Crime Weekly - S1 Ep44: The Murder of Laci Peterson: The Arrest (Part 5)

Episode Date: October 8, 2021

Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop It was December 24th, 2002, Christmas Eve morning, and in Modesto California, where Laci Peterson lived with her husband Scott, it was a cool, foggy, northern California morning. The young, attractive couple woke up that morning, each with their own plans in mind. Laci had some last minute items to pick up for Christmas dinner at her parents home later, and she also wanted to take her golden retriever McKenzie for a walk. Her husband Scott had plans to go fishing at Berkeley Marina, about an hour and a half away from the couples home. Scott left the house around 9:30 in the morning, and did not return until 4:30 that evening. When he got home, his wife was not there, and she wasn’t answering his calls. He normally would not have been so concerned, but Laci was eight months pregnant with their first child, a son who they had named Connor. Over the course of the next few months, a massive search and investigation took place for Laci, and as Connor’s due date came and went, the need to find mother and child became more urgent, until April 13th, 2003, when the bodies of Laci and her son were found washed up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.  Check out True Crime Week on Stitcher where they are kicking off the spookiest month of the year with the creepiest and crawliest True Crime Podcasts. Listen to our podcast and other True Crime podcasts all for free on Stitcher. If you’re on your phone you can download Stitcher in your app store or go to Stitcher.com Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. Today, we are launching into our second to last episode on the Scott Peterson and Lacey Peterson case. But I do want to tell you guys that you should check out True Crime Week on Stitcher, where they're kicking off the spookiest month of the year with the creepiest and crawliest true crime podcasts. Listen to our podcasts and other true crime podcasts for free on Stitcher. Also, check out their curated homepage to find your next true crime pod obsession. If you're on your phone, you can download Stitcher in your app store or go to stitcher.com.

Yeah, very well said. We're featured on the Stitcher page this week, so definitely check it out, support the channel. And speaking of supporting the channel, we want to thank everyone for the purchases of the Crime Weekly and Undercover Pineapple merch. I also like that you guys are starting to take pictures with it and sending it to us. I've been reposting a lot of it both on Instagram and on Twitter. So we really appreciate the support. And if you haven't picked up your merch yet, just click on the description right here. It's crimeweeklypodcast.com slash shop. But we appreciate the support, everyone who's done it now and we'll do it in the future we love seeing everyone rocking the merch yes we do like it and i love my undercover

pineapple baseball tee so much i wear it almost every night to bed and then during the day too because sometimes i don't change it on my pajamas during the day if i'm not going anywhere nobody's gonna see me but nobody needs to know that that That's okay. Too much information. Let's talk about the case today. So we've covered so much about Scott Peterson, about Lacey Peterson, about Amber Fry, so much information, and there's just no way to get everything in, or this would be several, several, several parts. It would keep going for another two, three, four, five parts. So we're trying to kind of condense it, but we want to make sure all the important information is in there. Do you have any questions or do you want anything clarified before we launch into today's episode? No, I'm pretty much caught up.

I have my notes going. I've been kind of asking you the questions as we go. We're getting the feedback from you guys in the DMs and underneath the post. So what I'm finding is there's a lot of information out there, some of which was never fact-checked. Yeah. One quick example to not go too far off the beaten path was I got a DM. We actually do read everything. And I got a DM about one of the specials you were watching and not you, but the person who DM me this and said, oh, Scott said that he that he removed the leash in this special or whatever.

And you said that wasn't the case. No, Scott did remove the leash. Scott did remove the leash. He did. So I think the message because you sent me the message, it said something like he didn't remove the leash or hold on. No, the person in the thing said that when he, the leash was already off. The leash was already off.

I'm such a huge fan of the podcast. I'm currently listening to the Lacey Peterson episode five. And remember you guys mentioning that the dog had a leash on when Scott returned home from fishing. You guys mentioned how dangerous it was. The dog could choke or hang himself with the leash. Currently also watching One Last Chance, the trial of Scott Peterson 2020. And in episode two, you could hear Scott say that when he arrived home after his fishing trip, the dog ran to him and didn't have his leash on. What I can't remember

is if the neighbor found the dog with a leash on or without the leash, but I think it was with. Yes. So the neighbor did find Mackenzie with the leash on because remember she said that there was dirt and like grass clippings on the leash. And according to Scott, he also found Mackenzie with the leash on because he specifically said in his timeline when he got home from fishing that he took the leash off and left it on like the patio table outside before going inside with Mackenzie. So it could have been taken out of context or it could be one of those things where Scott just lost track of his lies. Yeah, of his stories. So no questions, but little things like that, unfortunately,

I can't keep it all. We talk every day. So some of those things, I mean, I think that was like a nine or 10 o'clock text that I sent you. But any questions that I did have that could be contradictory to what we've said, you've been able to clarify it. And so I'm all caught up. I'm ready. I'm ready for part five. Yeah, this is a common thing with this case, because you can take one piece of information and you're trying to fact check this piece of information and you end up going into all these different sources and one source will say, yes, that's true. The other one will say, no, it's not. So it's very difficult to determine what is true,

but I wanna go ahead and say that testimony during the trial, since these people are under oath, you kind of wanna hope that their stories are the closest thing to the truth that you can find since they're under oath legally and they're technically not supposed to lie under oath. And I feel like most normal people who have nothing to lose, who haven't committed any crime, who aren't afraid of getting caught in something, they have no real reason to lie under oath.

Right? Right. Nobody ever lies under oath. Perjury? I'm not saying that that doesn't happen. I'm saying- No, I'm totally with you. Somebody like Nobody ever lies under oath. Perjury? I'm not saying that that doesn't happen. I'm saying- No, I'm totally with you. You know, somebody like Scott would lie under oath. If you're on trial for murder, yeah, you may have a reason to lie. But I do agree with you.

Court testimony, whether it's truthful or not, is the best thing we have to go off of as researchers, as storytellers, because that's recorded documentation that's going to be enshrined forever. So to go off a TV special or another podcast, you're you're playing with fire there because you don't know what type of research they're doing for their for their information. So it's always better to go with police reports, court testimony, et cetera, to try and be as accurate as we possibly can. And I mean, TV specials, you know, any media like television stuff, they do edit creatively to make things seem a certain way or to support or bolster a certain narrative. So, you know, usually just watch these TV things for like a timeline or just to see the people who are involved, like detectives and stuff, like what are they saying about it? But as far as the information goes, I'm covering a case right now for Halloween. I've never in my life seen a case

where every single TV special or every single like source that I look at has different information of how things went down to the point where it's like different names of people who were a part of it. And it's crazy. That's kind of what you get when things get to the media. It's the telephone game. Yeah, no, I agree. That's I mean, being someone in the TV game, even shows that I've done, what we're doing is truthful, but they can have ways to, like you said, edit it a certain way where it sensationalizes something, embellishes something. And I, you know, even I've had to go back and go, no, don't just let it be what it is. You don't have to make it more than that. You know, if that's not enough for the viewer, too bad. So I'm with you.

I'm with you. That's why, you know, at the end of the day, court testimony is king. Whether they're telling the truth or not, that's on them. Well, the diehard Harlequins in here will know what I'm talking about when I say that I was part of a television project, project, project, a television project that I feel use some creative editing to to portray me in a certain way so i will never i will never trust anything i see on these specials again because i know how easy it is to take something completely benign and make it seem uh calculated

and malicious but when we left off in the last episode, Amber had pretty much just come out and she was like, yo, yeah, I've been with Scott, but he didn't, you know, he didn't tell me he was married. I had no idea. I didn't know his wife was missing. I found out all of this stuff as I went along, kind of like you guys have. And now I'm here to sort of set the record straight. And then Scott, he continues talking to Amber after this and he continues trying to see Scott, he continues talking to Amber after this, and he continues trying to see her, and he continues trying to build this relationship, and he makes sure to let her know that he's proud of her for coming forward and speaking her truth. But once Amber was known to the world, Scott Peterson was left with very few friends and supporters. Scott, who had been avoiding all reporters and news cameras during the entire search for his wife and unborn son, told a reporter, quote,

I really don't care what people think of me as long as it continues to keep Lacey's picture, description, tip line in the media. Make me the biggest villain if you want to, as long as it keeps her picture in the press. They can think anything they want of me. Let's find Lacey. End quote. Thanks, Scott. Thanks for the permission to think anything that we want of you. But he's over here acting like he did this on purpose. I'm surprised he didn't try to spin it. This was my plan the whole time. I started an affair with another woman preemptively just in case my pregnant wife vanished and I needed like drama and scandal to keep her face in the media and keep her story alive. And at that point, Lacey's story didn't need any help to be kept in the media. It was literally all I mean,

this is a 24 hour news cycle. Nancy Grace was talking about it. Everybody was talking about this. So Scott's full of shit. That's my opinion. But he basically was avoiding the cameras, I think, because he didn't want Amber to see him on TV. But once she knew, now he's coming forward and he's this really tragic figure, or he wants people to think he's this tragic figure. This husband who- He's the martyr. He's like, I'll be the sacrificial lamb and be painted as a villain if it helps find my wife. Yeah. It's like, dude, you painted yourself as the villain, man. Yeah. No one's doing that for you. You held the brush. But he he wants he's the perpetual victim.

He's the perpetual underdog, even though, in my opinion, that's absolutely not the truth. So Lacey's mother, Sharon, she said that once she found out about Amber, everything changed. In her book, Sharon said, quote, In hindsight, denial had been such a comfortable place to hide from the truth. I didn't want to believe Scott would did Lacey, you know, suffer? Is she being held somewhere? If Scott did this to her, like how did he do it? And of course, I think that's very normal. That's very natural. It's the last place that you want your mind to go. But it's also the

first place that it goes to. Right. Even though it's morbid, even though you feel like it'll break you. Of course, you can't help but thinking that because you're trying to put yourself in the shoes of your loved one. And that's a scary place to be. It really is. As a parent, I can't imagine being in that situation. I hope I never find out. I hope you never find out. I hope likewise. Yeah. I wish nobody ever had to feel that. Well, the police told Sharon that they believed based on their experience that Lacey had probably been asleep when she was killed and they hadn't found any signs of a violent struggle in the Peterson home. So basically, they were like, we don't know if this puts your mind at ease, but there was clearly not like this killed and they hadn't found any signs of a violent struggle in the Peterson home. So basically, they were like, we don't know if this puts your mind at ease, but there was clearly not like this huge fight. There wasn't the struggle. She wasn't fighting for her life. Everything seemed pretty

chill at the Peterson home. So if he did this at their house, it was probably when she was unsuspecting, sleeping, etc. And that reminds me of Chris and Shanann Watts, because it's pretty much what we believe happened, right? I mean, he's given a million different stories, but etc and that reminds me of uh chris and shenan watts because it's pretty much what we believe happened right i mean he's given a million different stories but but at the end of the day most of his story surrounded around the fact that she was in bed when he got home and he sort of started strangling her while she was still asleep and that's you know gives her less of a chance to fight back and realize what's happening yeah that's that's where i'm at on it the parallels between between this and Chris Watts are just uncanny.

It's crazy. But, you know, it all kind of makes sense to me for the exact reasons you just said, you know, no sign of struggle in the house. It does appear that Lacey might have known that Scott was cheating on her. So it wouldn't have been that that kind of like caused her to fly off the handle. It doesn't appear it was, you know, like she flies off the handle and then there's a fight and he accidentally pushes her and she accidentally falls and lands the wrong way and hits her head or a crime of passion where Scott walks in and sees Lacey doing or saying something that he didn't expect. This was pre if, if Scott did do this, which he has been found guilty by a court, this was premeditated and it started going into motion as soon as he found Amber and realized he wanted to be with her over Lacey. So this could have been a whole thing that he had kind of conjured up.

And I know I keep harping on it, you know, not only no sign of struggle, and I know some people have kind of pushed back on it in our comment section, but I'm standing on this mountain. I do not care. I think that the phone being in the car overnight is highly suggestive that when Lacey went to sleep that night, she never got out of bed again. And I know people push back. They said, oh, 2002, a lot of people just use their phones as like car phones at that time. Maybe you're right, but I'm staying on that. I'm staying right there on that mountain. I don't care. I think, I think the phone, when we're looking for small things, cause there's nothing obvious.

