Crime Weekly - S1 Ep46: The Murder of Laci Peterson: The Final Chapter (Part 6)

Episode Date: October 15, 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

History's masterpieces wouldn't be the same without their most notable accents. Neither would the Kia Sportage without its multiple drive modes. The Kia Sorento without its expansive 12.3-inch panoramic display. Or the Kia Telluride without its three rows of spacious seating. The 2025 Kia SUVs. Kia. Movement that inspires. Call 800-333-4KIA for details. Always drive safely. Limited inventory available. Lowe's knows you want the best for Dad.

This Father's Day, help him take on any project with big deals on DeWalt. Right now, get a free XR8 amp hour battery when you buy select dewalt tools that's not all get up to two free select tools when you buy a select dewalt 20 volt max battery kit maximum initial battery voltage measured without a workload is 20 volts nominal voltage is 18 hello everybody welcome back to crime weekly so this is our final final episode on lacy and scott peterson and it feels like uh feels like we've been doing this forever, doesn't it? It does. But it hasn't been filled with fluff, which is good. The response to it's been great.

They really like this format as well. So I think it was six parts well worth it. I don't think we could have done it shorter than the amount of parts we've done so far. No. And we're ending it tonight. Yeah. I could have done more. You're so excited about it. You didn't even intro us. Yeah. I could have done more. You're so excited about it.

You didn't even intro us. Yeah, I did. You did not say. Oh, I did not? No, you didn't. But we don't need to know. I'm Stephanie Harlow. I can't even say it now.

Yes, you can say it. Hi, I'm Derek. Derek. That's Derek. Derek Levasseur. That's it. That's all I got. No, I was like, whoa, she's ready to go.

Yeah. So apologies in advance to anyone who feels like I may be different. I am on some painkillers right now. I have a broken rib. And, yeah, it's made me a little bit more mellow. But I'm going to do the best I can. And, you know, good thing that we're kind of wrapping up this week. We're just going to kind of cover.

We're going to cover basically jury selection. We're going to cover some things to do with the jury. And then we're going to talk about why Scott and his defense team believe that he deserves a new trial. So that's kind of the meat and potatoes. It's kind of what we've been building up to this whole time. So I'm excited to dive in. Okay, so when we last left off, Scott Peterson had been arrested for the murder of his wife Lacey and their unborn son Connor. The next phase was to prepare for a trial, a trial multiple appearances on shows like Larry King Live, where Garagos defended Scott,

they didn't go unnoticed by the Peterson family. Scott's father, Lee Peterson, would report that hiring Mark Garagos cost the family over $1 million. But they felt if Garagos was going so hard for Scott, you know, on Larry King and on all these television appearances, if he was going to defend Scott there without having any skin in the game, he was probably their best bet at getting a not guilty verdict. Also, for those who don't know, Mark Garagos is a pretty high profile celebrity lawyer. He's defended Winona Ryder. Do you remember who else he defended? Did he defend Michael Jackson? Chris Brown was what he recently defended. That's the one I know him for.

I mean, he's everywhere. He really is. When it comes to the celebrity industry, I mean, it seems like anytime there's someone who's in trouble, Garagos is somehow associated with it. Yeah, he's high profile and he's known for being kind of a showman in court and kind of putting on a show and the jury likes that. And even in this trial, I remember some of the jury members, I think it was Rochelle Nice, she said the prosecution, they were dressed in normal suits and Mark Garrios came in all flashy with a thousand dollar suit on and all these shined shoes. And it was just this dramatic difference between, you know, these small town district attorneys and these small town lawyers and then Mark Garagos, who was like an L.A. kind of guy. So I think that also had something to do with with the jury not really liking Scott, because I don't think that many of

them liked Mark Garagos. Yeah. And in this case, it might have not worked to their favor. Clearly it didn't. But I will say when you go to court, there is a presence factor, what type of the persona you carry in there, your swag as you go in there. Certain lawyers, they might not be able to actually defend the person very well, but the way they present it, it does actually get them some people to swing their way. I've seen it before where certain individuals actually carry some type of weight just by their name, even locally in the courts where we see certain defense attorneys on the docket and we say, okay, this is going to be a fun one. Yeah, but it can also go both ways, right? Somebody like Mark Geragos, who's defended people like Chris Brown, a jury, a normal person might see that crap out of her. There was no doubt about it. And Garagos wasn't there to get him off, but just to get him a lesser sentence and to try to get him some favor

as far as not having to do prison time. And you know what? He accomplished that. So I do think what you're saying is true in a lot of ways where sometimes when they bring a judge agreed with him, moving the trial to Redwood City in San Mateo County, saying that it was far enough away where local hostilities wouldn't taint a potential jury pool, but close enough so that the scores of people who wanted to be present at the trial could easily commute from Modesto. Jury selection began in February of 2004, and it lasted for three months. The potential jurors were first given a questionnaire to fill out where they were asked 116 questions, which were designed to test their ability to judge this case fairly. These questions would ask if the jury candidates had been exposed to anything in the media or in their lives relating to Scott Peterson.

They were also asked if they had experiences or beliefs that would cause them to be in opposition of the death penalty. Now, examples of these questions included, do you have any friends or relatives who are involved in law enforcement? Do you have any knowledge of boats? Have you formed or expressed an opinion on Scott's guilt or innocence, etc.? The potential jurors then went through voir dire, where they were questioned by both sides, the prosecution and the defense. And at the end of three months, 12 jurors and six alternates had been chosen. And in a surprising decision, the selected jury was not sequestered. So this means that after court every day, the jury members could go home and sleep in their own beds and have dinner with their families, and they didn't have to be kept isolated, basically, from the rest of the public.

Now, I know you have the answer to this. Why would the jury not being sequestered in a case like Scott Peterson's possibly cause some issues. Oh, I think in a case that's highly publicized like this, it's definitely going to cause some issues because you see maybe this public outcry to convict this man. And I think it's only human that you as a jury member may be saying, hey, listen, even if I feel he's not guilty, I'm in fear of my own personal safety and the safety of my family. feel he's not guilty, I'm in fear of my own personal safety and the safety of my family. So just out of fear, I'm going to go the way of the masses, right? You know, because I don't want this to come back on me. So yeah, I definitely think they just did

it in the, I believe the Derek Chauvin case. They sequestered those jury members for the same reason. You don't want them being influenced by the news, by protesters, et cetera. So they try to isolate them from the outside world as much as they can so that their decision, whatever they come to, is based on the facts and circumstances and not outside influence. But that didn't happen in this case. They were allowed to go home. That's interesting. I did not know that. I'm super surprised by that. I don't know what the rationale would be there. Maybe they felt like there had already been so much public exposure about this case that at this point, it wasn't going to make a difference.

That could be a plausible explanation. They're like, hey, listen, there's already a lot in the media. What's it's going to be the difference? But I still think it would make a difference as the case is going forward. And just for the integrity of the trial, you would think that they would do that. But that's interesting. Interesting decision. I think that it was probably a bad call because, you know, you made a good point. You have a huge public outcry about this.

A lot of people, just from what they saw on the news and stuff, already thought he was guilty. So you might have these jury members going home and their friends or their family are calling them and being like, oh, you're on the jury. You better find him guilty. Like, you better find him guilty. You know he's guilty. So you have all of this stuff coming at you. And I believe the Scots defense team even said some of these jurors were driving past that big billboard, the one that said, Scott Peterson, man or monster, vote here. They were driving past that on their way home from court every night. So that definitely causes some issues of bias, I think. I agree. I mean, I get no rebuttal. I mean,

I definitely hear you on that. And I got no explanation for it. I would think that the safe bet would be to sequester them for everything we just said. But I don't know. That's why they're the judges and we're just the peasants, I guess, right? Yeah, but they were. The jury was, of course, instructed, like, don't look anything up about this case. Which is the dumbest thing ever. I know.

I know. Because I know me. Like, if I'm on that jury and you send me home where my computer is, I'm going to look stuff up. I can't stop. It's a compulsion. Yeah. And you know what? I might have to correct myself. I'm going to look stuff up. I can't stop. It's a compulsion. Yeah. And you know what? I might have to correct myself. I'll have to go look, but maybe the Chauvin jury wasn't sequestered. I don't think they were. Yeah. I don't think they were either now that I say it because I distinctly remember hearing parts where

they were instructing the jury not to go home, not to listen to certain things. And I was saying to myself, that's stupid because they're not going to. So I probably have to correct myself there. But there have been many cases, highly publicized cases where the jury is sequestered for the exact reasons we're laying out right now. Yeah. And it sucks and it's hard. But being on a jury is hard, you know, to begin with. It's a big responsibility. And I think in the Chauvin case, I remember one juror saying she went home and she could hear like the protesters in the streets outside of her house. And, you know, so it was constantly like there was no escape from this trial for her. So, yeah, it was it was a strange decision.

But, you know, maybe they didn't know how long it was going to last. So they want to keep these people because it sucks. Like you can't even talk to your family. It's bad. But the jurors were instructed, don't go home and look stuff up. Don't talk to anybody about this. So you're having dinner with your wife and kids. You can't discuss it. You can't discuss any evidence. You can't discuss what's happening with anybody else. And as we will come to find, that didn't exactly happen. But the trial itself began on June 1st, 2004, and Judge Alfred DeLucci's courtroom was packed with spectators and media every single day. Just a few weeks into the trial, there were some issues with the jury.

Juror number five, his name was Justin Falconer. He was a single father and a disabled airport security screener. He apparently spoke to Lacey's brother, Brent. Now, reportedly, he only made a casual comment in passing he said quote I'm ruining all your TV shots I guess you're not going to be on the news today end quote but some people said he told Brent Rocha like you're not going to win today so obviously that was sort of that's a mistake you You can't talk as the jury. You can't talk to anybody from the defense or the prosecution. And that includes like Scott's family,

Lacey's family, everybody. It also came out that Falconer told other jurors that he'd been going home at night and discussing the case and the evidence with his girlfriend, which is also a big no-no. In the end, Justin Falconer was dismissed from the jury, and he promptly began talking to the media, telling them that from what he'd seen so far during the trial, and this is about two weeks into the trial, he could find no reason whatsoever to find Scott guilty. During closing statements, Mark Garagos told the jury that his client might be a liar and a cheater, but he was not a killer. Garagos said, quote, I don't think he's the kind of person, one with absolutely no history of domestic violence, who just snaps one day and murders his wife.

