I’ll pay for the DNA testing. [music] I’m not involved in the defense. I’m somebody who wants finality. And I spent more time with Scott and I always believed in his innocence [music] and I still do. My co-consel and then partner Pat Harris was involved early on in the case. He always had the working theory that Lacy’s disappearance was tied to the burglary across the street. And lo and behold, in that in that van was was a mattress and all kinds of DNA and the evidence that had material that could be tested, DOJ tested. None of that was turned over to the defense. During the trial, Detective Broini admitted he had eliminated from his police report an interview with a witness who saw Lacy in the boat at the warehouse.
It remains one of the most chilling, divisive, and gripping murders in American history. On Christmas Eve 2002, 27-year-old Lacy Peterson, [music] who was 8 months pregnant, vanished from her Modesto, California home. Her husband, [music] Scott Peterson, claimed he had gone on a solo fishing trip and returned later that afternoon to find their dog wandering with its leash still attached and Lacy was gone. A massive nationwide search ensued, capturing the hearts of millions. But the picture perfect marriage [music] quickly shattered. Weeks into the search, bombshell revelations emerged that Scott was living a double life. A massage therapist named Amber Freys stepped [music] forward, revealing she had been having a passionate š¯’¶š¯’»š¯’»š¯’¶š¯’¾š¯“‡ with Scott. The search then ended in tragedy when the bodies of Lacy and her unborn son Connor were found in the water exactly where Scott had gone fishing. Days later, [music] Scott was arrested near the Mexican border. He had dyed his hair blonde, grown a goatee, and was carrying [music] $15,000 in cash along with survival gear. Scott was ultimately convicted of murder and is currently serving life without parole. But more than 20 years later, the debate over his guilt has been reignited. I’m Katie Forester for the US Sun. [music] Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more exclusive interviews. This week, an A&E documentary, Scott Peterson: The New Evidence, [music] explores fresh leads from neighborhood burglary theories to a burnedout van that supporters say could prove his innocence. Joining us to discuss these developments is the man who stood by Scott at the defense table in 2004 and has never wavered in his belief that his former client is innocent. Defense attorney Mark Garagus spent over two decades arguing that crucial evidence was withheld from the defense and he joins us now to explain why he believes the state’s case was completely wrong. So Mark, thank you so much for joining us. I mean you have had some very big clients. Everyone from Michael Jackson to Winona Ryder. I mean what a career. It is a real pleasure to speak to you today. Thank you. You flatter me. [laughter] But here today we’re going to talk about Scott Peterson. you know, one of the country’s most controversial murder convictions. It’s more than 20 years now, isn’t it? Why do you think this case continues to fascinate and divide people? I think precisely because it’s a the quintessential circumstantial evidence case. And I think that even jurors and I think to some degree the investigators still have their doubts. I will tell you at in real time I knew the evidence better than anybody and I spent more time with Scott and I always believed in his innocence and I still do. And you’ve said before that you lost sleep over this. you know, how do you feel about the case now? Do you feel even stronger that he’s innocent? Absolutely. I mean, the the last thing I think anybody can point to is anything in the intervening 20 years that that says, "Oh, that’s it. Now, I’m sure it’s quite the opposite." And there’s new evidence now come to light. Can you talk us through that? Some of it’s quite complex. Sure. I mean, the simplest way to put this My co-consel and then partner Pat Harris was involved early on in the case. He always had the working theory that Lacy’s disappearance was tied to the burglary across the street. For those who aren’t in the weeds, there was a burglary across the street. And if you’ve been in that location, the street is very narrow. So, it’s about wide enough for one car to pass on each side. The burglary was originally reported to have been on Christmas Eve, same time as a Lacy’s disappearance. There was a van that was seen described various colors, but a van was repeatedly reported as connected to the burglary. So, we were always looking for that anything connected to the burglary. Anybody who knew Lacy had no doubt that if there had been somebody in the neighborhood looking unourred, she would have confronted them. Sure enough, Modesto PD closed that burglary. Said it didn’t happen on Christmas Eve. It happened the day after Christmas. Well, that’s ludicrous. As any reporter who covered that case will tell you, by the day after Christmas, that street was a shrine to Lacy and it was mobbed by media. So that’s how Modesto got around it. On the day he was convicted, I was handed a report that Modesto had been sitting on that a