Scott Peterson does not deserve a new trial after "overwhelming evidence," convicted him of the callous murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child, bombshell new court documents in the case claim.
Peterson, now 44, is on Death Row in California after a 2004 jury found him guilty of killing his 27-year-old wife when she was eight months pregnant with the son they planned to name Connor. She disappeared on Christmas Eve and her body, and the baby's, washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay four months later.
Peterson has filed an appeal claiming that his attorney did not call multiple witnesses that claimed to have seen Laci after authorities say she disappeared, and that cops did not investigate a robbery on the Petersons' street, which he believes could have been connected to his wife's murder.
A new A&E documentary from Peterson's side of the case claimed that 11 witnesses had seen Laci later in the evening on the night she supposedly vanished, casting doubt on the theory of when Scott killed her.
The State Attorney General filed their response to Scott's appeal on August 11, 2017, noting that there had been "overwhelming evidence," to convict him, and that his attorney, Mark Geragos, did not botch the case.
The court papers detailed Scott's suspicious behavior surrounding the murder, including "his expressed wanderlust and desire to be responsibility-free, which he conveyed to his mistress as the birth of his son neared; buying a boat mere weeks before Laci's disappearance; 'fishing' with the wrong gear on Christmas Eve morning in inclement weather; surreptitious trips to the marina in various rented vehicles after Laci's disappearance; lies to friends and family concerning his whereabouts," according to the Modesto Bee.
The documents reiterated the evidence that was presented in court, which jurors weighed when they convicted Scott of the murder of his wife and unborn child.
Such evidence included: "the sale of Laci's car and inquiry into selling their home, including furnishings; subscribing to pornography channels while the search was ongoing; Laci's and Conner's bodies washing ashore not far from (Scott) Peterson's location on the bay; condition of the bodies correlat(ing) with the timing of Laci's disappearance; and (Scott) Peterson's disguised appearance and possession of survival gear and copious amounts of cash at the time of his arrest."
During his opening statements, Geragos told jurors that he would present witnesses who would say they say Laci in the neighborhood after Scott left to go fishing. Those witnesses never testified, and neither did the robbers who took a safe from a home across the street from the Petersons. (They robbed that home on December 26, not on the 24th, when Laci disappeared.)
"Purported sightings of Laci were legion," Supervising Deputy Attorney General Donna Provenzano wrote in the documents, according to the Modesto Bee. Provenzano noted there were 74 reported sightings in 26 states, and even reported sightings of Laci overseas. She noted, "Most were not viable and none were corroborated."
None of those witnesses testified, the document said, because the neighborhood witnesses were not believable and because the burglary likely happened on Dec. 26, not the morning of Dec. 24, when Laci vanished as Scott left to fish.
Another line of Scott's defense was regarding evidence that suggests that a tracking dog found Laci's scent at the Berkeley Marina four days after her husband launched the boat that would have contained her body, before he dumped it in the water.
The State argued that a dog had tracked Laci's scent from her home to Scott's warehouse, where he kept the boat, and then down the highway heading to the Bay area, but that evidence was not allowed into trial. They said that the dog evidence that was allowed into trial was not even as significant as that which was allowed.
"The excluded testimony was far more damaging to Peterson's defense," Provenzano wrote in the documents, explaining why Geragos may not have fought the dog evidence.
Scott's attorneys can file a response to the State's filing and then the California Supreme Court may schedule oral arguments in the case.
Stay with Radar for updates to the story.
We pay for juicy info! Do you have a story for RadarOnline.com? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org, or call us at (866) ON-RADAR (667-2327) any time, day or night.