Murder: True Crime Stories - SPECIAL: Laci Peterson 2 with Dr. Tristin Engels

Episode Date: January 14, 2025

Join us for the second of two special episodes on the murder of Laci Peterson, featuring Dr. Tristin Engels of the Crime House Original "Mind of a Serial Killer." As the investigation into Laci Peterson's disappearance turned into a homicide case, detectives zeroed in on the likeliest suspect -- her husband, Scott. But was he a murderer like so many believed, or was there more to the story? Listen as Carter takes you through the haunting narrative, and Dr. Engels provides expert analysis into the psychology behind this tragic murder case. Murder: True Crime Stories is a Crime House Original. For more, follow us on Tiktok and Instagram @crimehouse and check out Mind of a Serial Killer on Apple and Spotify. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is Crime House. When it comes to murder cases, confirmation bias can be extremely dangerous. If investigators get too focused on a single theory or suspect, every new piece of evidence can seem like it's pointing in that direction. In the case of Lacey Peterson, it certainly appeared that her husband, Scott, had killed her. The more investigators learned about him, the guiltier he appeared. It seemed like just about everyone from the police to the media to the public agreed with that belief. Just about everyone from the police to the media to the public agreed with that belief.

But the answer to who killed Lacey may not be so clear cut. There was a trial. There was a verdict. But in recent years, some have started to ask, was it the right one? People's lives are like a story. There's a beginning, a middle, and an end. But you don't always know which part you're on. Sometimes the final chapter arrives far too soon and we don't always get to know the real ending.

I'm Carter Roy, and this is Murder True Crime Stories, a Crime House original. Every Tuesday I'll explore the story of a notorious murder or murders. This is the second and final special episode on one of the most famous true crime cases of the 21st century, the murder of Lacey Peterson. This is a story with unique psychological aspects, so just like in part one, I'll be joined by Dr. Tristan Engels, the co-host of our fellow crime house show, Mind of a Serial Killer. As a licensed and clinical psychologist, Dr. Engels provides amazing insight into the minds of some of the world's most notorious criminals. I loved hearing what she had to say in our first episode on the Lacey Peterson

case, and I encourage everyone listening to follow Dr our first episode on the Lacey Peterson case, and I encourage everyone listening to follow Dr. Engel's on Mind of a Serial Killer. I check out every new episode on Mondays. Thanks so much, Carter. Once again, I'm thrilled to be joining you. Just like in part one, I'll be providing psychological analysis of the story's key figures while Carter takes you through the story. At Crime House, we want to express our gratitude to you, our community, for making this possible.

Please support us by rating, reviewing, and following Murder True Crime Stories wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly matters. And to enhance your Murder True Crime Stories listening experience, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode ad free, and instead of having to wait for each episode of a two-part series,

you'll get to access both at once, plus exciting bonus content. Last time, we discussed Lacey and Scott Peterson's love story, the events leading up to Lacey's disappearance, and how the investigation transformed into a homicide case. Today, we'll follow the investigation into Lacey's murder. We'll learn how detectives and the media pin Scott Peterson as the one and only suspect. That is, until two decades later, when newly surfaced evidence threw the entire case back into question.

All that and more, coming up. When 27-year-old Lacey Peterson went missing on Christmas Eve of 2002, the case checked all the boxes of a headline-grabbing crime story. Lacey was young, beautiful, pregnant, and it just so happened that her husband was the prime suspect. Within a week of her disappearance, all eyes were on her hometown of Modesto, California, where the investigation was unfolding. It took two months for the Modesto police to change Lacey's status from missing person

to homicide victim, which meant detectives were no longer trying to bring Lacey home. Now they were focused on finding her body and putting her killer behind bars. By that point in March of 2003, there wasn't much movement in the case. Detectives had already searched the Petersons' home a second time and according to the Modesto B newspaper, collected about 100 pieces of evidence, but much like the first time, none of it could be linked to the killer. However, the lack of evidence may have actually incriminated Scott even more.