You gotta, you gotta kind of put the pieces together, even though the pieces may only be fractions of a puzzle piece. And I do think that the cell phone is something, and I think we could easily confirm or discredit that theory. If we had the opportunity to speak to Lacey and her family, because they would be able to tell us immediately if Lacey was someone who left her phone in the car all the time and kind of looked at as like a passive emergency thing, or was she someone who, because she was pregnant and going to be walking her dog would take her phone just in case she had a medical emergency. I'm going with the latter, but that's just my opinion. You guys can weigh in on

the comments, which I'm sure you will. What do you think? I didn't even ask. Do you think I'm full of shit on the phone? Be honest. It won't hurt my feelings. I see where they're coming from and where you're coming from. This was a different time. It's not like we had TikTok and Instagram and shit on our phones, right? So we weren weren't like they weren't glued to our hands because there wasn't always something to do you know it's like you get a call or you get a text that's when you need your phone and when she's in the house she has her house phone which is the phone that people are going to you know primarily call unless they can't get a hold of her on that and then they're going to call her cell phone as backup whereas today 2021 nobody yeah it's your primary that's your that's your main line so i see that however i do want to

say that i do not believe lacy took her dog out for a walk that morning so i agree with you there i don't know whether she was killed the night before or the morning of but i'm also going to make a a very you know straightforward statement because I want to be honest with you guys. I thousand one one thousand percent believe that Scott Peterson killed Lacey. OK, just spoiled it. We're only in part five. Listen, I one thousand percent believe that he was involved. What I want to also say, though, is that I don't know if I was on that jury, if I could have voted guilty based on the massive amount of reasonable doubt that there was. That's why it's probably best I stay off juries at this point because I just, I overthink everything. But I don't know when it happened. And the fact

of the matter is the prosecution didn't either, right? They didn't know shit. They didn't know anything. They had a hunch just like you and I do. Just like the majority of the people watching this have a hunch like, yes, maybe there's reasonable doubt. But Scott in general just gives us an uneasy vibe. He gives us like a creepy vibe hearing him talk, seeing him hearing about the things he does. That's our gut instinct telling us this guy's bad news, period. Let me me dive in you just you just you just gave it all away but i want to go back to the phone real quick because you were 18 in 2002 right yep okay uh you had nev by then right okay do you remember that time at all as far as your phone or

whatever because again you're not lacy but i'm just thinking like if you were home alone back in 2002 pregnant with nev um did you do you remember if you had a cell phone or not i had an lg nv oh mike so clearly you've you remember okay perfect do you remember you know i i not without getting your personal life too much were there times when you were alone yeah of course okay i was a single mother i was alone all the time i didn't know how i don't know how much people know whatever right so So you were a single mom. You had a phone. Did it ever cross your mind that when you were going places or whatever, even though phones weren't as prevalent in 2002, but I was 18 in 2002 as well. I had a phone. I always carried

my phone on me. I'm going to be honest. I wasn't using it like I am now for all these extra features. But when I traveled, when I was walking somewhere, if I went down to the beach when I was in college, I had my phone on me just in case someone had to reach me. Were you someone that would carry your phone, especially during the time when you were pregnant with Nev? Or were you someone who kind of left your phone in random places because it wasn't something of really any importance to you in that time frame? When I was pregnant with Nev, I did not have a phone. I had a pager. It was baby blue, super cute. And then I'm going to also revamp my statement.

The LG Envy came a little bit later, probably 1920. At the age of 17, 18, I had a prepaid. 1920? Yep. Yep. 1920. 1920, what? I'm losing you.

Like 19 or 20, the year of how old I was. Oh, 19 or 20. Yep. 1920. 1920 what? I'm losing you. Like 19 or 20 the year of how old I was. Oh, 19 or 20. Okay. I was like, Stephanie, what are you talking about? Not 1920 and not like the great Gatsby. That's how I was like, what are you? Not the roaring 20s. I'm like, is she having an aneurysm? What is she talking about? No, I'm a time traveler. Okay. All right. So 19 or 20 years old is when you got the Envy. I know. Yeah. But then before that, when I was 2002, I had a prepaid Virgin mobile phone that

I got from Target and it had very little minutes on it. I did not bring it everywhere with me. Okay. All right. So there you go. That's the point that a lot of you were making in the comments. Because usually it was out of minutes, Derek. Okay. So I couldn't use it anyways. So I mean, those are all questions that I, if I were working this case, you guys always ask for the detective perspective. They probably already got the answers to this, I'm assuming, but I would be harping on that phone, wondering what her baseline was for that phone. Did she ever use it? Was it always out of minutes? If it was a prepaid phone? Was it something that she carried around with her often when she would go for walks with the dog? I'd want to know all that because anything that's outside the ordinary of what she would normally do, that's something I'm really going to want to focus on and look into. she was someone who didn't really care about her phone, but if she was going on a walk or going to the store, she would make sure she had it with her just in case, because obviously she's about to give birth. You never know. Then again, that would be something I'd want to know.

I guess we can kind of put it to the side for now, but I think I've made my case on it as others have made their cases. We wouldn't know the exact answer unless we spoke to Lacey's parents or one of her family members or friends that knew her obviously way better than we do. So I can tell you there's not a lot of information about that phone out there. I even got Sharon. That's why, Stephanie. That's why. It's bothering you. I get it because you want to know. You want to put it to bed or not, right? I do. But I read Sharon's book. Sharon wrote book about about lacy and i thought if it's going to be someplace you know it's going to be in here because there's a lot of emotion in this book

not so many you know facts and you know police evidence and stuff but more emotion how did sharon feel about losing lacy you can see sharon's travels through like completely trusting scott starting to suspect him to outright believing that he was the murderer of her daughter. She says nothing about the phone. So it's strange. But regardless, you know, that's that's the opinion. That's the detective perspective. Right.

That's just my opinion. Like I said, I could get ruled out real quick, but we'll put it we'll put a pin in it. I think I've made as much of a case as I can about it without having the complete picture. And it's anecdotal. You know, everybody uses their phone differently now. And it's anecdotal. Everybody uses their phone differently now, and they probably did too in 2002. Oh, yeah. If it was today, I think every single person watching or listening is going to go, absolutely, there's no doubt. But I do think that 2002 does leave it open to interpretation because I will definitely admit that phones were

not nearly as prevalent or as technologically advanced where you could do these different things that could actually contribute to your safety. They really only had one purpose and that was to dial a number. That's it. So I'm with you guys. I hear where you're coming from, but I'm sticking with my hunch. But my LG Envy was the shit, man. I remember how fast I could type on that little slide out keyboard. I was like, it was so great. I had a Nokia. Oh, a Nokia? The ones where you could do the two-way... Oh, yeah. That's what we were doing on campus. Y'all were obnoxious in the mall, okay? Obnoxious.

You were just jealous. I'm by Hot Topic. I'll be right there. I'm leaving Zoomies. Oh, my God. Well, OK. Before we jump back into the timeline, I do want to go over some media appearances that were given by Scott Peterson and his family. Let's take a quick break and we'll talk more about this when we come back. Many experts and media consultants believed that these appearances, these incidents, they only hurt Scott's image with the public. I feel like every time Scott shows his face on camera, he's hurting his image with the public because he's just so freaking awkward. But what do I know? So Jonathan Bernstein, he's an L.A. crisis management and media consultant, and he claimed that Scott's television appearances were a mistake

and strained his credibility, saying, quote, anybody who puts themselves in that position, they better be squeaky clean, and he's already proven he's not, end quote. But Mark Garagos, Peterson's lawyer, he felt that media appearances were essential, and Scott wasn't a celebrity like many of Garagos' former clients, you know, Winona Ryder, for instance. So Scott didn't need a media strategy. Garagos said, quote, you got to suck it up. You've gotten caught up in something much larger than you could have ever thought of and you have to weather the storm, end quote. Bad advice on Garagos' part, if I do say so myself, because Scott's interviews with the media were very telling.

We know that he spent a long time avoiding reporters and news cameras. But now at this point, everyone knew about Amber and Amber herself knew about Lacey. So Scott had no reason to stay in the background any longer. And I want to focus on two interviews specifically. The one he gave to Gloria Gomez from CBS Channel 13 in Sacramento, and the one he gave to Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America on January 28, 2003. So with the Diane Sawyer interview, it was overall just a really awkward interaction on Scott's part.

I can't even put this into words. He did a lot of smiling, a lot of smiling when there was nothing to smile about. It reminded me of Burke Ramsey's interview with Dr. Phil. And I know a lot of people out there like, no, Burke, you know, he's kind of on the spectrum. Like he may be autistic. He may have Asperger's or something like that. So that could be why he was behaving that way. And I think even Dr. Phil said, you know, Burke's a special kind of person. He has a different way.

He's very socially awkward. Scott Peterson doesn't have any of those things to fall back on. He doesn't have any medical diagnosis to to explain why he's smirking throughout this entire interview. He seemed to purposely make an attempt to keep his voice level, soft, and non-threatening. You know, when she'd ask him questions, he'd be like, yes, well, that was just the way it was. He speaks so, it came off as creepy, in my opinion. For instance, Diane Sawyer told Scott that everyone sitting at home wanted to know the answer to one question. Did he murder his pregnant wife? Scott responded that he had nothing to do with her disappearance. And although he believed murder was a possibility that he may need to accept, they don't know anything for sure yet. But he's got this weird smile on his face while

he's saying this. So his words are communicating one emotion, which is like, you know, trying to be hopeful. I understand that my wife could be dead. I understand it's not looking really great right now. I mean, it's been a literal month since she's gone missing, but I have hope and I have faith. And he's like smirking. And his face is communicating a completely different story. And I believe in the body language community, they call this duper's delight. I've heard people say it so often. I don't really buy into the whole body language thing. There's certain things that I'm like, yes, but also I think it goes so far where we're dissecting everything that everybody says,

and we're focusing on the wrong things. I remember Heidi Broussard, it was a case and her husband, she went missing and it ended up he was completely innocent. He had nothing to do with it, but everyone was tearing him apart. And they were saying, look at him. He's smiling, duper's delight. He's looking down into the left. That means he's lying. You know, he's saying this and that means this. And they just kind of went crazy. And this man who who had this small child that he was the father of and his wife, the mother of this child's missing, he's lost so much at this point. And he was just being ripped apart in, you know, the public opinion. And it bothered me.

So I don't buy into this as much as I feel like other people do. What's your take on body language as far as suspects go? Body language is huge. I used to use a technique that's not technically allowed anymore in its same form, which was called the read technique. There is other variations of it now. I think a Wicklender, Zoloski technique. I do think there's a lot of truth to body language and nonverbal cues. And I think as interviewers and interrogators, it's a, it's a tool that we have. I actually have it. I won't pull it out tonight, but I actually have a, uh, right to my right here. If you're watching this, I have this, this, uh, it's this pad, but it comes with a list

of verbal cues that we were conditioned to look for, right? It's a bigger class that we had to take over like two months. There's two different levels to it, but then it's kind of like a cheat sheet. And some of those things are baseline question behaviors and then control question behaviors. So you would ask these baseline questions to try to get a baseline on the person themselves. So for example, there are some people who have a natural tendency to tap their right leg or tap their left foot or tap their fingers or look away when they're speaking to you. That's just it could be for cultural reasons. It could be just because of their own personalities.

You have to kind of take the first half of the interview just establishing a baseline that you think is their normal behavior for interacting with you by asking certain questions like baseball questions or whatever you think might be of interest to them, then you go into questions where if they were lying or if they were anxious about it, they would display a different type of behavior. And what you're using is not what you learn in the books as far as what liars do, but what they're doing that is different from what they've been doing for the first half hour of the interview. That's how I did it. So I wasn't basing it on the sample that was given in our videos for our interviews and interrogation techniques when I was in school for this. I focused on developing a baseline that was specific

to the person I was speaking with and then looking for things that have been proven to suggest deceit that they were now displaying but were not displaying in the first half of my interview. I do think there's some truth to it. I do think there are some outliers as well where they just change throughout the interview based on the series of questions you're asking. But I am one of those people that do believe there is something to it. Yeah, but that's after establishing a baseline, correct? Correct. A baseline based on that specific person. So could you analyze a person's body language if you did not have the baseline based on that person's specific behavior? No, I don't think you could. I don't

think there's a format. I don't think there's a template that you can just apply to. So you and I, for example, you and I could go into an interview. And if we're not asking control questions or baseline questions first, I can't put a template over your interview and say, see right here, she lied based on the template. And the same thing hold true for me. It's going to be specific to the person you're interviewing. And any good interviewer is going to know that. I do think there are quote unquote experts sometimes who will watch just one question

of an interview where people felt like he or she was lying and go, yep, you know what? He's looking off to the left. That would suggest he's lying because in case you guys don't know, looking off to the left would be actually not lying. So looking off to the left, the way I remember it was looking off to the left means logical side of the brain where you're pulling from fact, you're pulling from memory. The right side of your brain is the creative side of your brain where some people believe that if you look down into the right while answering a question, you're creating your response as opposed to pulling it from memory. I don't know. I haven't seen a lot of substance in that in my personal

experience where I've had someone lie and do that. But I do know it is possible. But again, if you're just watching that question and they look to the right and you say they're lying, well, how do you know they weren't looking to the right when they gave you their name and date of birth earlier in the interview or when they were talking about the Red Sox earlier in the interview where they had no reason to lie and yet they were still looking down and to the right? Because if they were, you would cancel that out as an indicator of deception. Yeah. Did I answer the question?

