Grogan proved to be an excellent foil for Geragos. During his eight days on the stand, the detective effectively put the pieces of the circumstantial puzzle together for the jury. He was focused and came across as a man who was simply doing the best job he could.
Grogan explained the resources that were used during the course of the investigation. There were 42,000 pages of discovery, including 115 audiotapes and seventy-four videotapes; more than 10,000 tips, with well over seventy-four reported Laci sightings and at least ninety sightings of Scott’s truck and boat on December 24. Three hundred officers and ninety agencies were involved in the investigation, the detective said.
Grogan’s testimony was presented chronologically and in great detail. One of the highlights was his list of forty-one reasons police believed Laci Peterson’s body would turn up in the San Francisco Bay, and not in a lake or other waterway.
“Before we get into those specific reasons, let me ask you this question: Why is it that you, at that point, had the idea that she was going to be found in some body of water?” Fladager asked, leading the detective.
“Because of the cement debris in the warehouse, the circles on the flatbed trailer in the warehouse, and the boat that he had in the warehouse that no one seemed to know about, except for the person that sold it to Mr. Peterson, the defendant, and possibly Laci Peterson,” Grogan responded.
“So this list that you came up with, what were the reasons that you came up with for why Laci Peterson would eventually be found in the bay?”
“Well, we looked at the fact that Mr. Peterson did have a parking stub from the Berkeley Marina that’s dated 12/24, and the timing is consistent with his statement. We had the cell site information that showed his location on December 24. It did show that he did make phone calls from over in that area, and it did appear that he was there.
“The dog track at the Berkeley Marina that indicated that Laci Peterson’s scent was there. . . . The defendant told us that he was at the Berkeley Marina. He had a fishing license, two-day fishing license that was purchased on December 20, and filled out for the twenty-third and twenty-fourth. . . . The fishing tackle in the boat, at least the majority of the fishing tackle, if not all, was fresh water tackle.”
“On January 11, when everyone was waiting to see the Side Sonar image that eventually ended up being an anchor . . . Sharon Rocha called him and left him a message, and he whistled when he heard it was an anchor.
“At that point, he had already made three trips—three subsequent trips to the Berkeley Marina since the December 24 visit, which seemed odd. And it directed us back there.
“Another thing that we considered was the fact that right after the defendant found that his wife was missing from the house, that he told people that he was golfing that day. And [we] considered that as possibly what his initial alibi was meant to be.”
“The initial alibi was golfing?” Fladager asked.
“Yes. . . . Initially his plan was to say that he was golfing on that day, and for no one to ever know that he had the boat, or that he made the trip to San Francisco Bay.”
Later, foreman Steve Cardosi told journalists that the jury was convinced that Scott had, in fact, switched his alibi. “One of the maintenance men at the Berkeley Marina saw him back his boat into the dock and they were laughing at him,” the firefighter told Larry King after the verdict was rendered. “So I think he was an intelligent guy. He knew that somebody saw him there. And he better admit to being there. And I don’t think he ever thought his wife’s body and the body of his baby would ever be found.”
When Fladager asked Grogan for more clues, he was ready. “The fact that there were umbrellas in the back of his truck wrapped in a tarp,” he offered. “That those umbrellas are approximately the same height as Laci Peterson.”
“What conclusion did you draw from that? Why was that significant?”
“Well, it would enable him to explain to anyone seeing him load something in his truck.”
Grogan went on to cite “the fact that we had already conducted some searches of the lakes around bridges, and we had not found Laci up to that point. The fact that we tested the water in the bow of the boat, and it came back as saltwater and not freshwater. Also, looking at the computer searches that we conducted of the defendant’s computers at his shop, and the fact that he was researching the San Francisco Bay. 1 have to add that he also had sites for fishing locations that were freshwater, and lakes throughout California, but the San Francisco Bay. Berkeley Marina did appear in there as well.
“The fact that he didn’t clean up the mess at the shop, that led me to believe he never intended for anyone to come back there and look at the boat.”
“Your next reason?”
Grogan coolly continued. “The fact that he had no real activity on the phone that morning.”
“On December 24?”
“On December 24, and then after around two o’clock, when, by his statement he’s leaving, he starts to make phone calls. And he leaves a message at the house that he’s at the bay, or just fishing, and he’s going to be late coming home.
“After that call, then he stops to get gas on his route back. But he buys thirteen dollars’ worth of gas. Which I think is not a significant amount of gas in the truck.”
“Okay. And your next reason for believing that Laci Peterson would turn up in [the] San Francisco Bay?”
“I have that there is deep water current nearby, where the map on his computer that he was looking at does show a deep water current in that area.”
“All right. What’s another reason?”
“. . . the fact that he paid cash for the boat, and he didn’t register the boat.”
“Next reason.”
“The boat cover.”
“What was significant about the boat cover?”
“You have to ask why it’s in the truck on the twenty-fourth in the evening. Did he take it to the bay? And, if so, why? Was it tied on the boat and covering the boat? Was it taken off the boat before he left, why not leave it in the warehouse? Why put it in the truck? Was he using the boat cover for some other purpose to cover something maybe in his boat? And then the fact that we find the boat cover in the shed on the search warrants on the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh with a leaking gas blower on top.”
