Kari Lake said it’s not her intention to turn the government-funded news outlet Voice of America into “MAGA TV,” but that she wants to see a return of politically neutral journalism.

“I’m sure they’re doing some great stuff already. I’ve been looking a little bit here and there,” Lake said in an interview with CBS News Saturday. “I’m not there to make it Trump TV and MAGA TV. That’s not what this is about. That’s not what Voice of America is.”

Lake, a former broadcast journalist who unsuccessfully ran for governor and for a U.S. Senate seat in Arizona, is President-elect Donald Trump’s selection to head the international broadcaster. 

VOA, which is part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, broadcasts news internationally in 49 languages on radio, television and online to an audience of an estimated 354 million people per week, according to its website. It is run by an independent federal agency.

Lake on Saturday was sharply critical of non-conservative media outlets during remarks on stage at AmericaFest, a political gathering in Phoenix hosted by the far-right group Turning Point USA, saying “the fake news — the mainstream media — has just become obsolete.” 

“They’re good for one thing,” she told the crowd. “They’re kind of like a barometer. If you see the fake news attacking someone, what you should do is say: I’ve got to support that person.”

In an interview later Saturday, she told CBS News she’d like to ensure VOA staff have the resources to “be the incredible journalists that they’re meant to be.” 

Asked about her plans for changes to the newsroom, Lake said: “Well, I need to get in there and see what’s going on.” She then indicated she wants to expand its coverage.

“We’re talking to the world through Voice of America,” she said. “And I want to actually put more coverage out there, more product out there, if you will, more broadcasting, and make sure that they’re doing really quality, top-notch broadcasting and focus on great journalism, asking questions, and making sure that the journalists know that they’re independent journalists.” 

Lake responded to concerns by some that she might politicize the news organization by saying she doesn’t care if the reporters are Democrats or Republicans, but whether they can set aside their opinions.

“I’ve never met anybody – they can say they’re neutral, but I’ve never really met anybody that has not formed beliefs,” Lake said. “It’s natural. It’s normal. Can you as a journalist check this while you’re covering the news? To put out a fair and accurate assessment. And so that’s what I’m going to be pushing for.” 

Lake disclosed that she thinks people will realize she’s not the person the “corporate media” has described. 

“Sometimes I feel like I have to go, when I meet people, to prove I don’t have horns coming out of my head, because the corporate mainstream media has done such a dishonest number on me,” she said. “And that’s one thing that I can relate to a lot with President Trump. We’ve had just the worst stuff said about us.” 

Lake also acknowledged that Trump can’t unilaterally appoint her to this position — that decision lies with a bipartisan board that would have to remove the current director and approve a new one.

VOA reported last week that its current director, Mike Abramowitz, said in an email to staff that he welcomed “a smooth transition of power.”

She is forever frozen in time. JonBenét Ramsey — 6 years old, dressed for a beauty pageant. And we still don’t know who killed her.

The day after Christmas in 1996, JonBenét was reported missing with a rambling ransom note left at the scene. Several hours later, she was found dead in her own home – bludgeoned and strangled. 

It was a media sensation. Suspicion fell on her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. The couple was never charged, but early on there was a police theory that Patsy Ramsey may have killed her daughter in a fit of rage over bedwetting and then covered it up.

Now in his 80s, John Ramsey is still trying to clear his and Patsy’s names.

“Finding the killer … isn’t gonna change my life at this point, but it will change the lives of my children and my grandchildren. This cloud needs to be removed from our family’s head and this chapter closed for their benefit, so there is an answer,” he tells “48 Hours” correspondent Erin Moriarty in a November interview.

There’s more from that interview to come. But first, a time capsule — a look back at how “48 Hours” covered the story in a broadcast which originally aired on Oct. 4, 2002.

2002: A LOOK BACK AT THE JONBENÉT RAMSEY CASE

Originally aired on Oct. 4, 2002

John Ramsey:  She was the spark plug of our family because of this zest that she had. She just kept things alive and hopping. … It’s not the same without her.

