Scott Peterson Case | Lead Detective Dismantles "New Evidence" Claims

Summary

Podcast Summary

Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno

Episode: Scott Peterson Case | Lead Detective Dismantles "New Evidence" Claims

Date: June 10, 2026
Host: Donna Rotunno
Guests: John Bueller (Retired Lead Detective), Mike Ruiz (Fox News Digital)
Theme: A deep dive into the latest claims of "new evidence" in the Scott Peterson case, with analysis from the original lead detective and a Fox News reporter, scrutinizing media narratives and courtroom developments.

---

Main Theme & Purpose

Donna Rotunno examines the resurgence of "new evidence" claims in the high-profile Scott Peterson case. With Scott Peterson's defense and the LA Innocence Project calling for fresh forensic testing and raising questions about allegedly vanished tapes from the original investigation, the episode features retired lead detective John Bueller to scrutinize these points, debunk myths, and explain the thoroughness of the original investigation.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The “New Evidence” Narrative

• Mark Garagos's Claims (00:29–01:19):

  • At CrimeCon, Peterson’s former defense attorney, Mark Garagos, stated that DNA and other forensic evidence was never properly tested and alleged the prosecution was resisting efforts to do so.
    • Quote: "The idea that somehow the prosecution is fighting so mightily against it now... the fact that they don't want it tested speaks volumes." (01:19, Garagos via reporting)

• Mike Ruiz’s Clarification (01:50–03:09):

  • Most of the so-called new evidence (burned van, witness sightings, missing tapes) is not truly new—these angles have been explored before.
  • LA Innocence Project's angle centers on retesting materials with up-to-date forensic methods and raising controversy over missing tapes from a burglary investigation.
    • Quote: "None of that seems particularly new... They want more testing done... and they’re raising issues about taped interviews that have allegedly vanished." (02:15, Ruiz)

2. Detective John Bueller’s Detailed Refutation

On the “Burned Out Van” Theory (04:59–07:15):

• The van only became an issue years later, mainly once the Innocence Project became involved.
• Tests on blood in the van conclusively showed no link to Laci Peterson.
  • Quote: "There was no indication that it belonged to Lacy at all there." (05:20, Bueller)
• Bueller welcomes new testing but is confident the existing case is solid.

On Eyewitnesses and Neighbor Testimony (05:45–08:45):

• Locals frequently saw several women walking dogs in the area, leading to mistaken sightings.
• Key witness Diane Jackson’s account about the van changed color multiple times, undermining credibility.
  • Quote: "...her viability as a witness, of course, shrinks with every change in the story." (07:15, Bueller)
• True reliability would require a neighbor with prior direct knowledge of Laci—none existed.

On Claims of a Narrow Investigation (11:18–13:34):

• Investigators did not focus solely on Scott; over 300 sex registrants were alibied and cleared.
• Investigation continued with intensity after Scott's arrest—contrary to the 'rush to judgment' narrative.
  • Quote: "If we're only looking at Scott, we're not going to check those guys." (12:00, Bueller)
• There was a vast volume of evidence, tips, and suspect interviews handled by law enforcement.

The Burglary and “Alternative Suspects” (13:34–17:55):

• Two men, Stephen Todd and Donald Pierce, committed a neighbor’s burglary after Laci’s disappearance, not before.
• Witnesses never reported seeing anyone forcibly abducting Laci or anything violent in the neighborhood.
  • Quote: "How come you never found a witness that saw a screaming, yelling pregnant girl being dragged against her will... in broad daylight or something like that?" (17:24, Bueller)
• Laci’s walking shoes remained untouched in her closet — contradicting dog-walking abduction theories.

3. Overview of the Evidence Against Scott Peterson (18:27–21:42)

• Scale of the Investigation:
  • 43,000 pages of reports, over 300 officers, 1,156 items of evidence, 34 other potential suspects, 11,000 public tips, 90 cooperating agencies, and plenty of electronic and taped evidence provided to the defense.
  • Quote: "This is 28 pages of circumstantial evidence that I put together after we finished the case." (19:56, Bueller)
• The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, as is typical in premeditated murder—there were no eyewitnesses or security cameras in 2002.