“Okay,” Fladager continued. “And do you understand the condition of the boat cover at that time was neatly folded, or in some other condition?”
“It was not neatly folded.”
“What was another reason for your belief?”
“Looking at the driving Mr. Peterson was doing that was captured on the tracker, in Bakersfield around the time of this anchor found at the bay, and when it’s identified, it’s erratic. It’s just kind of strange.”
“What was your ultimate conclusion?” Fladager asked.
“The ultimate conclusion was that Laci Peterson’s body was in [the] San Francisco Bay, and that we needed to search there, to focus our efforts on that search.”
The bodies washing up in the San Francisco Bay turned out to be critical for jurors. “If these bodies had been found anywhere else other than [the] San Francisco Bay, and for that matter, right where Scott Peterson had described he’d been fishing on Christmas Eve, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” juror Greg Beratlis told the press after the verdict.
Geragos managed to win a few more points by having the detective admit that Scott was relatively cooperative in the days following Laci’s disappearance.
Grogan also acknowledged that portions of what Scott told po-lice at the start of the investigation were accurate—specifically that Scott used his computer on the morning of December 24, and that several witnesses saw him at the marina that day. But he stopped short when Geragos tried to suggest that Scott’s trips to the marina were searches for those witnesses.
If Scott were really looking for those witnesses, Grogan shot back, he would have stayed for more than just a few minutes, gotten out of his veh
icle, and attempted to locate the harbormaster or other workers during his three trips.
On the stand, the detective admitted learning that Laci did not like her Land Rover, having referred to it as “a piece of shit,” lending credence to the fact that Scott wasn’t as cruel as he appeared when he sold the SUV in late January 2003.
“You learned that Laci did want a larger home and a new vehicle?” Geragos posed.
“Yes.”
According to the police report, the real estate broker related that Laci had inquired about purchasing a home in the $400,000 to $600,000 range. Investigators knew the Petersons had planned to move to San Luis Obispo when their son was old enough to start school, and that Scott dreamed of buying an olive ranch. Apparently, Laci could not wait. I firmly believe that financial profit was not a motive for the murders, but freedom from Laci’s clear intention to increase their standard of living may well have played a role.
Grogan also testified to a conversation he had with Scott’s sister, Anne Bird, in February 2003, in which she described how she and Scott had talked about his affair with Amber Frey. According to Bird, Scott said that Laci had found out about his mistress.
“Scott said Laci was extremely pissed off and they were going to get through it, but Laci was upset?” Geragos asked the detective.
“Yes.”
“And Laci insisted they not tell their parents about it?”
“Yes, that’s what Anne said ... ”
“Scott admitted that he had screwed up and made a huge mistake in seeing Amber Frey?”
“Yes,” Grogan responded.
Despite Geragos’s tough questioning, Grogan proved unflappable. When the detective left the stand, jurors had a much clearer picture of the prosecution’s argument. Grogan had managed to weave the pieces of evidence into a strong circumstantial case.
After nineteen weeks and 175 witnesses, the prosecution rested its case.
Geragos had made a number of promises in his opening remarks— that he would produce witnesses who saw Laci walking her dog after the time police believed she died, and a defense expert who could prove that Conner had been carried to term. If that was indeed the case, then Laci was not killed on Christmas Eve, as the prosecution insisted. Most memorably, he promised to prove his client was “stone cold innocent.” But Geragos was unable to deliver.
The defense expert on Conner’s gestational age calculated that the baby survived at least five days after Laci’s Christmas Eve disappearance, and maybe into January. Dr. Charles March’s conclusion was undermined, however, when he acknowledged that his judgment was based on his ideas of “realistic” behavior by women at baby showers. March assumed that because Laci never mentioned her pregnancy at her friend Renee Tomlinson’s baby shower on June 8, 2002, she must not have taken a pregnancy test until the following day. Only then did she call her friend to relate the good news.
He then assumed June 9 was the first day she could detect her pregnancy and thus the date of conception was May 26, 2002, six days later than the date reached by the State’s experts. Based on his thirty years of experience with female patients, March maintained that he was making correct assumptions. “I mean, women talk all the time,” he testified. “The chances that a woman hosting a baby shower would not announce on the day of a shower that she was pregnant and have everybody rejoice in two pregnancies—that’s not realistic at all.”
At one point, after Assistant District Attorney Dave Harris pressed him about date discrepancies in his report March looked meekly at the prosecutor and implored him to “cut me some slack.” Several jurors laughed aloud, while others shook their heads in dis-belief. “This witness was pummeled like a fighter on the ropes,” said former prosecutor Chuck Smith about the prosecution’s cross-examination of Dr. March.
Geragos’s other thirteen witnesses contributed little. Five police officers delivered secondhand reports about Laci sightings. No one who claimed they saw Laci after ten o’clock on the morning of December 24 ever testified. Geragos also called three experts, one in cement, another in finance, and a third in dog tracking. Scott’s parents followed.
