That disconnect has only deepened in recent months. The organization asserted in court filings this spring that it had turned up proof of Peterson\u2019s innocence, including a bombshell analysis by a Harvard Medical School professor.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis new evidence undermines the prosecution\u2019s entire circumstantial case against [Peterson] and shows that the jury relied on false evidence, including false scientific evidence, to convict him,\u201d a lawyer for the Los Angeles Innocence Project wrote in an April habeas corpus petition seeking to vacate his conviction.<\/p>\n
The efforts by the small nonprofit, founded three years ago and currently employing a single full-time attorney, have cracked open a story that seems an artifact of the pre-smartphone era when society\u2019s attention was not yet fractured and the search for a pretty young woman could captivate the nation<\/a>. From 2002, when Laci Peterson vanished from her home, to 2004, when a jury sentenced<\/a> her husband to death, news outlets from the National Enquirer to \u201cGood Morning America\u201d breathlessly covered every twist and turn.<\/p>\n At least part of the story\u2019s mass appeal was the almost comically damning circumstantial evidence pointing to Scott Peterson. The bodies of mother and child, a boy to be named Conner, washed up separately about four months after her disappearance on the shores of the San Francisco Bay, a location 90 miles from the couple\u2019s home, but within eyeshot of the waters where Peterson made an impromptu Christmas Eve fishing trip<\/a>.<\/p>\n January 2003 photo of Amber Frey confirming at a news conference that she had an intimate romantic relationship with Scott Peterson.<\/p>\n (Bart Ah You\/Associated Press)<\/p>\n There was also his affair with a Fresno massage therapist named Amber Frey<\/a>. He told her two weeks before Laci went missing that he had \u201clost\u201d his wife and was preparing for his first holiday alone.<\/p>\n And as police searched for Laci, Peterson took steps suggesting he knew she was not coming back \u2014 trading in her Land Rover for a pickup truck, planning the sale of their home and furnishings, remaking the nursery as a storage area and adding sexually explicit channels to their cable lineup.<\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence of his guilt was compelling and undeniable,\u201d prosecutors wrote in a filing last year opposing an L.A. Innocence Project request for additional DNA testing.<\/p>\n To fend off Peterson\u2019s ongoing attempts at freedom, the Stanislaus County district attorney\u2019s office has called two of the original prosecutors out of retirement. Laci\u2019s mother, a steadfast presence in the front row of the 2004 trial<\/a>, also has returned to the courtroom. At a hearing in San Mateo Superior Court last summer, Sharon Rocha bemoaned her son-in-law\u2019s continued legal maneuvers, asking the judge, \u201cWhen will this end?\u201d<\/p>\n The California Supreme Court examined Peterson\u2019s case in 2020 in an initial appeal of his conviction. Though there were no eyewitnesses to the murders and no sign of the victims\u2019 blood in Peterson\u2019s fishing boat or family home, the high court found \u201cconsiderable\u201d circumstantial evidence to support his conviction.<\/p>\n June 2004 photo of Sharon Rocha, mother of murder victim Laci Peterson, leaving the San Mateo County Superior Courthouse in Redwood City. <\/p>\n (Kimberly White \/ Pool)<\/p>\n The justices reversed his death sentence<\/a> because of the manner in which the trial judge dismissed potential jurors who said on a questionnaire that they opposed capital punishment. The court ruled that the judge should have pressed them on whether they could set aside their views rather than removing them automatically. Prosecutors opted<\/a> not to retry the penalty phase, saying they wanted to spare the victims\u2019 relatives more protracted proceedings. Peterson was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 2021.<\/p>\n A lawyer who had worked on a previous Peterson appeal approached the L.A. Innocence Project for help in 2023, the year after it opened its doors. The founding director, Paula Mitchell, a veteran of Loyola Law School<\/a>\u2019s well-respected innocence program, had access to federal grant money for DNA testing in potential wrongful conviction cases, and the appellate lawyer was looking for a way to cover the analysis of a potential piece of evidence \u2014 a mattress pulled from a van torched in a Modesto alley the day after Laci was reported missing.<\/p>\n Prosecutors had long maintained the vehicle was unrelated to the murders, and previous testing of the mattress fabric detected only male DNA. But Mitchell agreed to look into the case. Before long, she had thrown her young organization into a wholesale reexamination of the Peterson saga. With assistance from several other lawyers then working for the project, she rented an Airbnb in Modesto, reviewed 40,000 pages of case records and interviewed more than 100 witnesses in what she wrote in a court filing was \u201can effort to learn the truth about what happened to Laci and Conner.