Yes. I kind of feel like I was jumbling there. No, no, it's perfect. And it reminds me of something I haven't thought of in literally over a decade. There was this show back in the day and I was watching this show when you still had to order DVDs from Netflix when there wasn't like a streaming option and it was called Lie to Me. And I think it was only one season, maybe two, but it was about a body language expert and he would just like go in and he would talk to somebody for like five minutes and he'd be like, they're lying. It was a great show. However, I

think that it happens so much where just the layman will look at these interviews not having a baseline, not having an indication of how this person generally behaves. And they'll say that person's lying because they're doing this or they're doing that or they're speaking in this way. And I think that's a little unproductive, but I do think it's fun. It's a fun exercise in critical thinking. But when you start accusing the person of lying and murdering like their wife in the comment section of a YouTube video, something they might see, that's crossing the line. So it's fine to speculate and it's fine to like talk about it and think about it. And I know there's lots of YouTube channels that just specifically look at like interviews from suspects and analyze them. And I think it's fun and I like to watch those. But, you know, who knows if it's if there's any real merit to it, especially when you have not

established a baseline. Correct. And actually, for the guys that are on YouTube right now, just so you don't think I'm lying to you, if you're on YouTube, you're seeing this. Here's my actual binder right here. It's the one I still use to this day. And I have a series of questions that I ask to establish a baseline. I ask them the same way so I can testify to that in core if I change it up for that person. And then when you flip this open, now I don't show this to the, obviously the person I'm interviewing, but again, you can see here behavioral guidelines. I don't want to get too far away from the mic, but it tells you signs of deceit, signs of being truthful. And this is so I'm not just making this up. This is something that we as investigators do use in the field. everyone's a little different. I have my little

sheet here that you can see where I'll write out the names. And then there's also abbreviations down at the bottom here. These are little abbreviations. So the person I'm interviewing doesn't know, but there are abbreviations for different indicators. So for example, we have maintained eye contact is MI. So I'll write a question out and then based on their response, when I'm establishing my control questions, if they didn't maintain eye contact, I'll write, you know, M I or whatever. So I can make these little notations as I'm asking these baseline questions. Then when I get to the hard ones, I'll make the same abbreviations and compare them to see if I'm seeing some deep,

some, some deviance in the, between the way they're answering. Is it deviating from the initial responses when it was controlled? So there is some truth to it. I guess it all depends on what you believe. I've been pretty successful with it. So that's kind of why I still believe there is value in behavioral analysis through nonverbal cues. But I also think that you have to, again, always establish a baseline based on that person. It's not one size fits all. So do you do that with me? Do you know what my baseline is? Do you know what I'm lying? It's kind of hard to turn it off. So with you, with anybody, since I was a kid, I've always felt like I've had a good read on people. Growing up in an inner city,

a lot of times in order to not get beat up, you had to be able to read the people you're around to know what their intentions were. So I always had that innate ability. And then I was fortunate enough to be able to go to all these schools. My chief was really big on interviews and interrogation techniques. So I got to go to like maybe four or five different schools throughout the years in detectives for free. And these were like thousand dollar schools. So to answer your point, to answer your question, I should say, I do feel like I still naturally develop baselines with people because I think there's been moments with you. Maybe I'm wrong where I'm like,

hey, what's the matter? And you haven't said anything, but I know based on that baseline that I've established that you're not acting the same. But I think a lot of people do that just naturally. Yeah. If yeah without somebody well enough right yeah without the training yeah i think there's always uh but having that training it helps you get there with a person you don't know well a little bit quicker right right it's almost like if you went on a reality show for half a million dollars and you had to establish baselines on 15 people to win it'd be pretty advantageous right yeah i think so i think it i mean probably work out pretty good.

Or if you're on like one of those speed dates, you know, and you got to, you wouldn't know. Shut up. But, but no, we're, we got off the track there, but I think that type of stuff is stuff that our listeners really love because that is stuff that like, this is from the Reed Institute. So this isn't something you can go like. Yeah, I mean, you're going to photocopy that and send it over to me, right? I might even have an extra one. I have to go into the, I have to go into my boxes.

But if I have the extra one, I'll give it to you. So do I have a tell? Because I need to know to like suppress this, this tell. Do you have a tell? Well, even if you had one, I probably wouldn't tell you because that would take away my superpower, right? Of being able to know. But you don't need a superpower with me, so. No, no, you had one, I probably wouldn't tell you because that would take away my superpower, right? Of being able to know. But you don't need a superpower with me. No, no, you're pretty.

You kind of wear your emotions on your face. You do. You do. You wear your emotions on your face. So with you, even before you open your mouth, when we're like starting to get prepped for these podcasts, the way you're kind of moving things around and stuff. I can usually tell if it's been a good day or a bad day. Yeah. That's how I always felt with my mom. I'd walk in the kitchen. I'd be like, I'd be like, nope, not talking to mom today. I'm just going to walk

right past with my book bag, do my homework upstairs. I'm not going to say shit to my mom right now until she's had that first white Russian. You know what I mean? So it makes sense, right? I mean, you know, from her, you know, genetics, they go down, right? So you probably do have some of the traits that your mom has where you wear your emotions on your sleeve and anyone around you who knows you knows what time it is and whether or not to bother you. It's so funny that some people still bother me though. I don't understand. Well, that's a different story. That's a different story. All right. So let's dive back in. Scott told Diane Sawyer. It's so ridiculous.

I hated I hated him in this interview. But he's like, I'm so proud of Amber. I'm so glad she came forward. It showed what a person of character she is. And he admitted he admitted to lying to Amber about being married. But then he says after, you know, a few days of Lacey being gone, being disappeared, he called Amber on the phone and he told her the truth. Now, this is a lie, right? Scott's referring to the conversation he had with Amber where, you know, she basically

found out from like her friend, Sean, that maybe Scott was married. Maybe he wasn't who he said he was. She asks him about this and he says, you know, I lost my wife and this is going to be the first Christmas without her. And so he didn't tell her that like my wife's currently missing and there's like this huge manhunt going on for her right now. He didn't say that. He was very vague. He did not say anything directly.

And Scott also says, you know, it was actually his phone call that prompted Amber to go to the police, which we also know is not true. Scott also claimed that he told the police about Amber immediately on that first day, the 24th. Also not true. Now, I'm not going to sit here and prop the Modesto PD up because I think they did some really bad things during this investigation. But I promise you that Scott did not tell them on December 24th, the day his wife went missing, hey guys, I've actually been having an affair with another woman for several months. So, you know, just in case that's of interest, Scott also claimed that Lacey knew about Amber. He tells Diane Sawyer that he told

Lacey in early December that he was having an affair. And Diane Sawyer asked Scott if this news had caused a rupture in his marriage. And he responded, quote, it was not a positive, obviously, but it was not something we weren't dealing with, end quote. He said that he and Lacey had not argued about it. And although he couldn't say she was OK with the idea of him carrying on a relationship with another woman, it wasn't something that was going to break them apart. Diane Sawyer was like, Diane Sawyer came for him and she was like, do you really expect people to believe that an eight and a half month pregnant woman would be so casual and accommodating

after finding out that her husband was having an affair and Scott responded, quote, Yeah, well, you don't know. No one knows our relationship but us. End quote. That's true. I think that different people have different relationship styles and different people are OK with different things in relationships. I don't believe that Lacey was one of those women who would be OK with her husband having an affair while she was pregnant with his child. I just don't. I don't see it happening. Scott told Diane Sawyer that Lacey was at peace with it, but not happy about it. Isn't that the same thing? How can you be at peace with something, but not happy with it? I don't know. And Diane was like, well, why did you tell her then? He was like, because it was the right thing to do. Yeah. I mean, I think it shows multiple signs of it. I mean, again, there's nothing tangible here to say a hundred percent lie, but you take common sense into it. And for all the reasons you just said, it's definitely apparent that Scott is, as I said, last episode, a pathological liar. He's calculated. I hate to admit this, but he's not a bad liar. He usually does have his ducks

in a row. As we've seen with the concrete stories and all these things, he usually does have a pretty good backstory to support whatever narrative he's putting forward. So I'll give him that much. But I do think there are multiple slip ups in there as there usually is when someone is telling this elaborate of a story. And, you know, the fact that I mean, I guess you could say that maybe Lacey was embarrassed and didn't tell her family about Amber because she didn't want to upset everyone, which I know I think it was in part one of two or one or two that you said that maybe that's possible. But I don't know. That's what he claimed. Right. That's what he claimed right that's what he claims but yeah but who's alive to refute that not lacy right well that's that's a question i have for you

because i did say it a couple episodes ago and you're like oh well you know there is evidence to support that lacy knew just refresh my memory other than scott saying that they they talked about it is there anyone outside of Scott Peterson who has said, Lacey told me Scott was having an affair? No, no. Okay. So there's a very good chance that she didn't know. Yeah, I don't think that she knew.

Now, there was people who came forward and they were like, yeah, she seemed kind of off in the last weeks. Like, yeah, but she was pregnant, okay? You have a thing inside of you that's sucking the life out of you, taking everything you have. You're going to be off.

You're going to be off. What about the photo? Didn't you say there was a Christmas photo that she found and it was almost like Scott wanted her to find it? But now that could be explained very simply, right? Because she finds the picture. OK, she confronts Scott on it. Who is this woman? Why is she sitting on your lap?

Oh, Lacey, that's so-and-so from the so-and-so business. She was drunk. It was embarrassing for her. Literally 10 seconds after that photo, I told her to get off me. It was inappropriate. But you're right. That's not a good looking picture. I apologize.

But that's just so-and-so from work. She was drunk. Bad night. You know, it could have been as simple as that. Yeah. And then, you know, if Lacey, you know, you can't prove that he's lying to you, but you're still going to have a bad feeling about it going forward. Right. Well, wouldn't you? We've all seen the photo by this point. If you've seen it on YouTube, we've had it in multiple times.

He looks very happy in that photo. It doesn't look like he's uncomfortable or upset that this woman is sitting on his lap. So it's hard to believe. But yeah, I can tell you if I was lazy and I found that picture, wouldn't have been me that went missing. That's all I'm going to say. Yeah, no, it's a bad look. But these interviews, again, man, some of these guys that we know are guilty of these crimes go out there. Fotis Doulos, perfect example, out there 2020 doing all these interviews because they feel I'm smarter than everyone. I'm going to go on national TV and I'm going to be able to convey to millions of people that I'm innocent because they lack so

much self-awareness. They don't realize how skeevy they come off. Nobody's buying it. You come off just naturally being a really shady character. And although in your own head, you might think you're pulling over the wool on everybody's eyes, in reality, you're just making yourself look more guilty. Fotis was the same way. I watched the 2020 interview with Fotis. And after the interview was when I finally was like, no doubt in my mind, he killed her. Yeah. There's no doubt in my mind. Yeah. There's a lack of self-awareness and there's this feeling that you're smarter than everyone, that everyone else out there is stupid.

And. Yeah. Yeah. I mean. Well, criminals are smart. Like I say all the time, if criminals were smart, they wouldn't get caught. I feel like some criminals are smart. Right.

But at the same time, not everyone is as stupid as they think they are. Right. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. I agree. So yeah, I don't love the interviews. smart right but at the same time not everyone is as stupid as they think they are right yeah i agree yeah i agree so yeah i don't love the interviews it was it was super uncomfortable every time scott sits down with somebody he just has this greasy uh vibe i don't like it so scott told diane sawyer that when lacy disappeared all was well between them and when when Diane Sawyer asked him to describe their marriage, he said, quote, the first word that comes to mind is glorious, end quote. And then he went on to say that Lacey was amazing. She was amazing in the past tense. So that obviously raised a lot of red flags for people.

And, you know, this is kind of the same vein as the body language. I don't think it's a 100 percent guarantee that when someone refers to someone who's missing in the past tense, that that means they know they're dead. I think sometimes it's the absence, it's the length of time. It had been a month at this point. So I do think that that's a slip. Sometimes it's a genuine slip that doesn't suggest anything else. But in Scott's situation, I'm going to go ahead and say that it's because he knew she was dead. Yeah, I'm with you. I'm with you. It's not, again, it's not a science. No.

But it's definitely something that should be noted. It's a tool. It's a tool to be used with other tools. And again, it's one indicator of maybe 15 or 20 indicators in this interview that would suggest deception. Right. And then the whole Peterson clan, they hopped on Diane Sawyer's show with Scott and they claimed, you know, they'd never wavered in their faith and trust in him, even though they had been surprised to find out he was having an affair, which I also find to be bullshit. I think

Scott definitely told at least his mother before Lacey went missing that he was seeing another woman. But Lee Peterson said that Scott having anything to do with something happening to his wife was impossible because Scott was the most gentle soul he knew. Now, I saw some comments in the last episode about Scott's gift to Lacey for Christmas, and this was a great point to bring up. And that's why I'm glad that we're crowd solving and we're like listening to your comments and reading them in relation to what how we're basically formulating these videos but you know you guys asking that it prompted me to look it up because honestly I'd never even thought about it before so the theory is if Scott did not purchase a Christmas

gift for Lacey is it more proof that he knew she wasn't going to be around on Christmas Day to open it? Right? That makes sense. If he didn't even buy a gift at all, you wouldn't do that. You wouldn't not buy your pregnant wife a gift for Christmas. So he must have some sort of premeditation there. So Diane Sawyer kind of asked him about this, and Scott claims he got Lacey a Louis Vuitton wallet for Christmas. During the initial search of Scott's home, law enforcement had basically looked through and inventoried the presents that were under the Peterson's Christmas tree and they found one large box wrapped in deep blue paper addressed to Lacey from Scott. But the wallet was not in that box. In fact, we don't know what was. They

never said. They just said that there was a gift there for Lacey from Scott. However, the wallet was found in an open bag. It was still like in the shopping bag. And initial reports assumed that this was a gift for Lacey from Scott. But later, police found a credit card receipt that showed Lacey had purchased this wallet during a trip to Carmel a week before she went missing. So some argue, people who like support Scott Peterson, they say, well, Lacey may have bought this for herself and then didn't open it or use it because she wanted, she basically wanted Scott to like present it to her for Christmas. But I mean, then it's not really from Scott, is it? You know, he didn't put thought into it. He didn't take time out of his day. There was no effort on his part. But we know also that Scott

can be quite thoughtful when it comes to gift giving, just not with his wife, apparently. During Scott's trial, the prosecution showed the jury pictures of multiple gifts given to Amber Fry for her birthday by Scott. He got her a necklace, a Nora Jones CD because Come Away With Me was like kind of Scott and Amber's song. He said he thought about it. He thought about her every time he heard it. He got her a can of wildflower seeds, a little silver jewelry box. Scott had also given Amber some little gifts for her baby daughter. He got her like this little kid's purse and some books. This was on February 10th while the world was out looking for his missing wife. This was six days before Connor's due date. So it clearly shows a lack of concern for his wife and his child. It clearly shows that Lacey's status was not a top priority for Scott. And honestly, there's no way that I can defend this.

