All Episodes

March 28, 2024 43 mins

You’re telling me he didn’t do it??!! In a case that shocked the nation and then seemed to be so obvious is now back in the courts and the news.

Defense Attorney Mark Geragos, who represented Scott Peterson, joins Amy and T.J. to help us understand what’s going on and why this case is back in the news. Mark explains why he believes Scott Peterson is innocent. What do you think?

See for privacy information.

Mark as Played

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, everybody. Welcome to the latest episode, this episode
of Amy and TJ. I want to start by asking
a question of you, Robot, of something you just said.
Maybe other parents out there can possibly answer this. What
does it mean when you say I raised my child
well enough? You just say you say you raised her right?

Speaker 2 (00:27):

Speaker 1 (00:28):
You raised you didn't say you raised or right. You
were talking about something complimentary. You're complimenting your seventeen year
old an Elyse said I raised her right enough?

Speaker 3 (00:36):
What does that mean?

Speaker 4 (00:37):
It means that I don't want to take credit for
what she does well, and I also don't want to
take credit for what she doesn't do well. No, I
joke a little bit, but I do believe that what
I wanted to do as a mom was to give
them a foundation, give them an example, but then expect

them to figure it out a little bit on their own.
So when they start to figure it out, I'm proud,
But I don't take credit because I know that there
are really take credit.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah, absolutely, I think you should take credit. But I've
never heard that before. People say, oh, you were raised right,
somebody raised you right.

Speaker 2 (01:21):

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Sometimes your own parents will say I raised you right
because they're proud of something that you just did. You
did have to lay a foundation, but that foundation, again,
it's foundation so for them to build on. So when
you say it, right enough, I was laughing. But now
I didn't know. You didn't know I was going to
ask you this question, but I didn't know you were
going to get so heavy.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
On me there.

Speaker 4 (01:38):
Well, you know what I think, what I have tried
to do is not take ownership of my children. They're
not mine. They're their own, beautiful, free souls who I
get to guide. But at the end of the day,
what they choose is what they choose. And so that's
kind of where the disconnect was, where I.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Kind of.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
A buffer cover when they I know.

Speaker 4 (02:01):
Look, actually, you know the funny thing is when they
do fuck up, I probably will take ownership of that
and say what did I do wrong? And I'll probably
feel guilty about it, And hilariously, I think I'd be
more willing to take that on and say I should
have done better here, there or wherever.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
But when they do well, I want them to own it.
So anyway, it's silly. It was just a little thing.

Speaker 4 (02:22):
She thanked you for something without my prompting, which I
was like, oh, that's so good to hear I raised
her well enough or right enough, like okay, good like
I wasn't expecting that. And then it made me really
happy that she did it. But I didn't want to
take credit for it. Does that make any sense?

Speaker 1 (02:40):
I don't know if my child would have done so,
I said, Man, I feel good even though I say
it to myself. Man, I raised it right, she was
raised right. Man, I did a good job. I did
something right. I would never think well, I did right enough.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
I think I know that I've messed up enough. But
we were Actually I actually just took her.

Speaker 4 (02:58):
To the airport. She's going on and break again. Here's
another story of me having a child go off on
their own. So she's you know, she's at an age
where I did this to my senior year. But this
is for me, the first time she's going anywhere without
any sort of supervision. So eventually, even when she gets there,
she's still with her other friends. So we had some

amazing conversations in the car on the way to the airport.
And of course it's a very long ride to JFK
on a busy commuting commuting money Monday. Sorry, I can't
talk on a very busy commuter day, work weekday. It's
not Monday. Yes, well I'm doing great.

Speaker 2 (03:40):

Speaker 4 (03:43):
I'm right enough. Yes, I hope everyone can commiserate. If
you two get tongue talk. Oh my god, Okay, maybe
I should let you keep talking. No, So, anyway, we
had a good conversation about just all the different twists
and turns of life and how I'm just proud of
how she's made certain choices, and I'm proud of the

fact that her resilience has shown through some very difficult times.
And so I hope I was just talking to her
about carrying that with her throughout her life and taking
all these moments when things don't go the way you
want them to or things get messy, that you find
a way not to point to other people and say
why did you do this to me? Why did this
happen to me, but instead to say I learned something,

and I'm going to I'm going to be able to
take what I learned and make this something that I
can own. I can say what can I do better?
What can I do differently? Anyway, we just have this
great insightful conversation. Yeah, maybe that prompted to thank you.

