<i> [ominous music]</i> <i> - Laci Peterson's body
turns up</i> <i> precisely where Scott Petersn
said he was fishing.</i> <i> There is no decent
non-incriminating explanation</i> for that except
that Scott killed her. - One interpretation of that could be "well,
he must've done it. It's not just a coincidence." But on the other hand, he had
a reasonable explanation as to why he was in that area. <i> He had been someone who would</i> <i> occasionally just on
a spur of moment take off</i> <i> and go fishing.</i> - A--A logical
defense would be "Listen, "I said I was at that marina. Someone killed my wife and then
is trying to frame me." <i> ♪ </i> <i> - The thing about this trial,
it was circumstantial.</i> So there's no smoking gun and
everybody wants a smoking gun. <i> - I can't think of one
individual piece of evidence</i> that would be an 'aha' moment
for a juror in this case. <i> This case was just built
brick by brick, until finall,</i> you just see the full picture
on what it actually was. <i> - A case that is trying to be</i> alleged to have
occurred at home or in his vehicle
or in his boat would've rendered a tremendous
amount of physical evidence. - Scott Peterson's defense
attorney opened his case with an admission that his client is
a cad for cheating on his wife, but there is no evidence, Mark Geragos said that Scott
Peterson is a killer. <i> - The case was tried on the
street corner by the media.</i> <i> It was tried by a media</i> <i> that has absolutely no rules
in terms</i> of what evidence is admissible
and what is inadmissible. - And I'll tell you what,
Larry. I'll take a circumstantial
evidence case any day, above even a direct
evidence case, because those are cases that deal with common sense and
that's what this case is about. <i> - Circumstantial evidence...
just as powerful</i> <i> under the law
as direct evidence.</i> For instance, when you come to work in the morning,
it's bright and sunny outside. But when you step out at
lunchtime it's dark and gray, there are pools of water on the street;
women are rushing by with their raincoats and men
are shaking their umbrellas. You don't have to see the storm to know it rained
while you were inside. You can figure it out. <i> - Ted Rowlands,
when does this trial end?</i> <i> - Well, accordig
to the judg,</i> they should start closing
arguments November 1st and 2nd. The jury should get the case on November 3rd,
the day after election day. <i> - He won't let them get it on
election day, will he, Chuck?</i> <i> - No, that's not gonna happen.</i> <i> 'Cause it's gonna
be broadcast on live TV.</i> <i> - You realize what a dilemma</i> that would be for the-- for the CNN? It's election night
and when are we getting-- we're waiting for Iowa. Iowa's the key state. The jury's coming back.
We split screen. <i> [dramatic music]</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> - From the very beginning
in this trial,</i> <i> Mark Geragos and his defense
team had the upper hand.</i> <i> Mark would hammer away
and lead</i> <i> people to believe that</i> "Man, this prosecution
really doesn't have a lot of evidence." <i> ♪ </i> <i> - Perhaps a sign of
trouble for the prosecution.</i> - ...It's flunking,
uh, prosecution 101. - 'Cause they're saying,
you know, they're putting this jury to sleep with minutiae. - They are three
months into this thing, and the prosecution's
case was sort of boring, <i> and it was boring up until the</i> prosecution's witness,
Amber Frey. - First thing I learned about
Amber Frey surprised me because of
the media coverage made it seem like
Scott was having this <i> huge affair with Amber Frey.</i> He saw her a total
of four times, <i> and this was over
about a six-week period.</i> I thought, "We'll get
that across the jury." <i> So then we get the tapes.</i> <i> - Amber Frey was
a character witness.</i> Anything that she had
to say challenged Scott Peterson's character and
the kind of husband he was. That's the extent of her role, but of course that--that's
not how it played out. <i> - Amber Frey,
the woman Peterson was having</i> <i> an affair with, has not
yet been called as a witness.</i> <i> - When all the media
frenzy</i> started about my personal life, <i> I knew I needed help.</i> My dad calls me and said,
"I have a number of an attorney you need to call."
She was on Fox News. - She has done the right thing. She has called the police; she
has volunteered to tell them all the information that she
knows and she hasn't done what she could have done, which
is make a whole lot of money off of this by selling
the photos. <i> - There's a woman who's
in a relationship with a man</i> that she thinks is single,
and has had literally less than <i> a handful of dates
with him.</i> <i> She could've easily just
walked away</i> from the whole thing,
but obviously was hurt by it and felt that she had
to help make <i> the case for the prosecution.</i> <i> And then you get her in
the hands of an attorney</i> who sees the opportunities
in that story. - I felt for her. She looked to me
as though she was a completely innocent
victim in all of this. - Prior to that, I didn't
know who Gloria Allred was. <i> - Allred's past clients
include Brenda Van Dam, whose</i> <i> daughter Danielle was
kidnapped and murdered,</i> <i> and Denise Brown, the sister
of OJ Simpson's</i> <i> murdered wife,
Nicole.</i> <i> - She had the legal
background.</i> <i> She had the background
in how to handle the media.</i> Also, she was a single
mom and not somebody that was going to take advantage
of me. <i> - There were a couple of
stereotypes that concerned m.</i> <i> One had to do with the fact</i> <i> that she was a massage
therapist,</i> and in addition the fact that she had been dating
a married man. <i> So, helping her to make sure
that the truth was known abot</i> her was important and I felt that I could
assist her in that regard. <i> ♪ </i> - There were a number of people
who leaked to the tabloids <i> suggestive photos of her
that were very unflattering.</i> - Amber was treated
pretty badly by the media. <i> They said she was very
inferior to Laci--</i> <i> she was not as pretty,</i> <i> not nearly as intelligent,</i> and on the other hand
she was this victim. <i> - That's what
Gloria Allred does, right?</i> That--that's her shtick is
the women are--are victims. <i> So, that's not terribly
surprising that Miss Frey</i> <i> was made into a victim.</i> - Amber is a victim
as well as a witness. She is a victim of
Scott Peterson's deception. Victims are entitled to
attorneys, as are witnesses. - It's like if you've got
a Shakespearian tragedy, or you've got a Greek
tragedy, there's certain rules that apply
to all of them. And one of the things about
these tabloid murders is that at a certain point, you
will probably see Gloria Allred <i> come forth with a young woman.</i> - Sometimes unscrupulous people tend to try to exploit
witnesses for their own purposes. That is not going to happen
in this case. - She was perfect. <i> - I think bringing
Gloria Allred in</i> ratchets up
everything in this case. <i> - Amber Frey, the expectation
that well,</i> maybe that's the witness...