\u201d<\/p>\n September 2023 photo of a guard walking inside the perimeter of Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, Calif. <\/p>\n (Brian van der Brug \/ Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n From his cell<\/a> at Mule Creek State Prison, Peterson, now 52, praised the work of the Innocence Project, telling The Times, \u201cThey are selfless and take on what others will not to try to make things right for everyone in our society.\u201d<\/p>\n Peterson appears to be an active participant in his defense. In a 126-page declaration filed by the L.A. Innocence Project this spring, he gave an almost moment-by-moment account of how he became convinced Modesto police were railroading him. He also apologized for his affair.<\/p>\n \u201cI do not have an acceptable explanation for my infidelity or the lies I told to Amber Frey,\u201d he wrote, adding that he would live with the shame for the rest of his life. \u201cAll of that being said, I was in no way responsible for Laci\u2019s disappearance or her death or that of our son, Conner.\u201d<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Taking on a well-known client such as Peterson in a prosecution obsessively scrutinized by the national media departs from the typical work of the national Innocence Project<\/a>. Founded in New York in 1992 by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld \u2014 later part of the O.J. Simpson defense team \u2014 the organization set out to reexamine cases where the then-new tool of DNA testing might clear or implicate a suspect.<\/p>\n Its success spawned the Innocence Network<\/a>, a coalition of about 70 nonprofits across the nation and in other countries. Members such as the L.A. Innocence Project (LAIP) must get approval to belong, but they run their own affairs and choose cases independently.<\/p>\n The demand for their work vastly outstrips the supply. In California, for example, thousands of prisoners every year seek representation from a handful of nonprofits and a circle of private lawyers who do exoneration cases for free.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople\u2019s families call us. Inmates write to us. We get text messages, phone calls, emails, letters,\u201d said one of the private attorneys, Deirdre O\u2019Connor, who has a policy of making potential clients take polygraph examinations. \u201cI\u2019ve had people who have been after me for years, trying to get me to look at their case.\u201d<\/p>\n Most trying to establish their innocence are \u201cBlack, brown gang members from Los Angeles or some other city,\u201d said Ellen Eggers, a retired state public defender who has helped free eight men from prison since 2011. \u201cYou come from a poor neighborhood. You have no resources. You had a public defender or a court-appointed attorney.\u201d<\/p>\n July 2004 photo of attorney Mark Geragos, left, and Scott Peterson listening to the judge during Peterson\u2019s trial in Redwood City, Calif.<\/p>\n (Al Golub \/ Pool)<\/p>\n Few seeking help enjoyed Peterson\u2019s advantages in the courtroom. His La Jolla family hired Mark Geragos, one of the country\u2019s most prominent criminal lawyers, to lead a defense team that cost, according to Geragos, \u201ca seven-figure sum, at least.\u201d Cliff Gardner, a renowned California post-conviction lawyer, handled his appeal.<\/p>\n For some dedicated to exoneration work, LAIP\u2019s decision to take Peterson\u2019s case was baffling.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not anything that I would ever do,\u201d Eggers said of representing Peterson. She said she did not know the facts of the case, but was reluctant to \u201cprioritize the people that are white and wealthy and have had lots and lots of bites at the apple with the most expensive attorneys that money can buy.\u201d<\/p>\n The public backlash against LAIP representing Peterson was so pronounced that other Innocence Network organizations with no involvement in the case received angry messages.<\/p>\n \u201cOne donor who I really trust really was concerned about this being problematic for the movement as a whole,\u201d said Jasmin Harris, the director of development and policy at The Innocence Center in San Diego. She said she understood the worry, but \u201cif an innocence organization believes in someone\u2019s innocence enough to agree to take the case, that is all that should matter.\u201d<\/p>\n Mitchell, LAIP\u2019s only full-time attorney, declined to be interviewed. The group\u2019s board chair, nonprofit executive John Sonego, acknowledged in an interview that \u201cthere are thousands of cases that need representation,\u201d but he insisted Peterson\u2019s case was worthy.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re advocates for truth and justice. It doesn\u2019t matter who the defendant is or how controversial the case,\u201d he said, adding that Peterson\u2019s profile might end up helping more typical defendants by putting a spotlight on problems common to other cases.<\/p>\n His lawyers argue that the district attorney\u2019s office in Modesto and the local police rushed to judgment and disregarded or destroyed evidence implicating other suspects. They\u2019ve pointed to another case in which two Peterson prosecutors, Birgit Fladager and David Harris, were accused of framing a local lawyer<\/a> and others for murder. A jury acquitted the lawyer, and in April, Stanislaus County agreed to settle a malicious prosecution lawsuit for $22.5 million<\/a>.<\/p>\n Fladager and Harris declined to be interviewed. The district attorney\u2019s office has rejected criticism of the Peterson investigation, saying the evidence against him was \u201coverwhelming.