Speaker 1 (04:37):
I don't know the great way to store spring break
want as you would say, No.

Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yeah, that's fair, that's fair.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Your kids are really really impressive. They are really really impressive.
They're so different. But yes, I didn't plan on asking
me about that when we started here, but that just
came up. You said, I raised her right enough, and
that was funny to me. I planned on starting the
episode by talking about something that seven episodes ago, seven
episodes ago. I don't expect you to remember exactly, but
it was the episode that we had doctor Elizabeth Coleman on. Okay,

now do you remember, and again this is not a
trick question, but you might remember what I said to
you when we started. There was a particular way. Do
you remember what I said at the beginning of that.

Speaker 4 (05:18):
Episode, the beginning of the Doctor Coman episode. No, you're
gonna have to refresh my mind. I came in hot,
you came in hot. The first thing on my mouth
was I got a bone to pick with you.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
I still don't remember.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
Okay, all right, that's okay. But doctor Coleman was on
because doctor Coleman has a book talking about women's health
that she was in the studio with us at the
time we were starting, and I told you I got
a bone to pick. I see, it had been a
year and a half since you had had your recommended
blood work as a breast cancer survivor for them to

come back in and check you out. Okay, am I
sending this up right? You remember?

Speaker 2 (05:55):
Now? Yes?

Speaker 4 (05:55):
I absolutely do, and so yes, up until that point
it had been recommended to me, and I had followed
very religiously, going in every six months for blood work.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
And we want to keep and again, so we want
to start here, folks with a little bit of news
because we have had you all along for this journey.
So move forward a few episodes after that one, and
you gave an update that you had in fact madeor appointment.
Now we won't get into why you may. Yeah, yeah,
I'm going to get into why you made the appointment.

I was actually having some health issues and I have
some unexplained or had some unexplained weight loss, and you
were telling me to get into the doctor, and you
were on me pretty good about it.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
Yeah, I said, maybe you needed some blood work.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
Yes you did, which was hilrinous coming from a moment
who was a year and a half passed. But I mean,
I wasn't trying to shame you, but you know you
should have gotten in. There were reasons for fine, whatelse
it worked. But you told us on that episode that
you had in fact made an appointment.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
Yes, yes, and I surprised you with it.

Speaker 4 (06:57):
I didn't even realize that I was going to drop
that bomb, but it was a good one, and so
yes I did, and we went in together and I
got the blood work. It actually was remarkably quick and easy.
It's so funny what you worry about and what you
think about, and then when it actually happens and you

do it, it's so much easier than you were anticipating,
isn't it Always the anticipation that's the toughest part. And
so we went in, got the blood work. It was
awesome to have you by my side. Thank you, because
I always have a little bit of a tough time
emotionally going back into that building where I first got diagnosed,
and I think that is part of the reason why
I dragged my feet a little bit. Not only am

I worried about potentially what the results could be, but
it's just going back into that building is tough. For me,
so to have you there with me was huge, So
thank you. And got the results back just a little
while ago, and I am all clear, all clear, And
I think when I sent you the text, I sent

a little champagne glasses clinking like cheers, because thank you
for pushing me a little bit to get into that
office and to be able to say, Okay, I got
the blood work, and now I haven't all clear for
a while, and now she told me I can come
back once a year now, so I've graduated to once
a year. But the thread is always there and I'll

probably always drag my feet a little bit because it's
always scary, what's this test going to show? What's this
blood we're going to do? But when you do do it,
and you do if you are lucky enough to get
a good result, wow, is that a huge, huge relief.

Speaker 1 (08:37):
And I am I don't want to be crass or
have this sound like I'm not being sensitive to it,
but I have been learning. I've known you obviously for
ten years, but been in a relationship with you like
this only for the past year and a half, two
years coming up on potentially here this year. But I
am learning about what this means too, and why you

did drag your feet because when you go in again,
I'll put this in the shortest way, this is how
you all explained to me. Breast cancer survivor, you go
in and get this blood work, if there is a
recurrence or has come back, is it essentially a death sentence.
You're essentially being told that this cancer now is metastatic
and there's no cure for that. So you go in
and sitting in that office with you with doctor Ratzo,

you obviously know well, but I've had a chance to
get to know here lately. Did I have more questions
than you?

