Serialously with Annie Elise - 189: Scott Peterson: Has the Public Opinion Shifted? Feat. Nancy Grace

Episode Date: September 2, 2024

This week we are joined by Nancy Grace. Scott Peterson... a name nearly everyone who follows true crime is familiar with. After spending the last 20 years in prison for the murder of his wife, Laci, he is speaking out. With back-to-back documentaries released on Peacock and Netflix, including one that presents his side of the story, many people are talking about it. The question is: Is public opinion beginning to shift? You can find Crime Stories with Nancy Grace on YouTube and all podcast platforms: https://link.chtbl.com/NancyGrace We're going on TOUR!! Come see one of our episodes LIVE in a city near you! Head to https://annieelise.com/blogs/events for dates and ticket info! HERS Start your free online visit today at https://www.forhers.com/AE Shopify Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://www.shopify.com/serialously Seed Go to https://www.Seed.com/ae and use code 25AE to get 25% off your first month. Shop the Merch: www.annieelise.com Follow the podcast on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@serialouslypodcast   Follow the podcast on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/serialouslypod/       Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/annieelise     All Social Media Links: https://www.flowcode.com/page/annieelise_    SERIALously FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/SERIALouslyAnnieElise/    About Me: https://annieelise.com/   For Business Inquiries: [e-mail]

But if these questions were not questions, then they were accusations. Scott Peterson admits to having an affair ahead of the death of Lacey Peterson. My brother-in-law, Scott, has been wrongfully convicted of that murder. The 51-year-old gives his own version of events from behind prison walls. There was evidence that was not introduced at the time, including evidence of a burglary and an abandoned van that was found across the street from the Peterson home and duct tape on Lacey Peterson's clothing. Missing person cases before, but this one was bigger already. It's the chilling case that's still a national obsession. He didn't

want to be a father, and this is the way he thought about getting out of it. He had made up his mind before he even arrived in the home. Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly with me, Annie Elise. We have got a very special episode today. It is one that is a case that's back in the media, everybody's talking about it, everybody has their own opinions and theories. It's actually way controversial at this moment than I think it ever has been in the last two decades, and we'll get into why, but we have got a lot to talk about. It's related to the Scott Peterson case.

Now, I'm sure you know this case backwards and forwards, but before we start this episode, if you are watching the video version of this, I want you to just quickly take a moment, comment on this video, and tell me if you think he is guilty or if you think he is not guilty. Then once we go through the episode, I want you to comment again at the end and let me know if your opinion changed or if you still agree with what you said at the start of the episode. Now as I said, this is going to be a very important episode because we have a very special guest joining us. We are going to be joined by Nancy Grace, who has long covered the Scott Peterson case. She is a professional in the field. I am sure you have seen her on your screen at some point for her hot takes on different cases,

and she covered Scott Peterson's case from the very beginning. So who better to have on, what better expert to have on and weigh in than Nancy herself? Now, as I said, currently this case is back in the media spotlight and people are divided more than they ever have been before. And the reason why is because two new docuseries have come out in the past couple of weeks that really illustrate two versions of Scott's story and two versions of what really happened to Lacey Peterson. Both Netflix and Peacock have come out with documentaries about the case, and they honestly could not be more different. The Netflix documentary really puts an emphasis on Lacey. Her mom is speaking, her family is speaking, close friends are speaking.

It really illustrates why Scott is in fact guilty and how he is the one solely responsible for Lacey and their unborn son Connor's murders, while the Peacock documentary focuses more on Scott and his side of the story, why he's innocent. In fact, he speaks in this documentary on camera for the very first time since his arrest back in 2003. So everybody has been glued to their screens watching these two documentaries. And it's interesting too because it almost feels as

though Netflix was kind of saying to the audience like, hey, remember everything that Scott had against him? Remember how guilty he was? Like, we want to remind you of just how truly guilty he is. And it's like they wanted to do that before everybody then ran over and watched the Peacock documentary to get his side of the story after all of these years. And it really was the perfect storm for a media frenzy because these two documentaries or docuseries, sorry I know I keep interchanging them, it was a docuseries, it was three episodes, but they were released back to back, literally within days of each other. So everybody binge watched the first one on Netflix, Lacey's side of the story, her

family side of the story, why Scott is this garbage human human being then they all went over to Peacock and they saw Scott speak for himself and advocate as to why he's innocent why he was not responsible for this horrific murder and I gotta say the goal of whatever Peacock had in mind here and what Scott's family had in mind definitely worked because I was talking with some of my friends who were dead set that Scott was guilty 100% never a question in their mind they watched the Netflix documentary as well they're like of course yes he's guilty and then they started text messaging me literally a couple of days ago being like I just watched the Peacock documentary I have so many questions is there reasonable doubt

