The Prosecutors - Case File Revisited: Scott Peterson is Guilty
62m 5s
The prosecution presents a compelling circumstantial case against Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife, Lacey, and unborn son, Connor. Key evidence includes Scott's prior internet research on bay currents, his detailed fishing trip that coincided precisely with the bodies' discovery, and contradictory statements about his whereabouts and activities. Forensic analysis reveals Lacey’s body had decomposed for weeks in the bay, with barnacles and evidence of prolonged submersion, while Connor’s body showed signs of maceration, indicating he died shortly after Lacey. No credible sightings of Lacey walking her dog match her clothing or physical condition, and the absence of any evidence of captivity or kidnapping undermines alternative theories. Scott’s inconsistent behavior—such as claiming to go fishing while telling others he went golfing, and making bizarre comments about blood on his truck—adds to the pattern of deception. The bodies were found in a shallow area of the bay where they would wash ashore, not be swept out to sea, which aligns with Scott’s known fishing location. The prosecution argues that the only logical explanation is that Scott dumped the bodies after killing them, with no evidence of a conspiracy or third-party involvement. This case is built on multiple overlapping facts, not direct eyewitnesses, but the consistency and specificity of the evidence—particularly the geographic and timeline alignment—make the case strong. The absence of any credible sightings, the forensic timeline, and Scott’s behavior collectively support the conclusion that he is guilty.
Evening, buyer's remorse
Buy a new car? I'll be moving in
Let's get started
Sorry, I think there's been a mistake
I bought it from Carvana
You what?
Yeah, great price
I even have seven days to love it or return it
So there's no. No, no buyer's remorse
More like buyer's rejoice
I guess I'll let myself out
Congratulations, I mean it
Buyer's rejoice
Buy your car today on Carvana
Limitations and exclusions may apply
See our seven-day return policy at Carvana.com
I'm Brett
And I'm Alice
And we are The Prosecutors
Today on The Prosecutors
Scott Peterson is guilty
We'll be right back
Hello everybody and welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors
I'm Brett and I'm joined as always by my efficient co-host, Alice
Hi, Brett
Okay, guys
Hi, Alice
We're letting you in on a secret
Brett thinks we can somehow get through today's episode in one episode
I don't know if we can
I'm not gonna lie
Because we have not been known
We are going to do it
We have not been known not to be long-winded
The whole point of this is that we are not going to be long-winded
The whole point of this is to do this in one episode
Okay, fine
No, okay
You know what?
You're right
Let's be efficient
We can do this
We're gonna be efficient
Challenge accepted
Challenge accepted
Okay, so what we're doing today
As you guys know
Typically, we go into cases
We try to keep an open mind
We have done Scott Peterson
We did, I think, six episodes on Scott Peterson
Maybe seven
Who knows?
It was a ton
And a lot of you guys have been very complimentary about those episodes
But Scott Peterson's been in the news lately
In December, we're gonna find out whether he gets a new trial
People always say, you know, you're gonna get a new trial
People always ask us why we think he's guilty
To sum up sort of the entirety of what we did before
So, what we have decided to do
Is to cut out all the fluff
And reduce this down
To just the evidence that Scott Peterson is guilty
If you want to hear the full thing
Go listen to all six episodes
Where we will include the defense's arguments
And various other things
This is why Scott Peterson is guilty
And we have tried really hard
To cut this out
To the point where
We can do it in one episode
There's a lot here
So, we're gonna see
But we're gonna give it our best shot
And guys, note what we just said
We kept an open mind
In all our previous episodes of Scott Peterson
What we're attempting to do here
Is like how we would write a brief
Where you have an advocacy point
That you're taking
And our advocacy point here is that he's guilty
So, those of you listening for the first time
Don't say, they're so biased
We've already done the whole
Conspiracy point
Considering all sides of the issue
This is written like a law brief
Where you are an advocate for your side
Yeah, so if anybody ever tells you
There's no evidence that Scott Peterson's guilty
You can just direct them to this episode
Because, frankly, not even all the evidence is in here
We cut judiciously to try and do this in one episode
So, I think that's enough introduction
I think everybody gets what we're trying to do now
So, we're gonna do this
Godspeed, Alice
We'll see if we can do it
You too, Brett
I don't know which of us is gonna be more inefficient
Well, we're gonna do our best
Okay, let's start with the timeline
November 20th, 2002
Modesto, California
On November 20th
Peterson and Amber Fry
Meet at a bar in Fresno
They begin a whirlwind romance
On December 2nd
While they are decorating the Christmas tree
Amber asks Peterson
If he has ever been married
Or ever been close to being married
Peterson says no
Amber also asks Scott
If he has children
Or if he's ever been close to having children
Again, Peterson said no
For context, at this point
Lacey Peterson
Who is his wife
Is approaching eight months
Pregnant with their first child
A son named Connor
December 6th, 2002
A friend of Amber's, Sean Sibley
Who's actually the person who introduced them
Can you believe that?