Speaker 4 (09:29):
You did? You asked a lot of questions. Actually, well,
it was such a loving thing to do because yes,
you're a journalist, but you're curious because you love me
and you haven't been along in an intimate way on
this journey, and so you had questions about being a
breast cancer survivor and what that means. And most people
don't know unless they've walked down that road. And especially

you know there are different kinds of breast cancers, but
she pointed out to you when you have a estrogen
positive cancer, some of the other cancers are more aggressive.
And scarier at first, and if you can make it
five years or ten years, there's a bigger relief of whoo,
it's probably not going to come back when you have
a estrogen positive cancer. I also had a positive lymph node.

My uncle score was higher than they expected, So there's
a lot of things that factor into it. But she
basically explained to you that I can never have that
sigh of relief.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
Ever in life. She explained percentages and how do they
go up? How do you get them down? And I
understand it a little better now, but even listening to
you now, this is where I think a lot of
people in society don't get unless you have somebody right
next to it. But when you say a lymph node this,
or an ANCA score or that, it gets into the
weeds to where I don't get it. I'm learning a

little more. But bottom line, when you go in and
you get this blood work, you are essentially waiting for
them to tell you whether or not you have gotten
a death sentence. And that is the simplest and shortest way.
And I didn't want you to see me, but I
wiped tears out of my eye sitting in that office,
and you didn't see that.

Speaker 3 (11:02):
I didn't say that.

Speaker 1 (11:03):
How she's explaining things and I'm trying to be the
strong and a crack a joke here and do this
and keep everything warm, and she said a few things
that fuck just fucks me up to think about the
road ahead, and it makes you want to We are
not wasting a day. We are we just cannot. And yeah,
you might never have to do with breast cancer again

or rest your life. Hopefully that's the case. But I
thought it was important to share with the audience. Yes,
in fact, it is done. We got the all clear.
Now we wait.

Speaker 4 (11:35):
Yeah, and you know what I want to point out too.
It is a death sentence right now, one hundred percent.
But there are new advances being made every year, and
there is an incredibly advanced quality of life. But it
is a completely different way of life, and you've seen
it through our dear beautiful friend Morgan, where you now
have a life of treatment always every two weeks, every

three weeks you are getting chemo infusions or you're getting
some sort of immunotherapy and your body is weakened and
you have a different standard of life. And so it
is a complete about face from the way a lot
of us, and most of us live and so there
is there is an intention behind every moment that you

don't necessarily have until you've walked this path, and I
hope no one has to, but there is a beauty
in it.

Speaker 3 (12:28):
There is a joint.

Speaker 4 (12:29):
I'm about to go on a trip with Morgan here
in a couple of weeks because that girl is seeing
the world. And you know, that's what I have taken
from this is that all of us aren't guaranteed tomorrow.
So if all of us can live differently and better
because of it. But a light bulb went off for you,
I could tell yesterday.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
Yeah, yeah it did. And look they will continue to
do so and I'll continue to learn and then west.
Being with you has been one of the great joys
of my life. You never know what direction life is
going to take me, but here we are in the
universe has here and to your point there about you
never know. You never know what day is going to
be your last, or what moment. And we certainly thought

about that and talked about that when we were watching
the bridge collapse in Baltimore. Just to think the people
who were just going about their day or working or whatever,
and something like that in a moment, a split second.
And you kept pointing out as we were watching the
video of the cars that were going by, I mean,
think about the people who just missed it by seconds
or a minute or whatever going across that bridge and

they got home to their families or whatever, because you
just never know you were in a moment where something
like that happened. So we wanted to certainly acknowledge that's
going to be a story for a long time, a
lot of healing in that community and rebuilding in that community.
And as we were talking here, I believe it's six
people who are on accounted for and they've called off

the search. But that was a it was an awful,
awful thing to say.

Speaker 4 (13:57):
Yeah, we woke up to it, and watching that video
just makes your heart wrench and your your stomach just
tightened because you just think, oh, my goodness, probably those
folks for either I don't know, coming back from the airport,
are getting off of a long night shift. You know
who's driving at those hours, and you're probably just wanting
to get home or maybe you're going to work, but

not thinking about the unthinkable.

