What the Innocence Project Found When They Opened the Scott Peterson Case

**SPEAKER_1** (0:01)
This is History's Hidden Killers. Here now, Tony Brueski.

**Tony Brueski** (0:10)
Janey Peterson has said it clearly on camera without hesitation more than 20 years after her brother-in-law was convicted. The wrong person's in prison. Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son Connor. Their bodies washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay, near the spot where Scott said he went fishing the day she disappeared. He had an affair with Amber Frye. He lied to investigators. Jerry convicted him and for more than two decades, his sister-in-law has been building and presenting a case for his innocence. That's more organized, more detailed and more persistent than anything a family member usually produces in these situations. This is the second episode in our series about families that stand behind the accused. The Peterson case sits in a fundamentally different place than the one before it. Ronnie and Cindy Watts are defending a man who confessed. The Peterson family is defending a man who has maintained his innocence from day one through a conviction built entirely on circumstantial evidence. No murder weapon, no cause of death established at trial, no crime scene, no eyewitness, no forensic evidence directly linking Scott to a killing. Janey Peterson didn't arrive at her position emotionally and then build the argument around it. She built the argument first from the beginning. She pointed to a specific counter narrative, a burglary that happened across the street from the Peterson home. Around the time Laci vanished, she pointed to what she called ignored investigative leads, witnesses' reports of Laci being seen alive after Scott left the house. And a burned out van connected to the burglary that was never fully investigated. And whether you find her persuasive or not, this is not the behavior of a family member operating out of blind denial. This is organized advocacy with a factual architecture supporting it.
And here's where the Peterson family's 20 years of persistence produced something nobody outside of the family expected. In January 24, you might remember the Los Angeles Innocence Project, filed motions on Scott Peterson's behalf, seeking DNA testing and post-conviction discovery.
The LAIP is not a publicity operation. They investigate claims of actual innocence, and they are selective about which cases they take. They recently used DNA evidence to overturn the conviction of Maurice Hastings, who spent nearly four decades in prison before being declared factually innocent. The LAIP organization looked at the Peterson case, conducted its own analysis, and concluded there was enough substance to warrant a formal investigation. Janey Peterson's 20-year campaign has crossed the line from family protest to institutional legal action with real resources behind it. A judge granted the defense team access to previously undisclosed evidence. DNA testing was authorized. Scott Peterson gave his first interview since his conviction for a Peacock docuseries, and his original defense attorney, Pat Harris, said something on the record that goes further than any family member ever has said. He said, Oh, he's innocent. I bet my life on it.
I saw a lawyer making a procedural argument about reasonable doubt. That's the man who spent years inside every piece of evidence. The state assembled. He sat through the entire trial. He cross-examined witnesses and reviewed forensic reports. And his conclusion is not that the prosecution fell short of its burden. His conclusion is that Scott Peterson did not kill his wife. None of this means the Peterson family is right. A circumstantial case can still be a strong case. The affair with Amber Fry, the ties to investigators, the location where the bodies washed ashore matching his stated fishing trip, the behavioral evidence prosecutors highlighted, the state built a narrative that a jury found persuasive enough for two convictions. The family's counter theory has been investigated before without producing exoneration. But it has produced a lot of questions. And the Innocence Project's involvement does not guarantee a different outcome. Plenty of cases out of the Los Angeles Innocence Project investigates do not result in overturned conviction. Involvement in an investigation is obviously not a verdict. But here's what makes the Peterson case essential to this series. It forces the hardest question. How do you tell the difference between a family in denial and a family that actually sees something the rest of the world doesn't? The Watts family defended Chris after he confessed. The Duggar family defended Josh through a federal conviction with forensic digital evidence. Those are families pushing against facts that have been established beyond reasonable dispute. The Peterson family is pushing against a conviction that the legal system itself has partially acknowledged had problems. The California Supreme Court overturned the death sentence in 2020 over juror misconduct. Juror lied on her questionnaire about her personal experience with crime. Evidence questions remain open. The system has not treated this case as settled even if the public largely has.