I don't know anymore I'm questioning myself and that's really what their purpose was in releasing this because Scott's team and the LA Innocence Project are fighting to prove that Scott is in fact innocent. Now of course with both docuseries telling their version of the stories a lot of questions came out of that even after you watched both of them all six episodes in total between the two you left with a lot of questions so we're going to go into all of those questions, things that didn't add up, things that didn't make sense, questions we still have, and try to understand what the truth is in this case. But before we get into all of that and before Nancy jumps on and joins me for all of those questions and for all of the details, I just want to give you a very, very quick reminder of everything that has led up to this point. I'm sure most of you listening are familiar with the case,

but we are going to just do a very high level refresher. I'm talking it's just going to be a couple minutes, guys, don't worry. But I want to go back to Scott and Lacey's home in Modesto, California, 22 years ago. Scott and his wife Lacey seemed to have a picture-perfect life in Modesto, California. Lacey was eight months pregnant with their first child, and they were eagerly preparing to welcome their baby boy Connor. But everything took a very dark turn on December 24, 2002. That was when Lacey went missing. That day, Scott had said that he went fishing at the San Francisco Bay while Lacey had stayed at home to bake cookies, to walk their dog, to prepare for the Christmas Eve activities with their family. So when she didn't come home, Scott reported her missing. But what followed was

one of the most gripping criminal cases in recent history. Not even so recent because it really has been spanning over two decades now. So as the search for Lacey intensified, people started noticing some very odd behavior from Scott. He didn't seem too broken up about his wife's disappearance. He was also doing some pretty weird shady things like selling her car, trying to sell their house just weeks after she went missing, things that just did not sit right with the public. And then came a huge bombshell. Scott was having an affair. He was having an affair with a woman named Amber Fry. Now Amber did not know that Scott was married and in fact when she found out and when she found out that Lacey was missing she went directly to the police and she cooperated fully with the police and with their investigation so much so that she agreed to record her conversations with Scott

and these recordings when they were released were totally unhinged because Scott had lied to Amber previously before Lacey even went missing and he had told her he quote, lost his wife. He even went a little step further saying that this was going to be the first holiday that he would celebrate without her, which how could you have lost your wife before she even went missing? It didn't really make sense. There was also another very disturbing phone call where he's speaking with Amber talking about how much he cares about her, how much he misses her. He's saying that he's in Paris celebrating New Year's Eve, when in reality he was at his missing pregnant wife's vigil. I mean, it was not looking good for Scott. There were red

flags all over the place. And as if that wasn't bad enough, another strange detail came to light. Scott had secretly bought a very small fishing boat just weeks before Lacey disappeared, a purchase that he never mentioned to anyone. So with all of these different things coming to the surface, there was a lot of suspicion that was looming around Scott. The problem was, there was no evidence that tied him to the crime. There also were no bodies recovered at this point, so Lacey just appeared to be missing for months. But then, a few months after she disappeared in April of 2003, the bodies of Lacey and her unborn son were discovered. They were discovered separately along the shore of San Francisco Bay. And if San Francisco

Bay sounds familiar, that's because that's where Scott had claimed to be fishing the day that Lacey disappeared. The remains were badly decomposed, which made it very difficult to determine the exact cause of death. But then things got even more suspicious when Scott was arrested in La Jolla near the Mexican border. This was on April 18, 2003, just very shortly after Lacey's remains were found. When the police caught up with him, he had dyed his hair blonde. He was carrying $15,000 in cash. He also had a car full of gear, including multiple cell phones, his brother's ID, things like that. So it looked like he was planning to make a run for it, flee to the Mexican border.

Though Scott claimed he was just trying to get away from all the media attention, because this case had received national, even international attention at this point. So paparazzi were following him regularly. There were reporters always camped out in front of the house. So according to him, he said, no,'s arrested and he's charged with her murder, along with the murder of their unborn son, Connor. And during his trial in 2004, the prosecution argued that Scott killed Lacey

all to escape the responsibilities of marriage, also the responsibilities of fatherhood, especially given his affair that he was having with Amber Fry. They painted a picture of a man who just wanted a fresh start, and who saw his pregnant wife as an obstacle in this fresh start. The defense, on the other hand, said that Lacey had been kidnapped by somebody else while she was out walking their dog that morning, and also that there wasn't any direct evidence that was linking Scott to the murder. No DNA, no blood, nothing. And that's true. There was absolutely no DNA linking Scott to Lacey's

murder. All of the evidence was strictly circumstantial. But despite this lack of physical evidence, Scott was convicted of first-degree murder for Lacey, and he was convicted of second-degree murder for his son Connor. He was sentenced to death in 2005. However, the story didn't end there. In 2020, Scott's death sentence was overturned due to concerns about how the jury was selected. However, his conviction was upheld. Now, to this day, his legal team continues to argue that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. They point to witnesses who claim to have seen Lacey alive after Scott left that morning to go on his fishing trip. They also point to the fact that there is no direct evidence, no physical evidence tying him to the crime, and it has created such an uproar that the

