Return to Transcripts main page
Crime and Justice With Ashleigh Banfield
New Evidence Scott Peterson May Be Innocent; Woman Drives Drunk with Child in Car; Baby Found Abandoned. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired August 21, 2017 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[20:00:00] ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HLN HOST: Can you believe this? There is a new and confusing account between police and witnesses, and it`s apparently
raising some suspicions that maybe Scott didn`t do it. Did you hear that? That maybe Scott didn`t do it? PRIMETIME JUSTICE begins right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury in the above entitled cause find the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the crime of murder of Lacy
Debeese (ph) Peterson.
BANFIELD: He is one of America`s infamous.
SCOTT PETERSON, CONVICTED OF MURDER: Not to insult the media in any way, but I think that this story may have fallen through the cracks.
BANFIELD: But is there new information that Scott Peterson may not be guilty of killing his wife, Laci?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On Christmas Eve morning...
BANFIELD: A new A&E series with a lot of questions about a neighbor, a reporter and the house across the street.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I said wow, on the day Laci disappeared, I saw somebody there.
BANFIELD: Did neighborhood burglars grab Laci Peterson as Scott was returning from fishing?
PETERSON: Hey, beautiful. I just left you a message at home. I`ll see you in a bit, sweetie. Love you. `Bye.
911 OPERATOR: 911. What is the address of your emergency?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have a drunk woman with two kids in the back seat.
BANFIELD: It`s the call that may have saved a child.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I may be a little...
BANFIELD: A woman pulled over who sure looks drunk.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much did you have to drink?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)
BANFIELD: But she didn`t just blow over, she blew the test away.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
BANFIELD: Forget the field sobriety test.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She had too many fireballs.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, you (EXPLETIVE DELETED)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told me.
BANFIELD: If you think she failed that test, just check out the most obvious one.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I (INAUDIBLE) tell you!
BANFIELD: She`s accused of dumping her newborn just minutes after birth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s crazy. Somebody left their baby out here.
BANFIELD: Just hours old, alone in the dirt and covered in ants.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I was, like, Call 911!
BANFIELD: Near death, she`s rescued just in time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was (INAUDIBLE)
BANFIELD: What the mom now says about that night and how she feels about her baby.
A teenager accused of driving over 100 miles an hour high on opioids.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want to saying anything to the family about what happened?
BANFIELD: Her car flies out of control, smashing into a house.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The (INAUDIBLE) home. They`re in the living room. You know where they are. You know what they`re doing.
BANFIELD: Inside, two sisters watching TV are suddenly crushed to death.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then within a matter of seconds, they`re gone.
BANFIELD: To make matters worse, four other terrified kids were inside that speeding car.
They look like an all American-mom and daughter. But Cops say they were running a business that would make your skin crawl, erotic massage! Was it
really all in the family?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: Good evening, everyone. This is PRIMETIME JUSTICE. I`m Ashleigh Banfield.
There are some names that linger in your sub-conscience (sic) long after they disappear from the news -- O.J., Casey, Jodi, Menendez Scott Peterson
is certainly one of those. In a trial 13 years ago, he became a media spectacle. He was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and
their unborn son, and he is awaiting his date for death with that crime. He really hasn`t spoken much since the verdict and likely spends his days
just like the other death row inmates at San Quentin, wondering if they are going to live to die a natural death.
The murder of Laci Peterson was nothing short of riveting for America, and tonight, there may just be another chapter developing in the saga. A
neighbor of the Petersons says she saw three men outside of a home across the street from Laci and Scott`s house. Turns out that home had been
robbed right around the same time Laci went missing on Christmas Eve and right around the same time her family called the police for help.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
911 OPERATOR: Can I help you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, my daughter (INAUDIBLE) she`s 8 months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk in the park. The dog came home (INAUDIBLE)
911 OPERATOR: So the dog came back without your daughter?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Exactly when that robbery took place is critical to this case and a source of a dispute tonight. Did the robbery across the street
happen on December 26th, two days after Laci disappeared, the day her dog was seen running about the neighborhood with its leash on, or did it happen
two days earlier, making it and the people connected to it far more connected to Scott`s case? All of that really depends on who you ask.
Scott Peterson is speaking about this in a new television series on A&E. He has always maintained that he was innocently fishing when Laci
disappeared. He says he came back to find that dog with its leash still on but no sign of Laci.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[20:05:04]SCOTT PETERSON, CONVICTED OF MURDERING HIS WIFE: The only unusual thing was the leash (INAUDIBLE) Put my clothes in the washer
(INAUDIBLE) took something from the fridge. After I got in the shower (INAUDIBLE) clothes on, I called Sharon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Defense attorney Mark Geragos represented Scott Peterson, and he joins me live now. Mark, obviously, the minute I heard this, the first
thing that came across my mind was, Why didn`t I hear more of this at trial? Why wasn`t this mined? Why wasn`t that neighbor screaming from the
rooftops? How is this all coming to light now?
