YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Scott Peterson: Evidence of Innocence You Never Heard | What the A&E Doc might miss

Scott Peterson: Evidence of Innocence You Never Heard | What the A&E Doc might miss — Transcript

by True Crime Matters with Tara Marie · 13,682 words · 2,080 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00This has to be a mistake. The police
0:02will look at all the evidence and
0:04realize I had nothing to do with any of
0:06this. And even if they don't, my lawyer
0:09will fix this.
0:11That's how it's supposed to work, right?
0:14You assume if you're innocent, the truth
0:17is your shield. That is what most people
0:20believe until they find themselves
0:23sitting on the other side of that
0:24interrogation room door.
0:27That naive trust is the beginning of the
0:30nightmare for tens of thousands of
0:33people each year who end up wrongfully
0:36convicted.
0:37Experts estimate that between 1 to 6% of
0:41all defendants in the US are wrongfully
0:44convicted. And because it is so
0:47difficult to overturn a conviction
0:49whether you're guilty or not, the
0:51justice system only officially clears a
0:54very small fraction of those cases.
0:57Thus, the exact annual number of
1:00wrongfully convicted cases remains
1:02unknown. And for the last two decades,
1:05Scott Peterson says this has been his
1:09quiet, desperate reality.
1:11But now the world is looking at his case
1:14again. And this week, millions of people
1:17are likely to tune in to a 4-hour
1:19[snorts] event on A&E called Scott
1:22Peterson, the new evidence. And this
1:25documentary is about to challenge 20
1:28years of assumptions.
1:30It promises to be a deep dive into some
1:33of the new evidence that many have been
1:36waiting for. But here's the problem. 4
1:39hours is a long time. Sure, but I don't
1:42believe it's nearly enough to begin to
1:45scrape the surface on the layers of
1:48information and evidence in this case
1:50that so many people are starting to
1:52realize doesn't really make a whole lot
1:54of sense. And much of what doesn't make
1:57sense is the actual police evidence that
2:01contradicts the narrative of the state.
2:04And much of it is information most of
2:08the public has never heard.
2:11That said, I just wanted to take some
2:13time to discuss what I think the
2:15documentary is going to show and what we
2:18might see. But I also wanted to discuss
2:20some things that we may not see
2:22mentioned in those four hours that I
2:25think are pretty jaw-dropping.
2:27Because to truly understand why the LA
2:30Innocence Project picked up Scott
2:32Peterson's case, what they are fighting
2:34for and what they are fighting against,
2:37we have to look at the evidence behind
2:40the evidence. You think you know, by the
2:42way, I'm sorry if this is distracting. I
2:44know I keep waving it around. It's just
2:46so delicious. I can't put it down. It's
2:48like a little bit of tea, like just
2:50regular black tea with just hazelnut
2:52creamer. It is so delicious. Anyway,
2:54back to it. So, if you want a preview of
2:56exactly what the documentary is probably
2:58going to focus on, you just have to look
3:00at the recent Crime Con panel where they
3:03brought out consulting producer Chris
3:05Pixley, Scott Peterson's original
3:08defense attorney, Mark Garos, and former
3:11LAPD investigator and police practices
3:14expert Nanette Tusby. It is truly a
3:17fascinating eyeopening discussion. So,
3:20if you haven't seen the video of the
3:22Crime Con panel, I highly recommend
3:25watching it. I'm going to link it down
3:26below, actually, so you can easily
3:28access it. So, Chris Pixley used a very
3:31specific phrase to describe what this
3:34documentary is going to do. He said they
3:37were going to quote stress test the new
3:40science. Now, Pixley, an ABC News legal
3:44consultant involved in the Peterson case
3:46from day one, offered a really revealing
3:49look at the hostile climate back then.
3:52While speaking on the Crime Con panel,
3:55he described how he was tasked with
3:58providing a defense perspective on TV
4:00rather than just echoing the dominant
4:03media narrative. Yet, he was faced with
4:06intense backlash simply for doing his
4:09job. He noted that even his peers whose
4:12job it was to also remain objective
4:15sided with the state. In his words,
4:18simply because it was the popular thing
4:20to do. Mark Garagos echoed this,
4:23describing how he himself faced extreme
4:26scrutiny and even had bomb threats
4:28outside his home just for taking the
4:31case. That discussion really highlighted
4:34the toxic lynch mob mentality of the
4:37time. Professionals were being viciously
4:40attacked for upholding a citizen's
4:43constitutional right to a defense long
4:46before Scott ever saw his first day in
4:50court. On this panel, Garagos also
4:53explained how the nail in the coffin for
4:56Scott was really when Amber Fry, the
4:59massage therapist that Scott had met on
5:02a blind date just three weeks before
5:04Lacy went missing, came forward. Garagos
5:08explained how Scott was reluctant to be
5:10honest about the affair he was having
5:12because he had seen firsthand what
5:15happened to Gary Condit, Scott's
5:17congressman, when it was revealed that
5:20Condit had cheated on his wife with
5:22Shandra Levy, a woman who went missing
5:25from Modesto. Now, Scott was living in
5:28Modesto, and the Levy case had been a
5:32massive ordeal in the area less than a
5:35year before Lacy went missing. In other
5:37words, Scott had this feeling that the
5:42second it came out that he was cheating
5:44on his pregnant wife, the police would
5:47decide that that was enough evidence to
5:50pin the crime on him, just like what
5:52happened to Gary Condit. And what's
5:55worse, he feared that they would stop
5:58looking and searching for his pregnant
6:00wife. But one of the most interesting
6:03takeaways from the panel, in my opinion,
6:06came from former LAPD investigator and
6:09police practices expert Nette. She was
6:12very vocal that the sheer number of
6:15questions still lingering this day in
6:17the case is a clear sign of a poorly
6:20conducted police investigation. She
6:23actually pointed out that one of the
6:25most glaring issues in this case is that
6:28nearly 20 different neighbors called the
6:31police just days after Lacy's
6:33disappearance and they reported seeing
6:36Lacy walking the dog, the dog running
6:39loose or suspicious men standing outside
6:43the Peterson's neighbor's house in what
6:46appeared to be an act of burglary. Now,
6:49that's bad enough that there are so many
6:52neighbors who claimed this. But what's
6:54worse is that almost none of those
6:58witnesses were ever called back. Again,
7:02these were people who were calling
7:05repeatedly, physically, showing up at
7:07the station or approaching officers on
7:10the ground. We are talking about the
7:12first 48 hours of a missing person
7:15investigation. How do you have 20
7:18witnesses from the neighborhood calling
7:21in? Many of them calling multiple times
7:24only to get not even a call back. What
7:27kind of an investigation ignores its own
7:30eyewitnesses?
7:32And years later, these people are still
7:34adamant about what they saw. One of them
7:37was a history teacher named Mike Chveta,
7:40who lived just three houses down from
7:43the Petersons. And because he was their
7:45neighbor, he told the police he was sure
7:47he saw their dog in the park dragging
7:50his leash closer to 10:15 a.m., which
7:53was a time that would have been after
7:56Scott left the home for the day. This
7:59neighbor was also sure the dog he saw
8:02was the Peterson's dog because he said
8:03the dog had a very distinct look. Plus,
8:06he was hyper aware of another dog in the
8:09park because he was there with his own
8:10dog. But the kicker was that he said he
8:14was also pretty sure he saw Lacy too,
8:17wearing a white top and black pants out
8:19of the corner of his eye, which is
8:22actually what Scott had told police Lacy
8:25had been wearing when he left for the
8:27day. However, since he was almost sure
8:30he saw Lacy, he told police he couldn't
8:33be positive about seeing Lacy, but he
8:36was positive about seeing their dog.
8:38This same neighbor also mentioned seeing
8:41a creepy van that gave him bad vibes, a
8:44Hispanic male standing outside of it.
8:46This sighting perfectly overlaps with
8:49the story of another witness known as
8:51CH. He was riding his bike through the
8:54same park around the exact same time and
8:57reported seeing a woman who looked like
9:00Lacy wearing a white shirt and black
9:02pants walking alongside a golden
9:05retriever. But his story gets even more
9:08concerning because stated that on his
9:13way home in the morning, he rode his
9:16bike back down Coina, the street where
9:19the Petersons live. And he said as he
9:22passed, he saw a suspicious white van
9:25with men standing outside of it, outside
9:28of the Peterson's neighbor's home. He
9:31saw two men near the back of the van.
9:34One was a tall white man and the other
9:37was a quote shorter Hispanic man. He
9:39could have been Mexican end. He also saw
9:43a third man quote a white man inside the
9:46back who was hitting or pushing down on
9:49something. Once Lacy's disappearance
9:52exploded all over the news, he
9:56recognized her as the woman he had seen
9:58in the park. And when reports of the
10:02neighborhood burglary came out, he was
10:04certain that he had seen that burglary
10:06in action with those men. Knowing how
10:09crucial all of this information would be
10:11to the police, his friend's parent
10:13actually drove him down to the police
10:16station to report it. But when he
10:18arrived and tried to tell his story, a
10:21detective simply replied to him, "We've
10:23got our guy, but thanks." Or something
10:26to that effect. Mind you, this was the
10:28response of the detective before anyone
10:30had even been arrested for the burglary.
10:34And while there was still an active
10:36missing person's investigation ongoing,
10:39CH should have been sat right down then
10:42and interviewed about both cases.
10:45Instead, he was completely turned away.
10:48And here is what makes that dismissal so
10:51egregious.
10:53At least one other neighbor believed
10:56that she also saw a white van and
10:58strange men standing outside of it, some
11:00of them Hispanicl looking. So that
11:02report had also perfectly corroborated
11:05the timeline that CH had. Police had
11:08multiple witnesses pointing to the same
11:11critical window and they chose not to
11:14look. and before people tried to say,
11:17"Well, if these witnesses were really
11:20all that credible," his attorney would
11:22have put them on the stand, that
11:25argument is a massive irrelevant red
11:28herring. It attempts to distract from
11:31the actual issue because the reality is
11:35at the time these calls were coming in,
11:37this was still a missing person's
11:39investigation and the police were flat
11:41out refusing to do their job to
11:44investigate the sightings of the missing
11:47person. Arguing that the defense's
11:49failure to call these witnesses somehow
11:52absolves the police of doing their job
11:54is absurd. You know what it's like? It's
11:58like a fire chief ignoring multiple 911
12:01calls about smoke pouring out of a house
12:04because he's decided it's probably just
12:06a backyard barbecue. And when the house
12:10inevitably burns down, killing the
12:12family, it's like the fire chief
12:14pointing to the homeowner's insurance
12:16lawyers and saying, "Well,
12:19if the fire was really that dangerous,
12:21the lawyers would have just grabbed a
12:23hose and put it out themselves."
