Loading summary
Transcript95 lines
- [00:01]
Carvana Advertiser
Evening. Buyer's remorse. Buy a new car. I'll be moving in. Let's get started.
- [00:08]
Carvana Customer
Sorry, I think there's been a mistake. I bought it from Carvana.
- [00:11]
Carvana Advertiser
You what?
- [00:11]
Carvana Customer
Yeah. Great price. I even have seven days to love it or return it.
- [00:15]
Carvana Advertiser
So there's no.
- [00:16]
Carvana Customer
No, no Buyer's remorse. More like buyers rejoice.
- [00:20]
Carvana Advertiser
I guess I'll let myself out. Congratulations. I mean it.
- [00:25]
Carvana Customer
Buyers rejoice. Buy your car today on Carvana. Limitations and exclusions may apply. See our seven day return policy at Carvana.com if the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep. When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot and turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.
- [01:28]
Alice
Foreign.
- [01:36]
Brett
I'm Brett. And I'm Alice and we are the prosecutors. Today on the prosecut, we conclude for real this time our investigation into the murders of Lacey and Connor Peterson. Hello everybody and welcome to this episode of the Prosecutors. I'm Barrett and I'm joined as always with my celestial co host Alice. Hello, Alice.
- [02:43]
Alice
Hi, Brett. That is a wonderful term. So you know starry.
- [02:52]
Brett
Yes. So starry. That one was recommended by Kelly. So shout out to Kelly. Thank you Kelly for that one. And Alice is celestial. She is a star. The star. The star of this podcast.
- [03:06]
Alice
Or out there. Whichever one you want to go with.
- [03:09]
Brett
Or out there. That's possible too. Yeah, they work. It works both ways.
- [03:14]
Alice
All right, all right, focus, Brett. We've promised the people we're going to finish and I don't know if we can do it. I'm not going to lie.
- [03:20]
Brett
We are going to do it. We are going to do it. Six episodes on Scott Peterson is already too many. So we are definitely finishing today. No one can say that we did not an in depth dive into this case. So I don't want to hear that from anybody. We've, we've been doing this so long, we've got some, some people have been emailing us comments and just wanted to address those real quick. In the beginning, we had one person who reached out and I guess knows the currents in San Francisco. And this person, you may recall, early on we talked about how Scott had looked up the currents in San Francisco Bay and we wondered whether or not that was unusual. This person said that San Francisco Bay is so dangerous and so unpredictable that it probably would not be unusual for someone to look up the currents in San Francisco. This person pointed out, however, a couple things. Number one, Scott didn't even own a boat at that point, which they thought was very unusual. And number two, given how dangerous San Francisco is and the bay is the fact that Scott is this sort of amateur boater and he's going to take his little, I mean, essentially a glorified rowboat out, out there is unusual in of itself. So on the one hand maybe you would look up the currents, but the fact that you had to look up the currents just further sort of undermines this idea that this is the place that Scott Peterson would take his boat out for the first time.
- [04:50]
Alice
Yeah. And you know, some people say, well, you're thinking ahead how, for example, like if you're going to buy a house, you may sit on Zillow for a year before you make any moves. But with the thing that you, the thing with currents is they change hourly, they change daily. Right. So it doesn't really make any sense to know what the currents are a couple weeks in advance when you don't even have a boat yet. And it's not like he, yeah, they
- [05:13]
Brett
change to the tides.
- [05:14]
Alice
Right. They change the moon. And if what he wanted to see was what the patterns were, you don't look up the current currents. You can look up historical data of what the, what the currents are like during this time of year, but doesn't sense to look at that day when you don't have a boat.
- [05:29]
Brett
Yeah, I think it's very suspicious. Another suspicious thing that someone pointed out to us, which was in the trial transcript. But somehow I missed this and I'm not sure how I missed it because it is fairly significant. It may just be once again in a many months long trial. One problem with having a trial that lasts this long is if you're the prosecution, if you've got a really good point, it's easy for it to get lost. And this one got lost for me. I didn't even see it. That's. That on December 20th, Scott Peterson bought a two day fishing license for the 23rd and the 24th of December. And that's interesting for a couple reasons. Number one, if Scott's going to be this big boater, why is he buying a two day license? Number two, why is he buying a license for the 23rd and the 24th, particularly when his story has always been that he didn't even decide to go boating on the 24th until that morning when he got up and it was too cold to play golf. So it's certainly significant to me and yet another one of those little pieces of evidence that he would buy that two day fishing license on the 23rd. For the 23rd and the 24th. On the 20th.
- [06:38]
Alice
Yeah. And Brett, that's so specific, right? Because you're buying it ahead of time for two specific dates and it falls right on the holidays. I don't know about you, but right around the holidays, especially Christmas Eve, they probably had these Christmas Eve plans at his in law's house well in advance of December 20th. And so he's planning them on at times when it's usually busy holiday wise for your family, for, you know, plans parties, what have you. And it's true, he had Christmas Eve plans and he also, we know, went to at least one Christmas party with Amber. And so to fill them out for these specific dates when you might not even get around to using them during a busy season for me is very suspicious.
- [07:22]
Brett
And can I also say, and this may seem, this may be weird or stupid or whatever, so feel free to criticize me, Reddit world, YouTube world, whatever. But what an absolute asshole to decide to kill his wife on decent on Christmas Eve. You know, like it's bad to kill your wife anytime and maybe it doesn't really matter, but Christmas Eve, really, I mean, wow, that's, that's particularly bad if that's true.
- [07:49]
Alice
She, like, she and her family didn't even have one last Christmas Eve to look fondly back on.
- [07:55]
Brett
Yeah, well, I don't know. Like you said, that's, that's, that's a weird time to buy your fishing license for, particularly when you didn't, when you claim you had no plans to go fishing at that time. So I don't know about that. Another thing someone pointed out that they wanted us to address. When Connor's body was found, there was some twine wrapped around his neck. And some people have claimed that that must have been done by someone who killed him, that that's the only way that twine could have gotten around his neck. There's a couple things I would point out about that. Number one, Connor's body was in San Francisco Bay. To me, it's not unusual at all that detritus would be found wrapped around his neck. Number two, one of two things happened. Either it's detritus from the bay or someone wrapped twine around his neck, I guess to strangle him to death. A couple. You got to decide which one you believe. We've already talked about the fact that it seems pretty clear from the autopsy that Connor was never born. Connor, whoever killed Lacey, whether it was Scott or somebody else, Connor was in Lacy's body until she decayed to a point where Connor could actually leave her body through the upper part of her body, through essentially her chest cavity. In order for him to have been murdered by someone with twine, he would have had to have been born. And there's no evidence he was ever born. And moreover, I don't really understand the point of strangling a newborn baby to death. There's. It's a newborn baby.
- [09:34]
Alice
He won't survive very long.