- Right. Mm-hm. - That will turn
the momentum around. <i> - We all hope she testifies,
at least those of us in</i> <i> television land, because it's
going to be fascinating.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> - A long-awaited
moment of truth</i> <i> in the Scott Peterson
trial.</i> <i> Tonight his mistress
comes forward to provide</i> <i> a possible motive for murder.</i> - The first day of trial,
even getting there, <i> my heart was racing,
and I was so scared.</i> <i> I was escorted by the
Modesto police department</i> <i> and someone yelled out,</i> "God's with you." <i> ♪ </i> Really powerful. <i> ♪ </i> <i> I remember the doors opened,
you could hear a pin drop.</i> <i> It was so quiet.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> You could hear everybody's
bodies shifting</i> <i> as I'm walking in.</i> <i> Two years had passed.
So this was the first time</i> <i> face-to-face that I
had with Scott Peterson.</i> My time was focused
on the questions and answering them truthfully. <i> - Amber Frey
spent most of the day</i> <i> on the witness stand
testifying about</i> <i> her intimate relationship
with Scott Peterson.</i> <i> On their first date,
the two ended the night</i> <i> at the Radisson Hotel
in Fresno.</i> <i> - I remember them showing
pictures of Scott and Amber</i> <i> and it was just
nauseating to me.</i> - The trial changed
dramatically with the prosecution's star witness, Amber Frey, and
she knocked it out of the park. And it wasn't actually
Amber Frey as much as those recordings. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - Amber came across as one
of the most</i> credible people you could ever
hear testify, <i> and Scott Peterson on those
recordings</i> <i> came across as one
of the biggest liars</i> one could ever hear. <i> - The single greatest
issue was</i> when they were
having the vigil, I believe it was, for Laci. <i> ♪ </i> - He's still playing a game.
I'm like, "Wait a minute. You know,
something's not right here." <i> ♪ </i> <i> - It was insanity.</i> Everyone in that
courtroom was just thinking, "Oh my God." Everybody turns and is looking
at this guy thinking, "Dude, you're insane." And boom!
Now, now he's guilty. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - When I started to think that</i> <i> Scott was guilty</i> was when Amber Frey came. <i> To hear the tapes you saw that
it wasn't hard for him to lie.</i> He was trying to have
both a wife disappeared, and he's trying to
find her, supposedly, and at the same time he's-- he's still trying to lead
Amber Frey on. - To me it's all
signs of guilt, that what he wanted
really in life was to still be the womanizer and not have
the responsibility of a child. - It raised the question,
"Well, he's not honest, so could he be
lying about everything else?" - My emotions at the time
were kind of disgust. <i> It was a betrayal.</i> But I felt it was
so unnecessary and not proving
anything about a murder. I mean,
we all know he had an affair. That's not the issue here,
you know? The issue is about Laci,
and I don't think the two are connected whatsoever. - I mean, he was a serial liar. That's what did him in. <i> ♪ </i> - I listened to those
tapes over and over and over. Uh, they're like a fine wine. There's no time limit; they
just get better and better. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - Today, the court released
audiotapes when Modesto polie</i> <i> began secretly recording
the couple's conversations.</i> <i> Frey would soon start
pushing Peterson</i> <i> for answers about Laci.
Frey said...</i> <i> Petersn
responds..</i> <i> - Amber was definitely
trying to</i> <i> catch him in lies, but at
the end of the day,</i> Scott never incriminated
himself in anything that had to do with
Laci's disappearance. In fact,
it was just the opposite. <i> ♪ </i> - "I need to find Laci." I mean, that's what
he was saying to her. But she kept pursuing him
because she was working for the police and Scott
didn't know that, you know. So, you know, he continued
to take calls and make calls. <i> ♪ </i> - Amber,
you could tell, was trying to get him to say something about
his wife, and he never did, but he came
across as such a creep. <i> - Laci Peterson's mom
and stepfather were so tired</i> <i> of listening to
the audiotapes,</i> <i> they left the courtroom late
this morning</i> <i> and never returned.</i> - All the tapes were
very impressionable on me. <i> It just really showed what
a monster he was, just how</i> <i> easy it was for him to lie.</i> <i> - You could feel the anger</i> at Scott at that point
from the jury. <i> That turned everything around.</i> <i> - The prosecution,
they had momentum.</i> <i> Amber Frey gave them
new momentum, so what they</i> had lost early on
they regained. <i> - Prosecutors will
likely argue Peterson killed</i> <i> Laci at their Modesto
home, and the next morning,</i> <i> drove the body over 90
miles to the Berkeley Marina.</i> The key for the prosecution is putting all the pieces
of the puzzle together. - The theory was that he
smothered her to death, wrapped her up in a tarp,
and then put her <i> in the back of his truck.</i> <i> - And then took her
out into the Bay</i> and somehow got this
150-pound pregnant woman with five 8-pound anchors
attached over his boat. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - She was thrown into
the cold, choppy water.</i> I mean, I don't even know
if she was alive at that time. Was she thrown
in the water alive? - And that's how Laci was left. Was dumped, like trash. <i> ♪ </i> - ...Scott Peterson's
trial is still moving forward. Today the jury's hearing more
evidence from the prosecution. <i> - This commercial fisherman
told the jury</i> <i> how a 150-pound fish</i> <i> could be tossed out of a smal
fishing boat</i> <i> without capsizing.</i> <i> And if you could
wrestle a big fish</i> <i> out of a boat successfully,</i> <i> prosecutors believe Scott
had no trouble</i> <i> dumping Laci's body.</i> - Mark came up with a plan
to purchase a boat that was similar, the
exact same boat that Scott had, <i> to show that it was
an impossibility</i> <i> for Scott to have</i> dumped the body overboard
without the boat tipping over. <i> - I took one of the kids who
worked for me</i> <i> and we went out to the Bay,</i> and I had him try to throw a 100-pound
weight out of the boat. <i> - Geragos wanted to show the
jury that taking a 150-pound</i> <i> pregnant woman and attaching
8-pound weights to each of hr</i> <i> limbs and around her neck,
and then getting her over</i> <i> the side of a 14-foot boat
without leaving any scratch</i> <i> marks and without tipping
that boat over,</i> is impossible. Denied!
