Dear Joe,
We’ve once again highlighted some of the factual inaccuracies in your timeline. You have re-used some of the same inaccurate statements from before. When we publish articles on our web-site, we go to great lengths to back up what we say. We refer to specific testimony, specific exhibits and back up what we say with sources. We need for you to do the same.
You have either not read all the dog testimony or have misunderstood it. There is no cadaver scent! Not in pre-trial hearings or in the trial itself. And, if Scott is so “guilty” why can’t you prove it with what was offered in the trial alone?
You added quote marks to your comment about a neighbor seeing Scott loading something in his truck the morning of December 24th. Does this somehow make that statement more reliable? No neighbor testified to this. If you got that quote from Dateline, we would hardly call that a source. The whole point of our web-site is to correct misinformation. The biggest culprit of perpetuating and sometimes creating misinformation was media outlets that failed to check their sources. Media outlets are not an acceptable source. (Unless it is a quote from live television.) Again, we go to great effort to prove what we are saying is true by referencing the evidence and public record.
You have posted your response on the internet without any concern for it’s accuracy. You, as well, are perpetuating wrong information. We put the challenge out over two months ago, and you did not respond until we stated that no one had taken us up on it. Then you give us two days to respond or you will alert ‘media and internet outlets’. We’ve been listening to inaccurate news reports for coming up on four years, so join the list of inaccurate reporters. You have spread lies.
At what point does that make you a liar? At what point does a liar become a psychopath?
You cannot assume that Scott lied about the events of December 24th because you believe him to be guilty, or because you’ve diagnosed him as a psychopath. Give us proof that what you’re saying is true. The legal standard to prove guilt is that the only one reasonable explanation points toward guilt. Scott outlined the events of December 24th to 18 different people, and there are no inconsistencies, lies, or unreasonable behavior. His reasonable explanations point to innocence and must be ‘adopted’.
Your timeline still does not include enough detail. Please verbally describe all the required actions and at what time Scott was doing them. Especially, from 9:30 or so on. For example:
Get the idea? The burden of proof is on you. That’s the whole point of the challenge. You claim a background in criminal philosophy and forensics and that you are qualified to render an expert opinion. You don’t need to be an expert to put a timeline together, and you don’t need to be an expert to source a fact.
You suggest that we should get on with our lives but you confess that you present this response to us because you, yourself need some sort of closure. You mention public opinion. If we cared about public opinion we would have crawled under a rock long ago. Our pursuit of justice has not been popular, easy, or inexpensive, but our pursuit of justice is right.
Once again, below you will find some of your errors highlighted…
Dear Petersons:
I have attached a formatted version of this amended timeline version of my response to your challenge. If you are unable to open the attachment, the unformatted version is as follows:
The Peterson Challenge
Solved in timeline format with corrections and citations.
Motive - Financial, emotional, physical and sexual freedom
Means – Scott was physically able to easily overpower Laci and he also had the element of surprise; by all accounts Laci did not have suspicions of Scott’s homicidal tendencies
Opportunity - Over 12 hours, from 8:30pm on the 23rd to after 9am on the 24th
Undisputed Facts:
1. Laci was murdered
2. The murder was premeditated This is not an ‘undisputed fact’.
3. Laci’s body was recovered in the very spot where Scott and Scott alone admitted to have been “fishing” alone at the exact time she goes missing. This is not an ‘undisputed fact’. Scott was not the only person at the marina/bay between December 24th and April when the bodies were recovered. You cannot assume that Laci was at the bay on December 24th. It was publicized within one day of her being missing that Scott was at the bay.
4. Scott predicted Laci’s disappearance in the Amber conversations days before she actually disappeared; and indirectly during his media interviews and initial video interview with Brocchini (see below). More disputed ‘facts’.
Timeline:
In chronological order per your request, even though it was not in order as the challenge was presented.
Prior to December 23rd:
Scott ‘predicts’ that Laci will go missing in the Amber conversations, days before it actually occurs. Testimony – Amber tapes, prior to December 24th : “I lost my wife”
Scott makes anchors in the warehouse and leaves a huge mess of cement evidence behind. If he was making fence posts at his house, the mess would be at the house and not the warehouse. You do not mix cement 10+ miles away (warehouse is not 10+ miles from the house and the cement was on a trailer – trailers are towable!) from where you use it because it would set before you got there. The amount of missing cement roughly corresponds to the underwater behavior of the body. Source?
December 23rd – Amy cuts Scott’s hair. Scott invites Amy over for pizza and agrees to pick up papa’s basket at Vella Farms. If Amy accepts the offer, Scott simply kills Laci after Amy leaves. He has over 12 hours of opportunity so it’s not like Amy being there for an hour or two would have made any difference. Agreeing to pick up the basket only demonstrates that he thought he would have time to do that the next day. There is no evidence that he had previously committed murder and disposed of a body so it probably took a little longer than he thought, not allowing him time to pick up the basket. When he realizes that on his way home from the marina, he creates the mock phone call to Laci asking her to pick it up for him, which:
1. Creates the illusion of his thinking that Laci was still alive, reinforcing his alibi; that he was at the marina? Who wants to reinforce an alibi that puts themselves at the ‘scene of the crime?’and
2. Provides an excuse for not picking up the basket; and,
3. Confirms psychopathic tendencies in making false promises. How is it a false promise if he’s trying to make arrangements for someone else to pick it up?
If he was innocent – and not a psychopath, why did he promise to pick up the basket and not do it? He didn’t “forget” because he called Laci. You answer your own question. He remembered the basket and called his wife to see if she could pick it up. Why didn’t he call hours earlier when he knew he would not be able to pick it up in time? This might be a stretch, but have you ever changed your plans for the day and subsequently forgotten about an errand you were going to run? He was only “fishing” for about an hour, it’s not like something unexpected happened and he was stuck out on the water for any great length of time, longer than he planned. The traffic being worse than he said he thought was not a factor, he still would not have had time driving at 55pmh and leaving the marina at 2:17pm. If he had simply decided to go fishing instead of playing golf, he would have called someone earlier to pick up the basket, at the latest before leaving the warehouse. He made no calls that day until he staged the call to Laci, which was introduced at trial as not being typical behavior for Scott; Source? Compare Scott’s cell usage on this day to Scott’s non work day cell usage prior to Laci’s disappearance. He usually made numerous calls throughout the day. Not that day, he was busy. Not fishing, when he got back he didn’t know what bait he was using or what he was fishing for. Incorrect.
