The Trial in My Own Words

January 6, 2005 – So why am I writing this? I’ve discontinued Xanax, finished the therapy sessions, and made it this far. I’m about to leave on a two-week vacation that, hopefully, will erase the last vestiges of 2004 from my mind. Why reopen a wound that’s finally stopped oozing? What will it prove? Probably nothing, except that I finally can deal with what happened and set the record straight…

After I was added to the jury pool, I told Ron (my boss) not to worry. There was no way that prosecutors with a circumstantial case would seat an auditor on that jury. Auditors have an ingrained skepticism that would be better suited to the defense case. Having been certain that one of the prosecution’s twenty challenges had my name on it, I was stunned to find myself in that jury box hearing opening statements on June 1, 2004. OK, so I have to do this. A young woman and her unborn child have been murdered. The husband’s been charged. A lynch mob mentality has taken hold. I’ll get through it as best I can, make some sense of it all, and arrive at a just decision.

THE START

I didn’t settle in easily. During the three days of opening statements, I was riveted to my chair in such a way that I pinched a nerve in my upper back. It flared up every night for over a month. Michael had to knead it to take it down to a dull ache. Pain pills helped with the rest.

The initial weeks of the trial chronicled Laci’s last known movements, the “discovery” that she was missing, Scott’s actions and statements to friends and family, and the initial search effort. Neighbor Karen Servas was an excellent witness. She had found the Peterson’s dog loose in the street on the morning of December 24. Using the timestamp from a store receipt and her own cell phone records, she retraced her movements and determined that she’d found the dog at 10:18 AM. Mark Geragos attacked the validity of her timeline, but she stood her ground. I didn’t realize then how crucial 10:18 AM would become.

We viewed Scott’s midnight interview with Detective Brocchini. I found myself noticing Peterson’s behavior. Was this man frantic about his missing wife? If so, why was he slouching in his chair and speaking in measured tones? Where’s the pain? Where’s the anguish? What’s wrong with this picture? His demeanor on the tape and throughout the trial became more maddening over time.

Over several more weeks, we heard from everyone (family, friends, police officers) about the search effort. Although I understood the prosecution’s need to head off defense contentions that the Modesto P.D. focused solely on Scott Peterson, it almost was too much. We must have heard from the entire Modesto P.D.!

If testimony didn’t make sense, we weren’t allowed the luxury of asking questions. With several months and dozens upon dozens of witnesses to go, I decided to maintain a personal issues list that I could update as needed. Call it a cheat sheet, if you will. It was my hope that all issues would be resolved by the conclusion of testimony.

About this time my daughter’s July 17 Hawaiian wedding took center stage. Luckily, most of the final planning had been completed and invitations mailed before I was impaneled. However, instead of spending two weeks in the Islands, as originally planned, I was there for only about 62 hours. Barely awake, I was back in court on July 19.

THE MIDDLE

The trial began to meander. Testimony skipped around to various points in time. A certain amount of boredom mixed with confusion set in. Why didn’t the prosecutors follow a logical plan, or was it intentionally illogical to keep the defense off balance? If they were only pretending to be floundering, they did a good job!

Shawn Sibley testified about meeting Scott and setting him up with Amber Frey. She also told of confronting Peterson on December 6, 2001 about being married. She was a credible witness, but why did she think that a guy obviously “on the make” would be a good match for a friend who was hurting from bad relationships? That question is better left unanswered.

More meandering. Then along came the computer forensics expert. He testified about records he’d retrieved from Peterson’s computer. After he was confronted, Scott searched classifieds for boats, pulled up information about marinas, checked tides. Then the witness was asked about a printed Internet fishing report for S.F. Bay that police had found on Peterson’s desk. It was dated December 5 but printed December 8. He speculated that Peterson had accessed the report on December 5, saved it in his computer, and returned to print it on December 8. OK, knee jerk time! Who does that? And why would a witness for the prosecution offer a theory that favored the defense? The implication was that Scott could have been planning the fishing trip before he was confronted. The prosecutor didn’t challenge the statement, and the Webmaster never took the stand. I logged the issue.

