Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
Hey, everybody. Welcome back. This is Lacey and I'm Lauren, and we're here for another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:13] Speaker B: And in today's episode, we're going to talk about the Scott Peterson case. And I think on this one, me and Lacy have varying, very different opinions. But before we get to that, I have a question for Lacy that was actually brought to me by my law partner Chelsea, and it relates to the death penalty. And we know Scott Peterson was originally given the death penalty. So this is Lacey's first time hearing this question, so we're going to get her honest reaction. So recently in a case, and I believe this was here in South Carolina, a person had been sentenced to death. They, while in the prison system or whatever, decided they wanted to convert to being a Muslim. And if you are Muslim, you cannot pick how you are to die. And in this situation, the person being executed, their attorney actually had to pick the method for which they were to be executed. As a criminal defense attorney, do you think you could actually do that? Do you think that would be part of your job? Like, it just. I couldn't do it.
[00:01:22] Speaker A: So I know what case you're talking about, and I strongly disagreed with the death penalty there, which I'm.
I don't support the death penalty for many reasons. Some emotionally based, some logically based. But that's an episode for another day.
But just to say, as a whole, I do not support it, but I can also analyze the cases, right? To say, hey, I can see it here and I don't see it there. That man was very young. It was not a pre planned murder at all. I think death penalty, if you're gonna have it, should be the most heinous. He was on drugs at the time. So I know exactly who you're referring to because I remember looking at that case.
I think as lawyers, we often develop relationships with our clients. And no, I'm not talking about intimate relationships, but we do develop relationships. I've had a client's mom reach out to me and tell me she had a heart attack. And she just felt like I was family and needed to know that she had had a heart attack, was in, and just wanted to make me aware of her situation. It had nothing to do with her son's case, but that's just the kind of bond that we shared through my representation of her son. So because of that, I think if the. If I had that type of relationship with my client and they needed me in that moment to make that decision, I would, you know, if he didn't feel like he could do it based on his religion, and he trusted his lawyer to make that decision on his behalf. I think there would be a relationship there, and as much as it would hurt me, I would, you know, make the decision I felt was best, because, you know, the lawyer can't make a decision not to. Not to kill his client. The state, you know, and I believe the attorney probably would have decided that if he could, but that wasn't within his power. So I think within his power, he was trying to determine, you know, the most humane, if you can even call that. Call it that for the.
What way to go forward with the death penalty. So, yeah, I think I could. I wouldn't want to, but if it was that situation and I had to do it for my client and I cared about him and I would step up to the plate.
[00:03:41] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, that. I know that attorney did. And I believe he stayed with him during his execution. So I know that is a hard part of being in the criminal defense world. I've seen that also with security guards that are at those type facilities that they cannot execute them at the same facility they've been at, because so many of the security guards do get those relationships because they are people, too. Yeah. But we are getting into Scott Peterson. But Lacy has a funny story from not funny, mean story, I guess that also doesn't relate, but does relate.
[00:04:20] Speaker A: Yeah. So, you know, we're talking about Scott Peterson today, and he was convicted of killing his pregnant wife. And I was at Christmas at my mom's, and my grandmother asked me if I was pregnant, and I am not. And so I just wanted to say, for everybody listening, just a reminder, don't ask women if they're pregnant. I mean, how many times do we have to say it? I mean, I feel like it's been said so many times, but it's very hurtful. I was about to start my period, so I was bloated and also birthed two kids. And so, you know, I do carry a little bit of extra weight in my stomach area, but that's why you don't ask, because it's very hurtful. And I am somebody. I work out five days a week. I weigh my food. I also cheat sometimes on my meal plans. And I do the best I can to be the healthiest I am, but I don't do the best I can to be the smallest I can be. Right. There's a balance there. I want to be happy and healthy. That's my main goals. If I get skinny from doing it great, but it hadn't happened, you know, But I'm very healthy. I do what I'm supposed to do to take care of my body. This is the body that I have right now. And it's just really hurtful to work out and put the time I do and then be asked if I was pregnant. So just don't do it, people. It's just not nice. So I just wanted to throw that out there. I think that's appropriate for podcasts, for law mamas that are have busy lives and, you know, maybe birth some babies and have a few extra pounds in the midsection. I feel you. You're not alone.