Denied. - We did it four times. He almost drowned three.
You can't throw a hundred-pound weight out of that boat
and not have the boat capsize. <i> Well, Judge Delucchi,
he excluded that.</i> <i> - The Peterson trial is</i> <i> turning from wiretap
conversations to K9 searches.</i> <i> - Scott Peterson trial
focused on</i> <i> a tracking dog named Trimble.</i> <i> A dog handler with 20 years
of experience had the jury</i> <i> captivated as she described
how her dog successfully hit</i> <i> on Laci Peterson's scent
down a boat ramp in Berkeley,</i> <i> the same boat ramp
Scott Peterson used to launch</i> <i> his boat on Christmas Eve.</i> - The handler's testimony was that the dog
picked up on Laci's scent, <i> and she was basically
asserting that her dog could</i> follow a human scent
that was in a vehicle. <i> - It's certainly good evidence</i> for the prosecution, because if
you believe dog tracking, it puts her right
at the marina. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - The handlers testified that</i> their dogs had hit on a
scent of Laci at the marina: proof positive Laci had been at the marina, must've
been in the boat, into the bay. The very next day, evidence is
presented that those dogs had failed
their certification tests. - Her dog had
failed on 2 prior occasions. We found a videotape of
the dog going in the wrong direction during the
certification process. <i> - The defense tried to
discredit the damning evidene</i> <i> by suggesting there
could have been</i> <i> a cross-contamination of Laci
Peterson's personal items.</i> - With dog handling evidence,
they take the scent of the person the dog
is trying to find and they let the dog smell it, then the dog tracks it. In this case the piece
of evidence they used was compromised, 'cause Mr.
Peterson had touched it too. <i> Another dog with a different
handler couldn't find</i> <i> any evidence
of the crime scene.</i> <i> This dog handling
evidence is not science.</i> <i> It's not DNA or fingerprints.
It's junk science.</i> <i> - That some dog</i> could be put at the edge
of San Francisco Bay days later, and--anybody who
knows the weather around here, these are windswept areas,
you know, that change <i> all the time, and the notion
that some dog could detect</i> the scent of Laci Peterson... I just said that's--
that's crazy. I can't believe
this is even admissible. <i> I do remember
the cross-examination,</i> <i> and it was effective,</i> but trials are contests. But unlike athletic contests
where you have a running score and you know you're way
ahead and so maybe you can back off a little bit,
in a jury trial you don't. You may be thinking, "I've
destroyed that witness, "and 12 reasonable people
have to be convinced that I've destroyed that witness."
But you know what? You don't know that. - For me, one of the really strong points in the case,
um, was the dog. <i> The cadaver dog
tracked Laci's scent</i> <i> all the way off the pier.</i> I--I didn't find
that to be coincidental. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - In a new audiotape played
for the jury today,</i> <i> the detective begins to let
Peterson know</i> <i> he's suspicious of him.</i> <i> It was recorded one
month after Laci vanished.</i> <i> - But like all the audiotapes
in this trial,</i> <i> Peterson continues</i> <i> to deny any involvement
in his wife's disappearance.</i> - There's no question
that the most powerful evidence against him was the finding of the bodies in the place where
he said he went fishing. That was--there--there's just
no question about that. <i> - If her body turned up
in the San Joaquin River,</i> Scott had been cleared.
But it didn't. <i> It turned up in the area
where Scott was fishing.</i> <i> - A tidal expert told the jury</i> <i> Laci Peterson's
baby was placed</i> <i> in the water somewhere between</i> <i> Brooks Island and
the Berkeley Marina.</i> <i> - Conner Peterson started his
voyage towards the shore of</i> San Francisco Bay
at a mid-point between the Berkeley Marina
where Scott put his boat in and Brooks Landing, where Scott
said he was doing his fishing. - Their theory was that Laci
was anchored down and the tidal <i> waves and the currents
of the San Francisco Bay</i> <i> eventually expelled the baby.</i> The baby floated up, and
that's how they discovered it. Not with Laci--
about a mile away from Laci. <i> - Laci Peterson's body,
when it was found,</i> <i> didn't have a head,</i> didn't have its feet and--
you know, gruesome. - It suggests that she
was put in the water with her extremities being
secured with the anchors. <i> It doesn't seem unreasonable</i> <i> to me that when you have five
concrete anchors</i> <i> and there's
four limbs and--</i> and the head missing
from the body, that it would be
consistent with being restrained
with those devices and used to
weight somebody down. - When she came up,
only the torso came up, and it had been disturbed
by a lot of the sea life. - All of its internal organs,
they were all missing. Not just her unborn child--
all of her organs were missing. Prosecution's expert said that
that was due to tidal action. <i> You know, the waves apparenty
tore her body apart.</i> <i> Some of the best forensic</i> <i> pathologists
in the country said,</i> <i> "It doesn't work that way.</i> "I've had bodies submerged in
the water for years, and fish "and animals don't chew
away cartilage and ligaments, "and bones and organs don't
disintegrate or float off. It doesn't happen
that way." Didn't matter. <i> Their answer was,
you know, tidal action.</i> - It was anything by them to try to come up
with something <i> because they had nothing.</i> Every single piece of
evidence was dismantled. The problem, once again,
came back to the bodies washed up where he said he was. - The reality is, he was
fishing on top of her body. All right? You want to call
that a coincidence? <i> Fine.
Have at it.</i> - If somebody else
did kill her, it's only been broadcast
on every news outlet across the country for months that this is where he was on the day
that she went missing. - What's so hard for me
to believe is why everybody's willing to do a backbend
to make up excuses to explain away
Scott's behavior. <i> - Because--because, Nancy,
'cause the system</i> is presumption of
innocence. - Yeah, but we're
not in court tonight. - You're not presuming
innocence. - We're not in court right now.<i>
- Nancy doesn't feel-</i> - You can't sit here
and tell me that it's a coincidence
where he went fishing is where his murdered wife
and child ended up. That's not--
there's no way. And somebody to
frame him to do that? No.