- [09:36]
Brett
He's not gonna survive. So I don't even know why you would do that. In the grand scheme of things. I don't find this twine to be particularly important either way, whether if Scott did it or whether someone else did it.
- [09:48]
Alice
Right.
- [09:48]
Brett
Yeah.
- [09:48]
Alice
A couple notes with that, Brett. I know there's some argument among the parties about the gestational age of the baby, but let's assume, you know, that it was around the 24th. He still would have been about six weeks early, which technically is pre. I think it's preterm or premature. I can't remember the term. But not full term yet, because 36 weeks is full term. And so he's close to it, but. And his lungs might work. But all to say that being premature or early, not full term, without mother to take care of you, milk, any of those things, you know, Connor would not have survived for very long. So like you said, it doesn't make sense to then also strangle him. It sounds like there's things in the water and things get caught, and that's likely what happened. But it seems to be one of those red herring facts that people get hung up on and go down a rabbit hole that I don't think is necessarily helpful.
- [10:50]
Brett
One of the things we talked about early, very early on in this podcast when we're going through our sort of rules that we use when we're looking at these cases, is you can never explain everything, crimes are messy. This is a very messy crime. And people have really looked at this and there's always going to be little things that are difficult or impossible to explain. The twine might be one of those things. I would say if you believe that the person who dumped the bodies in the bay was attempting to frame Scott, what a way to mess up your well laid plans by leaving twine wrapped around the baby's neck. I mean, it just doesn't even make sense. I don't know why, why anyone would think that you would do that. It just, it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with any theory that I've heard of how this would have gone down whether Scott was involved or not. Right, okay. So with that, that's what we've heard about from folks. We look forward to hearing from you guys. I know you have lots of thoughts on this case, so keep sending them our way and we will address them in a follow up. But for now, let's go ahead. We've been talking about the defense case, some of the things that came up during the defense case, and let's, let's just dive back in to that and we'll start with whether or not Lacey knew about this boat.
- [12:12]
Alice
So there's a theory that Lacey didn't know about the boat, and I suppose this is significant for some reason. But in any event, Peggy o' Donnell owned a store next to Scott where Scott had his warehouse. And she told police that Lacey had been at the warehouse on December 23 and had gone to her place actually to use the bathroom because the bathroom at the warehouse was blocked off by fertilizer. This came out during the testimony of Al Brokhini, the lead detective on the case. Brocchini left it out of his report even though he had notes that this occurred. It was one of several times that Brocchini did not record important information in his reports. And that has led many to speculate that he either outright framed Scott or more likely, he simply ignored the evidence as to his guilt. There was also some evidence that Scott had discussed the boat in front of others with Lacey, a fact that Brocchini would have known about. So, Brett, we've talked about this previously about whenever law enforcement does anything related to an investigation, they have to write a report of it. Right? Different agencies call them different types of reports, but you always have a documentation of interviews you do with witnesses, if you've surveilled a location, if you've searched a house, Anything is accompanied by a report. And that report is supposed to include all of the important facts. But what typically happens is if there's an interview, as in this case, you're taking notes by hand. There's usually not an. Like, a voice recording of the conversation. There's probably not a body cam. And so what you're doing is you're talking to someone and taking notes. If you've ever done this before, say, in class or having to transcribe something like a. Like a video, it's not, you know, you're only writing down a couple words to jog your memory for writing a report later. You're not writing verbatim, and you're also trying to pay attention to the witness while they're talking. So you're probably maintaining eye contact with them, and you're writing down notes. And then later, at another time, when you have time to sit down, which is typically, you know, ideally, it's right when you get back to your office, but you might get called away to another interview. You might be busy for a couple of days before you write the interview up, you look at your notes and you try to recreate that interview in your report as best as possible. Sometimes things are left out inadvertently because we are all faulty. That's okay and understandable as a human, but it causes problems when you go to court and you testify. And something very important that was supposed to be in the report is left out when you are testifying now, later, and your report that was written closer in time leaves out an important fact that could help out, say, the defense. I know there's a lot of suspicion around Brocchini because he left these details out. He may have been a bad report writer. He may just have had lots of reports to write. If he's the lead detective, I bet you he had multiple interviews at the end of the day, and he had to recreate them at a later time. We've seen reports that are written that our agents give us that leave out facts, and we have to say, wait, didn't this happen? And also, you may forget things later on. Now, the fact that he forgot to write it in his official report, but it's in his notes, is stronger that he actually heard that at the time. I don't know that he meant to leave it out, but I don't, you know, he knew about it. I don't know. What do you think about that, Brett?
- [15:48]
Brett
Well, I think Brocchini does not bathe himself in glory in this case. I think it's pretty clear that Brocchini decided very early on that Scott did this and I wonder if it made him. We talk about confirmation bias and everybody can have it. And I wonder if it made him sort of ignore or not seize upon the evidence that might be helpful to Scott. Maybe he didn't even realize that whether she knew about the boat was going to be important later on down the line. It's certainly possible. Like you said, he's writing hundreds of reports. I mean, there's no telling how many people he talked to about this and just left it out. It's troubling to me. It's something the defense always seizes upon, and for good reason. It's important for both sides. It's important for the prosecution to know what the actual evidence is out there when they're presenting that to the jury. It's important for the defense to know what the witnesses have said when they're attempting to cross examine someone or poke holes in a story. Just go all the way back to the. To the opening statement in this case. Probably what happened is some police officer told the prosecutor that he had watched Martha Stewart, and Martha Stewart didn't mention Meringue that morning of the 24th. And the prosecutor, you know, had a lot going on and never watched it himself. And so he walks into a trap because he's trusting what the police are telling him and it gets him in trouble. This is sort of the inverse of that, where the police don't include this, or Al Brokini does not include this in his report. This becomes a thing that the prosecution seizes upon. I'm not even sure why they did, frankly. Like, I don't. I don't think it's a big deal if Lacy did know about the boat. To me, that doesn't really tell you anything. I guess if Scott was hiding it from her, maybe that's a little bit more significant. And maybe the story goes the other way. Maybe Lacey's at the warehouse on the 23rd and she realizes he had the boat. And maybe that was the spark of some argument later on that actually led to this murder. I mean, we don't know. We don't know exactly how that went down, but in either way, Brocchini, he seems to have done this several times, and it's provided fodder for people who think that Scott is innocent. One thing I will say, this is sort of a place where the fact that there's very little forensic evidence may actually be beneficial to the prosecution. There's not a lot that Brocchini could screw up. But this is not like the Michael Peterson case, where everything goes with the blood evidence. The blood evidence tells so much of the story, and the fact that the police may have left things out of their report or falsified tests or whatnot actually becomes problematic. So it's not good. It's bad for the prosecution. It's bad for Alpero Kini. But at the end of the day, I don't know how significant it actually is. Speaking of the boat, and we mentioned this last time about this experiment that the defense did with a boat where they attempted to throw a weighted dummy weighing essentially the same amount as Lacy, plus the concrete cement weights, into the bay. And all the trouble that they had with that, we sort of made fun of them and how, you know, they said the guy who was trying to do it almost drown and all this other stuff. Well, they conducted this experiment, and they attempted to introduce it during their case to prove or at least cast doubt on Scott's ability to have disposed of Lacy's body that way. And this actually became a fight. It's something called motions in limine, which you file before trial. We've talked about this before. It's essentially your. Or you're going to limit what evidence comes in. And so you're filing this at the beginning of trial to have that fight before the trial starts outside the presence of the jury. Let the judge decide. And the judge ultimately decided not to allow the defense to introduce this experiment once their case in chief started or once their, you know, the defense's case began. And the reason the judge wouldn't let them do that is he said that the experiment was not close enough to what actually would have happened. So the boat, in particular was flawed. The center of gravity in the boat was much higher than in Scott's boat. And that essentially meant that it was much easier for that boat to. To become unstable and flip over than Scott's boat would have been. And the judge decided that it would have confused the jury to introduce evidence of a completely different boat. And what would happen in a completely different boat than the one that Scott actually would have had.
