Dev, In my understanding, if the survelance equipment was loaned to the police department then it would be part of the prosecutions evidence and according to the law all evidence has to be turned over to the defense. (Isn't that correct?)
Neither do I think there was, is, any involvement by the FBI in the murder case of Laci, but I do think they may have had Scott under servelance for drug involvement and therefore they have no obligation to turn over any video tapes. I think the reason it got into the 27,000 pages of documents is because while the police were talking to neighbors they mentioned the equipment on the telephone polls.
To my knowledge the FBI have never denied these camera's or video's existed, so like I said above if they were loaned to the police then I would think they would have to have been turned over. Of course I am just doing a lot of speculation here.
From Another Article:But the question of surveillance tapes, if they exist, could play a role in the case, legal observers said.
Those tapes are "enormously significant," defense attorney Mark Geragos said Thursday during Peterson's preliminary hearing in Stanislaus County Superior Court. Geragos indicated that the tapes could shed light on a burglary across the street from the Peterson home that police said took place Dec. 26......................................................................................................................................................The surveillance camera came to light when Geragos suggested in court that he would seek to have the charges against his client dismissed if the information is not turned over to the defense.
An internal FBI memo contained in about 27,000 pages of documents already provided to the defense referred to a closed-circuit television camera placed "across the street," Geragos said. The memo did not say when the camera was installed or how long it was in operation.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Rick Distaso said prosecutors did not have such surveillance videos, but would provide them to the defense if they are received from the FBI.
Fellow prosecutor Dave Harris said the defense has yet to show how such videos might exonerate Peterson.
Did FBI film Peterson home?
They don't have to turn their evidence over to the defense, Spunky. Obviously, if it's documents, the simplest thing to do is run a xerox copy and give that to the defense. Other things (including originals of documents, if it's an issue), they just have to make them AVAILABLE to the defense for inspection. This would apply to equipment. For example, many or most police cars have a videocam in them that videos the prisoner(s) being transported. Suppose something happens on that videotape, something that the prosecution decides is evidence--the cops don't have to turn over their video equipment to the defense, just make it available for the defense to inspect and maybe test.
The only thing, really, that makes one wonder, is: 27,000 pages??!? THAT much?? That is what seems out of the ordinary.
But regarding the surveillance camera, I seem to remember hearing that it didn't get set up till after the "disappearance". I also have a vague memory that it only recorded when persons (including Scott) entered or left the Peterson premises. It was mainly there to help the police know when to get ready to follow Scott somewhere. (He often foiled the GPS by using other vehicles.)
The FBI themselves may have set it up. They may have been invited in, or may have simply jumped in, early on, when it seemed like this could well be a ransom kidnapping. (Consider that some police may have already heard from family that there was $2.1 million indirectly related to this case--that's what the 3 Rocha kids stood to inherit.)
I think once it was determined by all police involved that this was NOT a ransom kidnapping (lack of any ransom note or calls or other communications), the FBI took backstage, and the locals took over completely.