4. On the Supposed "Bombshell Evidence" (22:06–22:25):

• Garagos maintains there are still “bombshells” unrevealed, but did not specify what they are when pressed.
  • Quote: "There are bombshells yet to be seen. There’s stuff they haven’t put in court filings yet..." (22:16, Recap of Garagos by Ruiz)

5. Scott Peterson’s Interrogation and Arrest (22:50–28:32)

• Peterson was never formally “interrogated” in a custodial, Mirandized sense—he managed the boundaries of questioning, often invoking his attorney before key topics.

  • Quote: "He really never was [interrogated]... Scott never asked for an attorney so that he wouldn't talk to us anymore. But if he got to an area that was sensitive, he would say he'd have to run it by his attorney." (22:55 & 24:45, Bueller)

• Flight Risk at Arrest:

  • Found with $15,000, dyed hair, brother’s ID near the Mexico border—these may have plausible excuses but ultimately reinforce suspicion in light of cumulative evidence.

6. The Role of Motive and Circumstantial Evidence (28:32–30:02)

• Rotunno and Bueller discuss Peterson’s affair—not direct evidence, but damaging to credibility and motive.
• Bueller never believed affair alone was motive (“wanted to be with Amber”), but suggests motivation isn’t always rational or singular.

7. Comparison to the Nancy Guthrie Case (30:02–33:06)

• Both cases are “needle in a haystack” missing person investigations; Guthrie’s is unresolved, whereas Peterson’s overwhelming accumulation of evidence led to conviction.
• Bueller shares a frank belief that Guthrie did not survive, but hopes luck will eventually resolve her fate.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the reliability of witnesses:
  “...her viability as a witness, of course, shrinks with every change in the story.” – John Bueller (07:15)

• On the investigation’s breadth:
  “There were over 300 sex registrants that were in the Central Valley that we had contacted and verified alibis on during this investigation.” – John Bueller (12:04)

• On what’s missing from the defense narrative:
  “How come you never found a witness that saw a screaming, yelling pregnant girl being dragged against her will... in broad daylight or something like that?” – John Bueller (17:24)

• On the prosecution’s case:
  “This is 28 pages of circumstantial evidence that I put together after we finished the case.” – John Bueller (19:56)

• On 'bombshell' claims:
  “There’s stuff they haven’t put in court filings yet that we don’t know about that may be coming...” – (22:16, paraphrased from Mark Garagos via Mike Ruiz)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:19] — Mark Garagos criticizes prosecution for resisting new forensic testing
• [04:01] — Detective John Bueller introduced
• [05:45] — Bueller on tests, the “burned out van,” and why more DNA testing is fine
• [07:15] — On the changing witness stories
• [11:18] — How the investigation cleared hundreds of alternative suspects
• [13:34] — The neighborhood burglary and why it doesn’t fit the timeline
• [17:24] — Lack of witness to an abduction
• [18:27] — Breakdown of evidence volume and investigation stats
• [22:06] — Garagos promises more "bombshells" without specifics
• [22:50] — Scott Peterson’s interviews and cooperation with detectives
• [26:34] — Peterson’s suspicious activity at arrest
• [28:32] — How circumstantial evidence built the case
• [30:02] — Comparison to the Nancy Guthrie (unresolved) case

---

Overall Tone & Takeaways

The episode is thorough, measured, fact-driven, and occasionally laced with dry, investigative humor from Bueller. Rotunno steers the conversation with a defense attorney’s eye for detail, but remains critical of attempts to relitigate the case based on media narrative rather than hard evidence.

Takeaway:
Despite media and defense team efforts to revive alternative theories or uncover “new evidence,” the original investigation was exhaustive, methodical, and the burden of proof for actual new and exculpatory material remains unmet. The episode serves as a masterclass in the realities of complex criminal investigations versus true-crime speculation.

Transcript

[A]

We gather here tonight to bring women back to their rightful place.

[B]

The Testaments, a new Hulu Original series from the executive producers of the Handmaid's Tale.

[A]

It's easier to accept a story than believe that the people around you are monsters.

[B]

The battle isn't over.

[A]

There comes a time when you have to take action, when you have to choose your own destiny. Never quite as it seems.

[B]

Watch the new Hulu original series, the Testaments, streaming on Hulu and Hulu on

[A]

Disney for bundle subscribers.