Confronts Scott
Scott is sobbing
And he leaves a message
On Sibley's voicemail
That says
I'm sorry I lied to you earlier
I have been married
It's just too painful for me to talk about
Call me back
They eventually speak
Later that day
Peterson was sobbing hysterically
The next day, December 7th
Peterson begins looking for a boat
On December 8th, 2002
An internet search was made
On the home laptop
With the terms
Boat plus ramp plus Pacific
And also boat plus ramps
Plus Watsonville plus Pacific
And San Francisco Bay
Plus boat plus ramp
Websites were accessed
Related to the Berkeley Marina
Central San Francisco Bay
And Susan Bay
And related to nautical charts
And this is on the Peterson computer
On the night of December 8th
Someone used the home laptop
At the Peterson home
To access websites
For the San Francisco port
The United States Geological Survey's
Velocity maps for currents
In central San Francisco Bay
And other sites with navigation
And nautical charts
A couple of image files
Were also viewed
Which were linked to webpages
On bay currents
The image files showed
An enhanced map view
Of the tip of Brooks Island
And surrounding area
In the Berkeley Marina
For context
Why this matters
Lacey Peterson
And her unborn son Connor's
Bodies were found
In this very area
On December 9th, 2002
Peterson told Frey
He lied about being married
And that it was less painful
For him to let people think
That he was never married
Rather than to tell them the truth
And the truth he said
Was that he had
Quote
Lost his wife
Peterson explained
That the upcoming holidays
Would be the first
Without his wife
Frey thanked Peterson
For sharing the information
With her
And asked him
If he was sure
He was ready
For a relationship with her
Peterson replied
Quote
Absolutely
That same day
Peterson paid $1,400 cash
For a boat
December 15th, 2002
Peterson tells Amber
He is going on an extended trip
He spoke to her
On the 19th
The 22nd
And the 23rd
On the 24th
Amber did not hear from him
That is the day
That Lacey will disappear
She does hear from him
On the next day
The 25th
Which is Christmas
Peterson talks to Amber
And claims to be in Maine
With his family
He will talk to her
On the 27th as well
Going back
That was the 15th
When he said
He was going on an extended trip
On December 20th
Scott purchases
A two-day trip
And a two-day fishing license
Good for two days
And two days only
December 23rd
And December 24th
December 23rd, 2002
From 545 to 830
Lacey goes to Salon Salon
Where her sister
Amy Rocha works
And Amy gives Scott a haircut
Amy says that Scott mentions
Plans to play golf in the morning
And offers to pick up a gift basket
For their father
At a store called
Vela Farms
Amy tells police
That Lacey was wearing
Tan pants
And a black blouse
With small flowers
The next day
Is Christmas Eve
At 840 AM
Someone logs onto
The Peterson computer
In the spare bedroom
The MSN homepage
A weather site from Yahoo
And two Yahoo shopping sites
Are accessed
One shopping site
Was for a red gap scarf
And the other one
A sunflower umbrella stand
The searches for the umbrellas
And scarf were made
At 842 AM
At 845
Scott wrote an email
When police arrived
At the house
They found that the curling iron
Was plugged in
And a bench that Lacey sat on
Was pulled out
The housekeeper said
That the day before
They were not like that
Because the housekeeper
Had cleaned
And recognized
That the curling iron
And bench were new
And that they were pulled out
The searches in this detail
Along with a few others
Have led some to say
That Lacey was clearly alive
As Scott would have needed
To be a criminal genius
To fake them
However
If Scott killed Lacey
He had been planning it
For days if not longer
And his plan was always
To fake a kidnapping attack
When he left for his warehouse
As evidenced by his dog
Wandering the neighborhood
With its leash attached
hatched to his collar.
It would not be surprising at all if Scott took additional, quote, proof of life steps he could later point to when he told his detailed story to the police about that morning, a story where Lacey was alive and well when he left.
Scott loaded three patio umbrellas from the backyard into the bed of his truck.
He was going to store them at his warehouse.
However, Scott arrives at the warehouse but does not drop the umbrellas off.
Instead, he drove to the warehouse with the umbrellas in the back of his truck, drove with them to the marina, and drove with the umbrellas back to his house.
He told the police he forgot to take them out, though in order to attach his boat at the warehouse, which he did to drive to the marina, he would have had to seen the umbrellas.
Scott checks his voicemail on his cell phone at 10.08 a.m.
According to the prosecutor.
According to the prosecution, the call pinged the same tower that his calls from home always pinged, indicating that Scott was still at home or near it when this ping happened.
However, by the end of the call, the call had changed to the tower near his warehouse, which was only minutes from his house.
So Scott leaves 10.08 at the latest.
At 10.18, some estimates as late as 10.30, a neighbor finds the family dog, McKenzie, walking around.
With his leash on, she puts the dog in the backyard.
The dog will be found there when Scott returns home with its leash still attached at 10.35.
The Medina's who live in the house across from the Peterson's that will be burglarized at some point, leave their home for Los Angeles.
So they are leaving their home after the dog has already been found with its leash.
A witness sees people outside the Medina home just before noon.
The burglars.
Who robbed the Medina home will be arrested and say they robbed the place at 4 a.m. on the 26th.
They said they saw some TV trucks on the street, so they went in a different entrance.
All things considered, they probably robbed the house on the 23rd and lied about it to avoid association with the Peterson murder.
Though once again, significantly, whenever they robbed the house, it would have been after McKenzie.
The dog was found wandering the neighborhood with his leash still attached.
Scott leaves the warehouse about 11.18 a.m. to drive to the Berkeley Marina.
This is about an hour and 36 minute drive.
Scott said he felt it was too cold to golf, so he decided to head to the Berkeley Marina to go fishing instead.
Of course, this makes it awfully convenient that on the 20th, Scott bought a fishing license for just two days.
And this was one of the two days that the license was good for.
Scott.
He purchased a boat launch ticket at 12.54 p.m. when he arrived at the Berkeley Marina.
From the time he bought that ticket until the time he left was approximately 78 minutes or 18 minutes less than the time it took him to drive there.
So a relatively short amount of time.
During that time, Scott motored north for probably two miles.
He was near a little island that had a boat.
There was a bunch of trash on it.
He saw a big sign that said no landing and there were some broken piers.
Fitting Scott's description, the island described turned out to be Brooks Island.
Evidence photos show the trash, the piers and the no landing sign as described by Scott.
When the state called an expert to the stand at trial, he stated that based on the currents, the bodies would have started their trek to where they were.
Scott.
He found between Berkeley Marina and Brooks Island.
In fact, if the bodies had been dumped in deeper areas of the bay, they would have washed out to sea rather than end up where they were ultimately found.
And if Scott did dump the bodies, this was just unlucky for him.
He basically dumped the bodies in the one area of this marina where they would end up washing to shore instead of washing out to sea.
At 2.12, Scott says he leaves the marina.