What the stark reality is, is this guy got caught with his pants down, end quote. That is a drastic, condensed version of what happened there. Do you find that Garagos has any leg to stand on saying, Scott didn't do this, he has no history of domestic violence? I don't. I don't. Because there are people who can turn to violence based on outside things that are going on in their life. They don't have to have, you know, I always say best predictive future behavior is best behavior, but it doesn't mean that's the standard. You can have people who their first act of violence is a heinous one, kind of like a Chris Watts. I know we keep referring back to him, but kind of like a Chris Watts where up to that point, you would never think that he could do what he did to his

wife and two children. I'm really surprised that, I guess he felt like he had to. It's an interesting approach, but he had to acknowledge that his client was a liar. Because a lot of what you have for a defense with Scott is based on his statements, what he's saying he did that morning, why he conducted himself the way he did. So you're asking a jury to find your client innocent based on some of the reasoning behind his actions. And yet you're acknowledging that by nature, he's a liar. So that's a really- It's a really good point. He's like saying, I know he's a liar, but he's telling the truth right now to you guys. He lied about trivial things like,

you know, you know, extracurricular activity outside the household. But you, but you know, when it comes to murdering his wife, he's by the book. He would never lie about that. Yeah. Why would he lie about that? Cause he, cause essentially the way I look at it is he's proven that when under the gun, that when there's consequences at hand, even as minimal as his wife finding out he lies. So to think that he would lie in this hand, even as minimal as his wife finding out, he lies. So to think that he would lie in this situation, not only lie, but be good at it, is not just a suspicion. And he's proven that that's the case. So really interesting take to say, hey, should not trust my client. He's a proven liar. But anything that he said about

this case in particular, definitely believe him. I mean, they didn't have a choice at this point, right? Because Amber had come out, everyone knew it was kind of the elephant in the room that he had to like point to and say, there's an elephant, but don't look over there anymore because that's not relevant. Ignore the elephant. Yeah. So I get where he's coming from and listen, he's a better lawyer than I ever would be. You know what I mean? He knows what he's doing. So I think that's exactly the case where they're like, if we go up there and try to paint him as some saint, we're going to lose everybody to begin with. We got to acknowledge what's obvious and hope that in spite of that, we can overcome it

with some other theories. Garagos also made sure to drive home to the jury that there was absolutely no physical evidence to prove that Lacey had been murdered in her home. Now, the jury was sequestered during deliberations, and they would spend each night at the Crown Plaza Hotel in Foster City. Greg Jackson, juror number five, was chosen as jury foreman because he was a doctor and a lawyer, and they all decided he was the most educated of the group and he could act as a competent leader for them. Now, Greg Jackson had he was the most educated of the group and he could act as a competent leader for them. Now, Greg Jackson had not been the most friendly man. So other jurors would later say, you know, during lunch breaks, he sat to he kept to himself. He was like working

on his BlackBerry. He kind of seemed sort of pretentious, like I'm a doctor and a lawyer and I'm the smartest one here. And I am way too important to like spend my time chatting with you like blue collar people. So he wasn't like very warm. He didn't make a lot of friends, but he had been taking meticulous notes all throughout the trial. He filled 19 notebooks full of notes. It sounds like my kind of guy on that level. And they chose him as the jury foreman. So on November 3rd, the jury gathered around a table and Greg Jackson stood at the front next to a whiteboard. They mapped out a timeline for December 24th. They watched Scott's interview with Detective Al Brocchini looking for inconsistencies, and they thought that they saw many.

One of the juror members mentioned, you know, we don't really believe anything he says at this point. Looking at it through the lens of knowing he's a liar, every word he says sort of rings not true. They also listened to a wiretapped phone call between Scott and his mother-in-law, Sharon Rocha, where Sharon told Scott that divers who were searching in the San Francisco Bay had recovered

an anchor, but no body, at which point Scott whistled as if in relief. Now, I think this was a reflexive action for him. I don't think that he thought about it because there's no way that you would have that reaction to that news if you weren't just really grateful that a body hadn't been found. Am I wrong? No, I think it could just be like a subconscious response. Exactly. I know that you and I talked offhand. Is this an opportunity where I can address one more thing about the anchors? We talked on the phone about it. I'd seen some comments on it, but just as far as the anchors, because we're not going to go into a lot of specifics today, we're finishing this up, but one more note about the anchors and them not being

found. I do think a big reason why they were never found is because they were just in a spot that couldn't be located. However, it's also important to consider that with concrete, when it absorbs water, it can crumble. It can become sand again. And so if these anchors were recently made and then dumped in a body of water, over time, they could eventually disintegrate. They could crumble with the water being absorbed into the concrete mix itself. So just something else to consider as far as the anchors never, quote unquote, being found again. Would they do that within the space of a couple of months, do you think? I don't know. I truly don't know. I'll say that it was one of our listeners, somebody commented about it, then I looked it up. And it is very obvious, when you put too much water into a concrete mix, even short term, it could kind of disintegrate on you. That's why I got to get the portions right. But definitely, if you have something that hasn't cured fully, and then is dumped in a bucket of water or dumped in an ocean between the salt and the water itself,

it would absolutely cause that concrete to become more brittle over time. Yeah. And that could have also caused Lacey to sort of be dislodged. Yeah. But as far as how long it would take, your guess is as good as mine. That's definitely a construction workers forte right there. Well, the jury felt that everything Scott said was a lie, whether he was talking to Al Brocchini or Sharon or, you know, any of his statements. They felt like everything he was saying was a lie. And by the third day of deliberations, most in the jury were leaning towards a conviction.

But foreman Greg Jackson kept making them go over everything again and again. He was very meticulous and attention to detail. He wanted to keep like going over everything to make sure that everyone understood and this made him a bit unpopular with the others who kind of sat there amongst themselves and they were like at this rate we're going to be here for months. Like if we keep letting Greg Jackson steer the ship we're never getting out of here. In no time the tension was palpable with the rest of the jury sort of ganging up on Greg Jackson. And then Greg Jackson got butthurt about this. And he goes to the judge and he was like, I want to be removed from the jury.

The others are being mean to me. He actually said they were being argumentative and he could just could not work under these conditions. But the judge was like, no, dude, you're like on the jury. You got to suck it up. And the other jurors got no, dude, you're like on the jury. You got to suck it up. And the other jurors got mad at him and they were like, you can't quit. You know, you can't just walk away because you're not getting your way. And, you know, I don't know who I agree with because I wasn't in the room. But yeah, I think that he should probably stick it out and suck it up. Yeah. I mean, you're this far into it. I definitely think it's important to finish what you started, especially when you've taken such copious notes as far as what happened that day. And you could be a contributing factor to one way or the other. So I again, but this is the human element of a jury, right? Like we can't act like even when it comes to their conclusions, as far as the way they vote, they're not robots. They are humans and there's emotions in it. And who knows why people make the decisions they do when they vote guilty or not guilty. But yeah, this is just another way of showing that these people, they don't just become expert jury members as soon as they're selected. They're normal people like you and I who have problems in the outside world and have personalities that may not be the best for a jury member. And yet that's what you're stuck with. Before you keep going,

let's take a quick break. You can't rely on blind faith to get the pregnancy support you deserve. Ritual's Essential Prenatal Multivitamin is the only leading prenatal backed by its own human clinical trial. Essential Pnatal is proven to deliver key nutrients, including folate, biotin, and vitamin D during pregnancy. Get 25% off when you visit ritual.com slash clinical. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Did you know that many products for pregnant women do not have their own clinical trials for safety or efficacy? That's because pregnant women are

often excluded from clinical studies. Ritual is aiming to set a new standard with their Essential Prenatal Multivitamin. It's the number one best-selling prenatal and the only leading prenatal backed by its own human clinical trial. Essential prenatal is proven to deliver key nutrients, including folate, biotin, and vitamin D during pregnancy. Moms taking essential prenatal had a lower overall cortisol level during pregnancy than those taking a leading prenatal. Plus, it's designed to be gentle on the stomach. Ritual doesn't just have your back. They have the receipts. Get 25% off at ritual.com slash clinical. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. So there wasn't a lot of time for the judge to deal with the Greg

Jackson issue because on the fifth day of deliberations, Fran Gorman, juror number seven, was dismissed from the jury. Now, it turned out that she had some questions about the testimony of a computer forensics expert. So she had gone home and looked up the information herself on her home computer. And she felt like she had found out some things. So she went in the next day to tell her fellow jury members and they were like, you're not supposed to be doing that. And they turned her in feeling that she could not be objective or fair after doing her own independent research. Fran Gorman was replaced with alternate juror number two, Rochelle Nice, a redheaded single mother of four who we all know as Strawberry Shortcake. Juries are not present during deliberations. They're present throughout the trial. They don't sit with the jury, but they are sitting there. They're taking notes. They're hearing everything that the rest of the jury is saying, but they're not there for deliberations. So what ends up happening is they got to catch these other new people up to speed now. And so they kind of wanted to just start from scratch, like start over. And Greg Jackson was removed as the foreman. And this bothered him because he

could have stayed the foreman, but they took a vote and he was not voted in. So he requested to be taken off the jury again. And this time his request was approved and he was replaced by Dennis Lear, alternate juror number three. Once this happened, it was literally only a matter of hours before the jury agreed to find Scott Peterson guilty. And when they voted on whether or not to sentence Scott to death, it was unanimous, 12 votes for death. Interesting that it happened only hours after, right? I know, I agree. Again, the whole Greg Jackson thing, him not sticking it out, poor move on his part. And Dennis, I will say this, as you just laid out to everyone, the jury members that are alternates, they are hearing everything and seeing everything that the other jury members are. They're just not involved in the conversation. So are they up to speed on what's taking place? I think for the most part, but could they also be phoning it in and not paying attention because they don't think they're going to actually have to make a decision. Yeah, I think that's possible. So to have Dennis come into the game in the last couple hours and have to decide to find

a man guilty of murder and then decide that he should be put to death, talk about a change of your day, right? Yeah. And I mean, get this, the jury is not allowed to talk to each other about the case until deliberations. So we're already several days into deliberations here. The entire jury has been discussing this case, which is really that's the reason we have a jury so that these 12 people can collectively go through the evidence and figure out what they think about it and what it means. But Rochelle Nice and Dennis Lear,

they weren't present for the majority of that. So to have Dennis and Rochelle come on and then for it to be guilty and you're sentenced to death within hours, it did seem like a little bit of a rush decision. I don't know if I could have done it. This is a person's life, but that's what they did. Yeah. And I think you're in a situation where all the evidence has been heard. You have the 11 people there and who knows? We don't know what happened behind closed doors or maybe we do. I don't know. But, you know, Dennis probably came in there and said, you know, as far as I'm concerned,

I'm set on this. I'm set that he's guilty. And, you know, there's nothing else I need to hear, you know, or see. Trust me, guys, I've been paying attention and I know which way I'm going. Yeah. And there's pressure in that jury room, too, you know, especially for those people who have been sequestered. They've been dealing with this for days. They've been dealing with Greg Jackson and his Blackberry.