[B]

Terms apply. This is crime and justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. Scott Peterson's former defense attorney says there's new evidence exonerating his former client. This comes 22 years after Peterson was convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife, Lacey and unborn son, Connor. If you love breaking down these cases with me, make sure you hit the follow button right now so you never miss an episode. Today's guest is John Bueller. He's the retired homicide detective from the original 2002 investigation and actually interviewed Scott personally. But first, let's look at what Mark Garagos said at CrimeCon with Fox News digital reporter Mike Ruiz.

[A]

I think the most compelling thing is that the trial court got it dead wrong that the DNA testing should be done, the forensic testing should be done. And the idea that somehow the prosecution is fighting so mightily against it now that we've discovered that the prosecution basically hid this evidence, the fact that they don't want it tested speaks volumes as to how much they, how convicted or convinced they are of the conviction.

[B]

So, Mike, we knew, we know that Mark sat down with you at CrimeCon and answered questions. So talk to me about what that was like and what he, he talked about with you at CrimeCon, because we know this story continues to be something that takes over the media interest and it's an interest to everybody who's watched this now for 24 years or whatever it's been.

[C]

Well, the big question that I have and probably a lot of, a lot of other people have is what is the new evidence? Because we've heard about these witness before. We've heard about this burned out van before. None of that seems particularly new, but what the, the newish angle of it is that they want more testing done on some of the evidence found inside the van. They say that they want more a follow up done with the witnesses who claim to have seen Lacy after she was reported missing. And one of the other things that they're alleging, the Los Angeles Innocence Project, is that there was taped interviews done with people involved in the burglary across the street, which the prosecution has always said happened after Lacy's disappearance. Supposedly these interviews that were taped have vanished and the tapes are no longer accessible. So the defense is raising issues about that as well.

[B]

And as we know, the courts in California have already struck down all of these arguments. I know that they are continuing to move up the chain of the court process. They will ask a higher court to review the last ruling that said he was not entitled to a new trial. So I'll be interested to see what happens there. This has been going through the system a long time now. I think for Scott, the big win is no death penalty. I'm not so sure he's going to have another one, but I guess we'll see what happens. Mike, thank you for joining us on that. And now I'd like to bring in John Bueller, who was one of the lead investigators on the disappearance of Lacy Peterson that ended up being the murder investigation of Lacey. John, now retired. Thank you so much for joining me.

[A]

Yeah, Donna, good to be with you and Michael both. Yeah, it was good seeing you guys down at CrimeCon. And, you know, I listened with interest to Mark Garagos's claims. So, anyway, you guys can fire away. We'll see if we can dissect those a little bit, maybe get some clarity to them.

[B]

Well, good. I would love to, because, you know, as someone, John, who was involved in this from the very beginning, you have unique insight because so many people, people have now dissected this, gone through this. There's been every documentary that you can have. There's been every podcaster. Scott himself has come out. His family's come out years ago. Lacey's family came out. First, let's talk about the fact that everything Mark brought up at CrimeCon and Mike just laid out for us is not new evidence. And the court has already said, you know, we're rejecting all that. So give me your thoughts on the latest claims and how you feel about those things, given what you already know about this case.

[A]