Speaker 1 (14:21):

Speaker 4 (14:23):
Thank god, it was one thirty in the morning, but
I just yes, I was looking at those cars like
just seconds before, thinking what are those people thinking now?
And you know what, I bet every one of those
people who were on that bridge moments before, and there
were a lot of them, will never live the same.
They will never look at each day the way they
did before. They will hug they. I mean when I start,

honestly this week and when I know I'm about to
get a blood test, and it's silly to have it
only be in these moments, but I'm reminded again, call
your friends, call your family, tell them you love them
like you just don't know.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
So yeah, and that other part of that. And you
and I have been to scenes of low our career.
Many times we get that call, head to this town,
head to that town, And it was so much of
what we did for so long, and we got into
the business to it because we did enjoy the reporting.
We did enjoy being on the big stories and watching
this and thinking being on those scenes and that emotion

and the toll it takes on you over ten twenty
thirty years, nothing compared to what those families are going through.
But it was to sit back and watch it from
a distance it kind of struck me a little different
to watch it this way and didn't miss, didn't have
a desire to want to rush out there and be

on the scene and do the reporting, is how I
felt in that moment, because it's just so draining and emotional,
and just I had that thought I was watching something.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
Well, we didn't talk about that.

Speaker 4 (15:53):
I just said, oh God, you get transported to what
we did, as you said, for all those years, adding
the calls in the middle of the night and jumping
on planes and racing to these scenes of just awful tragedy,
whether it was whether it was a school shooting or
it was an act of terrorism, or just a horrific
natural disaster or an unexplained accident. But yeah, we've rushed

to those scenes for the majority of our adult lives
and talk to the people most directly affected. But yes,
when you're sitting back and watching it, and I will say, yes,
our hearts go out to all of the people impacted
and affected. And yet I don't miss, don't I don't
miss putting myself in the middle of it all. It's

a lot, it's a lot, but it was. Yeah, that
was probably one of the first big news stories where
there were casualties that we weren't called to report on.

Speaker 1 (16:51):
But look, we applaud there are plenty of journalists out there,
reporter are doing great work. And to be on that scene,
it's not just a matter of the hours and getting
in front of a case and all of that being
away from your family. It does. It takes a toll
on those journalists we know to be there and talking
to families or dealing with communities that are having such
a difficult time, so our hearts go out to them,

and that this was a big story, and we both
think back to another big story that we covered years
and years ago that we didn't think we'd be covering
again because this was twenty plus years ago now. And
what we're talking about here is the Lacy Peterson in
Scott Peterson his murder trial. He's been in prison for
twenty plus years now, convicted of her murder. I don't

have to go into the backstory about Lacy Peterson, Scott Peterson,
you know it. But to sit here now with you,
robok and to think that story's not over, to think
that there is now someone legit I say someone, an entity,
the La Innocence Project, the Innocence Project over this in
this country has a hell of a reputation. They are
getting involved to possibly look at new evidence that they

say could possibly exonerate Scott Peterson.

Speaker 4 (18:01):
That's right, And you and I have talked about this
because when you cover these stories the way we have,
Yes there is the trial, Yes there's the jury and
the conviction, and there's some interest in all of that.
People love crime shows. But what we know is when
you cover these stories, it's the victims' families that are
obviously the most impacted that get lost in so many

ways when we're all covering this. And so I just
as we talk about this, I do want to acknowledge
and I know you do too, TJ. Lacy Peterson's family.
They have been through something that none of us would
ever want for anyone we love, to lose their daughter
and their grandson, Connor. She was eight months pregnant. Both
of their bodies washed up four months after she went missing.

I think that was April of two thousand and three.
And what they've been through so finally to get through
the trial, to feel like there's some justice. Of course
their pain never ends, but to at least feel like
they've had justice served, gives two decades removed.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
Yes, they kind I don't want to say they ever
would completely move on. But for twenty years, you think
that the person responsible for killing these two people you
love is going away. Now this is done, and you're
trying to move on and rebuild in your life. And
now can you imagine them being told, wait a second,
wait a second, this guy might be this guy might

be innocent. So what happened? Can you imagine what's going
on in there?