So, you know, Rochelle and Dennis could have popped in and they were like, all right, we've already been dealing with this. Like, this is what we're we're deciding. What's your guys take on it? And there is some pressure and some, you know, motivation to go along with the pack. So let's discuss Scott's appeal and what he claims is compelling enough to grant him a new trial. So an appeal can be filed by a defendant who loses their criminal case if there is some legal basis to challenge the verdict of the original case. The losing party cannot file an appeal because they don't like the outcome. There has to be some legal grounds that the defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated.

Scott would have to show that the trial court made a legal mistake and that this legal mistake impacted the court's decision. During his appeals process, Scott was represented by a new attorney, Cliff Gardner. In June of 2020, the California Supreme Court heard arguments on Scott's appeal, and in a 7-2-0 decision, they upheld his conviction but overturned his death sentence. They also ordered the trial court to re-examine Scott's conviction, especially the allegations of jury misconduct. One of the biggest issues brought up in the appeal were allegations of errors during the jury selection process. Peterson's lawyers claim that potential jurors were dismissed in a way that would make a resulting jury more likely to choose the death penalty as a sentence. Rochelle Nice is probably the strongest argument that Scott has when claiming his trial wasn't fair.

During the questionnaire phase of jury selection, Rochelle Nice answered no when asked if she'd ever been involved in a lawsuit. She also answered no when asked if she had ever been the victim of a crime. Now, it turns out Rochelle Nice had failed to disclose that she had both of these issues. She had been beaten by her boyfriend when she was pregnant in 2001. She had also not disclosed that while pregnant with another child, she'd obtained a restraining order against her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend. She claimed she feared the woman would hurt her or her unborn child. Scott's appeal said, quote, it is apparent from her conduct before, during, and after the trial that during jury selection, she failed to disclose numerous incidents that posed threats of harm to her unborn child.

This enabled her to sit in judgment of Mr. Peterson for the crime of harming his unborn child. End quote. Rochelle Nice, she disputes this. She says, I didn't lie. I either misunderstood or misinterpreted the questions about other legal proceedings that I was involved in. She said she wasn't lying. She didn't do anything purposely or maliciously. And she said, quote, I did not interpret the circumstances leading to the petition for a restraining order as a crime. I still do not. Minor indignities do not stick out to me, let alone cause me to feel victimized the way the law might define that term, end quote. Scott's defense team countered this statement, claiming that the restraining order case alleged that Rochelle's boyfriend's ex-girlfriend had committed acts of violence against her, and she truly feared for the safety

of her unborn child. The defense team said, quote, she was willing to sit on the jury for five months without pay, although she had four minor children to care for, and though it caused her such extreme financial hardship that she had to borrow money from a fellow juror. Juror 7's conduct during jury selection was so unusual that the judge commented that she stepped up and practically volunteered to serve, end quote. The defense team felt that due to her experiences, Rochelle Nice may have been more sympathetic

to the prosecution's arguments against Scott, and she would be more inclined to punish him for harming an unborn child. This is the reason that Rochelle Nice has been referred to as a stealth juror. A stealth juror is a person who wants to be put on a specific jury on a specific case, and they want to do this because they want to fulfill a personal agenda or vendetta. In fact, in Scott Peterson's case alone, more than one stealth juror had been uncovered during the selection process, specifically one woman who appeared to be a good candidate for the jury until it was discovered she'd been hanging out in chat rooms expressing her agenda to sentence Scott Peterson to death. So what do you make of this? Do you think that Rochelle Nice's past experiences of, you know, sadly being beat up by her boyfriend while she was pregnant, and then also taking out a restraining order on her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend, claiming that she thought this woman was going to hurt her or her child. Do you think that those would cause enough of an issue that her not being honest about it on her questionnaire could make or break this appeal?

Those are interesting questions, and it's not as simple as a yes or no. So let's take a quick break and then we'll get right back into it. Ever notice your dog slowing down and having health issues and wonder, what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add Rough Greens to your dog's food for 90 days

and I guarantee you'll see changes that will amaze you. Greetings, naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, inventor of Rough Greens here, and I invite you to give your pup the Rough Greens 90-Day Challenge. In the first 30 days, you'll see shinier coats and increased energy. By day 60, your dog will have a stronger immune system, less shedding, improved joint function, all due to the live nutrients that you've added to their diet. And at 90 days, better digestion, reduced inflammation, improved heart health, and you may even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch your dog a free Jumpstart trial bag today. Go to tryroughgreens.com. Use promo code TRYROUGH. That's T-R-Y-R-U-F-F. Go to tryroughgreens.com. Use promo code TRYROUGH. That's T-R-Y-R-U-F-F. Go to tryroughgreens.com.

Use promo code TRYROUGH. You discover the shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food to improve your dog's health. Just add a scoop of Rough Greens. Okay, so before the break, we were talking about Rochelle Nice. And I do think, or is it Rochelle Nice? I think it's Nice. Okay, Nice.

Rochelle Nice. Okay. Do I think that her past experiences played a factor in her decision-making process for me? Yeah, I do. Now maybe she's different and she was able to compartmentalize her own personal experiences with the case itself. I don't know. As far as the overall trial, I'm not a lawyer, not a judge. Do I think that this one jury member with these past experiences that may or may not have influenced her decision, she's saying they didn't, right, should be grounds for

a brand new trial? I personally don't think so. I think that would be based on new evidence or the exclusion of evidence that was used in the previous trial to convict him. You know, if there was evidence that came out that something that the prosecution had presented turned out to be false based on new information, or there was someone who came forward and confessed to this, then maybe that would rise to it. But I don't think one jury member who didn't disclose everything from her past during jury selection would be grounds for a brand new

trial. Although with our judicial system, I wouldn't be shocked at anything. So just like as a person, if this was you and you had these past experiences, do you think that it would color your opinion towards somebody like Scott Peterson? I'd like to think it wouldn't. I've made my living on being impartial. I have children now. I had a child when I was a police officer, but when I had to deal with a child molester, I tried to treat them fairly as far as our process is concerned, as far as investigating them, whether they committed a crime or not. I won't say it doesn't cross your mind. So I'd like to think if I was put into a position where I had to find someone guilty or not guilty of a crime, I'd be able to separate my personal feelings, my personal experiences, and base it

on the facts and circumstances of that case. However, I don't know. You don't really know until you're truly put into that situation. But the fact of the matter is she lied on her questionnaire. So she says it's not malicious. She says, no, I didn't lie on purpose. I didn't make the connection. But Mark Garagos brought up like this woman told us, you know, she wanted to be a lawyer at one point. So for for her to tell us she doesn't understand these very simple questions, it's hard to believe. I agree completely. You know, she's telling us she didn't know. But again, just like this trial itself, what would a reasonable person believe? And based on what you just said, her wanting to be a lawyer. And the questions

aren't that complicated, guys. They're pretty straightforward for this exact reason. Have you been involved in a situation like this before in your past? Have you ever? Have you been the victim of a crime? Have you been the victim of a crime? Have you been the victim of a crime? Yes or no? I think getting beat up when you're pregnant, that's a crime. That's a violent crime. You've been the victim of. I think that's something you would remember. I don't think that's open to interpretation. So do I personally think that she misled the attorneys for the reason of getting on the jury? Yes. Now her motive, her agenda for getting on the jury, I don't think

we'll ever truly know that because she's saying she didn't understand the questions to begin with, but it could be her looking to get back at someone for who she thought was similar to her boyfriend, which obviously is a problem. Or could it be because she was just nosy and wanted to be part of something that was going to be on television? That's potentially the case as well. Notoriety, who knows? But either way, completely agree with you. Completely agree with Scott and his team that if she had been forthright, she would not be making a decision as far as his freedom is concerned. Yeah, because I mean, usually people try to avoid being on a jury, right? So when you've got somebody who's actively trying to be seated on a jury, to me, that's a red flag no matter what. Because normally people are like, I don't want to have this responsibility. I don't want to have to be out of work because they don't compensate you that much. They don't pay you that much to be on. I think it's like $15 a day or something like it's bad. At least in this case, it was $15 a day and they got $10 for traveling.

So it's $25 a day you're getting paid to sit there for eight hours. You're not getting paid through your job. And it sucks. It's not a fun thing to do. And especially Rochelle. I mean, even Mark Garagos said she was in such bad financial straits that she had to borrow money from another jury member. But she was willing to put her life on hold, be away from her four kids, not be working in order to be on this jury. So it does seem a little bit like somebody that may have had an agenda. I agree. I mean, we're not in her head. So how could I disagree? I don't know this woman. Yeah. Well, Scott and his defense team also had a problem with the way specific potential jury members were dismissed. So this is during the questionnaire and also voir dire. Scott claims that the judge who asked these people, you know, are you personally opposed

to the death penalty? If they said that they were, they would be dismissed on those grounds, but they weren't asked a follow-up question, which would be, you know, whether or not despite their personal feelings, they'd still be able to impose the death penalty in a criminal trial. Scott claims that by dismissing these jurors without asking that follow-up question, he was basically faced with a jury that was far more likely to impose the death penalty. What do you think about that? See, I disagree with him here because first and foremost, if this was such a concern, this problem should have been brought up when it was taking place. The attorneys were present. They had the opportunity to discuss this with the judge beforehand.

They didn't. Yes, but he's also claiming that he had bad counsel because of that fact. That's on you, buddy. You picked your counsel. You know, again, Scott Peterson, again, finding an excuse after the fact. So he gets the narrative and then he manipulates and contorts the narrative to fit whatever agenda he's trying to push. So you had the opportunity to pick your attorneys. You had the opportunity to pick the counsel that represented you at trial. You made the decision to go with whoever you went with, that's on you. But again, go back after the case has been settled, after the trial has deliberated and come to a conclusion and say, oh, well, if you would have asked this question at the very beginning, I might not be sitting here. I think it's a kind of a little revisionist history to kind of go back and pick things apart.

