The Changing Tide in the Defense Of Scott Peterson:

The Changing Tide in the Defense Of Scott Peterson:
Why Doubt About His Guilt Is Seeming More and More Reasonable

Barely two months ago, bailiffs marched so-called "monster in chains" Scott Peterson before a Modesto judge for arraignment on charges for the double murder of his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner. In the court of public opinion, Scott Peterson's guilt was a forgone conclusion.

The crowd outside the Stanislaus County Courthouse then was eerily reminiscent of a time in our history when angry townspeople gathered in the village square to mete out justice with stones and pitchforks. Piercing shouts of "Murderer!" could plainly be heard.

Last week, however, as defense attorneys and prosecutors headed back to court to argue motions, the tide of public opinion seemed to shift. The "monster in chains" had transformed into a clean-cut chap in a two piece suit. And press reports concerning information in the autopsy reports for Laci and her child had raised doubts in the minds of many.

According to reports, the baby's body was found with a knotted piece of tape wrapped tightly around its neck in a "noose-like" fashion. The terrible modus operandi seemed not to fit Peterson - who had been depicted as a cheating husband who might have wished his wife would disappear, not a twisted killer capable of using perverse means to kill a helpless unborn child.

Outside the courthouse were curious, quiet onlookers - many of whom were slowly starting to ponder not how Scott Peterson had committed such a heinous crime, but rather, had he indeed committed it in the first place?

The doubt in the public mind made the outcome of the motions at issue - one of which sought to unseal the very autopsy reports that had apparently been partially leaked - seem all the more momentous.

So far, as I will explain, all the rulings have been favorable to the defense. That suggests again - just as the leaked autopsy evidence did - that this will be a decidedly two-sided trial, not the walkover prosecutors had envisioned.

Meanwhile, there have been some dramatic new developments: Famed attorney Gloria Allred has appeared on behalf of Amber Frey. (Frey, as those who have followed the case will know, is the woman with whom Scott was cheating on Laci, and who says he told her he was single.) And members of Laci's family have reportedly moved her possessions out of the house she shared with Scott. I will also explain the likely legal consequences, if any, of these events.

Originally, prosecution and defense had agreed that the autopsy reports should remain sealed. But once the leak occurred, prosecutors - who blamed the leak on the defense, but did not provide evidence to support their suspicions - changed their mind, and sought to unseal the report on Conner Peterson.

Prosecutors argued that the leak had been a calculated defense tactic meant to bolster a recent theory that a malevolent third-party - perhaps affiliated with a "satanic cult" - committed the killings. The defense continued to support the sealing order, however, and Judge Girolami declined to lift it.

Autopsy findings are normally a matter of public record. However, a provision of California's Evidence Code allows the judge to keep the autopsy reports private. The provision states, in part, that disclosure of "official information" may be shielded from public consumption if there is a "necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice . . . ."

Defense counsel argued - successfully so - that disclosure of the autopsy findings could affect the arrest of the "real killers" who, according to the defense, "are still out there."

If this argument sounds familiar, it should. Earlier in the week, co-defense counsel Matt Dalton made the same argument before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne - the jurist assigned to handle requests by the media to unseal search warrants and related affidavits. (Incidentally, the search warrant issue was not before the court on Friday morning. Instead, a closed-door conference was conducted in Judge Beauchesne's chambers later in the day. Although neither side offered comment following the meeting, the search warrants and affidavits continue to remain sealed.)

Thus, for now, the status quo will continue. However, the public probably won't have to wait long to hear the full contents of the reports. On July 16, the preliminary hearing in this matter is set to occur. I, for one, am willing to bet the Modesto medical examiner will be one of the first faces we see on the witness stand.

Remember, prosecutors will need to prove Laci's death resulted from a criminal act - rather then being an accident. The cause of death for both victims reportedly remains undetermined. However, the medical examiner has classified the manner of Laci's death as a homicide - giving prosecutors the crucial "criminal act" proof they need. (Reportedly, no manner of death has been designated for baby Conner.)