But I'm also grateful for all that my body has done for my beautiful babies. So, yeah, don't be, don't be mean like my grandma.
[00:06:05] Speaker B: You've had kids or not. Your body is what it is and there's no reason to be ashamed of it and just love the body for what it can do for you.
[00:06:15] Speaker A: And I, I told Lauren this too when I was telling her about it. I look the same as my grandma, like my grandma. Her shape is the same as my mama's shape, is the same as my sister's shape. It's the same as my shape. We all have the same shape, we all weigh different, but as far as our shape goes, we all got the same shape. So I don't know why I was called out and nobody else was.
Anyways, that's my rant for the day.
[00:06:44] Speaker B: So moving on. On Scott Peterson, my apologist on Scott Peterson, we probably have different views. As we all know, he was convicted of killing his wife. Pregnant wife. I believe she was very pregnant, like almost nine months. Pregnant wife. So he was convicted in her death. And his unborn son, I believe she's praying with a son. Unborn son's death on Christmas Eve was the day this all happened back in. I believe it was 2000 or maybe 2000, I don't know the year, but it was early 2000s, like. And he was sentenced. He was found guilty and sentenced to the death penalty back in 2021, his death penalty conviction. He gets a new trial on that. He's still awaiting that because there was found to be some improper with the jury type stuff. And we'll probably talk about that in this too. And right now in 2024, for, at the end, at some point in 2024. We're now in 2025, but I'm going to say 2024 for months.
But the California, like some nonprofit in California has Actually came on board to try to take up his case, to try to get him a new case. So while this happened, this is also for people who say the death penalty cost the state less money overall. This shows you that's not a good argument for that because he was given this over 20 years ago now, and, and he's still in the system. So it's not a money thing as far as saving the state money in those type situations. But going to the case, I think, to start it, I can tell you I think he's guilty. I have no doubts in my mind. And Lacy has different thoughts and we'll kind of dive into that part of it.
[00:08:27] Speaker A: Yeah, he's absolutely not guilty.
I firmly believe that. And I, based on everything I have heard and read, I don't believe there is enough evidence to convict him.
So not guilty. The state has not proven it beyond reasonable doubt in my eyes.
So there's a new documentary release. Was it Netflix? Lauren?
[00:08:51] Speaker B: Hulu might have been Hulu.
[00:08:54] Speaker A: I think it was Hulu. So there's a new one released. And I was watching that and I remember when it, you know, over the years, hearing bits and pieces, but, you know, really dug into the. The case. So this is why I think he's not guilty.
So the state's argument is that he pre planned this, that he bought a boat and he was planning on murdering her, putting her on the boat and taking her and putting her into the water near where they had lived. And so when the police come and he reports her missing, the police come to get a statement.
As far as facts for any of these cases, we're not really here to dive into that. There's so many podcasts where you can go and get all the details. You know, we're just there. There's certain topics we want to stay on, and this is, this is one of them is whether we think he's guilty or innocent as lawyers. So police come to the house and he says he was out fishing that day. He tells them where he went fishing, and they open up a missing person's case to try to find Lacy. She is not found. She's not found for many months. And during those months, we all know that it came out that he had an affair. He had an ongoing affair with somebody. He didn't disclose he was married. I think he had. Didn't he tell her that his wife had actually died?
[00:10:09] Speaker B: Yeah, he told her he was a widower.
[00:10:11] Speaker A: Yeah. So they do go and search where he went fishing and did not find Lacy's body.
Did not find her at all. It was April. So all this happened in December, she goes missing. It wasn't until April or May that somebody calls that there's a body on shore where he was fishing, and they go and that. That is when they find Lacy Peterson's body. So months and months later.
I don't buy the state's argument. So the state's argument is that he is so smart in planning this murder that he went and bought this boat, crafted this whole thing, but yet when the police come to find out where he was, he tells him where the body is.
That doesn't make any sense to me. If you're trying to get away with murder, if you have plotted and planned something, what smart, intelligent person, which is what they're trying to make him out to be, this smart, intelligent, pre planned, you know, person, pre planned all of this. But everything is going to tell the place exactly where the body is. Also, they searched that place. There was no body. They searched it. They searched. They spent hours, I think, days trying to find the body closer to when she went missing, and they found nothing. And all of a sudden, four months later, her body is sitting right where his alibi was the whole time.
