THE EDIT:
 
While watching the episode of Grace vs Abrams that I participated in a couple months back, they aired the following exchange:
                                                  
Nancy Grace:      “Okay wait a minute, I want to hear him on the phone with Amber.  Everybody, listen to part of the secret tapes where Amber Frey allegedly catches Scott in multiple lies, speaking of lies.”
 
Audio Clip of Amber Frey speaking to Scott on the phone: 
Amber: “Yeah and 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 December 9th you told me this and now all of a sudden your wife is missing?  Are you kidding me?
 
Nancy Grace:      “That’s bad”
 
Janey Peterson: “That’s not bad when you look at the tips that are coming in and then you hear about a burglary happening across the street and – those are the things that were going through our family’s mind.”
 
When I heard my own response to that phone call being played about Scott's infidelity lies, I cringed and thought, “Did I say that?”  I would never say Scott's lies to Amber were 'not bad'.  But clearly those words came out of my mouth.  I wondered if it had been edited in some way.  Had they swapped my response from another topic?  It had been a little over 4 weeks since the taping of the show, so I couldn’t immediately remember what the topic might have been.
 
Later in the show they aired this exchange between Dan Abrams and me:
 
Dan Abrams:      “You think it was just – it’s just horrible luck – that Scott had said to Amber, “I lost my wife on December 9th,” that she goes missing two weeks later, and that the body was then found in the bay where Scott Peterson was fishing four months later?  Do you think that’s just bad luck?”
 
Janey Peterson: “First off, yes, I think it’s horrible what Scott said to Amber.  Secondly, I don’t think the bodies being found in the bay have anything to do with luck.  When I was sitting at home December 26th and watching TV with Laci missing and I saw on national news that the Modesto Police announced Scott’s alibi, I – I was stunned.  My thought was, ‘We do not know who has Laci.  We do not know what their intent is.  And if their intent is to harm her, they’re going to put her in the bay.’”
 
This is two completely opposite responses to the same phone call.  They have me saying, “That’s not bad…” and then later I say, “I think it’s horrible…”; the latter being more in line with my thoughts on the subject.  Clearly they had done some editing on what was supposed to be a ‘live to tape’ interview.  I began to rack my brain for what my earlier comments had, in fact, been in response to.
 
Was it worth trying to remember?  Was it worth correcting publicly?  We learned a long time ago that we can’t chase down all the misinformation and we are always evaluating where to put our efforts.  I kept wondering, though, had anyone else cringed at my alleged response?  Ultimately, I decided it was worth a mention.  After all, one of the reasons we agreed to do the show was because it was “live to tape”.  This generally means, that what they tape is what gets aired.  While we were told there may be some minor editing, completely swapping responses is in no way appropriate.  Editing is a very powerful tool, and this is a perfect example of how words can be twisted in an editing room. 
 
                                      THE SEARCH:
 
Since I decided to do some sort of public correction, I first needed to remember exactly what WAS said.  This part of the search entailed watching the show a couple more times and reviewing the notes I had taken right after the taping to see if that would trigger what my statement had really been in response to.  Nothing was coming to mind.  Over the next weeks I would occasionally ponder what it could have possibly been.  I knew it was in response to something Scott said to Amber, but I couldn’t remember what.  Then one day, while driving, it hit me.  My statement was in response to Dan or Nancy (I believe Dan) saying something like:
 
Dan or Nancy:    “Scott was on the phone with Amber and he says to her, ‘I didn’t do it but I know who did and I’ll tell you later when I see you.’”

Nancy Grace then said: “That’s bad”

To which I responded:    “That’s not bad when you look at the tips that are coming in and then you hear about a burglary happening across the street and – those are the things that were going through our family’s mind.”

Finally, I remembered!  It turns out they DID edit my response and put it in an entirely different and incorrect context. 

The next part of the search was finding the actual transcript of the phone call that was mentioned during the taping, since Grace vs. Abrams had not aired it.  The call where Scott said to Amber, “I didn’t do it but I know who did and I’ll tell you later when I see you.”  I had heard that phone call quoted for 15 years, but needed to make sure I got the wording right in the comments I was preparing.  I searched the entirety of the trial transcripts for this phone conversation.  Nothing.  I kept trying various versions of the  sentence.  Nothing.  Could it be this call was never played at trial and therefore not made public?  I went on to search the over 43,000 pages of non-public prosecution case files we have and I was still unable to find any reference whatsoever to this conversation between Scott and Amber. 
 
                                      THE TRUTH:
 
The truth is, I discovered that this call never occurred. 

The truth is, Scott never told Amber "I know who did it'.
 