Another interview Scott did was with Gloria Gomez. And this interview where he's talking and talking, you know, she's asking him questions, he's responding, and then his phone starts ringing and it keeps ringing and like it stops ringing and then it starts ringing again, like somebody called right back. So obviously someone's trying to get a hold of Scott. And you would think there would be some, you know, sense of urgency for Scott to take this call, as it could be news about his missing wife and child. But instead, he calmly asked Gloria Gomez, did you just want me to shut the phone off? So a lot of you mentioned this to us through messages and comments on the YouTube videos and also on Instagram. So I had to go and hear it for

myself. I watched the whole interview and sure enough, it happened just like that. This tells you something. In my opinion, it says that Scott's a good actor, but he's not a great one, right? He can only focus sort of on one thing at a time. And his main goal that day was to talk to the video cameras and appear to be as innocent as possible. But he can't multitask while he's in this unnatural state because he's not he's not like genuinely and organically this honest stand up guy. So this is a state where he's acting. He's pretending to be a good guy and a concerned husband. So when the phone rang, his initial thought is like, you know, this damn ringing phone keeps interrupting my script where I'm trying to make the world think I'm like this nice guy. But if he was a truly concerned husband, his first thought when hearing that phone ring would have been, you know, have they found Lacey?

Is there news? Is she okay? What's going on? Right? Am I off base here? I think the main takeaway for me, even when you started talking about these interviews, Diane Sawyer, obviously this newest one, these interviews, I ask what the purpose is. The purpose is not to try to help find his wife because there's nothing he can convey to the viewers that's going to assist or motivate them more to find this pregnant woman. Right? So both of these interviews are for self-serving reasons. They're just to kind of like, try to change the narrative on him while his wife is still out there missing. And that's all I need to hear. That's all I need to hear. You had me at that point. You're out there defending yourself and

passively defending yourself. You started off by saying vilify me, but you're doing this so people can see you in the light that you see yourself. Oh, once they hear from me directly, they're going to love me. When in reality, your wife is still missing. Now, if you had information or the case was starting to lose steam or Now, if you had information or the case was starting to lose steam or whatever, and you wanted to go out there and do a quick press conference to try to reinvigorate people to get out there and help them search for your wife, I'm all about it. This was not that. This was not that. So all the sexual things you're telling me about is just reiterating what I already thought at the beginning as soon as you mentioned interviews.

So that's where I stand on it. They're for him and for him alone. So let's talk about Scott's claims that Lacey knew about Amber almost a full month before she disappeared. What do Lacey's friends and family think about that? So a close friend of Lacey's named Lori Ellsworth, she says she doesn't believe it. She saw Lacey on December 14th and she claimed that Lacey was as happy as could be. She was not a woman who was being weighed down by the knowledge of her husband's affair. During the trial, the prosecution put witnesses on the stand who testified that Lacey had never confided in for a facial wax during the day, and she complained about swollen feet and lack of sleep, but not marital issues. One of the most outspoken opponents of Scott Peterson is his half-sister, Ann Bird. She was one of the children that Jackie Peterson had put up for adoption. She was about six when she found out that her parents were not her

biological parents. When she was 32, she got a call from a man named Don. This was another child who had been born to Jackie Peterson, but not raised by her. And Don told Ann that he'd found their biological mother. Ann says when she first sat down with Jackie Peterson, it was odd. Jackie kept it real light. You know, she asked Ann about her favorite foods, what she liked to do for fun, etc. But she never apologized to Anne for giving her up. She never even gave an explanation as to why. And Anne claims, you know, she really wanted that. She was expecting it. She was looking for it. That's what she wanted. And it just sort of never came up. Anne also said that

when she first met Scott, she already knew that he was referred to as the golden child. But she was surprised because he wasn't like stuck up or anything. He was very welcoming, very friendly, and he just couldn't stop smiling when he saw her and they first met. He kept looking at her and he was like, I can't believe you're my sister. You know, he was just taken aback by it, but super happy about it. Anne said she thought Scott was wonderful and amazing. She was having some issues with her car, and as soon as she mentioned it, he went right outside to check it out and help her out. Anne was also introduced to Scott's beautiful, outgoing wife, Lacey, who she described as

loving life and loving all people, very funny, with a hilarious sense of humor. Lacey and Scott were present when Anne got married to her husband, Tim, and when she got pregnant, she and Lacey and Scott were present when Anne got married to her husband, Tim, and when she got pregnant, she and Lacey bonded over that, even though Lacey was having trouble conceiving a child of her own at that time. According to Anne Bird, in November of 2002, they were all supposed to take a trip, a family trip, to Disneyland. But Jackie Peterson called Anne and said she didn't know if Scott and Lacey would be joining them, saying, quote, they're having problems again be joining them, saying, quote,

they're having problems again. You know, men, end quote. Apparently, there was some friction between Lacey and her mother-in-law. Anne said that Jackie did not like Lacey's attention to detail. She was too controlling. She was too focused on being a perfectionist. And Jackie resented the fact that Scott and Lacey had moved to Modesto, which was closer to Lacey's parents, but further away from Scott's. Essentially, the general impression that Anne got was that Jackie did not feel Lacey was good enough for Scott. Scott and Lacey did go on that Disneyland trip, and Lacey had a great time. She was in really good spirits the whole time. She was bubbling over with excitement about the baby that she was carrying. And Anne Bird said, quote, she is to this day the happiest pregnant person I've ever seen, end quote. Scott, however, was not his usual self, though. He was distant and he spent a lot of time on this trip on his cell phone in the hotel room. So what I personally feel happened here is Lacey

had no idea Scott was seeing Amber behind her back. She was happy. She was looking forward to becoming a mother. She thought everything was fine. But Scott may have been in his mother's ear complaining about Lacey, telling Jackie how hard it was, how mean Lacey was, how things weren't going great. Possibly he was trying to prepare her for an introduction to his new girlfriend, Amber, someone his mother may approve of a bit more, someone younger, more naive, who would worship Scott in the way he deserved. In the days after Lacey's disappearance, Anne went to Berkeley Marina, which was a short drive from her San Francisco apartment. So basically, Ann Bird lived in San Francisco with her husband and her family, and she was trying to help Scott in the

early days. So she went to this marina, and she's talking to people who work there, people who are often there, and she was able to locate four people who claimed they'd seen Scott there on the morning of Christmas Eve. At this point, Ann believed, even though she didn't really know him, that Scott could not have possibly been involved and she trusted him completely, which is why she opened her home to him in mid-January 2003 when Jackie called her and told her that Scott had been chased out of his home by the media, etc. He's basically living in a rental car. So Ann was like, you know, don't live in your car. You're my brother. Come and live with me. So Scott occupied a small loft bedroom in Ann's home, and his bedroom actually overlooked San Francisco Bay, which happened to be the place

where law enforcement was spending most of their time looking for his wife. The first day he moved in, Scott had dinner with Ann and her husband Tim, but he didn't bring up Lacey's name once, even though she'd already been missing for three weeks. They had some food, they drank some wine, and as Scott refilled his glass of wine over and over, he seemed to loosen up and actually begin enjoying himself. Ann's husband Tim later told her that this dinner had set off some red flags for him. He said that Scott was making an effort to be in a good mood over dinner, but it didn't seem as if it had taken too much effort. So Anne and her husband Tim actually

fought about Scott for a couple months because Scott, I mean, Tim was like, you know, this seems suspicious. This seemed weird. And Anne was like, you're just looking into it. Like, that's my brother. Stop. So she actually like went to bat for Scott multiple times. But eventually, Anne realized that Scott was acting a little abnormally. Anne claims that Scott did not seem too concerned with where Lacey was, but he did seem very interested in the bird's young babysitter, who he was flirting with as if he was a bachelor. When the news about Amber broke, Ann asked Scott about it, and he said Lacey knew about Amber and was fine with it. He said she'd been upset for a day, and then she got over it. Scott also made some statements during this time with Ann that she found to be disturbing, such as

one day they're watching the news about the search for Lacey and they're showing the footage of like the police scouring the bay. And Scott shook his head and said, you know, they're looking in the wrong place. And Amber was like, who are you talking about? The police? He was like, the police, the public, everybody, they're looking in the wrong places. So after several of these red flags, Anne decided she could no longer defend her long lost half brother. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot in there that you can break down and you can take. I think it goes back to what we were saying earlier, you know, as far as we know, we people probably at this point know what we believe. So it's really

easy to come to the conclusion based on these behaviors. But I think even just looking at it as if it was not Scott, again, your wife is missing and you're flirting with the babysitter. It just, it shows that you're a real sick individual. And then, you know, God, I can't believe I'm doing this, but to defend Scott a little bit, I would love to have been in the room when he made that comment, because it's almost like too obvious that he killed her at that point. Like he might've been like, oh, they're looking in the wrong places. She wouldn't be, you know, like a, like a concerned, frustrated husband. So I would love to hear the tone in which he said it, but I'm assuming based on the fact that it was brought up and that you and I are talking about it right now.

It was probably in a tone that was a little creepy, but I have a hard time believing it was like, huh, they're looking in the wrong places. You know what I mean? Like, I don't, I don't think he was doing that. They'll never find her. Right. Like, you know, they're looking in the wrong places. What'd you say?

Oh, nothing. Oh, nothing. I don't think it was to that extreme. So she could have been skewed by the constant, you know, pressure from her, her husband, like, Hey, you need to look deeper into this. But I do think there are things in there that we know. Again, I always say it's got to be a t-shirt best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And Scott with Amber Scott with other women, hearing this story about this babysitter, nobody out here is not believing that he did that. Because again, that is his behavior. That is what he has proven

to be. So when I hear that, I know there's truth to it. I know it's more than just being nice. Yeah. Once again, the comment, like they're looking in the wrong places, that could be taken multiple ways. That's the way I took it when you said it. But if all those other things didn't exist, right? So it's in combination with all the other things. Otherwise, it could just be like they're looking in the wrong places. They suspect me. They're looking at San Francisco Bay because that's where they know I went fishing that morning, but I had nothing to do with it. They're looking in the wrong places. That would seem completely valid coming from somebody if they didn't have Scott Peterson's track record for cheating and lying and just being an overall dick.

Exactly. So I think for us, knowing who we're talking about, it means more because it's not a normal person who we're just like trying to find something. This guy has a pattern of behavior that this is just on par for Scott Peterson at this point. This is who he is. Yeah. And what we're going to talk about next is sensitive. So I don't feel like you should be listening to this with your young children anyways. Probably not the best thing to do because it's all trick or crime podcasts in general. I don't think should be consumed by young children. But if you do have young children around or if you yourself are sensitive to, you know, very triggering topics, just, you know, proceed with caution. As always, I always try to give you these these

tidbits of information in the most sensitive way possible. I don't want to go into graphic detail, but it's still upsetting because we're talking about, of course, talking about a baby and a woman who was murdered. And actually, because I kind of know where we're talking about a baby and a woman who was murdered. And actually, because I kind of know where we're going, I haven't read it, but I know where you're going to go here to not be insensitive to Lacey and her family. Before you get into it, let's take a commercial break. So we're not breaking it up in between everything you're discussing. We'll take a quick break and we'll get right into it.

It'll also give you guys time to prepare or get away from anyone if you're going to listen to this and you don't want to be around small kids or other individuals. So quick break. We'll be right back. So on Sunday, April 13th, 2003, at around 4 p.m., the remains of what was believed to be a full-term fetus were found on the shore of San Francisco Bay, about one mile away from Brooks Island. And if you remember, Brooks Island was the island that Scott Peterson claims he was sort of trolling around. He saw the no dumping sign, etc. The next day, the headless body of a woman was found washed up on the rocky shore of Point Isabel Regional Shoreline Park, a mile away from where the baby had been found, and two miles away from Brooks Island. It was Lacey Peterson and Connor Peterson. Lacey was basically only a torso,

her head and both arms were missing, her left leg from the knee down was missing. Her right foot was missing. And her internal organs were all gone with the exception of her uterus. In her body cavity, instead of organs, there was basically sea life growing. And it shows you how long she was underwater in the bay. Connor was in much better condition than his mother. He was hardly decomposed at all, even though the right side of his body had been, he had sort of like a cut or a tear on the right side of his body that they couldn't really say where it had come from. And the placenta and umbilical cord were not found with Connor. The autopsy said that Lacey Peterson's cause of death could not be determined due to extreme heavy decomposition. She was in the water for four

months, but there was no evidence of man-made wounds. So basically, they were able to examine her body and they could tell, you know, as far as we know, this woman was not shot and she was not stabbed. Even though Lacey and her child had been found a mile apart, their bodies shared something in common that we still really don't have an answer to. Reading from the autopsy done on Connor Peterson, quote, there was some material associated with the body, particularly some clear plastic tape, a lot like wrapping tape or boxing tape, one and a half loops of plastic tape around the neck of the fetus with a knot near the left shoulder. The skin beneath the tape was not injured and there was approximately a two centimeter gap between the neck and the tape

when pulling the tape so it was firm against one side of the neck. The tape was examined and found to be approximately 50 inches long, tied into a small bow over a very tightly overhand knot. End quote. So when Lacey was found, there was also tape on her body. There was tape found on her inner thighs. Now, allegedly, the coroner was never able to see the tape from the bodies because it was photographed by police and then removed. And some people refer to the tape on Connor as twine. But if you look at the pictures, it sort of looks like it could be like twine or a rope. But if you spread it out, it's longer and