LA Innocence Project has also gotten involved in his case, and that's now why it's back in the public eye. Now, it wasn't just the defense who was trying to argue that Scott Peterson was innocent. Many people to this day believe that Scott is innocent. They point to the absence of that direct DNA evidence linking him to the crime. They also point to the several witnesses who claimed to have seen Lacey Peterson alive after the time that the prosecutors alleged she was killed. Additionally, there was a burglary that occurred directly across the street from the Peterson home. The burglary occurred the day that Lacey went missing, and I want to talk about it for a moment because it has raised some doubts. Some people suggest that these burglars could have been the

ones involved in Lacey's disappearance. And here's what's weird about the burglary. It has been widely referenced as the Medina burglary because that's the name of the family who lived in this home, and this home was directly across the street from Lacey and Scott's house. So the Medina family left for LA on Christmas Eve, the day that Lacey disappeared. They returned to their home the day after Christmas on the 26th. Well, here's what's interesting. When the robbers were arrested, first and foremost, they immediately admitted to the robbery, which had a lot of people kind of raising their eyebrows, being like, what burglars, what robbers just automatically cop to robbery?

But in any event, they did. And when they did admit it, they said that they robbed the house on the 27th. However, they were told, no, that wouldn't have been possible because the Medinas were already back home by that point. So then these robbers say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, it wasn't the 27th. It was actually the 26th. But that also seemed very unlikely because by Christmas Day, there were news crews already parked all over the street. And again, the Medinas lived directly across from Lacey and Scott's house. So who would rob a house with that many reporters, police officers, media,

just so many people swarming the streets out front of it? Pretty risky, right? Plus, why lie about robbing the house on the 27th and then lie again about robbing the house on the 26th unless you are lying so that you aren't implicated in another crime that took place, say on the 24th? There was also a recent ruling that a piece of duct tape that was recovered on Lacey's leg when her body was recovered would now be tested for DNA. Could that exonerate Scott? Could that DNA profile indicate that somebody else was involved here? Now the docuseries on Netflix overall just tried to show how premeditated Lacey's murder was. Scott told Amber he had lost his wife, then he immediately

bought a boat, he kept this boat a secret from everybody, yet Scott claimed that he kept it a secret because he wanted to surprise his dad, but he seemed to have no sense of urgency after Lacey's disappearance. He sold her car, he wanted to sell their house, I mean all the things. He even turned their unborn son Connor's nursery, the room for his future son, into a storage room, showing that he wasn't really expecting him or Lacey to come back. So again, now we have these two new docuseries that are out just in the last couple of weeks. The Netflix documentary emphasizes Lacey's side of things, while the Peacock documentary talks about Scott and the LA Innocence Project. And these two docuseries have raised a lot of questions.

There's a lot of people who continue to think that Scott is no doubt guilty, but now also there are quite a few people who say that they do have reasonable doubt. There are questions. Some stuff is not adding up. So I thought, who better to weigh in on this case and all of the questions that we now have stemming from these two docuseries than Nancy Grace herself? Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor of over 10 years. She's also a trusted professional in the true crime space. Nancy is also the host of Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, which is available on YouTube and all podcast platforms. And Nancy has covered the Scott Peterson case for over 20 years. She knows this case backwards and forwards. So I am extremely eager to hear her thoughts on the case, her thoughts on

the two docuseries, and her answers to all of the questions that we now have stemming from these two docuseries. So Nancy, thank you so much for joining me today. I am so excited to be talking with you. I know that the listeners are very eager to hear from you, and I'm so thankful to have you here. Thank you. Welcome to the show. Annie, thank you so much for inviting me on today. I would love to discuss the Scott Peterson case, or as I call it, the Lacey Peterson case. There certainly is a lot to talk about, and I want to jump right in. The new Peacock series seems to advocate for Scott Peterson's innocence. What are your thoughts on how this series portrays