The breaking news of this alleged call was in a Ted Rowlands story that aired on May 26, 2003, about 5 weeks after Scott was arrested:

Authorities Have Peterson-Frey Phone Conversations
POSTED: 9:02 a.m. PDT May 26, 2003

MODESTO, Calif. -- Modesto investigators have recorded phone conversations between Scott Peterson and his former mistress Amber Frey including one in which he told her he knew the identity of his wife's abductor, sources have told Fox News.

Video:   Ted Rowlands Monday Report - From Modesto

Reporter: According to a transcript of the call allegedly recorded by the Modesto Police and released by Fox, Frey confronted Peterson about his wife's disappearance and was told by Peterson that he had nothing to do with it.  

Reporter reading Transcript:
Amber: "Do I need to be afraid of you?"
Scott: "Absolutely not, I'm not a monster."
Amber: "Did you have anything to do with your wife's disappearance?"
Scott: "No, but I know who did it and I'll tell you later when I see you."
 
The next day, the alleged conversation was printed in the New York Post and that same night on the May 27, 2003 episode of  Larry King Live, this alleged conversation is talked about:
 
Larry King: Nancy, "The New York Post" reports today in a headline, "I know Laci's killer, Scott in shock call to his mistress." According to the story, Scott called Amber five or six times a night after she went public with their affair, and they reported the taped conversation -- "Do I need to be afraid of you?" "Absolutely not," et cetera. How do they know that?

Nancy Grace: Well, apparently, they've gotten to listen to some of the transcripts or some of the tapes. And very quickly, it was said here on the panel there's going to be a lot of boring listening. If there are tapes, conversations between Scott Peterson and Amber Frey, I can guarantee you it's not going to be boring.

Larry King: No, I said the boring would be with his lawyers.

Nancy Grace: With the lawyer. Now, you may be very right about that. But regarding this, I...

Larry King: But how do you know that that's fact?

Nancy Grace: ... it was quoted...

Larry King: How do you know -- I mean, "The New York Post"...

(CROSSTALK)

Nancy Grace: And it was also reported by several other news outlets. Apparently, there's a leak on one side or the other that is releasing this, either the transcript or the tape, which is very interesting...
…
Larry King: They're the one with this headline, "Bring in the monster." Right? OK. So they've been occasionally wrong. Do we know that that's a factual call? And is it going to be introduced in evidence? Do we know that?

Kimberly Guifoyle Newsom: Right. Well, we don't know that it's actually a fact. We're not going to know any facts. All of this is speculation until the case is presented, first and foremost, in a preliminary hearing or to a grand jury, but it looks like a preliminary hearing now...

While we are grateful for Larry’s skepticism, it wasn’t shared throughout the rest of the media.  After these broadcasts, the alleged conversation was repeated by Nancy Grace, Geraldo Rivera, Rita Cosby, and various others.  And it was repeated to me on Grace vs. Abrams 15 years later.  In all the mentions of this alleged call, we never heard any audio played.  There is only an alleged ‘transcript’ mentioned.
 
The truth is, I had heard this conversation referred to before and had no idea it had never happened.  I had never looked into it because, despite media claims, there was nothing incriminating about it, as I explained in my answer to Nancy Grace.
 
The truth is, the truth requires searching.  The truth requires work.  I went looking for the truth about an incorrect edit on a television show this year and after hours of research, we found out that yet another ‘breaking news’ day in this case back in 2003 was never even news to begin with.  
 
The truth is, after 15 years, there are still things I don’t know about this case.  And what is also true is that every new thing I learn is always in Scott’s favor and brings us one step closer to justice for Laci, Conner and Scott.
 
The truth is, we will never stop fighting.  We will never stop searching.  We will never stop speaking the truth.

It is a privilege that we have access to Scott’s trial transcripts. Did you know that the format of trial transcripts is copyright protected?  If you want a copy of trial transcripts, it must be purchased from the court and cannot be shared unless it is reformatted.  You are charged per page, so the cost per day can vary, but in Scott’s case, the transcripts cost up to $250 per day.  His trial was over 6 months long.  A full copy of the transcripts in this case would cost in excess of $10,000.  You can actually go to the court house and view a copy of the transcripts at no charge, but if you want a copy from the court, you have to pay.

The First Amendment of our Constitution includes the right to listen.  The public has a right to access open court proceedings.  In Scott’s case, there was a daily lottery for the members of the public to obtain a seat in the courtroom.  There were very few seats available to the public, as the press also has a First Amendment right and the majority of seats were allocated to media. 

Scott’s appellate brief states, “The Peterson trial generated an extraordinary amount of publicity.  The trial judge noted that he had never seen anything like this case, and the prosecution itself conceded that this case generated more publicity then even the O.J. Simpson case.”  The whole world was watching. 