- [20:39]
Alice
Right. And, you know, the reason you have these legal fights outside of the presence of the jury is to not hold up the trial. We know that this trial ended up being very long, but it's. So you don't have to stop over and over as you come up to trying to present new evidence and having to bring the jury out outside of their presence so that you can fight about it. And it could be a very long time now what this would have been like if they allowed. If the judge had allowed this recreation that didn't really match the circumstances in would be like the staircase, the Michael Peterson case. When the blood spatter expert in Michael Peterson's case, Devers, the one who ended up, we found out after the fact, was lying, how he had tried to recreate the same blood spatter by hitting a. I think a sponge with paint in it, as opposed to a human. And how we had said in that episode that all you can really tell from that recreation is that you can make that blood spatter pattern from a sponge. And here by allowing it in, it's extremely prejudicial because what you see is a boat. No. You know, none of the jurors know that this boat is not the same as Scott Peterson's boat. And they don't know that the weight, the center of gravity or weight, is different for this boat than another. All they see is that it seems impossible to throw something over this boat.
- [22:01]
Brett
Exactly. And if you're going to use something as evidence, then it needs to be as close as possible to what actually happened. You can't. You can't put a finger on the scale. That's the whole point. You're not trying to confuse the jury. You're trying to enlighten them. And the rules of evidence just don't permit you to do that kind of thing. And I think that's a great analogy that Alice makes. And we tend to, you know, we're not supposed to. The rules apply equally to the defense as they do to the prosecution, but we tend to sort of cut the defense some slack on this kind of thing. Everybody's outraged when Dwayne Deaver does what he does. But then when the defense tries to do something like this, people are like, oh, you should let it in. But at the end of the day, it does the same kind of damage. It's evidence that isn't actually probative of what happened that day. It doesn't tell you anything that some other boat, it's almost impossible to throw a body out of, that wasn't the boat that Scott had. And it was a calculated risk Garagos made. I think he certainly knew it wasn't the same kind of boat. I think he probably assumed it would be easier for that boat to fill up with water when they were trying to do this. And if he could get it in, great. So it was a calculated risk. It failed for him. He actually tried to get it in later, because later on, the jury actually kind of climbed around in Scott's boat and rocked it. And tried to figure out how stable it was. And he tried to say that since that happened, he should get to do. He should get to introduce his experiment. But the judge said no, he wouldn't let him do that. But that's essentially why at the end of the day, that didn't come in. And it's one of those things, if you watch the documentary, you would never know that.
- [23:39]
Alice
Right. And Brett, one other thing that I think may have factored into the judge's decision, I think the decision stands on its own that the boat and the center of gravity of that boat is not representative of what actually is the prosecution's theory here. But I think the other thing that may have factored for the judge is the fact that they have an actor. And that actor, if you've watch the documentary, he's flailing in the water and over it, you hear he nearly drowned. And maybe he did. They tied weights to him to make him heavier. And he looks like he's struggling. He looks like he can barely, he can barely take care of himself, much less throw something else overboard. And that amount of theatrics, I can imagine the judge saying, nuh, that's going to confuse the jury and sway them too much without it being based on evidence.
- [24:26]
Brett
Yeah, exactly. It was. When you watch it, it's so obviously theatrical. I mean, it's not, you know, it's not, it's not useful for anything. So I don't think it was a big loss that the judge didn't keep it or didn't allow it to come in. But that hasn't stopped it from being one of those things that people point to as a reason that Scott did not get a fair trial.
- [24:49]
Alice
Right.
- [24:50]
Brett
Another thing the defense focused on a lot was a burglary that occurred across the street from the Petersons home. And you can understand why. Essentially you've put some unsavory characters in the neighborhood around when Lacy went missing. And one of the theories is that they are actually responsible for Lacy going missing. She's walking the dog, maybe she confronts them, they panic, they grab her, they throw her in the back of the van and take off. That's one sort of theory of what happened. There is some confusion about this. And when exactly this burglary happened, According to the police, the police decided that this happened on the 26th. The reporters who reported on the Peterson case have always disputed this because they were already on the scene by the 26th. And they say, look, if somebody was robbing the house across the street, we would have Noticed. Moreover, there was a witness who testified that on Christmas Eve morning at around 11:40am this witness named Diane Jackson saw a suspicious vehicle, a van, parked across the street. Now, the people. The people who committed this burglary have been identified. The police found them. They arrested them. They were charged. Obviously, they didn't admit to kidnapping and killing Lacy, though how significant that is, I'm not sure. Here's the thing. The neighbor who lived in this home testified at trial that she left her house at 10:33 on December 24, and the house had been burglarized when she returned on the 26th. So we know that this burglary, whenever it happened, happened sometime between 10:33 on December 24th and December 26th. That's significant because whether the burglary happened on the 24th, the 25th, or the 26th, it happened after the neighbor found Mackenzie outside wandering around with his leash on.
- [26:52]
Alice
Yeah, I mean, that's a great point about the timeline, Brett, that you make. Something happened before. Before 10:30 to Lacey. And so, again, this is one of those facts that it's. It's very suspicious. It seems very suspicious that there is a burglary. And maybe the reports are somewhat wrong. But here's the thing. These guys were caught. Like you mentioned, Lacey was murdered. And there likely would be DNA left behind if. If these guys had murdered her. And they probably didn't just dump her into the bay while she was alive. And if that's the case, they. They have probable cause to search anything. They probably ran all the tests. They probably. If they were able to find any DNA from Lacey in. On these men in their car, I think they would have been able to trace it, but they had it all at their tips. Fingertips. And they didn't find anything. They didn't have anything that could tie these guys to Lacey.