MARK GERAGOS, PETERSON`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY (via telephone): Hi, Ashleigh, by the way.
BANFIELD: Hi, Mark. You got to answer this one, though, because I`m really perplexed.
GERAGOS: (INAUDIBLE) I don`t know how closely you followed it at the time, but on the day that the verdict came back on the guilt phase, we were
provided discovery. In fact, literally, I got it about 15 minutes before. And the discovery included a tape from the Chino State Prison, which, as
you may know, is the inmate reception center.
And it was an inmate being recorded and a police reporter accompanying a police report by a correctional officer that said a guy by the name of -- I
think his name was Lieutenant Aponte (ph) -- that he`d intercepted a call by one of the burglars and who was talking, I believe, to his brother and
that the brother and he discussed the Laci Peterson abduction, or some such language, and that was not turned over until the jury had actually been out
for, I think, eight days or nine days.
So it was mined obviously after that, but we didn`t know it in real time because obviously, that would have given a completely different
perspective.
BANFIELD: So I`m still thoroughly confused as to how a neighbor can say to the police, I drove by the house across from Laci and I saw three people in
a strange vehicle, and they looked at me and I looked at them. And that neighbor actually told the police, We were robbed on the 24th, the same day
that Gladys Kravitz (ph) down the street said she saw someone on our lawn. But the police came to the conclusion it actually happened two days later
because that`s what the robbers told them. Where am I wrong here?
GERAGOS: No, you`re right. That`s exactly what happened. The police went out of their way. In fact, I`ll bet if you check some of your archived
footage, you`ll find the police -- I forget the name of the guy from Modesto PD. They went on air and stated they had solved it. They had
irrefutable evidence it was on the 26th, not the 24th.
Interesting thing in the A&E series is Ted Rowlands, who I`m pretty sure you know -- Ted was out there on the 26th. There was a gaggle of people
out there on the 26th because it had already reached critical mass. So we knew that couldn`t have been true at the time.
But if we had had the burglars` tape with the brother in real time, we probably would have moved either for a continuance or a mistrial. As you
might remember, there was other stuff that was late-breaking in terms of discovery during the trial, and we actually stopped and started I think
three separate times based on late disclosures, and we were trying to investigate in realtime.
BANFIELD: So you speak and we act. You just mentioned Ted Rowlands.
GERAGOS: Yes.
BANFIELD: This is how quickly we can react. He`s live with me right now. He covered the Scott Peterson case. Ted, it`s good to talk to you again.
We`ve been colleagues for a long time. You are a fantastic reporter. You were CNN for a long time. You have incredible street cred.
You were on the lawn, so to speak, of the Peterson house. And if you`re doing a live shot, the Petersons` house is behind you and you`re staring
right at that neighbor`s house. And you were there on the 26th. Did you see anything that`s being described as what happened there by the police on
the 26th?
TED ROWLANDS, COVERED SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL: Well, absolutely not, Ashleigh. I mean, the time that we were there -- and we got there at 5:30
in the morning. And as you know, when you`re out covering a missing person, you want to talk to anyone who knows that missing person.
So we were looking for neighbors. Our heads were on a swivel. There is no way that the house across the street was being burglarized while we were
there. Now, the burglars could have been there before 5:30, 5:45 in the morning, moving it back. But then you look at the witness -- the
eyewitness in the neighborhood who claims she saw the burglary taking place early in the morning, but during sunlight hours.
All I can tell you is this. There`s no way that house was being burglarized the morning of the 26th from 5:30 until noon.
BANFIELD: And here`s my guess. If I know the way you work in the field, it`s the same way I work in the field. You grab every neighbor you can,
and you say, What did you see here? Did you see anything? Did you ever have an opportunity to grab a neighbor across the street or anybody
standing on that lawn to ask those questions?
[20:10:14]ROWLANDS: Oh, gosh, yes. Yes. And then what you -- what we had was a photograph of a beautiful young woman smiling from ear to ear who`s
seven-and-a-half months pregnant. We want to know what she`s like. So absolutely, over the course of days and weeks, but starting that morning in
those first hours, everybody on that street we stopped and said, Hey, who is this person? Give a context to the missing person.
At this time, of course, we had no idea that it would turn into what it was. It was a community looking for a missing person. So the answer to
your question is obviously, yes, we talked to everybody.