Jackie Peterson testified about a large amount of money she had given Scott. On April 8, 2003, she said, she withdrew ten thousand dollars to buy Scott’s truck for his brother John. Jackie claimed there was a snafu at the bank. She insisted that she didn’t have her account number handy, and inadvertently withdrew the money from an ac-count she had given to Scott and Laci years earlier. This was the explanation she offered for giving Scott money for the truck and an additional ten thousand dollars to replace the funds she “accidentally” withdrew. Jackie’s claims sounded highly illogical, bordering on the absurd.
Lee’s testimony failed to prove significant. He said Scott was staying in San Diego in the week of April 17, 2003, when Laci and Conner were identified. He was unable to say whether Scott had considered going back to Modesto when the DNA results were announced.
After six days of testimony, much of it unimpressive, the defense rested.
After a brash opening statement, and his effective cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, Geragos’s case-in-chief was a major disappointment. As many legal experts have observed, sometimes it is better simply to rest at the end of the prosecution’s case and assert that the charges have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no obligation to put a case before the jury, but if the defense team chooses to do so, there are expectations that emerge. People naturally expect the defense to present evidence that might prove the defendant not guilty. Geragos could offer no such evidence, and when he rested, his case was in shambles.
DiStaso had won little praise from observers during the early stages of the Peterson trial, but he had a reputation as a “good closer”—someone who could make a solid and convincing closing argument to a jury. When it came time for DiStaso’s final remarks, he lived up to expectations.
“It’s no question about how we got here. You can not deny one particular fact; the defendant went fishing, and Laci Peterson washed ashore, Conner Peterson washed ashore. . . . The only person that we know without any doubt that was in the exact location where the bodies washed ashore is sitting right there. That alone is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. You can take that to the bank.”
“The defendant strangled Laci Peterson on the night of December 23, or the morning of December 24. .. . I don’t know; I don’t have to prove that to you. Strangling and smothering is not going to leave a lot of evidence. . . . He wrapped her in a blue tarp, backed his truck up to the gate .. . he carries Laci out, puts her in the back of the truck . . . who’s going to suspect him? Everyone thinks he’s the perfect husband, the perfect gentleman. You know, show me some-thing that’s perfect, and I’ll show you something that’s not.
“There are two lives going on with Scott Peterson. Let’s talk about Scott’s reality. . . . Scott Peterson created a fantasy life for him-self. .. . In his mind, the only way to continue that life was to have a plan. He didn’t want that dull, boring life, with a wife and kid. . . . So, in November, he starts making a plan. .. . I don’t think he killed his wife because he was going to marry Amber Frey. Amber Frey to him was freedom; that’s what he wanted. He’s not stupid; he knows there will be some hoopla over Laci missing. But he had no idea it was going to snowball into this huge mass . . .
“For some reason, and much to this man’s detriment, this case blew up, didn’t go away. But he didn’t know that back in November, when he was setting this crime in action. This is the life that Scott wanted . . . not that boring old married life. .. . He didn’t want a baby. The reason he killed Laci Peterson was because Conner was on the way. When it was just Laci, he could lead the two lives. . . . When it was just Laci, it was okay for him; if she found out he was only hurting her. No big deal for Scott Peterson. But when Conner comes along [he] can’t divorce her .. . he can’t lead the big, freewheeling bachelor life if he is paying alimony or child support. . . .<
br />
“He didn’t want to be tied to that kid for the rest of his life; he didn’t want to be tied to Laci for the rest of his life; so he killed her.
“There’s no big mystery here,” DiStaso closed. “As we’ve said all along, this is a circumstantial case. . . . The best way is to look at it like a jigsaw puzzle; take each piece of evidence and see where it fits. Each piece I’ve talked about today fits only in one direction—that is that this man is guilty of murder.”
On Wednesday, November 3, 2004, Mark Geragos stood before the jury to deliver his closing remarks. The swagger he brought to the courtroom months ago had gradually faded away with his case. According to my sources, Geragos held court in a local bar many nights during the trial, flanked by admirers eager to be in his company. Yet as he paced the courtroom, trying to expose flaws in the prosecution’s case, his performance was lackluster.
He began with a question as he gestured at Scott. “I just want to go over to my client here and ask if you hate him? We’ve heard four hours of ‘This guy is the biggest jerk to walk the face off the earth, the biggest liar to ever walk the face of the earth . . . and you should hate him, because if you hate him, you’ll convict him.”
“Within one hour . . . one hour . . . [the police] decided that the person who had done this was Scott Peterson,” he said. “This turns traditional police work on its head. They’ve come up with him, and now they try to fit the facts to it.
“I’m not asking you to nominate Scott as husband of the year,” Geragos had the audacity to tell the jurors. “But I tell you, on most accounts he treated Laci with respect. He cheated on her, and he’s a fourteen-carat-gold asshole for doing it. . . . But he had a relationship that, by all accounts, was working.”
As I sat in the courtroom that day, I cringed at Geragos’s remarks.
A Deadly Game Page 43