Prosecutors have sought a gag order preventing the parties' attorneys from discussing the Peterson case. The defense has opposed such an order. Neither party's position is a surprise. After all, what good will it do Scott Peterson to have retained a media-savvy lawyer like Mark Geragos if he isn't allowed to be, well, media savvy?

The prosecution says they have sought a "limited" gag order, but it's not clear exactly what the limits would be. In any event, the judge has refused to put a lid on the leaks just yet - reserving his ruling on this issue for an undisclosed future date.

He was probably wise to do so. Gag orders in cases like these tend to be utterly unenforceable anyway, and thus only to underline the court's ineffectuality in this respect.

That is not - as the prosecution has suggested - because defense attorneys act in bad faith. Rather, it's because the huge press appetite for information in notorious cases like this one - with tabloids paying big money for scoops - creates strong incentives for anyone who's seen the evidence to leak. And how many people, at different levels of authority, likely had access to this autopsy report before it was sealed? It's a losing battle.

Thus, the defense achieved two of its goals, at least for now: to seal the autopsy report, and to resist a gag order. The defense also had another goal: It sought evidence as to the government's wiretaps of Scott Peterson's telephone calls. It achieved that one, too. The court ordered all recordings, except those between Scott Peterson and journalists, to be turned over to defense counsel.

Police investigators intercepted more than 3800 telephone calls to or from Scott Peterson. Sixty-nine of them were calls between Peterson and his lawyers. Assuming that Peterson was seeking legal advice in these conversations, as he almost certainly was, they were protected by the attorney-client privilege.

If it is proven that police continued to listen in on these calls even when it was plain that there were protected by the privilege, that would be very serious indeed. A variety of possible sanctions would then be available to the judge.

It goes without saying that prosecutors should not be able to use privileged conversations as evidence in court. But the judge could also go further, to punish the misconduct.

He might for instance, suppress all of the wiretap evidence. Or he might prevent anyone with knowledge of the privileged conversations - or anyone involved in listening in - from testifying.

Indeed, he might even go so far as to disqualify the district attorney from prosecuting the case if the misconduct was grave. For instance, if there was an intentional - rather than merely mistaken or negligent - decision to ignore the attorney-client privilege, and especially if that decision was approved by higher-ups, a strong sanction could be appropriate.

Just when you thought the most talked-about witness in this double-homicide, death penalty case could use a makeover, in walks Gloria Allred, representing Amber Frey.

Frey's image was tainted when she was initially pegged as the "other woman." Then it was purified when it became clear she probably did not know Scott was married when they were involved. But then, in the eyes of some, it was tainted again, when news reports this week mentioned her having posed - sans either pants or taste - in 1999 for a nudie magazine.

Gloria Allred has professed her dedication to protecting the reputation and character of this much-anticipated witness for the State. Under the circumstances, Allred may have the toughest job of all.

Of course, Frey doesn't really need a lawyer - the prosecution reportedly has ruled her out as any kind of suspect. Nor does she have a right to have one appointed for her, since she is not a defendant. But she does have the option to hire one, as she has done.

At Peterson's trial, Allred will be relegated to the cheap seats in the gallery like the rest of the spectators, but may be permitted to sit adjacent to the witness stand while Frey is testifying. Moreover, in the unlikely event that any questions to Frey did get into areas implicating her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Allred could counsel her on whether to invoke that right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 9 — It was on June 9, one year ago, that Laci Peterson broke the news to her family and friends, joyous news, that she couldn’t wait to share: she was pregnant. Much later, of course, her family would receive a horribly different piece of news: a phone call on Christmas Eve, that something was wrong. Laci was missing. Ever since, the family of Laci Peterson has been enduring a very public kind of pain, from the months of fruitless searches and countless missing posters, to that terrible discovery on the California coast, to the arrest of their son-in-law Scott. Laci’s family spoke to NBC’s Katie Couric in their most extensive television interview to date, sharing new details about Laci’s life, her husband’s actions, and their own hopes for justice.

SHARON ROCHA: “It’s just moment by moment. I’ve said that since December 24, and it’s still that way. One minute I’m fine, and the next minute I’m not. It’s just, it’s an impossible situation. It’s hard to believe that this even happened.”

