← 13th Juror Podcast
13th Juror Podcast
The Defense of Scott Peterson
00:39:37
The prosecution called it a clear case of guilt. The defense called it a rush to judgment. Revisit the Scott Peterson trial through the defense’s lens, unpacking disputed evidence, alternative theories, and developments still unfolding years later.
Loading summary
Transcript2 lines
- [00:04]
A
When 27 year old pregnant Lacey Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve of 2002, it didn't take long for the story to ripple across the country. Her panicked family spread word of her disappearance throughout the community. But soon after, a nation watched in real time as hope gave way to heartbreak. Last week, we walked through the prosecution's case against Scott Peterson, one of the most closely followed murder trials of the early 2000s. Prosecutors said the evidence led to only one conclusion. Scott Peterson was a husband living a double life, and his secret affair was the motive. According to the state, Scott's conflicting statements, suspicious movements around the San Francisco Bay, and the bodies discovered in the very place he said he went fishing on the day Laci disappeared all fit neatly into a narrative of guilt. But in a case this big, this polarizing, there's always another side. And this week we're taking a look from that perspective. Because although the prosecution called this a straightforward case of a man who murdered his wife, the defense argued the opposite. The evidence was flimsy, the timeline didn't hold up, and investigators focused on Scott Peterson too early before fully exploring other possibilities, their narrative. The state built a theory first and then shaped the evidence to support it. It's not unusual for defense attorneys to challenge an investigation or point out weaknesses in the evidence. Sometimes that strategy works, sometimes it doesn't. But years later, when an innocence organization, one known for stepping in only when serious questions exist, took an interest in the case, it brought a different level of scrutiny. And begs the question, did the jury hear everything they needed to? In this week's episode, we'll take you inside the defense's case. What they argued, what they say was overlooked, and developments that are still unfolding more than two decades later. Be sure to stay with us until the end because we're breaking down. Recent legal filings, renewed calls for DNA testing and the changes that continue to shape this case, leaving one question still unanswered. What really happened on Christmas Eve 2002? The prosecution says he planned her murder. The defense says he was planning their future. But it's the jurors who have the final say. This is the 13th juror podcast where we break down real court cases and put you in the juror's seat. Two sides, the same evidence. You decide what to believe. I'm your host, Brandy Churchwell. Today's episode is California vs. Scott Peterson, part two. The defense. From the very beginning, Scott Peterson's attorneys knew they were facing an uphill battle. Lacey Peterson was young, beautiful, and remembered by everyone who knew her for her warmth and million dollar smile. Jurors were shown photo after photo of Lacey smiling broadly and cradling her pregnant belly, an image suggesting the expectant mother was already protecting her baby. They saw the nursery she had prepared for baby Connor. They heard witnesses describe how excited she was to become a mother and build a family with her husband, Scott. And then they heard about the affair. While Lacey was preparing for motherhood, prosecutors told them Scott Peterson was an hour away with another woman living a double life. The contrast was stark. The emotional weight was heavy. It was not an easy narrative for the defense to overcome. But from the start, Scott's attorneys told jurors this would not be a case about emotion or what felt right. It was a case about evidence, or more specifically, the absence of it. According to the defense, investigators decided Scott Peterson was guilty almost immediately, within hours of Lacey being reported missing on Christmas Eve, long before her body was found, before any forensic evidence existed, and before a cause of death was known as. From the moment they honed in on Scott, they argued, the investigation switched from a search for Lacey to building a case against her husband. And once detectives learned about the affair, any remaining interest in alternative explanations disappeared. The defense knew the jury would hear about that affair. They also knew they couldn't allow it to become a deciding factor of Scott's fate. So their strategy was clear. Challenge the prosecution early and challenge them hard. Prosecutors told jurors that Scott Peterson said Laci was watching the Martha Stewart show on the morning she disappeared. According to Scott, the episode included a segment about Meringue, a detail prosecutors highlighted as part of his timeline. Then they told jurors they had obtained the broadcast tape from that morning and that there was no mention of Meringue at all. To prosecutors, this was another lie from Scott and another reason not to believe him. But when the defense rose for opening statements, attorney Mark Garagos created a mic drop moment. He told jurors he had also obtained the tape, and then he played it. Jurors watched the episode that aired the morning of December 24, 2002. And contrary to what the prosecution had told them, there was a reference to Meringue. It was a small detail, but