Speaker 4 (19:22):
Hends now and so all of this has obviously been
happening for quite some time, because remember in twenty twenty,
he actually had He wasn't initially originally convicted to death.
I mean he was sentenced to death. He was on
death row, and a few years ago he was taken
off death row. His sentence was commuted to a life
sentence without parole. That's one thing. But now the La

Innocence Project is involved. As you pointed out, they have
some new DNA evidence that they would like to be tested.
They say they have other evidence that they say will
set him free, that will exonerate him. Scott Peterson has
maintained his innocence throughout this entire I mean, from the beginning,
he's always said he didn't do this, and they've always

pointed the finger at this other potential these other potential suspects.
There was a burglary across the street. And so now
I do feel for Lacy's family that they now have
to go through this all again. And we haven't heard
from them, by the way, but we did want to
talk to Scott Peterson's attorney, Mark Garrigosi, represented him from
the beginning. He's a I'm sure many of you know

his name. He is a very famous defense attorney, and
he has always said that this case for him was
his greatest not just professional defeat, but personal defeat, because
he has always believed in Scott's innocence. And so as
this case now comes back into the limelight, just a
few weeks ago, we saw Scott Peterson in court via

zoom and now he will have another court date in
just a few weeks. So this is just the beginning,
and this is going to be going on for several
months into the summer, and we'll see what happens if
he gets a new trial, of course that's what he wants.
But we were able to sit down with Mark Garrigos
just a few days ago to talk about the trial
that happened, what his feelings are, and what he thinks

may happen next. And Mark, tell us what is going
on with the Scott Peterson case. I know you and
I talked about this a decade ago, and you've always
said Scott Peterson is innocent. You didn't say he was
not guilty, you said he was innocent.

Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yeah, And I've taken a lot of heat for it,
and I get it. I mean, he's not the first
or probably last, most hated man in America that I'll
represent in my career. But I have said for almost
twenty years, I don't think anybody knew the evidence in
real time better than I did. And I saw nothing

over the course of that year to fifteen months that
we were kind of intensely immersed in it that led
me to believe that he did it. In fact, everything
that I saw, all the evidence I saw, I was
always fairly confident no matter who they put up there,
no matter what document they had, no matter what document

dump they did, that it was always going to exonerate him.
And it certainly did in terms of what I saw,
and part of the problem with that case was that
where the body was recovered was the thing that people
could not get passed. And what I always point out

in response to that is, look, between the time Lacey
went missing with Connor and the time she was found
was over four months. Where she was found was widely
known within a week, So you had a four month
period of time where everybody knew where his alibi was.
Number one, Number two. That may have been the most

searched area in America. They brought in the US Navy,
they brought in sonar, they brought in submarines, they brought
in by the way that bay used to recede to
a height of about six to twelve inches. Nobody found
a thing for four months until a large storm came
along and then all of a sudden, the remains washed ashore.

Speaker 1 (23:22):
Mark, Are you more certain now since the trial? Have
you seen things that make you even more sure of
his innocence?

Speaker 2 (23:32):
Yeah, he's And I'd like to say, at my recommendation,
Cliff Gardner, who handled his appeal and the initial stages
of his habeas who successfully argued to the California Supreme
Court to unanimously reverse the death penaltygue conviction, he did
a wonderful job post conviction of investigating some of the

things that were turning up after the conviction. Thing that's
turned up after the conviction has pointed to the fact
that he's that he should have been exonerated of this thing.
Not the least of which is the day that he
was convicted, the prosecution handed me, Mind you, jury was

out for nine days. They removed, you know, several jurors
who were voting not guilty because they they you know,
the judge had told me, you know, confidentially, and he's
now passed away that the California then California Supreme Court
Chief Justice had told him, there's no way this thing
is going to be a hung jury. You cannot let

this be a hung jury. And so while the jurors
were deliberating over the course of that week and a half,
they were removing the jurors who were not voting guilty, basically,
and when they finally got the verdict, the prosecution that
they handed me a call sheet. And it turns out
there was a lieutenant at the Gino State Prison who

had overheard a call of an inmate talking to one
of the burglars about confronting Lacy and so if you're
not in the weeds on this case, there was a
burglary across the street at the time. Back in the
that we tried this case, Modesto PD took the position
that burglary had occurred on the twenty sixth of December. Well,

if you believe that, you would believe that the throng
of media that was already out there on that street,
on a very narrow street and camped out with satellite trucks,
that there was a burglary happening thirty feet away and
they never saw it or saw anything about it. So
part of the innocence project now is a van that

had been burned out with a mattress and that we
think may relate to the burglary.