So, no, I think I, I know there was some burglaries in that neighborhood at the time.
I know that there was like a cult that had killed pregnant woman. Pregnant women. I don't know who killed Lacey Peterson, but I do believe if he had killed her, he could have covered it up. But I just don't think he would have told the police where her body was on day one. Like, hey, my wife's missing. This is my alibi. And that's where you put the body? No. So based on that. No, I just don't think he's guilty. I. I don't think he did it. I don't know if he knows who did or did it, but, yeah, I just don't. I think he's smarter than that. I think if he was really planning and plotting this, he would not have told the. And where the body was, where his alibi was in the body. I think somebody knew the bad publicity he was getting for the affair, whoever did it, and they were able to wait for months and then put the body in his alibi to frame him.
[00:12:36] Speaker B: I just feel like that'd be hard to hang on to somebody, I guess, and put it in your freezer, I guess. Like, I don't think it was the burglars at all because they were caught and put in jail so they could not have brought this body back months. Like, like they were arrested during this time. Where would they have hit it? I mean, they did not seem. I don't know, but from like, what I've seen about them, they're like Harry and Marv on Home Alone kind of thing. They were just in there to get some stuff. Like, I don't think supposedly they killed, like, what Scott Peterson's sister says, who is still very firmly, like, he's innocent, that Lacey went over to check them out, and then that is when they killed her and took her. I think they just would have ran and been done with it at this point because they just were trying to get some stuff. But I guess some questions I have for you, multiple ones as part of this. Supposedly he said, Scott said that neighbors had told him that they saw Lacey out walking around the neighborhood with the dog during the course of that day. Why were they not brought as witnesses? I mean, if they truly had seen her, this would have possibly corroborated his timeline of things. But nobody was ever brought to the stand on that.
[00:13:52] Speaker A: And it's a good point. And it's really hard when you're trying a case to decide what all to bring forward and whatnot. And, you know, I've had it happen before where I didn't say anything. I thought it was my best strategy to leave certain things out. And then afterwards I regret that decision.
It's a case, you know, so really his attorneys have to answer that question. Every attorney is going to go into a trial with a strategic plan. Well, not every. Like I said, some people are just crappy at their jobs, but a good attorney is going to go in with a. With a trial strategy. Right. And so some lawyers here, I know they will not call witnesses because they want to have final closing arguments. That used to be the rule. If the defense did not present a case, they got final closing arguments. So there are a lot of, you know, defense attorneys that would never let their. They would advise their clients not to take the stand, and then they would. Would not put on witnesses because they thought they could convince the jury with just the state's case and lack of evidence in closing arguments to get their client, you know, to convince the jury to find their client not guilty. So all of those things are going into play when you're planning out a trial. So I don't know if that was maybe a reasoning or, I don't know, maybe there's information. I can't answer it. But, you know, I would think something like along those lines where they had a, you know, strategy there. But I was second chair on a murder case over 10 years ago, and I want to bring that to the podcast on another episode. But there was an eyewitness in that case that wasn't called, and the attorney had a reason. But if you ask him now, he'll tell you, I made a mistake. I should have absolutely called that witness. I think it would have helped my. My client and I clearly messed up. So, you know, we're human, and sometimes we think this. A certain strategy is going to work, and it doesn't. We realize it was a mistake on our part.
[00:15:53] Speaker B: Now, how would you. I guess I think one of the biggest things that we have saw from this is what the jury said really did them in was the mistress. And the fact that the whole time, like, while Lacy's missing, he's still talking to his mistress and he's lying and telling her he is in Paris. And she had these phone calls recorded. They were put into evidence because they could authenticate them because it was her on there with him.
So how. I guess in preparing for trial and, you know, they're bringing the mistress in, and she's. Your damning point. Like, how do you overcome that part of it?