However, I will say this, even with what he's saying, so even if I agreed with him, the way I interpret the question is, are you opposed to the death penalty? And they said whatever they said. Just because he didn't ask the question doesn't mean they don't know either way. And they could have been someone who would ultimately decide against the death penalty, even though they're not opposed to it just because they're basing it on the facts of the case. So again, it's subjective on Scott and his team's part to say, just because they weren't asked that question makes them more likely to sentence him to death. It just means that they're not opposed to it. So again, I think it's grasping at straws for me. I don't think it's grounds for a brand new case. I can tell you that much. So would they ask, do you have a problem with the death penalty? And the jurors would say,

yes, I don't like the death penalty. And then they'd be dismissed. So I do see an issue with that because I don't like the death penalty. I'm not like out there saying, hooray, death penalty. For me, every death penalty cases is a case by case basis, depending on, you know, what are the the facts of the case. So I would be able to hand down the death penalty if I was sitting on a jury and I thought that the case demanded it or that was the acceptable punishment. But I'm not somebody who's pro death penalty. So basically the jury was stacked with people who were like, yay, death penalty. Yeah, I disagree with that. And that's what I think his team was trying to present. Because they weren't opposed to it, they were for it. And so I think that's something where I can say,

obviously I don't want to put people to death. Am I opposed to the death penalty? No, I am not. Am I more likely to find someone guilty and then sentence them to death just because I'm not opposed to it? Absolutely not. I'm going to try to find every means to not sentence them to death. I don't want to kill another human being. However, that's what you're saying is exactly the defense that Scott's team is presenting. Because they're not opposed to it, they're for it. And that's the statement that I disagree with. I think you cannot be opposed to the death penalty and still be impartial and objective in your decision whether to sentence someone to death or not. All right,

let us know in the comments what you guys think. Do you think you can be opposed to the death penalty, but still hand it down and vice versa? Do you think you can be for the death penalty, but not necessarily choose that as a sentence? Because it is, it's not black and white, right? Right. And it depends on what side you're on. The prosecution is going to make the argument that I just said, and the defense is going to make the argument that you just said. And that's why I'm saying it's subjective. There's nothing tangible there for the judge to grab onto and say, you know what? You're presenting me with something that is verifiable, right? It's statistically proven that if you're opposed to the death penalty, you're less likely to find them guilty and then sentence them to death. So that's a good one. I think the Rochelle Nice is a lot stronger of an argument than this,

but I also think this is very similar to what they do during the trial and any defense attorney does, which is throw things out there and certain things might resonate with the judge. Certain things might not, but it's not your job to decide. Put it out there, let them absorb it. And maybe that's the thing that the judge ultimately decides to grant whatever you're asking for. Even though as a defense attorney, you couldn't care less, whatever his reasoning is for it or her reasoning is for it, just as long as they do it. Before you continue, let's take one. We got two more breaks to go. So we're trying to get him in there. So we'll take one more break and we'll get right back into it. So another major claim made in

Scott's appeal is that some of the evidence should not have been admitted into trial based on the fact that this evidence was unreliable. We're going to specifically discuss three instances of this, according to Scott and his defense team. One is the reliability of the police dogs used that picked up on Lacey's scent at Berkeley Marina. And we talked about this several times. And, you know, Derek did say it depends on the dog. It depends on the handler. Like there's a lot of factors. It really isn't a perfect science. But many of the jury members felt that this evidence was huge. And Rochelle Nice even wrote in her book later that Trimble, who was the dog at Berkeley Marina, Trimble's search and findings had been very important to her decision in finding Scott guilty. Scott and his lawyers believed that

dog scent tracking evidence is junk science, and Trimble was not qualified to perform as a reliable trailing dog. Most tracking dogs in California are certified by a group called CARTA. Trimble had been certified, but when her handler brought her in for her annual recertification in 2004, Trimble failed. Trimble reportedly later failed her Contra Costa County recertification as well. And on February 24th, three days after the Carta failure, Trimble's handler testified in court that the dog was certified during a hearing held by Judge Alfred DeLicci to determine whether to admit that dog's evidence at trial. Scott's legal team also raised questions about the experts who testified about current movement during Scott's trial. Dr. Ralph

Chang had testified that based on wind and tidal information, the body of Lacey Peterson was most likely dumped into the water just between Berkeley Marina and Brooks Island, which was exactly where Scott had claimed to be fishing the morning Lacey went missing. During cross-examination, Mark Garagos tried to undermine Dr. Chang's testimony, and he pointed out that although Chang studied tides and currents, he had never studied how a body moved underwater. When asked if he could predict with any certainty within inches or feet where the body may have started from, Dr. Chang responded, quote, no, I'm afraid not. I don't know how a body behaves in water. I've done particle tracking, not bodies, end quote. Chang also admitted that his findings were best guesses based on his knowledge of tides, currents, and winds, saying it was probable but

not precise. It also turned out that Dr. Ralph Cheng's report to the Modesto police focused on the trajectory of Connor's body, not Lacey's body, which was found a mile down shore. Cheng said that Lacey's body may have reacted differently to the currents because her body was heavier than Connor's and it may have been weighed down for longer. Mark Geragos basically said that what Dr. Chang was doing was not science, it was just guesswork, and he'd never conducted any experiments with bodies, so he had no scientific expertise to make any conclusions about the movement of bodies in water. See, this right here, this is where they get me, because this is the stuff

right here where if you want to have someone like myself listen to what you're having to say, this is what you should be attacking. Because this is stuff that you can tangibly show me how this individual, Dr. Chen, would not be able to make this assumption or this assessment because he's never actually done it. And now, again, you could say, well, particles, bodies, yes, it's going to be slightly different, but it's still going to be the current of the water. The current of the water is the current of the water. The body may move slower, may move faster, however you want to come to that conclusion. But there is a margin of error there. And that's what you want to attack is, could this person have made a mistake? Could this expert not really be an expert in the questions we're asking? And I think that

is something that a jury member should really consider when deciding certain things. So I think them attacking this area is a lot stronger than going after, well, a certain question wasn't asked to a jury member. This is something I think where I think a judge who is also an attorney would latch onto and say, you know what? Makes a good point. Yeah. But to me, it's like less important because whether it was a mile down shore. Of course you would.

Well, I mean, it's a mile down shore or not. Like both of these bodies still washed up in the same body of water that Scott went fishing in that morning. So like you said, and, you know, like Dr. Chang even admitted, this is not precise. It's probable. There's no possible way to take into account everything that's under that water churning around. I mean, there's sea life, all different currents. There was a storm, you know, just a couple of days before they were found. And this is going to throw a wrench into things. So it's very hard to ask one man to be like, OK, so where exactly were these bodies put in the water? But what we need to know is that they were put into the water where Scott went fishing because we don't even know

exactly where Scott went fishing. He said he was by Brooks Island, but he could have been miles away. He could have gone miles. The Chevron channel or whatever. Yeah. Right. So it's not really even relevant because we're still just basing these numbers and formulas on where Scott said he was. Right. And just for the record, I don't think this does matter. I do think it could change the times a little bit where, like I said, particles, bodies, they are different. They will function differently. But the same science applies, the same mathematics I'm assuming applies. It just would have to adjust for weights and things like that. But do I think Dr. Cheng is more qualified than a normal person to make these assessments? Absolutely. So I think his testimony is valuable. All I was saying is as far as Scott's team is concerned, if you're going to try to poke holes in certain things,

this is where I would think you would want to go. Yeah, and I mean, we also have to think like, we don't even know how Lacey was weighed down. She could have had one anchor on her, she could have had four, and that's also going to factor in about like where she washes up and how fast she does. So it's impossible.

And Dr. Chang, he did his best. But finally, there was the issue of Connor's age at the time of his death. The appeal claims that the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Gregory DeVore, had used a formula discovered and perfected by Dr. Philippe Gentry to determine Connor's date of death. So it's pretty cut and dry, right? If evidence showed that Connor died on December 23rd or December 24th, Scott could be responsible. But if the evidence showed that Connor died basically on any other day, Scott could not have been responsible. Dr. DeVore told Mark Garagos that the method he had used was the gold standard. His findings had been based on the size of Connor's femur post-mortem,

as well as ultrasounds from Lacey's first trimester. The jury found his testimony to be straightforward. They even called it indisputable. But Scott's defense team argued that Dr. DeVore used Dr. Gentry's formula incorrectly. And they even went so far as to suggest that he did this purposely to fit the time of death into the prosecution's theory. It's even been reported that Scott's defense team reached out to Dr. Philippe Gentry directly, and he confirmed that DeVore had used his formula incorrectly. And when Gentry used his own formula in the case of Connor's death,

he determined that Connor may have been alive as late as January 3rd. I mean, again, this goes back to I won't get into the specifics of whether I agree with him or not, because I'm not educated enough on this case. I'm hearing it from you. You know, I'm hearing it from you. And, you know, but I mean, neither of us are educated on fetal development, though. Right. But again, just to reiterate, these are the things you'd want to attack. These are the things that as a detective investigating this case and hearing it, if it was my case, I'd be concerned because there are things outside my

control where you're relying on outside experts. And I think we've talked about this before, but not taking away anything from experts, but experts are, their opinions are subjective in a lot of ways. The science can be the science, but their interpretation of said science can be different from one person to the next. So just like with prosecutors, defense attorneys can go out there and find individuals that will support whatever theory they have, just like prosecutors could. So it's the same on both sides. What's interesting about this one is that Dr. DeVore used Dr. Gentry's formula. And according to reports where it says, I know you said reported, and I don't know if it was substantiated. No, yeah, he did. No, it's substantiated. Yeah. Okay. So the guy who created the formula is saying that the expert witness used it inaccurately.

Yes. That's a problem. That's a problem. That's a problem. And I do think it's interesting that he came out to the conclusion that it was January 3rd. As late as, right? As late as January 3rd. I'd be interested to know, because we talked about this a lot last episode. I believe Lacey was in the water shortly after her disappearance. That's just my personal opinion. I have already said that I think Scott killed her last episode.

So you could say I'm biased, and I know some of you will, but I do. There was a couple people you and I have been talking about it that work in the ultrasound field and are OB, you know, work with OBs and, you know, usually you take the first measurements and not the second one. Who knows? To me, all of this about Connor's, the size of his, you know, bones and stuff like that. I'm sure there is a science to it. I know there is, but I do think because of the circumstances we're under, it's open to interpretation. And my personal opinion, when they're taking measurements of another human being from the outside of someone's body, I don't know how they're that accurate. But I mean, I'm sure they're accurate within a couple of centimeters, but I would assume there's some margin of error based on how specific that doctor was being when they took those measurements. Because let's be honest, you know, they could get in there and go, yep, we're given an approximate size. They don't know that at the time those measurements are going to decide whether someone's guilty of murder or not down the road. So there's so many elements that involve human interpretation, not only from the initial measurements but to the post measurements. I'm a little reluctant to accept all of the sciences regarding Connor's's body as as you know it's in stone this is 100 accurate i agree um i i don't think that it could be 100 accurate um you're basically this

is a child who hasn't been born yet like you don't have a lot of physical evidence you have ultrasound pictures and then you have you know this poor little baby that you now have to measure the femur. And it's horrible, but you're trying to pull from separate sources to put together one answer. And I don't think that it's possible, but it does raise a doubt. I agree. And again, I've had two children. You've had three children. And I hope I'm saying it right because I don't want people to think I'm like dismissing it. I think the measurements of Connor, you know, after his death, when they found him much more accurate, they just basically had, they have the bone right there, but we've all been

to ultrasounds as parents. And I know they're taking these measurements based on what they're seeing on a screen. And they're able to do these three-dimensional scans. I would wonder, and by the way, sound off in the comments if I'm wrong, if there is a margin of error because these OBs are taking these measurements from an external source, and could they be off by a couple centimeters here or there? And with the baby being that small, that could make a big difference. I think that's why they say they're in this percentile, right? Because it's an average. It's like a, I don't want to say a guess, It's better than a guess.