Katie Couric: “I bet you feel like you’re living in some kind of horrific nightmare.”

Sharon Rocha: “There’s many times I wake up in the middle of the night. I wake up and I just start crying because I realize that Laci’s gone and that I’ll never see her again.”

Not a day goes by that Sharon Rocha doesn’t think about her grandson, Connor, who’d be almost four months old now if he had lived.

Rocha: “I imagine to be holding her baby. I imagine her feeding her baby and calling me, and saying, Mom, say, now what do I do? She wanted so much to have that baby. She wanted to be a mother.”

They were just about to have another family get-together when it happened. A single word struck terror in this family. They heard it Christmas eve. Sharon rocha was preparing a big holiday dinner when the phone rang.

Sharon Rocha: “It was Scott. And he said, Hi, Mom. He said, is Laci over there? And I said, no. And he said, well, Laci’s missing. I thought that it was odd that he said Laci’s missing. Any other time, you know, you would have heard, I don’t know where she is, or I can’t find her or something to that effect. Scott said Laci’s missing. I mean I knew immediately, by hearing the word ‘missing’ that something terrible had happened.”

Something terrible had happened. For five and a half months now, an entire nation has been gripped by the story. A 27-year-old mother-to-be disappears on Christmas eve. Fourteen weeks later, her body and that of her unborn son wash up in San Francisco Bay. Her husband, Scott Peterson, is arrested on two counts of murder, and pleads not guilty.

In the meantime, “Laci” has become a household name. And for months, she’s been seen as a face in a photograph. But her family wants us to know the young woman behind the bright eyes and beaming smile, not just as victim, but as a daughter, sister and friend — someone who seemed to be born on a sunny day.

Sharon Rocha: “I would go in in the morning to get her out of her crib and she’d just sit there grinning. Just always happy.”

Laci Rocha was born in 1975 and grew up in Modesto, Calif. But after her parents divorced when she was two, she spent weekends as a country girl on her father’s dairy farm just outside town.

Amy Rocha (half-sister): “You know, just even when you weren’t in the best of moods, you’d get together with her and be in a better mood.”

Amy Rocha: “We spent weekends with our dad on the dairy, and you know, did the country thing. So, I was always the tag-along with her and her friends.” Those who knew her say she liked being part of a blended family. And the fact she had a doting stepfather, Ron Grantski, who took her on family vacations.

Grantski: “My nickname for her, when she was growing up, was ‘J.J.’ for ‘Jabber Jaws.’ And we planned a trip, remember that trip, we went on a trip to the caverns up by Sonora. And she’s little, maybe five or six years old, and talking all the way up there. And I said, Laci, do you think you can be quiet for 30 seconds? And, sure, how long’s 30 seconds? Is it thirty 30 yet?”

Time goes by so slowly when you’re a kid. But before her family knew it, Laci had grown up. In high school, Van Morrison’s “Brown Eyed Girl” was her favorite.

She was a cheerleader and one of the most popular students in her class. By the time she was 16, Laci had become a striking brown-eyed girl, who’d left a striking and indelible impression on everyone at Downey High, like science teacher Bob Starling.

Starling: “My first impression, she was short with a bunch of hair that stuck really high and a big, huge smile. That was my first impression. She was one of those kind of special people, that you just never forget.”

Couric: “You have a book of photographs of your students in that book and there’s here picture in the very front.”

Starling: “She came in and she said, ‘Hey, I need to put my picture in your photo album.’ Then she came over and interrupted me and said, ‘Every time you open this book, you’ve got to smile.’”

Sharon Rocha: “From about the time she was two she loved to dance which at times could be a little embarrassing.”

Laci obviously wasn’t shy. She knew she wasn’t a great dancer or singer, but that didn’t stop her. Her friends remember another night she was doing a song from “Grease,” that time at a karaoke spot.

Kim: “She got up there and just absolutely tore this song apart. And we were all just looking at her going, oh my God, is she ever going to stop? When she couldn’t do something, she pretended like she could, and she had a good time doing it. And those nights were some of the best nights we had.”