BANFIELD: And did you find in everybody on that lawn at the time that the neighbor said she saw three people on that lawn with an unusual vehicle?
ROWLANDS: No. The neighbor came out. I never interviewed her. She -- you`ll see her in that A&E special. And she was someone who did alert
police. Keep in mind, the police came out right away, and they said the burglary took place on the 24th. We think it`s important. It was after
they talked to the burglars and believed their story that they established it as being on the 26th.
The defense, Scott`s family, that side said, You just believed the burglars? Now, give investigators credit. They do know what they`re
doing, and frankly, they didn`t believe a word Scott Peterson was saying and they did believe these burglars. They were going on instinct and
they`ve been doing it for a long time. I don`t fault them for the way they proceeded necessarily, but now in hindsight, a lot of questions are being
asked.
BANFIELD: Well, I`m going to talk to investigators in a moment but not before I ask you this question. Since you not only ended up as a reporter
on this story at the Peterson house, you were also a witness to ostensibly what could have happened on the 26th as police contend this break-in across
the street happened.
So as a witness to this ostensible December 26th break-in, did police ever ask you what you saw? Because you were there from literally before dawn
until after dusk.
ROWLANDS: No, and I don`t know that they knew that I was out there in the morning hours. When they announced that the burglary was on the 26th in
the morning, I remember looking at my photographer and saying, No way. But it was one -- at the time, one piece of this larger puzzle. At that time,
we didn`t think that Scott was being targeted the way he was. We didn`t realize where the case was going because this was very early on.
(INAUDIBLE) they didn`t talk to me. I wouldn`t have expected them to talk to me.
BANFIELD: So hold tight for a second. I want to talk to you and Mark Geragos again, but not before I bring in retired Modesto Police Department
detective Jon Buehler. He worked on the Peterson case.
Detective Buehler, I hope you can make sense of this for me. Where is the disconnect between why the police believed the robbery across the street
from the Peterson home happened two days after the homeowners say it happened and the neighbor says she witnessed unusual people on the lawn on
the 24th, the day Laci went missing? Where is the disconnect?
JON BUEHLER, RETIRED MODESTO POLICE DETECTIVE: Well, Ashleigh, thanks for having me on here. I think the disconnect could be in a couple of
different places. Number one, it could be a time lag between when the people left the house and when they came back and whether or not the
burglary happened in that time window.
Another thing is, granted, Ted would have seen that if he was out in front, and he brought up a very good point that it could have happened before he
set up there or it could have happened behind the house, where he didn`t have a view of it. It could have happened after he left.
Generally, burglars are not foolish enough to do that in front of a bunch of cameras and things like that. So I think probably with Mark Geragos`s
staff, a bunch of talented attorneys, if there was a discrepancy in this, I`m confident they would have caught that at the beginning phases of the
trial because there was no late discovery on the burglary itself. They knew the reports. The reports were included in the packet that they got,
and I`m pretty sure they would have found that and brought that up.
BANFIELD: So Detective Buehler, I am with you. Ted Rowlands doesn`t miss a thing, and neither do the hundreds of journalists and technicians and
live shot operators and producers who descend on a live shot location, which was what Laci Peterson`s location ended up being. And you`re
absolutely right, robbers, while jerks, are not that dumb to go to a place where there are bright lights recording every move in a neighborhood.
So let`s dispense with the idea that maybe it happened in the back of the house. But I guess the big question is, since CNN was live all day from
dark until dark, why didn`t the cops talk to Ted and his crew to say, Did you see this happen on the 26th?
ROWLANDS: Yes, I can`t really answer why they didn`t do that because I was a different part of the investigation that I was on. The only thing I can
think of on that is it could have been a situation where the information came out later from the guys, once they interviewed them after making the
arrest, and by that time, there was no reason to check with anybody else. Maybe they were satisfied with the information they had.
[20:15:06]I know George Stile (ph) was one of the burglary detectives on that part of the case, very thorough investigator. He was confident that
they had the information.
And one of the things you`ve got to remember in the Modesto area is property crime criminals generally will roll on anybody when money is
offered their way. And one of the things that we found out with the guys that were involved in this particular burglary is they didn`t want to be a
part of Laci`s thing at all. And it was one of those rare times where these guys were more cooperative than most people that we arrest were.
And I think the ability to channel all the information they had and lock down their alibi probably satisfied them. But again, I wasn`t part of that
particular part of the case, so I can`t really go into much more detail...
BANFIELD: I`ll tell you what...
BUEHLER: (INAUDIBLE) from knowledge from that long ago.