12:26I mean, what are you talking about? No.
12:28No, ma'am. You cannot shift the burden
12:31of an active realtime crisis away from
12:35the entity obligated to do their job and
12:38then dump it onto the people forced to
12:41litigate the aftermath of their failure.
12:44I mean, you could try to dump it on
12:46them, but you'd be wrong. Plus, they
12:48weren't even investigated, so who knows
12:50what they would have actually led to,
12:52right? Also, this logic that the defense
12:55should have and could have put these
12:57witnesses on the stand to fight the
12:59state's timeline also completely ignores
13:02the overwhelming hatred of Scott
13:04Peterson, the power of narrative
13:07construction and the media's influence
13:10at the time. Because by the time this
13:12case went to trial, the lynch mob and
13:15the media had already delivered a
13:17verdict. Anyone who came forward with
13:21information that contradicted the
13:23established timeline was publicly
13:25crucified and accused of helping a
13:27psychopath, which was discussed in depth
13:30during this Crime Con panel. Witnesses
13:33and even dismissed jurors were harassed,
13:36intimidated, and terrified to speak out
13:39against this modern-day witch hunt. Some
13:43of them even had to actually relocate
13:45out of the state just to get away from
13:47the death threats. But really, witness
13:50intimidation is secondary to the
13:53fundamental legal failure. Under 2002
13:56California Commission on Peace Officer
13:58Standards and training guidelines,
14:01police do not get to play judge and jury
14:05in the first 48 hours. Their mandate is
14:08to vigorously pursue, vet, and document
14:12all leads, both inculpatory and
14:15exculpatory,
14:17especially within the neighborhood of
14:19the missing person along their walking
14:22route. When law enforcement actively
14:26ignores or buries neighborhood witnesses
14:30because their sightings don't fit into
14:32their preferred timeline,
14:34they actually poison the well from the
14:37start. This is exactly the point the
14:40police practices expert was making on
14:42the Crime Con panel. Also, here's
14:45something else I've always found
14:46disturbing. The police based their
14:49timeline of the crime really on a
14:52neighbor, Karen's service. She said at
14:5410:18, the morning that Lacy vanished,
14:57she was about to back out of her
14:58driveway when she saw the Peterson dog
15:01wandering the street with its leash on.
15:03So, she got out of her car, put the dog
15:07back in the yard, and she even noted
15:09that the leash was so muddy and covered
15:11in grass that she had to go back inside
15:13her house to wash her hands. But here's
15:17the issue. She based her timeline
15:19entirely on a gueststimate of her
15:21morning errands. Now compare that to the
15:25statement of the mailman, Russell Grey
15:27Bill. On December 27th, 2002, Grey Bill
15:31was interviewed by officers from the
15:32Modesto Police Department. According to
15:35their handwritten police reports,
15:36Greyville stated the following in
15:39response to the officer's question what
15:42he remembered about the morning of
15:44December 24th, 2002 when he delivered
15:47the mail. And he said he couldn't
15:49remember anything unusual from the house
15:52that was burglarized, but he remembered
15:54that at the Peterson house the gate was
15:56open. He noted that the dog always barks
15:59at him, but on that day, December 24th,
16:02the gate was open and he did not hear
16:05the Peterson's dog. Now, this male man
16:09knew the Peterson's dog and explained to
16:11police that the dog would bark at him.
16:14No matter where on the property the dog
16:16happened to be, whether the dog was in
16:18the front yard or the backyard or even
16:21inside the house, the dog would bark at
16:24this mailman. Now, those of us who know
16:28male men and male women know that
16:30they're extremely hyper aware of dogs.
16:33So, it is very interesting that he
16:36volunteered that information about the
16:38dog, not realizing how relevant the dog
16:42is to this entire case. Now, mailman
16:45even back then when they would scan
16:47packages, it would come up in the system
16:49and it was logged in the system. So, he
16:51knew that he was on the Peterson Street
16:54sometime between 10:35 and 11:00 a.m.
16:57So, that would have been a more
16:59meticulous timeline for when he would
17:01have been on this entire street. So,
17:04let's think about the state story.
17:06According to them, Lacy was already dead
17:09and Scott had left the house by 10:00
17:12a.m. But if the mailman didn't go to
17:15that street until between 10:35 and
17:1711:00 a.m., how could the dog be missing
17:20and the gate be open after 10:18 a.m.,
17:24which is when Karen supposedly put him
17:26back in the backyard? I mean, looking at
17:29it objectively, there's two options.
17:31Either Karen was completely wrong about
17:34her timing, which messes with the
17:35state's timeline, or Lacy was still
17:38alive, and after Karen put the dog back,
17:41Lacy took him back out again. That
17:44second option actually perfectly
17:46explains why the neighbor three doors
17:48down and and CH both reported seeing
17:51Lacy walking in the park after 10:00
17:54a.m. Either way, it was law
17:56enforcement's duty to investigate that
17:59massive discrepancy. and the two
18:01eyewitnesses saying they saw her or the
18:05dog in the park after Karen supposedly
18:08put the dog back. Instead, they just
18:10kind of buried the mailman's statement,
18:13forcing him to file multiple
18:15declarations over the years just to keep
18:18his statement about not hearing the dog
18:20and the gate being open on the record.
18:23Now, let's look at the other side of the
18:25timeline. What was Scott Peterson doing
18:28throughout that day? what did his day
18:31look like during all these sightings?
18:33So, he told investigators he recalled
18:35watching Martha Stewart with Lacy, which
18:38was her favorite show. And when police
18:41asked what Martha was talking about in
18:43the show, Scott said something about
18:45Morang. So, the detective obtained and
18:48reviewed this Martha Stewart show from
18:51the 24th and he insisted that Martha
18:54Stewart never mentioned Mering. However,
18:57when the defense obtained a copy of that
19:00tape, they actually proved the detective
19:02wrong because at exactly 9:48 a.m. on
19:05December 24th, Martha Stewart began
19:08mentioning and speaking about Mering.
19:11Now, Scott told police he left shortly
19:13after that to drive to his work
19:15warehouse where his boat was stored,
19:17which was about a 9-minute drive from
19:19the house. This boat was a 14 foot game
19:23fisher boat. So, it wasn't like this big
19:25boat at all. On this drive to his
19:27warehouse, Scott made a call on his cell
19:30phone at 10:08 a.m. to retrieve
19:33voicemails. Many of you don't remember,
19:36but 20 years ago, you would have to call
19:38your voicemail to listen to messages.
19:41It's not like today where you just like,
19:43you know, you click on voicemail. No,
19:45you actually had to dial in to listen.
19:47So, at 10:08 a.m., he was listening to
19:50those messages and Scott arrived at his
19:53warehouse shortly after 10:08 a.m. and
19:55he turned on his work computer and he
19:58used it to send a holiday mail to his
20:00boss and repeatedly visited websites on
20:04instructions on how to assemble a
20:06mortiser, which is a specific
20:08woodworking tool that he had just
20:10purchased on eBay and received. So
20:13several of his searches on the internet
20:16indicated that he was trying to figure
20:18out how to assemble this tool while
20:20missing necessary tools. So, information
20:24from his hard drive indicates that Scott
20:26was actively using his computer from
20:28shortly after 10:08 until almost 11:00
20:31a.m. And police believe he roughly left
20:33his warehouse at 11:18 a.m. Now, based
20:37on travel times from the warehouse to
20:39the marina, Scott would have left around
20:4211:20. So, that checks out. And he
20:45arrived at the marina by 12:54 p.m. And
20:49we know this because he obtained a
20:50marina parking ticket. So, two
20:52maintenance workers saw him backing the
20:56boat down the ramp and struggling to do
20:58so. And all parties, including Scott,
21:01later told police that they all shared a
21:04laugh about his difficulty trying to get
21:06the boat in the water. Now, this of
21:09course would have been a boat that
21:12allegedly openly contained a body during
21:15all of these shared laughs. Scott then
21:18detached the boat and drove his truck
21:21away from it, leaving multiple people
21:24hovering near the boat as it was
21:26unattended.
21:27And then Scott went out on the bay for
21:30just over an hour. And he told police
21:32his primary intention was simply to get
21:34the boat in the water to test how it
21:36handled. It was a used boat he had just
21:39purchased, and he had never operated it
21:41before. He claimed that it wasn't a
21:43serious fishing trip, although he did
21:45troll for a bit. And he brought along
21:48his tackle box and a fishing license
21:50just in case he caught anything. And
21:53here's a detail that often gets
21:55overlooked. Scott had actually tried to
21:58buy a seasonal fishing license, but the
22:01marina store was sold out since it was
22:04December, so he just bought a two-day
22:07license instead along with two new
22:10lures. Now, think about that. People who
22:14are simply boating don't need a fishing
22:16license. If his only goal was to dump a
22:20body and to get off the water, why would
22:22he bother with the expense of the
22:24paperwork of a fishing license? And
22:26what's more, he already had plenty of
22:28tackle in his tackle box? He could have
22:31just said he was using any of those
22:33pieces of bait. Why would he purchase
22:36two new lures unless he was really
22:39interested in fishing for a specific
22:41type of fish? Scott had also claimed
22:44that the boat was intended to be a
22:46Christmas morning surprise for Lacy's
22:48stepfather, Ron Gransky, to surprise him
22:52during the Christmas brunch him and Lacy
22:53were hosting the next day and that Lacy
22:56herself knew about it. Now, this is a
22:59detail that police tried to investigate,
23:02and it holds up to scrutiny, too,
23:04because there was at least one witness
23:06who saw Lacy at Scott's warehouse in the
23:10days leading up to her disappearance,
23:12and it would have been nearly impossible
23:15for her to go into his warehouse and
23:17miss seeing a boat. Police also found
23:20Post-it notes that appear to be in
23:23Lacy's handwriting, which seem to be
23:26pricing out the cost of an anchor from
23:28two separate marina stores. And think
23:32about the financial logistics, too. The
23:35state tried to paint this as a secretive
23:38purchase, but Scott used money from
23:40their joint bank account for the
23:42purchase. And the reality is Ron was an
23:46avid fisherman who fished almost daily.