wider and it kind of looks like tape. So the tape or the twine, whatever you want to call it, found on Lacey and Connor's bodies. It led some to believe that this was evidence that Connor had been born before he and Lacey were killed and the material found on the bodies was not picked up in the bay, but put there by human hands before Connor was placed in the bay. Connor was not as decomposed as Lacey. Like I said, hardly any decomposition. His body showed very little animal activity. Additionally, which you will not hear anywhere, it was not brought up during trial. It's pretty much, I had to dig for this, but

additionally, on the scene, on the same shore as Connor was found, a few feet away, there was this pallet bag. So a pallet bag is like a very long, usually like six foot plastic bag, and it's meant to hold pallets. And if anybody knows, or if you worked at a warehouse or like a dock or something, pallets are these long like wooden things that you can store stuff on. A few feet away from that bag, there was a couple of long metal pipes. Now on both the bag and the pipes, there was also tape found. East Bay Regional Park District Police Officer Timothy Phillips commented on the scene that the bag's odor was similar to that of the remains of Connor Peterson. But this is not found in any police report. It's just something he said while he was on the scene. And it was noted by the people around and they later repeated it. But he did not write it in a police report and it was not included in any of the police reports. Now, during the trial, Scott's defense team would argue that Connor could have been placed in that bag, which would explain why he was far less decomposed than his

mother, but that would also mean that he'd been born before going into the water, which something the prosecution's experts claimed was not possible. Detective Al Brocchini called the Canadian company that manufactured these bags and he asked if they ever shipped to Modesto, California. They said they did not, even though Lacey and Connor were not found in Modesto. After that, Brocchini dropped it. He didn't do any further investigation into what the bag was, how it had gotten there, or if there was a connection between it and Lacey Peterson. Matt Dalton, who's a former prosecutor who joined the Scots defense team for his first ever case as a defense lawyer, he did his own investigation into that bag. The prosecution and the Modesto police had written the bag off as just something that had been in the bay and washed ashore.

Matt Dalton called the company and he was told that they did in fact ship their bags to California. In fact, their product was being used at that time on the Richmond Bridge retrofitting project and the Richmond Bridge was actually not far from where the bodies had been found. A representative from that company told Dalton that the bag did not blow away and end up in the bay. The work site was locked up tight, the bags were secure, and they would also never ship their bags with duct tape on them. They said, if you found tape on our bag, somebody else put it there. Matt Dalton asked the construction crew at the bridge, you know, what are you going to do with these bags when you're done with them? And they said that they would throw the bags away and they would eventually be taken to the Richmond

Sanitation Company, which was a short distance away. Matt Dalton went there and saw that there were surveillance cameras, so he asked to see the footage for the week of December 24th, but he was told to get a subpoena. When he got the subpoena, the company told him that they had recorded over those days and that footage was gone forever. Another strange thing was that there had been caffeine present in Lacey's body at the time of her death, but as you know, she was pregnant and she'd stopped drinking caffeine. She wasn't drinking coffee, tea, nothing because she was pregnant. This all bolstered the defense's theory that Lacey and Connor had been the victims of some satanic cult in Modesto who had taken Lacey specifically because

she was pregnant and sacrificing a newborn baby at Christmas time is some well-known pagan ritual, I guess, that gives you all sorts of powers. And so basically they kidnapped Lacey, the satanic cult, and then they waited for her to give birth. And then they sacrificed both the baby and the mother to their unholy gods or whatever they do. I'm not a satanic cult expert. I don't know. I don't know what they do. But what do you make of all this? I know we just went over a lot. So there is a lot and I know there's some more to go. I'm not going to try to explain the things I can't explain like the tape because it could be something more or it could be as simple as as much as they're saying

it couldn't be in the water you know it wasn't in the bay we all know there's a lot of trash in in in the in our bodies of water way too much and sometimes these things that you don't expect to see in the water are there yeah but did you hear what what they said like it it was tied tied around and there was a bow and then a knot under the bow i got it and and maybe there's something to that maybe it was in a bow on whatever it was in and somehow it got over his head i'm not making excuses i'm just saying that it was it wasn't tied securely enough where it was tight on both sides only one the water does weird things could it have gotten over his head don't ask me how i think it could have you

know if the boat if the opening of that bow that area was bigger than his head where it could be slipped off without untying it or cutting it then it's possible but how do you get i'm saying yeah sure but you're but we're also gonna say that connor was in the water a lot less longer than lacy was right well here's where I'm going with that. Okay. And there's a lot more to go over here and I hope I'm not stealing any of your thunder as far as what you have left because I knew you have more stuff to go. So my initial impressions from what you just said is that it's kind of in line with what we said earlier. I think it's very unlikely that they were in the water at different times based on how they were found and the distance they were found from each other and the timing that they were found. So what would be your explanation

then, Derek? Okay, here's my explanation of it, which again, take it for what it's worth because I wasn't there. I do think that Lacey had been tied down somehow. She was weighted down somehow, and she was most likely weighted down by her limbs. And that would explain why she didn't have any limbs at the time she was found, because as the skin trying to be respectful here it does allow if she was pregnant for a fetus that had been protected by lacy inside of her stomach um for a a decent amount of time to be preserved in her uterus so that when she finally is released from whatever is anchoring her down again just the way the water moves, just like the bow, Connor, because he's no longer attached by the umbilical cord because of, again, decomposition, he floats out of her and away. Now, I want to get into what you just said about Connor and about Lacey, because with my limited amount of research that I've done about satanic cults and how they sacrifice things, it's usually not by strangulation. There's usually some type of

stabbing, shooting, whatever it may be. Sometimes there is a decapitation and you could say that that's what happened to Lacey, right? Because she's missing her head. But I would think that if they were sacrificing a child as well, they would not sacrifice that child by strangulation. There would be signs of some type of trauma, whether it's a stabbing. I don't think that they would use a gun, but there would be some type of trauma to Connor to suggest he was, I'm trying to be, I'm trying to be respectful here, but he died an unpleasant death, not a death like a strangulation.

So the fact that he that his body was in a lot better condition because it was preserved, in my opinion, by Lacey is why he didn't have any serious injuries to his body. And I think that if this was something where he was outside her body while alive, they would have killed him in a manner that would be identifiable to a pathologist later. I might be missing some things. You covered a lot there, but I'll give you that and you can hit me back with whatever you're feeling based on what I just said there. No, I think that's all valid. It's just impossible to know, right? A hundred percent. That's why I qualified it. It's like, who am I? Who am I to say I'm not a pathologist? And we all know from Robin Pope and from many other cases, water is a bitch.

It ruins an investigation. I'm actually shocked they were able to determine she had caffeine in her body. You know what I mean? Like, I don't even know. I still want to know how they did that because I know with Robin Pope, we couldn't tell anything. But again, if you're to think that it was some type of satanic ritual, you can explain away Lacey because they could have decapitated her, cut off her limbs, whatever, and that would explain everything we know.

But at that point, why was she in the water so long? Why was she allowed to have this type of sea life grow inside her stomach? She was held down somewhere, weighted down somewhere for a very long time. So how does it happen to Connor? How does he stay in that condition? I think the simple explanation is he was protected by Lacey. He was inside Lacey's body and it wasn't until Lacey detached from whatever was anchoring her down, which included her lower body, that Connor was allowed to come out of her body and then float independently of her. And that would explain why he had very little damage to his body. As far as the tape and the bow, you got me there. I got nothing.

Yeah. So basically, Mark Argos and the defense team, they were like, oh, the caffeine means that Lacey was taken by somebody and they clearly like fed her something that had caffeine in it. I mean, it could mean a lot of things. Chocolate has small amounts of caffeine in it. You know, I can't imagine as a pregnant woman, you'd give up chocolate. That's what you want the most sometimes. So it could it could mean a lot of things. But, you know, I just want to bring it back here. We're talking about a case where the husband is believed to have killed her. And we know for a fact that the husband, on the morning of her disappearance, went fishing.

And there's clear indications that he was making some type of anchor. I mean, take that at one part, right? That we have that information that we know is true. He has an explanation as to why he went fishing and as to why he was making anchors. I get all that. I get it. But take that into consideration and then take into consideration that when his wife is eventually found, there's evidence to suggest that she was placed in a water consistent with where he was fishing. And it appears based on the damage to her body that she was weighted down by something for an extended period of time. Coincidence? Maybe. I don't think so, but maybe. And I just want to like, again, I'm bringing up stuff that we all know, but when you start to put two and

two together, maybe there's some significance there. I don't know. Maybe. What are you thinking right now? I can see your wheels spinning. I don't know. It sucks. It sucks because I like to have things really laid out.

I don't like to jump to conclusions. I don't like to jump to speculation. The fact that they never found any anchors, and I mean they scoured that bay for weeks. These anchors, they're anchors. Their purpose is to just sink and stay mean they scoured that bay for weeks these anchors their anchors their purpose is to just you know sink and stay where they are right so they're not going to be like moving around a ton so it's it's crazy that if the the prosecution's going to argue that there was these at least four other anchors right you would think at least holding her arms and legs down one i could say i could see just being one.

Well, the prosecution thought he had made several, four to five, one around her neck, one each on her arms, one each on her legs. That's a lot. That's what they said. That there was all of these anchors. And that's why eventually when she did decompose, she came up, like you said, the connective tissues on her neck, her arms, and her legs all kind of separated. And she floated up. So you would expect there to be four to five anchors out there somewhere with body parts attached to them that have never been found. My thought is on it, it's probably one, maybe two. And there's maybe one or two chains that have been

embedded in the concrete and those chains in like a v pattern or v formation are tied to the legs and arms i'm even going to go as far as saying there probably wasn't one around her neck because i know that based on a lot of the autopsies i've been around even just people dying in their bed i gotta i'll just say it we're all adults here there have been times where we found a body after a month just because it was an old person or something like that. Nothing nefarious where they're in bed. There's no outside conditions.

But when you go to pick them up, the head can detach because of skin deterioration and decomposition. And that's with any outside influence. That's without any outside source. It's weight like a water, you know, because the head almost acts as an anchor on its own. Right. It's bobbling around underwater. Guys, we're all adults here. It's moving around underwater with the currents. There's like water. See what water does to your skin when you sit in the tub for an hour. Now imagine that by two months or how long we're

talking December to April, correct? Yeah. So just imagine, use your own, you know, intelligence to kind of put together what extrapolate what it does to your skin after an hour and make it, you know, multiple months. So that's my opinion. I don't think he was carrying out this tarp with five anchors dangling from it like a series of Christmas ornaments. If he did it, I think it was one, maybe two. But honestly, it probably would only take one with four chains being tied there or maybe even two. Because again, we talk about sea life. Sea life could easily disconnect the legs and arms just because it's stuck there and they're feeding off of it.

So it doesn't necessarily have to be connected on all four limbs. There's so much here. There's so much here to unpack. How awful, man. How awful. She didn't deserve that at all. Like to have that kind of death, to have that kind of like,

you're just floating around San Francisco Bay for months while everybody's looking for you and you're just getting eaten by sea life. Like that's awful. Right. And I will say this too. This is what I wanted to hit on with what you said, which is being someone who fishes all the time, all the time.

I could tell you right now, if I brought you to a lake, just a lake. And I gave us the best equipment in the world, sonar, whatever. And I said, Hey,

there's one 12 inch diameter anchor under the water. It's like in the shape of a bucket. And the water is, you know, let's say the water is 20, 30 feet deep in some spots. And we have a lake to cover. There's like a, there's a limit of where we can go. It would be very difficult for us to find it. Now put us in the San Francisco Bay. Yeah, but the San Francisco Bay is not that deep at all. A lot of points, but it does get deeper at certain points. We're going to talk about that soon.

But the average depth of San Francisco Bay is 12 to 15 feet. It gets very deeper, much deeper in shipping channels. But in the area where they were found, Brooks Island, not deep at all. I believe that. But again, we don't know where they came from. And again, I said it a couple episodes ago. I personally don't believe that if Scott did this, he dropped her in the water where he told the police he was trolling. He might have spent most of his time that day at that area.

But if he did it, there was a point during his fishing trip where he went off the beaten path, maybe pushed the boat a little too much, went out to a spot where the sonar said it was 12 to 15 feet deep and dropped him down because he, again. Yeah, but they used that to testify during trial of his guilt that the, with the tides and the waves and the wind that where he said he was fishing and where they washed up was consistent. Consistent. Yeah. So we can't have it both ways. It could have been further. I know it's hard to explain through here, but I mean, it could be where, okay, where they were, they're saying they came from that area. Yes. Could it have been further north? I don't know the geography of it, but could have been further North or East of that where it still would have caught that same current, but maybe not in the exact area where he said they were. Again, I don't know the type of, uh,

what type of search was conducted, what type of grid, how many boats were out there? I don't know. So, you know, again, my, I guess to summarize, is it possible that they missed one or two concrete anchors in this big body of water? Yeah. I think it is. I think it's fair to say that if we were to bring an expert diver on here, the reasonable degree of certainty that they've scoured every single square inch of that bay would be relatively low. Yes. There's bodies of water where we're looking for a plane or a ship and we don't find it. That's the ocean. I gotcha. I gotcha. But I'm saying in those cases, they have military vehicles out there doing it and stuff. So I'm just saying it's not impossible to do it. So to think that they missed this small anchor, and by the way, it wouldn't

take that heavy of an anchor to hold down Lacey. I mean, you're a tiny woman, right? You're not that big. I mean, it wouldn't take a lot of weight. It wouldn't even take a bucket of concrete to hold you down underwater. That's pretty much what he was using to make the anchors, right? A Home Depot bucket. Could have used even half a bucket. Yeah. They theorized that he was using to make the anchors right a home depot even half a bucket yeah it was they they they theorized that he was using a home depot bucket to make the anchors so not not a big anchor so we're looking for something a little bigger than a weight that you would put on a barbell yeah in the san francisco bay with all these other things that are in the water that you're trying to identify lots of stuff so i i think it's possible but i i hear what you're saying i love that you're playing devil's advocate and that we're kind of debating it in a way, even though I know where your head really is, because I do think that they justice for Lacey. But at the same time, I don't want somebody who's who's not guilty to be sitting in prison.