Speaker 4 (25:51):
So right now, from what I understand, the La Innocence
Project is asking that some blood that was found on
that mattress be tested. I I believe it's already been
confirmed that it's human. But what are they looking for
and what do you think they may find?

Speaker 2 (26:08):
Well, this is an interesting another little twist here. So
twenty years ago during the case mitochondrial DNA. Mind you
just going back to two thousand and four was not
admissible in California. We actually had a one week caring
to get mitochondrial DNA and admit it. So you think
about that, it's kind of crazy because now we assume

DNA is always admissible. Blah blah blah. Hopefully there is
enough remnants. Hopefully there is still a sample that the
California Department of Justice still has that they can then
test the DNA. Mind you, they do have or did
have samples. One of the ways that they confirmed that

it was Lacy and Connor at the time was they
had had samples of DNA and when their remains washed up,
they were able to use the DNA samples that the
Department of Justice had in order to confirm it was them.
I would hope that there still is a sample maintained,
it hasn't degraded, that they can figure out whether or

not there is a connection.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
Here is everything in your opinion writing on that blood sample,
that DNA sample, And what if it turns out it's
not connected to Lacy Peterson? Then what?

Speaker 4 (27:29):

Speaker 1 (27:30):
I think?

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Look, would it be fortuitous if it was absolutely? Is
everything riding on it?

Speaker 4 (27:37):

Speaker 2 (27:37):
I mean, if you were to look at the Habeas
corpus that has been filed in this case the California
Supreme Court when they issued the order reversing the death penalty,
they said the judge used the wrong standard for and
we were complaining about it in real time. Anybody who

said I don't to death penalty, the judge would dismiss them.
What you ended up getting as a jury where people
who were pro death penalty. If you've been around the courts,
you know, or if you have anecdotal experience, you know,
pro death penalty, tilt's prolog and order tilt's pro prosecution.

So there was a whole demographic that we lost of
people who they didn't ask the next question, if you're
anti death penalty, can you set that aside and follow
the law. The judge didn't do that, so they reversed that.
I always took the position, if you reversed the penalty phase,

then you should have reversed the guilt phase. Verdict. There's
that in the habeas, which has not gone to the
federal have been decided federally. There's also a series of
other errors that were committed that has not been decided federally.
This is just one of probably one hundred different issues

that has now percolated up to the point where somebody
has said, by the way, this was all sparked by
Scott himself filing a rit a habeas corpus Innocence project
got involved once the Court of Appeal said, hey, there
is something here, and that's why this judge within the

last two weeks has basically told the prosecution you have
to answer, and you have to answer this in the
next thirty days.

Speaker 4 (29:29):
Yeah. I think his next hearing is April sixteenth. How
often do you talk to Scott if at all? I
know you were close obviously when this trial is going on.
You've believed in him all of these years. Do you
speak to him?

Speaker 2 (29:42):
I haven't spoken to him recently. He does write to me.
He writes letters, which is better than I do. I've
I've been ruined by email. But the letters are informative
and heartfelt and I appre siate them. And I speak

more often with his sister in law, and she's doing
that wonderful job kind of being the engine for driving
the fact and the getting the exoneration for him.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
And getting to this point knowing that again, believing as
strong as you do that he is innocent. So he's
been sitting in prison wrongfully for decades now, now this
has come up, what does a stir up in you even?
I mean, I know you're a professional and everybody knows

your hard nos and damn good at your job. But
how does this stir you up? Knowing that a guy
that you represented and worked with has been sitting somewhere
that you don't think he should have been for the
past twenty years.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
Look, I said, it was one of the worst professional
setbacks I've ever had. I'm jokingly not so jokingly engaged.
It's required a lot of alcohol therapy in the interim,
But I, you know, have this kind of maybe childlike
naivete that eventually he will be exonerated and eventually they'll

figure out what really happened. Because, as I've said, and
I will continue to say, anybody who spent as much
time with the evidence and spent as much time with
Scott as I have, I'm just convinced he didn't do it.
I will tell you I probably, as a private practitioner,
have represented more people accused of murder than anybody walking around.