While the law says "presumed innocent," majorities of Americans have already decided that Scott Peterson and Eric Rudolph (search) are guilty as charged. Both men are accused of murder and, if found guilty, may face the death penalty — a punishment favored by a solid majority of Americans in the case of premeditated murder.

Many Americans think Scott Peterson (search) was involved in the murder of his pregnant wife Laci, but fewer think so today than did a month ago. In the latest FOX News poll, conducted June 3-4 by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, 58 percent of the public think Peterson was involved, down from 67 percent in early May.

Similarly, the number saying he was “definitely involved” has dropped 12 percentage points (31 percent now, compared to 43 percent last month). Only five percent think he was not involved (four percent “probably” and one percent “definitely” not involved).

In addition, over a third of the public (37 percent) are withholding judgment today, up from 30 percent of respondents who said they were unsure of Scott’s involvement in early May.

Despite the large amounts of media attention to the case, a plurality of the public (47 percent) thinks Peterson will get a fair trial. Thirty-six percent say Peterson will not be able to get a fair trial and 17 percent are unsure.

In another case that has captured the attention of the country, 62 percent of Americans think Eric Rudolph is guilty of involvement in the various bombings he has been charged with committing. Thirty-three percent think Rudolph was “definitely involved” and 29 percent “probably involved” in the four Georgia and Alabama bombings, including the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta.

Those living in the South Atlantic region of the country, which includes Georgia, the site of the Olympic bombing, as well as North Carolina where Rudolph was discovered, are the most likely to believe he was involved (74 percent).

Rudolph’s clean and healthy appearance when captured has led to speculation that he might have received aid from local people. In the case that Rudolph, a federal fugitive, was being helped, 74 percent of Americans believe those individuals should be charged as accessories to his crimes. Fourteen percent think such people should not be charged and 12 percent are unsure.

In general, 69 percent say they favor the death penalty for persons convicted of premeditated murder and 23 percent oppose the punishment. Men are more likely than women to favor the death penalty (74 percent and 64 percent respectively), as are whites (70 percent) in comparison with nonwhites (59 percent).

However, the largest difference is found in the gap between the major political ....................

"UC Davis is a medical research facility amongst other medical stuff.. I think someone was careless in disposing of these remains..."

I agree RB, I heard they're were limb's from 3 women and one man. Some mummified, some with soft tissue.

I know this sounds distateful, but amputations are quite regularly on the OR schedules at all hospitals, esp. teaching hospitals.

The limbs are handed off to the circulating nurse and then on to be cremated usually. Maybe these were some that got "lost" and the person guilty of that offense decided to try and dispose of them, instead of fessing up and getting into trouble.

Just an idea I had from working as a circulating nurse....

"And call me optimistic, but I don't think the MAJORITY of married men have affairs. Therefore, even if all the men who had affairs ended up killing their wives, still, the majority of wives would not have been killed by their cheating husbands."

What????

Jackie Peterson also stated on national televison that the Rochas could go in at any time two days before the ROchas went in. Since the house was still in both Scott and Laci's name, no DC had been issued at that time, the Petersons and the lawyers for Scott have had access (some since the weeks after Laci disappeared), the Petersons have already been seen removing items by neighbors, and the Rocha's had a key. The authorities state it is civil, not criminal dispute.

I'm surprised about this, as when my father had to have his leg amputated, we were given his leg (big surprise to us) and told to treat it as "remains". We could donate it, cremate it or bury it if we had a plot already, but it was our responsibility. It was the law , so I'm surprised this wasn' more closely supervised. Hate to think of someone donating a limb and having this happen.

Yet another suggesting on how else did Laci get to her final destination.
Possible well yeah, plausible highly unlikely.

I live on a Bay and lights that do not normally appear do all the time. Usaully some inexper. boater caught on the sandbar. No one usaully pays attention 'cept me.

I noticed a fishing vessel in the same spot for two weeks and not fishing called the CG and found out they were late on their moorage rent and so are living in an anchor zone...legally. Huh now I wonder where they are dumping their sewage as they have been out there 2 months now. Bay bums.