the case, and do you think that it could shift public opinion? The new Peacock series, Scott Peterson Face to Face, does advocate for Scott Peterson's innocence. Why? Money, ratings, more people streaming it. What if the title was, hey, the jury got it right. Scott Peterson did it. Nothing to see here. Yeah, that wouldn't work out as well, would it? So that's why they're doing it. Nothing to see here. Yeah, that wouldn't work out as well, would it? So that's why

they're doing it. But also, there are many people who did not sit through the trial, who did not see the evidence, who did not investigate the case themselves, as I did, that believe there's a chance Scott Peterson is innocent. He's not. But I think this may be the crux of the issue. The conundrum that is Scott Peterson. Because when you see him, many people, not me, but many people think he is physically attractive, handsome. He's got a college degree. He had a great job. He can be very charming. He had it all. A beautiful wife, a lovely home. I've seen the interior and it was beautifully done by Lacey, like a little dollhouse. He had everything, plus the mistress to boot, if you count that as a positive. So why would he kill Lacey? That confuses people. It's as if the eye is tricking the mind when you hear the

hard cold evidence. Also he's had some very stalwart, loyal supporters that truly believe in his innocence, particularly his family. I think that that has swayed public opinion. But the reality is public opinion doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all. All that matters is what a jury thinks and what they have to say. Look at O.J. Simpson, if you dare. The public almost unanimously believed Simpson is guilty. Right? Well, the jury didn't. Same thing for Michael Jackson and Robert Blake. Sometimes jurors don't want to believe the evidence.

That happens. In this case, they did believe the evidence and the verdict was correct. Scott Peterson is guilty. Absolutely. Now, in the calls with Amber Fry, Scott lied over and over and over again. He was telling Amber that he was in Paris when he was really at the candlelight vigil for Lacey. He talked about how much he cared for Amber and how he basically saw a future together with her. But in this new docuseries, Scott says that he kept talking to Amber to almost keep her on the hook in a way, knowing that if she came out of the woodwork and if their affair was exposed, it would, you know, blow up his life. And in turn, the police would stop looking for Lacey altogether. He says that that was his motive in continuing these conversations

with Amber. So I want to know, what is your opinion? Yes, Scott Peterson continued to lie to Amber Fry, his mistress, whom I've met many times, and she's a lovely lady, now with her own children to raise. She was completely hoodwinked, lied to by Scott Peterson, just like Lacey, and she, like Lacey, believed him. She thought he was single and that she had really got the big catch. Mr. It, Mr. Big. Yes, he continued to lie to her. Why? Because he wanted to keep having sex with her. After Lacey disappeared, he continued to lie to her. And he really put it correctly when he said if the press found out about Amber Frye,

his life would blow up. That's why he kept lying to her. He didn't want anyone to find out because he thought, rightly so, it would make him look guilty, which it would, which it did because he is. But I look at those phone calls not as a man lying to his mistress. That happens every day, and it's not a murder case. I look at those phone calls and those lies for their probative value. What, if anything, do they prove? Well, they prove this. Either Scott Peterson is clairvoyant or he's a killer. Now, I'm not prone to believe in clairvoyance, so I'm going with he's a killer because just before Lacey Peterson disappears. Scott Peterson says,

I lost my wife. This will be my first Christmas without her. And it was. Also regarding the calls to Amber Fry, one critical call was made during Lacey's vigil, where her family and hundreds of supporters were out with candles, raising awareness to try to find her. Scott Peterson chose not to speak at the vigil. Why? Because he didn't want any potential witnesses seeing his face and saying, oh yeah, I saw him at the marina. He didn't want Amber Frye to see his face and realize he was missing Lacey's husband. And he took that opportunity standing backstage to call Amber Frye and lie to her about his whereabouts,

saying he was actually in Paris and everybody was having a wonderful time in Paris for New Year's. I mean, a guy can lie to his mistress all he wants to, but when he lies during the search for his wife, that's a whole other can of worms. Now, the series also highlights witnesses who claim to have seen Lacey Peterson on the morning of her disappearance. How credible do you find these accounts? And do you believe that they were properly considered during the investigation? The New Peacock series highlights witnesses who claim they saw Lacey most likely walking her dog the morning she goes missing.