[00:16:33] Speaker A: Yeah, I think their attorneys tried to do that with their opening by saying, listen, Scott's not a great husband. Pretty crappy one, if we're being honest. You know, he was cheating on his wife. He's not a good person. Scott's a liar. But when you look at the evidence of the case, is he a murderer? Right. And that is what I try. Would have. I think they did do that, and they're opening at least. But that would have been my theory of the case as well. Many of us can name friends that have been cheated on. Right. We can name crappy spouses, mothers, fathers. I mean, there's probably many people in our lives that we can say are not good people.
My former stepdad is not a good person. I think he has the potential to be, but drugs and a lot of other stuff. He is not a good person. He abused my mom. He was an alcoholic. If a dead body ends up nearby him, that doesn't make him a murderer. You know, you have to have evidence that he killed Lacey, and that's what I'm not seeing. You know? Yes, you've con. You've convinced me he's a cheater. You've convinced me that he's a pretty crappy person, because who cheats on their wife, especially when they're pregnant? Like, I Mean, I don't think you should cheat at all. But just knowing how pregnancy is on a, on a, on a woman's body and stuff like that, like how dare you. But I don't see any evidence of killing her and I don't, I didn't remember anything coming up in the documentary that I watched. Like reasons why he would want to kill her and her son to even be with her. I, I think he would have just continued to cheat, maybe broke up with her, found somebody el and kept on moving on in life. I think that is within his personality.
I don't see evidence of a murder though.
[00:18:32] Speaker B: Why do you think? Okay, so you might have encountered this in crimes before, but he didn't report her missing. It was her stepdad that did. And I guess from like my normal human perspective, if I go home and my husband's not home and I know this was before we all had like that there were cell phones but they were not iPhones. People didn't carry them. It was a different world. You know, in the early 2000s we might have had like our nok a phone with limited minutes. But if I go home now and Wes isn't home and I thought he was supposed to be home and then I call him, can't get him, it's been an hour, he doesn't show up. I'm in panic mode so I'm going to be calling. And granted I'm very type A, I'm very doomsday worst case scenario person. So I'm probably more on a one extreme than other people. I would be calling my mom and dad and being like, do I need to call the cops? I wouldn't wait and let somebody else do it. And I know this happens in criminal cases a ton but then a lot of times we've seen those cases are the cases where the person did it.
[00:19:29] Speaker A: Yeah.
Men and women, women are different. And yes, there's all these exceptions. We can go into it. Right. But our line of processing is so different from men for the majority part. Right. If I went home in your case with my husband. Yes. I would be the one to call the police eventually. If I went missing, I would bet money Mark would not call the police. I bet money he would either have my mom or his mom call the police. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be the one to actually make that phone call.
And I'm just, and I know this sounds but like. So my, my brother in law went through a divorce and I remember Christmas coming up and my mother in Law bought gifts. I could tell she did and put his name on it. I was like, why didn't he buy the gift? She's like, men just don't think about Stu like that, right? And now he's with his fiance now and mother of my nephews. And I know the gifts are coming from her. I know she goes out and picks out great gifts and she tries to find out what, you know, and she thinks about those things. He doesn't. My uncle, he gives gift cards for everybody. And that was one thing my, my cousin was talking about is like, you know, I wish he would think about a thoughtful gift that would mean so much to me. But instead I got, you know, it's just money and gift cards. Like, where's the thought in it? And it just goes to show how, how different our minds are and even the smallest thing of Christmas gifts. And so if our minds are so different in something like that, it doesn't surprise me at all that he wouldn't call with her missing. Mark would not call. Mark would not call the police if I went missing. He would probably actually wait until my mom or mother in law got to the house before he even called the police.
Unless he had some inclination I was in immediate danger. If I was in immediate danger. And he knew that for a fact, he would call himself. But in any other situation. And we talked about this, me, him and, and Paige, my cousin. And yeah, he confirmed it. He's like, yeah, you're right, I probably wouldn't call. I'd have my mom do it or your mom.