No. <i> - Unlike Laci's remains that</i> <i> were badly decomposed,
the baby</i> <i> was in fairly good condition.</i> <i> Prosecutors want the jury
to believe</i> <i> Conner died with
his mother on December 24th.</i> <i> The defense wants
them to see it another way.</i> - If Conner Peterson
lived longer, then his father, Scott, could not be
responsible for his death. <i> - Both sides tried
to establish</i> <i> the time of death
of Conner, the fetus.</i> The prosecution brought on an
expert witness, which put the time of death right in the same
area where Laci disappeared. <i> Well, the defense expert,
Dr. March, came on.</i> <i> - Dr. Charles March, an OBGY,
told the jury based on his</i> <i> calculations, the baby's date
of death was on December 29th.</i> <i> - Their expert believed
that Conner was actually alie</i> <i> after Laci was
reported missing,</i> and, of course,
if that were true, then Scott would be innocent. <i> - Dr. March also criticized
Dr. Greggory DeVore,</i> <i> the state's expert.</i> <i> March said DeVore's testing
methods were flawed</i> <i> and his results were wrong.</i> <i> - I was in the courtroom</i> <i> when Dr. March
testified,</i> <i> and his direct testimony
was effective and awesome.</i> When we took a break, all
the pundits went outside and said "Oh, this doctor
was really effective." <i> And then cross-examination
starts,</i> and sort of question
by question, this doctor gets
more and more flummoxed. - I think that he
didn't understand what a cross-examination entailed, um, and he certainly
didn't weather the storm. <i> - He couldn't defend
his credentials,</i> <i> he couldn't defend
his experience, and when</i> confronted with an error
in his report, he just committed
an absolute cardinal sin. - Started to brush his hair
back, and finally he just said, "Just cut me some slack!" <i> ♪ </i> Everybody not only
cut him slack, they just stopped
listening to him. They really just stopped
paying any attention to him. The jurors ended up
putting their notepads down. - Dr. March was testifying
on a subject that was well beyond his area of expertise. I mean, the guy
melted down on the stand. - And that's
just the death knell. I mean, he was destroyed,
he was done. That issue was destroyed. - You could see
the expression on--on Mr. Geragos' face
when that happened. He looked down at the table
and-- sort of in disgust--
and just shook his head. <i> - There's nothing worse for
a lawyer</i> <i> than putting a witness on</i> who you think is going to say
something, and in the middle <i> of their testimony,
they change their story.</i> In a trial, you have to be very
careful as to what you know your witnesses are going
to say, because one mess-up, one contradiction,
and all of a sudden, it gives the jury something to throw
everybody's testimony out, and you've basically screwed
up the entire defense case. <i> ♪ </i> - During the trial,
one of the key witnesses in terms of timeline was a neighbor, a woman
by the name of Karen Servas. <i> She told police
that she found McKenzie,</i> <i> the Peterson dog,
wandering outside the Petersn</i> <i> home on the street with its
leash on</i> at 10:18 in the morning
that Laci was reported missing. This was a huge part
of the case <i> because it established
a specific timeline.</i> <i> Police used that</i> as a way to dismiss
some of these other people who claim they saw Laci Peterson walking
her dog after 10:18. <i> - One tip came from a hospitl
worker who says she saw</i> <i> Laci walking her dog
in the park</i> <i> around 10:45
Christmas Eve morning.</i> <i> But that timeline contradicts
neighbor Karen Servas,</i> <i> who says she found
the Peterson's dog, McKenzie,</i> <i> at 10:18.</i> - They did discount the
eyewitnesses that came forward. I mean, I
interviewed several of them. - I was standing right here
and washing some dishes, <i> and what--I could see her
walking across the street.</i> <i> - You think it was her?</i> <i> - Oh, I think
it was, because she, um,</i> fit the description exactly. - When I pulled out
on Miller Avenue, that's when I looked over <i> to the right and I noticed
a young lady struggling with</i> <i> the dog and very pregnant.</i> <i> - I saw that dog in the park.</i> With the dog was a person, round, with black
leggings and a white smock. <i> - There are other people like
Mike that think they saw Laci,</i> and unless the prosecution
comes up <i> with an alternative to it,</i> it may go a long
way providing some doubt. - Geragos told the jury in
his opening statement that he was going to bring people to
testify that they had seen Laci <i> walking the dog and therefore,</i> <i> it was impossible
that Scott had killed her.</i> He didn't bring
those witnesses. <i> - I do believe there were
people who saw her that day,</i> <i> but as far as testifying,
there were contradictions</i> in the story that we
were afraid would-- would actually end up
hurting the defense. <i> - Nancy, do you have
a question for Mike?</i> - Yes I do. I noticed in
an earlier statement of yours, you stated that you think
you saw the dog around 10:45 a.m.
Is that correct? - The police talked to me two days after and I knew exactly
when I got home from my run. I just can't
remember when that time was.
- Mm-hm. - 'Cause I told the policeman--
- I was just wondering about the 10:45 because,
uh, the woman put the dog back into his--<i>
- And I'm thinking it'd be--</i> - Yard no later than 10:17 and my only other--
- I'm thinking I'm too late. I think that my timing is off. - The problem I have with
the timeline is, it shouldn't take away from what
the eyewitnesses see, <i> and if an eyewitness
sees something</i> <i> but you can't give me
an exact time,</i> <i> it doesn't mean
that you didn't see it.</i> - But I'm telling you,
I saw that dog in the park. Okay? I have no doubt
in my mind. - We did get
subpoenaed by the prosecution. But we never
were called by Geragos. - At one point
during the trial, the prosecutors started
calling women that lived in Scott and Laci's
neighborhood who regularly
walked their dogs. <i> There was this parade of
witnesses they brought in.</i> <i> They put them on the stand.
"Where do you live?"</i> <i> "Do you walk your
dog in the neighborhood?"</i> And they'd say yes,
and I mean, these women were all different
descriptions. I don't think any of them
you would mistake for Laci. - I would've never
in a thousand years thought that I would've
been called to be a witness, <i> but we kind of put
two and two together.</i> I'm short, I'm fat, I could go
for a pregnant woman. You know, I had dark
hair back then, shorter. So maybe they want
to try and say, <i> "Hey, well maybe
it wasn't Laci.</i> <i> Maybe it was Melba
walking that morning."</i> - Most of them, when Mark would
cross-examine them, he'd say, "Were you walking your dog
December 24th?", and they'd say no. - I very much doubt I
walked around Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, because I was probably in the kitchen
cooking. <i> - Once again,
Peterson's attorney Mark</i> <i> Geragos tried to poke holes n
the prosecution's case.</i> <i> In opening arguments,
he promised proof of his</i> <i> client's stone cold innocence.</i> <i> Observers say he has yet to</i> <i> provide a strong
alternative theory.</i> <i> - Anybody who says,
"Why didn't you call</i> the witnesses?"--that's fine,
but the prosecution <i> conceded that we had shown
Laci was alive on the 24th.</i> It didn't matter anymore;
that wasn't the fight. So, I could sit and I could
call in 12 different witnesses who might contradict themselves
about what she was wearing, where she was and blah, blah,
blah, but it didn't matter. I'd already established
that she was alive on the 24th. <i> - I was waiting for any
witness to come forward</i> and say, you know, they saw Laci
walking her dog. You waited and waited.