23:48Yet, he didn't own a boat. He relied on
23:51a float. Ron testified that most of his
23:54conversations with Scott always revolved
23:57around fishing. Scott wasn't just buying
23:59the boat for himself. He claimed he was
24:02setting it up for his father-in-law to
24:04use as well, creating an opportunity for
24:06them to be able to bond with his new son
24:09on the way. And some of you might not
24:11know, but the theme of the nursery was a
24:15nautical theme. Scott claimed that when
24:17he was a child, some of the most fun he
24:19ever had was fishing with relatives. So,
24:22he said he really wanted this boat as a
24:24joint boat for the family to be able to
24:26use. And this later checked out in the
24:30trial, too, because family members, at
24:32least one of them, testified that Scott,
24:35when he was younger, was really the one
24:37who tried to get family members together
24:38to go fishing. It was something he
24:41really loved as a child. So, we know
24:43that Scott left the marina at about 2:12
24:46p.m. because he placed phone calls and
24:49he called Lacy twice. He made a 29
24:52second call to the home phone, which
24:54would have been about five rings before
24:56the answering machine picked up. And
24:57then he immediately placed a 30-se
25:00secondond call to Lacy's cell phone.
25:02>> Hey, beautiful. I just left a message at
25:04home. Uh [music] 2:15, I live in
25:07Berkeley. I won't be able to get to
25:08Farms to get that basket for Papa. I was
25:11hoping you would get this message and uh
25:13go on out there. I'll see you in a bit.
25:15We love you. Bye.
25:18>> End of message.
25:19>> The night before, Scott had gotten a
25:21haircut from Lacy's sister and had
25:23volunteered to pick up a holiday basket
25:26for Lacy's grandfather. It had to be
25:29collected by 400 p.m. when the farm
25:31market closed. And Scott realized he was
25:34getting stuck in holiday traffic. and he
25:36would not only be late for the 4:00
25:39agreed upon time. He told Lacy he'd be
25:42home so they could go to her mother's
25:45for Christmas Eve dinner, but he also
25:48needed to ask Lacy to help and grab the
25:50holiday basket before the market closed.
25:53He also made a gasoline purchase in
25:55Liverour at 3:25 p.m. Based on travel
25:59time from Liverour, he arrived back at
26:02the warehouse at 4:26 p.m. And Scott
26:05estimated that he arrived home between
26:074:30 and 4:45.
26:10Now, when Scott got home, he would
26:11always walk through the back gate. And
26:13when he walked in, he immediately saw
26:15that the dog was in the yard with his
26:17leash on. And he also noticed the back
26:20door was unlocked. He noticed that
26:22Lacy's car was home, but he quickly
26:25realized she wasn't home. And because he
26:27was late, he claims he assumed that her
26:30mother had picked her up to maybe run
26:34errands or head over to get some help
26:36with dinner. Something he said really
26:38would not have been out of the ordinary.
26:41And it was only when he played the
26:43answering machine messages and heard the
26:45message from Lacy's stepfather Ron
26:48asking them to broom whipped cream when
26:50they came over that he immediately began
26:53to get concerned and he called Lacy's
26:55mother. Now consider the logistics. The
26:59warehouse where Scott worked was in a
27:01complex where multiple businesses rented
27:03offices. if he had Lacy's body in his
27:07truck, he would have to drag her body
27:10into the warehouse in plain sight. The
27:12state tried to theorize that he backed
27:14his truck into the warehouse, but the
27:16defense demonstrated that this was
27:18actually physically impossible. And
27:21furthermore, if he was spending the bulk
27:24of his time reading work files and
27:27researching how to put a tool together
27:29and putting the tool together, how would
27:32he have enough time to prep, you know,
27:33to move a body and prep the boat with
27:36anchors? Additionally, like you would
27:38think that somebody who had just
27:40committed a murder would be in like a
27:42bit more of a rush to dispose of the
27:45body rather than like diddling around on
27:48the computer for like an hour and
27:49putting together a tool. Police
27:52confirmed that the woodworking tool was
27:54partially assembled, so he was in fact
27:57working on it since he had just gotten
27:59it. Then police questioned why he chose
28:01the bay instead of local fishing spots.
28:04However, if they had looked at his home
28:07computer, they would have seen that
28:09Scott had been researching sturgeon,
28:12which is a type of fish more likely to
28:15be caught in saltwater in the bay that
28:18time of year. Plus, Scott's sister, Anne
28:21Bird, who lived in the San Francisco Bay
28:23area, lived right at the bay, so he had
28:26family nearby. He also traveled every
28:29day for work a great deal, and was
28:31accustomed to overnight trips. So
28:34driving to Berkeley Marina really
28:36wouldn't have been that unusual for him
28:39and Lacy to be out that day. And
28:41furthermore, Lacy and Scott had just
28:43gone to an ultrasound appointment the
28:46day prior. Lacy was barely even 8 months
28:48pregnant yet and not really near the
28:51time where she was ready to give birth.
28:53Ultimately, many aspects of both the
28:56eyewitness's timeline and Scott's own
28:59timeline don't necessarily make sense
29:02with the state's narrative, especially
29:04considering that no forensic evidence
29:06was found in the home, truck, warehouse,
29:10or boat. And this is exactly what
29:12multiple police practices experts are
29:15pointing out today. We should not still
29:18have these kinds of questions 20 years
29:21later because there are so many
29:24lingering discrepancies. It becomes
29:27glaringly obvious how this should have
29:30been investigated
29:32back in 2002. This is the reality of the
29:36Lacy Peterson investigation because the
29:39deeper you look into the details, the
29:41more it seems possible that there was a
29:45lot of tunnel vision going on here. And
29:47it is precisely why police practices
29:50experts are publicly stating that in
29:52some instances, law enforcement's
29:55actions weren't just negligent in this
29:58case. They actually bordered on
30:01criminal. Now, police practices expert
30:03Tolsby mentioned on that panel that
30:06their actions were bordering on criminal
30:08or actually criminal. And when she says
30:11that, I believe she's pointing directly
30:13to the recent allegations that police
30:15suppressed and destroyed multiple pieces
30:18of evidence related to the neighborhood
30:20burglary. And that includes a burned van
30:23that was found just 12 hours after
30:25Lacy's disappearance, allegedly parked
30:28in the alley right behind the alibi
30:31location of one of the burglars. And
30:33what's worse is that some of this
30:35physical evidence connected to the
30:37burglary was destroyed just two weeks
30:41after Scott Peterson's arrest, the very
30:44day after investigators held a key
30:47meeting to discuss discovery issues in
30:50the Peterson case. And all of that
30:53honestly is just scratching the surface.
30:55The A&E documentary seems to promise to
30:58go into a lot more than what I just
31:01mentioned, and we'll likely even hear
31:04from some of those witnesses who were
31:05turned away by police. And it appears
31:07the documentary is going to lean heavily
31:11on the specific claims the LA Innocence
31:13Project made in their massive 650 page
31:18habius petition, which was filed with
31:20the court just last summer. Now, if
31:22you've read that petition, you know
31:25there are two major scientific claims
31:28the documentary will likely stress test.
31:30Claim one and claim two that completely
31:34obliterate the state's version of
31:37events. And by the way, if you want a
31:40deeper dive into that petition, I
31:42actually read through a lot of it and
31:44showed portions of those exact documents
31:47in previous videos. So, I'll link that
31:49down below if you want to check that
31:50out. But I have to preface this by
31:52pointing out something crucial. These
31:54claims represent some of the only actual
31:58scientific evidence that exists in this
32:01entire case. And both of them seem to
32:05point directly away from Scott Peterson.
32:08So let's dig into claim one, the fetal
32:10biometry that we'll hear about in the
32:11upcoming documentary. So, at the
32:14original trial, the entire case against
32:16Scott Peterson started with the idea
32:18that Lacy and her unborn son Connor were
32:21killed on December 23rd or the morning
32:24of December 24th. Now, why does that
32:26date matter? Well, because it made Scott
32:30the only possible killer since they were
32:32home alone together that night and
32:34morning. So to prove their case, the
32:38prosecution needed specific backing that
32:42perfectly suited their theory. So they
32:45brought in an expert named Dr. Gregory
32:48D'vor to validate their exact timeline.
32:51And Dr. D'vor told the jury that based
32:54on post-mortem measurements of Connor's
32:57femur bone, Connor died on December 23rd
33:00or December 24th. But there were two
33:03massive problems with that finding that
33:05wouldn't come to light until after the
33:08trial. First, Dr. D'Vor was relying on
33:11outdated medical research from 1984.
33:15And secondly, he didn't even do the math
33:17right. Dr. Janti, the actual creator of
33:21the formula D'vor used under oath, later
33:25filed a declaration stating that you
33:27cannot just measure the femur. You must
33:30also measure the tibia and fibula for
33:33accuracy. And when Dr. Jeantry applied
33:37his own correct formula to the bones, it
33:40showed that Connor lived well past
33:42December 24th. In fact, it showed that
33:45Connor more likely lived in to January.
33:49Flash forward to today. The LA Innocence
33:52Project brought in a leading expert in
33:54obstetric radiology, Dr. Peter Dubé. He
33:58looked at massive multinational
34:01longitudinal studies published in 2002
34:04by the World Health Organization and the
34:07National Institute for Child Health
34:10Development. And these new studies
34:12tracked thousands of women over several
34:15years, creating far more precise,
34:19reliable fetal growth charts. And
34:22according to this new science, Connor
34:24did not die on December 23rd or December
34:2824th. The data shows he was alive until
34:30sometime between December 28th and
34:33January 5th, with the most likely date
34:36of death being January 1st, 2003. But
34:40here is the absolute bombshell that it's
34:42almost certain and he will include. The
34:45defense team recently interviewed the
34:48state's original expert, Dr. divor. And
34:52when they showed him the new 2002
34:54studies, he agreed with them. That's
34:57right. Arguably the state's only
35:00scientific or forensic expert in the
35:03entire case admitted that he
35:04recalculated Connor<unk>'s gational age
35:07at the time of death to be 34 weeks and
35:103 days, which corresponds to a date of
35:12death on January 2nd, 2003.
35:16Let that sink in. the state's own expert
35:19admits his validation of the
35:21prosecution's timeline to the jury was
35:24wrong. And what's more, it's on record
35:27that some of the jurors publicly stated
35:30that they relied on divorce testimony to
35:33convict Scott, with one juror even
35:36describing it as quote indisputable.