\u201d<\/p>\n The L.A. Innocence Project, which had an annual budget of about $700,000 in 2023, represents four other clients, but none of their cases are currently in court. Peterson is \u201cone of the primary focuses\u201d of the organization\u2019s resources, Sonego said. Federal DNA testing grants cover some of the work, though the LAIP declined to say how much it has put toward Peterson. Other funding has come from members of the public with a particular interest in Peterson.<\/p>\n \u201cThere has been some great support that has been given to us because of this case specifically,\u201d he said, adding that those donations pale in comparison with philanthropic grants and other types of contributions.<\/p>\n One revenue stream the organization has opted not to pursue is a behind-the-scenes documentary, though not for a lack of interest. Producers have inundated LAIP with requests, but Sonego said Mitchell and the board have declined them all.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n May 2003 photo of a mourner touching a picture of Laci Peterson during the memorial service for Laci and Conner, the son she carried, in Modesto.<\/p>\n (Debbie Noda \/ Associated Press)<\/p>\n Laci Peterson, 27 and about eight months pregnant, was last seen on the evening of Dec. 23, 2002, when she and Peterson, then 30, visited the hair salon where her sister worked. The following evening, according to trial testimony, he phoned her mother and said that he had returned home to find her \u201cmissing.\u201d<\/p>\n The truth, prosecutors told the jury, was that Peterson had killed her that morning or the previous night. They said he put her body in a recently purchased boat, drove an hour and a half to the Berkeley Marina, motored into the bay and dumped her body in the frigid waters.<\/p>\n The motive, they said, was his extramarital relationship with Frey, a single mother who thought Peterson was single and looking for a committed relationship. Within a few weeks of embarking on the affair, Peterson was online researching currents in the bay and searching for boats to buy.<\/p>\n To re-investigate the case, the L.A. Innocence Project\u2019s lawyers pored over evidence collected 22 years ago. Prosecutors told the jury Peterson secretly bought a 14-foot Gamefisher<\/a> for the express purpose of disposing of his wife\u2019s body.<\/p>\n LAIP zeroed in on notes found in the Petersons\u2019 home that seemed to document calls to two marine supply companies to price anchors. The group asked a handwriting analyst to compare the notes to shopping lists recovered from Laci\u2019s purse. The analyst concluded that Laci \u201cprobably wrote\u201d the notes about anchors while Peterson \u201cprobably did not,\u201d according to the April filing seeking a new trial.<\/p>\n \u201cThis new evidence shows that Laci knew about the boat; it shows the falsity of the prosecution\u2019s narrative,\u201d Mitchell added.<\/p>\n Prosecutors have not yet responded in court to LAIP\u2019s assertions about the boat and did not answer a question submitted by The Times.<\/p>\n The most significant development by far in LAIP\u2019s re-investigation came from a phone call to a Harvard radiology professor named Peter Doubilet. A fetal biometrics expert who normally spends his days interpreting obstetrical ultrasounds, he had not followed the Peterson case closely.<\/p>\n He had a high regard for the Innocence Project, though, and after talking to Mitchell, he agreed to review the scientific evidence about the timing of Conner\u2019s death.<\/p>\n His remains were found on the bayshore a day before Laci\u2019s. Autopsies on their badly decomposed bodies indicated that she had died while still pregnant and that Conner\u2019s body had remained in her womb for some time. A prosecution expert had testified at trial that, based on the length of his femur, he likely died inside her on Dec. 23 \u2014 the last day Laci was seen alive.<\/p>\n Doubilet did the calculations using data sets compiled in the intervening years and concluded that Conner had died five to 13 days later \u2014 between Dec. 28 and Jan. 5. To Peterson\u2019s defense, the radiologist\u2019s finding was \u201cexonerating,\u201d as Mitchell wrote in the April filing, because Peterson was under law enforcement surveillance in that period and not in a position to have murdered his pregnant wife.<\/p>\n Doubilet did not charge LAIP for his work, explaining to The Times, \u201cIf he happens to be inappropriately convicted \u2014 I have no idea if he is or not, I focused on one question \u2014 but if he is, I shouldn\u2019t become richer.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear if or how prosecutors might challenge Doubilet\u2019s finding. They have not yet responded in court to the radiologist\u2019s analysis and did not answer a question about it from The Times.<\/p>\n While Doubilet\u2019s conclusion about the date of death is clear, the alternative scenario it sets up for Laci and Conner\u2019s deaths is less so: A perpetrator or perpetrators abducted a pregnant woman, held her captive for between five days and almost two weeks, a period in which people across the country were looking for her, then killed her and disposed of her body in a place rescue crews were already searching.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n