They never proved it. - I would have found it
persuasive to have a string of witnesses saying,
"I saw Laci doing this, <i> I saw Laci doing that."</i> <i> The worst that
would have happened</i> <i> is they would have
been cross examined, and ther</i> <i> testimony arguably discounted.</i> - You must take that
risk as a defense attorney. Sometimes you just must swing for the fences, knowing
that you might strike out. That witness may just
implode on the witness stand, but you still
have to take the chance. <i> - After a 5-month trial that</i> <i> left much to be desired for
both sides,</i> <i> it will be another moment
of high drama when closing</i> <i> arguments begin in the capitl
murder trial</i> <i> of Scott Peterson.</i> <i> - Their closing was an
emotionally directed closing,</i> which was, "Look at this guy. "He hated his life.
He hated his wife. <i> He hated feeling trapped.
He didn't want a little baby"</i> - So what did he do?
He got rid of that lifestyle. That was the prosecution's
case. - They showed some game. I mean, they gave
beautiful closing arguments. - We have seen
a different Rick Distaso. The lead prosecutor
today has been passionate. - He got the jury's
tears flowing. He pointed to Scott Peterson
and said, "This man is a murderer." This was a great clutch
performance by Rick Distaso. - I think they knew
they didn't have evidence and they were trying to
substitute emotion for it. What they did was put up
a big picture <i> of Laci Peterson sitting all
alone at a Christmas party,</i> <i> very pregnant, and at the tie
that that picture was taken,</i> <i> Scott Peterson
was with Amber Frey.</i> <i> They said "Look at
that cheating S.O.B.</i> Convict him of murder." - President Bush has now joined the ranks of a rare group of
Americans: two-term presidents. Coming up on MSNBC, there are other stories making
news today, including developments
in the Scott Peterson trial. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - Defense attorney
Mark Geragos</i> <i> launched his closing arguments</i> <i> by asking jurors if they hate
his client Scott Peterson.</i> <i> - Mark Geragos's
closing argument</i> was the exact opposite
of his opening argument. His opening statement was bold, confident,
a little bit bombastic. <i> "I am gonna promise you,
I am gonna prove to you that</i> my client is 100%
stone-cold innocent." And on his closing statement,
he was just flat. - I would have just
thrown everything at the jury, the kitchen sink.
He did not do that. - We all have good
and bad days, but that was a bad
day to have a bad day. - I always say, whoever
wins gets to write history. Every case I've ever won, I can tell the story
about why I won it. <i> And when you lose,
you're the village idiot.</i> - Have you
talked to Mark Geragos? - I think it's safe to say that
he is guardedly optimistic, as they say in politics. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - We were pretty confident.</i> <i> The prosecution didn't
prove he was guilty then.</i> <i> The burden of proof
is on the prosecution.</i> They never gave a summary
of how this crime occurred. They simply stated they didn't
know when it happened, they didn't know
how it happened, they didn't know where it
happened. They just knew
that Scott did it. <i> - Jurors begin
their first full</i> day of deliberations in
the Scott Peterson case today. <i> - There's no indication how
long this jury will be out.</i> <i> The stakes, of course,
are huge.</i> Courtroom observers are divided on which way
they're going to go. - In the closing arguments,
the defense attorneys thought that they had a hung jury. They really believed that a few <i> of the jurors
were on their side.</i> <i> - There was no evidence.</i> There was no blood found in
the, um, house. There was no scene
of any crime. <i> There was
nothing at the warehouse.</i> <i> The supposed
cement anchors was a bust.</i> I mean, it was just nonsense
after nonsense after nonsense. They had no case. - I have to say,
I mean, I know Mark very well, and he is a great lawyer and he can convince
juries of all sorts of things. <i> ♪ </i> And I really did
fear that there would be a hung
jury or a not guilty. - We've been speculating
for 5 months, but this, tonight is the height, since 12
people are in the room, <i> and we don't know
what they're saying.</i> - I hated going
to deliberations, and that was obviously the worst part
of the trial, because <i> now it's up to me and 11 othr
jurors to decide something</i> <i> that's so--so important.</i> <i> - I got to be honest with you.</i> It was pretty nervous for me,
um, because you've had 6 months or almost 6 months,
of information overload, and you haven't been able to
voice that to anybody, and now <i> all of a sudden
you go in there,</i> <i> and we're just gonna
lay it all out on the table.</i> - We took a straw vote
initially. <i> It was 10 to 2 at the time.</i> - Okay, well, a couple
of people aren't sure. <i> So, what aren't we sure about?</i> - I voted innocent. I didn't feel that we
had talked about everything. <i> I wasn't ready to make
that decision.</i> I did hold it up. - So, we started bringing
in a whiteboard and we started just dissecting the trial
and the evidence. <i> ♪ </i> <i> Everybody was committed
to doing</i> <i> one thing and one thing only,</i> and that was give
Scott Peterson a fair trial. <i> ♪ </i> - Apparently the jurors are
sending the judge in this case a signal that there is some problem inside
the deliberation room. <i> - One day we're
in deliberations, and, uh,</i> <i> one of the jurors</i> admits that, uh, she violated
the order. - They tell you from day one, "No investigations on
your own on the Internet." - I did check something that I
had a knee-jerk reaction about and uh, it confirmed my,
you know, my thinking about whether something that
I heard was correct or not. <i> - As soon as she said that,</i> I said,
"I don't want to hear anymore. We need to go to the judge." - A source close to the case is
telling CNN that another juror, quote, "turned her in,"
if you will, and the judge had no choice but to
remove her from the panel. - And then, um, Richelle
Nice came in as number seven. - This is a woman
who is in her late 20's. <i> She has nine tattoos, four
children, and has been very</i> emotional during the trial,
breaking down a number of times and crying during
the autopsy photos. <i> - Some people are saying
she's very independent-minde.</i> Also the--the observers have
nicknamed this new alternate juror, now juror number seven,
"Strawberry Shortcake." - She's an unknown quantity
right now. So it could, uh, work
for the state. - And Richelle came in the room and Richelle was just, uh,
like piss and vinegar. She comes in and she's like
"Hey, he killed the little man. "He's guilty. Let's just get this done with,"
and I was like, "Whoa, whoa.