Yeah, it's. I'll try and make sure I include all of them here. First off, the. This van thing that has come up and I. The first time I heard about that was, I think, within the last couple of years when the LA Innocence Project got involved in this and they interviewed that arson investigator and he was making claims about the blood and everything like that. There was some testing done in the blood. There was no indication that it belonged to Lacy at all there. And as we go through this, I'm one Of the ones that I can't disagree with Mark and the LA Innocence Project too much when it comes to testing more evidence. As far as I'm concerned, any testing that needs to be done, I think should be done. If there's new technology that comes along in the remote possibility that it could clear Scott, which I don't believe it could. But I, I think testing is, is never a bad thing. Now, of course, not being an attorney, there may be some legal reasons to not do this, but as far as testing this stuff, I, I'm, I'm thoroughly convinced we got the right guy. We eliminated everybody else from possibility of in this to our satisfaction and apparently to the jury's satisfaction also. So as far as the new testing. Okay, let's go with that. With the, the burned out van thing. We were working this case for more than just eight hours a day in the early stages, as you know, and with this arson investigator. I knew who he was vaguely because he worked about a block away from where we were at our office, and we'd see him once in a while. But if this was such a big deal, I really think it would have been paraded through our office like 4th of July. I don't think it would have been pushed aside or anything like that. Because as we've talked about before, when you go into court, if you have any evidence that you have minimized or you've marginalized or you've tried to hide it or disregard it, and the defense is always going to find out about that there is where they mount that attack on you, that you are focused in one area and you were trying to frame the guy. So the van thing, I hadn't even heard about that until the LA Innocence Project got involved in this news. To me on that, when they're talking about other people that saw Lacy now, there were. There were three gals in the neighborhood, one named Michelle, one named Kristen, and I can't remember what the other gal's name were. Two of those three were pregnant, one had a golden retriever, one had a chocolate lab, and they would walk the neighborhood frequently. So it was not uncommon in that neighborhood to see young females walking dogs and things like that. Of all these witnesses that have come forward and, and we interviewed many of them, I think Diane Jackson was one that I remember she had made an original claim that she saw a van in front of the Medina house with three Hispanic looking guys in it, and she thought they might have been gardeners. But then when she looked back at them, they were giving her kind of the, the death stare. And so she kept on going and she kind of drew the conclusion that maybe they gardeners. And she originally, when she talked to us, the van was white. And as an interview went with Detective George Stow, her color changed on the van to a tan and then later a brown. So her, her viability as a witness, of course, shrinks with every change in the story. And the defense had, they had all this information, it was all documented, it was given to them. Obviously didn't call her as a witness because of that. As far as any other people that were claimed to have seen Lacy, I know there were several, but most of them were. Well, in fact, I don't think any of them actually knew Lacey before this happened. So the huge difference, when you're investigating a crime and you're talking to somebody and they say, hey, I saw Lacy. Well, did you know her before this day? Well, I never met her. The power of suggestion and the media attention and the. Sometimes people want to get involved in things they don't have a stake in. So there could be some suggestion on that part. Much different than if care and service, who lived next door door to the south, saw Lacy that morning. She knows Lacy, knew Lacy. Facial recognition instantaneous. She would have been a solid witness to tell us that Lacy was there at say, 10 o' clock or something like that. But without that, without a neighbor that actually knew her from beforehand, people that are trying to be helpful and maybe some that just want to be a part of this that aren't, they come in and, and it's all supplied to the defense. And I gotta, I'll just close because I don't want to rattle on too much because I know you're going, gosh, get a, get a hook, pull this guy off the stage. You know, with, with Mark's team, he. A great bunch of support staff, attorneys, whether it was Lara or. I mean, there's just a bunch of them. I saw them around the courthouse over in Redwood City. Their research, the. The questions that they fired to the prosecution team and the clarifications that they. They needed suggested to me that they were mounting a very thorough, very, very valid defense. Trying to create reasonable doubt because they don't have to prove anything, just create that reasonable doubt with one juror were pretty darn talented. So anyway, I've talked too much already. Probably want to get me off the show.

[B]

No, no, no, not at all. I think it's really helpful, actually. And what I think is interesting and I think it's worth talking about And I don't think people really think about it that much. People are really quick to come after law enforcement and talk about all the things law enforcement could have done that didn't do, whether they know if law enforcement did it or not. But I think what's interesting is we talked a little bit beforehand, and you talked about the fact that, you know, you end relationships here with people's families because you're involved in these investigations. You have to talk to family members, you have to talk to people that may be witnesses or can. Can provide information for you. And there would be no, you know, people, I think, think, oh, if there was some rush to judgment to come after Scott Peterson, that there's this idea that you would do anything that you could do to convict the person that you wanted it to be. But I think nothing is further from the truth. You develop your relationships with these families and you want to get, not only because that's part of the job, but because you have all these people to answer to. And getting it wrong doesn't help anyone involved in this whole entire scenario.

[A]