So it's constant, you know, battle inside of you. But the last time that anyone spoke to Lacey Peterson, it was on the evening of December 23rd. Right. Her mother, Sharon, talked to her around 830 at night. So in his closing argument, prosecutor Rick D'Estasio said, quote, it's very simple. The defendant strangled or smothered Lacey Peterson the night of December 23rd or in the morning while she was getting dressed on the 24th. I can't tell you when he did it. I can't tell you if he did it at night. I can't tell you if he did it in the morning. I'm not going to try to convince you of something I can't prove. I don't have to prove that to you. I only have to prove that he did it. End quote. A little more details would be great, though, Rick D'Estasio.

I like that quote, though. I'm going to be honest. I like it because he's right. It's not his job. It's not his job to discredit his own case. That's for the defense. No, it's his job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you have the details of when, where, and how that would help do that. Right. But you just said, you just alluded to it. He doesn't know. He doesn't know. He doesn't. It's not for lack of, he doesn't have them. He only has, and maybe we could make, we could go into a different conversation and say the police could have got them more, but that we won't even go down that, that rabbit hole. But ultimately the prosecutor is taking the evidence that he does have and making the best of it, presenting the best case he can. And I love that quote. It's not his job to disprove his own theory. So I do want to talk about the timing as far

as it goes with Lacey and Connor being killed. Let's talk more about that after this break. So if Lacey died on December 23rd or December 24th and Connor was not expected to arrive until February 16th, now this is also a thing that we're going to get into in a moment. His initial due date was the 10th and then it was adjusted to the 16th, but we would still expect to see similar times of death for both Lacey and Connor. Because of the condition of Lacey's body, both sides, the defense and the prosecution, they had to rely heavily on baby Connor's time of death to establish a window when this might have happened, because you have to sort of establish a window in order to disprove or prove Scott's alibi. For the prosecution, Dr. Gregory DeVore was called as an expert witness to present to the jury that based on Connor's gestational age

on December 23rd, which was the date of Lacey's last prenatal exam, and Connor's gestational age derived from measurements done on his remains, this showed Connor died between 8.30 p.m. on December 23rd and 10 a.m. on December 24th. So this always bothered me, even when I initially was, you know, watching this case go down. It bothered me because that happens to be the exact window that the prosecution says Scott could have killed Lacey, right? Like the exact window. 8.30 p.m., which is the last time Lacey talked to anybody besides Scott, and 10 a.m. the next day, which is when Scott left the house. So basically, Dr. DeVore pretty much was like, let's find the time that Scott was with Lacey on these two days and say that that's the time of death. So I don't like

how specific that was because I feel like you couldn't possibly narrow it down to that specific of a time. But I digress. So Dr. DeVore reviewed Lacey's medical records and noted that Connor's gestational age at her first ultrasound deviated only one day from Lacey's LMP, which stands for last menstrual period. Dr. DeVore assumed that the LMP was accurate and it showed a gestational age of 33 weeks and one day on December 23rd, meaning that on December 23rd, 2002, Lacey was 33 weeks and one day pregnant. However, there's some question to Dr. DeVore's methods in determining these claims. It is true that during Lacey's first ultrasound,

Connor's due date was determined to be February 10th, 2003, and that stayed consistent throughout her second ultrasound. But the third ultrasound, which usually takes place between 12 and 20 weeks to make sure that the baby's developing correctly, it's also intended to correct the due date if needed. And this third ultrasound happened on September 24, 2002. But according to the measurements of Connor showing a gestational age of 20 weeks and two days, as Lacey's due date suggested, these new measurements put Connor's gestational age between 18 weeks and three days or 19 weeks and four days based on measurements taken of his abdomen, femur, and head circumference. So this is when Lacey's due date was moved from February 10th to the 16th. During the trial, the prosecution argued that since Lacey's doctors had not

officially changed her due date in the records, this discovery was not that serious. But it turns out Lacey's doctor did make notations of this in the file. And, you know, both the following two ultrasounds, which happened in November and December, they were done with this new due date in mind, with this new due date as like the standard. This means that on December 23rd, Connor was still six weeks away from being considered full term and full term baby is characterized as being between 38 weeks and 42 weeks. Yet every doctor who examined Connor's remains described him as being a full term baby. So when Connor Peterson washed up on shore, he was described by the medical examiner who did the autopsy by everybody who was referring to him as a full term baby washing up on shore. It was the argument of Peterson's defense team, supported by their own medical experts, that Connor lived for a full six days beyond December 23rd.

You have anything to say or should I keep going? This is definitely beyond the realm of what I am qualified to talk too much about. But just from a layman's perspective, I guess a doctor would dispute me on this, but a six-day difference to me is not that big of a deal. But again, I'm not saying that like, Oh, it shouldn't be considered. But I think from my experience with two children, sometimes the, the baby will grow slowly at first.

And then all of a sudden it gains the weight it needs or adversely, it might start to lose some weight based on the mother's stress levels and what she's eating. So I do think that there may be some level of subjectivity where Connor could have sped up his growth after that second appointment where he might have put on a decent amount of size and weight based on what she was eating or whatever. I don't know. I even sound stupid saying these things because I'm talking about it as a dad.

That's okay. That's okay. But ultimately, the six-day difference, I think it depends on if you're the prosecution or if you're the defense, how you're going to interpret this information. But if it was like three weeks difference, where if they said to me, the baby, the way Connor was found suggests that he was three to four weeks further along than he was during that last examination, I would go, oh, okay, that's a big difference. I don't even care if you're a few days off, depending on who the doctor is. That's a big

difference. That's clearly suggested that he was alive well after the 23rd, but six days different based on size. I don't know. I don't know. I'll give you my experience. Two cents on it. Yeah. I mean, your experience, you kind of, you had a few kids, you should know, right? Yep. Having birthed three children I can tell you, I never have any idea. I don't know. I don't keep track. I'm not one of those women that has like a period tracker on her app. It comes when it comes. And usually it's a surprise. So I would always, the doctor would be like, when was your last period? And I'd be like, dude, I don't know, man. You tell me. You're the doctor. I have no idea. So they kind of will just give you an ultrasound and then guess. So the first ultrasound, like, what's your due date? It's kind of this big guess at first. But Dr. DeVore, who was the prosecution witness, did say that Connor seemed to be growing in the 50th percentile. I'm sure

that's a term you're familiar with, having been a dad. Yeah, as far as the growth rate. Yep. Yep. He was growing in the 50th percentile and he seemed to be staying in that range throughout the pregnancy. So they did kind of know at what rate he was he was growing. And when she went in for the third ultrasound, based on what they have now, which is actually a growing baby that they can take measurements of in this ultrasound, they then revamped her due date based on the measurements, which you're right. It could be because maybe Conrad sped up in growth, but there's really no way to tell how. Yeah, that's the thing, right? There is no, there's really, there's, yeah, there's no way to tell. And I agree, six days isn't huge. That's, I mean, I thought you were going to come at me and go, dude, in the grand scheme of six days is gigantic. It feels gigantic when you're pregnant.

Right. Six days. But for me, it's like, told me that he was a month further, you know, in size than he would like he was. Then I would be like, OK, how do I you can't screw that up. But six days. Oh, he was six days older. And then one doctor says, no, I think he was six days younger. I mean, I mean, you don't even know when the baby's going to come. Right. Like it's not like it comes on its due date. It's not like, oh, yeah, it's January 3rd. time for the baby to come out. It doesn't happen like that. I can tell you I've never given birth on any of my due dates. My oldest was due on the October 10th. She came on October 15th. So that's a five day difference right there. So it's very, it's very subjective. What isn't subjective, though, is that Lacey's cervix was still intact during her autopsy, which many experts agree show that there was an abdominal release due to decomposition, not a vaginal expulsion.

So this is essentially means that Connor remained in Lacey's uterus while she was in the bay. And only when her body had decomposed to a certain point did she expel him. She had not given birth in the usual way. So let's say some satanic cult had kidnapped her off the street while she was walking. Mackenzie runs away, you know, trying to get Karen's service to understand that there's something going on with her owner. But Lacey's already in this van driving off with the satanic cult. And they keep her awake and they're feeding her coffee. You know, just trying to keep her alive and awake and then they wait for her to give birth which i think is

absolutely a crazy thought that's so mark derrick goes because you february 10th or 16th either way that's a long time after she was kidnapped i'm not seeing it and she there's no way that lacy was not in the bay that entire time because she wouldn't be as decomposed as we see that she is. Right. So she didn't give birth organically because you would see a. She did have her torso. You would have clearly seen that the baby was removed almost like, I'm lacking the word here. What do you have when you don't have it naturally? C-section. Thank you. Jesus. How did I forget that? Cesarean, right? So for me, and I didn't read ahead. I was trying again. I was saying this earlier. To me, it was a natural thing that happened because basically the walls of her skin and her uterus and everything became so thin due to decomposition that the baby just naturally floated away. Yeah. I mean, your muscles are holding the baby. They were gone. But there's

still some things that we need to talk about, right? I agree. Before you keep going, I will say for the people who think Scott's innocent, I can see where they would jump on this aspect right here because there is an argument to be made. So if you're going to go in the camp of Scott Peterson's innocent, this is the info you want to live on right here. nurses or something that work with pregnant women. And you guys tell us, is six days a big deal? We want to know. We always want to learn. We always want to be better. And we always want to have this encyclopedia of knowledge in our heads to refer to for later cases. So if there's something we're missing, if it is a bigger deal than we're making it out to be, please let us know. But forensic path... Well, maybe I'll reach out to the guy you're about to mention right now. I'm friends with him. Forensic pathologist Michael Baden. Baden.

Baden. It's Baden. He's on my show. He's on my show multiple times. All right. So forensic pathologist Michael Baden said, quote, it does tell us that the baby was in the womb for many months after Lacey was in the water. And Lacey, in fact, protected the baby until the baby came out shortly before the bodies

were found. End quote. So basically, Bodden saying Lacey was in the bay that whole time. Connor emerged shortly before Lacey and Connor washed up, which would explain why he is so much less decomposed. Dr. Robert Goldberg, a forensic pathologist in Marietta, Georgia, did say that there were still a lot of unanswered questions when it came to the tape found on Lacey and Connor. He said, quote, it could have been picked up as some artifact in the water. The child could have been dead before this occurred, and this could just be a connection to keep the child weighted down, end quote. Even when this information first came out, people knew it was going to be a tough one for the prosecution to explain away or really to connect to Scott.

And L.A. attorney Royal Oaks said, quote, a defense attorney strategy faced with this kind of bizarre evidence is essentially going to be, what does this have to do with my client? What evidence is there that Scott Peterson did these things, end quote. So it would be good for the defense if they could prove that Lacey or Connor died after December 23rd, right? Because you have a very short time as the prosecution, a very short window to prove that Scott did this between the evening of December 23rd and the morning of December 24th. Whereas the prosecution, I mean the defense, whereas the defense can say, well, if we can prove or even give you any evidence to show that this happened at any time after the morning of December 24th, that's reasonable doubt. The defense team maintained that the tape tied around baby Connor's neck along with a cut on his body that appeared to have been made intentionally

were not consistent with a coffin birth. For anybody who's wondering, a coffin birth is the expulsion of a non-viable fetus through the vaginal opening of the decomposing body of a deceased pregnant woman. And this happens as the result of increasing pressure of intra-abdominal gases. So when a body is decomposing, a lot of gases build up inside the body and they're going to forcibly expel the fetus from the body. But according to people who know a lot more about this stuff than we do, a coffin birth usually occurs between 48 and 72 hours after death. But it's very rare and even more difficult to prove since it can mimic what an actual birth looks like. The one difference,

though, is the cervix, which leading up to a regular birth will thin in order to make way for the baby. But according to the autopsy, Lacey's cervix was completely intact, no thinning seen. So they do not believe she had given birth to Connor while she was still alive. But it does also say that a coffin birth will usually occur between 48 and 72 hours after death. And from what we're hearing here, it occurred, you know, much, much longer after that. Additionally, Lacey was still wearing maternity pants when her body was found when she washed up on shore, which experts believe may have held Connor in for longer than usual. And this is going to be something I'm going to come back to because it's always bothered me. But when Lacey was found, she was wearing a maternity bra and tan maternity pants, not the black pants.

She'd been seen while she was walking the dog. All those eyewitnesses said that the pregnant woman they saw was wearing a white shirt and black pants. But a great point. Great point. That's wearing a white shirt and black pants. Great point. Great point. That's why I was about to say it. Great point. All these people saw her in certain clothing. If she had been abducted at that point by whoever, the robbers, the satanists, whoever it is, they all, all these witnesses who are sure they saw her, saw her in a different outfit than she was found in.