Time out. "We--we kinda started a process
here of discussing this. "We're not--we don't all just
run in here "and we're just gonna
make a decision just 'cause you
walked in here." - They had to start
deliberations all over again. So, we just erased
whatever they <i> had brought up
and started fresh</i> <i> with me and my perspective.</i> I was just hoping, now that I
became a juror, that would--we would be able to stick together
and finish this process. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - But the stumbling
block was the person who</i> was supposed to assure that
we didn't hit stumbling blocks. <i> - Gregory Jackson
was the foreman and he</i> had stacks and stacks of notes. <i> I mean, he made all
of us look like amateurs.</i> <i> - And we selected him
based on his probably being</i> <i> the most intellectual
person there.</i> <i> - You've got a doctor
and a lawyer,</i> so you know he's well-schooled, you know he's got
to be logical, you know that he's got to put
the emotion aside and say "No, let's go through this
evidence logically." And the jurors didn't want
to do that, and they fought. - He kept having us going over the same thing, and we
already discussed those things. It was like dragging it out. - I mean, he was
definitely pro-innocent, and we were
leaning towards guilt. - Finally, you know,
we just all got tired of it, and so it finally came down to, "Yeah, we need to change
foremans here because you know, his--his ability to facilitate
is not--it's not working." - And then one of the jurors
threatens him, physically. - John, he would yell
at people. <i> It just became
really stressful.</i> I got upset one time with him
because he was just kind of, eh, a--a little mean to people,
I could say. - I never threated, uh,
Gregory Jackson's life. I never used abusive language.
We did bump heads. - John had his mind pretty much <i> made up, and I think it was
he was getting impatient.</i> - At that point,
Gregory Jackson, because he said the atmosphere was so frightening to him,
because they were screaming and yelling at him,
goes to the judge. <i> - Tonight, another Scott
Peterson juror dismissed.</i> <i> Second one in two days, and
this time it's the foreman.</i> <i> What in the world is going on?</i> - There's just chaos in there,
and where there's chaos there's got to be some kind of split. - I think there was, in some
ways, a "palace rebellion." <i> - The one guy who wanted to go</i> through the evidence,
they let him go. And the guy who had threatened
him, stayed on the jury. - I try criminal cases either for a not guilty verdict,
or for a hung jury, and in this case,
I thought the best case scenario for us
was a hung jury. - And if he stuck it out it
probably would've been a hung jury 'cause he was strong--he
was strong-minded at the time and then he weakened to--
through deliberations. - That is when everything
changed inside that jury room. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - A new day. A new juror.
A new foreman.</i> <i> It is the latest
surprise from the tumultuous</i> <i> jury deliberations in
the Scott Peterson trial.</i> <i> - The replacement had
come in on Thursday afternoo.</i> <i> We thought, "There's no way
that they're going to come to</i> a verdict in less than
24 hours, so my dad and I flew home. <i> It was, you know,
hard for Jackie to travel.</i> When she decided to stay,
Janey, bless her heart, said, "I
can't leave Jackie here alone. I'm going to stay." <i> - Jurors in Scott Peterson's</i> murder trial are going
back to the beginning today. <i> The jury was instructed
to begin</i> <i> new deliberations after
the foreman and another panel</i> <i> member were removed from
the case earlier this week.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> - On Friday, it was basically,</i> <i> "Okay, we have run
through this whole thing."</i> <i> Everything that had been
a question had been answered.</i> <i> - We just figured,
was it premeditated,</i> which we all pretty much, um,
came to the conclusion it was. <i> - And then we asked
everybody at the table,</i> <i> are you ready to vote?</i> Final vote, it was 12-0. <i> ♪ </i> - We're told there's a major development in the
Scott Peterson case. <i> - As I'm heading
to my office in San Diego,</i> over the radio
comes the announcement. <i> - There is a verdict in the
Scott Peterson trial and it</i> <i> will be announced
at 1:00 p.m. Pacific time.</i> - I wanted to
slam the breaks on, [laughs] but I'm on the freeway, and I thought, "Oh my gosh,
that can't be." - They seated that new juror
Thursday afternoon, and by Friday morning, we were notified that a verdict
had been reached. - It is a pretty
shocking thing to me. I mean, I'm totally surprised. In 9 hours, this group
of 12 has reached a verdict. - As you can see behind me, a group of spectators
has gathered already at the courthouse. <i> It is starting to
sort of pick up here.</i> <i> This was empty, uh,
only half an hour ago.</i> <i> - I got a call from New York:</i> <i> "Do you want to be</i> "on camera when the verdict
happens? Or do you wanna be in
the courtroom?" I'm like, [scoffs] "In the courtroom!
Totally!" - Defense attorney Mark Geragos
is not here for the verdict. He was expecting a little bit
more lead time. - Mark had actually
gone back to Los Angeles because,
as he said, "There's no way <i> they're going to get a jury
verdict Friday morning."</i> By, I think, about 11:00
they announced that the verdict <i> would be announced at 1:30.</i> We went to lunch
with the Peterson family, <i> and they were very optimistic
and talking about, "If Scott's</i> "found innocent, how do we
get him out of the courthouse? Where are we gonna take him?" <i> It was very hard,
because I think I knew</i> <i> what was coming, based on
what I had seen from the jur.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> So we went into the courtroom.</i> <i> Scott came out--he was
optimistic, he felt like</i> <i> the trial had gone very well.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> - When the jury walked
into the courtroom I just</i> <i> remember kind of watching for
any of them to look our way.</i> You're just hoping to get some
kind of indication from them of what the verdict was, but
they looked very, very solemn. - As soon as they all
went to sit down, Fairy, who is the black juror that
sits right up front, looked right at Sharon Rocha
and winked at her. I'm like, "Oh, my God. They're gonna convict him." <i> ♪ </i> <i> - We the jury in the above
entitled cause</i> <i> find the defendant,
Scott Lee Peterson,</i> <i> guilty of the crime of murder
of Laci Denise Peterson.</i> <i> We the jury in the above
entitled cause find</i> <i> the defendant, Scott Lee
Peterson, guilty of the crime</i> <i> of murder of baby
Conner Peterson.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> - When Sharon heard
the verdict,</i> <i> she just hunched over
in tears.</i> The whole family right in front
of me were crying and just really letting out all the
emotions of the past two years. - I couldn't believe
that he'd been convicted. You--you just could--uh,
I was convinced that-- my heart beat super-loud and I
hear--and I missed the word "not." - I just was dumbfounded. I just--I sat there
with a blank stare on my face. <i> ♪ </i> - You know, to be frank,
I wasn't--I wasn't surprised. I, uh--not because
of the evidence or-- it was just because
of the media, what they did, what the cops did,
what the prosecution did. Uh, I thought, you know, "He hasn't got a prayer."