I think those witnesses did see Lacey walking her dog, but not that morning. Why? Lacey could hardly walk. She was so pregnant. She told people that. She's having a very difficult time with mobility. I don't believe she took the dog Mackenzie to the park that morning. I don't believe that. Other witnesses suggest she may have confronted burglars across the street. I don't

think that she had the capability to do that either at this late stage of pregnancy. Her mother says she was having a really hard time walking, would have to sit down all the time. Lacey did not go for a walk in the park that morning. That was staged. I don't think the witnesses are lying. I think they have seen her walking in the park, just not the morning that Scott Peterson killed her. Those eyewitness accounts have been a huge point of contention in this case, but I want to talk about another detail that works in with all of that. When Lacey went missing on December 24, 2002, Scott had told the detectives that she was wearing a croton watch. It was kind of like a

gem-encrusted watch. It was blinged out. I mean, so much so that Scott and Lacey apparently nicknamed it her rapper watch, but it's a watch that she had inherited from her grandmother. So Scott and Lacey had listed this watch for sale on eBay, apparently. So the detectives went and checked to see if that watch had ever been sold on eBay, but it had not. Next, they checked pawn records for Scott and Lacey's name to see if maybe they pawned the watch, but they had not. Then on March 6th, a couple of months after Lacey had disappeared, the detective leading the investigation asked that the pawn records be searched again. This time, he asked that the word Croton, which is the brand of the watch, be searched. And when it was searched,

one pawn ticket was found. One Croton watch had been pawned in Modesto, and it was pawned exactly one week after Lacey went missing. To be specific, it was pawned on New Year's Eve, and it was pawned by a woman. What's interesting is Lacey's watch has never been recovered, and neither has that Croton watch that was pawned a week after her disappearance. The family also has no idea if it was Lacey's watch that was pawned that day, but, as you can imagine, people are suggesting that this bolsters the robbery theory, that this watch was stolen off of her when she interrupted that home invasion across the street at the neighbor's house, and then these robbers who stole it later pawned it.

Some people also suggest that it was Scott who had pawned it and that he had a woman do so on his behalf. So my question for you is, is this missing watch a red herring or do you think that there is something there? Regarding the Croton watch that was pawned about a week after Lacey went missing, that watch has never been proven to be Lacey Peterson's. There are thousands and thousands of Croton watches floating around. Are they Lacey's? No, they're not. Until a link can be made between that watch and Lacey Peterson's watch, it's completely non-approhibitive. It proves nothing. It also

doesn't prove whether Scott Peterson pawned it or not. That said, there's got to be more than a watch similar to Lacey's was pawned. It means nothing to me. Now, that watch, if it had an engraving on it, if it was a particular year or edition of the watch, if there was some marking on it that could connect back to Lacey, then it would mean something to me. This is just another rabbit hole that so many people are only too happy to run down, completely ignoring hard evidence against Scott Peterson. I mean, no one wants to believe a husband would murder his pregnant wife. I'm sad to report it happens every day. Now, speaking of things that don't add up, or the eyewitness statements and the tips,

I want to talk about a couple more of those. Because first we have Tom Harshman who tried to report to the police multiple times that he saw a pregnant woman being shoved into a van. He called this tip in multiple times and then he even went down to the police station to report this tip. We also have the burnt orange van with the bloody mattress in the back that was found inside the junkyard. There's also the tip from the Norco prison about Lacey confronting a burglary. Inmate is who gave this tip. So what do you think about the suggestion that other people are responsible for Lacey's murder? As it relates to an inmate discussing something he may have read or seen on TV,

I don't give that a lot of credence. Practically every inmate, not all, but practically every inmate I've ever dealt with wanted a sentence modification, a reduced sentence, or some sort of benefit. I don't think the inmate offered anything that hasn't already been in the news or on TV. The burnt orange van with the bloody mattress. There is a burnt orange van with a bloody mattress, purportedly that did have human blood on the mattress. Practically every mattress will have some sort of human tissue or biological matter on it, even blood.

Do I put credence in that? No, I don't. There is one witness who states he tried to report to police he saw a pregnant woman being shoved into a van. I'm not saying the witness did not see something, some incident that made him believe he saw a pregnant woman being trundled into a van. However, I also believe that that theory has been investigated by police and ruled out. There are a lot of theories. A little green man, again, could have grabbed Lacey from her backyard and taken her to Mars and then dumped her back in the water. Yes, that could have happened. Did it happen?

No. Scott Peterson murdered Lacey. Why? I don't know why, nor do I have to prove why. I know he did not want children. I know he stated he did not want children. Lacey wrote about it in her diary and told her mother about it in tears. Again, the number one cause of death amongst pregnant

women is homicide. That's not something I made up. In fact, I didn't believe it the first time I heard it. I even located the author of the article in the New England Journal and questioned her. That is based on hard statistics. That is what happened to Lacey. I know many people don't believe it and don't want to believe it. They want to believe Scott Peterson. I understand, but he's lying. Okay, now speaking of public opinion, you've been pretty vocal about Scott Peterson's guilt for decades. So what key pieces of evidence do you believe solidify his conviction?