He eventually calls Lacey at home on her cell phone.
He leaves the message.
Hey, beautiful.
I just left you a message at home.
It's 2.15.
I'm leaving Berkeley.
I won't be able to get to Vela Farms to get the basket for Papa.
I was hoping you would get this message and go on out there.
I'll see you in a bit, sweetie.
Love you.
Bye.
This message is unusual given that, according to Scott, Lacey had no idea he was in Berkeley in the first place.
It is, however, consistent with Scott's plan to make it look like Lacey had been alive.
When he left for the warehouse that day.
On January 3rd, 2003, the burglars are arrested.
The police find no evidence of Lacey Peterson.
And if you believe that the burglars kidnapped Lacey and Connor and kept Lacey somewhere and then Connor was born later,
it would have been very difficult for them given that January 3rd is only 9, 10 days after the kidnapping would supposedly have happened.
But at no point, that very early period of time,
do any of the burglars flip on anyone else,
say where Lacey's being kept,
or really reveal any evidence related to her disappearance.
On February 10th, 2003, Connor's due date comes and goes.
On April 12th, 2003, there is a heavy storm in San Francisco Bay around the marina,
causing higher than normal wave action in the area.
The next day, April 13th, people walking near the San Francisco Bay find the body of Connor,
one day later, they will find Lacey.
The bodies are in the exact area where Scott was fishing.
Now, turning to Scott's demeanor, Scott's awfully relaxed during the first interview with the police.
For instance, when he's being interviewed, he's drinking coffee from a coffee cup.
And his hands aren't shaking, which you can see because he's holding that coffee cup.
He doesn't have trouble getting it from the table to his mouth.
No issues at all.
Moreover,
he shows no emotion during the press conferences.
He never breaks down.
He never seems as though he really cares.
Now, he also doesn't grill the police about what they're doing
and whether they have any updates for him about his missing pregnant wife.
His non-blood relatives are honestly more emotional today
than he was at the time of Lacey's disappearance.
The night during the search,
when Lacey's mother, Sharon, approached Scott to give him a hug,
to comfort him, Scott maneuvered away from her.
It seemed to Sharon that he was also avoiding eye contact with her.
Likewise, Brett, Lacey's brother, noticed that Scott was off by himself
and was reluctant to make eye contact.
In fact, Peterson and Brent never spoke that night,
even though they had a, quote, great relationship.
Sharon's cousin, Gwendolyn Kemple, also took note that
Scott would not look at her,
despite the fact that they had seen each other numerous times at family functions.
Lacey's stepfather, Ron Gransky,
asked Scott if he had gone golfing that day as Scott had planned.
Now, Peterson paused and then replied that he decided to go fishing instead.
After Peterson told Gransky what time he left to go fishing,
Gransky asked Peterson what he would be fishing for at that time of day.
Peterson said,
Peterson walked away without responding.
Although Peterson told Gransky and the police that he went fishing,
Peterson told Sharon's cousin, Harvey Kemple, that he went golfing that day.
Peterson also told neighbors Amy Krigbaum and Tara Venable that he was golfing that day.
Sandy Rickard was standing outside the Covina residence when Peterson approached her.
He put up his hands and volunteered, quote,
I wouldn't.
I wouldn't be surprised if they find blood on my truck because I cut my hands all the time.
Peterson explained that it was because he was an outdoorsman or something to that effect,
as Rickard recalled.
And Rickard found this interaction incredibly perplexing.
So in summary, in that one day,
Scott tells some people he went fishing,
some people he went golfing,
and offers this strange comment about finding blood in his truck.
Now, let's talk about the boat that he took out that day.
The boat was a 14-foot aluminum fishing boat.
That's a Class 8 boat, one of the smallest boats you can buy.
Although it's not impossible to take this kind of boat out into the San Francisco Bay,
it would be really dangerous for someone who was not an expert at boating.
So let's talk about Scott as a fisherman.
Conventional wisdom will tell you that Scott was a terrible fisherman,
but he had been fishing before.
He had owned a fishing boat before,
and he should have known.
What he was doing.
And yet, on the day that he supposedly went fishing,
everything seemed to go wrong.
Scott said that he was taking the boat out to do some sturgeon fishing.
The prosecution called an expert fisherman to testify about that.
He stated that Scott's rod was not rigged for sturgeon fishing.
It was rigged for freshwater bass.
The line and weight was wrong.
The rod was wrong.
One of Scott's rods didn't even have a handle on it,
and thus wasn't functional.
Another rod had no line on it.
When the expert reviewed,
Scott's tackle box, it was filled with equipment to fish for freshwater bass. Remember, this is a
saltwater marina. Moreover, the anchor would not work in the bay. It was an anchor that Scott had
made for himself, but it was too small and it wouldn't dig into the ground and hold the boat,
and there was no long rope in the boat for an anchor. Finally, there's the question of why
Scott would go all the way out to San Francisco Bay, more than an hour and a half away. The
prosecution put on evidence of at least a dozen places much closer to home in Modesto where he
could have fished much more suitable for his boat and his tackle than the San Francisco Bay. The bay,
however, was the closest saltwater fishery to Scott. Though Scott preferred saltwater
fishing, one wonders why he had so much freshwater tackle.
Alice mentioned Scott's behavior before we put that in there because some of you find it very
important and some of you don't. But nevertheless, it's not the only strange thing that Scott did.
On January 8th, 14 days after his wife has gone missing and four months before she'll be found,
Scott adds the Playboy channel on the family's cable package. Five days later, he decides that
isn't doing it for him, drops Playboy, and adds the 10 ecstasy package instead.