[00:21:39] Speaker B: I feel like in my situation, I guess if I wasn't there, my husband would probably have my mom, but he wouldn't wait long like, because it was like. I also feel like my husband wouldn't have went fishing 90 minutes away from my house when I'm nine months pregnant. And I guess for me, the thing that I think another thing that bothered me with his case was his whole timeline on. We watched Martha Stewart and I left at 9:30 and we watched the cookie thing, but they didn't talk about the meringues till way at the end of the episode. And he was adamant. He left at 9:30. Now I know all of this is circumstantial and if you don't have a lot of understanding of the, of the judicial system, which most of us do not, circumstantial evidence is knowing this like you're not getting your smoking gun. You're not getting the DNA evidence, you're not getting all that like good evidence. That is very more in the fact it weighs heavier. You know, like, if you've got DNA there, if you've got fingerprints, if you have got fluids, all those type things, you've got the murder weapon, you have stuff that can really do something. In his case, everything was circumstantial. Nothing was.
[00:22:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:48] Speaker B: So I guess in the legal side of things, did they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't know. But in my gut, that man did it.
[00:22:56] Speaker A: I don't think that. And so I know y'all listen, but some of us, some of you are watching on YouTube, so you'll get to see this. If not, go and watch it. And I'll try to describe it when I do it, but I used to watch called Cold justice, and they. The attorney on that show describes circumstantial evidence best, right? So Scott Peterson's a liar because he said his wife was dead when he had an affair. He's a bad husband. He had an affair.
He didn't call the police right. When she went missing. So what I'm doing is I'm grabbing markers and pens and I'm putting them my hand, right? So whatever circumstantial, you put all these circumstances together, and what a jury is supposed to decide is, can you break it or not? Right? So if all the circumstances you can break it, that's that you don't have enough. Right. That's not enough reasons to convict somebody of a crime. If you have enough or you can't break it, it's solid. They try to say that's enough to convict somebody of a crime. So it's the best way to think of circumstantial evidence is you don't have the smoking gun, but you have small little pieces. And when you layer all of them together, is that enough evidence to prove the crime? I think it's enough evidence to prove that he's a cheater and a liar. I don't think it's enough to prove murder.
[00:24:14] Speaker B: And I think the last big thing from the case, why he's getting all this, like, new attention, is because of that juror. But I don't think the juror issue was either the prosecutions or the defense's fault, because in a jury, like, they've all said she lied and stuff. So I don't. A lot of people don't realize if you've never been called for jury duty, when you go in there, there's this part called void. Voidir. Void. I don't know some Latin type words, but in there, they get to ask you a lot of questions to know if you would be a good juror or not, if you could be fair. So, for instance, is this a drunk driving case? A lot of times you're going to get asked, do you believe that alcohol is immoral? Because if you don't believe in alcohol in general, you're not going to be able to actually give be a good juror in a drunk driving situation because you think from the start they were a terrible situation.
[00:25:05] Speaker A: Fair and impartial. You can't be fair and impartial. That's the standard.
[00:25:09] Speaker B: So in this situation, they asked had anybody been a victim of domestic abuse? She said no. She said no on it. That was what her voidir said. And no attorney, no prosecutor has time to go the jury list. And this was in California, so I'm guessing very populated state. That jury list could have been 400 people. They do not have time to go search every one of those jurors like that. But she actually had restraining orders against two people who had committed domestic violence on her. But she said she was not a victim because she escaped. But I don't think there's any. In hindsight, I don't think there's anything anybody could have done to stop that one, do you?
[00:25:51] Speaker A: No, I don't. There's only so much that you can do. And we call it jury dirt. You know, we'll try to get information through social media, the public index and stuff like that, but every nook and cranny to find out about somebody, you're just not going to be able to do that. It's not realistic. But the other thing that's bringing it up is there is. There's some DNA that has not been tested. And I think that's what the Innocent Innocence Project is trying to fight for as well. And I believe the lead investigator also said he wanted it tested, too, because he said, you know, this is, you know, we're supposed to do our due diligence. You know, if we have a man that's been convicted of a murder and there's DNA, if his DNA is not on it and it's somebody else, you know, we've got to correct the mistake if there is one. I don't think he believes there is one, but, you know, he doesn't see a problem in testing the DNA. But I can't remember exactly. It was in that documentary. Go back and look at it if you're curious. But there's some untested DNA as well that Scott Peterson's new attorneys are trying to get tested, and the court is allowing for that.