Morning of December 24th around 7-8am
Scott smothers or strangles Laci in the master bedroom of their home while Laci is getting dressed. In the process and from her body lying on the bed, a body shaped depression is left on the comforter (photo in evidence and that is not the way a ‘Martha Stewart” kind of gal makes a bed). Could it be that Scott is telling the truth! That Laci got up first and that he made the bed? She is wearing the pants and bra she is later found in and no other article(s) of clothing have any bearing on the case, except possibly the blouse that Scott later takes out of the hamper, scrunches up and shoves in a drawer once he realizes that her clothing might become an issue, if he killed her in the morning, why would he need to mess with any evidence that proved she was alive the night before? Are you suggesting that Scott was ‘hiding’ Laci’s shirt in her own drawer? Are you aware that the house had been broken into and Laci’s clothes had been stolen and or rifled through? demonstrating consciousness of guilt. During the brief struggle Laci cuts Scott’s knuckle and a small amount of his blood is transferred to the comforter. Scott retrieves the blue tarp from the shed, spreads it out on the bedroom floor next to the bed and puts Laci on top of it and rolls it up around her body. This not only contains forensic material but also provides a convenient means of dragging the body out the house and into the truck, all without leaving behind any forensic evidence, if any existed.
Since they live together there is not going to be any suspicious forensic evidence, such as there would be in a case involving a third party whose forensics would not be expected at the residence. There was nothing to clean up so there was no evidence of any clean up. McKenzie is in the house or backyard throughout the ordeal and would not have barked if Scott and Laci were making physical contact with each other, something that is common among married couples. A dog is not capable of distinguishing the difference between a playful hug and a smother.
Source?
Either Laci turned on the TV before he killed her or Scott turned it on to cover
up any screams. He wasn’t really “watching” MS, he happened to hear a few words,
there’s a difference. While dragging a dead
wife around the house it would not be uncommon for anyone, including a
psychopath to notice and remember a few words from one of her favorite shows.
Is there
research showing what words people hear while ‘dragging a dead wife around’.
How do you know what is ‘not uncommon’ in this situation? Who turned the TV
off? When?
Physical Evidence at the Home:
Scott’s blood from Laci’s defensive knuckle wound on their comforter.
Photographs of the bed show what photos? it to be flattened in the middle in the shape of a small body, indicating that Laci may have been laid there after the bed had been made. Laci kept a “Martha Stewart” quality house and would not have left the bed that way. To Scott, with the messy warehouse, it would not appear unusual. Either: Laci made the bed before she was killed and Scott messed it up with her body; or, Scott made the bed in a hasty and sloppy manner after he killed her, which would be consistent with him being a “slob” he could have also made it in a hasty and sloppy manner just because he’s a slob (slob is in the trial transcript in reference to Scott, pertaining to his leaving the duffle bag on the floor in the spare bedroom).
Scrunched up rug, caused by Scott dragging Laci’s body out the door. If it did bind in the doorway as suggested, Scott could have easily pushed it back with his foot to close the door. Or, he may have simply left the door open and pushed the rug back in later, forgetting to straighten it out completely, not thinking anything of it. He had much more important things on his mind at the time. You didn’t address the umbrella stands outside that door!
Cadaver Scent – Suggests that Laci was carried to and left in a vehicle that day (reference “bots dots”), unless she flew away. The trail ends at the Marina at the precise location where Scott launched his boat. Incorrect!
Citations:
“Valentin told the Detectives at command center that Merlin indicated Laci left in a vehicle, not on foot, because Merlin was pretty dedicated to always going back and checking those Bott Dots as they traveled through the neighborhood.” The trail led from the house to the warehouse to the marina.
Judge Delucchi: I tell you what, there's a pointer. Can you go to the board and just keep your voice up, Ms. Anderson, so the jury can hear you. We'll do it the old fashioned way, we'll use a pointer. Show us the direction now where the scent took the dog.
Eloise Anderson: I scented her here. She made a circle, lined out on her line, went down here, down here, down here, down to this pylon. That's where she gave me the first end of trail. I stood for a minute just to see if she would try to locate more trail, she turned, went this way, went down there, turned around, came right back and stopped and gave me another hard end of trail indication.” This is not a cadaver dog and they did not do a ‘missing member’ while scenting the dogs. And this dog went down the dock west of the boat ramp. Are we to believe that Laci’s skin rafts that are forensically sealed in your blue tarp escaped and blew into the wind toward the water to be smelled a few days later by a dog that is only certified to track a live person on foot?
Eyewitness Testimony – A neighbor saw Scott loading Laci into the truck:
“Around 10am on December 24, 2002, the morning of Laci Peterson’s
disappearance, a neighbor witnessed Peterson load a tarp-wrapped bulk into his
trailer-truck. Peterson said good morning and told the neighbor that he was
going fishing, and that the tarp held large umbrellas he would store at the
warehouse.”
Source?
8:40-8:45. – Scott checked the weather on the computer while Laci’s lifeless body lies wrapped in the blue tarp in the master bedroom. He was already committed to dumping the body in the bay but still wants to know the weather conditions. Don’t you ever plan a picnic and then check the weather before you leave to determine what to expect? What to wear? I’ll even take it a step further and add that Laci used that computer primarily so it’s entirely possible she had the butterfly and shopping sites as her home page; or, that those were “pop-up” ads or any number of other possibilities, including Laci saving them to her favorites. Yahoo provides content specific to a user’s surfing habits, so if Laci used that computer often and visited shopping and butterfly sites, it would acknowledge that and those are the types of popup ads and menu selections that would appear on that computer.