Now, let's talk about whether,
Scott was considering running or was it Lacey? The closet in the spare bedroom of the Peterson
home was open and duffel bags appeared to have been pulled off the shelf and one was lying
upside down on the floor. During an interview with the police, Scott says that he abandoned
his initial plans for the day, which was to play golf, because it was too cold. Instead,
he decided to go fishing. Now, it's strange that it would be too cold to go,
golf, but not too cold to fish. One of the employees at the harbor testified that hardly
anyone came down to the marina because of how cold it was that day. Scott was one of three people
there all day, and the employee called it a gray, drizzly, nasty day. And it is interesting that
Scott just so happened to have a fishing license for this spontaneous decision, one that he'd
bought on December 20th that was only good for December 23rd.
Let's talk about Amber Frye some more. So, after Amber realizes who Scott is, she calls the
police. Amber agrees to cooperate and to record Scott's calls. Scott tells her that he is in
Paris. He has an elaborate lie about being in Europe. He talks about fireworks at the Eiffel
Tower. In fact, he is at a candlelight vigil for his missing wife while he is talking to Amber.
They talked dozens and dozens of times.
Scott now claims he only talked with Amber to keep her from going public, lest it interfere
with the investigation in finding Lacey. Scott will eventually admit to Amber that his wife
had disappeared. So, one piece of evidence that the police found interesting was a mop that was
out. Scott told the police that the reason the mop was out was because Lacey was going to mop
the floor that morning. But the main reason for the mop was because Lacey was going to mop the
floor that morning. So, the main reason for the mop was because Lacey was going to mop the floor
the floor that morning. So, the main reason for the mop was because Lacey was going to mop the
floor that morning. So, the main reason for the mop was because Lacey was going to mop the floor that
day before and she had mopped the entire house. This led the police to wonder if Scott had
something he needed to clean up. Then there's Scott's behavior during the search. One witness
testified that he actually followed Scott from the volunteer center during the search. Scott was
supposedly going out to search for Lacey. Instead, he went to a mall parking lot and sat for 45
minutes in his vehicle. Rather, the police said that Scott was going to search for Lacey. So,
Scott was going to search for Lacey. Instead, the police said that Scott was going to search for Lacey. So,
golf course police stated that scott had almost no reaction when told the dna results came back
confirming the entire family had been murdered and apparently despite his sudden interest in
fishing it was golfing that he was doing during that time now let's talk about scott's trips to
the marina police put a gps tracker on scott's car to see where he went and on at least three
occasions before lacy was found police tracked scott to the berkeley marina while there he would
just park and stare out over the water this is significant to some people because some people
will say it's strange that he continually visited a place where lacy and connor's bodies were
ultimately found and let's talk about the nursery at the peterson home when the police returned to
their home in february scott had essentially turned on scott's car to see if he could find
the nursery into a storage room piling a mattress office chairs clothing and other items into it
and some of the items had actually come from his warehouse and note that february is actually the
month of connor's due date now prosecutors also entered two hairs that they found in a pair of
pliers believed to be lacy's it looks and seems identical and was from someone related to lacy's
mom which is pretty close to definitive
it's not much but given that lacy was never in the boat and scott claimed to have only been in the
vote once it is interesting that they found two hairs that belong to lacy and the police also
utilize a cadaver dog and this police dog actually hit on lacy's scent at the berkeley marina on
december 28th just four days after she disappeared so let's talk about the anchors scott bought his
boat and he was able to get it back and he was able to get it back and he was able to get it back
without an anchor he told the police he made one out of concrete in his warehouse a concrete anchor
was found in his boat though there was no line long enough to use it concrete residue was found
inside of some buckets in his warehouse there's also an area where it's obvious the anchors were
made according to the prosecution there are multiple quote-unquote voids or areas of less
powder on the surface indicating that multiple buckets were sitting there making multiple
anchors the prosecution speculated that these anchors were used to weigh down lacy's body when
it was put into the water the defense attempted to make a big deal of scott using excess concrete
to fill a hole near his drive rather than making multiple anchors though even if he did that it's
unclear how that's inconsistent with him making multiple anchors since we don't know exactly how
much concrete there was in the beginning moreover the prosecution was ready for this and had an
expert in concrete
who testified that the concrete near the driveway was not consistent with the concrete used to make
the anchor rather it was similar to cement used by scott to put in a fence post near where the
concrete was found indicating that if scott used additional concrete on the driveway it was from
the fence post concrete not the anchor concrete when scott was eventually arrested the police found
four cell phones his brother's id camping gear and fifteen thousand
dollars cash in his car scott had dyed his hair blonde and grown a beard which he also dyed blonde
and he was hanging out in san diego which in fairness was his home but also was close to the
border let's talk about lacy's clothes scott told police that lacy was wearing a white blouse and
black pants on the day that she disappeared december 24th but when lacy's body was found
she was wearing tan pants
which is what she had been wearing on the 23rd as well as a maternity bra the prosecution and
defense disputed whether these were the same tan pants that she'd been wearing it is often stated
that amy roca lacy's sister positively identified pants at the house as the ones lacy was wearing
however on the stand despite many attempts by mark garagos who was scott peterson's lawyer
to get amy to confirm this she refused to do so and although the top of the pants were
the top lacy was wearing on the 23rd was found at the house lacy had a number of different pairs
of tan pants and it is certainly possible that the tan pants she was found in were the tan pants she
was wearing on the 23rd but what's very important here is whatever happened to the tan pants the
pants lacy was wearing weren't black and this becomes very important let's talk about people
who claim to have seen tan pants and they're not tan pants they're not tan pants they're not tan
lacy a number of people claim to have seen lacy walking her dog for instance vivian and bill
mitchell said that they saw a woman matching lacy's description walking the dog that morning
homer and sue maldonado said that around 10 a.m they went out driving to deliver christmas
presents and saw a very pregnant lady struggling with a dog tony fridas says he also saw a pregnant
woman walking a dog that morning frank aguilar and his wife also saw a pregnant woman walking
with her dog diane campos was having a cigarette behind a local hospital she looked across a creek
into a park and saw a pregnant woman
walking a dog she saw two men following this woman the dog was barking and the two men said
shut that effing dog up then there's tom harshman who said he saw a woman in a red shirt and black
pants fitting lacey's description being forced into a van sometime in the afternoon a couple
miles away from the home he said that she had been squatting and urinating on the side of the road
by the end of this around 11 people say they saw a woman who might be lacey walking the dog
nearly all of them described the person they saw as wearing a white blouse and black pants
just as scott had said and just as the missing person's posters described that was all well and
good until six months later when lacey's body was found and she wasn't wearing black pants
she was wearing a white blouse and black pants