[00:26:54] Speaker B: They have allowed for this evidence that was not brought into trial to be dealt with. And that can be evidence that could get him a new trial. But in this, this is the hard part with all of this. Say he does get a new trial. Is there any jury out? Unless you get a bunch of like, you know, 20 year olds who didn't hear about this and, you know, you got to be 18 to serve and this happened in the early 2000. Will he ever get a fair and impartial trial? Because you have two people here and we're both attorneys and I feel like we're both smart people and we have very differing views on whether we thought he did it or not. And we're not even in California. We were young when this happened. We were in high school.
Can he get a fair trial now?
[00:27:40] Speaker A: Lauren, if they test the DNA and it is not his and it is. They. They put it through CODIS and it pops to somebody else, would you be convinced then that he had nothing?
[00:27:51] Speaker B: I would want to figure out what that DNA was. What if that was just DNA like that was on her because she did go walk the dog and Susie hugged her and there was some saliva because.
[00:28:01] Speaker A: Well, if it comes back in codis, it means it's a convicted criminal or a felon.
[00:28:05] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:28:06] Speaker A: So what I'm saying is if they get. And that's. That's how they'd have to find the DNA. Unless they do one of the new ways, which is familial matches. Right. I'm saying if it is. If it gets a hit in codis, which CODIS is where the DNA is kept for anybody convicted of a felony, would you be convinced then?
[00:28:24] Speaker B: I would need. I need more info. Realistic.
[00:28:27] Speaker A: I'm failing at my job, y'all. I'm supposed to see a defense attorney and convince people I know what I'm talking about. I can't get Lauren one over.
[00:28:35] Speaker B: And just because there's somebody else's DNA, that don't mean he didn't hire them to do it. Like, and then they got pissed at each other, so they came out and moved the bodies and dumped them. Because who knows, maybe this mistress had more going on than what we ever knew from the trial and she was keeping herself safe. I'm just kidding. I don't think she was involved in anything, but I don't either. I think it just.
It would be a lot to have to see. I would want. Why was this there? And you're gonna have to prove a strong theory of why was this there and that it was there. I guess the hard part with DNA is DNA disintegrates really quickly. So are they even going to be able to properly, like say you get a percentage match.
Is his DNA still good DNA though?
[00:29:26] Speaker A: I mean, that's what shakes out.
[00:29:29] Speaker B: But that's going to be interesting to see in the future and see how it plays out and how DNA evolved very quickly in the court world that we rely on DNA. Like you think about it, back in the 80s, 70s, 80s there was no DNA. But now if we're going to convict somebody, we want DNA. Like how far has that changed in our legal world?
[00:29:55] Speaker A: Right. And I think we kind of touched on it in a prior episode about technology in other ways, like film. Do you have it on camera? Because if you don't have it on camera, then it didn't happen then either. You know, we are, we are losing faith in this type of evidence. Right. Me and you talking and seeing things ourselves and believing what somebody saw their own two eyes. Jurors are going to want to start seeing the science, seeing the data, seeing the videos. They're going to want everything. And you know what, I'm kind of here for it. Let's do it.
[00:30:25] Speaker B: Yeah, it'll make things interesting and it works even in like, I know we've been talking a lot about criminal cases, but in the civil world we still want pictures, we want the meta and talking about metadata, we want to see that that contract was actually signed when it was, you say it was like we want the data behind it.
[00:30:43] Speaker A: Right.
[00:30:43] Speaker B: So our whole trial process is completely changing. And for those attorneys who have been practicing for years, I am sure this is a lot to deal with, you know, to go from one way of thinking to a complete other.
[00:30:56] Speaker A: Yep.
I think we're, we went kind of long on that one, but we'll keep everybody updated. I'm sure we'll do a follow up episode probably later this year. It'll take time to get the DNA tested and results back, but we'll definitely do a follow up episode once everything's released with that and the information with the juror and you know, maybe do an episode on war deer and, and stuff like that that happens during a trial. So for now, make sure you follow us on Apple, podcasts, everywhere, YouTube, where you get your information from. We're there. Instagram, Facebook, follow the Llamas podcast.
[00:31:37] Speaker B: Yep. We look forward to talking to you again.
[00:31:40] Speaker A: Bye, Lola. Bye.