9:30am - 10:00am – Loading the Truck. Scott drags her tarp-wrapped body out to the truck, scrunching the side door rug in the process. The rug may have become stuck in the door, in which case Scott would have simply pushed it back with his foot. It would have been difficult to straighten properly though, while dragging a body. He probably planned to do it later and just forgot so is forgetting normal behavior or psychopathic behavior?, or didn’t think it was important.
He gets the umbrellas and stacks them on top of her tarp-wrapped body. When did the umbrellas get wrapped in a tarp? Given the dimensions of the truck bed What are the dimensions? Are you accounting for the tool box?, the umbrellas and small body fit with room to spare; you can stack things up in the back of a truck without them falling out, especially something like umbrellas, which tend to cling to the sides of the truck if expanded a little. How about catch wind and fly out of the back of your truck if expanded a little! Why else carry them around in the back of the truck all day; if not to conceal a body and provide a reason for loading things into the truck? Those umbrellas had absolutely no reason for being in the truck that day. Other than to take them to the warehouse to store them because Scott and Laci did not have a garage.
The body was not in the toolbox and if rigor mortis proved to be any inconvenience, Scott simply bent or broke the small limbs What kind of force is required to do this? What do consider a ‘small limb’?into whatever positions he required. Since Laci was wrapped in a tarp, it’s unlikely that any limbs were sticking out. Riga mortis will stiffen but not move post-mortem body parts. I doubt he rolled her in the tarp with her legs and arms protruding at right angles.
That blue tarp is the same one the detectives later found doused in gasoline
First, there was no tarp found with gasoline on
it. Secondly, when did he unwrap Laci from the tarp? from the leaf blower that Scott used to eliminate any possible
lingering DNA material. There was testimony at
trial that the tarp was not tested because the gasoline would have eliminated
any forensics.
Incorrect.
The tarp was wrapped around the body to contain the forensics and the umbrellas
were placed over it to conceal it and afford an excuse for loading something
into the back of the truck.
It probably only took about 10-15 minutes to load the body and umbrellas into
the truck but he could have done it any time during the 82 minute window from
logging off the computer at 8:45 until just before he left at 10:08; I’m
guessing it was probably closer to 10:00 since that’s when the neighbor reported
seeing him loading something into the back of the truck but that’s not critical.
If you are not comfortable with the way this fits, then Scott could just as
easily have loaded the body and umbrellas into the truck prior to checking the
weather on the home computer. Either scenario is plausible.
McKenzie is in the front or back yard while Scott is loading the truck and he could easily control the dog. Testimony was introduced at trial indicating that Scott was able to control McKenzie much better than Laci:
Rick Distaso: And what she told you about that was, you asked her, I mean, did she, was she still going to the park or, and then she kind of cut in and said, um, not that I remember specifically, but she said she always walked McKenzie with her, which was a safety feature. She didn't let her off the leash because she couldn't control McKenzie like Scott could. So I know she always kept McKenzie on the leash, or that's what she said in our conversations. And then she tells you the part that I already went over about reading this vehicle, right?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
It takes Scott about a minute to put the leash on McKenzie and leave the gate open to try to place Laci outside the house at the time of her disappearance. He took the leash off when he got home because it was the natural thing to do Why would he do ‘the natural thing’ if he’d put the leash on the dog as part of his ‘She was walking the dog’ story? Wouldn’t he start his ‘where’s my missing wife act’? . Psychopaths do not have problems distinguishing analytical behavior such as removing a dog’s leash when not walking it; it’s the emotional side that they are not able to resolve. It would have appeared peculiar if he left it on and he knew that. Then he simply leaves McKenzie in the front or back yard with the gate open and drives off. He did not need to drop the dog off anywhere. He knows as any dog owner does that a dog will follow you when let loose. McKenzie probably followed the truck for a few hundred yards and then went back home. This is standard and very predictable canine behavior.
Scott drives off and checks his voice mail. He probably wanted to see if Amber had called. Driving with a cell phone is a common practice. It was probably second nature to Scott, who had a cell phone in his ear constantly, often talking to Amber. The tarp would probably not be “flapping around” with the umbrellas covering it and even if it did, having a cell phone in your ear while glancing in the rear view mirror is hardly a challenging task.
Truck Evidence –
Scott’s blood from his bleeding knuckle is found in the truck.
She’s been dead for two hours and he’s still bleeding? Where’s the blood in
between the comforter and the truck?
10:08am – Scott leaves for the warehouse with Laci in
the back of the truck, wrapped in the tarp and concealed with market umbrellas,
time confirmed by cell phone records. Dog
evidence cited above indicates that Laci did not leave the house on foot; “the
dog chased the bots dots”, indicating she either flew away or was wrapped in
something like a blue tarp that prevented the escape of skin rafts and dragged
out to the vehicle and departed via the truck.
Incorrect.
10:20am – The Warehouse – Scott arrives at the Warehouse, partially opens the large rolling door just high enough to back the bed of the truck under the rolling door and up to the boat, the partially closed warehouse door concealing his activity. The truck does not fit all the way inside the warehouse but enough of the bed does, enough to partially close the large warehouse door down to the height of the bed while he is slipping out the tarp-wrapped body - the door being partially closed conceals this activity. He slips Laci out from under the umbrellas Are you suggesting the umbrellas just slid off of her into the bottom of the truck? and into the bow of the boat. How does tailgate of truck line up with the bow of the boat? This takes about a minute. Rigor mortis was not an issue. With a person that small, he could easily have bent or even broken any inconvenient limbs into position. Add another minute or two if you like; still, he had the body slipped out from under the umbrellas and into the boat in a matter of minutes. He had from 10:20 – 10:32, 12 minutes to accomplish a few simple tasks you need to list every task that take less than 5 minutes.