Nothing they'd found so far indicated a struggle or some kind of forced entry into the Petersons' house. Instead, the detectives believed Lacey had died from a quote soft kill, meaning she was murdered in a way that didn't leave behind any physical evidence like strangulation. It also meant her killer was someone she knew, someone who she wouldn't have been surprised to see in the house. If that was true, it made Scott look even more suspicious. Yeah, let's talk about a soft kill. But before I do delve into that, I just want to advise that it'll be discussing intimate partner violence in detail. And I also want to encourage anyone

who's experienced, are currently experiencing, or know someone who's experiencing intimate partner violence to visit the National Domestic Violence Hotline at thehotline.org. It has a number of resources, including how to recognize different kinds of abuse, how to establish a safety plan, and of course, a crisis line that you can call or text. With that disclaimer out of the way, let's discuss the theory of strangulation. If she was strangled, then that is clearly a sign of intimate partner violence. In fact, strangulation is a form of intimate partner violence that is often overlooked because, like you said, Carter, it usually doesn't leave any identifiable external markers or signs like you would think. Of course, there could be internal signs,

depending on the force that was used, but strangling is a form of abuse that is very personal because it is an extreme form of control and power. The abuser is showing that they hold their partner's life quite literally in their hands. They have the power to give it and the power to take it away. It's very coercive and it's also a predictor of future violence, in particular homicide when it comes to women. It is more common than people realize and it's not talked about enough and it's a particularly

cruel form of violence. Is this generally considered a crime of passion because it is coming out of some sort of domestic relationship or is it seen as something premeditated where it's gotten to this point and now someone plans on doing it? It can be a crime of passion. For the case of Lacey, I understand there are a lot of people who remain unconvinced that Scott is guilty, even though he's been tried, he's been convicted.

And with that in mind, if detectives believe that Scott had strangled Lacey, given all the information we already know in this case, this would appear premeditated and not necessarily a crime of passion. Because there are signs that indicate this, from his statement to Amber that he was a widow, to referring to Lacey in the past tense during his Diane Sawyer interview, from buying a boat right before her death that she supposedly did not even know about and using it the day she went missing. These are all indications to me that if he did indeed strangle her, that this was planned

and carefully orchestrated. Regardless of how detectives thought Lacey was killed, it was all still a hunch. Without any evidence to go on, they could only comb through Scott's story. He said he'd gotten up in the morning and watched Martha Stewart with Lacey over breakfast, then he'd gone fishing, stopping at his warehouse to get his boat before heading 90 miles away to the Berkeley Marina. Scott's phone records confirmed he was telling the truth about his movements that day, but there was one part of his story that detectives got hung up on. They kept coming back to the details surrounding Scott's boat. Namely, when he bought it and why.

Receipts showed that Scott bought the boat on December 9, 2002, 15 days before Lacey's disappearance. December 9 was also the same day Scott told his girlfriend Amber Frye that he was a widower. It seemed far too coincidental. Not to mention, Scott never used the boat between December 9 and 23. The very first time he took the boat out was on Christmas Eve. That was a red flag to the detectives. Why would he choose Christmas Eve of all days to take his boat out on the water for the first time? And why would he drive all the way to the Berkeley Marina to test it out? He could have gone to any of the reservoirs just a few miles away

so that he wasn't spending hours away from his very pregnant wife on a holiday. Yeah, let's talk about this behavior. Having a hobby or hobbies like golf and fishing that you do apart from your spouse is not alarming in and of itself. In fact, it's actually healthy because it allows for couples to maintain some individuality.

Having a balance between quality time and time apart for fulfilling interests is important. What is strange about this is not just everything you already outlined, but also the fact that he made such a large purchase and commitment, because that is exactly what a boat is, when he's expecting his first child and his child is due very soon. That is one of the first things that caught my attention, because what does that say? It could indicate a desperation to hang on to his autonomy or independence and in some ways his youth, but it could also be an overtly flashy purchase to use to impress women, showing them the finer things in life like he had done with Lacey and even Amber. He does have a pattern of being a

serial cheater and love bombing women. Or it was because he was planning a murder. Bottom line, a large purchase itself at a time when they are expanding their family without his wife's knowledge is strange and it's definitely something to consider. And perhaps could this just be him not wanting to be around Lacey? He had a mistress, he may not have really wanted the baby, he had secrets he was hiding

and maybe just didn't wanna face her all day. This could definitely have been an avenue to avoid Lacey. Absolutely, but that doesn't explain why he hadn't used it for those few weeks between when he bought it and when she went missing. I would expect that if this was a way to avoid her, that he would have used it at least once during that time, even if it was closer to their home in one of the reservoirs. But he didn't. Well detectives Alan Brochini and John Buehler certainly thought it was suspicious. They believed Scott had gone to the Berkeley Marina so he could drop Lacey's body in the San Francisco Bay.

With its intense currents and low visibility, finding Lacey would be nearly impossible, especially compared to a still water reservoir. But then, on April 13, 2003, three and a half months after Lacey disappeared, everything changed. That afternoon, the remains of a tiny baby boy washed ashore on a San Francisco Bay beach. The day after that, about a mile away from where the baby was found, a woman's body was found on the shore. It was badly decomposed and had duct tape attached to its torso. The body was also right near the spot where Scott Peterson said he'd gone fishing.