35:39If Lacy was alive for over a week after
35:42she went missing, Scott Peterson could
35:44not have killed her. The police were
35:46already practically living with him by
35:49then. And that brings up the next
35:52question. If she was alive for days, how
35:55did she end up in the San Francisco Bay
35:58right where Scott was fishing? Well,
36:01this brings us to claim number two, the
36:03water modeling. At trial, the state
36:06called an expert named Dr. Ralph Chang.
36:10He told the jury that the bodies landed
36:12where they did, which was above the
36:15water line along the shore because they
36:17were dumped, quote, precisely where
36:19petitioner fished. On December 24th, the
36:23prosecution literally told the jury in
36:26closing arguments, quote, "If Dr. Chang
36:29is believed, then that man's a
36:32murderer." It's as simple as that. But
36:35guess what? Dr. Chang didn't use any
36:39actual science. He did not use the wind,
36:43tide, or bay current data from 2002.
36:47This did not stop him from telling the
36:49jury the body was placed exactly where
36:52he was fishing based on how they were
36:54found along the bay shoreline. Now, the
36:57LA Innocence Project has brought in Dr.
36:59Russell Fegan, who is a leading expert
37:02in coastal ecology from Texas&M.
37:06This man spent over 300 hours building a
37:09state-of-the-art Delft 3D flow model.
37:13Unlike the 2004 original state trial
37:16expert who relied on assumptions, Dr.
37:19Fan used actual historical wind, tide,
37:22and freshwater discharge data from the
37:25exact days Lacy and Connor disappeared.
37:29And what he found is pretty explosive.
37:32The water in that part of the bay where
37:34Scott had been fishing flows [snorts]
37:37in a counterclockwise direction. Dr.
37:40Figgan proved mathematically that if a
37:43body had been dropped in the area where
37:46Scott Peterson was fishing, [snorts] it
37:48would have traveled northwest and been
37:51taken out to sea. It would have never
37:53floated to where the remains were
37:55actually discovered. Thus, once again,
37:58the state's expert was dead wrong. So,
38:02after proving with his model that if
38:04Scott had dumped the bodies at his
38:06fishing location, they would have been
38:08carried further out to sea, Dr. Figgan
38:11then ran the 3D model backwards,
38:14essentially reverse engineering where
38:16the dump location would have been. He
38:19started at the recovery sites and then
38:22tracked where the bodies would have
38:24originated from based on the bay's
38:26historical currents. And guess what? The
38:30backtracking led to a very specific
38:33spot. It was a small inlet south of
38:35Point Isbel known as the Albany Bulb.
38:39Now, if you aren't familiar with the
38:40Albany Bulb, it's a peninsula, a former
38:43landfill that was turned into a public
38:45park with walking trails, and it has
38:48numerous remote land access points.
38:51Meaning, whoever put Lacy's body in the
38:54water, didn't even need a boat. They
38:56could have just backed a van right up to
38:59the water's edge and done it from land.
39:03And when you take all of the science
39:05into account, both the new fetal growth
39:07data and the current modeling, it's
39:10likely the bodies were dumped somewhere
39:12after January 1st, right off the Albany
39:16bulb. Now, that would have been a time
39:18when Scott's fishing location was
39:20already known to the entire world. And
39:23here's a detail about the Albany Bulb
39:25that actually gave me chills when I read
39:27it. According to 2002 park records, the
39:32waters around the bulb were heavily
39:34populated by red algae. Now, why does
39:38that matter? Because the criminalist who
39:41examined the khaki pants that Lacy was
39:44wearing when she was found noted a
39:46pinkish stain covering her pants that
39:50tested negative for blood. And the
39:53criminalists explicitly queried if the
39:55staining was from red algae, meaning the
39:59body had to have been in that specific
40:01area of the bay long enough to actually
40:05dye her pants that color. That is highly
40:08significant because the Albany bulb was
40:10one of the only areas of the bay that
40:13was not searched near Scott's fishing
40:16location. Why? Well, because it was too
40:19shallow for their search boats and
40:20divers to even get to. That would
40:23explain perfectly why the body could
40:25have been there for months without ever
40:28being detected. And as a quick sidebar,
40:31they started the bay searches on
40:33December 30th. This was a pretty busy
40:35marina where people actually lived on
40:38their boats on a busy holiday with
40:40people watching him everywhere. Does it
40:43really make sense that this dude is
40:45going to just leave a body sitting in an
40:48unattended boat in broad daylight in
40:50front of multiple people? Plus, it was a
40:53used boat that he just purchased. He'd
40:54never tried it out. It had never even
40:57been in saltwater. Let's not forget that
40:59the state claimed her body was anchored
41:02down with cement weights that Scott
41:04supposedly made, even though they never
41:06proved those weights ever existed, aside
41:09the one that he made to use as an anchor
41:12for his boat. So, if they were actively
41:15scanning his fishing location since the
41:1730th, wouldn't they have seen a weighed
41:20down body? Wouldn't it have been
41:22noticeable right away? or wouldn't they
41:24have at least found the anchors? Because
41:25the sonar on those boats was pretty
41:27powerful. And that area of the bay where
41:29he was fishing was only like 6 ft deep.
41:31That's not even counting the physics of
41:34somebody trying to heave 200 lb of dead
41:37weight over the side of a 14t game
41:40fisher in choppy baywaters without
41:42capsizing. This is where the state's
41:45story really doesn't make a whole lot of
41:48sense when you when you think about it
41:50that way. So, let's take a step back and
41:52look at the big picture here. We're not
41:54talking about just one or two
41:56inconsistencies anymore. You have nearly
41:5820 neighbor eyewitness sightings of
42:00either Lacy or her dog the morning of
42:02December 24th. You have multiple
42:05neighbors reporting that they believed
42:06to see a burglary in action with
42:08suspicious men targeting the house
42:10directly across the street from the
42:12Petersons, the same time frame that Lacy
42:15disappeared. You have three medical
42:18experts, including the state's own
42:20witness, placing Connor's date of death
42:23well after the time it could have
42:25possibly been Scott Peterson. You have
42:28the police essentially broadcasting his
42:30alibi location to the world. And you
42:33have scientific modeling showing the
42:35bodies likely originated from a
42:37landbased dump site, not a boat. Add in
42:41the fact that Lacy had duct tape around
42:44her pants, which is a detail much more
42:47common in abduction scenarios where a
42:50perpetrator is trying to physically
42:52control a victim. And then consider that
42:56a van was inexplicably set on fire. In
42:59the words of the fire investigator, it
43:02appeared it was burned to cover up
43:03another crime and it was found just 12
43:06hours after Lacy's disappearance. a mile
43:08away that tested presumptive positive
43:11for human blood sitting in the alley
43:13directly behind the burglar's alleged
43:16alibi location. The state would also
43:19have you believe that Scott was somehow
43:21able to move Lacy's body at least three
43:23times and not leave a shred of forensic
43:26evidence in his home, truck, warehouse,
43:30or boat. And on top of that, the state
43:33wants us to believe he is so meticulous
43:36to leave not a shred of forensic
43:38evidence in any of these locations, yet
43:42be dumber than the common criminal to
43:44make his alibi location the very same
43:46thing place as his dump location. dump a
43:51body in broad daylight and then bring
43:53home some of the same materials they
43:55claim he used in the transfer, like a
43:58tarp that was tested multiple times and
44:00came up negative for any forensic
44:02evidence. Not to mention, most murderers
44:05actively throw away tools or any items
44:08they use in dumpsters. They bury them.
44:11They dump them in water. Now, when you
44:13piece all of these things together, the
44:15puzzle doesn't just look incomplete. It
44:19seems to point in a completely different
44:21direction. It actually begins to paint a
44:23picture that is not only more logical
44:25than the states theory, but one that
44:28points towards a group of people who had
44:31the motive, the location, and the
44:34evidence trailing behind them. And if
44:37the science from the original trial
44:39breaks, many are going to question the
44:42entire conviction. But if we're going to
44:45talk about how this house of cards was
44:47built in the first place, we can't just
44:49stop at the Modesto Police Department,
44:52we have to look at the prosecutors.
44:55During the recent Crime Con panel, the
44:58police practices expert brought up a
45:00concept called tunnel vision. She
45:03explained how once the Modesto Police
45:05Department locked into Scott Peterson,
45:08they ignored everything else. She also
45:11mentioned how some of what the
45:12investigators did was considered
45:16criminal. And here is something they did
45:18not discuss on that Crime Con panel and
45:21what they likely probably won't discuss
45:23in the documentary either. The practices
45:26of the district attorney's office. This
45:28is where we need to talk about the
45:29involvement of Burgett Flatiger and
45:31David Harris. These are some of the
45:34prosecutors who put Scott Peterson on
45:36death row and they are the exact same
45:39figures tied to the staggering $22.5
45:42million malicious prosecution settlement
45:46paid out by Stannislas County just last
45:48year in the Frank Carson case. To
45:51understand how deep this goes, look at
45:54the timeline
45:56in that case. Frank Carson was a
45:58prominent criminal defense attorney who
46:00ran for district attorney against Burket
46:03Flatter who was the sitting DA at the
46:05time. Now, Frank Carson was tough as
46:08nails and was constantly winning cases
46:11against the DA's office. And Frank also
46:15publicly accused her DA office and local
46:19police departments of deepseated
46:21corruption throughout his entire
46:23campaign. Now, less than a year after he
46:28challenged her in that election, Frank
46:30Carson, his wife, his stepdaughter, and
46:33five others, including three police
46:35officers, were charged with murder in a
46:38cold case. The disappearance and death
46:41of Corey Kaufman, whose skull was later
46:44found in Sannislas County Forest. The
46:47preliminary hearing alone lasted 18
46:50months, one of the longest in state
46:51history. The subsequent trial dragged on
46:54for 17 months. Think about the sheer
46:59scale of the alleged abuse of power
47:01here. These proceedings are
47:03astronomically expensive. But the human
47:06cost was even higher because Frank
47:08Carson was denied bail and spent 17
47:11months behind bars and several of his
47:13codefendants sat in jail for months on
47:16end as well. Yet, after years of their
47:18lives being ripped away, the jury took
47:21just two days of deliberation to see the
47:24truth because all of the accused were
47:26found not guilty. Soon after, the
47:29defendants filed a civil lawsuit for
47:32malicious prosecution alleging
47:34fabrication of evidence, Brady
47:37violations like withholding exculpatory
47:39evidence that would have proved their
47:41innocence, and civil rights violations
47:44through false arrest, illegal
47:46imprisonment, and the denial of due
47:49process. But sadly, Frank Carson passed
47:52away, likely from health complications
47:54made worse from being jailed for 17
47:57months before he could see the
47:59conclusion of his efforts. Ultimately,
48:03the county agreed to pay $22.5 million,
48:07but it didn't happen until the very last
48:09second because they settled just a day
48:12before the civil trial was set to begin.
