Scott is Innocent

The Evidence

The big story on Larry King Live [October 20, 2003] was that Scott Peterson told Amber Frey he was a widower. Amber Frey is a liar. If Scott Peterson had in fact claimed he was a widower, the police would have asked Amber to call Scott and to confirm the preposterous allegation through questions like "When did your wife die?" Did Amber Frey ask Scott questions which were designed to determine the truth? Needless to say, if they had, Nancy Grace would have told us by now.

Amber Frey called Detective Jon Buehler's office phone, cell phone and home phone 191 times in a three-month stretch, and if they did not record Scott Peterson talking about his so-called former wife, they are either incompetent or too corrupt to take seriously.

The suggestion that Amber did not know that Scott Peterson was married is very difficult to swallow. "I was introduced to him. I was told he was married," Frey nervously told a roomful of reporters gathered at the Modesto Police Department. "Scott told me he was not married," Frey said, choking back tears. Ron Frey then revised Scott Peterson's known, marital status. According to Frey, "Scott said that he had lost his wife," making the nature of Amber Frey's relationship absolutely impossible to unravel. Was Amber Frey dating a married man, a single man, a widower or a wanabe widower? Needless to say, the claim that "Scott said that he had lost his wife" reflects the overwhelming obsession to manufacture the impression that Scott Peterson murdered Laci. If Scott had in fact said he was a widower, the substance of the allegation would not be vague. In other words, we would know when Scott lost his wife and we would know how Scott lost his wife because the police would have instructed Amber to ask very pointed and specific questions.

Under the circumstances, the claim that "Scott said that he had lost his wife" is merely one more piece of the relentless campaign to frame Scott Peterson.

Amber Frey is a mystery wrapped in an enigma, and leave it to ordinary, message board posters like Lynne Foster, to unravel the truth through comments like:
According to the prosecution, Amber Frey is the reason that Scott murdered his wife, and we have to rely on Larry Flint, who claims that Amber Frey was an escort, to find the truth? I believe Larry Flint is correct because Gloria Allred was hired to protect Amber's reputation and she did not sue Larry Flint.

Why is it so impossible to get the truth about Amber Frey?

Damien Berg, who owns American Bodyworks, Frey's last known place of employment, crossed paths with Frey at massage school. Berg does not talk about Amber Frey because he signed a confidentiality pact, agreeing not to talk about her.

The confidentiality agreement keeps him from saying whether Frey ever talked at work about Peterson. Given the fact that Scott Peterson's wife and child were murdered and Amber Frey was used in a plot to create the false impression that she is more important than Laci was, I think it is time for every confidentiality agreement to expire, without further notice.

I further believe that an escort like Amber Frey knew that Scott Peterson was married. Indeed, escorts expect their dates to lie to them about their marital status. It is therefore incumbent upon the authorities to tell us on whose behalf Amber was trying to manipulate Laci's friends, to make them think that she had no idea that Scott Peterson was married. You can buy that farce of a suggestion if you like and Amber and her johns can have as many oral or written confidentiality pacts as they like, but the character and the time management of the escort is absolutely clear -they don't pose for family album-style pictures unless somebody pays for their time. Who was that? It was certainly not the man who was trying to buy the incriminating pictures from Amber because he wanted to spare his family the embarrassment.

If Lynne is not an Attorney, she should join the legal profession.

The claim that Scott told Amber he was a widower is as reliable as disputing the credibility of witnesses like Ms. Mitchell by claiming that the police found cement powder in Scott's boat. Indeed, as it has been frequently pointed out, that is exactly what the police did, and Amber's attempt to create the impression that Scott had visions of being a widower, is equally preposterous.

A thorough and competent police investigation is mandatory, because if this case goes to trial on the current foundation of allegations which are frivolous, vexatious and preposterous, nobody will ever trust the police again.