Scott left the body in the bow of the boat Where? Across the seats? Between the seats? Is she curled up or extended straight? Check your measurements. because from experience, any boater knows that the bow is the most stable area of a boat. Source? And ‘anyone’ is not a source. Anyone with any boating experienced such as Scott knows that with a 200 lb. engine in the stern, adding your own weight, a body and anchors there would not be the smartest decision. Just like anyone else, this is exactly the type of analytical thought processing that psychopaths are capable of; it’s demonstrating proper emotional behavior that eludes them.
10:32 – 10:49am. - Scott is on the computer at the warehouse after sliding Laci’s body into the boat and pulling the truck out. He closes the large warehouse door the rest of the way and uses his computer for about 15 minutes. Incorrect. You cannot change this time. See Detective Wall’s testimony
Mark Geragos: Okay. Was it your understanding that he was on the computer from roughly 10:32 to about 10:49?
Allen Brocchini: I don't recall. I just remember it was.
In the mean time, Laci is still in the bow of the boat; Scott wants to get that computer usage record established as quickly as possible What does this accomplish if all that time is on the computer? He would still have the same amount of unaccounted for time. Laci rotting away Where’s the cadaver scent? means nothing to a psychopath incapable of emotion.
10:50 – 10:55 He’s still on the computer - He screws the top on the mortise tool, providing more excuses for his extended presence at the warehouse. He didn’t do any cleaning up at the warehouse that day because there was nothing new to clean up. He didn’t think the cement mess would be an issue or he would have cleaned it up days earlier when he had plenty of time So right now he doesn’t have any time?, right after making the anchors.
10:55 – 11:10 – Scott carefully opens the tarp exposing Laci’s body and uses duct tape or some other means to attach four ~10lb. anchors to each of her limbs. He unwraps the tarp just enough to gain access to her limbs Is the tarp rolled up around her or folded around her?, attaches the anchors and folds the tarp back over to cover her body and the small anchors, tucked tightly against her. No forensic evidence is flying around. Testimony is on record stating that the boat had salt water in it, in addition to cement residue.
40lbs. is more than adequate weight to keep a body of that size submerged INCLUSIVE OF POST MORTIM GASSES and remain submerged but slightly drifting until a major storm washed the bodies ashore. Source? If he used less weight, the bodies would have floated out to sea; more weight and they might have remained in exactly the same spot he dumped them near Brook’s Island, where they would have been recovered by the search teams. A live 150 lb. human only requires 10-12 lbs. of weight to sink in salt water Irrelevant. The human body is composed of 70% water. How much more water is contained in a pregnant body? In the case of a 150lb. body, that remaining 30% is capable of producing at most an additional 20lbs. of positive buoyancy. With 40lbs. of weights attached, that still left the body negatively buoyant by about 10lbs. Not enough to raise it to the surface, but enough to make it light enough to move around on the bottom, which is precisely what the body did. That’s why it was not in the precise location near Brooks Island where they were searching and it also explains why the bodies surfaced where they did right after a storm. This is a case of Scott being unlucky. If he used less weight, the body would have floated and possibly drifted out to sea, never to be seen again. More weight would not have made a difference because the body became dislodged from the anchors by erosion due to tide and surge movement. The arms and legs literally wore away; or were eaten away, or both. Let’s say for the sake of argument that 40lbs. was not enough weight (although I have proven that it is). Then the body would have floated to the surface within a matter of days and either:
a). been discovered by someone; or,
b). drifted out to sea or washed ashore
Neither of which occurred.
So either the precise amount of missing cement was used to create exactly enough anchors to account for the proven movement and location of the bodies; or, some mysterious force held the body down for several months until they washed ashore. Or a third option – they weren’t there. In a scientific theory with two or more possibilities, it’s the simplest version that is usually correct. Unless you can explain the “mystery force” that kept the bodies down for exactly the period of time that accounts for the damage to the bodies and all the other evidence that they were in the sea; and, where they washed up, then the anchor theory is by far the most logical, proven and generally acceptable theory.
Evidence - In the process, Laci’s hair incorrect becomes entangled incorrect in the pair of pliers. Any other evidence that needed to be disposed of — assuming any existed was dumped in the bay along with the body. A soft kill does not require any extensive “clean up” because it provides little or no forensic evidence. If Scott was smart, he would have at least cleaned up the cement residue in the warehouse. If he was smart, he might not have gotten caught. All he had to do was dump the bodies a little farther out into deeper water but it was too rough that day and Scott was not a competent enough seaman to have navigated such a small craft through the higher seas associated with the deeper water beyond the sheltered marina area.
Evidence – The huge cement mess all over the warehouse and inside the boat constituted substantially more debris than could be accounted for from the manufacture of a single anchor. If Scott was mixing cement for fence posts at his home, he would not mix it in a location 15 minutes away from the home; the cement would harden before it got it there. Cement is mixed on site, where it is going to be used — not 15 miles away. I can’t believe this was even a point of contention. Scott mixed a lot of cement in the warehouse and the only logical explanation is that he made the additional anchors. Significantly, just enough cement was missing to account precisely for the behavior of the body after it was placed in the water.
Evidence - There is cadaver scent No there’s not. that was not admitted at trial (reference Merlin’s bots dots) at and around the warehouse that was not admitted at trial. Laci’s scent led all the way to the marina No it didn’t., where it was picked up by Trimble who gave an ‘end of trail’ alert at the pylon of the very dock where Scott launched his boat on the day that Laci disappeared.
There no skin, tissue or blood found at the warehouse or in the boat because Laci was wrapped inside a tarp and any evidence that might have escaped would have been blown away or washed away at sea, except the hair that was stuck in the pliers.
Scott has plenty of time So right now he has plenty of time? to use his computer, assemble the mortise tool and check e-mail. There was little or nothing to “clean up” except for the cement, which he would have done several days ago when he first made the anchors, had he thought that a cleanup was necessary.