she was wearing tan pants moreover even though there was testimony that lacey enjoyed getting
out and being active the prosecution put on a number of witnesses that testified that lacey
was having extreme difficulty even walking by the end of her pregnancy and the doctor had told her
to take it easy after she complained of dizziness and exhaustion they also testified given this it
is simply not believable that she would have taken the dog on some sort of long strenuous walk
through the park and that's not just anecdotal in fact at the end of october two months before
lacey disappeared lacey had walked to the park and gotten very sick to the point that she was
vomiting and almost passed out her mother testified that she was extremely embarrassed because some
maintenance men saw her and had to help her and had to end up cleaning up her vomit after her
lacey talked to her doctor
about this event and the doctor told her that she should either stop walking altogether or do it
much later in the day after she'd had an opportunity to get hydrated in another instance
lacey's prenatal yoga instructor testified that on december 20th lacey was in so much pain that
she could barely walk and that she needed help to get to her car furthermore the shoes lacey
typically used to go on walk
were found in the house finally the police did not ignore these sightings they searched the park
including with canine teams and found no trace of lacey they also interviewed folks in a homeless
camp near the park none of them had seen lacey and the defense didn't call any of the witnesses
you always hear about the defense never called a witness who supposedly saw into scott's boat
and said it was empty the defense also never called witnesses who claimed to have seen lacey
that day either walking the dog or being forced into the van moreover there was another witness
who saw a pregnant woman walking a dog that day called it into the police and then when he was
shown a picture of lacey said that he was certain the person he saw was not lacey christopher van
sant testified that he saw a pregnant woman walking her dog near the van and he said that
he saw a pregnant woman walking her dog near the footbridge at dry creek regional park near the
scenic hospital this sighting is consistent with many of the other sightings offered by those who
believe scott is innocent but sant testified that he is quote 100 positive that the woman was not
lacey peterson following this testimony the prosecution called four different people
the husband of a pregnant woman and three pregnant women who testified that they had walked the
neighborhood either on that day or around it one walked a chocolate lab one a lab mix one an
australian shepherd and another one didn't even have a dog in other words a lot of pregnant women
were walking dogs in the days surrounding lacey's disappearance in the area to continue to hammer
home that point the prosecution called a parade of people who were walking in the park that day
who were walking any number of golden retrievers that day
or who were just in the neighborhood that day none of whom saw anything unusual and any of whom
might have been mistaken by someone for lacey so when the bodies were found lacey's body was in
pretty bad shape with barnacles growing on her bones the forensic anthropologist allison galloway
testified that her level of decomposition was consistent with being in the san francisco bay
for three to six months connor was left with a body that was in pretty bad shape
decomposed the difference in decomposition has led some to speculate that connor was born somewhere
else and then the bodies were dumped separately this of course would have meant that scott is
innocent but the autopsy does not support that argument there was no vaginal birth the autopsy
confirmed that lacey's birth canal remained closed in fact there also wasn't something called coffin
birth in this case which is what happens when a baby is expelled from a decomposing body more
over there was no evidence of a c-section although lacey's entire body was not recovered
the trunk of her body was and had there been a c-section there would have been evidence of it
what actually happened is that at some point during decomposition the body was expelled from
the top of the uterus and out of the body some have suggested that if connor remained inside
lacey's body for some time after death it should show telltale signs of degeneration
often seen in babies that are miscarried and in fact connor's body did show those signs the process
is called maceration the pathologist testified we'll even use the term maceration in a hospital
pathology where we're looking at the stillbirth and a baby that's died in the uterus and then
perhaps is delivered a day or two or three or more later will undergo the same type of changes
not to the degree that we see the baby die in the uterus
in connor but maceration type changes anyway in a fresh or stillborn those will often involve skin
changes overriding the skull plates and to a certain degree liquefication of the organs so
we'll see that in a hospital setting too and that's where the term maceration would be used
although connor suffered from this kind of effect and did so far worse than your average
stillbirth he was still protected from the worst of the ailments in the bay including
predators thus because it took a while for the baby to be expelled connor's body was protected
from degradation to an extent greater than lacy in fact dr galle would testify that connor's body
had been exposed in the bay for no more than one to two days at the most a quarter inch of
connor's umbilical cord was still attached and it was torn not cut there is no evidence that
the umbilical cord was knotted or clamped which if connor had been born unabashedly
alive would lead to the baby bleeding to death some people pointed to some trash or twine that
was wrapped around his throat as a possible means of killing him but there was no damage from the
twine and it had about an inch of slack it wasn't tight around his neck moreover leaving the twine
would be a pretty stupid thing to do if that's how you killed connor but you're going to dump him
in the bay to try and frame scott peterson and let's talk we've talked a
lot about connor but let's talk about the age of the baby now lacy was due on february 10th 2003
she disappeared and likely died on december 23rd about seven weeks from the due date so one would
expect then that the baby was probably between 31 and 35 weeks gestational age when he died
given that due dates are not an exact science according to the pathologist the gestational age
of connor was between 33 and 38 weeks on cross-examination the defense attempted to push
this number higher to 35 weeks to further the defense's theory that lacy was kidnapped and held
somewhere for some period of time alive and therefore connor was alive as well the pathologist
did not bend on this repeatedly explaining to the defense attorney that given the science and the
state was the best range another pathologist dr devore determined that connor died between the
21st and the 24th of december which is a much more precise date the defense called an expert who
testified that the earliest connor could have died was december 29th just on the face of things this
testimony seems far-fetched that the doctor could say with certainty that a body in the water for
four months was dead and that the body was dead and that the body was dead and that the body was
died without question no earlier than december 29th does not seem medically feasible cross
examination bore out this point the prosecution was able to unnerve the doctor who admitted that
his entire calculation was based on the assumption that lacy found out she was pregnant on june 9th
and immediately told her friends a fact that was actually disputed by those who knew her
if she found out before june 9th and only told her friends the
truth then his whole theory fell apart given that we are talking a matter of days
here, the notion that the doctor who was not a forensic pathologist could determine with such
certainty that Connor could not have died a mere five days before his earliest estimate just falls
flat. And let's talk about where the bodies were found. As the prosecution repeatedly stated,
the bodies of Connor and Lacey were found exactly where Scott was supposedly fishing. As a matter of
fact, the prosecution put on evidence that given where the bodies ended up and the currents in the
area, the probable dumping spot for the bodies was just off Brooks Island. So there's a lot of
evidence there about what happened. And as we've said before, this is a circumstantial case.