BANFIELD: I`ll tell you what, Detective. You are spot on about a criminal who doesn`t want to be part of a crime taking part across the street from a
missing woman that ends up being a murdered woman. So you`re right about that.
But where their heart was, I`m not so sure I believe now where their heart was in saying, Oh, no, no, no, we were there on the 26th, not the 24th when
the lady went missing.
I have this question. Can you stay with me for a moment, Detective, because I have to go to break, but I still have a burning couple of
questions I need to ask, and they revolve around this. Does it even matter? Does anybody even care about the 14th or the 16th? Does it make a
difference to the case?
And then there`s also this, Detective Buehler. It`s you and others who are going to have to answer this. Does anybody care about making it an issue
when you have a guy like Scott Peterson? Because there`s not a lot of love lost for that guy, the way he behaved, the affair that he had, the
girlfriend, cheating on a pregnant wife, the big, beautiful million-dollar smile that Laci had. Who could do that to this woman?
And when nobody cares and everybody hates you, does anybody fight for you? Going to get those questions answered in a moment. And I can`t wait to
hear what Mark Geragos says about that.
And then there`s this, dramatic dashcam video that you have to see to believe. I mean, honestly, you have to see it to believe it. There`s a
woman and she`s weaving in and out of traffic, right? She`s weaving in and out of traffic, and it`s how she acted after she was stopped that really
may have just completely sealed her fate. You`re going to see it, and you`re also going to find out why it`s so serious. And here`s a hint, a 3-
year-old standing in the back seat. All coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:21:37]BANFIELD: For 13 years, Scott Peterson has been cooling his heels on death row in San Quentin, and now 13 years later, he`s talking.
He`s talking to A&E on a brand-new series called "The Murder of Laci Peterson," and he`s saying a lot of things that`s stirring up some
interest.
And out of that comes people who come forward with new and interesting information. Maybe it`s not so new, but this information has a different
twist. And it`s certainly getting people talking about whether or not Scott Peterson did it, whether he killed his wife Laci and his unborn
child.
It comes in the way of a neighbor, a neighbor by the name of Diane Jackson, who says, I swear on the 24th, the 24th of December, the day that Laci
Peterson went missing, I saw something weird at the house across the street from Laci. I saw some people on her lawn, and I saw a weird vehicle. And
you know what? I`m pretty sure that it happened on that day.
Here`s how she put it to A&E.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DIANE JACKSON, WITNESS: And when I went by Medinas (ph) house, I saw people on the lawn in a van. I noticed it because they all turned around
and looked at me. And I thought, That`s weird. I didn`t put it together until a neighbor said, Gee, Medinas (ph) came home and their home was
burglarized while they were gone. And they think it was the 24th. And I said, Wow, on the day Laci disappeared I saw somebody there. And she told
me, You have to go to the police with that information. So I walked outside my front door, where there was a police. At that time, they were
everywhere. Film crews were everywhere. And I just said to him, Here`s the information I have. He wrote it in his little book.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Here`s the information I have. He wrote it in his little book. I`m pretty sure that I saw that scene, those people in that white van on
the 24th. Turns out that house was robbed, and the people who were robbed are pretty sure it happened on the 24th.
But the robbers they caught and prosecuted say it happened on the 26th, and the police believed that. But if it was on the 24th, the day that Laci
Peterson went missing and her little dog was found with his leash still on running the neighborhood, well, isn`t that important?
Here`s how Scott talks about the 24th, the day he says he came home to find that dog and the leash and his wife gone. Have a look.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
PETERSON: I don`t know what time I got up. Probably -- Laci got up and went and she had some cereal for breakfast, eats right when she gets up.
Otherwise, she gets sick because she`s pregnant. I laid around in bed longer and got up at 8:00 o`clock probably or so.
MARTHA STEWART, COOKING SHOW HOST: This is it, and it`s called lemon butter cookies...
PETERSON: We were watching her favorite show, Martha Stewart. She was going to finish cleaning up. She was mopping the kitchen floor, and then
she was going to take the dog for a walk. Just decided it seemed too cold to go play golf at the club, so just decided to, you know, go fishing.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
[20:25:04]BANFIELD: If you don`t remember this case, there`s actually evidence that he was at a fishing marina. There was a purchase made there.
So the alibi pretty much checks out that Scott went fishing. And when he came home from fishing, he made a phone call on the way. And never before
has this phone call been heard. It`s a message that he left for Laci Peterson.