I honestly did. <i> - But then you could hear this</i> eruption of cheering
outside the courthouse. - I was out there
in that crowd. [hubbub] <i> And when the clerk read
guilty...</i> [excited screams and cheers] <i> There was an instantaneous
jubilation.</i> - Thank God, thank God.
I'm so happy. - And it was just sickening. <i> - People erupted.
They were just ecstatic.</i> People were cheering. - Oh, wow. Oh, God bless the Rochas! [cheering] - Thank God. <i> - After the verdict was read,
we were just numb.</i> We didn't get any time
to interact with Scott. He was taken out. - Get ready.
[cameras snapping] <i> - They brought us out
at the far</i> <i> end of the building and
escorted us the full length</i> <i> of the building...</i> <i> - In front of this mob
that was jeering and screamig</i> <i> and cheering.
It was like a pep rally.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> - I'm watching members of
the Peterson family walk out</i> <i> of the courthouse, and seeing
and hearing people jeer them.</i> <i> - And basically get
in their face</i> and say "Yeah, he's guilty!"
It was so disgusting. - First degree, yes. <i> - After sitting for 5 1/2
months on that jury,</i> I don't have any reasonable
doubt. I have no damn doubt at all. Make no mistake about it. He's the guy that did it,
and until anybody can show me different,
that's how I feel about it. - I believe in my decision.
I'm not ashamed of it. - We saw the OJ, and that's what
we thought was gonna happen, and it--it's exciting
that it really does work. The justice system does work.
[cheering] - God bless America, we did it. <i> ♪ </i> - There was like a two-
week hiatus between the guilty verdict and the commencement of the penalty phase to decide
death or life without parole. <i> Those jurors, as much as they
were protected,</i> these people had to be exposed to the glee in the community
over the guilty verdict. <i> Not just the community--
the whole nation.</i> <i> But also the expectation
that, "Okay,</i> <i> now we're gonna
give him death."</i> <i> - During the break,
my neighbor came to me</i> and he said that, "Some
of the jurors have come into bar where I bartend at."
I'm like, "Yeah, so? I hope they're not talking
about the case." And he said, "Yes, they are." <i> So he volunteered to me that</i> <i> a number of the jurors
had been drinking and that</i> <i> had said as they
were drinking,</i> <i> "We're gonna get
Scott Peterson."</i> And I was like,
you know, "You can't do that." I'm a lawyer.
I'm an officer of the court. I'm--have an absolute
obligation to disclose this. <i> So I reported that
to the judge,</i> <i> and the judge held a hearing.</i> <i> ♪ </i> - The allegation was that
juror number 8 was going to <i> a bar and talking
about the case,</i> talking about
potential book deals, and talking about that
a decision had been made <i> to put Scott to death.</i> - They ended up
calling the bartender in. <i> - He was subpoenaed.
he wound up, I guess,</i> taking the fifth,
'cause, uh, he was accompanied by a--by an attorney and, um,
I remained on the trial. <i> - When you think about the
atmosphere that was going on,</i> <i> there was nobody in
the state of California</i> <i> and maybe even in the nation
who was going to relish</i> the possibility of doing
anything to help Scott Peterson. - Being that he was subpoenaed, he had every chance
in the world to take the stand and say
"This is what he said," he--be true to himself. He said nothing. - I don't know what's true. I know what the man said to me. And that in and of itself
should have been enough to
have had that juror excused. - We dismissed
Justin Falconer <i> on rumors, uh, and innuendo.</i> <i> The frustration is</i> there was much more evidence
that there was a problem with
juror number 8 than there ever was with
Justin Falconer. - There were all kind of
machinations where the jurors were basically voting
off the island anybody who was doing the job that they
were supposed to be doing, which was presuming innocence. - Life in prison or death for Scott Peterson, that's
the question facing jurors. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - This was a capital case and</i> each juror had to be able
to say that they were willing or able
to sentence somebody to death, which changes a jury, because
inherently, a death-qualified jury is what they're called, is
going to be more conservative. <i> - The jury that convicted
him of murder is now hearing</i> <i> arguments as to whether he
should get the death penalty</i> <i> or life in prison
without parole.</i> <i> It's been an emotional week
of testimony.</i> <i> - As long as I live,
I will never forget</i> when Sharon Rocha was
called to the stand. <i> ♪ </i> - The thing I remember most
of Laci's mother [breathes deeply]
is when she spoke about her
daughter and her grandson. And she basically channeled. <i> ♪ </i> <i> "Why are you killing me,
daddy?</i> <i> Why don't you love mommy?"</i> I remember the pain that I felt
every time I looked at him. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - Well, Sharon Rocha's
testimony in court,</i> it made a big impression
on all of us. I--I don't know how you
could sit there and, you know, observe this woman,
uh, sobbing, <i> and--and then screaming at
Scott, and not be affected.</i> - It was
absolutely gut-wrenching. Not only did she cry,
but every single member of the jury cried,
as did most of the gallery, including most
of the press corps. <i> ♪ </i> - When they're about to hear
the verdict, they'll flip a switch, and we'll get a live
audio feed-- <i> the sound only--frm
the courthouse, and in fac,</i> <i> I understand that fed
is coming in right no.</i> <i> - The People of the State
of California versus Scott</i> <i> Peterson, we the jury in
the above entitled cause</i> <i> fix the penalty at death.</i> [cheering] - I've been praying
for justice. That's what I said
before the verdict was read. I know that millions of people
have been praying for justice. I think this is justice. <i> ♪ </i> - That day was probably the
lowest point in my life ever. - Anything to say, Mrs.
Peterson? - Did you get to see Scott? <i> - You know, there's not much
that will</i> <i> measure up to
that sinking feeling.</i> - I said it was going
to be death. - It's over.