Yeah, that's exactly right. And, and the, the thing, people that say that we only looked at Scott, they have no intricate knowledge of the case. Now, you know, probably most of the people that are watching this are true crime people, and they understand these things. But when, if we hadn't alibi'd sex registrants, people that had been convicted of violent sexual crimes and things especially against women in the past, if we hadn't contacted them, got their alibi, verified their alibi, these are things that Mark's team would have been able to bring up in trial and, and create that reasonable doubt. And I, I grabbed a couple notes here. There were over 300 sex registrants that were in the Central Valley that we had contacted and verified alibis on during this investigation. So if we're only looking at Scott, we're not going to check those guys. If we're only looking at Scott, the tip come in about somebody who could have done this, we're not going to look at those guys. But if you remember from the trial, Mark's team was not able to mount an attack on us to show that the investigation wasn't thorough. Some people maybe aren't aware, but as soon as the handcuffs go on, that's kind of like, to illustrate it. It's like halftime in a football game. In a criminal investigation, the, the investigation doesn't stop there. It's generally, you have enough information to make the arrest, get the guy off the street. So you know where he's going to be. But there's still tips that come in, there's still leads that have to be followed up on and cleared out and documented and supplied to the defense. And so before we went on air, we were talking about this, the murder part. Aside from Scott, he. He's a very personable, friendly, affable guy. He, you know, you could. I could see you going fishing with him or something like that if he wasn't involved in something like this. So like we had. Had talked about, it's much easier to put a case together when you don't have an agenda because you have such an intense dislike for somebody. And with Scott, if we could have cleared him, it would have been great, but he just never gave us enough cooperation, never was able to get us over that hump where we could clear him. And then as time went by, more things would come up, whether it was Amber, things we discovered on his computer, you know, the boat, things like that.

[B]

Right, exactly. So talk to me a little bit about this burglary theory. Tell me what that has to do with why that didn't work out. Well, and, and what. What you make of that.

[A]

Well, again, the defense had this information, and it was Stephen Todd and Donald Pierce were the two burglars. Todd, I believe, had a girlfriend that lived in the neighborhood, and he would ride his bike because he was unfortunately addicted to it. Cheers. 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox News wineshop.com with code FNRADIO20. 20% discount. Excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31, 2026. Must be 21. Order to order Please drink responsibly. Illegal narcotics at the time. So he didn't have money for a car, so he would ride the. The. The. The neighborhood, going to his girlfriend's house. And on the 24th, there wasn't a lot of commotion going on at the Peterson house. There were family members coming and going and. But it wasn't like a huge police presence. We didn't have the ID van out there or anything like that. Brookini and I had gone out there on Christmas Day. We talked to Scott for a little bit, went over, talked to Karen, service and things like that. So it wasn't. Wasn't really an atmosphere like it was weeks later when all the media was out there. Apparently, Todd saw the Medina house not paying any particular. Particular attention to Peterson's house. And it looked to him like the people had left on a holiday day and that they weren't home. So on the 25th, the next day, he went over there and he broke in and he stole the things that he could carry on his bicycle. And he went back over to Donald Pierce's residence, where, I believe Todd was living with Pierce and Pierce's mom. He mentioned to Pierce that there was more property at this house. People weren't home, but they'd need a vehicle to go back over there and get it. So they returned on the 26th. Well, by the 26th, then there were some local media trucks out from the Sacramento market, but there wasn't a CNN truck or an NBC or, you know, anything like the. The satellite dish atmosphere you had at the courthouse at that time, it was just still a local story. It was starting to pick up some traction, but it was still local. When George Stow and the other detectives interviewed Pierce and Todd when they caught them for this burglary, they had even mentioned that they saw the media trucks down the street, and they were. Were curious as to what that was because they weren't aware what was going on with Scott and Lacy. So they were able to take their stuff. Now the naysayers are going to go, well, why, you know, you got cops all over the place. Why didn't you see these guys as burglars? Well, you know, so it's a little bit different in real life than you have on the pages of Mad magazine. When a burglar has a horizontally striped shirt and a mask and things like that. They. They just look like neighborhood people. And we're focused on Peterson and the. The residents there on Covina. We're not. Not really looking at. Oh, here's some guys over. We didn't know that the people that lived in that neighborhood at that time. And so it was real easy for them to be able to go in there. And. And it's not like they stood on the front yard and broke open the safe with a torch or something like that. They took the property and then they left. And so when. When people talk about this, they. They oftentimes they'll insert their imagination into how this would actually be. And it makes it into a very colorful story, but totally detached from reality. I don't know if that explains it well enough for you, but that. That's my recollection of the burger. I'll just hit you up with one last thing because it might be your next question. There was. I. I'm trying to remember who it was. Well, it was Diane Jackson that talked about the Van. And then of course you got all the neighborhood people that claim they saw Lacy. Well, you know, you've got these people that, that saw the van in the neighborhood and they saw the three guys by the van. And then you got all these people that saw Lacy supposedly walking and in the neighborhood with her dog and everything like that. But how come you never found a witness that saw a screaming, yelling pregnant girl being dragged against her will by three guys into a van, dog barking, broad daylight or something like that? I mean that's the one thing that would have attracted attention more than anything else and that was never seen by anybody. Curious last note on that because I know I talk too much. The white tennis shoes that Lacey would have been using or wearing if she was on the walk still in her closet.