it landed hard. In that moment, the defense wasn't just disputing a television segment. They were making a much bigger point. If the state could be wrong about something so specific and so easily verified, what else might they have gotten wrong? And that idea set the tone for everything that followed. This case, they said, was built on assumptions, selective interpretations, and an investigation that rushed to judgment. From the very first moments of opening statements, the message was clear. This would not be a quiet rebuttal. According to the testimony and evidence they presented, this is the defense's story. Before the defense could present the evidence they believed pointed away from Scott Peterson, they first had to confront the evidence the prosecution said pointed directly toward him. One by one, they took apart facts the state called damning and the conclusions investigators drew from them. Beginning with Scott Peterson himself, they pointed out characteristics Scott did not have, like a history of violence or any reports of abuse. There wasn't a single witness who said he had ever harmed Lacey, threatened her, or even spoke badly about her. In fact, many of the prosecution's own witnesses testified to the opposite that Lacey spoke lovingly about her husband, that she appeared happy in her marriage, and that the two seemed close and affectionate. In the months leading up to her disappearance, not one person testified that Lacey ever expressed fear of Scott. And nearly every witness agreed on one thing. Lacey loved him and believed he loved her. But once Lacey went missing, Scott didn't behave the way people expected him to. He was calm, composed. At times, he appeared emotionally distant. He didn't cry on camera. He didn't plead into microphones. He didn't appear frantic. To the prosecution, that detachment looked suspicious. The defense reminded jurors there is no rule book for grief, especially when it's unfolding under a national spotlight. Some people collapse. Others shut down. Some avoid cameras entirely, afraid that any emotion will be judged misinterpreted or weaponized. Scott, they argued, was aloof by nature. His demeanor wasn't evidence of guilt. It was simply his personality. And once investigators locked onto him, the defense said, every action, no matter how ordinary, was reinterpreted through a lens of suspicion. Then they turned to the physical evidence, starting with the Peterson home. No blood was found inside. Neither were any broken objects or signs of a struggle. There was zero forensic evidence of a murder, nothing that could prove Lacey was killed inside that house. Jurors were reminded that suspicion, no matter how compelling it may feel, is not evidence. Next, they moved to the warehouse in the boat. The prosecution portrayed the boat as a secret, something Scott bought without Lacey's knowledge. But during a pivotal cross examination of Detective Alan Brokini, the defense revealed that Lacey had been at the warehouse where the boat was stored the day before she disappeared. That detail directly contradicted the state's theory. More troubling, this fact initially appeared in Brochini's report, but was later removed. The defense argued that when evidence didn't fit, the Prosecution's timeline, it was quietly pushed aside. And if Lacey had been at the warehouse after all, it could offer an explanation for how her hair was found on pliers inside the boat. But what about the homemade concrete anchors? The prosecution argued those anchors were among the most damning evidence and suggested Scott made multiple to weigh Lacey's body down in the bay. They described a photograph of the warehouse that showed voids and impressions concealed, consistent with several anchors being made. The defense, on the other hand, argued those images were vague, subjective and open to interpretation. There was no proof that multiple anchors were ever created, and no anchor was ever found attached to Lacey's remains. Only one anchor was ever recovered, and it was still in the warehouse. The defense unpacked the fishing trip. Next, the prosecution repeatedly described it as strange cold weather, a three hour round trip, barely an hour on the water. To the state, it looked like a carefully chosen alibi. But the defense offered a simpler explanation. Scott had just bought a new boat and wanted to take it out briefly. He didn't pack for a long trip or travel far offshore. He launched at a public marina, spent a short time on the water, and came home. Exactly what someone might do when testing a new purchase. As for the weather, jurors were reminded that Scott wasn't the only person fishing that day. Lacey's stepfather, Ron Rocha, was also out fishing on Christmas Eve. That distinction mattered because investigators treated Ron's trip as as ordinary, but Scott's as suspicious. And Scott didn't hide the trip. He volunteered the location of the bay, kept the receipt, and told police exactly where he traveled. To prosecutors, the San Francisco Bay was the linchpin. Scott said he went fishing there. Lacey and Connor were found there, and a tracking dog named Trimble was said to have picked up Lacy's scent toward the marina. But under cross examination, jurors learned that the very next day, the same dogs failed their certification tests. They followed incorrect trails and became distracted. Could the reliability of the dog evidence that the state relied upon be trusted? The defense also brought in a dog handler who admitted that even the best tracking dogs are