"how does speculation here on FR change the outcome (of) the verdict?"

I guess you've missed all the self- congratulatory posts 'here on FR' that claim to have changed the course of US politics and debate in general?

"Free" though we might like to consider it, the internet is right up there with (or ahead of) print and broadcast media in its ability to forge opinions:
the opinions that dominate here and elsewhere are violently in agreement with FOX: Laci good, Laci family good, Scott bad, etc.

WE do'n need no steenkin' evidence, we do'n need no steenkin' trial, we need a steenkin rope!

That's fascinating. You know, if more evicted people thought of that... well... well, if more evicted people thought of that... well... well, I guess we'd have a lot more of those children's books like "The Boxcar Children".

I mean, I guess if one were evicted from the lot one's trailer stood on, he could have his trailer towed to the bay and... oh, never mind!

The public may not at this point know evidence which proves Scott's guilt for the murders, but the public has indeed seen hard evidence that Scott is a very cold specimen of a human being. That evidence being, just for starters, his long interviews with Diane Sawyer and with another reporter (watch 'em before you decide to defend 'em), and the pictures of him cracking jokes and smiling on New Year's Eve (one week after she disappeared), and many other things which we have seen with our own eyes.

THANK you!!!

And don'tcha just know, if this case had an alleged eyewitness to Scott's murdering Laci, the defense would be spinning out every study the world has even known which purports to show the "unreliability of eyewitness testimony"!

But Jackie Peterson holds a power of attorney for Scott. Presuming that Scott is the property's owner, that gives Jackie the right to give someone permission to enter the property.

And Jackie did just that. I heard it myself, and so did several others here. On national TV, b/f the day the Rochas entered the house, Jackie said "Sharon can go in there anytime she wants."

And the things they took? Well, Scott may have become the sole owner of the house on Laci's death (through having held it with Laci in joint tenancy w/ right of survivorship), but that does not mean that Scott necessarily was the owner of everything in the house. Some of that property might well have descended to the Rochas. The Tiffany lamps given as GIFTS to Laci by her grandmother, for example. Oh, btw, guess where THOSE were? They were at Kirk McAllister's office. And as the Rochas were committing this "crime", Kirk McAllister had those lamps brought over from his office and turned over to the Rochas very quickly. Guess Kirk McAllister, a California attorney, thinks the Rochas have a right to some of the property, too.

That is unbelievable! They gave you the leg!?

I would think it would be considered medical waste?

Can you imagine if women recieved the remains after an abortion???

I asked the Dr.where my uterus was going after he took it out and he just laughed and said Medical waste.

That's interesting.. I just read about the woman on the Cape who was thought to be murdered by a peeking tom.

However they did DNA on the semen to all her known boyfriends. No match but if it had matched the last known guy to have sex with her and then she was murdered by someone watching wouldn't it be hard for the last guy who had sex with her if it did match to say he didn't kill her?

Yes, from what I remember, all the evidence in OJ as to the actual murder, WAS circumstantial. Unless somehow an Akita dog could be trained to talk!

Egad, do you realize Sydney and Justin could have come to the window or something, and SEEN him practically cutting their mother's head off?

I may be way off, but is that Christa Worthington?

If some of the semen found had matched one of her known boyfriends, but if other semen had also been found, how would they have known WHOSE semen got there last? I mean, how would they have known which guy was the last to do it with her?

Yes, if some of it had matched one of her known boyfriends, I think that person would have been seriously considered as a suspect. But if there were nothing else besides that against him, I could see how he probably would have successfully refuted the suggestion. Heh-heh. Love and murder. He could ask, "Are you saying I went and made love with her, then just up and killed her? Why? I didn't have to rape her; she wanted me as much as I wanted her."

But I think it was kind of fruit (New Orleans lingo for "not fair") for the TeeVee people to publicize the interviewer asking the Rochas that question, to pique people's interest, if the TeeVee people knew darn well that the question had such a let-down of an answer...

That's how the media seems to be. They always seem to make the biggest to-do about something that ends up to be an utter let down put at the very end of their program!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.