Thank you. You've been great. <i> - The word closure
means nothing to me.</i> <i> It's just...</i> a word, um, because
nothing--nothing is closed. It doesn't--nothing ends. Um, because Laci's gone,
so that is never going to end-- come to an end--
and close, and I miss her as much today as I did
from the very beginning. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - In California, legal
analysts are full of praise</i> for the jury that recommended Scott
Peterson get the death penalty. - All right, so he's
been convicted and justice has been done, and there's
justice for Laci and Conner. <i> Are we really gonna make
celebrities</i> <i> out of these jurors?</i> <i> Because we did.</i> - I don't think that I'd write a book, but, uh, if--if any of
the jurors want to do that, I'd be more 'n--more than happy to
work on a collaborative. - They just walked
right outside, and boom, we're interviewing all of them. - He is a jerk and I have
one comment for Scott: you look somebody in the face
when they're talking to you. - If you watch the juror
called "Strawberry Shortcake" <i> and you watch her after
and you</i> watch her call
him a vulgar name... - Well, just another day
in paradise for Scott, another day that he had to
go through emotions, but uh-- - Asshole. - He's on his way home,
Scott figures. - I thought, "My Lord,
you're a juror and you just "condemned a man to death and you get up there and say
those type of things?" That just showed me that
it was emotionally charged. - Well, guess what Scotty? - San Quentin's your new home. - And it's--
it's illegal to kill your wife and child
in California. - Most puzzling about this is how--how do you think this--
this crime was committed? What happened? - Can you be a little
more specific? If possible.
- No, you were the jury. I want--what--you should be
specific. How did he do what you
judged he did? What'd he do? - Well, at some point
he decided, um, he wanted to kill his wife
and he killed his wife. He put her in a boat and dumped
her body in the bay. <i> - How do you
think he accomplished</i> <i> this without witnesses?</i> - Well, more than likely
this was done in his home, and the only witness
there that I'd be aware of were perhaps the dog
or the cat. And it doesn't appear that they have any comments. <i> - [chuckles]</i> - I don't believe that I have to know how
somebody killed somebody. The method in which they
used to terminate a life is not of--of importance as much
as it is that I have evidence that leads me
to believe without a reasonable doubt that
they murdered this individual. - There were
numerous things that just, when you added them all up,
they-- they only pointed to one
person. Does it make sense that you
have a wife who's pregnant with your very first child
and you decide you're gonna go fishing where
nobody even knows you are? And a--in a situation,
you know-- what happens if
there was an emergency? <i> You don't go and buy a boat
and not tell anybody.</i> You know, you don't go fishing
by yourself and not tell anybody. It's
just a lot of things like that. - The Amber tapes just sort of
put everything in perspective and put--put it all together. <i> It's just so many
inconsistencies</i> <i> and just his lying.</i> <i> ♪ </i> <i> - He always knew that
Laci wasn't coming home.</i> Just by what he did. So, that
whole time she was missing. <i> - 2 weeks after his pregnant
wife disappeared,</i> <i> Scott Peterson</i> <i> ordered the Playboy Channel
on his satellite system.</i> <i> Four days later, he orders two
hardcore pornography channels.</i> - That just told me that
she was never coming home. <i> He had a sexual addiction.</i> I mean, there was porn, uh,
found, and the stuff that he--that he,
uh, ordered from cable was strictly porn,
it wasn't hard R. <i> And Laci was pretty
much a conservative woman wh,</i> <i> you know, wasn't into that.</i> Knowing that his wife would
never accept that is like, you know this f--she's never
coming home. I'm gonna do the
things that I want to do now. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - If you had a chance to talk</i> <i> with Scott Peterson,
what would you ask?</i> - I guess my question to
Scott would be that, Scott, do you miss the Dish Network? [laughter] - Yeah, when you miss it in
the living room-- - Oh my God, that was-- - And if--and if so,
what movie would you select? - What do you say to that?
Is that based on logic? Is that based on
a rational person's thinking? Or is that just emotion, vitriol, hate,
and let's-get-him? <i> - One of the things I
say to people about this case</i> <i> is if you know it from
watching television, probably</i> almost everything you believe
to be true about the case is not, with the exception of the fact
that Scott, uh, was unfaithful. - The trial of
one Scott Peterson. A story of sex,
lies, so many lies. - The leaks in this case
was about the smell of bleach-- <i> - The authorities in San Luis
Obispo are looking at Scott</i> <i> Peterson in connection
with the disappearance</i> <i> of Kristin Smart.</i> - We solved that burglary, found out that it in fact
occurred on the 26th. - I- I don't know
whether he did it, I don't, but I do know they didn't prove
it beyond a reasonable doubt. - Personally, when I think
of Scott Peterson's case today, I think of a case
that truly wasn't solved. <i> ♪ </i> I still feel there still may be something else out
there that's been missed. <i> ♪ </i> <i> - After the trial, people
would say "Well, what do</i> you think happened if you don't think Scott did?" My belief from day one
was that it <i> was a direct result of the
burglary across the street.</i> <i> We began to learn
more and more</i> <i> about the burglary
after the trial.</i> We hit on a tip
from a Lieutenant Aponte. - I happened to be going
through the discovery and was looking at the tip lines
and I found the tips and I go, "Oh my goodness,
I can't believe this." <i> This Lieutenant Aponte had</i> <i> called in Modesto police
department to--</i> on their tip line and said that
Laci had gone across the street and had confronted the burglars
and they threatened her. This was based upon a taped
conversation between an inmate and a person in Modesto who <i> turned out to be
the inmate's brother.</i> <i> ♪ </i> - It's just absolutely
mind-boggling that he is sitting on death row,
convicted of murdering his wife and unborn son, and nobody
has been asked more than three questions about that burglary. - It's tough to--to think that
there's a chance that he might not be guilty and that
he's now sitting on death row. <i> - The truth was,
is, and will always be</i> Scott Peterson murdered Laci. - They were wrong.
We will get justice. <i> - They came across these</i> handwritten
notes from the mailman. - The--the jury didn't
have a complete picture. - It's Laci that
opened that gate. <i> It couldn't be anybody else.</i> - This is the house
that's important, 516 Covena. <i> - And if that's true,</i> Scott Peterson is stone cold
innocent. <i> - They sat on that information</i> literally until the day
Scott was convicted.