Just something to point out. I'll let you keep going. But she was also not wearing the cream pants she'd been wearing the night before, the December 23rd. Those pants were found in the dirty clothes hamper at her house. Now, Scott told detectives that when he left on the morning of December 24th, Lacey had been wearing a white shirt and black pants, same as the people who claimed to have seen her. During the trial, Rick D'Estasio claimed that Lacey had been found wearing the same pants she'd been seen in on December 23rd, but that was proven false when her sister, Amy, remember from the salon, she was actually brought to the house and she identified the pants that she saw Lacey wearing. They were like at the house. She said, no, those were the pants. And it was very specific. She said the cuff was different. The buttons were different. The length was different.

So it's weird because Lacey's found not wearing the tan pants she was wearing on the 23rd or the black pants that Scott claimed she was wearing on the 24th and that all these eyewitnesses claimed she was wearing on the 24th. So black pants were initially not found during the search of the house on Christmas Eve. However, two pairs of black maternity stretch pants were later recovered from the home. One pair was found in a dresser drawer. The other was hanging up in the closet. And in so many statements during the trial, it makes it seem like the pants that Lacey was found in had been, you know, pulled up and buttoned still. They said like the pants were still buttoned, which begs the question

of how she was able to expel a fetus from her body with her pants on, right? Like, I mean, from what I can tell, I looked through the court testimony. I looked through like the witnesses they they kept saying like it was so odd because her pants were still on and buttoned so i think it's i mean again i don't think it's that difficult to imagine because obviously the maternity pants are still buttoned but they're looser fitting clothing and again don't look at it from i know what you're gonna say just don't look at it from what we look at we're walking the street i know but if this body is floating in the water right and the and the body of the connor is buoyant it can slowly make he could slowly make his way down her pant leg because there's no legs to stop him so i know i know i didn't need to water very fluid

i know i didn't need to hear it and now and's very fluid. I know, I didn't need to hear it. And now it all makes sense. And I wish it didn't. It doesn't seem that unreasonable. No, it doesn't. Thank you for clearing that up for me. And I will forget that you ever said it because I saw it happening in my head. And I don't want to. But however, I will say, I was looking on websites like Reddit where people discuss true crimes.

It seems like people are still under the impression, or a lot of people at least, that the pants Lacey was found in are the same she was wearing on December 23rd, but her sister Amy Rocha proved that they weren't. So we have some options here. Scott could have lied about the clothes. He saw Lacey wearing a Christmas morning or Christmas Eve morning, or she did in fact wear black pants to walk the dog, which multiple witnesses supported. And then she changed her clothes after this and after Scott left. Or Scott murdered her and then changed her clothes after he murdered her. I'm not sure which of these options is the most viable. Well, why can't it be a scenario where she was wearing a specific outfit on the 23rd? Everyone saw her in.

She goes home. She gets into another outfit for bed or early that morning. Because she's not going to wear those tan maternity pants to bed. So she wakes up in the morning. She never leaves the house. Yeah.

She never walks Mackenzie. Yeah. But she puts on these clothes and it's at that point before she ever leaves the house that Scott Peterson strangles her. So why would he say he saw her wearing black pants these clothes and it's at that point before she ever leaves the house that scott peterson strangles her so why would he say he saw her wearing black pants and all the witnesses saw her wearing black pants why would scott peterson call his mistress and ask her for advice as far

as what to do about his missing well i mean that's different and you know it he's been completely he's just he's not he's not the brightest yes but he's been completely spot on with that december 24th timeline to those like to the point where he's got faxes coming in the world. Yes, but he's been completely spot on with that December 24th timeline to the point where he's got faxes coming in and he can prove when they're coming in. And he's got proof that he called a hardware store for frigging buckets or something. I almost think he, I truly believe that there's a small, there's a small part of me that believes Scott never thought that she would come to the surface. Really?

Because maybe he didn't consider, you know, again, not hard to believe that he didn't consider decomposition in that even though he tied her down very well, that eventually her body would decompose and a section of her body would still be able to be buoyant and float to the surface. And he definitely didn't anticipate Connor being preserved by her body and coming to the surface. And he definitely didn't anticipate Connor being preserved by her body and coming to the surface. Well, maybe that's something he didn't plan for. And so when he thought about the clothing, I don't know, to get into the mind of someone like that, I don't know why he would do it. What would be the rationale? Did he hear from someone else before speaking to police that they saw her wearing black pants and a white

shirt and he decided to hop on that narrative. I don't know how quick he told police. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know why he would do it, but clearly, um, if we're to believe that she was abducted while walking and he's the one saying she was wearing black pants and a white shirt and she wasn't in it, there's a reason why he said it. Cause clearly she wasn't wearing that on any of the theories, right? Like if we believe, cause whatever happened to her, we're all on the same page, whether you believe Scott did it or not, that whatever happened to her happened while she was out either walking McKenzie or right, right. She was walking McKenzie and she either saw these robbers and confronted them and said, Hey, you shouldn't be

doing that. And the incident occurred then, or she was further away from the home and this satanic cult threw her in the back of a van either scenario these offenders didn't allow her to come home and change right so all those eyewitnesses who saw her out walking her dog in black pants her showing up in tan pants completely cancels out the theory that she was grabbed showing up in tan pants completely cancels out the theory that she was grabbed while out on her walk. Completely cancels it out. And as a cop, that's what I'm thinking right now. So we talked about these witnesses and how sure they were, they saw her. And you know what? I'm not trying to, you know, you know, come for them. But at the end of the day, I've seen it a million times. You can have

people who have the right intentions, who are doing it for the right reasons and just are wrong. They just, they just are wrong. And to me, all it does by seeing her in these clothes is tell me that everyone who said they saw her that morning, as you said, either, either it wasn't her or it wasn't that morning. Simple as that. Yeah. And that to me right there, her showing up in the clothes she did completely proves that beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion. Yeah, I agree. Well, let's take one last ad break and then we will finish up. Okay, we're back. So Scott was arrested on April 18th.

But like everything else with him, there had to be some drama. At this time, the remains of Lacey and Connor had been discovered, but not identified through DNA yet. But you do have a woman washing up and a baby washing up. You put two and two together. So the police have been following Scott in case he attempted to run. And it does seem as if that's exactly what he attempted to do, even though he strongly refutes that. It was Good Friday. Scott claimed to have plans to go golfing with his father, Lee, and his brothers, Mark and Joe. And I believe Mark and Joe are Lee's sons from his first marriage. So Scott had been staying with his sister Susan, also Lee's daughter from his first marriage, in Escondido. And due to

the increased media attention at his home since the discovery of the bodies, he needed someplace to stay. And, you know, Ann Burdick kicked him out and Susan took him in. Scott was arrested in front of the Torrey Pines Golf Course in La Jolla, California. And when the police apprehended him, Scott looked very different than the man we know. And he had some items in his vehicle that raised eyebrows, to say the least. His hair had been bleached blonde and he had grown in a goatee. In his possession, they found a driver's license with the name John Edward Peterson on it. That's Scott's brother. They found $15,000 in cash, six pairs of shoes, a bunch of underwear,

a bunch of socks, a lot of sleeping pills. I think there was like 100 sleeping pills, a gun, a knife, camping equipment like a tent, a tent cover, camp stove, cooking grill, fire starters, two folding knives, a tent chair, camp stove, cooking grill, fire starters, two folding knives, a tent chair, a compass, dried and canned food, climbing equipment and ropes, a hand shovel, duct tape, a folding saw, a backpack, a mask and a snorkel, fishing rod and reel, ziplock bags, a hammock, a camp axe, a Leatherman tool, hiking boots, several pairs of hiking boots, and a water purifier. They also found a handful of laminated missing persons flyers with Lacey's face on them,

three cell phones, some children's books, and a bunch of Viagra pills. I think there was like 12 or 16 there. There's a lot, more than any man probably needs. But do you know what was not in Scott's car? Anything that he would need to spend a day golfing with his family. No golf clubs, no golf bag, no golf shoes. So it was theorized that Scott had changed his appearance and then stockpiled all of his stuff so that he could vanish into Mexico and stay off the map because La Jolla is pretty close to Mexico. You know, you can get there pretty easily.

But according to Scott, we all have the wrong impression. Scott claims when he left his sister Susan's house that morning, he realized he was being followed and he thought it was the National Enquirer. So he stopped at his brother John's house in Ocean Beach and he grabbed John's driver's license to use at the golf course because San Diego residents get to use that course for a discounted fee. And Scott's father, Lee Peterson, would later testify that he had wanted to save money, so he'd called Scott and asked him to grab John's ID. So either that's a lie or Lee Peterson is covering for Scott. But on the way to the golf course, Scott called his other brother, Joe, and he was like, listen, I'm not going to be able to join you guys this day. I'm being followed by who I believe is the media. And Scott didn't want it to turn into like a

circus when he showed up at Torrey Pines. Now, this conversation, or at least the existence of this phone call was proven. Joe testified that Scott said to him, quote, the last thing I need is a picture of me playing golf showing up in the media, end quote. I mean, yeah, probably shouldn't be playing golf when your wife's missing. But without revealing that they were law enforcement, several unmarked cars proceeded to follow Scott as he drove over 160 miles for four hours. He brought them on like an OJ sort of car chase. A map of this route shows that Scott basically drove in a circle. So he didn't attempt to flee to Mexico, at least while he had people following him. But finally, Scott did head to Torrey Pines, the golf course, and that was when the police turned on their sirens and lights and pulled him over.

Scott says he was not fleeing to Mexico. He was meeting his father and his brothers. Scott also would later claim that he had not dyed his hair it had been bleached from sun and chlorine since he'd been spending a lot of time swimming that month and like the previous month this is absolute bullshit um no way have you seen this picture of scott with like the orange and it looks orange too it's like we're gonna throw it up right here so you guys can see it as well it's super bad it's a super bad um bleach job because that's absolutely what it was. I don't believe that he, he had his hair and his beard lightened from swimming in chlorine. We have a

pool. My husband who has hair and a beard would swim every day in the summer and never, not once did his, his hair turn orange like that. So, I mean, what do you think? For me, it kind of goes back to like, if you hear about those doomsday preppers, I don't necessarily think they caught him that day when he was trying to flee, but I think everything found in his car is suggestive of what we would call a bug out bag, where if he gets wind that it's coming down and he's going to be arrested, he has everything he needs in his car to jump in and drive to a location, a remote location where he can live off the land for a long period of time until he can reach out to relatives or friends that could help him restock. So that's kind of

how I view it. Like a 2003 Brian Laundrie. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. All those things are very suggestive of someone who is maybe disappearing to a remote location for an extended period of time and needs those certain supplies to be able to live in that area without any help for an extended period. So that's what I look at it as. He was keeping it in the car so that if his lawyer or his family members said, hey, police just came to our house to get a warrant for you they're looking for it's going down he's good he can go he can just go but i actually believe he was on his way to play golf that day because he's why do you have a golf clubs man what's he gonna play golf with his little his little feet i mean again i don't want to this is like the fish and stuff you can go to a golf course and rent golf now when you own your own golf clubs which he did since you know he

was a golfer phil mickelson we know all this come on i get it i get it i'm just saying i i could make an excuse for those things what i can't make an excuse for is why you have a gun a knife a tent i all those things you just said in your car and did you just come back from a camping trip are you heading to one tomorrow no i can't explain i'm going to let Scott explain it for you. Okay. Let's do it. The camping gear had been purchased on March 16th and the defense said that Scott had purchased this stuff. So apparently he was like at his nephew's softball game and there was like this camping store across the way. So he like walked over and he just bought a bunch of stuff because he liked camping, but he couldn't go home. See, he wasn't living at home and he didn't have a place to store it.

So he just kind of kept it all in his car. The knife in the driver's side door was discovered to have belonged to the previous owner of Scott's car, Michael Griffin. So this was not Scott's truck. He bought a new car while his truck was still in police custody. And Michael Griffin testified that he'd forgotten the knife in the door pocket when he cleaned out the car before he sold it. Scott was also able to explain the large amount of cash that he had on him. According to Scott and his mother, Jackie, this money was Jackie Peterson's. Bank of America on April 8th to withdraw $10,000 from a bank account she rarely used, but she didn't know her account number. So she gave the teller her social security number, which pulled up a

joint account of Scott and Lacey's that Jackie was listed on. So apparently Jackie had opened this account with Scott in 1991. And when he and Lacey had gotten married, he'd added his wife to the account, but he hadn't removed his mother from the account. So the bank gave Jackie $10,000 from Scott's account. Jackie then gave Scott $8,000 in cash for his equity on his Dodge pickup truck that was still in police custody, hoping he'd be able to use the cash to negotiate a better deal on a new vehicle. On April 12th, Scott purchased a red Mercedes from Michael Griffin, and he used the cash to buy this car, but he had $4,400 left from the $8,000 his mother had given him. On April 17th, Jackie went to Washington Mutual and withdrew $10,000 in cash from her own account. She then gave this money to Scott

to replace the $10,000 she'd accidentally taken from his bank account. She then gave this money to Scott to replace the 10 grand she'd accidentally taken from his bank account. But when Scott was arrested the next morning, he still had this money on him because he hadn't had a chance to go to the bank and deposit it yet. And it was Good Friday, so the banks weren't open or something like that, even though I don't think banks close on Good Friday. But the police were able to confirm like all these withdrawals and stuff like Jackie did do this stuff. Additionally, in the months since his wife had gone missing, Scott had made several trips over the border to Mexico for work and he'd come back each time. So he'd already been in Mexico and then come back to California and he hadn't like fled.