Scott was at the warehouse from around 10:20am until approximately 11:22am. That’s 62 minutes, which is more than enough time to:
⳦ 10 min. – Open door, back up truck, slide body into boat, pull out truck, close door
⳦ 17 min. – Check computer, send email, read fax
⳦ 10 min. – Assemble mortise tool
⳦ 15 min. – Attach weights to body
⳦ 10 min. – Open door, hook up boat, pull out boat, close door
If Scott was not unloading and attaching weights to Laci’s body then why does he spend 62 minutes at the warehouse? 27 minutes on the computer, assembling the mortiser, maybe looking for the correct tools to assemble the mortiser, hooking up his boat, maybe doing some paperwork... Is he sitting there doing nothing for over 30 minutes? Why? He had papa’s basket to pick up, fish to catch; and he’s anxious to get his new boat in the water. Why sit around doing nothing for 30 minutes? He didn’t Computer records limit usage to 20 minutes Incorrect. He had 13 minutes at the warehouse before he logged onto the computer and 22 minutes at the warehouse after he logged off the computer. You used up 10 minutes assembling the mortiser, and 10 minutes to hook up the boat, pull it out and close the door. That leaves you 13 minutes before he’s on the computer and 2 minutes after he logs off to accomplish all his criminal activity. and it could not possibly have taken more than 10 minutes to put the top on that mortise tool. I’ve owned one and it’s not like assembling a bicycle; they can be put together in 10 minutes tops and usually not even that long for any person of average intelligence. He didn’t have any phone calls or visitors according to trial testimony - what did he do with all that extra time?
11:22 – Scott leaves for the marina. Driving 90 miles at 55mph = 1hr. 38 min. 10 sec. (T=D/S) driving time, Scott arrives at the marina at 1pm.
BROCCHINI: Shit I don’t know. Tuesday, time 12:54 on December 24th, but expires oh okay, expires 11:59 p.m. Tuesday. Okay so you got there at 1:00.
PETERSON: I got there at one?
BROCCHINI: Yeah about one.
1:00 – 2:15pm - Marina – There are no other people using the boat launching facilities that day and even if there were, no one is going to go peeking under a boat cover in someone else’s boat to see what’s underneath it. It takes Scott only a few minutes to park the car and return to the boat so he is not worried about anyone searching around his boat while leaving it docked unattended for several minutes. Had Scott been a better seaman he might have been able to navigate the rougher seas outside the sheltered marina area and dumped the body into deeper water where it may never have been discovered. He was just not a competent enough captain to navigate the rougher seas outside the sheltered marina in such a small craft.
Scott launches the boat, motors out near Brook’s Island, dumps the body, returns and leaves the marina. It’s about 2 miles to Brook’s Island so at a speed of about 20 knots, it takes approximately 6 minutes each way. That leaves almost an hour to find a location and dump the body along with any other evidence overboard. He had to kill a little time or explain why he went out in a boat for only 12 minutes so he had a lot of time to inspect the boat and dispose of any incriminating evidence. He failed to notice the tiny strand of hair stuck in the pliers.
Evidence – Testimony was provided that only 3 people, including Scott purchased a launch ticket at the marina on the 23rd, 24th and 25th. The marina has many other people around in addition to those who purchase launch tickets. And, you can’t assume that all people using the ramp will purchase the ticket.
Evidence –
Laci’s scent found at end of dock at marina.
Incorrect
Evidence – Bodies recovered in close proximity to Brooks Island, the place were Scott and Scott alone was “fishing” the day that Laci disappeared. Incorrect
Evidence – Time stamp from parking machine confirms time of arrival.
Evidence – Cell phone call confirms time of departure.
2:17pm
– Scott is driving home, leaving a cell phone trail. The first time he makes any
calls that day. Why? All day and not one call. That’s not like Scott from all
the testimony presented at trial, which indicated that he made numerous calls
every day. It was Christmas Eve so caller activity is lower than usual but
that’s primarily because most people are with their family. Scott doesn’t even
call his pregnant wife, not until after he dumps her body.
4:00pm – Impossible Scott returns to the warehouse, drops off the boat, cleans up what - if any bits of evidence he may see why not cement? and drives home, leaving the market umbrellas in the back of the truck.
Evidence – The market umbrellas are still in the back of the truck. He sees them yet again while backing up the boat after having seen them at least twice at the marina while launching and retrieving the boat. They have been in the truck all day now, obstructing his rear vision and getting battered around in the back of the truck. Why doesn’t he unload them? By Scott’s own admissions, he only had two things to do all day:
Only two things to do the entire day and he “forgets” to do one of them! And the umbrellas are massive — impossible to miss as well as causing a rear visibility obstacle in the back of the truck. There is no rational explanation for those umbrellas being in the truck all day, except to conceal Laci’s body and provide an explanation for loading something into the truck.
4:45-5:15pm – Scott returns home to a dark empty house on Christmas Eve, takes the leash off McKenzie, eats pizza, drinks milk, calls Amber Source?, showers, washes his clothes, checks his messages, changes clothes and THEN finally at 5:15pm decides to call Sharon Rocha and tell her that Laci is missing. This still leaves time for another opportunity to stage a curling iron scene or a mopping scene if anyone thinks either of those events are pertinent to anything and did not occur earlier.
Scott using the term “missing” is yet another one of his predictions of Laci’s demise. Together with the Amber tape “lost wife” statements; the past tense media statements; and the “but Laci” statement in the initial police video investigation, Scott consistently and under varying circumstances reveals his prior knowledge of Laci’s death.
The Investigation:
The mop – He probably put it there to make it look like there was some activity by Laci that day; When?or, he may have used it to clean up something that he thought might have been suspicious: mud prints or any number of non-forensic things. Laci might have been mopping the night before. After the maid left? There could be any number of reasons for the mop being where it was and why, none of which would tend to infer guilt or innocence; it’s just a mop and a bucket. Scott never volunteered any information about the mop or bucket Incorrect., he was asked about them. Of course he would make up some story, he lied constantly. The only mention of bleach was by an investigator who later said he was mistaken.