The authorities were pretty confident the bodies were Lacey and Connor. But DNA testing was needed to confirm that suspicion. While investigators waited for the tests to come through, they kept watching Scott to see if he'd do anything strange. And sure enough, he did. The day after news broke about the bodies, Scott headed for San Diego, more than 400 miles away from Modesto. Now it wasn't the strangest place for him to go.

Scott's parents and some of his siblings lived in San Diego, and he'd been spending time there to get away from the local media. However, San Diego was also right next to the Mexican border. To make sure Scott didn't try to run, detectives Brokini and Bueller hopped in their cars and followed him south. They didn't know what his plan was, but they knew they couldn't let him out of their sights.

When the detectives caught up with Scott in San Diego a few days later, they tried to keep a low profile, but Scott noticed them following him and started driving erratically in an effort to lose them. Brokane and Bueller worried he might cause a car crash, so they pulled him over on the exit ramp that led to the Torrey Pines golf course. When the detectives got a good look at him, they noticed that he'd grown a beard and bleached his hair. Scott said he'd made the changes to his appearance so he would be less recognizable to the media. He also claimed that he'd only been driving evasively because he thought they were paparazzi, not police.

The detectives weren't buying it. They placed him under arrest for his reckless driving, which meant they were legally able to search his car. Inside, they found the following. A rope, knives, four cell phones, camping supplies, hiking boots, a shovel, a fishing pole, a dozen Viagra pills, his brother's ID, and about $15,000 in cash. Scott had an answer for the money and the ID. He said he was in the middle of selling his truck to his brother,

so that's where the cash came from. And he had his brother's ID because Scott wanted to use his local resident discount at Torrey Pines. Not because he was planning on using it to disappear over the border. But he didn't have an answer for the rest of the items. It wouldn't be surprising if he was able to come up with a perfectly reasonable explanation for these things, especially for the money and the ID, but it's even more possible that what he was saying

about those items was in fact true. Someone looking to escape, whether it was escape from paparazzi or escape to Mexico, would want to sell the car that has the tracking device on it that is very identifiable by police in favor of something that couldn't be tracked. But if he was truly just wanting to go golfing, why does he need four cell phones and 12 Viagra pills to do that? What this says to me from a psychological perspective is that Scott is a meticulous planner.

He's strategic, he's cunning, and resourceful. He thought of everything in advance and apparently that also included his prescription medication for Viagra, which in and of itself does say something. He either might have a sexual disorder or a sexual addiction, which could also play into why he was a serial cheater, but possibly he uses sex as a coping mechanism. Now, to be clear, using Viagra does not mean that someone has a sex addiction, and when we take it into context that he's been prioritizing bringing this to go golfing

right after his wife and unborn child were discovered in the bay, I would want to rule that out if I was evaluating him, if he did in fact have a sex addiction. And we already know per his own admission that he felt good about himself when women wanted to sleep with him. Pete I find it interesting too that he's actually so good at answering these questions easily. I would imagine people typically get nervous when they're pulled over for police questioning, and he seems to have thought through his answers beforehand for why he has everything. Do you feel like there's a tale in that? Yeah, definitely. I mean, I know whenever I've been pulled over driving, I get nervous. I'm immediately like, what did I I do did I use my blinker did I not like just just just a routine

traffic stop I'll get nervous this does suggest to me that he had answers in mind in the event that he was pulled over however he couldn't answer all of it which is also telling because he didn't have an explanation for the phones he didn't have an explanation for the phones, he didn't have an explanation for the Viagra, for the hiking gear, the boots, the camping supplies, the shovel, the rope, the knives. Where are those explanations? After arresting him in San Diego, Brokinia and Bueller drove Scott all the way back to Modesto for his booking. They hoped that by the time they made the 7 hour drive, the DNA tests would come in and confirm the identities of the bodies that had been found.

Sure enough, the detectives got the call while they were in the car. The detectives told Scott the news. The bodies that had washed ashore were, in fact, Lacey and Connor. Scott's wife and child were officially dead. But if it came as a surprise to him, he didn't really show it. According to Detective Bueller, Scott made a sniffling noise in the back seat, then just bowed his head and stayed quiet. According to Scott, he was in shock and didn't believe the detectives.

But Detective Brokini said that about 15 minutes later, when they stopped at an In-N-Out Burger for food, Scott seemed okay enough to wolf down a double-double fries and a shake. I think most people hearing this are like, okay, he obviously is unbothered by this, but let's again look at this from a very objective standpoint. People do react differently to shock and to trauma.