- [27:54]
Brett
Yeah, and these guys were arrested on January 2nd. So you have to believe that they kidnapped her on the 24th. I mean, I don't know. Did something with her at that point between the 24th and the second, there was no evidence that they had her. If you believe the defense's timeline, they had to hold on to her for a little while before they killed her, because, you know, the defense wants you to think that Connor didn't die until at least the 29th. The earliest he could have died was the 29th. So they would have had to have killed Connor sometime between the 29th and the 2nd and disposed of Lacy's body, and they would have had to taken. They would have had to have taken the extreme risk of dumping that body in the San Francisco bay, knowing how much attention was on that bay in an attempt to frame Scott, when in reality, just getting rid of her body anywhere, Scott's gonna have the suspicion on him. It's not gonna be on you. Taking that risk is very strange. Moreover, these guys are burglars. Why are they kidnapping a woman? And moreover, why are they holding her? Even if they wanted to murder her, because she knew who they were, why are they holding her for multiple days? And that's a really good way to get caught. For me, the burglary thing, it just never worked. It is weird. It's a coincidence. And there are plenty of people who don't believe in coincidences. So if a burglary is happening near where someone is kidnapped or murdered, then they must add something to do with it.
- [29:32]
Alice
Brett, sorry to cut in, but on the coincidence front, we probably know this from home alone, the movie. But the holidays, especially like the Christmas holidays, is a very popular time for burglars to strike homes because people are often traveling. They're. They have a lot of things in their houses, right? There's either presents, things are unguarded. It's the holiday season. Everyone feels great. They're rushing to the airport. They may not be thinking about locking every window and every door. So the holidays are actually the prime time for burglaries to happen. Just a note to all of you, if you ever leave during the holidays, people are casing, you know, trying to see when people are loading their suitcases into the trunks the night before, the early mornings, and they watch them drive off, and they know that only, you know, everyone who lives in that house has left. That's very, very common. So while it is a coincidence if this house were burglarized on the 24th or 25th or 26th, that's the holidays. A lot of people are traveling. The fact that a burglary happens on one of those days actually is not that surprising.
- [30:35]
Brett
No, it's not. Now, what would be surprising is these guys graduating from a low level burglary to murder. But it is something people have pointed to because it is an alternative story. And as we said, in the world of best story wins, if you're the defense, you do want to have something, something to offer the jury. Some like, hey, it could have happened this way. This is how it could have gone down. There's some burglars around. They could have done it. That's reasonable doubt, right? That's not unreasonable to think. And I think that's why Gargo's focused on it. And people have focused on it since then, but unfortunately, there's. There's about as much evidence. Well, there's far less evidence against the burglars than there. There is against Scott. And between the rando burglars and the husband, I just. I need more. I need more than they were in the area to convince me that they had something to do with this, particularly given the complexities of what they would have had to have done to fit what we know. It was one thing when Lacy was just missing, but once her body was found in the bay, it doesn't really make any sense that the burglars would have disposed of her body there, even under some sort of. They were trying to frame Scott theory. It's just a very silly, dangerous thing to do when no one suspects you of being responsible in the first place. Okay, we're gonna play a few ads, and then we'll be right back.
- [32:06]
Alice
Now, you know, we've been really hard on Scott, but let's talk about probably what the defense says is the strongest in their favor, and that's the lack of physical evidence. This is a circumstantial case. A bunch of you have already noted that, and some of you have already commented on YouTube or other social media platforms that you think he did it. But because it was all circumstantial, there just wasn't enough to convict. And you're right. There's no physical evidence. Defenders of Scott Peterson claim that this is the best evidence, that he is innocent. And we get it. It's the age of csi, and everyone wants DNA. And, you know, think about it. If Lacey were murdered by Scott, he probably strangled her. It's doubtful that this was a bloody murder, certainly if Scott did it, and he probably did it in their house. And so one wouldn't expect to find much evidence beyond what you already have in the home. If you live in a home, your DNA is going to be in the home. I don't know about you, Brett, but my hair is all over my house, no matter how much I vacuum, because it's just what happens, I guess. Hair falls out a lot. And so it wouldn't be surprising to find Lacy's hair around her own home. She lives there. It wouldn't be strange even to have drops of blood because maybe she cut her hand cooking. Now, it is interesting that there's not more evidence in the boat other than a hair in some pliers that matches Lacey's. There's really nothing else. So all to say that if, you know, if Scott murdered Lacy, it was probably by strangulation in their house. Strangulation. You're not going to get blood, you're not going to get much of a struggle if you. If you surprise someone, even less so if, say, they're sleeping and they are defenseless when you come upon them. So you're not gonna have cuts, you're not gonna have blood, and you're already gonna have your own DNA in your own house. So nothing suspect there. But the bow thing is strange. Unless you have wrapped the body up, well, say, in a tarp, and. And nothing could escape the wrapping to get onto the boat.
- [34:26]
Brett
Yeah. And that's essentially what the police think happened. I think when he was loading umbrellas into the back of his car. One of those tarps wasn't wrapped around an umbrella. It was wrapped around Lacy's body. The hair and the pliers. The theory there is that when he was attaching the weights to her body, one of her hairs got snagged and was left in the pliers. But it is weird that there's not more physical evidence in the boat or in the truck. They. There was dog tracking that was a part of this case. And there was testimony from a dog handler that there was a hit on Lacy at the marina in the San Francisco Bay area. The defense countered with their own dog expert who said there was no hit and really attempted to undermine that dog and its trainer and pointed to sort of the error rate for that dog, which, frankly, dogs. Great. Love dogs. Everybody loves dogs. They make a lot of mistakes. They really do. So that is not that surprising that you can point to that. I certainly wouldn't convict someone on the base of dog scent evidence. But, yeah, I mean, look, it's true. There's not much physical evidence. If you require physical evidence to convict Scott, you don't have it. We've talked about this already. This is a circumstantial case. It really is about the totality of the circumstances surrounding Lacey's disappearance. Someone murdered her and dumped her body in the bay. Was it Scott or was it someone else? That's the question. And the answer to that is dependent, I guess, on how strong you think all the circumstantial evidence surrounding Scott is. Now, the bay itself was something that the defense brought up. They pointed out that the police thought. They thought Scott did this. They thought he dumped her in the bay. And they spent a lot of time looking in that bay for Lacy. They searched it multiple times. And the fact that they did not find her has led some people to speculate that she was never there, at least not when they were doing the searches. Now, to take you back to the burglars real quick, if the burglars did it and dumped her body in the bay sometime before they all got arrested, her body would have had to have been there when the police were looking for it. Fact is, whether Scott dumped her there, the burglars dumped her there, or somebody else dumped her there, not that surprising that they didn't find her. At trial, divers testified about the difficulty of this search, that visibility was incredibly bad in the bay. At one point, they had a sonar they were using. It was 12 foot long, so huge, like torpedo looking thing. And they lost it in seven feet of water, and they couldn't find it. Even though they knew exactly where it was when they lost it, they still could not find this thing in the water because they just couldn't see it. So the fact they couldn't find Lacy isn't that surprising.