only about 80% accurate. The defense also raised concerns about scent contamination. The dogs were given a sunglasses case belonging to Lacey, but Scott had touched that case as well. How could the dogs distinguish between their scents? The scent detected at the marina made little sense if Lacey had already been concealed in the boat, as the state claimed. But it was more likely that the dogs were picking up on Scott's scent. Another item used for tracking a slipper belonging to Lacey was far Less likely to be contaminated with scotch scent. And the dog tracking the slipper did not alert or indicate at the marina. And there was something else. By the time Lacey and Connor were found, the entire country knew Scott had gone fishing at the Berkeley marina. If someone else had harmed Lacey, disposing of her body in a location already tied to Scott would have been an easy way to redirect suspicion. Then came the accusation that Scott was trying to flee the country. The defense reminded jurors that Scott had already traveled to Mexico earlier in the investigation and returned voluntarily. As for the dyed hair and goatee, they argued it was for anonymity, not escape. Scott was being relentlessly hounded by the media and wanted to avoid cameras. And more importantly, if he was trying to flee under disguise, why would he meet lead detective John Grogan looking exactly that way? Jurors also heard recorded calls where Scott said he was trying to evade the media. Unaware of the vehicles following him were undercover police. According to the defense, his driving wasn't evasive because of guilt. It was because he believed paparazzi were chasing him. The arrest location was an important detail, too. Scott was notoriously described as being arrested near the Mexican border. But the defense clarified that Torrey Pines golf course is roughly 30 miles away from the border. He was going to meet family for golf. They were already there waiting for him. After his arrest, Scott asked a single question. Have they found my wife and son? To the defense, this was a question of someone still holding on to hope. And even the smaller details had explanations. The car purchased in his mother's name was done at her suggestion to avoid impoundment. Scott's mother testified that the cash he carried came from her repayment for his share of a truck. He had his brother's driver's license because the golf course offered discounts to local residents. Each detail sounded sinister only when stripped of context. Their argument wasn't that Scott was perfect or faithful or sympathetic. It was that being flawed is not the same as being being a murderer. But the defense knew they still had to confront the Amber Frey evidence. The prosecution portrayed the affair as sweeping and consuming, proof of Scott's desperation to escape his marriage and impending fatherhood. And while the defense didn't deny the affair, they explained to the jury that it wasn't everything the state had made it out to be. Scott and Amber had seen each other only four times in person. It was not a long term, established relationship. It was brief, an intense but limited fling, largely conducted over the phone. And the defense pointed to what they called a Fatal contradiction in the state's motive theory. If Scott truly didn't want children, they asked, why pursue a woman with a toddler? Amber already had a daughter under 2 years old, and Scott was willing to step in as a father figure. They also emphasized what Scott didn't say. Despite dozens of recorded calls, Scott never confessed or even hinted at harming Lacey. Jurors heard him say he would keep searching. He spoke about different kinds of laws. He told Amber he loved Lacey. And under oath, Amber Frey admitted that while Scott told her he loved his wife, he never once told Amber, I love you. Piece by piece, jurors were told that everything the state called evidence was the result of tunnel vision and that an affair, not a murder, was the real reason Scott Peterson was sitting in the defendant's chair. But this left the jury with a question. If Scott Peterson didn't kill Laci, then who did? While police focused on one man, other possibilities were unfolding in plain sight. Suspicious activity across the street, unexplored leads, and witnesses who said they saw Laci Peterson alive long after Scott had already left the house. According to the defense, prosecutors never answered the most critical question in this case. Was Laci Peterson still alive when Scott left the house on the morning of Christmas Eve? The defense argued that she was. Multiple witnesses came forward reporting sightings of a pregnant woman walking a dog in the neighborhood after Scott had already left for the day and, crucially, before news coverage saturated the area. These witnesses described a woman matching Lacey's appearance, clothing, an advanced pregnancy, walking a golden retriever along familiar routes near the Peterson home and East Loma Park. And it was emphasized that these were not anonymous tips or secondhand rumors. These were ordinary people with no connection to Scott Peterson, no incentive to lie, and no reason to insert themselves into a case that would soon become a national media spectacle. Prosecutors dismissed the sightings as mistaken identity, suggesting witnesses were confused or influenced by later news coverage. But the defense urged jurors to focus on the timing. Several of the sightings were reported before Scott's fishing trip became public knowledge. If even one of those sightings