And like we talked about earlier, some are in denial, others angry, some emotionally detached. But most people do have changes in appetite when they're in shock, which brings us to this. Following a stressful or traumatic event, people commonly experience a decrease in appetite because the body releases epinephrine, like adrenaline, and that suppresses appetite. But after the appetite is suppressed, the body then releases cortisol, the stress hormone, which causes an increase in appetite, which is why emotional eating is something that people in

prolonged periods of stress do, because it helps soothe negative emotions. That being said, there is also the possibility that Scott sniffling was more for himself and performative or fear because he had been caught or feels he has been caught and maybe his interest in In-N-Out could be because he believed and maybe the last time he would get to have it. Just knowing that he thought in theory she'd been missing this whole time, that to have confirmation she's dead, you'd think would have some sort of more seismic effect on him at some level. It seems like he sort of knew it was coming.

Right, and he also said, you know, he didn't believe it though. So if he knew it was coming and he's in denial, why is he sniffling? Why is he, you know, like it doesn't add up and I can understand why they felt it was coming and he's in denial, why is he sniffling? Why is he saying, you know, like it doesn't add up. And I can understand why they felt it was strange, but at the same time, objectively looking at it, we can also find reasonable ways to discuss this too, that don't point to guilt.

Regardless of Scott's reaction, it didn't affect his immediate circumstances. By the time the detectives got back to Modesta with him, news had spread of his arrest. A crowd of 250 people had gathered outside the county jail to see him brought in. On TV, more than 5 million viewers tuned in to watch the news cover it. Three days later, Scott was officially charged with the murder of Lacey and their unborn son Connor. He pleaded not guilty to both charges. But the district attorney wasn't done. He was so confident

in Scott's guilt that he declared his office would seek the harshest sentence possible. The death penalty. Hey there, Carter Roy here. If you're enjoying the chilling tales of murder true crime stories, then you'll love the Crime House original, Mind of a Serial Killer. What sets Mind of a Serial Killer apart is its focus on the twisted psychology of the world's most notorious serial killers. Names like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, The Night Stalker, featuring expert psychological analysis from licensed clinical and forensic psychologist Dr. Tristan Engels, Mind of a Serial Killer will take you into their stories like never before.

So get ready to uncover what drives someone to commit the unimaginable. Mind of a Serial Killer is a Crime House original. New episodes drop every Monday. Just search Mind of a Serial Killer and follow wherever you listen to podcasts. On May 4th, 2003, a few weeks after Scott Peterson was arrested, the Modesto community held a memorial service for Lacey and her unborn son, Connor. It would have been her 28th birthday.

Nearly 3,000 people attended. That was how beloved Lacey was and how important this case had become to the city. And the people of Modesto, the whole country really, wanted to see Scott pay for what they believed he did. If they got their way, Scott would get the death penalty that the district attorney was seeking. So Scott brought in the big guns to fight back. He hired Los Angeles defense attorney Mark Garagos, a lawyer famous

for representing Hollywood clients like Winona Ryder and Michael Jackson. A day after Lacey's memorial, Garagos made a statement. He vowed that he would prove his client's innocence and find the true killer. For the next six months, Garagos prepared the defense's case, which wasn't much time in the grand scheme of things. Normally, defendants have a right to request a delay so their attorneys can be better prepared. But Scott was sitting in county jail,

hating every minute of it. He wanted out, and he believed he'd win a trial regardless. So he told Garagos to forgo the extra time request and just get on with it. People incarcerated for crimes against women and children have a particularly difficult time in detainment because of the overall views on these crimes by the incarcerated population. A lot of times, to ensure safety and security of the institution, high-profile defendants like Scott

are housed in protective custody for their own safety from other inmates. Some institutions have made adjustments so that they have designated units for those in protective custody, making it easier to give them more out-of-sell time. But when there is an overflow and there's overcrowding, that gets affected to accommodate the rising population.

All that to say, this can really impact someone's mental health. If they only get to come outside for one hour a day, if their interactions with others are limited for safety reasons, and they are feeling threatened because of the charges against them, and Scott's charges are nationally known, so all of those who are incarcerated with him are certainly aware of what he's been charged with, then this can cause really significant distress and fear, which could overrule his judgment. His eagerness to get to safety, in his case would mean being released or let out,

could outweigh his reasoning when it comes to his legal strategies. We are in fact wired to do what it takes to survive at all costs, and I think Scott himself regrets this. Whatever drove Scott to make his decision, he got the speedy trial he wanted. At the end of October 2003, just six months after he was arrested, the first preliminary hearing began. The prosecution's big moment came when they disclosed Scott's phone records with his mistress Amber Frye. There were hundreds of calls between them.