Every move that Amber Frey has ever made is calculated and suspicious to the extreme. Why did Amber Frey obsessively call Laci's friends to convince them that she did not know that Scott was married? If she was interested in solving this murder mystery, why didn't she just call Scott and ask him about his "former" wife, so that she could collect genuine evidence? What did manipulating Laci's friends accomplish? Former FBI Special Agent, Candace DeLong, who brainwashed Sharon Rocha into thinking that her son-in-law is a murderer, claims that "Scott Peterson is too stupid to be on this earth". The fact of the matter is, Scott Peterson is smarter than all of his corrupt and ignorant accusers who think that they can manipulate the evidence to the point where they convince everybody that Scott murdered his wife the day BEFORE she was spotted alive. When Cory Lee Carroll, a Fresno County Jail inmate claimed that accused murderer Scott Peterson broached the idea of kidnapping his wife while meeting with two members of a neo-Nazi gang about a month before Laci Peterson disappeared, Carroll's attorney, Frank Muna, claimed that Cory Lee Carroll was interviewed in jail by investigators from the Modesto Police Department and the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office. If that is true and the police have not charged Cory Lee Carroll with obstructing justice, the authorities are either too corrupt or too incompetent to solve the murder of Laci Peterson --or perhaps it is a combination of both.

Needless to say, the desperate prosecution spends all of its time producing volumes and volumes of rebuttal, whenever the truth gets in the way. Indeed, the prosecution produced a 400-page filing, to rebuttal the simple claim that the prosecution's own investigation proved that Laci Peterson's body was never in Scott Peterson's boat. This rebuttal is extremely embarrassing because the prosecution is evidently relying on the National Enquirer's story that Scott Peterson used chicken wire and a pair of pliers to decapitate Laci Peterson, and the DA will have to shop around for a jury that believes in the National Enquirer, to convince anybody that the DA's bizarre conspiracy theories are reasonable enough to convict anybody. Clearly, if the Police can find a hair on a pair of pliers and lose an entire head of hair, they are going to need much more than 400 pages, to explain this extremely selective discovery. Dan Abrams, the blowhard who claims that Mrs. Mitchell has been eliminated as a potential witnesses, because he thinks that he is Perry Mason, insisted that pliers with Laci's hair is compelling evidence. Abrams thinks that he has successfully discredited Mrs. Mitchell, who spotted Laci on December 24, because Mr. Mitchell said, "I am sure it was well after 9:30, the football games began at, I think, 9:00 California time, or 12:00 Eastern time. And I was checking which ones were on and where Id find them, and I was in front of the television in the living room." This simple statement was twisted to suggest that Mr. Mitchell claimed that he was watching football on Christmas Eve and that Mrs. Mitchell is therefore wrong about having spotted Laci on Christmas Eve because there were no football games scheduled on Christmas Eve. It is a grotesque manipulation, and despite the media's best efforts, the Mitchells are more credible than the entire Modesto Police Deaprtment, and you can throw in the frivolous media, to boot.

Vivian Mitchell says she saw Laci Peterson walking her dog Christmas Eve morning, about 45 minutes after Scott Peterson left for a fishing trip. Mitchell said it was between 10 and 10:15 a.m. when she saw Laci Peterson, wearing black and white clothes. Mitchell called police and reported the sighting but they did not call her back. Vivian Mitchell had been washing dishes at her sink on Dec. 24 when she saw Peterson walk by her La Loma neighborhood home. "I had glanced out the window, and the sun had come out and it was a very nice day," she said. "It had been raining recently, so the sunshine brought out all the dog walkers." Desperate critics even seek to discredit Vivian Mitchell through the claim that weather reports prove that she is mistaken. The suggestion that a weather report can pinpoint whether the sun was shining or not, at the precise time that Vivian Mitchell spotted Laci is preposterous, but that is what happens when a credible witness like Mrs. Mitchell contradicts the prosecutor's bizarre conspiracy theories. Indeed, Mrs. Mitchell is a very compelling witness because Karen Servas, a neighbor, said she spotted the Petersons' golden retriever about 10:30 a.m. The dog was wearing its leash, which was muddy, and the possibility that Laci was abducted shortly after Mrs. Mitchell spotted her, demanded a very thorough and comprehensive investigation. The police failed to investigate, and instead of acknowledging the lapse, the police investigated carefully orchestrated reports about cement powder in Scott Peterson's boat, to create the aura of infallibility. After all, if cement powder can cause us to leap to the conclusion that Scott used his boat to dump Laci's body in the bay, Ms. Mitchell's testimony is irrelevant, but good investigatore rely upon evidence, not upon the ability to use the media to promote all the ludicrous theories that were planted in the National Enquirer.