Given that the court proceedings were not televised, the public was left to watch media coverage.  During the trial, many members of the media took their First Amendment privilege lightly and did not accurately communicate the testimony.  The headlines often did not match what was occurring in the courtroom, so our family approached the court reporters for Scott’s trial to see if there was a way we could share the transcripts with the public.  Certainly our family walking out of the courthouse everyday saying Scott was innocent wasn’t getting us very far, but we felt sharing the transcripts could add credibility to what we were saying.  The court reporters agreed to give our family a paper copy of the daily transcripts for a flat fee of $50 a day ($5,000 over the course of the trial), but we would not be able to post the transcripts on the internet.  Given that we couldn’t share them, we did not accept the offer.

Fortunately, there was a group of interested people from all across the country that followed Scott’s case and they wanted access to the transcripts.  They had varying opinions on Scott’s guilt, but one thing they had in common is they all wanted to read it for themselves.  They found each other on-line and pooled together and purchased a copy of the trial transcripts.  Countless hours were spent reformatting them so they could be shared, as the content is not copyright protected, only the format.  Once reformatted they were able to post the transcripts on-line.

At the end of the trial, Scott was convicted.  Our family was devastated.  We’d lost Laci and Conner and now Scott was being sent to death row.  We did not know what to do.  There were so many public misconceptions about the case.  So many untruths.  Much of which was perpetuated by the media.  People thought Scott had fled.  People thought Scott and Laci were in financial trouble.  People thought Scott was lying about the events of December 24th.  People thought Laci didn’t know about Scott’s boat.  All incorrect.  These and other untruths led to the biggest misconception – that Scott was guilty.

We decided to address one misconception at a time on ScottPetersonAppeal.org.  These reformatted transcripts not only helped us to do the necessary research for our articles, but they are available in case you want to read something for yourself.  We are fortunate and grateful to have this privilege. 

To read transcripts or appellate filings, visit http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/court-docs.html

 The first 'Featured Fact' we wrote for our web-site back in 2005 was a timeline of what Scott  said he did the day, his wife, Laci went missing.  The written version of this article is under the Case Facts tab of our web-site.  We've made a video version and posted it on our YouTube page. 
Laci was reported missing at 5:47pm on Tuesday, December 24, 2002.  This video outlines the facts for 24 hours leading up to that moment, specifically the activities of Scott.  He allegedly killed Laci during this time frame, and yet everything he said about this day was found to be true.  All photos used in this video are from evidence files and courtroom exhibits presented during Scott Peterson’s trial.  While it’s a bit long to watch, the details in this video are pivotal in showing Scott’s innocence.  We hope you have time to watch it, here's the link:

Scott's Timeline (Video)

Scott’s Reply Brief has been filed with the State and is available for reading at the following link: 

Reply Brief

This is the third of three documents that needed to be filed with the Supreme Court of the State of California for Scott’s appeal.  The next step is oral arguments.  Scott’s appellate attorney, Cliff Gardner, and an opposing attorney from the State Attorney General’s office will be called before the Supreme Court of the State of California for an hour or two of oral arguments.  This day will most likely occur in two to three years.  Once the Court hears oral arguments, they will hand down a decision on Scott’s appeal within 90 days.

The filing of this third document also starts a six month countdown for Scott’s habeas petition.  This is a separate court filing where Scott’s attorneys bring forth new evidence and information that was not heard in court.  The deadline for the habeas petition to be filed is January 23, 2016. 

The courts could overturn Scott’s conviction based on the information in either one of these filings. 

A senior producer for Geraldo Rivera Reports contacted our family in January; she indicated they were, “taking a fresh look at the story” and that our website was “very thought provoking.” They gave us the opportunity to go on camera; we said, “Probably not.” 

Well unfortunately, after watching the program this past weekend, this fresh look, for the most part, was surprisingly old.  So old that we don’t have to write anything new to refute it; our responses were compiled years ago out of court transcripts.  Many of the people Geraldo interviewed added new distortions to these old myths – very frustrating. 

Geraldo used words like, ‘cushy’, ‘luxury’, ‘privileged’ and ‘surprisingly good’ to describe Scott’s life on death row.  We do not even know how to respond to such insanity and we won’t.  Those descriptions are as accurate as the rest of his report.

Mark Geragos shared the potential legal argument that Conner was not a viable fetus.  Geraldo then asserted that this was being argued in court on Scott’s behalf; that Scott is so cruel and heartless that he doesn’t even acknowledge the life of his own child.  This point is not being argued on Scott’s behalf by his appellate attorneys.  