Again, I just want to promote that the fact is we got this sound bite, we got this message from the folks at A&E. They`re running this entire
program tomorrow night at 10:00 o`clock, "The Murder of Laci Peterson." But if you haven`t heard this voicemail message from Scott Peterson to his
wife Laci, the moment he`s coming home from the fishing marina, well, here`s your chance.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
PETERSON: I called Laci (INAUDIBLE) the marina. (INAUDIBLE)
Hey, beautiful. I just left you a message at home, 2:15. I won`t be able to get to Devalla (ph) Farms to get that basket for papa. I was hoping you
would get this message and go on out there. I`ll see you in a bit, sweetie. Love you. `Bye.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Detective Jon Buehler is still here with me, formerly with the Modesto Police Department, worked on this case.
I get it, Detective. Television producers can put together a narrative that can lead you to a certain way of thinking. But these kinds of pieces
of evidence -- they do seem extraordinary to someone 13 years later who may be looking at this case with fresh eyes, who may have felt they knew
everything about the case but maybe this was something that escaped them. Is this something that changes how you feel about Scott Peterson?
BUEHLER: Well, it doesn`t change how I feel about him or the verdict or anything like that. But of course, what I feel really isn`t important
here.
What`s important was what the jury came up with. And the thing that they did is they sifted through all the evidence that was presented, they
listened to a vigorous defense, and they came up with the conclusion he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
One of the things that is present with the A&E thing is although we haven`t heard everything on that yet, there are some things that were left out of
there. You know, they didn`t have -- at least, I haven`t seen it yet. They didn`t have the homeowners talk about when they left, when they came
back. They didn`t show any of the other evidence that led Detective Stow (ph) and the other crew, the other part of his burglary investigation crew,
as to why they determined that it happened on the 26th.
And so without those things, yes, we can throw little things up against the wall and they do look sinister. But I think once you shine the light of
truth and all the complete information, it`d be a pretty explanation to it that would be reasonable to most people watching.
BANFIELD: An I also I understand that a robber does not a murderer make necessarily. But sometimes it does.
BUEHLER: Yes, you can`t rule anything out with really anybody. After doing that job for all those years, there weren`t too many things that
surprised me. But generally, somebody who`s doing property crimes, a burglary, to switch from that to a violent, you know, personal crime, a
robbery and an abduction -- of course, in this case, if they did abduct her, which I think some people are believing, where`s the ransom request?
(CROSSTALK)
BANFIELD: How about somebody walks in on you and you got a rap sheet or you just don`t want something to be known about what you`re doing and maybe
something happens you don`t expect. I`m just throwing a bunch of things out there.
But let me jump in with Mark Geragos because Mark, you know Scott best. You spent all those months with him defending him. I have two questions
for you.
GERAGOS: Let me just say something.
BANFIELD: Do you -- yes, go ahead. What?
GERAGOS: I`m going to just say one thing. Do you realize that you just had on somebody -- and you were the amen choir for the idea that a burglar,
felon burglar, a home (INAUDIBLE) first degree burglar -- that doesn`t lead to a murder. So I agree with that.
But at the same time, it`s accepted lore that if you bang some mistress while your wife is pregnant, that that means you could commit murder?
That`s the accepted thing? And I appreciate Buehler and his ideas (INAUDIBLE) once the transparency is put on this. But he`s seen one
episode out of six and he`s already (INAUDIBLE) talk about what the truth is or anything else?
And by the way, ask the detective, the good detective, when did they turn over a ponpings (ph) report, which they deep-sixed, which was exculpatory
evidence? It was the day he was convicted. So...
BANFIELD: OK. So there`s the detective...
(CROSSTALK)
BANFIELD: You can hear what Mark Geragos is saying, Detective. What about that exculpatory evidence? Mark Geragos is saying he got it while the
verdict was coming down.
BUEHLER: Yes, and I can`t speak to that because I didn`t hear anything about that until we just mentioned it right now. And you know, without
knowing anything about it, it would be pretty foolish of me to talk about it. But if that is the case, then Mark has, you know, some good
information for, you know, this, you know, attempt to get the death row, you know, situation overturned and possibly the conviction.
But the bottom line is, is there hasn`t been anything really life-shaking, you know, that has come out of this that really changes my belief.
(CROSSTALK)
BUEHLER: ... because you really have to ignore...
BANFIELD: ... works, as well.
BUEHLER: ... a lot of circumstantial evidence. You have to put a lot of circumstantial evidence aside to think that Scott didn`t do that. And you
know, Mark is on one side, and I get that and...
(CROSSTALK)
[20:30:02] BANFIELD: I want to make sure that people understand detective as well that you turn your material over to the prosecutors. You don`t
march into court and hand it at a certain time.
So that is understandable. You might not know that process. I still need that answer from Mark Geragos. You spent a lot of time, Mark, with your
client. Do you talk to him now? If so, what is his mindset right now, Mark Geragos?