48:15So, make no mistake, the county didn't
48:18settle early on. They folded at the 11th
48:22hour, the day before trial, likely
48:24because they were terrified, and rightly
48:28so. They likely knew that if their case
48:30went to a jury, their internal
48:32corruption would be put on display for
48:36the world to see, and they likely feared
48:38a jury might award far more than 22.5
48:43million. as if all of that involvement
48:47from two of the same prosecutors that
48:49handled the Peterson case doesn't
48:51intersect enough with the Peterson case
48:54already given the similar allegations of
48:57evidence fabrication, evidence
48:59destruction, and the withholding of
49:01evidence along with a seemingly invented
49:04narrative based on little science and
49:06facts in a completely circumstantial
49:09case. Here is where the Frank Carson
49:11case directly intersects with the
49:14Peterson case. Immediately after that
49:18settlement, multiple news outlets
49:20published a statement from sitting DA
49:22Jeff Lero that read, quote, "As District
49:26Attorney, I view the settlement from
49:28this 2015 case as a necessary step to
49:32close a difficult chapter and maintain
49:34our focus on current public safety
49:36priorities. Since taking office in 2023,
49:40my commitment has been and continues to
49:42be to pursue justice with integrity,
49:45fairness, transparency, and
49:47accountability based solely on evidence
49:50and the law while building public trust
49:53by ensuring our criminal justice system
49:55works equitably for all. It was also
49:59reported that same day by multiple news
50:02outlets that those prosecutors involved
50:05in that scandal were quote no longer
50:08employed by the county. But here is the
50:12bombshell. In my research with the
50:15filings from the LA Innocence Project on
50:17the Peterson case, I found a letter from
50:21the DA's office dated September 2025, 6
50:25months after the public was told those
50:28prosecutors were gone. That letter
50:30confirmed that Bergett Flatiger and
50:32David Harris were still very much
50:35employed. So, the public was lied to.
50:39Not to mention in county paperwork, it
50:41was revealed that they were collecting a
50:43special premium rate of nearly $100,000
50:46a year on top of their pensions to fight
50:49the LA Innocence Project on the Peterson
50:52case, specifically to reject all the DNA
50:55testing and block all of the requests
50:57for access to police evidence that he
51:00really should have had access to for
51:02over 20 years now. Now, all that after
51:06their practices already cost the county
51:09millions for the 18-month preliminary
51:11hearing for Carson, the 17-monthlong
51:14trial, plus the $22.5 million settlement
51:18for the civil trial regarding the
51:20allegations for malicious prosecution,
51:22evidence fabrication, among other
51:24things. When the Innocence Project
51:27walked into court with their 650 page
51:30petition full of receipts, who did the
51:32DA's office bring in to stop them? They
51:36brought out these two prosecutors out of
51:38retirement to ensure the remaining
51:41evidence stayed buried. The entirely
51:44circumstantial case they handled from
51:47the start. In other words, Bergett
51:50Flatiger and David Harris were
51:52essentially rewarded with special
51:55salaries on top of their pensions to
51:57continue actively fighting an innocence
52:01project efforts today. It is an
52:03astounding level of hypocrisy for DA
52:07Jeff Loggerro to claim his commitment is
52:11to pursue justice. Because when you look
52:13at his actions in office, those words
52:16aren't just hollow. They're an actual
52:18insult to the very concept of justice to
52:21reward those prosecutors after the
52:25public thinks they're no longer
52:26employed. And frankly, based on that
52:28lie, I think at this point any case
52:31those prosecutors have ever worked on
52:34that was entirely circumstantial needs
52:36to be reviewed by the federal government
52:39since the DA's office isn't taking
52:41integrity as seriously as he claims he
52:44does. As if all of that doesn't make the
52:46DA's office look bad enough, they aren't
52:49just fighting the LA Innocence Project
52:52on the Peterson case in court. They have
52:55recently begun fighting it in the court
52:58of public opinion as well. If you go to
53:01the district attorney's current public
53:03Facebook page, you will see them
53:05actively posting statements on social
53:07media defending their 2004 case against
53:11Peterson. But they aren't just defending
53:14their old case anymore. They are
53:17actively capitalizing on a flawed
53:20narrative mentioned in the judge's
53:22recent habius denial and narrative they
53:25are treating like irrefutable truths,
53:28but ones that don't quite add up if you
53:31actually do the math. For example,
53:34immediately following Judge Hill's
53:35denial of the latest habius petition,
53:38the DA's office rushed to social media
53:41with a massive triumphant post titled,
53:44"The newly unsealed 2004 court
53:46transcript contradicts Peterson claims."
53:50The gist of their narrative in the post
53:53is a claim that Scott Peterson and his
53:55defense got caught in a lie. Part of it
53:58centers around a watch. Essentially, a
54:01Croton watch was pawned at a place
54:03called The Pawn Shop in Modesto on
54:05December 31st, 2002, just days into
54:08Lacy's disappearance, by a woman named
54:11Diana Renfro. This woman allegedly has
54:15connections with the burglars and fled
54:18the state shortly after pawning this
54:20watch. Now, Croton watches are rare or
54:24pretty rare. So, the last time the pawn
54:26shop had even had one in their system as
54:29being pawned was 6 months prior. But the
54:32questions surrounding the Croton watch
54:34in this case are highly significant
54:37because it generally matched the
54:39description of the watch that Lacy
54:41Peterson was likely wearing the last
54:43time she was seen. Essentially, the pawn
54:45shop owner made a comment more recently
54:48in a documentary that the police told
54:51him to put that watch on hold and they
54:53came and took the watch. But the issue
54:55is none of that is documented in the
54:58police files. A copy of the pawn slip
55:01was entered into evidence, but the
55:03question has always been where is the
55:05watch and how can the defense take a
55:08look at it to see that it definitely was
55:10not Lacy's watch? And the argument was
55:14if the police retrieved it, why was it
55:16not logged into evidence? And again,
55:18where is it? So this Facebook post, the
55:22state points to a newly unsealed 2004 ex
55:26party transcript and claims it proves
55:29the defense always had the Croton watch
55:32pawn slip. They claimed they did not
55:34have access to. They eagerly parited the
55:38court's finding. that a defense
55:40investigator supposedly got it directly
55:43from the witness in February or March of
55:462003, weeks before Scott was even
55:48arrested. But if you actually look at
55:51the defense's evidence and hold it up to
55:54a calendar, that timeline is a physical
55:57impossibility. Mark Garagos didn't even
56:00take Scott's case until May 2nd, 2003.
56:04The defense's initial investigator, Gary
56:06Heran, explicitly stated under penalty
56:10of perjury that he never looked for that
56:12watch prior to Scott's arrest. And
56:15furthermore, the witness herself
56:18described the men who took the pawn slip
56:20from her as wearing star-shaped badges
56:23and they had guns on their hips, which
56:26means they were law enforcement, not a
56:29private investigator like Garyian. more
56:31damningly, even if the defense magically
56:35had the slip early in 2003,
56:38explained then why it was the
56:40prosecution who entered a copy of that
56:43into evidence after getting it from the
56:46pawn shop. The reality is the defense
56:49only got a copy of that pawn slip when
56:52it was turned over by the state during
56:55discovery. So, it would appear the state
56:59got excited because perhaps the judge
57:01misunderstood something and they ran to
57:04Facebook to publicly post that press
57:07release and weaponize that confusion.
57:10The DA's post does the exact same thing
57:15with what is known as the Apante tip in
57:17a similar way in the same post. Now, the
57:20Apante tip centers on a phone call made
57:23by an inmate at Norco Prison named Shaun
57:27Tenbrink. According to that tip, Shawn
57:29Tenbrink had spoken to his brother, Adam
57:32Tenbrink, and claimed he had heard that
57:35word on the street was that their friend
57:37Steven Todd, who was one of the burglars
57:39arrested for the burglary that occurred
57:42across the street, the same time frame
57:44that Lacy disappeared, had gotten into a
57:47verbal altercation with that missing
57:49pregnant woman. And immediately after he
57:52said that, Shaun's brother Adam began
57:55screaming at him that they are recording
57:58these phone calls and to shut up. Now,
58:00Lieutenant Xavier Aante was alerted
58:02about this call by his team that screens
58:05the calls. And when he listened to it
58:07himself, he immediately called the
58:09Modesto Police Department tip line more
58:11than once just weeks after Lacy's
58:13disappearance.
58:15Now, the issue is the police deny ever
58:18meeting with him, which on its face,
58:21honestly, on one level, it seems
58:23believable, right? Because they seem to
58:25ignore all of the other significant
58:26witness tips in the case that pointed to
58:29anything other than Scott Peterson. But
58:31that said, in this Facebook post, the
58:34state makes claims, the defense accused
58:36them of withholding the tip itself, but
58:40they are playing with semantics here.
58:42Here's the problem. The LA Innocence
58:44Project never claimed the raw tip itself
58:47was hidden. They argued that the state
58:50suppressed the documentation and the
58:53recordings of the follow-up
58:55investigation that Lieutenant Aponte
58:58confirmed took place. The defense has
59:01always asked, "Where is that audio tape?
59:04What detective went down to the prison
59:06and spoke to Lieutenant Apante and the
59:09inmate?" None of them will admit to
59:12doing it. But it's even wilder that
59:16after all that, they went on Facebook
59:19weaponizing social media and apparently
59:22gloating while pulling a classic bait
59:25and switch over semantics. They are
59:28relying on the fact that the general
59:29public isn't going to dig up 20-year-old
59:32court transcripts to factcheck their
59:34Facebook post and their semantics.