Mrs. Mitchell has always been very specific about having seen Laci on Chrismas Eve. "I'm sure it was Laci on Christmas Eve morning," she insists. "That was the lady I saw. And she is so striking. Beautiful Lady and a Beautiful Dog." Her husband confirms. Bill Mitchell, a former three-term Modesto city councilman, said he was flipping through television channels when his wife called to him. "She said there was a pregnant lady with a beautiful dog." Despite critics who distort the truth, Mr. Mitchell did not say he was watching college football on Christmas Eve. He said he had been searching on Christmas Eve for information or previews of bowl games to be played in the next few days. The overzealous effort to discredit the Mitchells reflects absolutely nothing more and nothing less than the obsession to create the impression that the police are always right. Homer Moldanado also saw Laci as he was driving to work that morning, he noted she was wearing a white shirt and black pants and it is extremely difficult to believe that Scott Peterson, Mrs. Mitchell and Homer Moldanado conspired to lie about what Laci Peterson wore on the day she disappeared.

The Police are embarassed because they did not call the Mitchells back to confirm or to refute an important, Laci sighting and it looks like you need a mouthpiece like Frank Muna, to get the Modesto Police Department to investigate the apparent fact that Laci Peterson was abducted. Dan Abrams and the rest of the media certainly tried to rescue complaints about police incompetence through reports about "cement powder" in Scott's boat, but the effort did not cement the case against Laci's husband. Scott's boat had been in police custody for 60 days when reports about unconfirmed traces of cement powder became a major news story, and that is about as significant as holding a press conference to announce the fact that Scott Peterson had cheated on his wife.

Murderers are extremely stupid and if they think that they can get away with dumping the bodies near Berkeley Marina, to create the false impression that Scott Peterson murdered his own wife and child, they have miscalculated. Indeed, if Scott Peterson had murdered Laci and Connor, the bodies would have turned up anywhere but the place where Scott was witnessed in his boat, alone. Drop any body in Berkeley Marina and there is no telling where it will turn up because the tides will rip through it. If you drop a full term baby and Laci, and you manage to recover them both anywhere near the same area, it is not even remotely plausible to suggest that the bodies were not planted. And if Laci's head is missing to hide a bullet wound [which is, of course, the leading cause of homicide] it is reasonable to assume that Laci's full head of hair was carefully concealed because it did not fit in with the plan to blame Scott.

The bodies of both Laci and Connor did not, almost simultaneously, conveniently wash up on the Richmond shoreline, where they were found. They were planted there because there was no evidence to suggest that Scott Peterson murdered Laci in their home, and the desperate murderers needed to supply enough evidence to prove that Laci was dead, to force the police to make the arrest that they repeatedly alluded to.

The police do not have a case. Amber Frey is not a reliable witness. A conversation between Scott Peterson and Amber Frey is merely a showdown between two relentless liars --the words they use are absolutely meaningless because all they are doing is lying through their teeth to satisfy pre-determined motives. Scott is lying to get Amber to be nice enough to hand over the photographs which make it look like she is a significant part of his life and Amber is fishing, because when she asks police-scripted questions like, "Did you have anything to do with your wife's disappearance?", she acts like a police interrogator. If Scott had in fact told Amber he was a widower, why wasn't the police-scripted quesion, "When did your wife die?" The answer to that is simple isn't it? Taping Scott Peterson has absolutely nothing to do with determining the truth. Taping Scott Peterson is all about creating the impression that Scott Peterson murdered Laci and that is not what you call a murder investigation.