[B]

It, ah, very interesting piece of information actually. That and, and those are the types of things that people, you know, want to, to overlook when they make these glaring claims about what could have happened or did happen. But as you said, a jury listened to all of this and this was all information that was available to the defense. Why don't you remind our listeners, John, about all the pieces of evidence that you actually did have against Scott Peterson that came into court and, and things that the jury listened to when they made a decision to convict him.

[A]

Well, there's so many I got to read from the notes. 43,000.

[B]

That's okay.

[A]

Yeah. 43,000 pages of reports by the investigation in 62 four inch binders. Over 300 officers were involved in writing reports on this case. There were 1156 items of evidence. 35 people, 34 besides Scott were investigated as could have been involved in this. Of course over 300 of those were parolees for violent offenses and sex registrants. There were 90 agencies throughout California in the United States that got involved in this. Whether it was in Longview, Washington or other states where she was supposedly spotted. Gosh. 100 plus federal grand jury subpoenas were issued to get people to broadcast, brought, taken down to Fresno to testify that were and could have been having information on the case. Over 11,000 tips were turned in and these people go, Gosh, 11,000, that's a lot. It is a lot. But we borrowed a, a screening tool from the FBI. I believe it was called Rapid Start. And it was a way to categorize incoming tips so that the most relevant ones would be investigated first. It kind of prioritized the tips that came in. Gosh. We had two wire intercepts going with over 4, 000 calls. We had 116 audio tapes provided to the defense, 74 videos, 190 CDs. I mean, this is just some of the stuff. I got a. I don't know if you can see it here. This is 28 pages of circumstantial evidence that I put together after we finished the case. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence on the case. And. And I hate to keep talking because I feel like I'm keeping you guys out of this, but.

[B]

No, no, no, no.

[A]

You know, this is.

[B]

You're answering all the questions.

[A]

Yeah, I might be able to get to the questions before you do. And I don't want Michael to be getting lonely over there, because I want him to get in here so you can cut me off. But, you know, it's interesting that people, they. I. I've heard this many, many times that they. They'll minimalize the investigation and the conviction and the jury's verdict based on it was a circumstantial case. And. And. Okay, well, I understand that, but if you. If you've never worked murders and you've never put murder cases together, premeditated murder generally is not going to give you a videotape or an eyewitness or something like that. You look at any premeditated murder case, whether it's O.J. and I don't know if O.J. was necessarily premeditated. It might been an outrage when he went to see Nicole and then Goldman showed up, that might have been more like it. I don't know for sure on that because I didn't work it. But any of the premeditated cases, places that we worked, you just didn't have that witness. You didn't have a videotape. And you gotta remember, this was 2002. Ring and Nest cameras were not prevalent like they are today. So you don't have the things that we rely on today. And people think, oh, yeah, they could have gotten that. Well, maybe, but not back in that day. We couldn't. So, anyway, again, I talk way too much. I really apologize. We'll get it back to you.

[B]

No, hey, you're answering my questions. And it's you. You have the knowledge on this topic. So we'd much rather hear from you, you than either one of the. Either one of us. Mike, let me ask you something. When you interviewed Garagos about this, did you push back on him at all and say, well, this is information the courts say that you already had. And, you know, where do you really think this is going?

[C]

Well, you know, I did ask him which. Which of this is new? What is the new part that's going to change the outcome of this case? And what he told me was that there are bombshells yet to be seen. There's stuff that they haven't put in court filings yet that we don't know about that may be coming. I mean, that was his answer to that. So what is that?

[B]

I couldn't tell you, which is crazy when you think about it, because you had all these years, and if you have new things, then, you know, why would you be playing them out one at a time? But I guess we'll see. John, you are one of the people who actually interviewed and interrogated Scott Peterson. Can you describe that for us, what that was like back then and with all the information, information you had, how you went about that?