59:36Meanwhile, the LA Innocence Project has
59:39never run to social media to do a cheap
59:43sort of victory lap, even though they
59:46are the ones who appear to have caught
59:48the state red-handed destroying
59:50exculpatory evidence just last year. The
59:52defense appears to keep their arguments
59:55in the courtroom or in carefully worded
59:58press releases. There is a much bigger
1:00:02issue at play here. The DA's office
1:00:05wants you to believe that because a
1:00:07judge denied Scott's latest petition,
1:00:09the evidence within it was not new
1:00:12evidence or it must be frivolous. They
1:00:15are banking on the fact that the average
1:00:17person has absolutely no idea how a
1:00:20habius corpus petition actually works or
1:00:22what it is. Now, again, as I always say,
1:00:25I'm no legal expert, but I did do some
1:00:28research and here's what I can tell you.
1:00:31When a petition is rejected, the public
1:00:33assumes it means the claims were
1:00:35debunked. But that is false. In reality,
1:00:39the legal system is like a multi-stage
1:00:42obstacle course. First, once it passes
1:00:45the difficult hurdle of even being
1:00:47accepted to begin with, because most of
1:00:50them are rejected right away, the
1:00:52petition goes through a rigorous review
1:00:54and faces what's known as procedural
1:00:57bars, which are like technical
1:00:58gatekeepers or court rules that can kill
1:01:01a claim before the judge even glances at
1:01:04the evidence behind it. In fact, at this
1:01:06stage, it is assumed that all of the
1:01:08evidence is true. But for instance, a
1:01:11claim is automatically procedurally
1:01:14barred if the petitioner has mentioned
1:01:16this claim in a prior petition. If a
1:01:19claim is procedurally barred, the judge
1:01:22is refusing to even look at the merits.
1:01:25With the habius petition specifically,
1:01:27the evidence must be new evidence, which
1:01:30most of the items she denied. In Scott's
1:01:33recent habius, she denied because he had
1:01:36brought elements of that argument
1:01:38previously in another habius, even
1:01:41though there was new pieces of evidence
1:01:43related to that original argument. Now,
1:01:47while the Stannislaus County
1:01:49Prosecutor's Office kept claiming there
1:01:51was absolutely no evidence at all in
1:01:54this case, even the Attorney General
1:01:57disagreed with that and actually
1:01:59specifically sent this petition to a
1:02:01lower court because they believed there
1:02:03were claims that were new or had
1:02:05elements that were new. But that said,
1:02:08based on the court's order, most of the
1:02:10claims were procedurally barred.
1:02:12Specifically, the claims related to the
1:02:15death date of baby Connor, the new Bay
1:02:18Title Science, and other claims three,
1:02:21[snorts] 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 failed
1:02:24to overcome procedural hurdles like
1:02:27Miller or Clark or otherwise failed to
1:02:30establish primaaci. In a legal context,
1:02:34establishing a prima means that the
1:02:37party has presented enough evidence to
1:02:40support their claim on its face.
1:02:42allowing the case to move forward. Now,
1:02:45if the petition survives those initial
1:02:48procedural hurdles, it moves to the
1:02:51merit stage where the judge reviews the
1:02:53substance of the claims. Again, I'm no
1:02:56legal expert, but it appears that claims
1:02:584, 6, and 12 got past the procedural bar
1:03:01stage and got to the merit stage, and
1:03:04the judge decided in her opinion those
1:03:07claims failed at the merit stage. Now,
1:03:11meanwhile, when the vast majority of the
1:03:13public reads the words lacks merit, they
1:03:16assume that it means the evidence itself
1:03:19is flimsy. But in reality, when a judge
1:03:22writes that a filing lacks merit, they
1:03:24are saying, "Even if I accept that every
1:03:26single fact you've presented here is
1:03:28100% true, it still wouldn't be legally
1:03:31sufficient to overturn the entire
1:03:33conviction." So, the judge isn't saying
1:03:36the evidence itself lacks merit or is
1:03:39worthless. They're saying that in their
1:03:41opinion, even if this was true, it
1:03:44doesn't cross the specific legal
1:03:46threshold that would be required to
1:03:48overturn an entire conviction based on
1:03:51that one piece of evidence. Also, under
1:03:54these rules, it isn't enough for the
1:03:56evidence to be brand new either. The
1:03:57defense has to prove that without that
1:04:00evidence, the prosecution withheld or
1:04:02destroyed, they couldn't have reasonably
1:04:05accessed it or figured it out back
1:04:08during the 2004 trial some other way.
1:04:11When you look at it that way, it almost
1:04:12seems like a completely unfair standard.
1:04:15In other words, the judge can openly
1:04:18acknowledge that the police hid or
1:04:20destroyed paperwork, but then still rule
1:04:24against the petitioner by saying, "Well,
1:04:27your trial lawyers had other little
1:04:29pieces of evidence of discovery related
1:04:31to this." So, they could piece that all
1:04:33together somehow since they had
1:04:34reasonable access to other little clues
1:04:37that would have made them ask all the
1:04:39right questions 20 years ago. This means
1:04:42the system can literally penalize the
1:04:45defendant today because his trial
1:04:47attorneys couldn't solve an incomplete
1:04:50puzzle decades ago while the state was
1:04:53actively hiding some of those pieces.
1:04:56This matters because the actual deep
1:04:59analysis of the evidence only begins
1:05:02once the habius gets to an evidentiary
1:05:04hearing stage. Up until that point, the
1:05:08judge is basically looking at the
1:05:09paperwork through a keyhole, deciding if
1:05:12she is legally allowed to even open that
1:05:15door. When she denies the entire
1:05:17petition, she is locking those doors
1:05:20before anyone can ever look inside. If
1:05:24any of these claims passed this stage,
1:05:27they would then go to an evidentiary
1:05:29hearing where there would be legal
1:05:32technicalities are stripped away and
1:05:34replaced by actual testimony. So the
1:05:36actual evidence could be analyzed.
1:05:38That's where those worldclass OBGYn
1:05:42experts would have taken the stand under
1:05:44oath projecting their scans and
1:05:47measurements onto a screen showing the
1:05:49exact math of Connor's bone growth. It's
1:05:52where the state would be forced to
1:05:54explain under cross-examination
1:05:57exactly why they authorized the
1:06:00destruction of the burglar's interview
1:06:02tapes and the physical safe that may
1:06:05have contained fingerprints of other
1:06:07burglars just 2 weeks after Scott's
1:06:10arrest. But by hiding behind the
1:06:13procedural bars and the denials, the
1:06:17court ensures that hearing and that
1:06:19evidence analysis never happens. They
1:06:22keep the door locked and then point to
1:06:24the locked door as proof. There is
1:06:27nothing worth seeing inside.
1:06:30And when the justice system locks that
1:06:32door, that's exactly where independent
1:06:34journalists, documentary filmmakers step
1:06:37in and force it back open. Because if
1:06:40you actually read through Judge Hill's
1:06:42ruling on the Peterson second petition,
1:06:45which the DA's office erroneously and
1:06:48purposefully continues to call it his
1:06:51third petition when it is only his
1:06:52second petition for rid of habius
1:06:54corpus. What you find may deeply alarm
1:06:59many of you. That is because the court
1:07:02does not debunk any of the modern
1:07:05scientific evidence regarding baby
1:07:06Connor<unk>'s date of death. Far from
1:07:09it. In her ruling, the judge
1:07:11acknowledged that not one but three
1:07:15highly credentialed medical experts
1:07:18after measuring Connor<unk>'s bones
1:07:20believed he had likely died after
1:07:22January 1st. That is well after December
1:07:2524th, the date the jury was originally
1:07:27told Lacy vanished. And the rigid
1:07:30timeline the prosecution
1:07:33absolutely required to secure the
1:07:36conviction. Here is where the procedural
1:07:39bar slaps handcuffs on that. The judge
1:07:42ruled this claim was legally barred from
1:07:44a full review simply because a similar
1:07:47argument had been raised years earlier
1:07:49by just one medical expert. Think about
1:07:53that. There was one before, now there's
1:07:55three. But the point the LA Innocence
1:07:57Project brought up that they considered
1:08:00new evidence was that the science has
1:08:02shifted massively. Not only were there
1:08:04two new experts who agreed, but the
1:08:08state's original witness agreed that it
1:08:11would have been better if he had the
1:08:13newer, more accurate 2002 studies at the
1:08:17time he testified. So, that is a change.
1:08:21That is a gamechanging admission,
1:08:23especially when you consider that at
1:08:25least one of the jurors has publicly
1:08:28stated that they relied heavily on his
1:08:30testimony to convict Scott. Yet, because
1:08:33Dr. D'vor didn't submit a sworn
1:08:36retraction himself, the judge used a
1:08:39technical rule to determine that the
1:08:41claim didn't meet the statute for false
1:08:44evidence and refused to let a court hear
1:08:47any of it. When a procedure is used to
1:08:50block a full review of modern science,
1:08:53science that is completely different
1:08:55than what the jury heard and is
1:08:58devastating to the state's case, I think
1:09:01that should really bother every single
1:09:04one of us. And it really bothers me that
1:09:07this involves the actual physical
1:09:09remains of one of the victims who was an
1:09:12innocent baby. [snorts] And the modern
1:09:15medical experts all agree this one
1:09:18really haunts me truly. And it was a
1:09:21similar procedural bar for the wind and
1:09:23tide expert. It it didn't matter that
1:09:26the expert had gathered actual
1:09:28historical data, which was a new thing
1:09:30he did, and used a new 3D computer
1:09:34modeling technology. Since an expert had
1:09:36raised the issue in a previous petition,
1:09:39she ruled he could not present this new
1:09:43modeling as new evidence. And it
1:09:46continues to get worse. If the
1:09:48procedural block on the fetal science
1:09:51isn't enough to make you question the
1:09:55judicial system in this ruling, look at
1:09:57what the judge admitted about the
1:09:59state's destruction of physical
1:10:01evidence. In her ruling, the judge
1:10:04directly addressed multiple pieces of
1:10:06destroyed or missing evidence tied to
1:10:09alternate suspect leads regarding the
1:10:11burglary that occur directly across the
1:10:14street from the Peterson home. The court
1:10:17acknowledged these shocking facts even
1:10:19while using procedural bars, call them
1:10:21meritless,
1:10:23and dismissed the entire petition. So,
1:10:26for the destroyed witness interviews,
1:10:28the court acknowledged that the
1:10:29videotaped interviews of the burglars
1:10:31were marked for destruction following a
1:10:34supervisor's meeting between detectives
1:10:37just 2 weeks after Scott's arrest before
1:10:40the defense ever had a chance to review
1:10:42them. If I'm understanding this
1:10:44correctly, the judge explicitly noted
1:10:47the fact the tapes were favorable to the
1:10:50accused as either impeaching or
1:10:52exculpatory.