was accurate, the defense argued, the state's timeline collapsed entirely. If Laci Peterson was seen alive after Scott left the house, then he could not have done what the prosecution claimed he did. And that circles back to the question. If not Scott, then who? As the defense turned the jury's attention away from Scott Peterson, they pointed toward unanswered questions in the neighborhood itself. One of the witnesses they called was Ricardo Cordova, a man who lived just around the corner from the Peterson home. Cordova testified that on the night of December 23, just hours before Lazy disappeared, a stranger knocked on his door around 10:15pm asking for money to help his girlfriend, whose car had supposedly broken down. The stranger's story didn't sit right with Cordova. The man claimed he had already knocked on other doors and no one answered. Cordova later told police he felt the man may have been casing homes in the area. He also noticed a white station wagon parked nearby, just a short distance from the Peterson residence. On Christmas Day, Cordova walked the neighborhood with a Modesto police detective. As they approached the corner of Covina and Edgebrook, not far from Scott and Lacey's house, Cordova noticed a pair of women's sandals lying in the grass near the roadway and pointed them out. The sandals were not photographed, collected or logged as evidence. To the defense, this moment mattered not because the sandals definitively belonged to Lacey Peterson, but because they represented a potential lead that was noticed but never followed. The defense argued that this pattern of behavior repeated itself throughout the investigation. Reported sightings of a priority pregnant woman walking a dog were discounted. Nearby burglaries, including one directly across the street from the Peterson home, were not seriously pursued as possible connections and leads that pointed outward were minimized. By the time the case reached trial, the defense argued the investigation was no longer about discovering what happened to Lacy Peterson. It was about proving a story that had already been written. Then came the most consequential dispute of all, how and when Lacey and baby Connor died. The prosecution's theory was that Lacey was murdered around the time she disappeared, late on December 23 or early on December 24, then dumped in the bay shortly afterward. And the state's medical expert testified that the condition of Lacey and Connor's remains supported that timeline. But the defense disagreed forcefully. Their forensic experts testified that the condition of Lacey's remains was inconsistent with a body being submerged and weighted down for nearly four months. They argued that fish and marine animals do not cleanly remove cartilage, ligaments and joints the way the prosecution suggested. According to defense experts, bodies do not decompose in water the way the state had described, especially not in a manner that leaves such specific separations without corresponding damage. The defense also challenged the state's conclusions about Connor. Twine was found around his neck and tape appeared to hold one ear down. Prosecution experts suggested that environmental exposure or marine activity could explain these findings, while the defense implied these were signs of restraint or disposal, meaning if Connor was born prior to Lacey's death, his body may have been disposed of purposefully. Dr. Charles Michael March, an expert in gynecology and reproductive medicine, testified that based on fetal development and medical records, the earliest Connor Peterson could have died was December 29th. That opinion directly contradicted the prosecution's timeline and supported the defense theory that Laci and Connor were alive for several days after Scott Peterson left the house on Christmas Eve. During cross examination, the prosecution's expert struggled to defend the state's testing methods and conclusions and appeared visibly flustered under questioning. The defense seized on that moment, telling jurors that when science is solid, it holds up, and when it's not, it collapses under scrutiny. If the forensic evidence cannot tell us when Lacey died, how she entered the bay, or who put her there, then how can it tell us who killed her? To the defense, the answer was simple. It couldn't. When it was time for closing arguments, the defense ended where they began. This case, they said, was built on assumptions layered on top of suspicion. And the law does not require certainty about what might have happened. It requires proof of what did happen beyond a reasonable doubt. They reminded jurors that the prosecution's theory was built on assumption that Scott killed Lacy without leaving evidence, transported her unseen, weighted her body with anchors that were never recovered, disposed of her in a heavily trafficked marina without being noticed, and that the bay behaved in a very specific way to produce the remains exactly as found. The defense drove home one central theme, reasonable doubt. They reminded jurors this was not a case built on eyewitnesses, confessions, or forensic certainty, but on inference layered on top of assumption, and reminded them that suspicion, no matter how strong, is not proof. Bad behavior is not necessarily the same as criminal behavior. If the evidence left unanswered questions, the defense argued, then the verdict could only go one way. Not because Scott Peterson was likable or sympathetic, but because the burden of proof was never met. On Wednesday, November 