Amber Frey has been a very busy lady, since Laci Peterson was murdered. She even called Melvin King twice on Feb 1st. Melvin King is a former Fresno police lieutenant who operates a polygraph and private investigation service. King refused to say why Frey called.

King is the same police lieutenant who was used to suggest that the unidentified neo-Nazis that Scott Peterson allegedly hired to murder Laci are credible because a jailhouse snitch passed his lie detector test.

Why is Amber Frey so well connected to people who are trying to create the impression that Scott Peterson murdered Laci?

If we look at the Laci Peterson case through the lense of available fact, it is not even plausible to suggest that Scott murdered Laci. Laci spoke to her mother on the phone at 8:30 pm. in the evening of the 23rd of December. She did not vanish without a trace until shortly before 9:30 am. the next morning, when Laci's dog, Mackenzie, returned without her. Now is Scott smart enough to get away with murder and crazy enough to murder his pregnant wife? We are talking about combinations that simply do not exist. Scott Peterson cannot possibly be both crazy and smart enough to erase every trace of forensic evidence, to the point where we have no cause of death, no murder weapon and no ability to even prove that Laci was dead, prior to the mysterious recovery of the bodies. The available window of opportunity is simply too small to give Scott Peterson the credit for murdering Laci and for erasing the forensic evidence that typically exposes a murderer. Ironically, people who hate Scott Peterson are forever looking for a way to call him dumb, but in this case, it is the people who point a finger at an innocent man, who have a serious problem with the fact that it is not even remotely plausible to suggest that Scott Peterson had anything to do with the disappearance of his wife Laci. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, but the evidence which proves that Scott Peterson murdered Laci does not exist. The following message by one of thousands of concerned citizens, illustrates the point:

Like I said on another thread...I had breakfast with an old friend who is a big whig in the federal prison system....years in LE.....he said about SP being a suspect....HE WAS A SUSPECT FROM DAY ONE....from the minute LE went on the call SP would have been the number one suspect PERIOD.

He said cops are human, they deal with this stuff day in and day out...and statistically speaking SP was the one, they probably NEVER looked at anyone else, and from day one their whole strategy would have been to figure out a way to get him to confess, to sweat him, offer him deals, to do ANYTHING to get him to confess, INCUDING LYING to the press, and to ANYONE ELSE they thought might put pressure on him, the Rocha's, friends ANYONE. He said and I quote "most people do not realize that prior to a trial cops can LEGALLY LIE about EVERYTHING incuding evidence."

Just a few instances of LE lying in this case:

1. We do not know where SP is (when in fact they were tailing him AND taping his phones nearly from day one.)

2. There was no salt water found on the boat..(leaked to mess with the alibi and pressure SP into confessing)

3. Bloody mop (leaked to make SP think he did not do a good job cleaning and needed to confess)

4. Life insurance policy to the Rocha's (spun to make it appear to both the public and the press as if he had just purchased it....putting pressure on him to confess and create a more negative pubic image of SP)

5. THE MOST OBIVIOUS LIE: SP IS NOT A SUSPECT IN THIS CASE (my friend says that was the BIGGEST lie of them all....they were trying to make SP feel comfortable thinking he would make a mistake...go to the body....try to hide more evidence etc....when all the while those tricky fellas would be following him!)

GOD KNOWS how many other instances of lying...these are just a few of the most OBVIOUS.

Are they now out to prove their lies? That in effect would be framing Scott Peterson.

All of the above was published before the preliminary inquiry, and the following is a more comprehensive analysis of the relentless effort to demonize Scott Peterson.

Competent investigators view evidence in terms of the effort to expose the truth. The Amber tapes expose the failed effort to demonize Scott Peterson. It is very troubling and disturbing to read the Amber tapes because they make innocuous lies the focus of attention, when the effort to find out what happened to Laci Peterson should have been the only concern.