1:10:54But here is where she said it lacks
1:10:56merit. The judge ruled that destroying
1:10:59those tapes wasn't a fatal legal
1:11:01violation because the defense had other
1:11:05written police report notes and could
1:11:08have simply interviewed the burglars
1:11:10themselves to get the same information.
1:11:13What the the the that would have been
1:11:15completely different information.
1:11:17[snorts] I don't understand that. But
1:11:19furthermore, she ruled because the
1:11:21specific officer who signed the
1:11:24destruction order didn't testify at
1:11:26trial, the judge ruled that impeaching
1:11:29him wouldn't have changed the jury's
1:11:31overall verdict anyway. Now about the
1:11:34suppressed aante prison recording. The
1:11:37judge ruled that had the court actually
1:11:40reached the merits of the claim. The
1:11:42recording of the prison phone call where
1:11:44a prison guard overheard that inmate
1:11:47discussing how a burglar had a verbal
1:11:49altercation with Lacy the morning she
1:11:51vanished. It would have met the tromba
1:11:55legal standard for constitutionally
1:11:57material exculpatory evidence that
1:12:00should have been preserved. So, she
1:12:02admitted that yet the court used a
1:12:05procedural bar to throw the claim out,
1:12:08stating that the defense knew about the
1:12:10issue years ago, but didn't file the
1:12:13claim properly. Even more stunningly,
1:12:16the judge argued that the defense had
1:12:18alternative means to prove what was on
1:12:22the tape, like simply calling the prison
1:12:25guard or the inmates to the stand.
1:12:28Again, I don't see how that would be the
1:12:30same thing to have this audio recording,
1:12:32you know, a startled brother tell the
1:12:34inmate, "Oh my god, stop talking about
1:12:36that. These lines are recorded." Versus
1:12:39bringing the witness to the stand. But
1:12:41anyway, that is how she saw that issue.
1:12:44Now, to the destroyed safe and the
1:12:46fingerprints that could have been on the
1:12:47safe, the judge addressed how detectives
1:12:50destroyed a physical safe stolen during
1:12:53that neighborhood burglary just weeks
1:12:54after Scott's arrest. because an
1:12:57informant said up to five men were
1:13:00involved in that burglary, but only two
1:13:04were ever arrested. It was even reported
1:13:06that days later an unidentified person
1:13:09dropped the stolen guns off at the
1:13:11police station. The court called the
1:13:14destruction of that safe quote
1:13:16potentially useful and acknowledged that
1:13:19it could have been subjected to tests
1:13:22that quote may have led to additional
1:13:25suspects in the Medina burglary had the
1:13:28police not destroyed it. But once again,
1:13:31procedure won out. The judge ruled the
1:13:35claim was barred because the defense
1:13:37knew the safe was destroyed back in
1:13:392004. So even when the LA Innocence
1:13:42Project got their hands very recently, I
1:13:45think it was early 2025 on police
1:13:48records that finally proved the evidence
1:13:51was destroyed and marked for destruction
1:13:54directly
1:13:55after a discovery issues meeting about
1:13:59the Peterson case. The judge decided
1:14:01that part didn't matter. And finally,
1:14:04the court seemed to reason that even if
1:14:07the defense had found new fingerprints
1:14:10on it, they would still have to
1:14:12investigate and connect those new
1:14:14suspects to Lacy's murder. Meaning the
1:14:17state's destruction of the safe didn't
1:14:20technically make the trial unfair. So,
1:14:23when you see those headlines about a
1:14:26filing lacking merit, don't let the
1:14:28phrasing misguide you. It is a
1:14:31procedural hurdle, not a judgment on
1:14:34that evidence. Now, all of that said,
1:14:37there are people out there saying there
1:14:39is no new evidence. Well, if you
1:14:42actually look at the order, the judge
1:14:45actually disagrees that there was no new
1:14:47evidence because if you read through her
1:14:49ruling, she spends a significant portion
1:14:53of the order conducting a rigorous
1:14:56admissibility analysis. What she is
1:14:59doing here is acting as a legal
1:15:01gatekeeper, applying the strict habius
1:15:04corpus standard under California Penal
1:15:07Code to determine exactly what qualifies
1:15:10as new evidence. To meet this incredibly
1:15:13high bar, the information must have been
1:15:16discovered after the trial, presented
1:15:18without substantial delay, and be
1:15:21legally admissible in a courtroom. What
1:15:24did she find? that there was legally
1:15:27admissible new evidence. The judge
1:15:30specifically identified several items
1:15:32that met this standard, including CH's
1:15:352024 statements about seeing a van
1:15:38parked outside the burglarized home on
1:15:41the morning of December 24th, who was
1:15:43also the same person who claimed they
1:15:45saw Lacy and the dog in the park around
1:15:48the same exact time the neighbor who
1:15:50lived three doors down says he saw the
1:15:52same thing at the park. The Modesto
1:15:54Police Department's withheld
1:15:56investigation into the orange vanfire,
1:15:58which was the van allegedly found parked
1:16:01behind the alley of the alibi location
1:16:03of one of the burglars. So, yes, the
1:16:06judge says there absolutely was new
1:16:09evidence. The reason she denied the
1:16:11petition wasn't because the new evidence
1:16:13didn't exist. It was because she
1:16:16ultimately decided that when you stacked
1:16:18this new admissible evidence up against
1:16:21the rest of the trial record, it wasn't
1:16:23strong enough to completely undermine
1:16:26the original guilty verdict. So, anyone
1:16:29claiming there's no new evidence simply
1:16:30hasn't read the ruling. But honestly,
1:16:34when you look at the actual evidence
1:16:35that's being brushed aside, especially
1:16:37the fetal science, it becomes hard to
1:16:40shrug off as just procedural. To me,
1:16:43these aren't random isolated items
1:16:45either. These are critical pieces of
1:16:47physical evidence that seem to intersect
1:16:50that directly support the defense
1:16:52burglary abduction theory. Evidence that
1:16:55quite frankly didn't seem to be
1:16:57thoroughly investigated at all. This is
1:17:00the very theory that pointed entirely
1:17:02away from Scott Peterson, and he had a
1:17:05constitutional right to that evidence
1:17:07over 20 years ago. Plus, don't forget
1:17:10the jury didn't get to hear any of it.
1:17:13So, when the judge is saying certain
1:17:15pieces like this would have been
1:17:16admissible, a jury would have heard that
1:17:19information. And because of these rigid
1:17:22procedural bars, the court just brushed
1:17:25it all aside. Once again, I also don't
1:17:29like when I start to see a pattern of
1:17:32the original investigators spreading
1:17:34false narrative that is easily explained
1:17:37away by their own testimony because it
1:17:40begins to form a pattern that may appear
1:17:43to many that it is being done on purpose
1:17:46to maintain a narrative. And I'm going
1:17:48to give you an example. Lacy and Connor
1:17:51were found along the shore of the San
1:17:53Francisco Bay in midappril of 2003.
1:17:575 days later, Scott was still living in
1:18:00a home his sister was letting him stay
1:18:02in, which happened to be in his hometown
1:18:05of San Diego, California, also where his
1:18:08parents lived. Meaning, the bodies were
1:18:11discovered 5 days earlier. And yet, he
1:18:13still not had fleed anywhere. On that
1:18:16fifth day, police knew they were about
1:18:19to get the DNA results back. And by this
1:18:22point, they had had him under constant
1:18:25audio surveillance since shortly after
1:18:27Lacy's disappearance. Yet, that
1:18:29surveillance gave them absolutely
1:18:31nothing, by the way, of substance
1:18:33against him that they could use. On the
1:18:36day of his arrest, police captured audio
1:18:40of Scott speaking to his brother about
1:18:43their plans to play golf with their
1:18:44father. Scott tells his brother in this
1:18:47recording that he's worried about being
1:18:49followed by the press. At the time, he
1:18:51doesn't realize they are the police. He
1:18:54says to his brother he thinks it would
1:18:56look bad to have photos of him playing
1:18:58golf printed in the press while they are
1:19:00actively waiting for DNA results on the
1:19:03bodies. So, he was going to try and lose
1:19:06the media first and then go to the
1:19:09country club. And where was Scott
1:19:12arrested? He was arrested at the country
1:19:15club. Did he have his brother's ID on
1:19:17him? Yes, he did. He did have cash on
1:19:20him. Yes. Scott and his brother claimed
1:19:23since his brother was a member at the
1:19:25club, he would get a discount. And
1:19:28remember, Scott was not employed. He had
1:19:32just got money from his parents and from
1:19:34selling his truck. But was he caught
1:19:37actually driving to Mexico? Nope. He was
1:19:40literally arrested again in his hometown
1:19:43meeting his family for a round of golf.
1:19:46Police know this. They know he was
1:19:49arrested at a country club. They also
1:19:51know they had frozen his passport.
1:19:54Police have that audio of him speaking
1:19:56to his brother, which you can hear
1:19:59yourself if you watch the six-part A&E
1:20:02series called The Murder of Lacy
1:20:04Peterson. Yet in interviews, some of
1:20:08those investigators continue to spin the
1:20:11narrative that he was fleeing to Mexico.
1:20:15This is just one scenario, but it makes
1:20:17me stop and think the defense only found
1:20:20that audio after years of digging
1:20:22through hours and hours of surveillance
1:20:24tapes. Now, after I found that piece of
1:20:28information out, it really made me
1:20:30wonder, what other parts of their
1:20:34narrative do they know are false about
1:20:36this case? Yet, they continue to state
1:20:38in interviews, or what other key details
1:20:42is Peterson's defense missing, buried in
1:20:45police files that they know would have
1:20:47helped him. It honestly makes me
1:20:50question the state's entire narrative
1:20:52and objective because frankly it's it's
1:20:56becoming a very big pattern. At the end
1:21:00of the day, my core thesis and the whole
1:21:03reason why I cover this case the way I
1:21:06do is not to tell you what to believe.
1:21:09It's not to tell you that Scott Peterson
1:21:12is innocent. But what I am here to do is
1:21:15make sure you see everything else you
1:21:18probably have never heard before. I am
1:21:22especially here to tell you that one
1:21:24person's perception of somebody's
1:21:26behavior should never ever be used as a
1:21:30primary piece of evidence to determine
1:21:33or assume guilt or innocence. Period.