lieutenant at the one of the Southern California prisons had overheard a recorded call um between an inmate and somebody involved in the burglary. And they mentioned Lacy Peterson and confronting Lacy Peterson and quickly cut off the conversation because they realized it was recorded. The lieutenant made a real time notation of that. Modesto never turned that over to us until he was convicted. Fast forward, there is a documentary and an order that is issued by the California Supreme Court which reverses the death penalty. There’s evidence that is established and a what’s called an OSC order to show show cause. Lo and behold, a Department of Justice now retired analyst says, "Wait a second here. There was a van recovered in a very seedy area of town that had been set on fire a day or two after Lacy disappeared. And lo and behold, in that in that van was was a mattress and all kinds of DNA and the evidence that had material that could be tested, DOJ tested. None of that was turned over to the defense. How long has it been since we’ve had this evidence? You know, when did you first learn about all of this? Well, the evidence, they’ve had it. The prosecution has had it for decades. They never admitted it or turned it over until recently, fairly recently. And Lacy’s mom has spoken out, hasn’t she? Lacy’s mom has said that she doesn’t believe there is any new evidence. She’s spoken out this week. How do you feel about her comments? I understand it. How in the world could somebody look? Just as I can’t sleep, how could she? I never understand how parents get through having a child death before them. It’s unnatural. It’s not the natural order of things. I get that. And if she didn’t truly believe that Scott was guilty, I it would be I I can’t even imagine what that would be. I will tell you that before Amber was revealed, Sharon was a very strong supporter of Scott. There is nobody who knew Scott before this who has ever reported any violence, any loss of temper, anything that’s consistent with what he was charged and convicted of. And in April, a judge denied his latest petition for a new trial or release, rejected 14 claims. Where does the case stand today? It’s up on the court of appeal. It’ll be up to the the only way he’s ever going to get any justice is in in the appellet court and are you quite confident of the next stage of this? I’m I don’t know that anybody can be confident after two decades. I’m I think I would characterize it as hopeful. And realistically, what are the next steps and how long could this process take? Well, I’ve always said if you’re worried about the cost, take that off the table. I’ll pay for the DNA testing. I’m not involved in the defense. I’m somebody who wants finality. I’ll pay for it. If if you’re worried about cost, if you’re worried about the integrity of your conviction, if you’re the prosecution and you don’t want to know the truth, then I then I can’t deal with that. And obviously the new A&E documentary is coming out. Why did you decide to participate in this now? And is there anything else in there that we’ve never heard before? We’ve seen there might be new witness testimony or new witnesses that are sitting down to speak. There’s quite a bit. There’s there’s quite a bit in this documentary that we haven’t heard before. I will tell you I was just at Crime Con last month. The most widely attended presentation was on this case. And there are people who have strong strong visceral emotional feelings. And what I will tell them is remember that that the four person of this jury on day seven on the record told the judge that he felt like he could not deliver the verdict that the community wanted and he felt threatened if he stood his ground and he was removed. And what does this new documentary reveal for viewers other than what you’ve just talked about earlier that we haven’t seen or fully understood before? Is there anything else in there? Well, I don’t want to step on the or bury the uh the uh I won’t say bury the lead, but I don’t want to give away any of the uh I would just if you’re interested in this case or if you’re interested in criminal justice or just a human story, I would invite you to watch it. I I watched the early the early you want to call them galleys or meals. I I have no doubt and I will tell you why. Of the people who attended and thousands of people who attended the presentation last month, fully 25% just could not deal with it. the the idea that Scott may not be guilty kind of rocks them to their core and they don’t want to hear anything. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the number of people who are now open to the possibility that this is what I think a travesty of justice. And is that what you hope viewers will take away? What do you hope that this documentary will do? I hope it’ll shed some light on the fact that there is no evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty in this case. I mean, that’s the I believe I believe Scott Peterson sits once sentenced to death now serving life without parole as an innocent man. And one of the biggest arguments is that Lacy may have not have died on on um the December 24th, the day prosecutors say Scott killed her. Why is it why is the changing of the timeline so significant? Well, interestingly, in the trial, in the opening statement, the prosecution in the year leading up to the trial had wed themselves the idea that Lacy was had been killed on the 23rd. People forget that it was only when we debunked that during the trial that it became apparent that Lacy was alive on the 24th. Prosecution never engaged on that. And the documentary is also going to highlight several witnesses who say they saw her walking her dog. Why do you believe those sightings were dismissed at the time? Well, the remember the prosecution had a theory. The theory was that Scott killed Lacy and his unborn son Connor so that he could live with this massage therapist from Fresno um who he had met seven times. I mean besides the fact that it’s ludicrous on its face that he never has that um that wherewithal or ability let alone temperament. The prosecution was dismissive of all of that because it didn’t fit with their theory that she’d been killed on the 23rd. And looking back, what was it like to defend Scott? And is there anything that you would have done differently? I know you’ve mentioned before about cameras in the courtroom as well. Just talk us through that. That’s my that’s my biggest regret that when you have a jury that was not sequestered until deliberations that that I should not have made the calculation to join with the prosecution to keep cameras out of the pro out of the courtroom because that if you watched the testimony and the evidence you never would have been convinced and as well today’s forensic technology you know if that had existed did back in 2002. Do you believe Scott would have been convicted? No, I don’t. And one of the interesting things about the case as a postcript is we did a hearing for two weeks or one week to admit mitochondrial DNA. Understand that when this case started, mitochondrial DNA was not admissible in the state of California. That was because the prosecution wanted to show that a hair found in the boat was Lacy’s. Because they also said, "Well, Lacy had never seen the boat." Well, on cross-examination during the trial, Detective Brochini admitted he had eliminated from his police report an interview with a witness who saw Lacy in the boat at the warehouse. That that little vignette tells you all you needs to know about whether they were trying to find out who did this or whether they were more concerned with just convicting somebody. Three kind of Release your weight. Yeah. Heat. It’s not And is there some writings as well in within the documentary about this both? Yes. Yes. There’s all kinds of stuff that um look you still I told you before I’m not going to step on any of [laughter] the um uh the things that are in that. I invite people to sit down and watch it. Absolutely. And do you think that does do you think Scott has any hope? you know, have you when was the last time you saw or spoke to him? Look, I haven’t I haven’t spoken to him recently. He’s written me letters. I will just say this, something that has stuck with me all along. When people say you’ve got a lack of a effect, you’re not reacting normally. You’re not reacting the way I would expect, as if there’s some playbook on grief. He will always tell you, "The worst thing that ever happened to me is that my wife and unborn son were killed. Everything else is besides the point. Just tell me about the morning. Um, I don’t know what time we got up. Probably Lacy got up and went and um I assume had she had some cereal for breakfast. She eats right when she wakes up, otherwise she gets sick cuz she’s pregnant. Um, I laid around the bed longer. I got up at I don’t know 8:00 probably or so. Um showered and um we were watching her favorite show, Martha Stewart. Watched a little bit of that. You didn’t watch the whole thing though. No. You remember what part you saw? I mean, I don’t know what some cooking deal. I don’t cookies of some sort. They’re talking about what to do with the ring. Um, in I can’t remember your house. You had the the converted garage area. Is that your TV room like or is that where you were then? Okay. Did you eat any breakfast? Yeah. Okay. And then uh then what? Um, when did you realize you were gonna go fishing? Oh, that’s was a morning decision. It’s either that was a morning go play golf at the club or or go fishing. Exactly. Seemed too cold to go play golf at the club. So, um, yeah, just decided at, you know, 9:30 or whatever that Mhm. just told me what she was going to do for the day and Okay. So, she told you what she was going to do for the day. Yeah. And what was that? Um, she’s going to finish cleaning up. Like I said, she’s mopping the kitchen floor. um take the dog for a walk and then she’s going to the store to buy for Christmas morning breakfast tomorrow and that was going to be a involve prep. So that was her afternoon was prepping the breakfast and she’s going to make gingerbread cookies for tonight. What was she momming? the tile and the entryway area, the entry of the front door or the entry of your little interior converted. Uh when I Oh, the um