In the final analysis, what does a converstation between two hopeless liars prove? Transcripts of conversations between Amber and Scott are relatively useless because they merely prove that at some low point in his life, Scott Peterson, the cad, told Amber Frey he had lost his wife, because he wanted to cry on her shoulder. It happens all the time. And in the final analysis, the only thing that this transcript proves is that Scott Peterson deals with his problems in a non-violent manner, because when Amber Frey threatened to go to the police with this "bombshell" Scott Peterson said, "It's your decision." The effort to demonize Scott Peterson has failed.

Scott Peterson, the cad, told Amber Frey he had lost his wife [perhaps, he just meant she was pregnant and he no longer felt like having sex with her] and Amber Frey and the police think that's all they need, to solve a homicide. That may be all they need to bait scott Peterson, but this nauseating, fishing expedition is very disturbing because it took the focus away from where it belonged and placed it on two hopeless liars.

Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing concluded with testimony from Detective Jon Buehler about a Jan. 6 phone call secretly recorded by Peterson's girlfriend, Amber Frey, at the request of police. Laci Peterson was reported missing Dec. 24, two weeks after Scott Peterson told Frey he had lost his wife. The following are excerpts from a transcript of the 23-minute call entered into evidence, and it is difficult to read because Laci was probably still alive, when it was recorded. Indeed, blaming Scott Peterson for this kidnapping reminds one of Richard Albert Ricci, who was at home sleeping with his wife, when he allegedly murderer Elizabeth Smart. The comparison is very stark and relevant, because Scott Peterson was sleeping with his wife, when he allegedly murdered Laci in the middle of the night, on December 23rd. Needless to say, pressuring Richard Albert Ricci did absolutely nothing with respect to bringing Elizabeth back, and it is equally safe to assume that while the police were gathering "evidence" to expose Scott Peterson, Laci's kidnappers had nothing to worry about:

Scott Peterson: I am so sorry I hurt you in this way. ... It's the worst thing. I'm sorry, Amber. I'll just tell you.

Amber Frey: OK.

Peterson: Uh, you haven't been watching the news, obviously?

Frey: No.

Peterson: I have lied to you. ... I haven't been traveling.
(He tells her he's been in Modesto looking for his wife, Laci).

Frey: You told me that you had lost your wife. What was that about?

Peterson: She ... she's alive.

Frey: Where? She's alive? Where?

Peterson: In Modesto. ... The media has been telling everyone that I had something to do with her disappearance. So the past two weeks I've been hunted by the media. .. You deserve so much better.

Frey: I deserve to understand an explanation of why you told me you lost your wife and this was the first holidays you'd spend without her. That was Dec. 9 you told me this and now all of a sudden your wife's missing. Are you kidding me? So where is she?

Peterson: That's what we are trying to find out. ... I'm so sorry. You should be so angry at me and, God, I hope you are.

Frey: You sat here in front of me and cried and broke down. I sat here and held your hand, Scott, and comforted you and you were lying to me.

Peterson: Yeah.

Peterson: If you think I had something to do with her disappearance ... er, it, that is so wrong.

Peterson: I never cheated on you.

Frey: Ha, ha, ha.

Peterson: I never did.

Frey: You're married. How do you figure you never cheated on me? Explain that one to me? How did you lose her then before she was lost? Explain that.

Peterson: There's different kinds of loss.

Frey: Then explain your loss.

Peterson: I can't.

Frey: How would you explain your baby to me?

Peterson: Sweetie, you don't know everything. I want to tell you everything but I can't.

Frey: Why should I not go to the police with this?

Peterson: It's your decision.

Frey: Really?

Peterson: Of course.

Frey: What stopped you from telling me this?

Peterson: It was probably just weakness and hoping that I could hold onto you.

Frey: Just a weakness and ... holding onto me?

Peterson: Longing to hold on to you.


Scott Peterson Trial: Timeline

3/21/03  AMBER FREY
4/04/03  MEDIA SPIN
4/10/03  SMOKING GUN?
02/06/04  THE REAL SCOOP