There's not going to be an eyewitness. There's not going to be a slam dunk. What you have
are a bunch of different bricks that you are building a case with. But the most significant
point is the one.
That Alice just made. Where the bodies were found. The bodies were found in the place that Scott
Peterson had gone fishing that day. Now, people who don't think it was Scott suggest that someone
else kidnapped Lacey. Maybe it was the burglars. Maybe it was a satanic cult of pregnant women
snatchers. Maybe it was someone looking to harvest organs. The theory goes that Lacey was kidnapped,
kept someone,
somewhere until Connor was born. Then both were murdered. At this point, the police had announced
that they were looking in Berkeley Marina because that was the place Scott had been knowing that the
police were looking there. The kidnappers hatch a daring plot to dump the bodies in exactly the
same place Scott had been fishing the day of the disappearance. And this is a point that people
grasp onto because you have to. This isn't a coincidence. It's not a coincidence. It's not a
coincidence that the bodies were found an hour and a half away. One of two things is true. Either
Scott dumped them there or someone looking to frame Scott dumped them there. And oftentimes,
people will just say, well, the police said it was Berkeley Marina, so somebody probably just
dumped them there. And people just go with that. And they don't stop to examine what would have
to be true for that to be true. And here's the thing. That didn't happen.
No one kept Lacey alive for four months and then dumped her body in the bay. First,
there's no evidence for it whatsoever. There are no credible sightings of Lacey on December 24th.
None of the sightings of a pregnant woman that day match Lacey, nor are they consistent with
the physical limitations Lacey was having. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable,
and they are the first thing that innocence advocates attack when attempting to overturn
a conviction that is actually faulty. To rely on them here, given all we know, is questionable at
best. But there's more. As to the burglars, they could not have shown up until after the dog was
found wandering with her leash, meaning that the theory that Lacey confronted them after her walk
with the dog is impossible. Moreover, there is no evidence Lacey was kidnapped. There are no
signs of struggle. No one saw Lacey. No one saw Lacey being kidnapped. One of the chief arguments against Scott being responsible for
Lacey's murder is that he would have had to have gotten her body into his truck with no one
noticing. But what's more likely? That Scott could kill Lacey in the privacy of his home
and maneuver her into the truck, which he also happens to be loading with large umbrellas that
would conceal her? Or that a gang of organ harvesters, burglars, or Satanists snatched Lacey in broad daylight
while she was walking her dog? But it doesn't end there. You'd have to believe that no one has ever
come forward stating that they saw a captive, pregnant lady in the months she would have been
held. No one has ever flipped on the kidnappers. There is not a hint of anything like this
happening, and it smacks of conspiracy. And still, that's not the end of the problems with this
theory. The theory that someone would frame Scott by dumping the bodies,
falls apart upon even the barest scrutiny. It is one thing to dump a body on a cold,
rainy Christmas Eve when no one is out. It is another thing altogether to dump a body
in a bay that is being constantly searched by police and is the center of media and public
attention. And even Scott Peterson is there watching the bay at various times. Moreover,
for this plan to work, the kidnappers would need to dump the bodies in such a way that they would
pose sufficiently to not give the game away. If the bodies were found too soon,
then it would be evident that they had been killed much later. The means of death would
be easily determinable, and they would need to do so by dumping the bodies in the one area that
would be consistent with Scott's guilt. Dump them in an area that was too deep,
and the bodies would be swept away. Dump them in an area that's too shallow, and they might be
found by the constant searches by the police, leaving you open to forensic evidence that would
convict you.
Dump them in an area other than Brooks Island, and the tides would have taken them somewhere else,
somewhere that an expert could trace back to a place that Scott could argue he'd never been
during his very short trip out. The kidnappers would be taking enormous risks, all in the hopes
that enough time would pass before the bodies washed up, if they ever washed up at all, to
convince the police that Lacey and Connor had been killed months before, just around the time
that Scott was at the marina.
And yet, with all the focus and attention on Scott, and none on them, much simpler to bury the bodies
in the desert and never worry about it again. But somehow, according to this theory, the kidnappers
pulled all this off without anyone seeing them or suspecting any different, fooling the state's
forensic pathologist, and having gotten away with this plot to this day, without a single person
involved ever saying a word. That is what you must believe in order to believe Scott,
is innocent. Put aside the sightings of Lacey, the condition of her body, whatever else it is that
makes you think Scott is innocent, unless you can show that a gang of criminals managed to pull
all that we described off, Scott is guilty. That is the conspiracy that has to be true for someone
else to be involved. Or maybe, instead, a man who routinely cheated on his wife was finally facing
a child and being forced to be forever tied down. And he decided the easiest thing was just to take
care of both problems once and for all. And that, folks, is how you do a closing argument.
Boom. I can't believe we got through that. It was so hard. That was dedication. It was really hard
not to talk about our feelings. I know, and put myself in other people's shoes. Do all the things
you can. But, you know, look, okay, so there you go, guys. You have all of the evidence right there.