Cadaver scent – Led from the house to the warehouse to the end of trail at the
marina, although the former was not introduced at trial (reference bots dots and
Merlin). There was no cadaver scent in the toolbox because he didn’t put her
there.
Incorrect. You need to explain why there is no
cadaver scent anywhere!
Tarp and Boat Cover – Doused in gasoline by the
‘leaky’ blower. Whether or not it destroyed forensics, it proves consciousness
of guilt. Why else would Scott crumble up the
boat cover and tarp, move them into a storage shed and pour gasoline on them?
Incorrect.
The tarp and boat cover were not even found together.
What other possible explanation could there be for bringing the boat cover home
instead of leaving it in the boat?
Curling Iron and Bench in Bathroom – Either Laci practiced the fun flip that Amy
had taught her the night before or Scott staged the scene in an attempt to
create the illusion of Laci’s living presence that morning. Scott had over 12
hours of opportunity so he could have easily set this up. Either way, the
curling iron and bench in the bathroom do not infer guilt or innocence; it’s
just a couple of things commonly found in a bathroom, nothing more. He does
mention “How cute Laci looked sitting on her bench curling her hair the way Amy
showed her the night before”. This means Scott
either observed Laci curling her hair the night before
After Amy did it? And she mopped the night
before?
prior to killing her; or, he made it up to
demonstrate a living presence of Laci in the house that morning
when. So either he lied outright and staged the whole
scene, which is something he does constantly be specific;
or Laci practiced what she learned from Amy when she got home and Scott lied
about when she did it. Scott lies constantly so there is no way of knowing for
sure one way or the other. However no
interpretation of either scenario suggests any inference of innocence.
Incorrect.
Karen Servas may have been mistaken about what time she put McKenzie back in the
yard but she did find McKenzie in the street some time that morning, by any
interpretation of the testimony. And she does put the dog back in the yard and
close the gate. The exact time she found the dog and whether the gate was open
or closed or ajar is not germane to any inference of guilt or innocence. Just
for the sake of argument, what difference would it make if she found McKenzie an
hour later? That would still only give Laci an hour and twenty minutes to change
her clothes, put on her jewelry, mop the floor, curl her hair, use the computer,
put the leash on the dog, go outside and get abducted. It does not fit. And who
goes out on a 40 degree morning with no jacket, no cell phone, no shoes, no
PURSE??? From strictly an evidentiary standpoint, Laci would have had to leave
the house clad only in bra and pants. It just could not have happened that way,
not by any stretch of the evidence or the imagination. She left in the back of
Scott’s truck, wrapped in the blue tarp.
When Karen called, Scott handed the phone to the detective. To do otherwise with
a live lead would be incriminating; what else could he do? Hang up? Also, Scott
was assuming that her statement would help confirm his story about not being
there when the dog was found and Laci went missing. All he was trying to
establish at that point was that Laci was alive that morning and walking the
dog.
After Scott realizes that the time provided by Karen does not afford adequate
time for Laci to have done everything he said she did, Scott asks Karen to
double check her timeline, hoping for a change that will better substantiate his
statements. Then she does check her timing meticulously but it does not work in
Scott’s favor.
Scott saying McKenzie is Protective of Laci – It’s a well-established fact that
Scott knew would come out by numerous people who knew them sooner or later;
better to say it himself than to get caught in yet another lie (reference trial
transcript supra).
Laci’s Clothing - Scott had to invent something to create the illusion of Laci
being alive that day so he remembers what she wore the previous day, something
easy for him to repeat consistently. Scott never thinks the bodies will be
recovered so he has no reason to suspect that her actual attire will ever become
known. Most of the jewelry Scott says she is
wearing is later found in the home according to the trial transcripts Incorrect.
The only jewelry she was found it were her
earrings? - according to Scott she was
wearing half her jewelry collection!
Incorrect He says this to portray her as an easy target
for thieves to support his claim that she was abducted by transients for her
jewelry. This is further evidence of consciousness of guilt, since it
was later proven that she was not wearing the
jewelry Source.
Why else would Scott lie about the jewelry she
was wearing?
Incorrect
Duct Tape - The duct tape could have been
floating in the bay and attached itself to Laci; duct
tape retains its adhesive properties for long
periods of time, even underwater Source. The duct tape was completely adhered to
her pants. It also could have been one of the things Scott used to
affix the anchors to Laci’s body. We know Scott kept duct tape in the warehouse
because that's where he went to get it when they were putting
up fliers. The tape found on Laci’s body did not match the tape found at the
warehouse but it is a fact that Scott is no
stranger to duct tape. Are you kidding? Who is a stranger to
duct tape?
He could easily have used a different roll to attach the anchors to the body and
disposed of whatever might have remained in the bay.
Replies to Your
Questions:
Bodies decomposing under water emit gases.
These gases rise to the surface. Water dogs detect these gases at the surface.
Feel free to research.
I’m not sure why this is important since it’s not even disputed that the bodies were in the bay for 3-4 months Yes it is., by all accounts of the testimony What testimony?. However, there’s any number of explanations, the most likely of which being they were searching in the wrong place because the post-mortem gasses caused the body to become more buoyant and drift away from the initial position near Brook’s Island where they were focusing their search efforts.
The bay is a massive body of inclement water with virtually zero visibility (source?)
Is there really a question as to the size and visibility of the SF bay? I’ll look all that up if you tell me why it’s important. I know the visibility is close to zero from personal experience and from the testimony presented at trial: “the divers could not see their hands in front of their face and had to grope through the mud”. As to size, hundreds of square miles? Thousands? Does it matter? Finding a tiny anchor buried in mud would be akin to the needle in the haystack axiom. I am a certified diver and even in good visibility it’s difficult to locate and recover small objects underwater; in a bay under those conditions it’s nearly impossible.
