Peterson Attorney Scoffs at Case

A defense attorney in Scott Peterson’s murder trial began his closing remarks Tuesday by telling jurors that although they may loathe his client they should not presume that he is guilty of killing his pregnant wife.

In closing arguments Tuesday, attorney Mark Geragos accused homicide investigators and prosecutors of tailoring facts and suspicions to fit their theory that Peterson masterminded a plot to free himself from his wife and live out a fantasy of being a playboy.

“If you hate him, then maybe what [prosecutors] are asking you to do is just convict [him] ... don’t bother with five months of evidence,” Geragos said. “Don’t bother with the fact that the evidence clearly shows that he didn’t do this, and absolutely had no motive to do this.”

Prosecutors believe that the 32-year-old fertilizer salesman killed his wife to break free of a bad job and dull marriage with a baby on the way. A month before Laci Peterson was reported missing, he started an affair with Amber Frey, a Fresno massage therapist, who later became a star prosecution witness.

Geragos blamed prosecutors for failing to thoroughly investigate the possibility that Laci had been kidnapped by someone else.

He also speculated that Laci was killed “by more than one person.”

Geragos offered alternative explanations for circumstantial evidence that allegedly showed that Peterson’s wife had been smothered or strangled on Dec. 23 or Christmas Eve, 2002, and then, attached to concrete weights that Peterson had molded on a workbench, had been dumped into San Francisco Bay.

“They have this theory that if there is no evidence -- no blood, poisoning, knife with blood on it -- you’ve got to come up with the theory of a soft kill ... suffocation or something like that,” Geragos told the jury. However, he added, “she didn’t struggle in that house, or die in that house because there is no evidence of it.”

If anything, he said, evidence such as a hair curling iron on a bathroom counter and home computer records showing that someone had perused advertisements for brightly colored umbrellas indicated that Laci was alive on Christmas Eve.

“A reasonable interpretation is that she mopped the floor and went outside to take the dog for a walk,” he said. “Laci Peterson was alive on the 24th and something happened to her when Scott left” their Modesto home to go fishing.

He scoffed at the prosecution’s contention that Laci was dumped into the bay in the same location where Peterson went fishing in a new boat on Christmas Eve. If Peterson was the killer, Geragos said, he would have taken the corpse to one of several Modesto-area lakes that are far deeper.

Overall, Geragos’ remarks were spirited and effective, criminal trial analysts said.

“I thought this has been, if nothing else, an effective, workmanlike defense,” said Trent Copeland, a defense attorney who has followed the case. “However, it didn’t have the passion or urgency the prosecution had in its closing arguments. It seemed to lose steam in the afternoon, when it was often rambling and monotonous.”

Legal analyst Dean Johnson gave a more generous appraisal.

“I think it was an excellent closing,” he said. “Basically, he told the jury that normally, the evidence drives the suspect. Here, it’s the suspect driving the evidence. In other words, everything looks suspicious if you presume he’s guilty.”

Geragos is expected to complete his final arguments today, after which prosecutor Rick Distaso will present his rebuttal.

The jury is expected to begin sequestered deliberations Thursday morning.

Peterson is facing two counts of first-degree murder, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

However, the jury also has the option of convicting him on second-degree murder charges, which could result in two sentences of 15 years to life in prison.