If you want to hear the reasoning behind all that, listen to the multi-part episodes that we have. But
we've tried to compile all the evidence here for you. Yeah, I mean, I just want people to be armed
because, look, there's a 50-50 chance Scott's going to get a new trial.
We're going to cover that on legal briefs. We don't want to do that tonight,
but we'll cover everything that's going on with jury misconduct or whatnot. If he gets a new trial,
we're going to have to go through this circus all again. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
For the sake of Lacey and her family, I hope that is not the case because
we've said this time and again, this is circumstantial. That does not affect the
weight of the evidence. Circumstantial evidence is just as weighty as direct evidence. We do not
have anyone who saw him dump Lacey overboard. That we know to be true. In most cases like this,
you don't have that. Because if you did, there probably wouldn't be a trial.
They wouldn't have taken long to figure out who it was. But this is circumstantial and that is fine
with respect to the weight of the evidence. And there is so much circumstantial evidence
in this case. Take away the word circumstantial. If that's funny with you because you've been told
before that circumstantial evidence is not as good. It is. It is just as good. There is so much
evidence in this case. We spoke at lightning speed, taking out all our opinions and all
of the evidence. And that's why the trial spanned for so long. And that's why our previous episodes explaining this
case was also multi-part. And I just want to say, now that we've finished and we've got time and we
can extemporize, I understand the desire not to look at Scott's behavior because it's almost like
you don't want to prejudice yourself. I understand that. We have rules in the law about evidence,
about what you can admit to keep people from being prejudiced,
to keep people focused on the actual evidence. So I totally get that. But the simple fact of the
matter, if you look at most family annihilators, a lot of them are having affairs. A lot of them
are in very similar places to Scott. I mean, if you look at Chris Watts, Chris Watts and Scott
Peterson are almost the same person. Chris Watts did almost the exact same thing. He strangles his
wife. Probably he loads her body into the back of his truck. It's just instead of it being 2002,
it was much later and his next door neighbor had a ring camera. And so you basically caught
him doing this on camera. And if you've seen the documentary,
You see you see the way Chris Watts is reacting. And the thing is, with Chris Watts, nobody says, well, how he's acting is completely irrelevant. No, you do the much more human thing. If you watch him and you're like, that is not how somebody acts when their love of their life is missing. He clearly is guilty. And sure enough, he was Scott Peterson. People want to hand wave it away. They want to say, oh, you know, it doesn't matter. He was having an affair and it doesn't matter that he was a terrible person. It doesn't matter how he acted after she went missing. It doesn't matter that he got all the porn channels.
But it does. That speaks to the circumstances surrounding the case.
Now, is it the strongest evidence against him?
No, the strongest evidence against him is that his wife's body showed up an hour and a half away from her house where he just so happened to have been fishing on the day she went missing.
Come on, people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist on the day he went fishing when he had the night before said he was going to go golfing.
And this was supposed to be a spontaneous trip to fishing when he had bought the license.
For that specific day, many days previously.
And then later that day at a vigil told some people he went fishing, told some people he went golfing.
And oh, by the way, before he even bought those licenses, he was looking at the currents at that very place that he ended up on the day she disappeared.
And I'm sorry.
I just go back to what we said earlier.
The problem for Scott Peterson defenders in this case, I don't want to hear about who.
Who saw her walking the dog.
OK, we've explained why that's not relevant.
Well, let's just summarize it for maybe people who didn't quite see all the different parts.
Basically, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone saw Lacey walking a dog.
There is evidence that people saw someone who looked pregnant walking a dog.
But that person or those people were not wearing what Lacey was wearing when she was found.
And that's huge.
It's absolutely huge.
And most of these people didn't know her.
You know, some people were like, well, there was one person who did.
Well, they went to the same doctor.
That's how they knew her.
They weren't like best friends.
Also, once again, you can point to this stuff all day long.
But what you have to do, you have to show that someone dumped those bodies in that marina to frame Scott.
And that is just absurd.
It is absurd to believe that Lacey was kept alive.
She obviously wasn't.
I mean, there are barnacles on her bones.
For goodness sake.
She had been in that marina for a very long time.
And Connor had been inside of her most of the time.
And we know that because of what they the condition of his body.
And people say, well, but he was so well protected.
No, no.
Look, he was more protected than Lacey, whose body was in terrible shape, who had been ravaged by the elements and animals and everything else.
The pathologist even testified that really one more day in Connor's body probably would have been.
Never found the predators would have taken care of it.
He was in the water for a couple of days at most.
His body was not in good shape.
It was in really bad shape.
It's one of the reasons that figuring out exactly how old he was is hard, because one of the things you do is you look at bones and a lot of his body had kind of liquefied by this point.
It was just really hard.
And by the way, you know, we've talked about how this is a circumstantial case.
What Brett just said there is so important.
A day longer and Connor may never have been found.
And Lacey maybe would have been found much, much later.
Even more decomposed.
And we would not have been able to know as much as we already do about the gestational age, about lack of a coffin birth or C-section.
So the fact that this is a circumstantial case is actually it's more than a circumstantial case.
The fact that Connor and Lacey were found in conditions that could even be examined by a pathologist strengthens this case so immensely.
It was terrible luck for Scott Peterson that Connor's body was found because we know so much more.
We know so much more about the time frame and also when gestationally he was when he passed away because his mother passed away.
And so just know that the facts in this case really are so incredibly strong.
This case could have been tried without their bodies.
It absolutely could have.
The fact that their bodies were found and they were able to try the case with the pathology information from their bodies.
It's overwhelming how strong this case is.
And that's why Scott's out there staring out over the boat.
Because he knows his entire future depends on those bodies not being found.
You know, he'd weighed them down.
He hoped they would never be found.
But you had that storm the day before they were found.
And that that's when it happened.
That's when the body separated from the weights.