But is it down to the exact point decimal? I don't think it is. So if we're basing his post-mortem size off his first ultrasound or even the second one, you're basing it off two numbers that are not as specific as post-mortem. Yeah, but we were saying that, right? Yeah, we were talking the other night, though, remember? And I said, I get all of this, but the fact that she had an ultrasound on the 23rd and then from that ultrasound, Connor grew.

That's crazy to me. Like, how how did that happen? Because she has her ultrasound on the 23rd. She goes missing on the 24th. If what the prosecution is saying is correct, that Connor and Lacey were dead by the 24th. How did he grow at all in that 24 hour period? That's so hard to wrap your head around. And that's what I'm saying. And it's six days.

So I'm assuming that's a decent amount, but not like like I had said last episode, like it was like a three week difference or or a four-week difference with six days. So my argument would be, or I guess my question, it's not even an argument. So clarify to them what you mean, six days. Derek means that at Lacey's first ultrasound, they gave her a due date of February 10th. At her last ultrasound, they had changed that due date because Connor was developing at a different rate. So they changed it to February 16th. So that's the six-day discrepancy that he's referring to. Right. And so, and I know I'm not explaining this perfectly, but what I'm saying is they're

making those measurements, even if it's on the December 23rd ultrasound, which would be the most reasonable one to go off, right? It's a day before his alleged disappearance. What if that doctor was off by a couple of centimeters? It's human error, right? Right. What if, I would love to know, let's not even say human error. I wonder what the degree of accuracy is of the measurements when you're not able to actually measure the baby. You're measuring it through her stomach using these computers, these cameras, the sonar equipment, whatever you want. What would you call that when you put it on? What is that actually called? It's not sonar, is it?

It's a form of sonar, wouldn't it be? It's an ultrasound. It's an ultrasound, right? So you're getting, but what is that technology? Oh. You know what I mean? Anyways, it's irrelevant for this, but I would wonder how accurate the measurements are. What's the degree of error for that? Because based on

that margin of error, could that fall in line with the post-mortem measurements? Do you follow what I'm saying? Yeah. So sonogram, by the way. Sonogram. That's the word I was looking for. I sound like an idiot. That's the word I was looking for. No, you're fine. I couldn't even think of it either. And I've had a bunch of them. So sonogram, when you're measuring a body, a baby through someone else's belly, that sonogram is what you're using, I'm assuming, to make those measurements. And we, you know what, I'm saying all this. All right, so check this out. Please hit me with it. From the Mayo Clinic. It says ultrasound is a valuable tool, but it has limitations. Sound doesn't travel well through air or bone, so ultrasound isn't effective at imaging body parts that have gas

in them or are hidden by bone, such as lungs or head. To view these areas, your doctor may order other imaging tests, such as CT or MRI scans or x-ray. So, I mean, obviously, there is a level of error there. There's a degree of error, like you said. It's technology, but it's not perfect, and it's definitely not as efficient as having the person in front of you to measure physically. Right. The thing we're looking at post is an autopsy, an actual autopsy with Connor's body. There's no disputing that. It's going to be down to whatever number you need as close as you can get. When you're doing it through the stomach, I feel like there is that margin, which you just kind of confirmed. So when you're comparing one number

that's done under one type of system, right in person on the, you know, I hate to be morbid here, but on the table, as they say in an autopsy, as opposed to a sonogram, it's kind of not a fear comparison to make between the two just from where I'm coming from. But you guys definitely sound off on it because again, I do think this point is super fascinating because for those who believe Lacey was kept alive, this is it right here. This is how you prove it, right? And so I definitely want to hear from you guys on it because I know there's going to be some of you that do not agree with me, but I do think you're comparing two different measurements to make a determination and those measurements were obtained using two different sciences, two different forms of

mathematics. Yeah. And I think a lot of it comes down to the technician as well. I agree. I agree. How accurate are they that day? Did they have a bad morning with their boyfriend and they're kind of phony. Why is the ultrasound technician a woman, Derek? Oh Jesus. You're right. You're right. I suppose the doctor is a male. Right?

No, the doctor would be, the doctor would definitely be a woman. You know, they're wearing pink scrubs too, right? Oh Jesus. You guys know, you guys know what I'm saying. I'm saying it too, mainly because I know my, both my OBs and even the techs were all female, but you're right. Let me just... You're joking.

I know you're joking, but you also know it could be male or female. Is that better? Yeah. Okay. Thank you for covering me there. So I do think you're using two different tools to take those measurements. Yeah. And I mean, I had a friend who thought she was having a girl her entire pregnancy. And then, I mean, the nursery is decorated, they had clothes,

they had names picked out and then out popped a boy. So you can miss a penis for eight months, then you can probably take incorrect measurements. Honestly, such a great point. Such a great point, because how many times, I know that you're talking about your friend, that's happened a lot. Yeah. Where because of the way the baby's positioned that day, because of the fluid in the set, whatever it may be, they can't even determine whether it's a male or female accurately. Yeah. But we're to assume that the measurements are to the exact precision of what size that Connor was that day. I think that's a stretch. Yeah, I agree. So that's where I'm coming from. And I'm only really harping on it because we're going to talk about whether we think he's guilty, what we were, whether we would have ruled guilty or not guilty. And I will tell you that that's going to be a big part of my decision-making process. So I really wanted to hammer that because I know most of you are going to, if you disagree

with one of us or both of us, that's what you're really going to capitalize on is saying, oh, but Connor's body was bigger. Just so you know, if you do say that, this would be my response to it. Just so you know, if you do say that, that's what I say to you. But it's hard to get past knowing she had an ultrasound on the 23rd and then on the 24th. Yes, that's that's tough. On the surface, it does. It's very compelling.

Yeah, surface. It's very compelling as far as saying that Lacey was alive after the 24th. Yeah, we were talking about it, too. Like the jury's just made up of regular people. These aren't medical experts. These aren't law experts. These aren't law enforcement experts. They're just regular people who are going to have to just go on what these expert witnesses are saying. They can't look into it for themselves. They can't pull from some bank of knowledge that they have because we don't have that bank of knowledge. We don't work in this field. We would have no way of knowing what these experts are saying are true or not. So that's also tough. But before we wrap up and get into the real discussion part of this episode, we are going to take our last break. So where are we today at the end of 2021? Well, just a few days ago, local news station KRON4

published an article saying, quote, news headlines this week announced a judge's decision to resentence Scott Peterson, and this caused a lot of confusion about an already complicated case. Some case observers wrongly believed that resentencing Peterson in December to life in prison without the possibility of parole meant that his fight for a retrial was over. Peterson's death sentence was overturned, however, on entirely separate legal grounds from the legal issues that could get his conviction overturned, end quote. So basically what this is saying is, and we talked about this, I believe, two episodes ago, Scott did get resentenced, but resentencing him didn't mean, oh, you're not going to get an appeal.

Basically, he got his death penalty overturned in 2020, and then his defense team was trying to stall for time to build this case that they have for his appeal. And they were sort of putting the sentencing off. But then the judge just a couple of weeks ago was like, this is ridiculous. This guy's sitting in a California prison without a sentence and this can't go on any longer. So I'm going to sentence him to life in prison. This does not impact the possibility of him appealing to get his entire conviction overturned. And we were both confused about that when it first came out a couple

episodes ago. So I understand how many others are also confused about it. So the high court ruled just last year that the jurors who personally disagreed with the death penalty but were still willing to impose it were in fact improperly dismissed. So that kind of goes you know, goes against what you had said earlier, where you don't think it's a big deal. But the high court said, yeah, this this follow up question should have been asked. And if those jurors were dismissed without that follow up question, they were improperly dismissed. So at this point, Scott's going to be officially resentenced to life in prison in November. But that doesn't mean he won't be getting a new trial. His defense attorneys have been fighting against resentencing.

They wanted to get his entire conviction overturned. But legal analyst and former prosecutor Michelle Hagan, she claims that she believes there's a great likelihood that Scott will, in fact, get a new trial. Hagan said, quote, Because Miss Nice basically had similar experiences to Lacey, Miss Nice was a victim of domestic violence while pregnant. I think it's really difficult for someone who went through that experience to set that aside and to sit as a juror in a case when you are dealing with another woman who may have been killed, murdered at the hands of her husband while pregnant, end quote. And I agree. I think it would be very, very difficult for me personally to set that aside and be fair in a jury or on a jury. So I can imagine. And I know you said you don't

think it would be. You try to be unbiased. We all try to be unbiased, but we can't really escape our inner demons. And they do affect the decisions we make and how we treat other people. So I do agree that I think it would have been hard for Rochelle to set that aside and look at Scott with unbiased eyes. Yeah, I agree with that. And I have no problem with the higher courts pointing it out. The question will be, even though they acknowledge that it's wrong and that it shouldn't have happened, is it enough to warrant a new trial? That's what I'll be interested to see. And that's why we wanted to cover, that's how it all came up, right? That's why we decided to cover this case. We all knew about this woman. She's been talked about for years. I actually did a TV pilot where

we talked about this as well. And we had attorneys on there who've worked with Garagos. So it's a compelling argument, I think in totality with some of the other things, Conor's body size, maybe they have something. But if it was only this, I'm going to be very interested to see how the judge comes out with this and says, hey, listen, if there's a new trial, this is what we're basing it on. What do you mean only this though? If that's you, if you're Scott, you just need one thing, one thing that went wrong that may have swayed the jury selection or the jury to vote the way they did for you to be like, yo, this is kind of messed up. I didn't get a fair shot. So it only takes one thing. Yeah, but I would say that the question itself is not, are you opposed to finding someone guilty or not? It's whether you're opposed to sentencing them to death.

So for me, it wouldn't influence their decision to find him guilty or not guilty. It may influence the decision to find them to ultimately rule that he should be sentenced to death. So again, you got to separate the two. And this question is not about being, they didn't ask So again, you got to separate the two. And this question is not about being, they didn't ask them, are you able to be impartial and find someone guilty or not guilty based on the facts? They said, hey, are you opposed to the death penalty? That would be after a guilty conviction. So again, I know I'm sounding like the prosecutor here and maybe

that is my bias showing through, but I do think those are two separate questions. So even if they find this to be egregiously unprofessional by the judge, by the attorneys for not clearing this up, I still wonder if a judge could turn around and say, although this should have never happened, it appears this question pertains to the death penalty and not whether or not they would be able to be impartial in their findings as to whether he was guilty or not. And his death penalty was already overturned. So how is it relevant?