Is Scott in a hurry or not?
Sometimes. He’s in a hurry when he’s sliding the body out of the truck and into the front of the boat with the warehouse door partially open. He’s in a hurry to close the warehouse door and check email to establish a reason for his extended presence there. After that, he’s not in any particular hurry, he has plenty of time But what about the basket?.
Is he brilliant or dumb?
Neither. Scott has probably slightly above average intelligence. He makes a lot of stupid mistakes, like not cleaning up the cement but it’s his first murder, it’s almost impossible to think of everything. A murderer gets only one chance to do everything and can not make a single mistake, the police have as much time as they need and a lot of experience knowing what to look for. That’s why so few murderers get away with their crimes. There is always something that gives them away. In Scott’s case there was much more than usual There is not one ounce of forensic evidence!; not that that makes him any less intelligent, he just made more mistakes or was not planning on all the intense scrutiny the case ended up receiving.
What is the complete story on the tarp?
Scott used the blue tarp to wrap Laci’s body and carry it out of the house, into the truck and slide it into the boat. Once in the boat he partially unwrapped the tarp and attached the anchors, then wrapped her back up. At the marina, he put the boat cover over the tarp, much like he put the umbrellas over the tarp in the back of his truck. A body will slide pretty easily on a slippery tarp Source? so all he had to do was lift one end of the tarp up and in one forceful move, ‘bump’ her out of the boat – think of a trampoline. After that, he might have dragged the tarp in the water for a while to get rid of any evidence, then took it home and doused it in gasoline Incorrect from the leaf blower. The leaky gas not only demonstrates further consciousness of guilt but would serve to remove or kill any lingering DNA evidence that may have remained. Conversely, why would he cover OUTDOOR umbrellas with a tarp? Why not? If there was no body, there was no need for a tarp and certainly no rational reason for putting it back in the storage shed and dousing it with gasoline.
Your theory has to reasonably explain how and why everything is where it's at at the end of the day.
I believe that has been accomplished. If I have left anything unaccounted for, please bring it to my attention and I will respond directly or fit it into the timeline, whichever you prefer.
You label Scott as a "psychopath," and "incapable of emotion" and yet you explain his "innocent" actions with terms and phrases like, "natural thing to do," "not uncommon," "common practice," "logical thought process," "routine," "like any other day". Is he normal or not?
I am assuming that you received the psychopath analysis I sent in my last email to you by Dr. Grayson. There is absolutely no doubt that Scott is a psychopath or sociopath. Although they are lacking in all of the areas defined, such as empathy and emotions, psychopaths are fully capable of making typical rational decisions in other analytical areas, just like normal people. I’ll go back and review this now and clear up any inconsistencies that I may have overlooked. Your timeline and your psychopath analysis are filled with inconsistencies and show your lack of knowledge of the true facts in this case.
You said it best when you said, "To answer specifically, nothing was cleaned up because there was nothing to clean up." We couldn't agree with you more!
Well, at least we agree on something! J
The Joe Challenge to the Petersons:
Now here’s a little challenge for you. No timeline necessary, just try to explain why any normal innocent individual would do the following:
• Why did Scott put the umbrellas in the truck and unload them right back where they were in the first place? Maybe when he got home and found his wife missing it was no longer a priority to get the umbrellas to storage. He saw them in his rear view mirror at least TWICE at the warehouse Look at Scott’s truck with the tool box in the bed. The bed of the truck would not be visible through the rear view mirror, FOUR TIMES while backing in and out around the marina It doesn’t matter how many times he sees them in his truck at the marina – he can’t take them out there. and yet again when he left the warehouse; He noticed them when he locked the door (see Brocchini interview below) but now he’s now running late for dinner. And then, as if that isn’t incriminating enough,
• In his initial video statement to the detective Scott says: “you know, but Laci” when asked why he didn’t’ unload the umbrellas?
BROCCHINI: Uhm, those umbrellas, they, were they in your car before too?
PETERSON: Put them in this morning, my intent was to leave ‘em at the warehouse.
BROCCHINI: And so you took ‘em to Berkeley with you?
PETERSON: Yeah. I forgot to take ‘em out.
BROCCHINI: So you put the umbrellas in there this morning?
PETERSON: Um hum.
BROCCHINI: Because you were gonna store ‘em at the ware house?
PETERSON: Yeah but I didn’t.
BROCCHINI: What did you just forget?
PETERSON: Um hum. Ah I, I even saw ‘em in there when I locked the door.
BROCCHINI: Um hum.
PETERSON: You know, but Laci.
This is another HUGE faux pas of Scott’s that must have gotten by the detectives. Scott says he forgot to unload the umbrellas at the warehouse when he dropped off the boat - “but Laci”. Why? By his own statements, Scott did not know Laci was missing when he was at the warehouse dropping off the boat. He forgot to unload the umbrellas because he was too upset about Laci being missing before he gets home to find out she’s missing? No way! He didn’t even think anything was wrong when he got home – he took a shower and ate pizza and washed his clothes. Scott is aware of Laci’s disappearance before he gets home. This is all but an outright admission of guilt and it was never even mentioned at trial. The actual recording of this interview, and the video tape show that this was an incomplete sentence. Brocchini interrupted Scott mid-sentence. He could have wanted to say, “You know, but Laci was waiting for me,” or, “You know, but Laci wouldn’t want us to be late for dinner.” It was not a complete thought as presented in the typed transcript. Either the prosecution missed it or they had so much evidence they didn’t need it. So much evidence that you yourself still need closure. You will never be able to account for this by any logical or rational means consistent with innocence.
ᐙ How did Scott predict Laci’s disappearance to Amber before Laci went missing: “I lost my wife”
ᐙ How can you account for the bodies being recovered where Scott and Scott alone was “fishing” at the precise moment in time that Laci went missing?
ᐙ Why was Scott unable to answer simple fishing and bait questions by first responding officers? Incorrect. He was able to go into great detail about almost everything else.