That included seven on Christmas Day and 16 on December 26th. And yet, there weren't any on Christmas Eve, the day the detectives believe Scott killed Lacey and dumped her body in the San Francisco Bay. I feel like this is also significant. How many people do you know who call someone seven to 16 times in a day? In some cases, that actually can constitute harassment. I know this was the early 2000s and text messaging was available and certainly so was email, but this just feels excessive. Like he needed constant reassurance from her.

And also stopping on Christmas Eve, perhaps he didn't have reception on the boat or perhaps he was otherwise occupied. On the defense's side, Mark Garagos laid out his argument for the case. He suggested that Lacey had been abducted and killed by someone else entirely. Possibly the burglars who'd robbed the house across the street. Furthermore, Garagos also said he would contest the results of the autopsy report. Namely, that the baby had left Lacey's womb after she died.

Garagos was going to argue that Lacey could have actually given birth before she was killed. If that was the case, then he claimed Scott couldn't be responsible. Lacey was eight months pregnant when she disappeared, so it probably would have been another few weeks before the baby was born. And because of the scrutiny Scott was under, there was no way he could have kept her hidden away that long. But perhaps most importantly, the preliminary hearing exemplified

just how out of control the media craze had gotten. The hearing drew more than 100 journalists and crews from all over the country. Mark Garagos argued that all the attention was poisoning the well of potential jurors. He filed a motion to have the trial moved to a new location, a request that was quickly granted. The trial moved to Redwood City, about 90 miles away, and jury selection began in March of 2004.

The kind of attention that this case received could certainly create an impartial jury because it exposed potential jurors to prejudicial information, some of which may have been sensationalized or incorrect. And that's how biases can be formed. We all have biases, but not everyone is aware of them. I know in prepping for these episodes, I needed to be very conscientious of my own bias in this case,

because when it happened, I was in college. It was my first few years as an independent adult, away from the environments and the people that raised me, which is where those biases were formed. So I was in the beginning stages of learning what my own biases were, and I recognized that I had a confirmation bias in this case as a result of the collective opinions and the views that surrounded me. So this, of course, could impact a jury, and part of the screening during jury selection is to identify possible biases in each potential juror.

A confirmation bias, especially when it comes to jurors, occurs when they have formed an existing belief about a case because of the pre-judicial information they have or because of the influence of others' opinions, especially on a national scale, and they seek to confirm that belief. But in doing so, they're disregarding any information that could challenge that belief instead of truly considering it.

And your experience, have you seen this, like, media interest in a case like this impact the case? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, also with investigators. In capital fences like Scott's, jury selection takes a long time, especially for one this public. It took two months to choose the final 12 jurors and six alternates. Once they were selected, the trial officially began in June 2004. The prosecution laid out a pretty straightforward theory for the case.

Scott didn't want to be chained down to his domestic life, so he murdered Lacey. The autopsy couldn't determine the cause of death, but the prosecution believed he suffocated her. Then he dumped her body in the San Francisco Bay. The problem the prosecution had was that there was zero forensic evidence tying Scott to Lacey's murder. Everything was circumstantial. So the prosecution's best chance of proving their side was to rule out any other possibilities. That meant dispelling the theory that Lacey might have been murdered after giving birth to Connor.

So they brought in an expert pathologist who did a good job of showing that couldn't have been the case. Connor's umbilical cord appeared to be torn, not cut or clamped as it would be after birth. Additionally, Lacey's uterus hadn't shrunk, which normally happens after giving birth. A waste product called meconium was also found in the baby's bowels. Normally it's passed out of the system after birth, and since it was still inside Connor's body, that meant he likely died while he was still in the womb.

With that issue settled, it was time for Amber Fry to testify. She confirmed that Scott had told her he was a widower the same day he bought his boat. The prosecution argued the boat purchase was a premeditated move for him to get rid of Lacey. Apparently, Scott had also been using the internet to research ocean currents in the San Francisco Bay and he told Amber that he was planning on selling his Land Rover which actually belonged to Lacey. Again it was all circumstantial evidence but it painted

Scott in a very bad light. When it was time for the defense's argument, Scott's attorney Mark Garagos didn't have a lot of ammunition to fight back with. Disproving the autopsy results hadn't gone his way, and he wasn't able to argue his other big point, that Lacey had been killed as a result of a burglary gone wrong. Specifically, he argued it had to do with the burglary across the street from the Petersons' house. It was known as the Medina burglary, for the family whose home it was.