Right, right. I agree. I thought the same thing. I was like, why are we even still talking about this? Like, he's not he's not on death row anymore. So why would we even keep talking about this? However, I do think that you think in shades of gray, which is good. Most people should think like that, but I don't think the majority of the population

does think in shades of gray. So the majority of the population either is like yes for the death penalty or no against it. In my opinion, from people I've talked to, because I've had death penalty conversations with people before, because it's a thing I like to talk about. I mean, it's a very important question in our judicial system right now, especially when you have so many people sitting in prison who may not be guilty. So I've had this conversation and I usually get yes all for it or no, of course not. I would never be a supporter of the death penalty because somebody who's innocent might be put to death unfairly or unjustified. So I haven't gotten a lot of answers where it's like, well, it depends on the case. It depends what they did. It's either like yes or no. And I think

the thinking in shades of gray is something you probably got from your career. I would even take it a step further and say it's not necessarily what they did or who they did it to. For me, I think it would be the't be acting as, you know, whether you're religious or not, we shouldn't be playing God. You know, that's why we have a prison system. And there are many cases where people who've been killed comes out, they didn't commit the crime they were accused of. However, if there's a circumstance where there's physical evidence to support it, like it's not, it's a no brainer. So for a couple of examples. And a confession, right? A confession, even a confession, I don't know. Like Chris Watts?

Confession with Chris Watts, maybe. But I would say even more in line with like the Columbine shooting. Like they killed themselves. But if you have video of this person committing the crime and there's no disputing it, you literally see Derek Levasseur on camera killing this person. That's not getting overturned. He did it. You literally see Derek Levasseur on camera killing this person. That's not getting overturned. He did it. And so in those cases where there's 0% that the case could be proven down the road that I didn't kill her, then you know what? What are we waiting for? I guess we could see in that case, you know, that would be a no brainer. Confessions, there have been times where people

have confessed to crimes that they didn't commit because they're not mentally, you know, all there. But I do think there are certain situations where it's indisputable that they did what they did. And it doesn't take a jury to figure that out. And in those cases where it's indisputable, they should be considered for the death penalty if that state supports it. But if there's any level of the conviction being based on circumstantial evidence where the jury members are having to piece together the case like this one, I agree. Death penalty would be off the table. I agree. It would be off the table. So that's kind of how I look at the death penalty. I know everyone's very passionate about this topic. That's my opinion. Where do you fall on it? But that's the opinion you would have been able to voice if you were on the jury and you had been asked that follow-up question. And I think it would really clear up those. I'm in the exact same boat. So somebody like Chris Watts, because not only do we have a confession, but we have tons of physical evidence, right? Yeah, you do. Yeah, you do. So yeah, fry that guy. That would be the minimum, by the way. Chris Watts would be the minimum, right? Because down the road, he could say i was coerced or whatever but having the evidence you know where their bodies were like you know one thousand percent that's why i'm saying that's how strict it would be that's how strict the parameters would be if if i had this general blankets rule right for the entire country yeah you know it would be

have to be that where he's literally pointing out the bodies to you. But it couldn't be based on, oh, 17 witnesses saw him do it. You know, that wouldn't be enough for me to, it's more of a punishment that they live with what they did. Nah, nah. You're assuming they give a shit. You're assuming that this guilt is eating them up. Somebody like Chris Watts, somebody like Scott Peterson, if he did this, that's cold blooded, man. The guilt's not eating them up. They are not human if you're able to do this. If Chris Watts is able to smother his two small daughters who thought he was their hero, who thought the world of him, if he's able to do that, there ain't no guilt eating him up. He planned this. He premeditated it. He sat on it for weeks before he did it.

So no, there's no guilt. He's most likely patting himself on the back in prison for getting away with it while he's playing cards with the other prisoners and lifting weights in the yard. So that's not a better punishment. For me, somebody like Chris Watts, an eye for an eye. We're going old school, Old Testament, Hammurabi's code here. Scott Peterson, there was not enough physical evidence for me to ever say yes to the death penalty. I'm surprised that they were unanimous in that. Yeah. It's California, too. It's very odd. Yeah. No, it's interesting. And it makes you wonder, you know, you're covering,

even though it's six parts, we're just covering the surface, you know, as far as the details and them seeing Scott in court every day. And I know we kind of we talked about a lot there, but I do think it's relevant to this case. I think to summarize before we get into our final thoughts, just to summarize my opinion on it, because I know it's going to be something that you guys really dive into on the comments. Although I think it's significant that Rochelle lied and she should not have been part of the jury. And although I do agree that the questions could have been framed differently and people shouldn't have been dismissed based on their opinions of the death penalty. My opinion, at least, is that this question in and of itself

doesn't suggest that a person would fall in favor of guilty or not guilty either way. And therefore, it may not be relevant to whether they could be objective or not. You may agree with me, you may not, but that's where I'm coming from on it. Just at least you and I talking, is it making sense how I'm explaining that? Yeah. And I mean, this is like your own personal perspective. It shouldn't be controversial what you feel in your own head and heart. And I'm not a judge. I'm not a judge. I'm not an attorney. No. Oh, I like to pretend to be one sometimes. But if you were ever to be on a jury, they would ask you how you feel about the death penalty, if it's a death penalty case,

and you would answer. And then they make that decision whether they want to let you on or not so your opinion doesn't hurt anybody i am gonna get to play jury in a little bit though i know isn't that exciting i do like it i've always because i'll never be i'll never be on a jury because of my past spoiler alert i i think from just as being a cop they'll never have me on yeah i think from now on i probably won't like they'll be like what do you do for a living i'll be like i cover true crime on youtube and they'll be like dismissed what do you do for a living? And I'll be like, I cover true crime on YouTube. And they'll be like, dismissed. But I've been summoned a couple of times, but I don't want to be on a jury because I

overthink everything. I'd probably be like that Greg Jackson guy and everyone would hate me. But if this case does go back to trial, Scott's defense team claims they have newly uncovered evidence that can prove a group of burglars murdered Lacey. So we're still on the group of burglars murdered Lacey. So we're still on the group of burglars murdering Lacey. Okay. I'm willing to go with you guys down this path. Better than the cult. Better than the satanic cult. Yeah. I mean, maybe one in the same. I'm willing to go down this path. What they're saying here

is they have new evidence that we haven't heard yet, which is incredibly interesting to me. So I almost, I hate to say this, but I don't see that there's any harm in him getting a new trial personally. And I would be interested to see what the defense puts up. What newly discovered evidence do they have at this point? And I just don't think that there's any possible way. I mean, this case has been worldwide at this point. There's no place you can go to Alaska. You're not going to find a group of people who can be unbiased at this point. So that's the one thing I think he has working against him if a new trial were to arise. Yeah, I think that's fair.

I think it would be hard to get him an impartial jury anywhere in the country. Yeah. So now we're on to our final thoughts. And I am going to, you know, gentlemen, first, you go ahead and tell us what you think. Well, I mean, that's a little sexist, isn't it? No, because it's 2021. But I do still expect for you to hold the door open for me when we go places. Of course. So excuse me for the YouTubers. If you're watching on YouTube and I'm looking down, it's because I said on episode one, I was going to be taking notes this entire time, which I did. And over the last couple of days, after going over everything and having a chance to absorb it all, I kind of made another list of notes to go over where I'm going to go right here.

So there's two questions that we kind of posed at the beginning of this, which was, do we think Scott's guilty and would we find him guilty of murder? So they are two separate questions because you can think he's guilty, but still think that he got an, he had an unfair trial. And as a jury member, cause that's the hat I'm wearing right now. If I were one of those jury members, based on what you've told to me over these last six parts, both the good and the bad, would I find him guilty. So what do I always say? Means, motive, opportunity. So let's use that as our template, right? Because there's essentially, those are the three factions you need, in my opinion, to be found guilty of a crime, right?

If you're going to have that happen, that's the standard you should be held to. So as far as motive, and this one's kind of quick, the motive, I think we all agree on this, Amber, right? It starts with Amber. He falls for this girl. He has feelings for her. And he's even foreshadowing some of the things that are going to happen to Lacey, which is, I lost my wife. He says this directly to this person that he's having an affair with. But you could ask yourself the question, why now? He's been having this affair for a decent amount of time. Why now? Why choose to kill Lacey now? Why not just continue to kind of have the affair on the side if it's working for you? And clearly at this point, he's getting away with it. So there's a couple of things. And again, this is my opinion. First off, he wants to pursue more with Amber. He wants to be with her more. He's not in love with Lacey any longer. Secondly, you have Connor. Connor is on his way. He's going to be here in February. And with Connor comes more with the added responsibility of taking care of a baby.

And so in order to avoid this, there is a deadline and that deadline is Connor's due date. So December 20, you know, why Christmas Eve? Why that date? Who knows? But he, again, he knows it's coming. What I think played into that factor kind of goes into our means, right? Manner of death, cause of death. I think it's safe to assume that she was either based on what we have, although I could be wrong, strangulation or asphyxiation by smothering is highly likely. So the means of killing her is not hard. She's a pregnant woman. She's at a disadvantage already. She's unsuspecting. All of those things play into being able to kill her fairly easy. The disposal of the body. Okay. You want to kill her, but you want to be able to carry out the disposal of the body without being detected because your goal is to kill her, but do it in a way where you're still the victim.

You as being Scott can come off out of this looking like someone who people should sympathize with, including Amber. So how would you carry that out? Well, body of water is always best because it's going to be harder for investigators to pinpoint it on anyone. As we've discussed in many cases, water is the absolute enemy of investigators because it destroys evidence and it can decompose a body and leave basically nothing, if anything at all. So how do you do that? Well, you're going to need a boat. And although he had boats in the past, he did not have a boat at this time. So he's got to get one. December 8th, he purchases the boat. He buys the boat on December 8th. I believe he agrees to buy the boat on December 8th, but he actually picks it up on that following Monday. That's literally two weeks before Lacey goes missing. Coincidence? Maybe for you, not for me.

Then we get to the anchors. The anchors are a big, to me, again, another thing that's really compelling because depending on who you want to believe, you could look at it both ways. But from my experience, and I'm not some like professional fisherman, but for those of you who are not in that, you know, who do not partake in fishing, when you own a boat, boats aren't cheap. Usually you'll go out unless you're literally driving around a dinghy, which is a very inexpensive boat under a couple hundred bucks. Usually go out and spend the 40 or $50 on an actual anchor because when you throw that anchor over the side of the boat, it could scratch up the boat itself. There's a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want to use a concrete block. And the anchor itself would only be brand new, maybe 40, 50 bucks. You can get a used one for like 20. So you just bought a boat for $1,500. And yet now you're making an anchor out of concrete when you still have to buy the 90 pound bag of concrete. And then the biggest issue I have with

it is they only found one anchor. And there's clear evidence based on some of the crime scene photos that I saw where they lay out the placards that it appears he made multiple anchors, which he acknowledged. And he basically played that off as being prototypes. And yet they're nowhere to be found. That in and of itself could be explained, but as we go further, it'll make sense why the anchors are so important. You guys already know how Lacey was found. The other issue with the anchor, and I had some notes here that I kind of threw different articles, was that he said he made the prototypes with the other anchors, although none of them, he could never tell you where they were. And he also said that the extra concrete was disposed on the driveway for a different project. Although, even though he said that,

they had a geologist in court, Robert O'Neill. And Robert O'Neill said that the concrete mixture, whatever it was in the anchor that was found, was not consistent with the concrete found on the driveway. So again, another example where Scott could take a some truth story and manipulate it to fit his narrative, his overall narrative, which by the way, in order for him to do all this would have to have been premeditated, right? So you would have time to kind of plan this all out. So now you have the anchors, you have the boat, that's your means of disposing of the body. Okay. Opportunity. He goes out early morning. He takes his boat that he just bought that was supposedly a present. He goes alone instead of taking the person that he supposedly bought the boat for.