It's when the body of Connor was expelled from his mother.
And then the bodies turned up two days later.
And once again.
Scott Peterson, most unlucky man in the world.
Basically, if he had put the bodies anywhere else in the bay, the title action would have carried them out to sea.
But because he put them where he did in a shallower area, that's why the bodies washed up where they did.
And by the way, he may have done that because he had, remember, kind of a terrible boat.
He had a class A boat.
This was not a good boat to have in a very windy, very tumultuous bay.
The San Francisco.
Bay is not easy sailing at all.
So he had a small boat.
He couldn't actually venture much further out.
And you know why he had a smaller boat that he just bought?
Because he really only had one purpose for this boat.
This was not so that he could regularly go out into the San Francisco Bay and fish with his, by the way, ill-equipped anchor and fishing gear.
So the reason this is a bad boat is that he only needed a good enough boat to accomplish this task, not to fuel his hobby in the San Francisco Bay.
Well, we could rant about this for another five episodes, as we've done in the past.
We won't.
We'll stop here.
We won't.
We'll stop here.
And look, if you think Scott Peterson's innocent, I would love to hear it.
I would love to hear your argument for how he's innocent.
I would love to hear your argument for how the whole conspiracy to dump the body thing went down and nobody noticed.
How the inept burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglary and nevertheless somehow managed to keep Lacey's body for another three months until they dumped it.
How the inept burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested.
10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested 10 days after the burglars who got arrested.
So we want to do this.
do this all in one episode okay okay i have tried to limit it as much as possible but it's still 11
paces god peterson is guilty we're not gonna get through this in one episode so that's the whole
point is to do it in one episode because we've already done six episodes on it okay so no extra
we're just going straight with the script i got it basically that's okay let's do it we gotta just
i love going straight with the script i'm all for okay because you know what i'm gonna do
after we're finished i'm gonna go wash me a hallmark christmas
so
,
it is time to see whether or not we can pull this off
i don't think we can but let's do it
okay
okay
are you ready i'm so ready i've been ready
i've been podcasting for 45 minutes
We'll see you next time.
Podcast Summary
Key Points:
The bodies of Lacey and Connor Peterson were found in the exact area where Scott Peterson allegedly fished on December 24, 2002, linking his actions directly to the crime.
Scott conducted detailed internet searches for navigation and current maps related to the San Francisco Bay before the bodies were found, indicating prior knowledge of the dumping location.
Contradictory statements Scott made—claiming to go golfing while also saying he went fishing, and offering odd comments about blood on his truck—reveal inconsistency and deception.
Forensic evidence, including decomposed body conditions and lack of a C-section or coffin birth, shows Lacey died shortly after December 23 and Connor was still inside her body, contradicting claims of prolonged captivity.
No credible sightings of Lacey walking her dog match her clothing or physical condition, and the absence of any evidence of her being held or kidnapped undermines alternative theories.
The bodies were found in a shallow area where they would wash ashore, not wash out to sea, which Scott’s planned dumping location would have caused—making the placement highly specific and suspicious.
Scott’s behavior, including emotional detachment, lack of concern during police interviews, and contradictory statements, supports a pattern of premeditation and guilt.
The theory that someone else kidnapped Lacey and dumped the bodies to frame Scott is implausible due to lack of evidence, timing, and the logistical impossibility of hiding the bodies for months without detection.
Summary:
The prosecution presents a compelling circumstantial case against Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife, Lacey, and unborn son, Connor. Key evidence includes Scott's prior internet research on bay currents, his detailed fishing trip that coincided precisely with the bodies' discovery, and contradictory statements about his whereabouts and activities. Forensic analysis reveals Lacey’s body had decomposed for weeks in the bay, with barnacles and evidence of prolonged submersion, while Connor’s body showed signs of maceration, indicating he died shortly after Lacey.
No credible sightings of Lacey walking her dog match her clothing or physical condition, and the absence of any evidence of captivity or kidnapping undermines alternative theories. Scott’s inconsistent behavior—such as claiming to go fishing while telling others he went golfing, and making bizarre comments about blood on his truck—adds to the pattern of deception. The bodies were found in a shallow area of the bay where they would wash ashore, not be swept out to sea, which aligns with Scott’s known fishing location.
The prosecution argues that the only logical explanation is that Scott dumped the bodies after killing them, with no evidence of a conspiracy or third-party involvement. This case is built on multiple overlapping facts, not direct eyewitnesses, but the consistency and specificity of the evidence—particularly the geographic and timeline alignment—make the case strong. The absence of any credible sightings, the forensic timeline, and Scott’s behavior collectively support the conclusion that he is guilty.
FAQs
The prosecution argues that Scott Peterson is guilty because the bodies of Lacey and Connor were found in the exact location where he was fishing on the day of their disappearance, and the circumstances—including his behavior, equipment, and timeline—strongly support his involvement.
The bodies were found in the same area as where Scott Peterson fished, and forensic evidence shows that bodies would not have washed out to sea in this location. This suggests deliberate dumping, aligning with Peterson's fishing trip.
He claimed to have bought a fishing license for a specific day, had incorrect fishing gear for saltwater, and used a small, poorly equipped boat unsuitable for the San Francisco Bay, which contradicts his stated purpose of fishing.
Scott's inconsistent statements—telling some people he went golfing, others fishing, and making strange comments about blood on his truck—show a lack of consistency and suggest an attempt to create a false narrative.
Lacey’s body showed signs of prolonged decomposition, including barnacles, indicating she had been in the bay for weeks. Connor’s body showed maceration, suggesting he died shortly before being found, and there was no evidence of a C-section or coffin birth.
There are no credible sightings of Lacey being alive, no signs of struggle, and no evidence of her being held. Her physical condition and the lack of any witness accounts contradict the theory that she was kept alive for months.
Chat with AI
Loading...
Pro features
Go deeper with this episode
Unlock creator-grade tools that turn any transcript into show notes and subtitle files.