- [37:20]
Alice
And Fred, that goes to the point of needing to look up the currents. The comment that someone left us that, you know, the. You have to know the currents here because it's a really difficult body of water to navigate. This makes sense. I mean, look how difficult it was for these professional divers who. Who are used to these conditions.
- [37:37]
Brett
Yeah, exactly. And that was testified to multiple times. That's the thing. There's a really interesting thing when I think about this documentary that we watched and the actual trial is how everything that is mentioned in the documentary is actually addressed in the trial. And the documentary, in so many ways, is incredibly misleading and makes you think that all this stuff was just out there and the jury never heard it. And it's really not true.
- [38:03]
Alice
All right, the next point, the mailman and the dog. If you've seen the documentary, you know that in the final episode, there's this dramatic moment where the defense lays out that a mailman who they claim was never heard from. This is presented as upsetting the timeline because as it is presented, the mailman was around after the. The neighbor supposedly collected Mackenzie. And the gate was still open. And the dog was not barking at the mailman. And the mailman said that they would note this because MacKenzie always barked at the mailman. Now, let me quote from the documentary so as not to misrepresent how the documentary presents this. Janie Peterson tells us, every once a while, the scanner would catch two pages. What you had was this little stack of 10 pages that got handed over separately. It was kind of like, oops, we missed these 10. Those 10 pages never got added to the major index of the entirety of Scott's discovery. And it wasn't until our appellate attorneys were basically going through boxes, paper by paper by paper, that they came across these handwritten notes from the mailman. Then Cliff Gardner, Peterson's attorney, says, so all the pieces start to line up. The problem, of course, is that the jury never, never heard from Russell Graybill and how Mackenzie did not bark. So like Brett just said, the documentary left out a lot and asked questions that were answered in trial. Here's the problem. I have no idea what they're talking about. Russell Graybill absolutely testified. You can read the transcript for yourself or you can read one of the several articles about it. Here's what the East Bay Times said about Gray Bill's testimony at the time. Prosecutors also continued calling witnesses who could help them construct for the jury their timeline of events that Christmas Eve morning. Postman Russell Graybill said he delivered the Petersons mail that day at around 10:35am Graybill, who said he has intimate knowledge of the neighborhood's dogs, said Peterson's golden retriever, Mackenzie, did not bark as he usually does. Peterson said he left home at 9:30am to go fishing and Lacey planned to walk Mackenzie and do chores, prosecutors said. Mackenzie's prosecutor said Peterson's cell phone records place him near home at 10:08am and Karen's service, Peterson's neighbor, testified that she found MacKenzie at 10:18am alone on the street, a soiled leash still on, end quote. But the postman also testified that when Mackenzie barked, he stood in the yard and did so. And the owner would often come outside and put him back in the backyard and close the gate. But the dog would only come out and bark when the gate was open. So it's entirely consistent with the testimony of Karen's service that if Mackenzie was inside the backyard with the gate closed, he would not necessarily bark at the mailman. Moreover, the mailman said that Mackenzie was always in the yard. He never went into the street. When Karen found Mackenzie, she didn't find him in the yard, she found him in the street. And this is why you have to be so careful about these documentaries. What you were told about this mailman in the documentary is completely incorrect. It's honestly hard to imagine it being more untrue than it is. The documentary just told you that the mailman was left out because the scanner somehow left out those pages about the mailman, the mailman testified. And it is not inconsistent with the Prosecution's theory.
- [41:58]
Brett
Yeah. I mean, the documentary just completely blows us out. I mean, frankly, it's hard for me to have to give much credence to anything that Peterson's appellate attorneys or even his family say after this because they were so misleading in this point. If you read the habeas petition that Peterson's attorney filed, they do talk about Russell Graybill, but the points they make are completely different from what you heard in the documentary. Number one, they don't say that this was never turned over. What they say they actually try and use this against Garagos. They say that if Garagos had read the report that he did receive about Graybill's testimony, that he would have been able to better cross examine him. The real issue with. With Graybiel on the stand. Graybiel basically says nothing unusual about that day. He wandered around, did his stuff. McKenzie didn't bark at him. He never talks about whether the gate was open or closed. We know from Karen service that she closed the gate when she dropped mackenzie off. And it would be consistent with Mackenzie not necessarily barking at Graybill if he's not out in the yard. Graybill, when he talked to the police, said that he thought the gate was open that day. And if the gate was open, obviously you would expect Mackenzie would come out and bark at him if he was there. And so really, the habeas petition basically says Gerrigo should have asked him whether or not the gate was open, because that could be an important point. That's it. That's all they get out of. Out of this, this postman. A couple things about that. Number one, once again, you're asking Graybill to remember whether the gate was open or closed on what to him was just an ordinary, yet busy day. There's no reason to think he would remember that. There are other inconsistencies in the report. He says, for instance, that he thought he delivered a package that day. He testified at trial that after reviewing his records, he didn't. He did not deliver a package to the Petersons that day. It was later. So the most likely thing that happened here is Gray Bill is attaching the package to a day where he delivered it. And the gate was open that day and he didn't get barked at. But it probably wasn't the 24th. It was probably some other day. And here's how we know that. Karen's service returned that dog and closed the gate. Mackenzie had the leash on. It was already dirty. When Scott Peterson got home, he found Mackenzie in the backyard, gate closed in order to believe this, you would have to think that the dog was wandering around in the street, which he never did, with a soiled leash. Karen, Service finds the dog, puts the dog in the backyard, closes the gate. At that point, Lacey comes out. For some reason, she's left the dog running around in the street with a soiled leash, walks him with that leash, gets kidnapped. The dog's now running around again. Someone else, an unknown person, who we don't even know who they are, finds Mackenzie, brings the dog back to the Peterson's house, puts the dog in the backyard, closes the gate, and then Scott finds the dog. That's absurd. It's absurd on many different levels. Number one, that person would have come forward. Number two, that's just not what happened. It's. It's completely inconceivable that that chain of events occurred.
- [45:32]
Alice
You really have to do mental gymnastics to make that happen. Right? And we've, we talked about Occam's Razor here. This is, this has just reached nationwide media. And for you need a separate person to have found the dog and have known the Petersons well enough to know that this dog belongs to this house and to know to put them in the backyard and close the gate and not come forward is frankly unbelievable.