1:21:36You're literally accepting data from
1:21:38someone else who is filtering his
1:21:40behavior through their own personal
1:21:43lens. But it is especially wrong to do
1:21:47here in a death penalty case because
1:21:51when you really look at the record
1:21:53objectively, much of how he was
1:21:56described by the media and the state
1:21:58turns out to be completely false. And
1:22:01you can prove that with actual police
1:22:03evidence which they themselves recorded,
1:22:05not only the evidence from the defense.
1:22:09The state lacked any scientific or
1:22:12forensic evidence and that is why they
1:22:15had to lean so heavily into this
1:22:18narrative that they spun about his
1:22:21behavior. But when you look at the real
1:22:23record, not just what police later
1:22:25claimed in interviews or what the media
1:22:28wrote and published, his behavior seems
1:22:32relatively normal because many witnesses
1:22:34stated that he seemed very concerned and
1:22:37involved in the searches every single
1:22:39day. In fact, if you actually read the
1:22:42testimony or statements from his
1:22:44teachers, coaches, bosses, co-workers,
1:22:48ex-girlfriends, etc.,
1:22:51He seemed like the opposite of a
1:22:53psychopath or a narcissist his entire
1:22:55life. I mean, you probably never heard
1:22:57that this guy was literally voted
1:23:00friendliest in middle school by his
1:23:02classmates and that he really wasn't
1:23:05even considered a part of the popular
1:23:06crowd when he got voted friendliest. It
1:23:09was just friends from all different
1:23:11groups around school. It really does
1:23:13appear that he enjoyed doing stuff for
1:23:16others. particularly he was really
1:23:18especially great at thoughtful
1:23:20giftgiving or like he even um played
1:23:23matchmaker with a few of his friends. If
1:23:26he truly was this obvious massive
1:23:29psychopath of narcissist, people from
1:23:31his past would have come forward with
1:23:34stories in retrospect like, "hm, now
1:23:36[clears throat] that you mention that,"
1:23:37he did act weird this one time
1:23:40testifying to that. But instead, pretty
1:23:42much everyone who knew him kept telling
1:23:44police and kept testifying Scott was
1:23:48overly kind and there was no way they
1:23:51thought he had anything to do with
1:23:53something like this. Even Lacy's own
1:23:55diary shows more of the same. And her
1:23:57nail tech testified that unlike all of
1:24:00her other clients, Lacy really had only
1:24:03nice things to say about her husband,
1:24:05Scott. I mean, can somebody snap? Sure.
1:24:09I mean, people go from friendliest
1:24:11person in the world to a murderer. I
1:24:15wouldn't say often, but it can happen.
1:24:17People can lose control or have
1:24:20psychological breaks or issues. I've
1:24:23been in actually involved in those
1:24:25situations firsthand. So, I get it more
1:24:27than anybody. But it is exceedingly rare
1:24:31and even when it happens, there is
1:24:33typically plenty of forensic evidence
1:24:36that should exist that would back up
1:24:38that that person was the culprit. Since
1:24:41the trial wasn't televised, the public
1:24:44didn't even get to hear all that
1:24:46testimony. They didn't get to see him
1:24:48crying in court or shaking in the
1:24:50courtroom, which was later described by
1:24:52several reporters and even Lacy's
1:24:54mother. You didn't get to read
1:24:56declarations of neighbors saying he
1:24:59cried or couldn't sleep or about the
1:25:01time he really did cry with the neighbor
1:25:03who was burglarized when she told him
1:25:06she was worried the burglars may have
1:25:08used her stolen guns on Lacy. Multiple
1:25:12witnesses stated he was excited about
1:25:15being a father, which makes sense since
1:25:18him and Lacy were trying for over a year
1:25:21to get pregnant. This is why the state
1:25:25continues to lean on that cold,
1:25:28calculating psychopath narrative despite
1:25:32an actual innocence project taking over
1:25:35the investigation to investigate
1:25:38objectively. As the public finally
1:25:40begins to see what a botch case this
1:25:43was, I keep seeing people pointing to
1:25:45this narrative that the LA Innocence
1:25:47Project isn't the real Innocence
1:25:49Project, as if them taking on the
1:25:51Peterson case would be some kind of
1:25:53publicity stunt or some puppet show that
1:25:56is being run by the Peterson family.
1:25:58Because you see, there's over 60
1:26:00different innocence projects all around
1:26:02the world that are wholly independent
1:26:05from the National Innocence Project. And
1:26:07many of them, including the LA Innocence
1:26:09Project, are official members of the
1:26:12Innocence Network, which is the umbrella
1:26:14organization spearheaded by the original
1:26:18National Innocence Project. So, you
1:26:21don't get to just call yourself an
1:26:22Innocence Project. Organizations have to
1:26:25meet strict legal, operational, and
1:26:28ethical criteria to be accepted in to
1:26:31that network. Furthermore, the National
1:26:34Innocence Project doesn't even take
1:26:37cases in California. They clearly state
1:26:40this on their own websites intake page
1:26:44and explicitly direct people to apply to
1:26:47their local regional innocence projects
1:26:50instead, which for Scott Peterson would
1:26:53be the LA Innocence Project. These are
1:26:56elite professionals with their own
1:26:59careers and their own reputations.
1:27:02The idea that they are risking their
1:27:04entire livelihoods to just blindly work
1:27:07for the Peterson family on this
1:27:10completely polarizing case inviting a
1:27:13level of vitrol and negative publicity
1:27:16is absolutely absurd. If you really
1:27:19think about it logically, it makes much
1:27:21more sense that they likely took on this
1:27:23case because they and numerous other
1:27:26lawyers working there looked at the
1:27:29original police files and the original
1:27:31court record and either believe Peterson
1:27:34is 100% innocent based on that evidence
1:27:38or they believe that the nonprofit has
1:27:40enough evidence to continue
1:27:42investigating his claims of innocence.
1:27:45Now, I'm going to be more candid here
1:27:48than I am usually because I want to take
1:27:51a second to address something personal
1:27:54because there is a narrative out there
1:27:57that I only cover this case for clicks
1:28:01or for publicity. I need you to
1:28:03understand covering the Scott Peterson
1:28:06case actually works against me heavily.
1:28:10I lose subscribers when I talk about
1:28:13this. I have lost out on sponsorships
1:28:16because I talk about this. But you know
1:28:18what? That almost makes me want to do it
1:28:20even more. When it comes to people in
1:28:22the media taking this stance, it often
1:28:26means loss of viewership, alienating
1:28:29sponsors, and even a complete loss of
1:28:31financial support.
1:28:33And as a result, very few people in the
1:28:36broadcasting world or the media world
1:28:39have been willing to publicly treat the
1:28:41new evidence in this case as significant
1:28:44enough to warrant a serious discussion.
1:28:47Two of the only people I can even think
1:28:49of in traditional broadcast news are
1:28:52Chris Pixley, who is a part of this new
1:28:55documentary, and Mike Gudgel, a retired
1:28:58ABC news producer, a Simon editor and
1:29:02bureau chief. In fact, despite being
1:29:04retired, Gudgel was so troubled by the
1:29:07case that he began actively
1:29:10investigating it as a journalist. His
1:29:13work ultimately became part of the case
1:29:16record after he helped uncover some of
1:29:19the new evidence. With a case this
1:29:22polarizing and with so much vitrol from
1:29:25the public for even suggesting Peterson
1:29:28could be innocent, it is deeply
1:29:30validating for me to see others like
1:29:33Pixley willing to put their reputation
1:29:36on the line and their face on the camera
1:29:40discussing the case in this way. Their
1:29:42perspective stands in such a stark
1:29:45contrast to so much of the coverage and
1:29:48is part of what encourages me to keep
1:29:51doing it. Now, I went to school to study
1:29:55exactly how the media works and how film
1:29:58narratives are constructed around
1:30:00characters, which is why I can look
1:30:03objectively at the evidence and see that
1:30:06the pieces here don't really fit the way
1:30:08the state tried to force them to. They
1:30:11created a timeline that defies logic
1:30:14more than not, completely ignoring some
1:30:17witnesses like the mailman who had
1:30:19actually verified digital timestamps.
1:30:22Through my journalistic studies, we
1:30:24spent a great deal of time analyzing how
1:30:26every piece of information is filtered,
1:30:30interpreted, and processed before being
1:30:33disseminated to the public. It is
1:30:36something else entirely to see this play
1:30:39out firsthand with something I am
1:30:41working on actively particularly in a
1:30:44case where there is this enormous
1:30:48scathing media coverage. It is like a
1:30:51double-edged force in its own right and
1:30:54arguably the driving force behind his
1:30:58conviction. My entire reason for
1:31:01starting this channel was because I
1:31:02wanted to educate people about abuse,
1:31:05psychology, and how crime intersects
1:31:08with those things. Because even from
1:31:11when I was a child, I got a front row
1:31:13seat into that world. I had personal
1:31:16experience with those arenas. I wanted
1:31:20to teach others the red flags of what to
1:31:23look out for. But when I looked at this
1:31:25case, I do see abuse, but I don't see
1:31:28the kind of abuse people would think I'm
1:31:31seeing. Instead, I see what appears to
1:31:33be a systemic abuse of a citizen. I am
1:31:37really looking forward to seeing the
1:31:38upcoming documentary and hopefully to a
1:31:42more respectful and thoughtful
1:31:44conversation about the case once it
1:31:46airs. So, here is what I'm going to
1:31:49suggest. Go watch the documentary this
1:31:52week. Listen to the new science. Listen
1:31:55to the witnesses. And the minute you
1:31:58finish either episode, come right back
1:32:01here to this channel. We're going to
1:32:03have a follow-up discussion about
1:32:06exactly what they showed, what they may
1:32:08have skipped, and why. Because, like I
1:32:11said, I guarantee you 4 hours cannot
1:32:13cover everything that still does not
1:32:16make sense about this case. Now, if you
1:32:19haven't, please take a second to
1:32:21subscribe and turn on notifications so
1:32:24you do not miss that postdoccumentary
1:32:27breakdown. It costs nothing and it means
1:32:30the world to me to have your support as
1:32:33[music] we dig into this case. For those
1:32:35new to my channel, my name is Tara Marie
1:32:38and this has been an episode of True
1:32:40Crime Matters. [music] And as always,
1:32:42thank you so much for watching. Be
1:32:45careful out there.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Scott Peterson: Evidence of Innocence You Never Heard | What the A&E Doc might miss by True Crime Matters with Tara Marie, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 13,682 words across 2,080 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.