lot of things. Ron Gransky made the call.

It was important to get somebody on the street to start looking for, and that's what was important. You know, with Scott Peterson, it's not one thing, it's all the things. You just can't pick point to one, in my opinion, which with a buck, I couldn't buy a cup of coffee. But, you know, you can't say, okay, this is what happens, oh, this makes him guilty. No, you have to take a look at the entire picture. And you have to put it all together. And the only way you can do that and do it right is in the manner in which we did it during deliberations without any outside influences. Mike Belmacieri, juror number four in the Scott Peterson trial. I'm so glad you said what you just said, because if you had said anything else,

defense attorney Troy Slayton would have had a field day that you made up your mind the moment you heard the 911 call. But that's not what he said, is it, Slayton? That's not what he said, but you also didn't ask him if his opinion would change now if he heard new information. And there is new information that is dropping just recently in this 20-year-old case, Nancy. Straight out to renowned death investigator, professor of forensics, Jacksonville State University, and author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, the star of a hit new podcast series, Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan. Joe Scott, thank you for being with us.

What is Garagos claiming now? Using baby Connor's body as some type of exculpatory evidence? What? Yeah. Hey, look, you can't have it both ways. Remember what the defense team also said. They said that whoever these people were that were responsible for Lacey's death, they actually cut his body out of hers. Remember that?

That's what they argued. You can't have it both ways. So the body is intact to a great degree. Remember, they were talking about, you'd mentioned right from the top, Nancy, that Connor's remains were, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, they were not necessarily pristine, but compared to Lacey's body. So that leads us to believe that the body was, in fact, protected. I'm saying here is you can't have it both ways. You can't say that some unknown phantom out there or phantoms took a knife and removed this baby's precious body from mama's body and disposed of them individually into the bay. It doesn't make sense. So now they want to backtrack and say that, well, gestationally, from the age perspective, that the number's are wrong. The initial study that this expert, that the prosecution called, those numbers were based on actual 1970 studies from, I can't remember the exact year, but jump forward, there have been advances.

I'm sorry, published in 1984, the study was published, and that study was what the expert at trial relied upon to date, to age the fetus, Connor. Yeah, and so one of the things that happens, just so everybody knows this, this is how we do this. All right, it's very simple. When we have a fetus, we're going to measure gestational age. I would be very curious if this individual that was the expert actually physically held his remains, held Connor's remains, and did the exam like they did in the morgue. The data that we get from the morgue is based in these areas. We do what's called a crown rump measurement. We do a crown heel measurement.

We do head circumference. There's a couple other things, but one of the most important things is that we look at what are referred to as the gyri and the sulci, the kind of wavy little lines in the brain. And we get a baseline off of that for age. At 20 weeks, you begin to get gyri, which are these kind of bumps on the brain. Before that, the brain is smooth. So we start off at that level just to try to understand where they are gestationally. The problem is, is that they're pinning this to just a couple of days. There's no way.

There's no way you can tie it down this closely scientifically. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Let me go to the three experts who were there during the trial and actually weighed the evidence. First of all, to Brocchini. You know what? If all of that went over anybody's head, mine or a juror's head, you can go back, fall back on common sense. The defense is now arguing in another push to have Scott Peterson walk free. They are now saying baby Connor's body proves that Lacey died after the 24th, such as as late as January the 5th. And therefore, since Peterson was under a microscope at that point, he's not the killer. That's the significance of Connor's body. Okay.

Bueller. Common sense. Lacey's body was extremely decomposed, okay? Conner's was not. What does that prove? The medical examiner at the time said that Lacey's body decomposed in the water of San Francisco Bay. One of the last muscles to decompose, the thickest muscle, is the uterus to protect the baby. She was already in great

decomposition. And finally her uterus decomposed later than the rest of her body. The uterus came apart. It disintegrated and baby Connor came out. That's why he was protected from the elements and she was not fast forward right now since lacy was so decomposed and connor was so pristine in comparison that shoots their theory to hell and back well i think it does yeah i think it does but you know this is one of those things they're just trying to throw things against the wall to see what's going to stick. But the only problem is, is you're just going to have a battle of experts here. And it's going to be up to whoever reviews this information to decide who's right on that. But to me, it's not an exacting science. I'm not a scientist or anything like that, not a biologist.

