Scott Peterson’s latest appeal disregards facts, makes no sense. I’ll tell you why | Opinion

I just can’t see Scott Peterson’s latest appeal getting any more traction than his previous ones.

To accept his claim of new evidence, appellate justices would have to disregard facts established at his 2004 trial. That seems unlikely, no matter how much his supporters keep harping about the burglary across the street or about people who say they saw his pregnant wife, Laci, dog walking in their Modesto neighborhood on Christmas Eve 2002.

Either theory would mean Scott did not kill Laci and their unborn son, to be named Conner, which is why his legal team has spent years trying to substantiate them. But neither makes sense to those of us who observed the six-month trial in Redwood City, and I’ll tell you why.

First, the defense theories. If Laci confronted the burglars and they kidnapped and killed her, or if someone else snatched her as she walked their golden retriever, then of course Scott is innocent. Either guilty party would have dumped her body where everyone knew Scott had been fishing that day in San Francisco Bay, framing him for the crime.

His defense team, led by celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, tried to make a version of these theories work for jurors at trial, without success. Scott’s previous appeals, as well as the latest, accused Geragos and his team of not trying hard enough. And that’s just not true.

Recapturing six months of testimony here isn’t possible, but it all comes down to the Christmas Eve timeline. Because of proven cellphone calls and receipts, the following is undisputed.

• Scott left the Covena Avenue home before 10:08 a.m. Neighbor Karen Servas, leaving to do errands, found the Petersons’ dog running loose and put it in their backyard with its leash attached about 10:18 a.m.

• Across the street, Susan and Rodolfo Medina left home about 10:30 a.m. Burglars broke in sometime between then and Dec. 26, when the Medinas returned.

• All reported sightings of a pregnant woman and her dog — about a dozen — came after 10:30 a.m.

• Scott returned home around 5 p.m. and found the dog, McKenzie, in the backyard, leash still attached. He reported Laci missing and a massive search was launched. He told detectives Laci had been preparing to mop and to walk the dog when he left that morning.

Why didn’t Geragos and his team call to the stand witnesses who might support the burglary or dog-walking theories? Because these lawyers aren’t stupid. We’re getting to that.

Scott’s subsequent appeals speculate that Laci was still alive and probably in the house when Servas found the dog wandering free, and that Laci later retrieved the retriever, went on her walk and met her doom.

Why Scott Peterson’s stories haven’t flown

To buy this scenario, it would be nice to know why the dog was free with leash attached in the first place; I guess that’s possible, if Laci started walking, then got distracted, left the dog unattended (or it escaped) and later resumed the walk. But to expect that whoever snatched Laci in the neighborhood would take the trouble to secretly return the dog to her backyard and leave the leash attached, exactly as Servas left it earlier and Scott found it later, defies reason.

To believe the burglar scenario, first you have to discount the work police did to establish that it didn’t happen Christmas Eve before Scott returned. Then you have to believe that Laci walked the dog and for some reason put it in her backyard with the leash attached before the burglars grabbed her. Or maybe the polite or clever burglars returned the dog to her backyard, leash attached — exactly as Servas left it sometime earlier.

Seriously, what makes more sense — any of the above, or this theory: That Scott murdered Laci, took her body and let the dog run free? Someone would find it with leash attached, matching both the theory that Laci vanished while dog walking and the alibi Scott would feed to police.

Geragos arranged to call one of the burglars to the witness stand, but didn’t. Only Geragos and his legal team know why, but here’s an educated guess: the burglar had significant credibility issues, and jurors wouldn’t believe him.

Neither did Geragos call any of the 12 or so people who thought they might have seen a pregnant dog walker in the neighborhood. I might shed some light on this, from personal experience.

In those days, the Peterson story was among the biggest in the nation, often topping newscasts and always in cable shows — especially after Amber Frey, Scott’s secret girlfriend, came forward. The Modesto Bee was what we call the paper of record, overturning every rock in search of information that might keep us ahead of very intense competition.

A Bee reporter at the time, I tracked down and interviewed some who reported these sightings, and found none to be credible. All began with something like, “In my mind’s eye, I think I can recall the blurred shape of ....” All knew, perhaps subconsciously — thanks to oodles of media reports — exactly the time they should say they saw a pregnant woman walking a dog.

I came to the conclusion that these well-meaning people were just like hundreds of volunteers scouring Modesto parks, all hoping to help locate the missing 27-year-old substitute teacher with the gorgeous smile who had become a media darling.

Geragos knew that each witness would be picked apart by prosecutors on cross-examination. That’s why he didn’t call them to the stand.

Third burglar theory

In the end, the weak-sauce theory Geragos tried to sell to the jury — that vagrants must have captured and killed Laci, and framed Scott — was not terribly different than those in his two subsequent appeals. Those who didn’t buy any of these alternate facts include authorities, jurors, appellate justices and the California Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did overturn his death penalty because of an error made during jury selection — the biggest win of Scott’s appeals.

So what’s this latest appeal? It’s another habeas corpus petition, which inmates can bring if they’ve found new evidence. This one claims to have turned up people who say they heard banter from someone else who claims he helped the others break into the Medina home — a third burglar, previously unknown to anyone despite numerous investigations over two decades.

Well yeah, if they can actually locate this guy, let’s hear what he has to say. But the fact that Scott could not find a single licensed attorney to sign the 264-page appeal speaks volumes. Its most significant request may be for money to hire experts to prove that Laci was still alive when her husband left that Christmas Eve morning — an idea which judges on all levels have rejected.

In December, a judge ruled that a juror in 2004 made mistakes on a pretrial questionnaire but did not secretly plot to deceive attorneys and the court to help punish America’s most notorious accused killer, at the time, and he remains behind bars with a life sentence.

That was Scott Peterson’s best chance at a new trial — not this latest appeal.