I'm often accused of being vocal about Scott Peterson's guilt. I'm vocal about it when I'm asked a direct question. You ask me, now I'll tell you. It's not just me that thinks that no, Scott Peterson is guilty. A jury did too. Are you forgetting about them? And the people alive, still alive, that most want the killer behind bars, Lacey's mother, her family, her friends, they also are convinced Scott Peterson is guilty. If they had an inkling that the real killer had not been brought to justice, they would move heaven and earth to make sure the real killer was put behind bars.

So I'm taking a lot of cues from the jury and from Lacey's family. But on my own, I can tell you what I believe to be the strongest evidence that convicted Scott Peterson. Number one, after much confusion about where he was that day, confusion in his mind, not mine, he decided that he went fishing on Christmas Eve. Christmas Eve, while his pregnant wife was at home, getting ready for a Christmas dinner, soiree, and getting ready for Christmas Day itself. He left her to go fishing on a cold,

rainy morning. Okay, I don't believe that's why he went fishing. But that said, he also told people that day that he had been golfing. Oops, got that wrong. But aside from that lie, the probative aspect of the lie is that he places himself at the scene of the crime. He did that to himself. Scott Peterson places himself at the marina where Lacey's body was thrown into the water. Yes, the same body of water from which her body and baby Connor's body emerged, washed up on the shore. Scott Peterson caught in a lie by a guy that worked at the marina that could identify him being there that morning, having a hard time backing his truck in with the boat. That guy places him there.

When Peterson realized, I think I've been spotted, he changed his story from golfing to fishing. Number two, and I believe very strong evidence that you don't hear about a lot because Scott Peterson supporters don't want to talk about it.

Does the name Eloise Anderson ring a bell? Because I will never forget it. Or how about the name Tremble, the dog? That's right. A scent dog, Tremble, handled by Eloise Anderson, tracked Lacey Peterson's scent all the way to the marina. The dog followed her scent, hit on Lacey's scent along the parking area to a tree line. Can't you just see Peterson trying to hide in the trees? To a tree line down to a pier and it ended at the pylons at the pier. At that point, Tremble looked toward the water, alerted, and turned around and gave the signal the search was done. Now, I can tell you this. One of the best witnesses I have ever put on the stand was a dog. Hard

to cross-examine a dog, that's a good thing, but I believe Trimble and I believe Eloise Anderson. That is the number two most important and most probative evidence in the Scott Peterson trial. A, he places himself at the crime scene. B, a dog picks up Lacey's scent at the crime scene where Scott Peterson was identified. Three, it wasn't Scott Peterson. It was Ron Gransky that reported Lacey missing. Gransky first reported Lacey missing. Now, that may mean nothing to some people. It means a great deal to me that he did not report Lacey missing. Why? Number four, he, Scott Peterson, repeatedly returned to the scene of the crime. There was a GPS tracker on his car.

Law enforcement watched him go back and back and back and look out over the San Francisco Bay. Why? Look, I'm not a shrink. I'm not an anthropologist. I don't know why people do what they do. Why does a dog turn around three times before it finally sits down? I don't know why people do what they do. Why does a dog turn around three times before it finally sits down? I don't know, but I know that it does. And I know anecdotally that criminals very often return to the scene of the crime over and over. And Scott Peterson did as well. Next, the secret boat. Why did Scott Peterson purchase a boat? That's a large expenditure and keep it secret from his family, his father, his friends, his co-workers, and his wife. Because he planned to use that boat to dispose of Lacey's body.

That's why it was kept secret. And that's also why her hair was found in needle nose pliers, not a transfer hair like sitting on the pliers as if you hug someone and you get their dog hair on you off their sweater. No, Lacey's hair was tangled, intertwined in needle nose pliers at Scott Peterson's warehouse on a boat that he kept secret from her. So how did that happen? Secret boat, her hair. At no point do we have Scott Peterson out searching for Lacey. Why? He knew where she was. Also, and very important, think about human behavior.

Now, many people would argue this means nothing. I think it means a lot. Scott Peterson immediately tried to sell his home, tried to sell Lacey's vehicle, and ordered the porn channel. You know, statistics show that the single most dangerous time for a woman for domestic abuse is during pregnancy or when she tries to leave the abuser. The number one cause of death amongst pregnant women according to a study by the New England Journal of Health and Medicine is homicide. Lacey was murdered while she was pregnant. And those are just a few of the reasons why Scott Peterson is guilty. All of the circumstantial evidence paints a pretty damning picture, right?