But to me, it's just not an exacting science where you can pin it down to that many days. But if they do, that's going to poke holes in their burglary theory and the things that go along with that. And why, let me throw this to Al Brocchini, why would this new theory that Peterson has come up with, as he's twiddling his thumbs, he's probably having a glass of Pruno behind bars right now. Brocchini, how would this new theory they've come up with ruin his burglary theory? Well, I can tell you one thing. If they think she was alive from the 28th to the January 5th in Modesto and being hidden somewhere where there's a $500,000 reward out for information for her return, that's's crazy there's nobody in modesto

those burglars especially you could buy them off for about 50 bucks five hundred thousand dollars somebody is going to talk she was gone by then the 24th she was not in modesto no more she was on her way to berkeley and that's all i can say about that. So Mike, number four, Mike Belmossieri, does anybody really believe that a bunch of men, typically men, in white suits huddled around a microscope can tell a female juror the exact day of gestational age. Because you know what? My children were born six weeks early. Okay. So I don't buy any of that, but what I do buy is the condition of the bodies. Are they trying to argue Lacey was kept alive for all those days and then sliced open to get Connor.

But then they decided, oh, yeah, we don't want the baby anymore. Now that we've kidnapped her and taken the baby out of her, we're just going to throw him in San Francisco Bay. What? That doesn't even make sense, Mike. Nancy, you hit on an interesting point. Common sense. But we have to realize common sense is not common, number one. Number two, Garagos. Garagos put on an expert witness called Dr. March. That's his definition of expertise. We all know how that went. Also, you know, Garagos reaches for a lot of straws. On one interview, and I believe Al Broccini was present with Greg Baraltas, he suggested

juror intimidation during deliberations. Well, he wasn't in the room, I was. That's a lie. Regarding the issue of where the bodies were found, I suppose there's some science now that says that he couldn't have done it because they were dumped in a different area. If we all go back to the night or the day prior to the remains being discovered, there was a terrible storm. And so you can't, you know, when you have storms, and I've spent a lot of time on the bay, and,

you know, things change. And so, you know, I don't, you know, and as far as the science, we're talking about days. And I don't think that we've come to a point in our lives where science is so exact that we could say this is the absolute. This, without any question, is when Conor was killed, so to speak. And, of course, you know, things in 21 years it's been almost since we issued that verdict. Things have changed. But I don't believe that we're so arrogant to think that we're so good at things. And we aren't. You know, somebody once told me there's no absolutes.

Well, I'll give you an absolute. I'm absolutely convinced that Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child. And when the L.A. Innocence Project called me, that's exactly what I told them. And they want to say, well, we're going to listen. I go, yeah, I'll listen to anything you have to say. I'm a reasonable man. But, you know, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Convicted double killer Scott Peterson trying every trick in the book to walk free. Does he have a chance thanks to the L.A. Innocence Project?

Well, listen to this. I was searching for my family. I wanted to search to continue. Stay in contact with Amber, I thought. And she wouldn't get into the picture, complicated, ruined the search for Lacey and Connor. What? Okay, that's Scott Peterson

and Peacock's face-to-face with Scott Peterson explaining why he kept leading Amber Fry, his mistress, on after Lacey and Connor went missing, well, after he killed them, and the community, the nation, was searching frantically for them. He says, I was searching for my family. No, he didn't. And I wanted the search to continue. No, he didn't. And I stayed in touch, I stayed in contact with Amber so she wouldn't get into the picture and complicate it and ruin the search. Have you ever heard a bigger

load, technical legal term, of BS in your life? Let me just throw that out to Brocchini. Ever heard a bigger load of stinking, smoking, steaming BS? i've never heard a bigger load and for him to predict to to amber three weeks before she was missing that he lost his wife um just to keep her he you know he predicted it he predicted that he going to lose his wife three weeks before. So I don't know what he's talking about saying he was keeping her in the pool. Yeah, I remember he said it would be his first Christmas without Lacey. Boo hoo. Okay, now there is another claim in addition to baby Connor's fetus proves he's innocent. Now there's another claim advanced by the LA IPLA Innocence Project List. Defense attorneys also want to present an analysis by a forensic document examiner who

claims it's Lacey Peterson's handwriting and notes on the cost of anchors, indicating Scott Peterson did not buy his boat in secret as part of a plan to kill his wife. Finally, the lawyers say a pawn shop owner will testify that he was contacted by the police about a Croton watch pawned by an associate of one of the Medina burglars on December 31st, just seven days after Lacey was reported missing. On the stand, investigators testified they never located Lacey's Croton watch. Well, there go the police lying again in the Scott Peterson case. It's all your fault. I hope you know it. I hope you know that by the time this is over, they're going to claim Burkini and Bueller did it. Okay, Bueller, let's throw this to you. What,