And also, do you think that any of this might actually lead somewhere? Is it possible that this could form the basis of an appeal of any kind?
Because it`s not procedural, it`s evidentiary.
GERAGOS (via telephone): Ashleigh, I see him when I go to San Quentin which is once every other year and other client on parole hearings. He has
adjusted as well as anybody could who believes that they are innocently behind bars and on death row.
And as he has said before, during and after, this pales in comparison to having your family wiped out and that you accused and convicted of doing
it. And as far as the appeal, it`s fully briefed.
They`ve combined both the writ of habeas corpus which is the evidence that was developed after trial and the direct appeal which goes straight to the
California Supreme Court and those are waiting to be heard by the California Supreme Court.
I had told Scott when he was convicted, when he was sentenced, that it was going to take at least 10 years for the public kind of outcry over this to
subside so there could be some dispassionate analysis.
Because once you do dispassionate analysis, you realize there was no circumstantial evidence, there was no crime scene, there was no time of
death, there was no manner of death --
BANFIELD: Mark Geragos, I am so glad you brought that point up, because that`s why I asked Robi Ludwig on the program tonight. She is not only a
psychotherapist but she also literally wrote the book "Until Death Do Us Part."
ROBI LUDWIG, PSYCHOTHERAPIST AND AUTHOR: Yes.
BANFIELD: Love, marriage, and the mind of the killer spouse. Mark Geragos brings up a great point.
LUDWIG: Yes.
BANFIELD: Thirteen years later, we`ve all had a chance to take a lot of deep breaths and cool down and feel a little bit more circumspect about all
the evidence in the case. This guy was hated -- he was no Steven Avery.
Everybody seemed to love Steven Avery. Everybody was boosting Steven Avery. Hoping for the best. Nobody feels that way about Scott Peterson. Does it
make a difference and why is that?
LUDWIG: Well, I think in part because Scott Peterson had an affair, Laci Peterson`s parents also at one point thought Scott was very guilty and
turned against him. And here is this very good looking, slick character all of a sudden his mistress seemed to turn against him.
So the story looked really bad. It looked really bad and ultimately he was convicted and it was a story that we all lived with day in and day out. But
Mark is absolutely right, 10 years later, there is a different feeling. New eyes, as you mentioned.
Here is a very good looking guy who is on death row. And so I think everybody wants to make sure that justice is served and that the wrong
person is not in prison. And there is this other psychological piece where if someone is really good looking, it is very hard for us to believe that
they are sinister and dangerous.
BANFIELD: K.C., Jodi, O.J. The list goes on and on and on.
LUDWIG: That`s right.
BANFIELD: I tell you what. I can`t wait. I`m just going to plug this program again. A&E, the murder of Laci Peterson. It`s a series. The next
installment is tomorrow night (INAUDIBLE) Eastern. They`re doing a great job.
It is fascinating and I can hear you, I can hear you people out there saying God, Ashleigh, shut up and let that guy fry. I understand how you
feel. Don`t forget there are always two sides to a story and we do have a constitution in this country.
If there is something that is exculpatory, doesn`t everyone deserve to be heard? I am no fan of Scott Peterson nor his behavior, but I am a fan of
evidence and I am a fan of process.
And for that reason, I`m so thankful to Ted Rollins (ph), Detective Jon Buehler (ph), to Mark Geragos, and to Robi Ludwig for helping us sort
through this. I don`t think it`s the end of this conversation.
In the meantime though, there is this woman stopped on suspicion of DUI that I have to tell you about. Police say there was a child in the back of
her car. Not buckled. It is how she acted once she was in the back of their cruiser that will really have your jaw dropping.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): You have too many fireballs.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): No, you (beep).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): You told me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would kill you. I would kill you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Stop kicking my car.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: DUIs are serious business in this country. They happen thousands of times a day. You know all those people who say you can beat the rap, you
can breath the breathalyzer because those machines run reliable. You`ve heard them, right?
Well, Brandy Lerma is going to have a real tough time with that, because if you watch the police dash cam video of her rescue, you may never take
another drink, let alone talk that garbage.
Palm Beach, Florida. A tow truck driver sees something and says something. He notices a woman swerving through traffic, a little boy unbuckled in the
backseat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): Nine-one-one, what is the address of your emergency?
[20:40:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): I have a drunk woman with two kids in the backseat. Oh, my God! Oh, someone (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: After police pulled Brandy Lerma over, they began her field sobriety test, and you can`t make this stuff up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I may be a little --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much have you had to drink?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A couple of fireball.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A couple of fireball?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two cups.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two cups.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:- Like this big. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: A couple of fireball this big. Brandy Lerma can barely talk and barely walk. Anything resembling a straight line. How she can barely even
stand still without falling over. In the backseat of the car she was driving, that 3-year-old child was standing up and here you go.