- [45:59]
Brett
And this is the thing about so many of these theories, defense theories or theories on appeal or whatnot. They. We talked about poking holes. It's not a coherent theory. It's just. We're just poking holes in things. So it would have been nice if the jury had heard that Graybill thought he remembered that the gate was open, because that would be significant for the people who think that Lacy was still alive at that point. They didn't hear that. So therefore, you know, Scott should get a new trial where a new jury should hear that. But that's not the standard. And it's not the standard you use to determine whether or not someone got a fair trial. It's been said before, you're entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. Maybe that should have come out. But when you think about what it would take for that fact to be significant, you realize it's not significant at all. And the fact that it never came out and the jury didn't hear it doesn't change anything. And it is certainly not the case, as you are misled to believe by the documentary, that Graybill is this mysterious witness who never testified at all. He did testify, and he even testified that the, the dog didn't bark at him that day, which is something that garagos could use to show the dog wasn't there at that time because Lacy was off walking him. So yeah, I mean this was, this was really, really dishonest, frankly, by the documentary and by the Peterson side of things. And I think it really casts a lot of doubt on. You just need anything. They tell you they have an agenda. Obviously they want Scott to get a new trial. You just really need to take anything you hear from that side with a grain of salt.
- [47:40]
Alice
Right? There's shading, they're shading to your best light and then there's just kind of outright dishonesty. And this was of that, of that flavor.
- [47:50]
Brett
And I read, I read an article yesterday about Scott's habeas hearing that's coming up and in that article it talked about how Russell Graybill never testified.
- [47:58]
Alice
And here's the thing, Brett, it's because they're smart. They know that most people are not going to dig through the trial transcript and it's kind of trial by media, you know, and Scott was tried by the media. We've talked about this before. He had his actual trial. And you know, I think his defense is trying to do the same thing from behind, especially in the age of post serial where as you can see a lot of public attention on a case can sometimes pressure things to happen in a defense's case.
- [48:31]
Brett
No, I think if Scott gets a new trial, I think it's absolutely going to be, going to be because of like public outcry that he didn't get a fair trial the first time. I think 100%. I think if he were just some anonymous person, based on the briefs that I've read, there's no way, no way he would get a new trial. So yeah, that's exactly what they're doing and it may end up being effective.
- [48:52]
Alice
Right. And while we're on that, Brett, having read every page of the trial transcript, the months long trial, do you think that Scott got a fair trial?
- [49:02]
Brett
I do actually. And I was surprised by that because I have heard and I guess this is sort of the effect of this I heard so often when people asked us to do this, they were like, yeah, you know, really looking forward to you guys discussing all the, the controversial decisions by the judge and the unfair things that happened. And I didn't see that at all. I mean the judge in this case was great. I thought he, you know, he hammered the prosecution for some of the stuff they did. He excluded some evidence for them from them because they didn't turn it over promptly to the defense. He Kept the defense for putting in some of their crazy stuff that they wanted to put in. He did not allow cameras in the courtroom. He did not let this turn into a circus. I thought it was so different from what you see if you watch the West Memphis Three or the Staircase. And the decisions that were made in those cases. I just didn't see that at all in this case. And at the end of the day, if this case is overturned, it won't be because of mistakes the trial judge made or even really close decisions. There just weren't the kind of decisions made in this case that leave you scratching your head. You just think back to Michael Peterson, the whole digging up his, you know, his friend from Germany and allowing all that information in there. That's crazy. It's just insane. None of that kind of stuff happened here. This was a much more prosaic, almost trial than what you see in so many of these cases.
- [50:32]
Alice
Well, there's another. Yeah, there's another controversial point that the documentary brings up that they argue means something. Scott did not get a fair trial. What is it, Brett?
- [50:43]
Brett
Right. And that's. That's the makeup of the jury. And if you look at the habeas petition, claim number one is related to a juror named Rochelle Nice. You probably know her better as Strawberry Shortcake. She was controversial because she was so passionate after the. The verdict was delivered that Scott was guilty. Now, let me say this. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have any problem with the passion after the verdict. Remember, these people just spent months listening to testimony and then decided beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott had murdered his wife and his unborn child. I have no problem with her being passionate about that or being angry at Scott or being happy that justice is done. I think that was also something that was way overdone in the documentary. I don't know why those people shouldn't have felt that way once they decided he was guilty. It'd be one thing if they felt that way beforehand. And that's essentially what Scott's attorneys are trying to do now, is say that Ms. Nice was biased from the start and in fact, that she lied on her juror questionnaire when she said she had never been involved in a criminal case before. In fact, she had filed a lawsuit against a boyfriend's ex girlfriend while she, Ms. Nice, was six months pregnant. She eventually received a straining order. She eventually received a restraining order against this person. She did not disclose any of this in her jury questionnaire. Now, the standard in California for whether or not. That would be sufficient. And we'll talk a little bit more about that, because this is. It's more complicated than what I just made it out to be. But the standard is. And I'll read it to you. This is from a California Supreme Court case. Still, whether an individual verdict must be overturned for jury misconduct or irregularity is resolved by reference to the substantial likelihood test, an objective standard. Any presumption of prejudice is rebutted, and the verdict will not be disturbed. If the entire record in the particular case, including the nature of the misconduct or other event and the surrounding circumstances indicate there is no reasonable probability of prejudice, that is no substantial likelihood that one or more jurors were actually biased against the defendant. So, in short, even if she lied on her jury questionnaire, unless you can show that she herself was actually biased against Scott Peterson, that's not enough. It's not enough to show that she lied. That's the first thing. The second thing, it's not clear that she did lie. The jury questionnaire was not well written. It asked about a criminal case and whether you've ever been involved in a criminal case. And she did not actually view this, the whole restraining order things as civilization case. And so there's some confusion about whether or not she was actually lying, whether she understood that question correctly. And she has signed an affidavit in this habeas action basically saying that was not how she understood the question. So the first hurdle they got to overcome is show that she lied. And the second hurdle they have to overcome is if she lied, they have to show that there was actual prejudice against Scott Peterson, that it actually affected Scott's trial.
- [54:08]
Alice
Right. And, you know, having worked on helping victims of domestic abuse and violence get restraining orders when I was in law school, I can vouch this. It is a civil action that you file. And so it's almost administrative. It's like a form that the many courts just have you fill out, like a. Almost like an at, Sorry, Mad Lib sort of form. And there's a showing you have to make. But it's not the same thing as being arrested. There's no arrest made because it's civil. You don't have to go serve anyone. Obviously, you're getting the restraining order on someone. They are. They receive notice of it. So I can understand that you may not think a civil restraining order is the same as being involved in a criminal case.