did you get up on the stand and lie about the Croton Watch on the face of it right there? I see that it's entirely consistent. They say that a pawn shop owner states police came to investigate the watch that was similar to Lacey's, not Lacey's, but similar. And investigators on the stand state they never located the watch. I don't see what's inconsistent about that. Yeah, I don't either, because my recall on that is George Stow was the detective that was working the burglary along with several others. And not only were they able not to find the Croton watch, they weren't able to show that any of the property that was associated with the Petersons was ever recovered from the burglars. The burglars surrendered property from several other burglaries besides the one that was across the street at the Medina's

house. And they did it almost without being asked because they were so afraid that when they went to Stanislaus County Jail that they'd be attacked in there because of the victim in this case. And so when it comes to the burglary, it was thoroughly investigated by those guys. And they even polygraphed both of the burglars. And they wanted to parade those results around to the other inmates in the jail to show that they didn't have anything to do with this. But like Al had said earlier in the broadcast, anybody who was involved in this on the burglary side, for $500,000 to return Lacey, they would have been talking. There's no way that they would have kept a secret. Were they poly'd?

Yeah, they were poly'd and they cleared the poly. Did they ever take a poly? Yes, they did. And they cleared it immediately. I'm so glad you reported that. That's always been a murky question. Were the burglars polygraphed about kidnapping Lacey? And let me throw this to Brocchini. Al, the defense is now claiming in a bid to get Peterson free that Lacey Peterson really knew about the secret boat that I contend was used to transport her body to the San Francisco Bay and dump her because of handwritten notes in her

handwriting about the cost of the anchors. They say proof she knew all about the boat. Is that true? Well, there was a handwritten note on the nightstand. I can't say who wrote it, but Scott told me the anchors were too expensive. That's why he made one. And I talked to the person that sold the boat and Scott was the only one there. And the only proof I have that Lacey knew anything about the boat was the fact that her hair was found wrapped around a pair of pliers inside the boat on when we served the search warrant on the 26th. Twined in the needle nose pliers, not just touching them like a touch transfer of hair, but intertwined in them. Tammy Ballard, crime scene consultant and reconstructionist, what does it mean to you that her hair was intertwined in the needle nose pliers? It was not a transfer of a hair. That tells me that this was some situation where her hair is probably removed, depending on what kind of root material is present.

And very much would expect that to be something that is a good piece of evidence for that. On and on we hear about the burglary that happened across the street from Lacey's home. I've been to the neighborhood many, many times. It's a beautiful little neighborhood. But hear what Garagos has to say about that. The prosecution stood up in opening and said she was dead on the 23rd. By the end of the case, they had changed that theory because it had been proven, I think, throughout the case that she was alive on the 24th. That, you can have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but when you change the date dramatically from one day to another on a circumstantial murder case, that alone supplies reasonable doubt.

That was from our friends Harvey Levin at TMZ, two angry men with Mark Geragos. Now, this is the significance of the burglary. Actually, Christine Lazar joining me, Emmy award-winning investigative reporter KCAL CBS. What is the significance? How is the defense using the burglary across the street to suggest Lacey was taken in connection with the burglary. What are they saying? They're trying to come up with a different motive and say that Lacey saw the burglars, interrupted a burglary or questioned them. And then they essentially had to take her and get rid of her because she was a witness. But, you know, as others have

pointed out, there was so many people looking for Lacey Peterson. There was a lot of money that was offered as a reward. I find it hard to believe, having sat through the trial, that that is a plausible motive and that she wouldn't have been found alive had it been burglars who took her and not her own husband. Specifically, the L.A. Innocence Project is arguing this. The attorneys also argue that the break-in at the Medina's

across the street from the Petersons and subsequent arson of the burglar's van was not properly investigated as being tied to Lacey's disappearance. They claim the Medina burglary occurred on Christmas Eve, not December 26th, as the jury heard. They also claim Modesto Police intentionally destroyed recordings of the burglars' interviews with details on how and when the burglary occurred to hide that fact. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Welcome back. The LA Innocence Project insisting Scott Peterson is innocent, making many far-fetched

claims. And here's another one. On the day Scott was convicted, after the ninth day of deliberation, after removing three of the jurors, the prosecution handed us a report from the Chino prison with a lieutenant who had overheard a prisoner talking to his relative, talking about the burglary and talking about Lacey and the brother of the relative telling him to shut up. A prison guard overheard Lacey's name on one of the burglar's phone calls. The prison guard says the burglar started to discuss Lacey's seeing and confronting them, but the person on the line told him to stop talking. The lawyers claim the eyewitness account is exculpatory because it shows Lacey was still alive after the Medina's left home around 10 30 a.m. Yeah there was a burglary across the street from my home. There

are a lot of people on the curb and I believe that Lacey went over there to see what was going on. That's pretty smooth, Kate. Okay, you were just hearing our friends at Two Angry Men podcast, Harvey Levin and Martin Garagos, and Peacock's face-to-face with Scott Peterson. Hold on. Straight to Al Brachini. So the state hands the defense a document that says a Lieutenant within the jail overhears an inmate speaking to a relative. They hear Lacey's name come up and then somebody says, stop talking, stop talking. What, if anything, does that prove?