3, 2004, after months of testimony, jurors retreated behind closed doors to deliberate while the rest of the country waited. They reviewed key exhibits and requested additional materials as they worked through the evidence. After a week of deliberations, on Friday, November 12, the jury sent word a verdict had been reached. Cameras were prohibited inside the courtroom, but the judge allowed the verdict to be broadcast live via audio. Crowds gathered beyond the courthouse walls, listening in silence as the decision was read aloud. When the words guilty were spoken, first for the murder of Lacey Peterson, then for her unborn son, chairs erupted outside. Some cried. Others embraced. For many, it felt like justice had finally arrived weeks later, the case moved into the penalty phase, and the jury chose death. At sentencing, family members delivered victim impact statements, raw, personal and devastating. Sharon Rocha stood before jurors in a silent courtroom and told them that Lacey protected her baby until the very end, keeping Connor inside her body as long as she could. She spoke of burying her daughter without arms to hold her child, without a face to see or kiss him goodbye. Then she asked Scott questions no one knew the answer to. Did Lacey know you were killing her? Did she look at you? Did you look at her? Sharon said she is haunted every day and ended by giving voice to what she believes Lacey and Connor were thinking in their final moments. Not anger, but love, trust, and a desperate plea to live. Scott Peterson was sentenced to death, a punishment that at the time seemed to offer closure to one of the most notorious cases in modern American history. The trial may have ended, but the fight over fairness was just beginning. Questions started to swirl, not just about the evidence, but about the jury's integrity and outside influence. During the course of the trial and throughout deliberations, multiple jurors were removed, including one for discussing the case outside court and another for independent Internet research. The defense also protested a deliberations incident that involved Scott's boat, arguing jurors were essentially conducting an improper experiment when they were allowed to climb into the boat and rock it back and forth. The demonstration was inherently flawed because the boat was sitting on a trailer, not floating in water, making the test an inaccurate comparison to real conditions on the bay. These concerns became the backbone of Scott Peterson's March 2005 motion for a new trial. In it, the defense argued that juror removals were improper, deliberations were tainted by outside information, and the court admitted prejudicial evidence, including the Amber Fry recordings. While excluding defense demonstrations challenging the state's theory, they also challenged specific jury instructions and disputed the reliability of dog tracking evidence, wiretaps, and aspects of the forensic testimony. But one of the most controversial claims involved the Medina burglary. Across the street, the defense learned of a prison call that suggested a man named Stephen Todd may have encountered and threatened Lacey during a burglary he was committing. If true, it meant Lacey was alive after Scott left and that she confronted men robbing the house across the street. The defense claimed a prison lieutenant remembered this call and said Modesto police were contacted regarding it, but the recording and related follow up documentation were never produced. To the defense. To the defense, this potential lead would have quite literally changed the entire case, but it was never fully pursued. Judge Alfred Deluci denied the 2005 motion in its entirety. Scott was sentenced and sent to San Quentin. In the years that followed, the case moved through post conviction litigation, DNA motions, discovery fights and habeas petitions. Information was discovered about a burned van found near the Peterson home around the time Lacey disappeared. Eventually, DNA testing conducted on a mattress found in the van revealed a male genetic profile that did not belong to Scott Peterson. This finding did not prove who killed Lacey, but it did confirm that an unidentified male was connected to suspicious evidence near the scene supporting the defense's long standing claim that other potential leads existed and were never fully pursued. Still, there has been no evidence to exonerate Scott Peterson or have his verdict overturned. Over time, the focus of Scott Peterson's appeals shifted away from the evidence itself and toward how the jury was selected, specifically how jurors were excluded because of their beliefs on the death penalty phase of the trial. Attorneys argued that the trial judge removed several prospective jurors who said they could still follow the law even if they personally opposed the death penalty. Under the Constitution that matters, a juror can only be dismissed for their views on capital punishment if those views would prevent them from fairly considering it, not simply because they're uncomfortable with it. The California Supreme Court agreed. In its ruling, the court found that the trial judge had been too aggressive in striking jurors who expressed hesitation about the death penalty even when they explicitly stated they could set those feelings aside and follow legal instructions. By doing so, the court said, the jury that ultimately decided Scott Peterson's sentence was was improperly skewed in favor of jurors more inclined to impose death. That imbalance violated