Scott had the means, the motive, the opportunity. He had every reason in the world to want to continue this, like, bachelor-type lifestyle with Lacey and Connor out of the way. But there's no physical evidence. There's no DNA evidence. And one of the major points that has been raised by those advocating for Scott's innocence is the lack of evidence that directly links him to Lacey's death. So my question for you is, how significant is this absence of DNA in your view of the case?

Many people have queried, what about the DNA? In a majority of cases prosecuted in our country, I would wager, there is no DNA. The Scott Peterson prosecution is not a one-hour episode of law and order. You're not going to get all the scientific advancements in DNA technology you read about and hear about in the movies. That's few and far between. So people suggesting that Scott Peterson's case needed DNA to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the legal standard, are very unfamiliar with real-life investigation and prosecution. You know, if you want DNA technology and ancestral DNA and touch DNA and every other scientific advancement you've ever read or heard about,

I suggest you go to the cinema because that's where you're going to see all that. That doesn't happen in everyday cases and it's not required. Believe it or not, I've tried rape cases where I had a blood type, either A, B, or otherwise, and we matched that back to the blood type of the defendant. Those cases ended up in convictions and sometimes even post-conviction confessions. So all of you holding your breath for DNA and all of you that expect a case should be reversed if there's not DNA, there isn't always DNA. That's not going to happen. And remember, Lacey and Connor were thrown into the water. It's going to be very difficult to get DNA out of San Francisco Bay or off Scott Peterson's secret boat.

Why do you think he did it that way? Any DNA found in the home where I believe Lacey was murdered would have been there anyway because she lived there. Of course her DNA would be there. If her DNA was in his vehicle or her vehicle, that would prove nothing. So even if I had DNA, what would it prove? So with his camp campaigning that there was such a lack of evidence that links him directly to the crime, as a former prosecutor, you were a prosecutor for over 10 years. Do you believe that Scott's demeanor and behavior after Lacey disappeared played a significant role in his conviction? And if so, was that fair?

I do believe that Scott Peterson's demeanor and behavior played a significant role in his conviction. I've been asked, is that fair? Yes, it's fair. If a husband never goes out to search for his wife, ducks the camera and won't this Peacock special, is he saying, Look, I'll do anything. I'll even stay behind bars. I'll take a polygraph. Please look for Lacey's killer. Did he say that? No, he didn't, and he never has, even before he was arrested. Why? Because he knows who the killer is. All he has to do is look in the mirror.

And speaking of not only his demeanor and his continued phone calls to his mistress, what about the fact that he was finally apprehended absconding? Flight, evidence of flight indicates guilt. When I see a state trooper come up behind me and the lights turn on, I may pump the brakes, but I'm not going to take off 110 MPH and get away. Why? Because I know you're not going to take off 110 MPH and get away. Why? Because I know you're not going to find a dead body in my trunk. So why was Scott Peterson apprehended, leaving the jurisdiction,

having dyed his hair, changed his appearance with fake IDs, thousands in cash, water purification kit, camping supplies, and a hefty supply of Viagra. Why? Why wasn't he out looking for Lacey and trying to get answers? Why wasn't he camped out at the detective's office? Why was he making a run for it with a false ID? Flight indicates guilt. And I'm sure the jury took it that way. So I guess all the people that state just because he didn't grieve the way you wanted him to, that means nothing. And they're right. That does mean nothing. I've been through the grieving process when my fiance was murdered.

Everyone grieves differently. Or in this case, don't grieve at all. I doubt the porn channel is going to help him through his grief. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And what are your thoughts on the recent legal efforts to appeal or overturn his conviction? Do you believe that these efforts have any merit? There are even more efforts to reverse Scott Peterson's conviction at best in getting a new trial.

What do I think of that? I think that our justice system is extremely fair and extremely generous to those that have been convicted. If they cannot afford an attorney on appeal, an attorney will be paid for by the state for them. In this case, one of the Innocence Projects has taken on Peterson's case. And I give them all the credit. If they believe Scott Peterson is innocent, then I'm proud for them. And I'm glad they exist. And I'm glad they do what they do. Do I think there's any merit? No, I don't. I believe Scott Peterson murdered Lacey. I believe that the DNA test the judge has allowed will turn up either inconclusive or they will bolster the state's case. I think the theory is

far-fetched that Lacey is connected in some way to a burned-out van. You know, there's a theory under the law that the defense uses. It's called, as I term it, the SOD, S-O-D defense. Some other dude did it. That's what we've got here. And the defense is grasping at any straw, any possibility that someone other than their client murdered Lacey. And you know what? Have at it.