Lacey, as it relates to the burglary, that's it? Well, that was pretty well investigated after we found out about it. I mean, they went down, interviewed that lieutenant. He couldn't find the tapes, couldn't find the log where there was any names. And eventually he recanted. And that came up even from the defense attorney said that he recanted all that. I don't know if he said it for money or if he said it for reward, but he recanted. There's no tape. There's no log where anybody show where you have

to log in that somebody is making a phone call or he's on the phone. And so I don't think that holds any water, does any good for Scott Peterson. Dr. Jory Croson joining me, renowned psychologist, faculty, St. Leo University, author of Operation SOS. Dr. Jory, thank you for being with us. This is excruciating to Lacey's family. Sharon Rocha's husband, Gransky, Ron Gransky, has passed away. Now she's all alone. She has her son still alive. This reopens the wounds again. I mean, it gets jurors, investigators upset to hear these wild claims, but what does it do to Lacey's family? You know, being a victim yourself to violence, experiencing it, it re-traumatizes, and it takes you right back to that very moment.

Okay, even though it's been 20 years, rest assured, myself also being a victim of violence violence resulting in death, you relive that moment. It takes you right back to it, re-traumatizes you. It disrupts your sleep. Then you start to build like, you know, what ifs? What if he does get a new trial? What if he does do this, this, this? All that starts to build out.

And that's, that's very difficult to deal with. And, you know, it's just the way our system is built, you know, where he can challenge these things, but the victims once again, are being re-victimized and being re-traumatized by this whole new episode that's developing. And how can one strip of a duck tape demand Scott Peterson be released? Peterson's new defense says multiple witnesses tied the orange van found burned near the Modesto airport to the burglary at the Medina's home and the stained mattress in the back should have been tested more thoroughly after presumptively testing positive for blood. While testing of a small sample only revealed a male profile, the Innocence Project argues the entire mattress should have been tested, despite a judge disagreeing with them on the same point last year.

This was brought up to the judge, Christine Lazar, joining us from KCAL CBS LA. The judge said, okay, the mattress has already been tested. That's male DNA. What the defense is claiming is that this van, this orange van that was burned up shortly after Lacey went missing, shortly after the burglary, there it is, is somehow connected to the burglary. They've extrapolated that this must be connected. There was a burned out mattress in the back of it. That was tested. It showed male DNA, but there was a piece of duct tape found stuck to Lacey's leg. All right. The defense is now arguing the mattress in the back of the van was not tested enough and they want more testing on that. Why do they want the duct tape found on

Lacey's leg tested? Well, look, they're looking for other DNA evidence. They're looking for a way to link her murder to someone else, to the burglars. To me, again, as someone who sat through the trial, it feels like they're grasping for straws, but that's what they're doing right now. I will say here in Los Angeles, in this newsroom, we were all very surprised when the LA Innocence Project took up this case. Joe Scott Morgan, what could they possibly want with the piece of duct tape that was on Lacey's leg after all that time in the water? One of the things that we're looking for, what are referred to as plastic prints, that is in the adhesive on the tape itself. If it's protected in any way, say that part that's adherent to her leg, did anybody touch the adherent side with their bare hand? You can get a print off that.

They would also want to look for any kind of hair deposition because it can catch hair at any moment in time. Tape can. We've all experienced that over the years. And certainly if it was like torn, if you grab it with your teeth, which, you know, I've done over the years, and you tear the tape, you can do a deposition of saliva on there. So those are the things that I guess in a perfect world they'd be hoping for. But we're talking about a body that was in San Francisco Bay, Nancy. That's a very harsh environment. I don't know what they would do. Well, yeah. I mean, and I'm a fisherman and there's all kinds of stuff that collects on all types of items out there.