Had to be whisked away to safety by the police. But if you think her field sobriety tests or her breathalyzer result could be disputed, there is more,
there as much more. There is her behavior in the back of the patrol car.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): You had too many fireballs?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): No, you (beep).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would kill you. I would kill you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Stop kicking my car.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: To all of this, she actually did consider for a moment the safety of that child of hers.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m thinking of my child. Who is picking up my child?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Translation, who is picking up my child? Tony Martinez saw that child. He said he actually saw Brandy Lerma driving erratically and that he
was the person who called 911. And Tony joins me now. Tony, is it as bad as it seems on the tape?
TONY MARTINEZ, WITNESS (via telephone): Everything that occurred in the police car?
BANFIELD: Tony, I could not hear you at the beginning. Something happened to your audio. Can you start from the beginning? Was it as bad as it looks?
MARTINEZ (via telephone): Can you hear me now?
BANFIELD: I sure can.
MARTINEZ (via telephone): OK. I`ll be honest with you. I don`t know what happened in the police unit when she got arrested. I didn`t see any of
that. But when I first encountered her, she pulled up beside me in my tow truck and I rolled my window down.
I thought she need some help and she sounded very, very loud and obnoxious and flipped me off and decided to pulled out into traffic without regard
for anybody`s safety.
BANFIELD: Is it true that she gave you the finger when you pulled up beside her?
MARTINEZ (via telephone): She pulled up beside me, yelled something, told me I was number one and proceeded to just pull out into traffic without any
concern for anyone`s life.
BANFIELD: So I take that as a yes to the finger being the way you refer to her telling you that you were number one. The finger. So the police
describe her as vulgar, defiant, combative, uncooperative.
I know you stuck around after they pulled her over and you probably witnessed a lot of that field sobriety test. Do all those words measure up
and are there any others they missed?
MARTINEZ (via telephone): Absolutely out of her mind.
BANFIELD: Wow.
MARTINEZ (via telephone): She did not belong anywhere in public in the condition she was in. She definitely did not have to have that child in the
car endangering the baby`s life or anyone else life for that matter.
BANFIELD: Tell me about that. Tell me about the condition and appearance of the child and while you`re at it, her appearance, too, how was the little
guy? Was the little guy scared?
MARTINEZ (via telephone): Once again, I only saw her speak when she pulled up beside me. And when she -- and I noticed there was no baby seat or seat
belt on the child and she just decided to take off and I pursued her with my tow truck.
I followed her, kept an eye on her, kept my distance. I wish I would have jumped out. I had a couple opportunities to jump out and grab the keys from
her car, but I wasn`t sure what she would do.
The baby appeared fine once it was over with and the police officers from PBSO (ph) pulled her over. He was just wanting mommy. Well, mommy was not
in any condition.
BANFIELD: Oh, this is really sad. Very, very sad. Tony, thank you for calling 911. We all say it. If you see something, say something.
[20:45:00] And here is a situation where you really did and you really possibly could have saved that child`s life. Because if she was walking
like that, chances are the driving was only destined to get much worse. She is still innocent until proven guilty, but I don`t know how a jury will
feel about that video.
A newborn baby found abandoned in a flowerbed covered in ants. And police say this is the woman who put the little girl there just hours after the
birth. What she told the judge about why she did this in the first place.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: Sometimes you can only make sense of a crime when you actually can meet the criminal, but a crime story we brought you last week will
likely never yield
[20:50:00] any answers even though police say they got their perp. The crime was truly awful. A tiny baby just hours old dumped in a flowerbed and
found crawling with ants. It`s not that we don`t hear about these stories occasionally, we do.
It`s just extremely rare when you can actually see the crime playing out in real time and in this story, there was video of what the good Samaritan
found. And the picture shows the real tragedy of what investigators deal with all the time, but it doesn`t make them any easier to watch.
The little baby was found naked, no diaper, her umbilical cord still attached right there in the mud covered in bug bites and crying. She was
rushed to the hospital where doctors say she`s now being treated for a blood infection, but she`s alive.
And her mom is in big trouble. Police say just before midnight on August 10th, 21-year-old Sidney Woytasczyk had that baby on the kitchen of the
floor of her mom`s apartment.