We’ve listed most remaining falsehoods below with the appropriate link if you’d like to read more on the topic…

Scott never had alibi confusion nor did he hide the fact that he went fishing.  When Laci’s step-dad called 911 to report her missing, he said Scott had been golfing that day.  This was an assumption.  Scott had not told him he had been golfing.  Scott repeatedly told family and police that he was fishing, what he was fishing for and that he did not use bait.  He showed them a marina receipt, his fishing license and his boat.  In fact, the police did not believe Scott had gone fishing and only later, when his fishing alibi turned out to be true did they accuse him of saying he had been golfing.  For more information see our article ALLEGED LIES.

Detective Brocchini insinuated in the show that Scott washed his clothes, ate pizza, drank milk and took a shower when he first found out his wife was missing.  All these things happened prior to Scott realizing Laci was missing.  Per Scott’s cell phone records, his frantic messages to Greg and Kristen Reed occurred after Scott discovered Laci was missing.  For more information see our article SCOTT’S TIMELINE.

Read TRIPS AND VEHICLES for more information on why Scott went back to the Berkeley Marina while Laci was missing.

Scott’s boat was not a secret and there were not ‘5 perfectly round concrete rings’ on Scott’s trailer.  To see exhibit photos and to read more about the alleged making of 5 anchors, read 10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SCOTT’S BOAT.

Scott immediately and voluntarily consented to police searches of his home, his vehicles and his warehouse the night Laci went missing.  Scott did not refuse them entry to his home.  For more information on how cooperative and truthful Scott was with the police, see TRIAL QUOTES.

Scott’s alibi was publicized quickly and frequently.  For more information on Laci and Conner’s bodies being found on the shore of the San Francisco Bay, read OPPORTUNITY.

Scott and Laci bought life insurance on each other 18 months before she went missing, not while Laci was pregnant.  For more information on the stability of their finances read THE TRUTH ABOUT FINANCES.

Scott told no lies to the police except about Amber.  Scott lied to Amber and about Amber a lot!  In fact, the pile of evidence in this case all pertains to adultery, not murder.  Despite what was said in the Geraldo special, Scott and Amber were not talking every day prior to Laci’s disappearance and Juror John Guinasso is mistaken in his statement that Scott “was having an affair on the side while (Laci’s) body was in the bay”.  Scott did not pursue Amber or see her after Laci went missing.  For more on this topic read SEX, LIES AND AUDIOTAPES.

Scott did not flee, attempt to flee or evade police.  The DOJ agent in Geraldo’s special directly contradicted courtroom testimony regarding Scott’s arrest.  There was no ‘OJ moment’.  This was not a high-speed pursuit.  Scott was being followed, and police testimony and evidence showed that Scott believed he was being followed by private investigators hired by the media.  The moment the officers identified themselves as law enforcement he immediately pulled over.  For more details on this, as well as Scott’s appearance and items in his possession at the time of his arrest, read SCOTT DID NOT FLEE.

Testimony showed Scott was excited to become a father and was actively preparing for Conner’s arrival.  Juror Julie Zanartu suggested Laci’s pregnancy was a motive for murder.    Read CONNER’S NURSERY for more information.

If you clicked on all the above links, you pretty much will have read a book.  A book of facts.  Facts that Geraldo’s producer acknowledged reading.  There is no excuse for perpetuating this much misinformation.  There is no excuse for detectives to go on camera and grab at vague recollections of the facts and further distort the truth.  It is shameful. 

We’ve presented a lot of information and we appreciate that you’ve taken the time to read any or all of it.  We’re not going anywhere, so feel free to come back and read some more if you have the time…

The Peterson Family

2015 News

This is our first blog since we updated our web-site at the beginning of last year. The blog content of our old web-site was not able to be transferred over, so while our support for Scott has not changed course, we are starting a new Journey to Justice blog!  In this blog entry, we want to update you on Scott's appeal and let you know about an important project being released this year.

2015 began with the State Attorney General’s office filing a Response Brief on January 26th. This brief was the second of three documents that need to be filed with the California Supreme Court before Scott’s appeal can be ruled on. The first brief was filed by Scott’s appellate attorneys in 2012. Both of these briefs are available for you to read under the APPEAL INFORMATION tab of our web-site.

There are at least two more significant events happening this year related to the case.

The first is that Scott’s attorneys are preparing the written Reply to the Response Brief. This is the third of the three briefs and should be filed before the end of the year. Once this third brief is filed, all three briefs are sent to the State Supreme Court. It will most likely be at least a three year wait before the court reviews the briefs and rules on Scott’s appeal.

The second thing we’re able to share with you is that our family was interviewed about the case for a documentary that is being produced. It is due to be released this year. We turned down various opportunities over the last ten years, but felt very strongly that this was the right time to an interview.

As we get more information about the release of this film or other updates, we will be sure to share them with you. Thank you for taking the time to read what we have to say!

The Peterson Family