[A]

Well, they. They kind of make it bigger than it actually was. As far as Scott ever being interrogated. He. He really never was. He was interviewed several different times, of course, originally on Christmas Eve by Al Brokini, taped interview at the police department in the interview room. But when I was there at CrimeCon, and I was in the back of the room when. When Chris Pixley and Mark Garagos and that retired detector from LAPD were talking up there, I mean, nobody recognized. Nobody recognized me, but I'm in the back of the room there and I'm listening to this stuff, and they were. They were talking that. It was like an interrogation. And I. It really wasn't. We never really got to the point where we interrogated Scott. And a custodial interrogation has a couple of things that are involved in it. Number one, they don't have the liberty to leave, so they're in custody. Hence custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogations have to be Mirandized. You have to give the person his rights so that he has the right to invoke an attorney, the right to be silent, and things like that. And with Scott's cooperation level always being very limited and very conditional, depending on the questions we asked, sometimes he was very cooperative and, you know, easy to do deal with. Other times, we'd get to an area that was a little bit sensitive to him and maybe it was getting a little bit more focused. And then he'd mention. This is before Mark Gargos came along. He'd mentioned Kirk McAllister, who was a local, very skilled defense attorney, former prosecutor. He. He'd mentioned Kirk's name. Well, I got to call Kirk on that and talk to him about that. And of course, okay, we're. Then we're done there. We can't him anymore on that. So everybody that would is interested in this case has probably seen snippets of Al Broini's interview with Scott on Christmas Eve. But then when it rolled into the next day, from there on out, Craig Grogan, who was the actual lead on the case, he was a case officer. I'd had a double murder 10 days earlier, so I came off the rotation. Craig went to the top, and it became his case. He had small children. So Al Carter, one of the best sergeants ever, called Broini out that night because Brookini's kids were grown. So that's how Al started it. Then Al called me on Christmas Day because we didn't want to interfere with Grogan's small children. And we started it, and then we called him in later and he came in. But when it came to dealing with Scott, I would talk to Scott. Craig Grogan would talk to Scott, Brookini would talk to Scott. Scott never asked for an attorney so that he wouldn't talk to us anymore. But if he got to an area that was sensitive, he would say he'd have to run it by his attorney, which we didn't take, that he was invoking. And apparently nobody else did either, because they would have slammed us with it like a dead fish on the side of the head in trial, and they never did. So when it came to dealing with Scott, I gotta. I mean, I dealt with a lot of, you know, people that did violent things. Some are kind of likable, you know, if you separate them from what they did. And some of them are not. But they're the. The ones that are not are kind of a minority. They're there. There's very few, really TV quality evil out there that we dealt with. I mean, there's a few, but with Scott, he didn't fit into that. When it came to dealing with him, The. The act he did and the way it was carried out was about as. As heinous as you can imagine, if you want to go down that route. But as far as dealing with him, he just. He never made fun of our mothers. He didn't say any profanity. He just would cooperate until he wouldn't

[B]

talk to me about, you know, he's found in a car with the money, with the hair dyed, going to Mexico. You know, any type of innocent explanation for that. Or at that point were you thinking, okay, this guy is. Is toast.

[A]

Well, every coin has two sides, and every. Every situation has two different views. To look at it. Now, of course, we were already convinced that Scott was responsible for Lacy and Connor's death, so it wasn't like we were gonna, you know, have some revelation that, oh, no, he didn't do it. But there is some. And. And, Donna, you really brought it up. There is some legitimacy in. Into, you know, how he was found down there at Torrey Pines when we finally stopped him, Having his brother's driver's license with him. That kind of cuts both ways. It can kind of look sinister, but at the same time, if he's going in to, you know, cash a check or, you know, do something, showing his brother's ID Instead of his own, he's not going to attract attention. The hair dye, of course, would, you know, take him off the radar for some people. But in addition to that, having that much cash, I think it was just shy of $15,000 cash. I know because I counted it and turned all of it. But that much cash that he had, I. Yeah, it looks like he was, you know, ponying up in case he had to scoot across the border. We had no indication that he was going across the border, but it looked like he could with what he had in the car and things like that. The car had just been purchased in his mother's name. And when we were talking to people after the arrest was made, some of the people had said, well, the reason that he was doing what he was doing, staying at friends houses and, you know, kind of being a gypsy at that time, is he had been run out of his house by the media in Modesto, when you had have trucks out in front and guys with bullhorns that are, you know, giving you a bunch of crap all the time and putting it on the radio that he had to flee because he was being hounded to death. He wasn't working anymore. He could only stay so long at different places before he was worried about getting recognized. So all those explanations are pretty plausible, but they don't come anywhere near the amount of circumstantial evidence that was first interesting, then suspicious, then convincing, then just absolutely irrefutable.

