Hacking May Have Learned Of Husband's Lies

Missing: The family hires a criminal defense attorney to represent Mark Hacking, who remains hospitalized

By Ashley Broughton
and Matthew D. LaPlante
The Salt Lake Tribune

Salt Lake Tribune

Three days before she disappeared, Lori Hacking may have uncovered her husband's deceptions.
   She received a phone call at her work, started crying and went home early, said a colleague at Wells Fargo Institutional Brokerage and Sales.
   "I could hear her say things such as, 'But he's already been accepted. He's already applied. This can't be correct,' said Darren Openshaw, a Wells Fargo employee who overheard the phone call about 2:15 p.m. on July 16.
   Openshaw said he believes the caller was from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
   "I don't know for sure it was the school," he said. "I can only assume."
   Lori Hacking and her husband, Mark Hacking, were preparing to move to Chapel Hill, where he said he had been accepted to medical school.
   But last week, shortly after Mark Hacking reported his wife missing, police learned he had never applied at North Carolina and had lied to his family about graduating from the University of Utah.
   His family members, meanwhile, said Monday that they have retained Salt Lake City criminal defense attorney Gilbert Athay to represent him. Family spokesman Scott Dunaway said the move was necessary because of news media reports regarding Mark Hacking.
   Monday marked one week since Lori Hacking, 27, dis- appeared.
   The Salt Lake City woman, who reportedly was five weeks pregnant, failed to return from an early-morning jog in City Creek Canyon, according to her husband.
   Friends have said that Mark Hacking contacted them about his wife's disappearance about 10 a.m., claiming he had twice run his wife's usual jogging route three miles each way, looking for her before he called police.
   But police said last week that before Mark Hacking reported his wife missing, he was purchasing a new queen-sized mattress at a South Salt Lake furniture store.
   Authorities have been unable to confirm Lori Hacking was in the canyon that morning and consider her husband, Mark Hacking, the only "person of interest" in the case.
   Dunaway said relatives were not aware of the phone call Lori Hacking apparently received at work July 16.
   The last time Lori Hacking contacted her mother was by e-mail July 14 or 15, he said, making arrangements for her to take care of the couple's cat while they were preparing for their move to North Carolina.
   Before Lori Hacking received the phone call on Friday, Openshaw said, he had seen her looking at UNC-Chapel Hill's Web site.
   Afterward, "she hung up the phone and sort of sat there crying," he said. "We asked her if she was OK and if she wanted to leave a little early."
   She did. But by the time she arrived at her going-away party held that evening, she seemed fine, Openshaw said. Co-workers were so relieved at her elevated mood that they didn't bother to inquire about the phone call.
   "We didn't think of it," he said. "We assumed everything had been worked out, that there may have been a misunderstanding. Whatever it was that upset her seemed to have been resolved."
   Pictures from the party, held at a supervisor's cabin in the Uinta Mountains, show Lori Hacking in a baggy gray University of Utah sweatshirt, smiling widely with her husband's arm wrapped around her shoulder.
   Another shot depicts her standing next to her supervisor, Randy Church, and a cake that reads: "We'll miss you, Lori."
   But those present didn't intend the party to be the last time they saw Lori Hacking. Her last day at Wells Fargo was to be Aug. 5, according to a company spokesman.
   Those at the party said the guest of honor didn't speak in detail about her future plans, but seemed optimistic about the impending move.
   Openshaw said he asked Mark Hacking at the party whether he was planning on rooting for UNC or rival Duke. "He said he didn't really get into stuff like that."
   A close friend of Lori Hacking, who saw the couple at a housewarming party the night before she disappeared, said she made no mention of an upsetting phone call.
   "Lori was just acting totally normal," said Erin Galbraith, a former college roommate of Lori Hacking. "I would have sensed something weird. I was in their apartment. I was looking at boxes."
   Mark Hacking remained hospitalized Monday, Dunaway said, after suffering what relatives have called a "breakdown" the evening of June 19.
   Police last questioned Mark Hacking on Wednesday. "To go back and re-question him on the same issues when we don't feel he's been truthful the first time - I don't think that would do us any good," said Detective Dwayne Baird, a police spokesman.
   Baird said Mark Hacking has been cooperative with authorities, however.
   Police are still awaiting test results from the state crime lab. "They have a lot of material," he said.
   Athay said he was retained to represent Mark Hacking late Thursday and has met with him several times. He would not describe the meetings or discuss his conversations with his client.
   Asked why Mark Hacking needs an attorney, Athay said, "Everybody needs a lawyer when they're under investigation or suspicion."
   He said he was returning calls to reporters Monday because of curiosity regarding his role in the case, but said he will not be saying much in the future.
   "You know me," he said. "I'm pretty closed-mouthed and tight-lipped."
   Mark Hacking called his wife's office about 10 a.m. on July 19, speaking first to Brandon Hodge, another trading assistant she was training. He didn't ask where his wife was, but instead how she was doing, Hodge told The Associated Press.
   ''By the way, how is Lori?'' Hacking reportedly asked. Hodge said he replied, ''Well, she's not made it into work yet.''
   Church then took the phone and recalls Hacking saying she hadn't returned from a sunrise jog at Memory Grove, a downtown park near the office. Hacking made it seem he was calling from his apartment, Church told the AP.
   ''Oh, my God, her [work] clothes are still here,'' Hacking reportedly said to Church, who had been expecting Lori Hacking at 7 a.m. and says she was never late to work.
   ''I said, 'You need to call police immediately. Just get off the phone,' Church said.
   Police said Mark Hacking's call came in at 10:49 a.m. Monday - about 25 minutes after he used his credit card to buy the mattress at Bradley's Sleep Etc.
   In other developments Monday:
   l Salt Lake City Police officers used dogs to search the city landfill Monday night. Baird said they were finishing up a search of the area that had started last week. High temperatures and the availability of the dogs were the reason for the night search, he said.
   l Police said they are looking into a lead that Mark Hacking may have visited an R.C. Willey Home Furnishings store nearby before going into Bradley's.
   l Authorities have asked anyone who was in Memory Grove Park or City Creek Canyon between 5 a.m. and 11 a.m. on July 19 to call 799-3000 or 799-INFO (4636).
   l Police continued to decline comment on reports of blood and a bloody knife found at the Hackings' apartment, saying the information is evidentiary in value.
   l Police rejected a Salt lake Tribune open-records request for initial police reports in the Lori Hacking case, as is routine in most disappearance cases. In a letter to the newspaper, Capt. Mark Peck said releasing the information might interfere with a law-enforcement investigation, disclose investigative techniques or deprive a person of a right to a fair trial.
   l A BFI Waste Services driver who picked up the Hackings' garbage at about 3:30 p.m. on July 19 said he saw nothing unusual and wasn't asked by police to inspect his collections, as is often the case in drug investigations and other crimes.
   l The Salt Lake City office of the FBI said it has not been involved in Lori Hacking's case. The FBI has offered its help through agents and profilers but police have so far has not accepted, said spokesman Bob Wright.
    aebroughton@sltrib.com
   mlaplante@sltrib.com
    ---
    Tribune reporters Stephen Hunt and Michael Westley contributed to this story.