No, not the front door, but that back door that we came in, right where the mom was outside of it? No, no, no. Oh, where Oh, where your dogs went out to your backyard. Okay. If you have the converted garage, right? Then you have the kitchen. Then you have a room with two chairs in it. Yeah, that room. in the kitchen. I don’t know how far she planned to go. She had me put the uh the bucket by the front door for her. So, she asked you put the moth bucket by the front door. Yeah, she’s Yeah, he was pregnant. not going to pick it up or anything. So, I filled it up or put it in a I guess a central place. How did it Did you move it back after or when you come home or how did it get outside? Yeah. Yeah. So, you put it out there. Mhm. The dog and the cat ran. Yeah. She wasn’t about to lift anything heavy. So when you left, do you remember what she was wearing? Uh, black pants, white long sleeve top. The kind of buttons or No, just like a long sleeve t-shirt kind of thing, but you know, didn’t say anything on it or um jacket or shoes. No, no shoes. Do you notice her jacket if her jacket was there or did she wear like if she went walking at 10:00 or 9:30? She just steals my stuff. She uses your stuff. Yeah, because you know stuff would turn to stuff. So I don’t I don’t know. You don’t know. I don’t She could have had her for mine or something. I don’t know. How about shoes? Does she have a certain kind of shoes that she walks in or Yeah, I use a pair of white tennis shoes. Do you know? Did you remember if they were there or not? Um the officers and I looked for them in their normal place, which is outside of our wet bar. Mhm. Uh they were not there, but we didn’t look further. So, they could be in the house. They weren’t where they normally left. You saw mine where those were that’s where they normally keep Okay. So then about 9:30 you left. Mhm. And you drove your four-door truck. Um and you went over to your shop, right? And what did you do over there? Um I assembled my uh mortiser. and more service. That’s a woodworking tool to make tables. Maybe you saw it on the uh trailer there. Okay. Do you have any questions? No. I mean, I’ve asked you a couple times what to do, so I have the answers to that. So, we’re going to go do it. That’s what Yeah. There’s, you know, all we can do now is make people aware of the problem, the situation, and hope that somebody saw something or know something. A question that would about resources available. You saw my mother-in-law tonight. Um, you know, you saw some of my wife’s friends, my son for uh counseling, that kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. There. That’s Can you give us those numbers or I just search them out? No. No. I can give you those numbers. Um I just don’t know. I mean, you’re probably not going to get any answers today. Yeah. No, no. I mean, but yeah, it’s Christmas. I mean, of course. Well, and there’s no need to qualify today. We find Lacy in the next days. Yeah. Yeah. I’ll give you those numbers. I willing. Uh that’s my number, my cell phone number, and uh I’ll get you the the number to the victim services. Now, where do you want to go? Oh, physically back to my home. Okay, give me one second. Hopefully they’re done over there. And how do you balance advocating for Scott while recognizing obviously the enormous loss suffered by Lacy’s family? Look, that’s I I I I have a client I have who has a family who has been impacted as well. Anybody who says, you know, Sharon Roachcha lost her daughter and grandson. Um, Scott’s family lost their daughter-in-law, their son, and their grandson. So, there’s no winners in this case. No, of course not. Except maybe whoever did it. So, what is your theory? Do you have a theory of what happened exactly? I do, but I’m not going to share it [laughter] here. I this case is based on Pat’s theory and I’ll leave it at that. I’m not gonna I’m not going to step on any of that. And if Scott was granted a new trial, you know, how would the defense differ, do you think, from what the jury heard in in back then in 2004? Well, I think I think it would be a completely different trial. I think being removed more than two decades from that overheated atmosphere would be the first thing that would make it different. My last question is after more than 20 years, what keeps you so committed to this case? Does I haven’t seen anything I haven’t seen anything before, during, or after that dissuades me from the idea that Scott did not do this. Well, thank you so much. And we’re very much looking forward to seeing this documentary, and hopefully we can maybe chat to you afterwards as well once we see what new evidence is coming to light. I would enjoy that. Thank you so much. Wow. Well, it certainly sounds like this documentary could make a lot of people take another look at the Scott Peterson case, especially once they’ve seen the new evidence and how it’s going to be presented. Scott Peterson, the New Evidence is a 4-hour two-part documentary that’s airing now on A&E. I’m Katie Forester for the US Sun. Thank you for watching and don’t forget to like this video and subscribe for more exclusive interviews like this one.