There's no witnesses in the area where he goes. You had mentioned earlier that he was supposed to go to the warehouse to drop off some umbrellas. He never did that. He takes this boat that would allow him to transport a body under a tarp without transmitting DNA evidence that could be found in his vehicle. Yes, it's a boat. It's still his. They could do some testing on it, but it's going to be a lot better preserved in the vehicle itself. And even if it was found in the vehicle, he would have an argument that she's been in the vehicle before, but he goes a step further. Now he has this boat that can transport her without it being in direct contact of him. That all right there, you would say, okay, I get it. You're painting a picture that if he did this, he killed her early morning,

transported her in the boat and tied her down with the anchors he made so that she would never be found. Okay. Well, at the time that this is all being discovered, her body has not been found yet. So it's all speculation at that point. And I think if that's all you had, I think Scott's a free man. However, Lacey's body eventually washes to shore months later. And based on how long it took her to wash the shore and where she washed the shore, it's consistent with someone dumping her body in the water around the time of her disappearance and tying her down with a weighted object. To me, again, you may think differently, too much of a coincidence not to make the connection. However, even though at that point you could say, you know what?

Clearly he did it. He made the anchors. He bought the connection. However, even though at that point you could say, you know what? Clearly he did it. He made the anchors. He bought the boat. He had the means motive opportunity. He's guilty. But then the defense presents these theories. And the two main theories that were discussed with us are the satanic cult and the robbery theory, where she confronts these individuals who are in the middle of a robbery. They realize she's going to be a witness and they decide that they can't leave her around. She's too much of a liability and they take her somewhere. They hold her and ultimately she's killed later in both scenarios. As a jury member, okay, I have to decide whether these theories are not only plausible but reasonable to believe. Because yes, of course they're plausible.

I can name seven other scenarios that they didn't lay out that are also plausible. You and I talked off camera that it could have been a home invasion that just didn't leave any signs of forced entry, whatever. There's a lot of scenarios that could have happened, but are they reasonable to believe based on the evidence that was presented and also the evidence that discredits that? So for me, with these two theories, first off, because we have a body, it doesn't appear that Lacey gave birth to Connor. You had laid out how it would show that he slowly came out of her body after decomposition. There doesn't appear

to be any signs of a violent attack on either Lacey or Connor, where Connor was sacrificed in a way where he was stabbed, shot, whatever it may be. You know, it doesn't appear that there was anything done from the outside to kill Connor other than him dying due to lack of oxygen because his mother was dead. And then we start to look into the details of these two theories and what would need to be there to be true. Well, first off, the biggest thing that contributed to these theories being plausible was the fact that multiple witnesses had seen Lacey that day, which would completely contradict

the idea that Scott did it because if she's still alive when he's fishing, he clearly didn't do it. Right. And I think we would all agree on that. But when Lacey's found, she's wearing clothing that is not in line with any of these eyewitnesses. So therefore, there's no disputing that at that point that the witnesses are wrong. They're either wrong about the identification of the clothing or they're wrong about seeing Lacey. And based on everything else we have, I think it's better to, I think it's reasonable to assume it wasn't Lacey. That's one. Then we take into some of the smaller things that are not exactly smoking guns. I still think the phone is valuable.

I saw your comments. You guys have been sounding off about it. I agree with everything you're saying as far as a phone back in 2002. It was not a flip. It was not a smartphone. It was possibly a prepaid phone, only used in emergencies, all that good stuff. I agree with all of you. But to me, as a jury member, if I was to lay out a scenario

where someone would want to have that phone in their possession, it would be a pregnant woman going on a walk by herself. That's my opinion on the phone. There was also something that we didn't discuss where there were some neighbors who said Lacey would usually raise her blinds in the morning when she woke up. It wasn't every day. It appears that on that day, she didn't raise her blinds, which again suggests she was killed early morning, maybe late night. So with that evidence that you have as far as eyewitness testimony not turning out to be accurate, the lack of activity in the morning by Lacey outside of the house, if she didn't leave the house and there's no tangible proof to show that she left the house, you're left

with a small window of when it could have happened and who could have did it. And that would be her husband, Scott Peterson. So when you revert back to the small suspect pool that you have based on the evidence and exculpatory evidence you have, you're left with this man who has a means, has a motive, and had an opportunity. And for me as a jury member, I don't think that the theories that were laid out, other than the initial theory that he did it, rise to the level of being reasonable doubt. I think the scenarios could have happened, but there was no evidence to support it. And therefore, I don't think it's reasonable that that was the case. And I would, I know this is probably not a surprise to many of you,

I would find Scott Peterson guilty. As far as the death penalty, I would not be in favor of the death penalty in this particular situation, even though I believe he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because there's nothing tangible there to say definitively he did it. And therefore, it's, you know what, you put him in prison, he spends the rest of his life there. If new evidence comes forward that can change the mind of a jury, then absolutely I'm all for it. But at least he's still alive to be afforded that opportunity. But at that point, based on what we know and the circumstances surrounding the boat, the anchor, the sudden fishing trip, all these things that to

me are just too much of a coincidence. Occam's razor. Sometimes the reasonable explanation is the right one, or the simple explanation is the right one. And that I think is what we have here. Yeah. I mean, so you might be surprised, but I agree with you on almost everything. The one place that I do disagree where I feel like we have always disagreed on this since we started this case, I don't think Scott had any feelings for Amber. Yeah. Yeah. You said that you think it was just purely sex. Yeah. I don't even think it was sex. I think it was I think he's he's crazy. He's a narcissist and he needed her. She was essential to his self-image, but it could have been anybody. It could have been any other young woman who just came in and

made him feel good about himself again because he felt like the hero when he was initially first with Lacey. He was pulling out of the stops. He's got roses on the table. You know, everybody's like, oh my God, Lacey, you're so lucky. You've got such a great husband. You guys have the best relationship. And then I think when she got pregnant, Lacey noticed that Scott was not super pumped about it. And this was something she wanted so badly. And this was something that she probably thought he wanted because Scott is going to just go along. He's going to go with the flow. He's going to try to cause as little friction as possible. So this dude's been leading her to believe their whole marriage. Like, yeah,

I want to start a family. You know, I want to do this. I want to do that. She had trouble conceiving. He probably thought, oh, great. This is the perfect situation. She can't have she can't have kids. So this is perfect. Then she gets pregnant and he's faced with this. I think his motive was more Connor than Amber. I think he just genuinely did not want to be a father. He didn't want to be tied down. He didn't want to have that responsibility. Somebody like Scott Peterson wants to be responsible to themselves alone because that is the most important person to Scott is Scott. So I think Amber was a tool for him. And the fact of the matter is we're never we're never going to know exactly what happened. So we can sit here and say he went out in that boat on Christmas Eve and he dumped her in the water. And that's the most plausible scenario. But only Scott knows. And this dude

will go to his grave before admitting to it. And I don't think he's ever told anybody the full story. Do I think that his mother and father suspected? Yes. Do I think Scott probably did some stupid little thing that he does where he like he's, you know, they're like, Scott, did you do this? And he's like, well, you know, there's more to the story, you know, and then they're like, oh, shit, like he might have done this. I don't think he ever came out and told them what happened or ever, you know, admitted to having murdered his pregnant wife, because you'd have to look at Lee and Jackie Peterson and say, what kind of people are you that you would still defend this man knowing he killed your grandson? Like Lacey, you don't like Lacey, whatever. Lee and

Jackie made it very clear that they were not big Lacey Peterson fans. And there is the in-law relationship sometimes. But you'd think that they loved Connor, especially loving Connor because Connor was Scott's son and Scott was their golden boy. So they're going to be really looking forward to being grandparents. And then he takes that away. I think they would have had a problem with that. So I think they suspected it, but we're never going to really know what exactly happened. And honestly, the alternate theories, like you said, they're not solid enough for me. They are their options. They're, you know, I guess raising reasonable doubt, but they're not solid enough. They're not fleshed out enough for me to say, yes, I can see how this would have happened over this. And and I don't think Lacey ever went for a walk that morning. I think you're

right. She would have taken her cell phone. She would have opened her blinds. There would have been a lot more happening that morning. And I think probably a lot more people closer to home seeing Lacey, not like random people on different streets. Maybe had a conversation with her. Yeah. Like, hey, wave to her. Exactly.

But I mean, you had people seeing her on like side streets by Covina Avenue. Lacey wasn't wandering around side streets. She usually took the same route. She would go down that little path and go to East Loma Park. Why is she walking around all these side streets? So I agree. I don't think that the person that all those people were seeing that morning was Lacey. It was probably another pregnant woman with another dog.

May not even been the same breed as Mackenzie. But when you're just looking at somebody walking, you're not like, oh, look at that. That's Lacey Peterson been the same breed as Mackenzie, but when you're just looking at somebody walking, you're not like, oh, look at that. That's Lacey Peterson and her golden retriever Mackenzie. You see a pregnant woman, you see a dog, and then your mind fills in the blanks for you. And these people are trying to be helpful, but I don't think it was Lacey. I don't think she ever went for a walk that morning. And you asked, why would he choose December 24th? A lot of people in the comments said something very interesting. Do you think Scott chose December 24th because he knew that law enforcement would be short-staffed at that time?

Great point. Great point. And not only are they short-staffed, but they're not leaving the station unless they have to. Exactly. And Christmas is a time when you got a lot of like DUIs, DWIs, all this crazy stuff happening. People love to get lit on the holidays. And you got a lot that's keeping the police busy. There's people that, you know, certain police officers take off for the holidays. They're definitely not fully staffed over the holidays. So he may have strategically chosen that date. Also knowing that Sharon, Lacey's mother Sharon, was going to be busy getting ready for Christmas dinner, not really necessarily checking in on Lacey constantly. There was a lot of factors that I think caused him to choose this date. And at the end of the day, I think you're right. I think he

snuck up on her. He may have even, I don't think it happened the night before. I do think it happened early in the morning on the 24th. I think he probably just started strangling her in her sleep. That was probably the you're not able to see anything like that. Because even if you couldn't see the skin, there might still be fractures in the neck bones that would suggest somebody had been strangled. We weren't able to see any of that with Lacey. So Scott Peterson lucked out in that way, I would suppose, because that is direct physical evidence, at least that she was physically attacked by somebody. Can we add one more point that you just reminded me of? We mentioned the boat. We mentioned the anchors. We mentioned the time of death.