76-5-202. Aggravated murder.
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes aggravated murder if the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under any of the following circumstances:
(a) the homicide was committed by a person who is confined in a jail or other correctional institution;
(b) the homicide was committed incident to one act, scheme, course of conduct, or criminal episode during which two or more persons were killed, or during which the actor attempted to kill one or more persons in addition to the victim who was killed;
(c) the actor knowingly created a great risk of death to a person other than the victim and the actor;
(d) the homicide was committed while the actor was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, aggravated robbery, robbery, rape, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, forcible sodomy, sodomy upon a child, forcible sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, child abuse as defined in Subsection 76-5-109(2)(a), or aggravated sexual assault, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated burglary, burglary, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, or child kidnapping;
(e) the homicide was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing an arrest of the defendant or another by a peace officer acting under color of legal authority or for the purpose of effecting the defendant's or another's escape from lawful custody;
(f) the homicide was committed for pecuniary or other personal gain;
(g) the defendant committed, or engaged or employed another person to commit the homicide pursuant to an agreement or contract for remuneration or the promise of remuneration for commission of the homicide;
(h) the actor was previously convicted of:
(i) aggravated murder, Section 76-5-202;
(ii) murder, Section 76-5-203;
(iii) aggravated assault, Subsection 76-5-103(2);
(iv) mayhem, Section 76-5-105;
(v) attempted murder, Section 76-5-203;
(vi) kidnapping, Section 76-5-301;
(vii) child kidnapping, Section 76-5-301.1;
(viii) aggravated kidnapping, Section 76-5-302;
(ix) rape, Section 76-5-402;
(x) rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.1;
(xi) object rape, Section 76-5-402.2;
(xii) object rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.3;
(xiii) forcible sodomy, Section 76-5-403;
(xiv) sodomy on a child, Section 76-5-403.1;
(xv) aggravated sexual abuse of a child, Section 76-5-404.1;
(xvi) aggravated sexual assault, Section 76-5-405;
(xvii) aggravated arson, Section 76-6-103;
(xviii) aggravated burglary, Section 76-6-203;
(xix) aggravated robbery, Section 76-6-302; or
(xx) an offense committed in another jurisdiction which if committed in this state would be a violation of a crime listed in this Subsection (1)(h);