Again, I'd be mad if you didn't. Our system is set up to be an adversarial system, the adversary system. Both sides try their best for the state within the limits of the law and ethics to seek what they believe or contend is the truth. And by the fire, cross-examination, those witnesses, that evidence, that scientific data is tested by the other side for veracity or truthfulness. That's what's happening here. If there is DNA technology that proves to me Scott Peterson is innocent, so be it. He should walk free. I don't want an innocent person behind bars. Does anybody?

Maybe the guilty person. That said, I welcome and applaud any effort to prove an innocent person to be innocent. In this case, I don't believe that's true. But go for it. It will either be inconclusive or will bolster the state's case. Now for those even unrelated to the case, not the professionals, not the family, but for those who maintain that Scott Peterson is innocent, what would you say are the most crucial elements of the case that they are overlooking or misinterpreting?

For those people that still maintain Peterson's innocence, I understand. I would not want to believe that my husband, my brother, my sister, my child could be a killer. And I would try every avenue known to man to prove their innocence. I think that's what's happening here. I do believe that they are proceeding with blinders on. You know, when a horse is in a race, it has on blinders. Can't see either way. It can only see the road in front of it.

I think that's what happens here. They put the cart before the horse. Not to use too many horse-related symbol, too many horse-related comparisons, but I think that they are interpreting the evidence as they wish it to be. For instance, Scott Peterson, after much lying about playing golf, places himself at the crime scene where Lacey's body was dumped. An experienced canine handler and dog trace Lacey, her body anyway, to that marina from the parking area along a tree line to the pylons at the water's edge. And then the canine search ended. Scott Peterson places himself there and the dog confirms it. Number one. Peterson did not report his wife missing first. Ron Gransky did, number

two. Scott Peterson immediately turned search for his wife he lied throughout the investigation and he was absconding leaving even if I were a suspect I think I would stay and try to find my husband or my child

he chose not to and again and try to find my husband or my child. He chose not to. And again, he's either clairvoyant or he's a killer. There's so much evidence. The secret boat, the pliers with Lacey's hair in it near the boat, the boat she had never seen or heard about. It just goes on and on and on. I'm sure Peterson supporters have found a way in their own minds to reconcile those facts. I cannot, nor could the jury. Thank you, Nancy. I really appreciate you joining me today. Where can everybody follow

the stories that you're investigating. I appreciate our viewers and listeners at Crime Stories which is on MSN, Merritt Street Media, Dr. Fields new network on linear TV. It can be viewed in real time or whenever you want by streaming at at MeritPlus.com. We also are on SiriusXM every single day. Not only that, we are a standalone podcast through iHeart, which you can get through any podcaster. The cases we cover need attention. They are unsolved homicides in cases of missing people, especially children, many of them who have no voice in our system. So I'm very grateful for viewers and listeners to join us in our efforts in seeking the truth.

Amazing. Thank you so, so much. Annie, thank you again for having me on. So with the whole LA Innocence Project thing, Scott was trying to get a new trial, and he had requested to test more evidence that was linked to that burglary and to the van, like that bloody mattress that was found. During Scott's trial, the judge said that that burglary could not be brought up at all, though, because it was already determined that it was not linked to Lacey's death. And after multiple motions of wanting new evidence tested, in May of this year, a judge declared that the additional evidence could not be tested for DNA. However, the judge did determine that that piece of duct tape that was found on Lacey's leg and around her body when it was recovered could be tested for DNA. So if any DNA is found that is

not Scott's DNA, could it mean that he would be released from jail or at the very minimum get a new trial? What do you think? So I asked you at the start of this episode to comment whether you think Scott is guilty or not guilty, and I want you to tell me again now. Do you think he is guilty or not guilty? Has any of this information changed your mind? Has it made you feel like maybe there is enough reasonable doubt? It's going to be very interesting to see where this case goes and what happens, especially once the DNA testing comes back from that duct tape. So I will definitely keep you posted as we learn more about this case. We are following it very closely and I want to know from you, do you think he's guilty or not? A lot of people do believe

that there is enough reasonable doubt that there should have been an acquittal from the start but what do you think? I will keep you updated so if you are not following the podcast already make sure to take a quick second go to the top corner of whatever app you're listening on make sure that you press the follow button that way you will not miss any updates in this case. Other than that I will be back on the mic with you first thing thursday morning for headline highlights where we are breaking down everything going on in the true crime world this week and then of course every monday with a brand new deep dive into a case thank you guys so much for tuning into another episode until the next one stay safe be nice don't kill people don't join a cult all the things

all right thank you guys so much bye Thank you.