They say she marched that newborn all the way down the stairs to the flowerbed outside and dumped that girl in the mud. The baby cried for up to
six hours before being rescued. And that the hero who found the baby was able to describe the scene this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALBERT PETERSON, NEIGHBOR WHO FOUND THE BABY: I heard something like a cat. I panicked. It`s her. She was laying on the ground in the flowerbed with
ants -- I`m telling you, completely from head to toe. She was all in her ears. She had a lot of strength too. She was fighting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Because police were able to follow the trail of blood right back up to her apartment, Sidney Woytasczyk is now facing down a possible 20-
year sentence. And when she showed up in court, she said, she didn`t know she was pregnant, she didn`t want to be a mother, and she did not want to
see that baby.
Harris County sheriff, Ed Gonzalez, joins me live now from Texas. Sheriff, is this a case of mental health or is this a case of total callus
indifference?
ED GONZALEZ, SHERIFF, HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT (via telephone): Ashleigh, good to be with you. Thank you. Well, it will be hard to
determine, at least, for now. It just seems, as you stated, that she simply wasn`t ready to be a mom and these type of cases are horrific and
sometimes we won`t know for a while what her true mental state was at the time.
BANFIELD: What about dad? The word is he didn`t even know she was pregnant.
GONZALEZ (via telephone): Yes. He seemed a little bit indifferent about it, kind of surprised. So, we`re still trying to piece all the dynamics that
are going on with that.
BANFIELD: But no charges for him, right? Nobody suspects that maybe he was involved and said, you know, I don`t want this either, so let`s do this
thing.
GONZALEZ (via telephone): At this point, it doesn`t believe he had any involvement with it, so again that`s to be determined still during our
follow-up investigation which still continues with other aspects of the case.
BANFIELD: He`s not talking to us. We do know that he is entering into some kind of a custody fight with grandma, with Sidney`s mom, who also I think
interested. About Sidney`s mother, Sidney lived with her mother.
And so, sheriff, are we supposed to believe that somewhere around 11:00 at night, she`s in the kitchen of her mom`s apartment having a baby and mom
doesn`t know anything about this either?
GONZALEZ (via telephone): It`s pretty surprising, but stranger things have happened and again we`re just so lucky that the infant was alive. Medical
staff told me that the little bit longer and the child would have died.
The child was in pretty bad shape. Even now, even being stable, she`s still needs to gain a little bit more weight and ideally she would be a little
bit better. We`re pulling for her and she`s looking fantastic and we hope she continues to make a full recovery.
BANFIELD: Apparently, she`s fighting a blood infection because her umbilical cord wasn`t properly detached from her, and that mud that she was
in likely transmitted some kind of an infection to her. Let me bring in Caroline Polisi, a defense attorney on this.
Caroline, when you have evidence like this of that baby in the mud and then you have a mom in court, 21 years old, saying I don`t want the baby, i
didn`t know I was pregnant, what does that bode for her when you`re staring down 20 years?
CAROLINE POLISI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It`s not looking good for her, Ashleigh. We`ve covered stories like this on your show before and unfortunately, what
law enforcement and everybody wants to get out there, the word to the public, is that there are these safe haven laws.
It`s called, you know, the Baby Moses law in Texas in which this mother could have dropped this baby off at a hospital or a fire station in some
instances and not faced prosecution, but because she did this in such a way that was such horrendous and really, really awful, she`s going to be
looking at some serious charges here.
BANFIELD: Yes, and really tough defense is my guess. Real quick, Robi Ludwig, psychotherapist, no regrets. Is that what surprises you on this
one?
LUDWIG: It does. Here`s a girl who probably had denied pregnancy syndrome
[20:55:00] and she`s young and she didn`t want this baby, she didn`t know she was having it --
BANFIELD: She`s 21.
LUDWIG: Well, but mentally young and figured magical thinking, I can get rid of the baby impulsively and it`s like it never happened. A fear of
losing love of the people around them. So, it happened. I hope she gets treatment.
BANFIELD: What are the odds? Ten seconds, Caroline, that mental health will enter into her defense and that she`ll actually be able to use that
successfully.
POLISI: She absolutely should bring in a mental health defense here. I think we may be seeing some things dug up about this woman`s past, perhaps
going back into childhood. Who knows what the circumstances were that led to this happening because let`s be honest, Ashleigh, anybody in their right
frame of mind would not have perpetrated a crime like this, so absolutely she`ll be bringing in some sort of defense.
BANFIELD: It`s a really lonely place to be and not just in that courtroom but be in her circumstance as well. Caroline, thank you. Robi, thank you.
We`re back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:00:00] BANFIELD: Thanks for watching, everybody. I`m Ashleigh Banfield. See you back here tomorrow night 8:00 for PRIMETIME JUSTICE. "THE HUNT WITH
JOHN WALSH" is up next.
END