For whatever reason. I've just I've handled over forty years,
countless murder cases, I know when somebody is good for it.
And having said that, you know anticipated question. Just because
you did the deed does not mean the inquiry ends there.

Is it a first? Is it a second? Is there
a murder? Is it a manslaughter? I have another case
right now, the Benendez brothers, which were on habeas and
it's my position there they did it, but they did
not deserve to be convicted of murder. They should it
should have been a manslaughter. I'm not naive enough to

not understand who can do this, Who has the capability
to do this? Scott does not in my experience, based
on what I've seen and based on the evidence, this
is not somebody who could have committed this or red design.

Speaker 3 (32:33):

Speaker 4 (32:33):
You said the evidence wasn't there that no one knows
it better than you. Obviously you know what the prosecution
laid out. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence. There
was the Amber fry where he was having an affair
a few months prior. Lacey was eight months pregnant. He
told Amber that he was a widower. But if you
believe so strongly that the evidence doesn't support the conviction,

why do you think those jurors voted to convict.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
Oh, I think it's clear that when Pat Harris, who
I tried the case with, and Pat has done a
yeoman's job over the years, continuing to representative Pat after
he listened to the Amber Fright tapes, said that's a
you know, it's a tough tough thing to get over.
I was not as convinced that it was that tough.

But you have to understand Scott intuitively knew and I
will tell you why I wasn't as affected. I had
represented Gary Condit, who was, for those who don't remember,
was a congressman in California in approximate before the nine

to eleven was kind of the scandal DuJour that was
covered by the what I call the access of evil
back then for a criminal defendant, that was cable news
at night, the morning shows, and People magazine. So that
was the accident access of evil and Gary Kanda and

Chandra Levy and her disappearance was the scandal Djoure. I
remember at the time thinking, just because somebody is accused
of having an affair, I understand that you can just
get blinded to that. Mind you in that case, I
kept saying at the time there's another guy who's sitting

in prison in Gary Connan's case, who was jumping women
in the park where Chandra next door. Chandra used to run.
I said to me, it's obvious, that's the logical suspect.
Nobody wanted to hear that, because they were convinced Allah
Dominic Dunn that it had to be the guy who
was having the affair. That is, I get it, that's

human nature. I saw the same thing happening here. Frankly,
the idea that Scott Peterson because he's having an affair
with Amber Fry and I don't want to integrate her.
But you know, this was not Helen of Troy that
he was going to murder his unborn son and his
wife because he had fallen for this massage therapist out

of Fresno. I mean, you know, I realize it's probably
not politically correct, but just because your wife is pregnant
in her eighth month and your big bag bonding with
some woman you know who admitted on the stand she's
never he never said I love you or anything else.
To me, that is ludicrous. It makes absolutely no sense

that a guy, mind you, we put a nun on
in the mitigation penalty phase. A nun who had known
Scott virtually her whole life as a character witness. The
idea that that kid, Scott Peterson, all of a sudden,
because of Amber Fry, decided to off his wife and

his unborn son was as ludicrous to me as anything
you could ever imagine. So it's a long way of
saying I don't buy it. I think the jury had
this problem when we selected that jury. I'll never forget
there was a radio station had hired a truck to

encircle the courthouse. We had shifted. I'd won the change
of venue, but be careful what you wish for. We
got sent from Modesta or Stanislaus County to San Mateo,
which was not exactly an upgrade. I was bitterly fighting
for Orange County because I said, if there's ever a
constituency for Scott, it would be adulterous golfers, and where

are you going to find those? At Orange County, California.
But I couldn't get Orange County to the point amy
where I kept saying the da who's now a judge?
Rick Destaso, I said, your parents live in Orange County.
Let's go to Orange County. But we got San Mateo.
But the truck that's running around the courthouse as sixteen

hundred Jersey Company and has got Scott in his orange
jumpsuit ban or Monster for people to vote during jury selection,
and Monster won like ninety seven percent to three percent.
There was just no way he was going to get
acquitted in that carnival like atmosphere. Take a look google

the pictures of the celebration around the courthouse when he
was convicted. It was like nothing anybody has ever seen.
There's a picture on the front page of the local
paper a woman holding her child saying, this is better
than the day my son was born. So you have