- [54:55]
Brett
Right. And I think it's a steep hill for Peterson to climb. Like I said, it's. It's claim Number one in their petition. And usually you put your strongest claim first. So if he ends up getting a new trial, I think this would be the thing that would do it. The juror misconduct angle, I don't think that will succeed, but I'll be interested to see how that goes. Well, look, it took us six episodes, but that's basically it. That's basically all the evidence. I'm not going to say it's all the evidence, but because really long trial. But that's basically all the evidence that either side introduced before Scott was eventually found guilty. And that kind of brings us, I guess, to some of the theories people have about what might have happened here if Scott didn't do it. And the first one we kind of already discussed, and that's that the burglars did it. So there are people who believe this. I think it's a fairly popular review. Like we said, some people don't believe in coincidences and holidays or not, there was a burglary going on right next to the house, so they must have done it. I'll just say a lot of false convictions come from that kind of thinking. There are a lot of people out there who were committing a minor petty crime that turned into a murder charge because they happen to be in the area of an unsolved murder. But putting that aside, even if. Even if these guys had a reason to kill Lacy, I mean, imagine she did see them, and she could identify them, and so they decided to kill her. What exactly did they do? I mean, they decided not only to kill her, but to kidnap her, to take her somewhere where they kept her for some period of time. Remember, the defense's case is that Connor didn't die until the 29th, so they kept her for at least five days.
- [56:51]
Carvana Advertiser
No.
- [56:52]
Brett
Without anybody knowing noticing coming forward, they maybe delivered the baby, Depending on who you listened to, maybe wrapped some twine around its neck to strangle it. Then at some point, they dumped both bodies in the bay where Scott was fishing, I guess, to frame him. And they probably did this all before the second. It just. It doesn't make any sense. It's impossible to believe, really. And I'll tell you why it's impossible to believe. There were four people who were convicted of this burglary. There were probably other people who knew them. Those people were probably also involved in crimes. That is an incredible ace in the hole, if you're one of these people, to be able to say, hey, I don't want to go to jail, so what I'm going to do Is tell you what happened. That guy over there, he kidnapped Lacy Peterson and murdered her in our hideout and dumped her body in the bay. These people would not stay quiet all these years, and neither would the multiple people who would have to know about this for this to have happened this way.
- [57:58]
Alice
Well, you know, the theories don't stop there. There is a theory of a cult of pregnant women snatchers. So, speaking of crazy town, in 2006, in a people interview, Garagos also suggested a link between Lacey's December 24, 2002 disappearance and the unsolved case of another pregnant woman, Evelyn Hernandez, who went missing on May 1, 2002, and also later washed up in San Francisco Bay. Garrigo said that both dates mark holy days on the satanic calendar. You can look that up. That's reported by NBC News. This apparently explains the pregnant woman being pulled into a van theory. I mean, yeah, you know. You know, what. What is the cult of pregnant women snatchers having to do with the satanic calendar? Is that the calendar necessarily that the cult follows? Are all cults, you know, following the satanic calendar? I don't even see how those two things connect.
- [59:06]
Brett
I mean, if it were the 80s, I guess this would all make sense. But, yeah, I mean, you'd have to believe. And people. People point this out. You see this on online all the time, that there were other pregnant women who went missing. So it must have been a cult, a satanic cult. And I guess the idea is. I mean, look, you know, I enjoy the occult. I think the occult is very interesting. So I guess the idea is you need the blood of children. If you've seen the witch, you know, you need the blood of an unbaptized babe so you can fly. That's what witches do. They use the blood of unbaptized children for flight. The problem is, I mean, there's a lot of problems, but one of the problems that's just the most obvious to me is that neither December 24th nor May 1st mark holy days on the satanic calendar. The December 21st is the yuletide, the solstice. That would be one of the sabbats of Wicca or, you know, the satanic Whatever that you. Whatever you want to call it. May 1 is closer because April 30 is the Beltane Valpurgis night. But you would want. You need your baby before because April 30th at midnight is when all the fun starts. So the fact that she went missing on May 1st doesn't actually do you any good. So I don't know where Gargos has been getting his satanic information, but I think he needs to buy a new book. Either way, I don't think there was a cult of pregnant women snatchers who were involved in this case.
- [60:37]
Alice
So we're kind of running out of the sexy theories, Brett.
- [60:41]
Carvana Advertiser
Yeah. Yeah.
- [60:42]
Brett
I mean, this isn't fun.
- [60:43]
Alice
This isn't fun at all.
- [60:45]
Brett
Yeah, and it's not aliens either. We don't have any.
- [60:48]
Alice
Speaking of the fact that I just said fun, someone on YouTube or someone out there is going to say that I use the word fun to describe this case because they take things out of context. The number of people who say that, because we laugh at any point during any of our podcasts, it means that we're taking these cases lightly. Sorry, that was a side commentary.
- [61:07]
Brett
It's a constant source of annoyance. It really is. So if you're out there getting ready to write that comment, just know that I don't care if you ever listen to us again. But someone will do that. Someone will do that. So we're ready for it. So the other option, if it's not a pregnant cult of pregnant women snatcher, satanic or otherwise, or the burglars, is this. It's just a random act of violence that Lacy was walking the dog at some point, she's accosted by some bad people and they do bad things to her. But the problem is, once again, it makes no sense. It makes no sense if this were a random act of violence for someone to kidnap her in the first place, even if they did want to kidnap her because they wanted to sexually assault her or whatnot for them, to keep her alive somewhere, to then murder her, to dump her body in the bay, which once again is an incredibly dangerous thing to do given the police presence on the bay at that time. And to do it in such a way that her body doesn't turn up until April. And everything fits with Scott having done this. It's like the perfect frame up job. It just. It doesn't make any sense. If this were a random act of violence, you would expect, like most random act of acts of violence, you would have found the body fairly quickly. It would have been pretty close to where the act happened. Usually concealment is done by someone who knows the victim. Concealing the body is dangerous. If you're a random person. Much easier to strike quickly, murder the person, leave the body and go. That's every, you know, the behavioral analysis, everything, you know, all the mindhunter stuff, all points to that, that you just don't often have this kind of concealment in a random act of violence. Taking that body, taking her away, keeping her alive, dumping her body in the bay. All those things are incredibly dangerous if it's done by someone who has no connection to her anyway. So given that, I think the idea that this is a random act of violence is highly unlikely.
- [63:11]
Alice
You know, one of the obvious theories we're left with is that Scott did it. I don't think he necessarily did it in the way that the prosecution suggests, but that Scott is the one who did it. You know, initially the investigation looked at Scott because he is the spouse, and the spouse is always suspect number one. When someone disappears, they are the closest to them. They have most access. And here you also have motive.