We're mentioning all these different factors. Let's add one more piece that I failed to mention that not only implicates Scott more, but discredits the other theories, which is that Lacey's body was recovered in a location that was in line with her going into the water where Scott Peterson reported that he was that morning. So it implicates Scott. And it also forces you to believe as a jury member that if the Santanic cult or these robbers captured her

after doing whatever they did for as long as they did, they brought her to a location that was in line with where Scott was so that it would look like it was him. Why wouldn't they dump her in the water in a completely opposite direction? So to me, because they're trying to frame him. That's the, that's the defense's theory.

So now you're believing that not only did they capture her, but is it possible what you're saying as far as framing him? Yes. I'm not saying it. I'm just saying, but it's, but I'm saying like, that's what they would, that's the point they would make. The question is, would you believe it as a reasonable jury member when it just so happens to be that the husband was there that morning? I don't know.

And I will tell you this. I would consider it, yes, because I think the police are idiots for going on that press conference literally days after she had disappeared. Her body hadn't even been found yet and saying, oh, this is Scott Peterson's truck. This is his boat. This is exactly where he was this morning because that gave the defense fuel to create this theory, whether it's valid or not. They should not have done that. Yeah, no, I agree. And I will say that I think Scott had

no intention of her body ever being discovered. No, I think he hoped it wouldn't be. He really thought she was going to be a missing person forever. And I think that's why he thought that. I don't think he knew that it was going to blow up the way it did, that it was going to get that much media exposure, not just in Modesto, but nationwide. He did not anticipate that. That is a wild card that truly threw him off and threw a wrench into all of his carefully laid plans. He thought, you know, my pregnant wife goes missing, but there's not going to be any sign of her and there's not going to be any sign of foul play. So eventually, after a couple of weeks, people are just going to be like, maybe she left him left him maybe she just wanted to disappear maybe she just wanted to start fresh somewhere else and maybe there's amber this is this is what i meant when i said i lost my wife yes i lost this is what

i meant she's been pulling away from me for months you know her mind's been elsewhere she's probably ran off with with another man yeah yeah maybe connor wasn't even my son i think she was cheating on me she was having an affair maybe she ran out of that guy imagine yeah oh he would just have a whole plethora of creative lies to tell right and he was setting that up he was lining up those he was lining up those dominoes and i do agree with you that the amount of media attention it got he did not he that was something that was unwanted by him he was not looking for that and it caused a major hiccup in his plans because he was having to constantly kind of, like you said, avoid cameras and so that Amber wouldn't see. It was definitely not in the plans. He thought she would just be another poster

on a telephone pole. Yeah, but it was, I mean, he was right in thinking that because it was unprecedented at that time. This case was the first case that really blew up in the way that it did. And, you know, he probably like Googled how many women go missing in, you know, California a year. And he was like, oh, look at that. There's thousands. What's one more? I never see thousands of, you know, media reports on missing women. This will just fly under the radar.

He didn't anticipate this happening. I have a big problem that he didn't call her cell phone that morning where he claimed he was trying to find her so that either add it to the list yeah and the umbrella thing the umbrella thing to me and i know this sounds so stupid because i'm so like detailed about everything but the umbrella thing to me he said he was loading them into his car to bring to the warehouse he loaded them in his car he went to the warehouse the umbrellas are still in his car when albrockini goes through it on the evening of December 24th. That's a red flag. Why didn't you bring the umbrellas to the warehouse, Scott? Were the umbrellas in there to hide a body? I mean, I've got lots of patio umbrellas. They're huge. They've got lots of fabric. You can sort of spread them out and you can hide a body. It's weird that like a neighbor walked by while he was loading the umbrellas in, you know, because now I'm wondering how did he get Lacey's body from the house to his truck because they don't have a garage. So how did he get her out there, you know, at that time? Or he put her in there earlier before the sun came up and then he's

putting the umbrellas in later to hide her even further. And that's when the neighbor walks by, but she's already Lacey's already covered up with a tarp because remember he had two tarps two tarps in his truck so yeah i also uh so the patio umbrella thing to me is like guilty right there but um i also think the anchor thing's ridiculous and we talked about this the other day like you're not going to spend 30 40 on an anchor you want to do it to save money but you're like dropping money on Amber like it's, you know, grown on trees, hiring private rooms at sushi restaurants and coming up with several bouquets of flowers being pulled out of his brown duffel bag and champagne and strawberries and gifts for her and for her daughter. Getting renting a talks to go to a party with her, you know, all of this stuff that shows this is a man who doesn't really care about saving money. This is a man who's not super frugal. So why would you spend all this time and effort making anchors when you could easily buy one?

You're absolutely right. And add this to the equation, right? We're talking about mixing concrete. We're not talking about a science experiment. It's one part sand mix, concrete mix, one part water. You don't got to make prototypes to make a bucket of concrete. It's- And it just seems hard. It seems like pointless and hard and like dirty work. Like it doesn't seem worth it. It doesn't seem worth it though. You wouldn't have to practice. You wouldn't have to practice. It's right on the bag. It tells you how to mix it. You got to make four, and it takes you four different times, five different times. I saw five times in one of the reports I was reading.

You got to make four prototypes of a concrete bucket before you get it right. Too much of a coincidence for me. And get this. The people who support him, I think it's his sister-in-law and stuff, and they're running the Scott Peterson Appeal website. support him you know like i think it's his sister-in-law and stuff and they're running the scott peterson appeal website she's like nah those lines on the trailer they weren't like anchor marks they were just dust and that would be fine if scott hadn't already come forward and been like yes i did make more than one anchor and this is why so now you're you're contradicting each other your excuses for why that that why that dust or rings of concrete are there

are completely different. So you might want to line your stories up before you go public with it. Yeah. Ultimately, what I think where I think jury members got to it, if they're anything, like my mindset is when her body was discovered and lined up with the theory that was already being thrown out there initially, right? Like they had already found the anchors and all these different, or the remnants of an anchor being made and all these different variables were kind of confirmed when her body was found. If her body wasn't found, you can't substantiate the theory. But once you have her and you have Connor, I feel like as a jury member, I would have

got there. Yes. And as a jury member on that jury got there yes and um as a jury member on that that jury i'm glad i wasn't because this would have been very difficult for me tough one but i would have i don't know because i've been going back and forth back and forth for the record before she says her answer here i do not know her answer because she was still undecided as of what was it yesterday maybe the day before day before, yeah. Okay. Because he was like, would you vote guilty? And I was like, no.

And then like five minutes later, I was like, well, maybe I would. And then I was like, no. Well, I'm going to hear it just like, because I was going to ask you again. I'm like, I'm not letting her get out of this. I'm going to ask her. Well, I have the luxury of going back and forth, right? Because I'm not on the jury. I'm not on the jury.

I'm not like tasked with that responsibility. I don't have that life and death decision before me. But yes, I would vote guilty. But I would not be able to say yes to the death penalty because there's just not enough. It's too much. There's some uncertainty there. I still think uncertainty, too, is different than reasonable doubt because people are going to say, well, if you're uncertain about the death penalty, how did you get to the point?

But to me, there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions the day of and the days leading up to it based on conversations he had, coupled with her body being discovered and being able to match that up to the behaviors he was displaying and carrying out before her disappearance, give proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. And then to consider the other theories, there is evidence to me that discredits those theories. Or there's no evidence to support she ever left the house that morning. So if she didn't leave the house, those theories become not very likely. And so that's why I don't think that raises a level of reasonable doubt where I could say, you know what? Although Scott's theory is definitely plausible, those theories are plausible as well.

Yeah, it's definitely a different thing. And if you're a jury or a juror sitting on this case and you're not feeling uncertain at some points, then you're not taking it seriously enough. You know, that's that's it. Like there's enough there to to be uncertain about while still gut knowing this is probably what happened. But you're you're you're tasked with like changing somebody's life forever. Right. So you should be uncertain. You should go back and forth and you should do your due diligence period and that's where we're at i mean yeah it was a great series i'm excited to see what they think about it like we should do a poll we can do a poll on youtube where we can say vote guilty or innocent like what do you think and see where people come in yeah yeah i think that's a good one i think most people are going to say he's guilty so i think the poll should be i think you'd be surprised yeah Yeah. Did I not say that? That's what I'm saying. I agree with you. I'm saying guilty or not. I don't think it's, do you think Scott killed Lacey or not?

Would you vote guilty or would you vote not guilty? Right. That's simple. We could throw that up there. No, it was a great case. I'm glad we did it. Six parts is a lot. I see you guys definitely enjoyed the series, but there is also some fatigue with it, which we understand. It's a lot of fatigue for us, you know, because we're covering the same case week after we've been covering it for almost two months now. So it is going to be good to move on to another case. And I think we decided we are going to cover Gabby Petito, but with a little different of a spin on how it's being covered by you and by others at this point. What do you mean by me? Don't lump me in with the others.

Well, I'm saying the way you covered it on your channel is different than the way we're going to cover it so if you do listen to stephanie's channel watch stephanie's channel we're coming at it from a different perspective yes so it's definitely worth checking it out i can't believe you lumped me in with the others like i'm just every other girl to you or i could say who said girl i never mentioned girl but i'm a girl why why are only youtubers girls i'm a girl but you're not the only one i'm messing most true crime youtubers are girls oh okay all right all right um but no i would say that we're gonna cover it differently than what she did on her channel so obviously there for those of you who have seen it or haven't seen it go check it out but even still we're gonna really dive into the the first

verbal and physical cues the the body cam, and then what's happened since. Because since you recorded your episode a lot, there's been some changes. Been some development. So that was good. Oh, by the way, got my merchant finally. You guys can see it on YouTube. You guys can't see it on audio.

But on YouTube, if you're looking, I got the baseball tee on right now. This is by far my favorite item. I love it. I have the same color one too. And I love it. Yep. I got the blue and gray baseball tee. It's soft. It feels good. The logo is nice and clear. It looks really good on it. So if you want to check that out, we'll put a link here. But for those of you who are listening, it's crimeweeklypodcast.com slash shop. Thank you guys so much for being here with us. Thank you for bearing through it. I can't wait to hear what you think, what you have to say.

Remember, you can always leave comments under the YouTube video. You can also email us. You can send us a speak pipe on our website, crimeweeklypodcast.com, and you can reach out to us on Instagram and Twitter. Until next time, we will see you very soon. Stay safe, everybody.

Stay safe out there. It's October. It's spooky season. All sorts of crazy things happening, right? Ghosts, Derek? Nope, not for me. I'm focusing on the candy. I sent you a ghost in the news.

I mean, in the mail. When I say the news, I sent you a ghost in the mail. It was a Chucky doll. We'll see you guys next week. Bye. Later.