Garagos wanted to argue that it had occurred on Christmas Eve and that Lacey may have been kidnapped after witnessing it. But the detectives said the burglary happened on the 26th, two days later. According to them, it was an entirely separate case. The judge agreed with them. In a pre-trial hearing, he declared that no evidence or testimony regarding the Medina burglary could be admitted into court. So even though Garagos argued the thieves were legitimate alternative suspects, he couldn't

offer up anything to prove that theory. Without those arguments, Garagos was staring at an uphill battle. Because he hadn't just promised to provide reasonable doubt. He'd promised to prove that Scott was stone cold innocent. And at this point, he was looking pretty guilty. Yeah, in criminal trials, there are something called opening and closing statements. And in the opening statements, both the prosecution

and the defense outline their cases. And they explain to the jury what they intend to prove through evidence and expert testimony. And these opening statements are very influential to jurors because they're outlining the framework of the case and what to expect throughout the trial. If we know that people can form a confirmation bias on prejudicial information, they can absolutely form a confirmation bias based on the strength of an opening statement as well. So if an attorney is unable to deliver on what

they confidently presented in their opening statement, it can damage their credibility and the way in which the jurors view them, and that will in turn affect what they believe and ultimately what they decide. In closing arguments, the prosecution left a lingering image of Scott as a calculating killer who murdered his pregnant wife so he could pursue a fantasy life of money, travel, and women. Garagos responded by saying that the jury could hate Scott Peterson all they wanted, but not being husband of the year did not mean he killed Lacey. Despite any circumstantial evidence, there wasn't any direct evidence that he killed

her. No murder weapon, no fingerprints, no DNA. Now it was up to the jury to decide if that mattered or not. After a grueling five-month trial, the case went to deliberations on November 3rd, 2004. Nine days later, on November 12th, the jury came back with a decision. Guilty. Scott was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of Lacey,

and second-degree murder for the death of their unborn child, Connor. After the verdict was read, Lacey's family broke down in tears while Scott's family sat there stunned. Scott himself showed no obvious reaction. Let's talk about this reaction or lack thereof. Once again, I think most people expected to see someone having

a visceral response when learning that, especially knowing that the death penalty is on the table when he has a sentencing hearing. I think people would expect emotional distress, tears, anger even. Here's what we need to understand though about body language. We know it tells us a story. Body language and nonverbal cues help us to interpret someone's emotions, thoughts, and intentions. It's an essential part of communication. And when interpreting body language, we have to take other aspects into context to ensure we aren't misinterpreting anything. And there are disadvantages in basing opinions on body language alone, because our interpretations are often limited to our own experiences or expectations, and

alternative explanations might not be considered. Alternatives like cultural differences or customs and a person's processing speed. Gaze aversion, for example, that's something that Scott did frequently during his interview with Diane Sawyer that people really paid attention to. And gaze aversion is something that's been considered to be correlated with deceit. But I personally don't find this reliable because gaze aversion or poor eye contact is also common in individuals who are neurodiverse, and that has nothing to do with deceit. However, Scott does have a pattern of incongruent displays of emotion.

For example, he smiled and he sort of chuckled when Diane Sawyer asked him right out if he had murdered Lacey and Connor. He smiled for the cameras at their vigil when people expected him to behave differently. Detectives said he sniffled, and he had an in-and-out burger after learning about the bodies in the bay being identified as those of his family. And now he's been giving a guilty verdict in their murder with, as you described, no obvious reaction. Is this a pattern because Scott has difficulty showing emotion in general? Is he used to being superficial and inauthentic? Is it a defense mechanism

like detachment because he's highly uncomfortable? Are there processing delays? Did it take him time to process that information? I know it would probably take me time to process that information. Does he lack emotional maturity? Or does he simply lack empathy entirely? There are many explanations that can be given for his behaviors and his reactions that don't necessarily mean guilt. Because Scott was found guilty of first degree murder, that meant the death penalty was officially on the table. But Scott didn't get to learn his fate right away. He had to wait nearly four months for his sentencing. And when the judge finally handed it down, it was once again the worst possible outcome for Scott.

The judge sentenced him to death by lethal injection. Scott was put on death row, where he would continue to appeal the verdict. For a long time, his arguments went nowhere. But over a decade later, somebody finally believed his side of the story, and new evidence was revealed that framed the case in a whole new way. After Scott Peterson was sentenced to death in March 2005, he spent the next 10 years or so trying to appeal the decision.