(i) the homicide was committed for the purpose of:
(i) preventing a witness from testifying;
(ii) preventing a person from providing evidence or participating in any legal proceedings or official investigation;
(iii) retaliating against a person for testifying, providing evidence, or participating in any legal proceedings or official investigation; or
(iv) disrupting or hindering any lawful governmental function or enforcement of laws;
(j) the victim is or has been a local, state, or federal public official, or a candidate for public office, and the homicide is based on, is caused by, or is related to that official position, act, capacity, or candidacy;
(k) the victim is or has been a peace officer, law enforcement officer, executive officer, prosecuting officer, jailer, prison official, firefighter, judge or other court official, juror, probation officer, or parole officer, and the victim is either on duty or the homicide is based on, is caused by, or is related to that official position, and the actor knew, or reasonably should have known, that the victim holds or has held that official position;
(l) the homicide was committed:
(i) by means of a destructive device, bomb, explosive, incendiary device, or similar device which was planted, hidden, or concealed in any place, area, dwelling, building, or structure, or was mailed or delivered; or
(ii) by means of any weapon of mass destruction as defined in Section 76-10-401;
(m) the homicide was committed during the act of unlawfully assuming control of any aircraft, train, or other public conveyance by use of threats or force with intent to obtain any valuable consideration for the release of the public conveyance or any passenger, crew member, or any other person aboard, or to direct the route or movement of the public conveyance or otherwise exert control over the public conveyance;
(n) the homicide was committed by means of the administration of a poison or of any lethal substance or of any substance administered in a lethal amount, dosage, or quantity;
(o) the victim was a person held or otherwise detained as a shield, hostage, or for ransom; or
(p) the homicide was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner, any of which must be demonstrated by physical torture, serious physical abuse, or serious bodily injury of the victim before death.
(2) Aggravated murder is a capital felony.
(3) (a) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of aggravated murder or attempted aggravated murder that the defendant caused the death of another or attempted to cause the death of another:
(i) under the influence of extreme emotional distress for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse; or
(ii) under a reasonable belief that the circumstances provided a legal justification or excuse for his conduct although the conduct was not legally justifiable or excusable under the existing circumstances.
(b) Under Subsection (3)(a)(i), emotional distress does not include:
(i) a condition resulting from mental illness as defined in Section 76-2-305; or
(ii) distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct.
(c) The reasonableness of an explanation or excuse under Subsection (3)(a)(i) or the
reasonable belief of the actor under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person under the then existing circumstances.
(d) This affirmative defense reduces charges only as follows:
(i) aggravated murder to murder; and
(ii) attempted aggravated murder to attempted murder.

Amended by Chapter 166, 2002 General Session

Last revised: Tuesday, July 13, 2004

",,,that Hacking needed to acquire that new mattress to replace the one which he disposed of to remove crime scene evidence."

he already knew where Lori was and that she would be staying put.

"...the box spring was not replaced and it was just the mattress?"

Correct. That's what's been reported. The police were shown on film removing the boxspring. There appeared to be a reddish brown blotch at one or both ends of it and some posters have commented on this. The police spokesman was asked about it and he said he believed those darkened areas were actually on the plastic they had covered it with prior to removal, IIRC. The bedding I don't know about. Let me know if you locate a source about that, ok?

If I were on the jury (and heard the info) I would ask: How could the neighbor who claimed to have seen Laci Peterson walking by have possibly been confused about whether she saw an eight-month pregnant neighbor she saw regularly? The prosecution has claimed that she must've confused someone else for Laci, or that alternatively she just confused the days and actually saw Laci the morning before her disappearance. But then, the prosecution also claims that Laci had stopped walking the dog weeks beforehand, despite other evidence contradicting that too.

And, what the heck was Scott Peterson's motive? I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation for that. Mark Hacking has a perfectly obvious, self-evident motive. What was Scott's motive? Was it the affair? What for? It wasn't even that torrid of an affair. All kind of guys have affairs and they don't pop off their wives. Was it that silly pawn-the-ring theory? LOL

And, let's say that Scott killed his wife in a fit of rage for some reason (e.g., she discovered the affair, or whatever): Where's the luminol evidence? The Hacking home was covered in blood stains; the Peterson home had nothing. Where were the bruises or scratches or other signs of struggle? Witnesses have testified that Scott had no sign of injury and there was no sign of fighting in the home. There was a big deal made early on about some rags recently used for cleaning, but the Luminol would still have revealed any blood stains. There was nothing.

A big deal was also made of Scott's emotional facade in the days after the disappearance, but now it's come out that he went on heavy tranquilizers immediately afterward. It was said that the boat was a big, huge secret but there's the witness who says Laci was at the storage place in the weeks before.

I'm not saying Scott didn't do it somehow or that he might not have arranged it for some mysterious reason, but the prosecution case is riddled with holes and if Scott's not acquitted I will be shocked (unless there's some major revelation we don't yet know about).

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.