Scott had also been paying his bills. You know, he was paying his car insurance. He was paying all bills he had. He had filed his taxes. He paid his taxes. He had a pretty sizable paycheck that he hadn't cashed yet. So Mark Geragos used all of these things to argue that, no, Scott was not planning to run.

And if Scott already knew he was a suspect and had known for some time, why hadn't he run yet? Why would he wait for the bodies to be discovered and there to be more attention on him? There had also been a report from the previous January where the police had told the media that they thought they'd found a body in the bay. And Scott didn't run at that point. So why now? During the trial, when Jackie Peterson was asked why she allowed Scott to buy the Mercedes in her name, because he did, he didn't put it in his name, he put it in her name, which prompted the media to say he purchased the car under an alias. She said that the police kept taking his cars and he was getting sick of making payments on a vehicle he didn't have in his possession. I'll give one quick response to this one because it's kind of infuriating, but the Petersons, Scott and the rest of his family have more stories than Mother Goose. They honestly do. Mother Goose. And honestly, when we've all had that person in our life that's just like a pathological liar,

there's always an effing excuse no matter what it is you could have them dead red in the corner of a room they'll have a justification for why it happened and those people you just at some point you just got to put your hands up and say okay dude i give up you literally had your entire life in this car ready to go at any moment um but we're supposed to believe that your parents and everyone this is all just one big misunderstanding like this entire case this entire case has been one big misunderstanding with just a bunch of justifiable explanations as to why it looks terrible but it really isn't yeah you guys we're all just looking at it wrong we should we should name this episode

i know it looks bad but dot dot dot yeah dude it's everything no we're naming it mother goose now i'm pretty pretty sure 85 of our audience are not old enough to remember who mother goose is for the people that are uh shout out mother maybe you should use the brothers grim that would have been way like i don't know who that is okay well we'll talk okay you don't know about grim's fairy tales nope okay i wasn't loved as a child all right let us know in the description box if you're more familiar with mother goose or the brothers grim he said i wasn't loved as a child all right listen we're gonna keep moving because the episode's getting long and derek's over here like the episode's getting long when stephanie says the episode's getting long and Derek's over here like the episode's getting long when Stephanie says the episode's getting long you know I'm only saying it out of

you know respect for you so I'm withering away to nothing over here I know well what are you gonna do the day after Scott's arrest the Modesto Bee printed an article titled cops eyed Lacey's husband all along in this article police chief Roy Wasden said, quote, we haven't been able to eliminate him for a long while. You look to eliminate possibilities and that's what we kept doing and Scott could never be eliminated, end quote.

Wasden also said he thought it was odd when the reward for information about Lacey's whereabouts was raised to $500,000, yet no reputable information was ever received on the tip line. He said, quote, had anyone known about where Lacey was, had any information about where she was, and if she was alive, we would have heard about it. End quote. I dispute this. I dispute this because we've covered cases and I know there's a million cases out there where people are missing and there's been rewards, sizable rewards out there

for them and the police don't get tips and they don't find them. And that's why they're still cold 20, 25, 30 years later. So I don't know about that, Wadsden. According to police, it was a stroke of luck that Connor and Lacey's bodies had washed up when they had, and they believed that a storm the previous weekend had created waves that helped bring the bodies in. Normal currents in that area of the bay are not usually very strong because it's a shallow area. But the Saturday before Lacey and Connor were discovered, winds reached up to 38 miles per hour, creating larger and stronger than usual waves. When this happened, the force of the waves above the main water level pushed the debris from the bay floor closer to the shore, and it was very obvious to many people that the

location Lacey and Connor ended up being found in was very close to the same place Scott Peterson claimed to have been fishing that fateful Christmas Eve morning. On April 27th, the Oakland Tribune reported that law enforcement believed they had found the watery grave of Lacey and Connor Peterson weeks before the bodies turned up on the Richmond shoreline. Police claimed that they had spotted using underwater radar what they believed was Lacey's body inside a Chevron shipping channel, but before they could go in and retrieve it, they believed a heavily laden tanker passed over near the spot, and this churned up the channel's bottom and dislodged the bodies. Sources say that this original spot was miles away from Brooks Island. The fact that law

enforcement believed they did find Lacey was confirmed by police chief Roy Waston, who said he felt they had found her body in mid-March, but the waves came up and started getting choppy and they couldn't go down right away, which was a huge frustration. And when they went back, it was gone. A veteran San Francisco Bay pilot captain named Blake Coney says that this shipping channel theory is plausible.

He said that although most people don't realize it, much of the bay is shallow besides the deep water of the shipping channels. The nearest deep water from Bricks Island is the South Hampton Shoal Channel, which is a route that the Chevron tankers take. Captain Coney said that if Lacey's killer or killers had wanted to dump her body in a channel, knowing that it was much deeper, it would have been easy to miss this channel when putting her in the water. They may have thought that they were placing her in 30 feet of water, which would be the deepest part of the bay at that channel. But instead, they were sort of leaving her on the sloping sides of the channel, which were not as deep, and she'd have

more chance of being like pulled up by waves and currents. Well, I mean, this is, you know, again, not to try not to toot my own horn here, but this is what I said earlier. I think that if I were the killer, if I'm Scott Peterson and I know the San Francisco Bay, I'm going to know the shipping channels and I know where I should be fishing based on where the best fish are. So Brooks Channel is where I'm going to tell them that I was trolling. But during my fishing day, I would find a moment where I didn't see anybody around to get over to the shipping channel and I would drop her body there because it's a lot deeper, going to be harder to find. Now that said, you had said earlier about the currents and them being different and all that as

far as you know the the prosecution has said all along oh we believe that now based on where the bodies were found this is supportive of her her being dumped in brooks channel i get where what we said earlier brooks island i apologize but I wonder if this storm and the currents that were formed, the turbulent waves that were created, could have shifted this body to the Brooks Corner channel or whatever the direction it would go. Because obviously things that aren't normally pushed that way were pushed that way because of the water currents changing due to this storm. I think if she had been dumped near Brooks Island, she would have been found much sooner. But I think, again, if you're to believe that this was premeditated, I know if I were the killer, I would make sure I could find the deepest part of that water, throw my sonar on, dump the body as quickly as possible,

go back to Brooks Island, stay there, fish for the rest of the day so that hopefully somebody sees me and then go on my merry way. But he was only out there for like 90 minutes though. I get it. And I think he's probably about 30 minutes into it when he noticed nobody was around. I would love to know how far the shipping channel was from Brooks Island. It's miles away, apparently. So let's say 10 miles. That's not that long.

I'm going to Google it right now. Yeah. Let's look it up. We'll see where it's at. But this would be in line with what I've thought, which I'm sure a lot of people think. I'm clearly not the only person. There's a lot of people that think this. I get that it doesn't line up with the original argument that the prosecution painted as far as their theory. But I still think it's possible that based on the current, Lacey's body could have been pushed from the Chevron shipping channel into that area where it would now be part of the same channel as Brooks Island based on, again, these unexpected storms that occurred.

All right. So we looked it up and it's about 5.2 miles. It says Via Canal Boulevard, but when you look at the map. It's even shorter than that. Yeah. I mean, it could be. It's even shorter than that when you use the map key. It could.

When you use the map key, it's 5.2 miles going around to get there. And based on the map key, I would estimate three to four miles. I mean, it's way, way out there, though, like far, far out there, more in deep into the bay. Yep. Three to four miles would not take long to get out to. Not at all. So, you know, for me, looking at where Brooks Island is, looking at where this channel is. And by the way, in this map that we're looking at, it's showing this, you know, probably a center point on Southampton Shoal Channel. Yes, I'm sure. Which probably runs, it probably runs the whole length right there. So it's probably only if he was to go directly, this would be southwest.

You think he could get out there though in that little ass boat? Yep. Yeah? Yep. Yeah, if you just killed your wife, it's amazing what you'll attempt. But I would say maybe a mile or two, two miles. You know, we're looking at two miles to get out there. And again, in that little boat, it would be a struggle.

But if the wave, you know, if the currents were minimal that day and the waves weren't that bad, time of day he went, he could easily make it out there. He sits in Brooks Island, make sure nobody's around. He goes directly south, out further into the bay, drops her body. As soon as the sonar starts to show a sloping, maybe he figures the anchor's going to have the anchor slide down the slope as he drops it in. So as soon as he starts to see on the fish finder that the slope is going down on the sonar, drops her in, turns back around, stays in Brooks Island for another 30 to 60 minutes, gets out of the water, goes throughout his business, thinks that

her body will never be found. She's 30 feet down. She's anchored down. He's in the clear. It's a good distance. It's a good distance away from San Francisco. They kind of made it sound like it was sort of close by, but if you're looking at this map, not really, because the deepest part of San Francisco Bay is right under the Golden Gate Bridge. It's like over 200 feet deep. It's very deep. I've been on a boat that went under the bridge. It's kind of scary. And that's where, you know, Alcatraz is and all of that.

But this is up further, closer to El Campo, Paradise Cay. It's kind of halfway. The Southampton Shoal Channel is halfway between Port Richmond and Alcampo and Paradise Cay. Yeah. And we'll throw a picture in here for you guys that are watching on YouTube so you can see it. And again, there's a few different pictures. You can do like charting maps where like for actual boats and stuff so they can tell the

depth of the water or you can use like we're looking at like a Google Maps where basically it's having you go through the island like on land to get to it. And that's why it's saying 18 minutes. So if you were to do a direct shot over the water, it would be a lot shorter. But I think, I mean, that's pretty much it for today, right? I mean, there's for me as we go into part six, you know, that's pretty much it for today. Right. I mean, there's for me, as we go into part six, uh, you know, it's starting to make more sense to me as far as what happened here. And from my perspective, what I think happened, I do think there's some science coming into it now that is suggestive on top of the lies that Scott has been caught in that would lead most people to believe he killed

his wife. Again, no smoking gun. And based on what you said, when we started this episode, would there be enough for me as a jury member? That's what I'm waiting for. Would there be enough for me as a jury member after part six to say he's guilty, right? He's guilty. You're putting a man, you're taking away a man's freedom for the rest of his life, his natural life, or at this point that he originally was sentenced to death. So it's a big, it's a big decision you're making as a jury member. So part five, I will tell you, I'm at the point now where, and I'm going to say this, at the end of part five, I believe Scott Peterson killed Lacey Peterson. Okay. But now as we go into part six,

I want to try to look at it from the perspective of, do I feel there's enough to say he's guilty? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yeah. And in part six, we're pretty much going to do that. We're going to talk about things from Scott Peterson's guilty. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yeah, and in part six, we're pretty much going to do that. We're going to talk about things from Scott Peterson's perspective. We're going to look at his writ of habeas corpus, his appeals, why he's saying he deserved a new trial,

why he's saying he didn't feel he got a fair trial to begin with. And we're going to talk about, you know, the jury, the issues with that. We're going to go over that. And then at the end of it, we're going to answer the question of whether we think that whether or not we think Scott's guilty. You know, we're not the end all be all.

But if we were jury members, would we feel confident giving that guilty verdict and sending a 30 something year old man to prison for life or possibly to death row, which is which is what happened when he was convicted. So we will talk about that next week. Thank you so much for being here. I've got to talk really fast and end this really quickly. But before you go, make sure you check the description box and give GlassesUSA.com a try. The link is in the description box. Check it out, especially if you're looking for new glasses. Thank you guys so guys so much for being here derek you have anything to say before we go no this was a short episode a long episode this is good oh was it i didn't notice yeah he's just been telling me the whole time he's just been telling me the whole time stressing me out i'm sweating yeah you guys you guys only see the edited version there's a lot more too we've been going for hours again it's uh

midnight for sure that's just our new norm. But no, listen, all jokes aside- Anything's better than last week though, don't you agree? That was crazy last week. But no, this is necessary. I'm biased, but there's no fluff in here. We're giving our opinions on things and I'm even holding back on my opinions because I don't want it to be a four-hour episode because some of the opinions I have are just more personal. It's not really based on the case or my experience, but I think everything in here is something where if you really want to say, oh, I would have convicted this man if I was a jury member, or I don't think he did it. These are all the things that you should know. So I hope there's stuff in here. I'm pretty confident there is that we've laid out for you and we've kind of

discussed that are maybe things you thought you knew, you know, you knew everything about this case, but here, what we're doing on crime weekly, we're still exposing you to things that you didn't consider. And that's the whole point to have a group think. And at the end of this, a part six, we're going to ask you guys where you fall on it. And you will be, if you've listened to every part, you will be well-versed on this case and you'll be able to debate with any of your friends and family about Scott Peterson and Lacey Peterson after we're done. Yeah. And if you want, I mean, we did go live last week and we just kind of had a chat and we had some drinks and we talked to you guys and we love connecting

with you guys on a more personal level. But if you want, when we're done with the series, we can go live again and just give all the Scott Peterson opinions that we didn't really have a chance to give during the series and give some of that more personal consideration. So if you guys want that, let us know in the comment section. Or if you're listening on audio, just shoot us a message and let us know you'd like to see us go live and hang out with you guys and chat and have a little a true crime brain trust. We can just all get together on a live and talk about all the Scott Peterson theories. We can just, you know, talk trash about Scott Peterson on the live if you want. But let us know if you guys want us to do that. Make sure you put in the comments or send us a message. Thank you so much. We will see you next week. Bye. Later.