You know, there's another issue related to this. Troy Slayton joining me, renowned L.A. criminal defense attorney. Troy, it was months ago that the judge ordered further DNA testing on that piece of duct tape attached to Lacey's leg. I think she was still wearing pants attached to that. And don't you know, Troy Slayton, the judge said you got 45 days to complete the testing. It needed to be testing. That was 45 days from her July 24th ruling. Don't you know, if that duct tape had revealed anything that exonerated Scott Peterson, they would have been running back and forth in front of the courthouse with it, waving it.

He's innocent. But we haven't heard a word. One of the first times Garagos has shut his pie hole ever. Don't you know if that had come back to exonerate Peterson, we'd all be hearing about it. Well, we wouldn't Nancy, because one of the parts, important parts about the judge's order, where she laid out very specifically how this private company is to conduct the testing. She said that any results are to be returned to the court under seal, which means that nobody's allowed to talk about it, nobody's allowed to see it,

nobody's allowed to know about it except the court. So they wouldn't be waving it around in front of the courthouse and no one would be allowed to talk about it. You came to me earlier in December and told me that you had lost your wife. And now all of a sudden your wife's missing? She's alive. Where? She's alive?

The media has been telling everyone that I had something to do with her disappearance. I met Scott Peterson November 20th, 2002. I was introduced to him. I was told he was unmarried. Scott told me he was not married. We did have a romantic relationship. When I discovered he was involved in the Lucy Peterson disappearance case, I immediately contacted the Modesto Police Department. Amber Fry had no idea Peterson was married.

Hey, Troy Slayton, were you listening to that? She said, well, she's alive. And he completely ignored that, didn't answer that. He's still leading on his mistress. He's still, here's another technical legal phrase, wants to get in her pants. Still, his wife is missing. And he is still calling Amber Fry trying to get with her. Well, that recording, Nancy, was at the behest of the government by conducting surveillance and surreptitious recordings of Peterson.

And so, yes. Have you ever never a man? Why? Have you have you ever life go? Have you ever known someone to lie in order to have sex? Oh, my goodness. Should that be crazy to everybody? Yeah, actually that I agree with, but not while your wife and unborn baby are missing. No, I haven't. Just Peterson.

You know what? Let's put the icing on the cake. Listen. Hello? Amber? Hi. Amber? I can hear you.

Amber? I can hear you. Amber, I can hear you. Amber, you can hear me, it's Sears. I know. I can hear you. Amber, Sears here, are you there? Yes, I'm having a good time. Amber? Hey, happy New Year's. Happy New Year's. I wanted to call you. Thank you. Amber, you there? I'm here. Amber. I wish you could hear me. I'm on the, I think you're there. I'm near the Eiffel Tower. New Year's celebration is unreal.

The crowd is huge. Yeah, the crowd is huge. At your wife's vigil, the crowd is huge. There you hear Troy Slayton, Scott Peterson. Now remember, she goes missing December 24. This is New Year's Eve, December 31, midnight. And he is calling from Lacey's vigil, calling his mistress, pretending he's ringing in the new year in Paris. Now you seem to argue that Scott Peterson's intent was not nefarious because police were recording it. What does their recording have to do with what's going on in his pants? What I'm saying is a man is lying in order to try and have sex with this woman.

That's what he's doing. It's very simple. It's very vague. I'm just going to stop you right there. To Mike Belmissieri, Mike, you're the juror. You're our number four. I'm also a man and I understand what Troy's saying. But, you know, even if we were to remove the fact that he was probably one of the

greatest lion studs in the world and his motivation was to have sex with Amber there's so much more to the story and you know, again, it is a simple thing. You have to judge based on the entire story and not just part of it with Scott Peterson. It, you know, there are a chain of events. And Gary Goh spoke about behavior. Well, yeah. You know, I don't care what the crime is.

I don't care what the trial's about. It'll always come down to behavior and what is the norm or what we expect from people. Now, you take that and don't necessarily bias your opinion on some things, but take a look at the entire story, the entire event from, yes, I was hoping for infertility. I didn't want children is what he was saying, to his affair with Amber Fry, his his behavior as, you know, was just indicated when he said he was in Paris and his wife is missing. What is reasonable? You know, when he's in the room being questioned by, I believe it was you, Al Brocchini, and his phone rings and he picks it up. It's his sister-in-law.

And he very casually talks to her. And for the normal human being, if normal is really something that exists, would you not be a little concerned about, hey, what's going on? Is she with you? No, he just kind of blows it off and very casual about everything. You know, it just makes no sense. And if it doesn't make sense, there's got to be more to the issue. You are hearing Mike Abel Macieri speaking, juror number four in the Scott Peterson trial.

Yes, it ain't over yet. Nancy Grace signing off. Good night. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.