His family was still on his side, but nobody else seemed to question his guilt. That is, until an investigative journalist named Mike Gudgel started digging into the case in the mid-2010s. He had been around when Scott was first sentenced, and the jury's decision had always unsettled him. The more Mike learned, the more disturbed he became. In his opinion, there were serious leads that had either been ignored or dismissed that could have painted the case in a very different light.

He was especially interested in the Medina burglary, which the judge hadn't allowed into evidence. Mike believed it was the key to finding the truth about Lacy's death. Back in 2003, right after Lacy disappeared, detectives had tracked down the thieves from the Medina burglary and determined they had nothing to do with their disappearance. But as Mike discovered, the case wasn't so cut and dry. After the police caught the burglars, the thieves said they'd robbed the house on December 27th, 2002, three days after Lacey's disappearance.

But that wasn't possible, because the Medinas had returned home on the 26th and reported the burglary. When the police pointed that out, the thieves changed their tune and said they'd broken in early on the 26th. The police seemed to take the thieves word for it. early on the 26th. The police seemed to take the thieves word for it. But that meant that two men had robbed a house on a street that had been crawling with cops and reporters looking into Lacey's disappearance. It just seemed like it would be the last place a pair of burglars would want to be. Mike Gudgel and Scott's family believed the burglars were lying about the date they committed the robbery. They suspected it actually happened on Christmas Eve. And maybe the thieves had also kidnapped Lacey. Mike kept digging into this theory, and he discovered that a neighbor had reported a van parked outside of the Medina's house on Christmas Eve and some men on the lawn.

She described the van as brown or tan. At the time, the report didn't lead anywhere. But in 2015, Mike found evidence of an orange van that had caught fire in a nearby neighborhood the morning after Lacey disappeared. He wondered if that was the van the woman had seen. Maybe she'd gotten the colors confused. It turned out that the van had been found with a mattress in the back of it, and part of that mattress hadn't been burnt to a crisp. On that part of the mattress, there was a rust-colored stain that looked an awful lot like blood. Now, back in 2002, the fire investigator on the scene performed a luminol field test, which came back positive

for blood. So he sent it over to the detectives on the Peterson case. But when they sent it on to the crime lab, the more sophisticated test they ran there came back inconclusive. Mike and Scott's family wanted to get that mattress retested. If Lacey's DNA was on there, then Scott could be exonerated.

They also had questions about whether the detectives had truly followed up on all the potential sightings of Lacey that were reported. It sounds like, you know, Mike might believe, similarly to Scott Peterson himself, that detectives had their own confirmation bias that Scott was guilty and that they may not have done a thorough investigation of all of the information and the leaves that could have disproved

the belief of his guilt. I've actually seen this in my own experience, especially when it comes to officers who have consistently encountered the same individual. Because they have a history, they automatically assume that they're up to no good or doing something nefarious. This is something that happens. But would detectives or even family members quickly change their opinions if they were shown new evidence? That's going to depend on if they're experiencing cognitive dissonance.

If someone had been closely connected to this case from the start and helped to build a case that resulted in a conviction, they are likely to remain firm in their belief that Scott was guilty. Decades later, if they are being faced with new information that challenges all previous beliefs and actions, this could put them in a state of serious discomfort, especially if that suggests that they themselves were grossly negligent, and that that negligence resulted in a death sentence for someone who was possibly innocent, which also would mean that their department could be sued, and they could lose their job, and also would mean that their department could be sued and they could lose their job and it would tarnish their reputation as well as their own self-confidence. With that in mind,

it can be a lot harder for that person to have an attitude change even when faced with new information because that would mean facing extreme feelings of shame and guilt. But is it possible to have an attitude change despite all of that? Of course, it definitely is. And also too, what's motivating Mike? You know, breaking a big story, he has a motive for pursuing this and that could also be influencing the confirmation bias of his. But also on a grander scale, police have a lot of pressure on a very high profile case like this to solve it. It's coming nationally, it's coming from the mayor, the governor. I mean, the pressure is immense. And so sometimes that

clouds judgment because of that pressure, that pressure to perform, that pressure to appease the public, to make everyone feel safe and comforted in the fact that law enforcement is here and they're doing their job and they're successful. You know, like all of those things play a role. Yeah. And I guess ideally when everything's working together like that, we get the most answers that we possibly can. Right.