Peterson's right to an impartial jury not on guilt but on punishment. Because of that error, the court overturned Scott Peterson's death sentence, but not his convictions. The court made it clear that the problem wasn't the outcome of the trial's guilt phase. It was the fairness of the process used to decide whether Peterson should live or die. As a result, Scott Peterson was re sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Peterson's team also pursued habeas claims alleging juror misconduct, most notably involving juror number seven. During voir dire, jurors were asked detailed questions about domestic violence, restraining orders and personal experiences that could affect their ability to remain impartial. Juror number seven did not reveal that she had previously sought a restraining order related to domestic issues while she was pregnant, nor did she disclose that a former partner had pleaded guilty to domestic violence. Peterson's attorneys argued that these omissions mattered deeply. Her personal history, particularly involving pregnancy and domestic conflict, could have predisposed her to identify with Lacey Peterson and to view Scott Peterson through a lens of guilt. From the outset, in their view, this wasn't oversight. It was deception. The juror denied misconduct and said she answered honestly. Ultimately, the courts rejected Peterson's claims and upheld the conviction. But the allegations surrounding juror number seven became one of the most enduring fault lines in the case, fueling ongoing debate about whether Scott Peterson was judged solely on evidence or by a jury that was never as impartial as it appeared. Then, in early 2024, the Los Angeles Innocence Project announced it was representing Scott Peterson in post conviction proceedings and investigating an actual innocence claim. Their filings focused on evidence they argued was overlooked under tested or not fully examined, including materials tied to the neighborhood burglary, the burned van, and items they say could benefit from more modern DNA testing. A judge has allowed limited proceedings to move forward, including new DNA testing on a 15 inch section of duct tape from Lacey's clothing. The legal process is ongoing. Peterson's convictions remain in place, and he remains incarcerated, serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The involvement of the Los Angeles Innocence Project didn't just reopen legal filings. It reopened a conversation, one that had never really gone away. The moment that announcement was made, the case surged back into public view. Old footage, replayed, arguments reignited, and once again, the same question echoed across television screens, podcasts, comment sections and dinner tables. Did they get it right? Since cameras were not allowed inside the courtroom, the public's understanding of the trial defense depended almost entirely on reporters stationed outside, who relayed updates based on what they observed in hallways and on courthouse steps. That dynamic led to people filling in the gaps with speculation rather than through transcripts or evidence. And once the verdict was read, those interpretations didn't fade. They solidified. Narratives formed. For many people, Scott Peterson was guilty long before the jury said so. For others, the trial itself became proof that the process had failed. Books about the case have since flooded shelves, some written by journalists with unprecedented access to investigative materials, raising further questions about gag orders, leaks and media influence. The case became something much larger than a murder trial, and the story still endures today, more than 20 years after Lacy and Connor Peterson were killed, people remain divided about the narrative. For some, believing Scott Peterson is guilty brings closure. For others, believing the investigation was flawed keeps the doubt alive. But for many, belief, in whatever form, is a way to make sense of a tragedy. Justice and doubt often exist. Side by side, and in the end, we may never know with certainty how Lacey and Connor died. An uncomfortable reality for many, the grief at the heart of this case is so immense that it reshaped the families involved, fractured communities, and captured the attention of a nation. When pain reaches that scale, belief becomes a way to survive it. For Lacey's family, believing Scott Peterson is guilty offers justice for their world that's shattered without warning. For Scott's family, believing in his innocence is a lifeline and an act of love in the face of irreversible loss. Neither narrative erases the pain, but both make it bearable. No matter what you believe happened in Modesto on Christmas Eve of 2002, the one truth that will never change is this two lives were taken far too soon. Lacey Peterson and her son Connor, a young woman excited to become a mother and a baby who never had the chance to be born. Thirteenth Juror is an Audio Chuck production hosted by Brandi Churchwell. Ashley Flowers is executive producer. You can follow 13th Juror on Instagram @13th JurorPodcast. I think Chuck would approve.
- [39:37]
B
For decades, some cold cases have been reduced to files in a cabinet. But not anymore. I'm Ashley Flowers, and me and my team on the Deck have been traveling across the country to report on these forgotten cases, and in some instances, it's resulted in these cases being solved after decades. Join me every Wednesday as we revive these stories one card at a time. Listen to the Deck now. Wherever you get your podcasts.