ᐙ Why did Scott first say that Laci ate cereal twice, then changed it to toast after Sharon questioned him about her eating cereal twice in their taped conversation? Scott is clarifying details, he’s not changing his story. It’s a back and forth conversation. If Scott had some initial story with Laci eating cereal twice, why would he have to change it? She is eating for two.
ᐙ Why does Scott go fishing without bringing food or water? Not even a soda. I’ve been boating for 30 years (and Scott has been a “lifelong fisherman”) and you never go out to sea - however briefly without bringing along at least a few bottles of water, let alone a candy bar or something. Scott specifically said he brought no food or drink with him on the boat and hadn’t eaten all day. He ate breakfast before he left and had pizza upon his return at around 4:45. Why? What was “pudge boy” so excited about that day that he forgot to eat?
ᐙ
Why does Scott say Laci is “Missing” in his first call to Sharon on the 24th?
ᐙ Why all the past tense references and corrections regarding Laci and Connor during his televised interviews? Source? All family members, both Rocha and Peterson referred to Laci in the past tense in media interviews.
ᐙ Why did Scott tell three different people he was playing golf that day? In fact, it was the first three, Incorrect almost like he was first going to use golf as an alibi and then changed it to fishing He called Laci from the marina and left a message stating he was leaving Berkeley. Scott never hid the fact he went fishing. You have 3 random, inconsequential people stating that Scott told them he went golfing. Two of whom didn’t inform police of it until months later. If Scott wanted people to believe he went golfing, why did he immediately correct Ron Grantski on the 24th when Ron thought he had gone golfing? after giving it a little more thought and getting a glimpse of what he had actually gotten himself into. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Scott is not a psychopath and capable of emotion - even then, no one is so upset that they tell 2-3 different people they were golfing when they were really fishing.
ᐙ Why choose fishing over golfing because of the weather? I am a golfer and a boater and would much rather golf on a cold day than go out in a freezing cold wet boat. That is your personal preference. Maybe Scott saw it as a good opportunity to bundle up and take out his new boat out. The more layers you need to wear, the more restricted your golf swing will be. You can’t say he didn’t know any better because Scott had been fishing and around boats most of his life. A small boat on a cold day is a wet and miserable experience, For an hour or so? which is why there were no other small boats launched that day. A scratch golfer like Scott does not hold a golf club too tight or hit many thin shots, which slightly sting your hands on a cold day. Look at all the tournaments that are held in temperatures in the 40s. Cold inclement weather would be the last reason to opt for a wet boat ride over a round of golf.
ᐙ Why did no one claim the $500,000 reward for information leading to Laci’s safe return? Because maybe she was already dead and her safe return wasn’t possible. A jailhouse informant quickly claimed the $1,000 reward for information about the Medina burglary.
In Conclusion:
I have spent two entire days researching and configuring this into a cohesive and chronological timeline, which addresses each and every one of the parameters defined in your challenge. Not only does the timeline work perfectly but every single aspect of the crime, your requirements, the evidence and Scott’s psychopathic disorder all fit precisely within the scenario provided. I don’t want any prize or reward; I would just appreciate your acceptance that I have successfully met your challenge; or, failing that to know of any other specific information that you require, which I may have overlooked.
Here’s something else for you to consider. All the time and money you are committing to fast-tracking Scott’s habeas appeal is actually shortening his life. There is almost no chance of this case ever winning an appeal and in effect, the sooner Scott’s first appeal is denied, so shortens the path to his ultimate destiny. Gardner and Gibbs are just like Geragos, they will consume all of your assets and leave you with nothing but shattered dreams, frustration and anguish. A case like this does not stand a chance on appeal and those vultures are bleeding you dry with false hope and “possibilities” they know will never manifest. Consider how many high ranking local and federal officials would have to be fired, disbarred, discredited, ridiculed and punished and then sued in order to have Scott’s conviction overturned. As sad as it may sound, it’s just not going to happen. The media and half the population of the US would have to admit that they were deceived and that an entire county, feds and the DOJ are all corrupt. Personally I believe that at least part of that is true but the public at large is never going to buy it. More importantly, no appellate court is going to be willing to accept the consequences of such a ruling. The president himself has personally met and extended his condolences to the Rochas’. Did he call you?
I want you to known that I do not dislike Scott, in fact prior to hearing the evidence and reading the trial records I was extremely supportive of Scott. I felt the investigators used myriad unethical and marginal tactics and prematurely focused on Scott; I still do, but I am not able to dismiss the evidence. And I am not responding to your challenge request simply because I enjoy puzzles and challenges, but also – like most everyone else who has followed the case, I would like to see some sort of closure – not only for myself but also for you. I could have spent these past two days working, going out on my boat, diving, playing golf, spending time with my wife, etc. but instead I have been assembling this timeline for you and researching testimony and facts. I’m sure that you have been making the same sacrifice every day and night for over three years and I am hopeful that perhaps my efforts will help you see the reality of the situation so you can start moving forward with your lives. Accept the fact that Scott is the victim of the circumstances that he created - through absolutely no fault of yours. You have done everything humanly possible to help Scott; you did an outstanding job of raising him and you’ve supported him well beyond any conceivable parental expectation. No one who understands the circumstances of this case will ever blame you or see you for anything other than what you are, two kind loving parents who are innocent victims of a child with a terrible dysfunction. Psychopathy is a physical and not a social disorder – there was absolutely nothing you could have possibly done to prevent this. Do not allow Scott to manipulate, abuse and drain you any further — financially or emotionally. Life is too short to waste on someone who is incapable of any real emotion, including any sincere non-superficial appreciation. Please, go back to living your lives and enjoy the things you have worked so hard to achieve. Travel to exotic places, play golf, go shopping, go out to dinner — take control of your lives and live each day to the fullest. You are good, honest, hard-working people and you deserve it; and so does the rest of your family.
With Kind Regards,
- Joe
To discuss the Peterson case click HERE
Scott's new home