Amber Frey proved to be a competent witness. After a slow start, she found her rhythm and answered questions directly and candidly. Brief visits to the stand were interspersed with lengthy audio taped telephone conversations between her and Peterson. The tapes were scratchy and the volume turned up so high that they gave me headaches, but there was no doubting what they held: This man’s wife and child were missing, yet he was more interested in playing fantasy games with Amber! Cooperating with police, she prodded him relentlessly. Hey, Scott, if you’re so innocent, tell her what to do with her allegations. But, no! He offered one meek reply laced with lies after another. The implications were chilling!

One evening in August I visited the website where Peterson had found the December 5 fishing report. I needed to resolve the issue of whether the site updates daily. If it does, then Peterson could only have seen it on December 5, as suggested by the witness. Otherwise, the testimony was misleading. Well, I viewed fishing reports that were 2-3 days old, including the report for S.F. Bay. I concluded that Peterson found the fishing report when he found everything else - after he was confronted! Somehow, either the prosecutor didn’t understand his witness’ statement, or it was offered by prior agreement. Rick Distaso, if you ever read this, let me know.

Enter Detective Jacobson with another piece of the puzzle. He had conducted several cell phone tests to simulate a call that Peterson made to his voice mail on December 24 at 10:08 AM. Whereas Peterson had told Detective Brocchini that he’d left for his warehouse at 9:30 AM, the cell tower used to initiate the call put him still at or near his home at 10:08 AM. Hadn’t we heard months earlier that Karen Servas found the dog at 10:18 AM? Do you see where this is going?

THE END

The autopsy photos were grisly, but after my initial discomfort I was able to view them without flinching. I needed to understand the condition of the bodies. Clearly, Conner’s body was in much better shape than Laci’s. It was easy to accept the testimony that his body had only recently been expelled from hers. Had he been born and tossed into the Bay months earlier, there would have been nothing left of him.

Then came the need to determine dates of death. Laci’s remains offered nothing usable, but Conner’s bones were intact and measurable. Drs DeVore and Galloway charted bone measurements against those taken in Laci’s first trimester ultrasound. Also entered into the equation was the fact that she’d dated her last menstrual period as May 5, establishing the probable point of conception as May 19-21. Taking all this into consideration, Dr. DeVore estimated that Conner died on December 24-25.

GPS tracking and visual reconnaissance of Peterson’s movements further highlighted his bizarre antics, as did his reactions, or non-reactions, to developments in the case. By now, his pattern of behavior was well established, so it wasn’t surprising when he chose not to return to the Bay Area after the bodies washed up. In fact, the car and items found in his possession indicated that he was preparing to bolt for the border.

Mark Geragos was brilliant on cross-examination. Had he stopped there, he would have left us remembering his impressive shredding of certain prosecution witnesses. Detective Brocchini comes to mind. But, instead, he mounted a limp defense case that did more harm than good – the accountant who simply put a defense spin on someone’s else’s work, the mother who offered an highly unlikely explanation for the $15,000 in cash, the doctor who failed miserably at modifying Conner’s date of death to suit the defense and implored, "Cut me some slack!" Imagine! A woman and her child are dead, and we're to cut him some "slack!" If you think my tone is getting more strident, it IS!

DELIBERATIONS

How did the jurors arrive at their verdict? Some clearly fixated on where the bodies washed up. Others were openly disgusted by the Amber tapes. At the time of my departure, two or three still seemed undecided. Speaking only from my own heart and mind, the following rang true:

IN CONCLUSION

The legal process offers no recourse for jurors who are concerned about a witness' testimony. We're not permitted to submit questions in open court; we can't request certain witnesses (in this case the webmaster could have resolved my issue), but we're expected to make life altering (or ending) decisions.

As I mentioned at the start, I’m an auditor. After the prosecution’s computer expert made the statement that was favorable to the defense, I lapsed into audit mode. It's what I'm trained to do. In the space of a few keystrokes, I had my answer.

Do I regret having followed my instincts? No, my instincts always have been reliable. Did it make a difference? It eliminated any personal doubts about Peterson's intentions. If I had it to do over, would I own up to it? Well, obviously not, unless delivering the right verdict hung in the balance! It's been said that, more often than not, jurors get it right. They did in this case, and it's all that really matters!

home