And in this case, while Scott's family was fighting for answers, a couple of legal loopholes granted him a temporary reprieve. In 2020, the California Supreme Court reduced his death sentence to a life sentence without the possibility of parole because of some procedural errors in jury selection. Unfortunately for Scott, the court didn't deem a retrial necessary. He'd have to be satisfied with the reduced sentence. But Scott wanted to keep fighting. In the summer of 2023, he convinced the Los Angeles

Innocence Project, which is wholly independent from the Innocence Project, to take him on as a client. Like Mike Gudgel, the LAIP believed that the Modesto police were too focused on Scott during the initial investigation. The organization also believed that proof of Scott's innocence hinged on the mattress found in the back of the burnt orange van. So the LAIP formally requested DNA testing of the mattress. Their argument was strengthened by a tip from Modesto resident Tom Harshman. Tom alleged that around the time of Lacey's disappearance, he told the police he'd seen a pregnant woman being forced into the back of a van, but he said police never followed up on his report.

Detective John Buehler, who was one of the two lead investigators, said they got a lot of phantom sightings at the time, but he didn't remember hearing anything about Tom Harshman's tip, and if he had, it would've been looked into. Detective Bueller was careful not to outright call anyone a liar. He said that while he was confident Scott had killed Lacey, if there was exonerating evidence, he would welcome it. He and his fellow detectives want the right person behind bars. But he also pointed out that eyewitness testimony is subjective. Honestly, one of the biggest causes for wrongful convictions is misidentification from eyewitness testimony, even though it's still one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for jurors.

Misidentification often happens for a number of reasons, but one that's consistently researched is the impact that high stress and trauma have on the encoding of memories. So for example, someone experiencing a highly stressful event or witnessing a trauma is also experiencing a heightened amygdala, which is the part of the brain involved in that fight or flight response, which is also an integration of sensory experiences. It's part of the temporal lobe and near the hippocampus, which is where memory consolidation occurs. Because a stressful event triggers an emotional response, people are more likely to recall

the emotional experience and get factual information incorrect like dates and times, like colors with the van for example where there was discrepancy there, noises and descriptions in general, memories also affected by biases and memory decay, also witnessing a crime is an unplanned event and the witness isn't exactly cognitively prepared for that so it can disrupt the facts because they need to orient to what's happening first before they're actually processing the information. And not to mention there are external variables that can distort the memory and the witnessing of an

event like lighting or distance to the event and more. I mean how many people have found that when they're driving, they had to turn down the car radio in order to concentrate on where they're going? I know I have, but the bottom line is that there's no way for court to know that what a person saw was in fact accurate and not distorted by other variables. Well, ultimately a judge denied the majority of the DNA testing requests in May of 2024,

including the mattress found in the burnt van. Apparently recent testing in 2019 had shown there was no blood on the mattress cloth, so the judge argued it would be a waste of resources to test it again. Additionally, Scott's representatives had failed to prove that the van was related to the Lacey-Peterson case. But the judge did allow testing on the duct tape found on Lacey's body. If someone else's DNA was discovered on the tape, it may be enough to grant Scott a new trial.

As of this recording, the DNA test results haven't been disclosed to the public. To this day, Scott Peterson denies any involvement in the death of his wife, Lacey, or their unborn son, Connor. He has argued his innocence through the help of his family, court appeals, and even a documentary series. While he is no longer on death row, he is fighting every day for his release with the help of the Los Angeles Innocence Project. But no matter how the case is ultimately resolved, we may never know what really happened. Because Lacey Peterson is the only person who could give a definitive account of what happened. And tragically, that's something we'll never get.

Thanks so much for listening. I'm Carter Roy and this is Murder True Crime Stories. Once again, I'd like to thank Dr. Engels for joining me and I encourage everyone to follow Mind of a Serial Killer wherever you get your podcasts. I'll be back next Tuesday as we return to our regular programming and the story of a new murder. Murder True Crime Stories is a Crime House original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on social media, at Crime House on TikTok and Instagram.

Don't forget to rate, review, and follow Murder True Crime Stories wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your Murder True Crime Stories listening experience, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode ad-free, and instead of having to wait for each episode

of a two-part series, you'll get access to both at once, plus exciting bonus content. We'll be back next Tuesday. Murder True Crime Stories, the Crime House original powered by Pave Studios, is executive produced by Max Cutler. This episode of Murder True Crime Stories was produced and directed by Ron Shapiro,

written by Alex Burns, and edited by Alex Benedon, fact-checked by Sarah Tardiff, and included production assistance from Stacey Warenker and Sarah Carroll. Murder, True Crime Stories is hosted by Carter Roy with a special appearance by Dr. Tristan Engels. Dr. Tristan Engels has never met Scott Peterson, nor is she giving any formal diagnosis. This was for educational purposes only. You may know a serial killer's crimes. Now, uncover the psychology behind them.

Mind of a Serial Killer is a Crime House original. New episodes drop every Monday. Just search Mind of a Serial Killer and follow wherever you listen to podcasts.