[B]

Well, I think that's really the cumulative effect of what evidence does here. Right. Maybe one piece of evidence on its own wasn't going to convict him. But it was the thousand little cuts and the culmination of all the evidence here that was really difficult, I think, for the jury to overlook, you know, even, you know, the affair. Obviously, people have affairs, and because you have an affair, it doesn't mean you're going to kill your wife. But not only did that not help him, but it didn't help that he wasn't honest about it with any of you at the beginning. And it also didn't help that Amber had no idea that he had a wife and a child on the way.

[A]

Right. Yeah, it's. And I never was in the camp that thought, oh, he wanted to kill Lacy because he wanted to be with Amber. There are a lot of people that brought up a very valid point that, well, Amber had a small, small daughter. Well, yeah, she did. A two year old, cutie little gal. And, well, why would Scott want to be with her when he doesn't want to be a f. Father? Well, the simple explanation into that is he has no legal obligation to that child. Amber's daughter is Amber's daughter. And Scott can date Amber. He can have, you know, fun. They can travel, do whatever. But he had. He can. He can just as quickly focus on the next girlfriend that comes along if he got tired of her. And there would be no obligation for child support or anything like that. So if you. If you. If you really peel back the layers on these things and look at the different ways, ways things can be examined, there's a logic in a lot of areas of this, both pro and con.

[B]

I mean, a big case that we hear about in the media now, of course, is Nancy Guthrie. I know that you've compared the Nancy Guthrie investigation to Lacey's case. Talk to me about that a little bit, because I think that will really interest people who have been really paying attention to Nancy Guthrie in this, you know, very long amount of time. Now she has. Has not been found, or we have really no answers.

[A]

Yeah, it's another incred. Incredibly sad case. And, you know, you got family members that wake up every morning and they're. It's just got to be terrorizing to them to wonder and not have any outcome on this. I. I wouldn't call it closure, but I would. You know, you kind of want to know what. What's went on with your family member. 2. Two victims that didn't create risky behavior in their life that would target them. Lacy. No reason for her to be targeted. There's no motive other than Scott. You know, when it comes to. Now, when it comes to Nancy. Random. I don't think so. We. We've chatted about that before. It. It seems like a targeted attack, especially, you know, you guys been down there a week. I was down there. When you. When you go through that neighborhood, you. You've got to be pretty deliberate about going to her house. There's got to be a reason that you, you select that residence on that street at that address versus any other place. And I don't, I, I, I didn't want to say this at the, earlier when I was first called on to comment on this many, many weeks ago, but as time went by, I, I, I even hate to say it, but I, my belief is that she didn't survive the abduction because you didn't get an instantaneous demand for a ransom with indication that she was alive. You know, she would maybe had a duct tape on her mouth and she was there and they had the newspaper buyer or something like that that could prove that she was still with us so that if you paid, you would get what you're paying for. So without that, I, I, I, I think the abduction was possibly botched or maybe it was a situation where her health issue was so severe with the pacemaker that she just didn't survive it. I, I know people have said, well, that blood on the front of the, you know, could be from a nosebleed. Well, yeah, I guess it could, but I'm looking at that blood in a different way. I'm looking at it that she might have sustained a wound in resistance and as she was restrained. And when you, when you have that much blood, or it could have been

[B]

from a different day too. You know, like maybe she was planting flowers the day before. It could have been from something else.

[A]

Yeah, you can't rule that out. Yeah, she could have cut herself when she's walking by a cactus down there and, you know, the place is filled with cactus. But yeah, it's just, it's another, another mystery. Kind of like Peterson. Well, we went four months before we were finally able to make the arrest on Scott. And with Nancy's case, this is one that I, it's not an absolute. I think it'll be solved. It just requires the right stroke of luck to land on the detective's laps and, and break it open like a walnut.

[B]

Well, let's hope that happens. Let's hope that the Scott Peterson conviction stays intact. I believe it will. We will see what this new evidence is. I know Mike will be on it. If there's anything new, he will be reporting it for us. John, thank you so much for your time.

[A]

Appreciate it, guys. Good being, being with you.

[B]

Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions or theories and we will answer them on air.