- [63:41]
Brett
Yeah, and we've heard. We heard so many times from people that they thought Scott did it, but they didn't know that they could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And the reasonable doubt standard, I think most people really don't know what it means, and that's understandable. It's kind of legal gobletty gook. What does it mean, reasonable doubt? It doesn't mean, for instance, beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is what you hear sometimes. It doesn't mean no doubt. It doesn't mean you're absolutely 100% convinced that this is the way it had to have been, and there's no other way it could have been. The way it's often put in trial is it's a level of doubt that if you were making the most important decision in your everyday life, that you would feel confident making that decision despite whatever residual doubt you might have. That's the way it's always described. If you feel that confident in the person's guilt, then you should find them to be guilty. And based on that standard, for me, I have no trouble saying that Scott is guilty of this crime. I have no trouble saying that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I just don't have much doubt at all that he's responsible for this. Like, it's. Even when I try and be unreasonable and think of some crazy theory that could account for what happened. As we've said, it's difficult for me to even do that. I think at the end of the day, Scott murdered Lacy because he wanted to be free. I don't think it was so much that he was so in love with Amber and he just wanted to be with Amber. I think what he wanted, he wanted to be free to do the kinds of things he did with Amber, he wanted to live that life. And I think at some point, Lacy probably told him, we're having a baby. It's time to stop. You've had these affairs before. She knew about those affairs. She had forgiven him. But I think she'd given him an ultimatum. We're having a child. It's time to be serious. Possible she even found out about Amber and was angry about it. But I just think at the end of the day, Scott did not want this. You know, people said, well, if he didn't want a baby, why was he with Amber who already had a daughter? Because he was not gonna be with Amber. He wasn't going to be with Amber for the rest of his life. He wasn't gonna marry her. He was, like, sucking the emotional soul out of her. He was like an emotion vampire, right? He comes in, he makes her love him. He gets the thrill of the falling in love and all that wonderful stuff at the beginning of relationship that feels so good. And then he was gonna drop her and he was gonna move on, and there wouldn't have been any kid holding him down. And I think, frankly, when he did this, he never thought that this would become a worldwide story. And who does, right? I mean, who walks into any situation and thinks, I'm gonna be the center of a worldwide story soon? That's not how people look at anything. And they never think, you know, they never think it's gonna happen to them type thing. He never believed that. I think he thought he would kill her. He dumped the body. They'd never find the body. He would have to endure some investigation. Yes, but at some point that would pass and he'd be able to move on.
- [66:50]
Alice
Yeah, I think that's right, Brett. We haven't given the people what they want, which is what actually happened. And I don't think anyone knows that but Scott. But I agree with you. I think this is. There's so much. So much in the trial record that supports this conviction in circumstantial evidence that that's just. Most cases are circumstantial, as we have said. That just means we don't have someone saying, I saw him strangle her, or I saw him dump him into the bay. But I think that all of the circumstances were there that point to Scott doing it. I can't think of anyone else who could have done this.
- [67:28]
Brett
And it's really impossible to believe that all these things happen, that Scott did all these things and is not the person who killed Lacey, you know, that he bought the boat, that he Looked up the charts that he went out there that day, on the day she disappeared, where her body would be found, that he continuously went back there, that he was having the affair with Amber. It's just impossible to believe that he did all those things that all point to the fact that he killed her and he didn't kill her. It's just impossible to believe that. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone believes that. I mean, it's funny because somebody was watching our Michael Peterson video and they don't believe the owl theory, which is crazy. And we're going to follow up on that later because Alice and I had the experience of speaking, sort of speaking to a raptor expert about this. So we'll talk about that in a follow up. But anyways, they said, oh, you know, he definitely did it. But you should look at this Scott Peterson case. Because in the Scott Peterson case there's all sorts of doubt and. No, no, that's insane. The Michael Peterson case, if you want reasonable doubt, if you want to know what reasonable doubt is, it's Michael Peterson. There are reasons to think he killed his wife and there are so many reasons to think he didn't. Like that's reasonable doubt. This one is not. There is not reasonable doubt in this case. And I don't care how many times they try it. I think any jury who sat there and listened to that evidence is going to going to find him guilty in the end.
- [69:04]
Alice
Well, I think we've been pretty clear about what we think happened in this case.
- [69:09]
Brett
Yeah, I was reading somebody on Reddit, he was talking about one thing they don't like about podcasts is when the podcasters share their views. So they would definitely not like our podcast.
- [69:18]
Alice
But what's the point?
- [69:21]
Brett
I know what's the point. We are open. We always want to hear from you guys. And I know there are people out there who probably think that he's innocent and, and are outraged that we would say otherwise. So if there are things you want to point to us, we want to read them. Shoot us an email@consolepodmail.com comment on Twitter rosecutors pod. You can also find us Prosecutors Pod on Instagram and Facebook. Check us out on YouTube. Leave a Comment there. Leave a comment on our website prosecutors podcast.com we, you know, we don't delete these comments. If you want to leave a comment and lay out your view about why this went down the way you think it went down, we'd love to see it and love to address it in a future follow up. For those of you who are hate ads, check us out on Patreon. If you join us on Patreon, you'll get an ad free version of the show. So definitely do that if you're interested in that. And guys, just keep the reviews coming. Keep letting us know what you think. We love it. We love to see all that stuff. It makes us happy. So please, please don't be strangers.
- [70:24]
Alice
And against all odds, Brett, we have finished the case today in a very long episode.
- [70:29]
Brett
Yes, it was a long episode. Thank you guys for holding out this long. We are on to a new case next week. I know you're also excited. We will never have to talk about Scott Peterson again, except probably in a follow up. So congratulations, we all made it through this together. I don't know how many six episode arcs we're gonna have in stories. So if you're sick of Scott Peterson, we're sick of Scott Peterson too. So in any event, Alice, do you have anything else you want to add before we head out?
- [70:59]
Alice
That's it. Thank you guys for joining us for this ride.
- [71:02]
Brett
Yeah. Thank you so much. And be back with us next week when we will have a new case, new questions and new answers. Until then, I'm Brett.
- [71:12]
Alice
And I'm Alice.
- [71:14]
Brett
And we are the prosecutors. I mean, I don't know, I was, I was tired when you guys left. Y' all were so active, you know,
- [71:45]
Alice
it was a pretty active
- [71:48]
Carvana Advertiser
thing.
- [71:49]
Brett
So we went out to eat and then we came back and went to sleep, basically.
- [71:54]
Alice
Did we wear you out? Are we like the grandparents y' all are?
- [71:58]
Brett
Exactly. That's exactly right. Got my new, my new pop filter.
- [72:04]
Alice
Oh, great. I thought you did. I thought you called it this. Sam, You always sound sleepy. Today you sound awake. Good job. You know, both my kids skip their afternoon naps and I felt, I've never felt so. Just like. It was tough.
- [73:28]
Carvana Customer
Not gonna lie.
- [73:28]
Alice
It was tough. Sam.
- [74:14]
Carvana Advertiser
A snarl in the woods. Ancient forest spirits nip at his heels. He can outrun a force of nature on foot. He needs an instant power machine built for the wild. The only escape is in the Toyota BZ woodland. Off road handling all electric power. Leave evil in the dust. John Cho stars in camping Face the Wild test drive Toyota's new all electric family at your local dealer, Toyota. Let's go places.
- [74:44]
Carvana Customer
When you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's vast selection of high quality motors, sensors, belts and hard to find parts. You can get what you need fast and all in one place, so nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering, and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger. For the ones who get it done.