to understand what it was like. That was why I
was attracted to the case in the first place, because
I don't like bullies. I don't like when the kind
of you're swept up in this mouthstrom. But at the
same time, that's what we were up against.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
A lot of stuff you describe as a procedural and
mistakes made and why he shouldn't have been convicted. Can
you point to something Maybe we have seen it, maybe
we haven't. Maybe this will be a part of this
proceeding now, Like one piece of evidence that you think
exonerates him.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
A couple of things that I think were just ridiculous
that I'll never get over. One was we had done
a demonstration. I gone out and I bought the same boat.
I put one of the kids. He's not a kid anymore.
He's been a lawyer for seventeen years now, but back
then he was an aspiring lawyer. I put him in

the boat with a dummy same weight as Lacey. I
tried to have him and we filmed it. Throw the
dummy overboard without capsizing the boat because it made zero sense,
and he tried it three times and he almost drowned. Frankly,
it just could not do it. The judge would not
allow that in However, during deliberations they asked to see

the boat. And what's the first thing they did when
they asked to see the boat. The jurors and I
and the judge and the prosecutors all went into the
parking lot where they had pulled the boat in, and
the jurors got in the boat and started rocking the boat,
because that was one of the first things they wanted
to say, is how could you have done what you
said you did? The prosecution theory was is the night

before she had gone missing, he had killed her, put
her in the boat, had made anchors, and had thrown
her overboard. It couldn't happen. And the jurors were struggling
with that, and sure enough got in the boat started
rocking around. I went crazy with the judge saying, this
is an experiment. How can you? How can you allow this?

And that's one that's to give you. There was another
where they let in dogs scent evidence. This may be
the greatest definition of junk science I've ever seen. They
had one dog that I got somehow got a hold
of the training videos for this dog. This dog was

going in every different direction during the training videos. It
was a complete disaster. Yet somehow the dog handler was
allowed to testify as to what the dog was thinking.
So that's the kind of quality of evidence that we
had here. And it was just anything goes to get
a conviction because he was, as I may have mentioned,

the most hated man in America.

Speaker 4 (40:32):
And I know you you're out of time almost But
why did he run and how much did that hurt him?

Speaker 2 (40:38):
That's another and Amy I will repeat this another one
of my favorite stories. People will often say why did
he do this? Why did you do that? And I
will say, let me give you an example. Every morning
I would go to the gym and there would be
a and it was always white professional women, so you
fit the profile. So whitrofessional women would always say well,

why did he run? And I would say, he didn't
run unless you think he was running to Canada because
he was arrested going north on the five Freeway. So
they'd say, well, he dyed his hair and I'd say, well,
he did that because he was still working as a
fertilizer salesperson and the media kept following him to every appointment,

and it was extremely difficult for him to make a
sale to support himself with a throng of media. And
they'd say, well, ha, he had cash. I said yes,
his brother would give him cash because he didn't want
to go to ATM machines. Okay. Then they'd say, well,
what about the fact that he had told that he

had told the Lacey's stepfather he'd gone fishing. I said, well,
did you know that? Up until the trial? When I
asked Ron, the late Ron Granski, where were you on
Christmas Eve, mister Gramski, And he said, I was fishing,
and so then inevitably, the white professional woman would say, well,

I don't care about the evidence. I used to have
a boyfriend just like him, and I could see him
doing the exact same thing. Well, how do you get it?
How do you get past that?

Speaker 3 (42:15):
Yeah, I hear you.

Speaker 4 (42:17):
You know this is going to be so fascinating to
see what happens over the next few months. And I
know you'll be on top of it all. And Mark,
I hope you will come back and talk about this
with us, because you have perspective like no one else.
So we thank you so much for your time and
for all of those details that most people will never
get to hear unless they hurt him right here.

Speaker 2 (42:35):
Okay, when I come back, Amy, we can do on
your podcast a description of the last time you and
I went bar hopping like that dog that was hitting
more spots than Amy. Yeah, let's talk.

Speaker 3 (42:48):
Let's let's do that first, and then we'll do the podcast.
It'll be a hoot.

Speaker 2 (42:51):
Okay, the two things
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC
Stuff You Should Know

Stuff You Should Know

If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.


© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.