Patsy Ramsey: Why is it so hard for people to understand that we loved this child with everything in our being? We would never touch a hair on the head of one of our children.

Patsy Ramsey: I mean, it just is inconceivable to me.

Their faces are instantly recognizable, but John and Patsy Ramsey are famous in a way no one would want. Although they’ve never been publicly called suspects or charged with the 1996 death of their daughter, JonBenét, they are resigned to a painful reality.

John Ramsey: We could find the killer tomorrow, he could be arrested, convicted and — and, you know, jailed, and there’d still be — 20 percent of the population would think that we had something to do with it.

Erin Moriarty: Did your daughter have a bed-wetting incident that night? Did you get up, did you get angry and did you hurt her?

Patsy Ramsey: No, I did not.

Erin Moriarty: What is your reaction when you know many people think that’s what you did?

Patsy Ramsey: They are wrong. I don’t know what else to say. How else do you say “no” except “no”? “No” means “no.”

Over the last several months, we have spent a great deal of time with the Ramseys — these favorite villains of the tabloids and have seen them in a way few others have.

On this day just this past summer, John and Patsy Ramsey are moving.

John Ramsey: Life has never been the same. And it has basically ruined us financially and emotionally and everything else. So we’re scaling back.

They are selling their million-dollar home in Atlanta and moving to a smaller townhouse just down the road. John Ramsey, once the head of a billion-dollar software company, hasn’t worked for four years. While Patsy has been quite literally fighting for her life.

In a rare, unguarded moment, without her makeup, without her wig, without even her eyebrows drawn in — you can see the damage left by the return of her cancer.

Patsy Ramsey: I thought I would paint during my cancer treatment, but I was just so sick, I couldn’t.

Erin Moriarty: How did you find out?

Patsy Ramsey: I was back in February for my annual checkup.

Nine years ago Patsy learned she had stage IV ovarian cancer. She made what she hoped was a full recovery but earlier this year she again went through debilitating chemotherapy.

Erin Moriarty: You lost your hair.

Patsy Ramsey: Yes. It’s growing back. My eyebrows are growing back. It all comes out, but you know what? That’s very little thing to worry about.

In fact, Patsy Ramsey has much bigger concerns. Almost from the moment the body of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenét was discovered, Boulder police believed John and Patsy killed their daughter and then staged a kidnapping complete with a rambling two-and-a-half-page ransom note to cover it up.

John Ramsey: They’ve never investigated this case. Other than to investigate the family, they have never investigated this case.

Police say they haven’t ruled out other theories. To this day, the Ramseys remain the prime suspects, as you will see in videotape obtained exclusively by “48 Hours.”

LIN WOOD | Ramseys attorney (at deposition):  You have not classified any individual as a suspect?

CHIEF MARK BECKNER | Boulder Police Department:  Publicly, correct.

While testifying under oath in a civil case in November 2001, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner admitted what he had never before said publicly.

CHIEF BECKNER: Internally, John and Patsy are considered suspects.

LIN WOOD: Both of them —

CHIEF BECKNER:  Yes.

LIN WOOD: — are considered to have probably been involved in the death of their daughter?

CHIEF BECKNER:  Probability, yes.

Erin Moriarty: Why do you think you remain probably the prime suspect in the eyes of the Boulder Police?

Patsy Ramsey: I asked Mark Beckner that.

John Ramsey: That’s right.

 

Patsy Ramsey: I came closer to him in the face than I am to you, Erin, and I said, “Tell me what it is that makes you think I killed my beautiful, precious child.” And he said, “Well—well, it’s just a lot of little things.” I think he really doesn’t know.

But because police didn’t have enough evidence, sources within the investigation tell “48 Hours” the police tried to psychologically break the Ramseys, hoping one or both would confess.

John Ramsey:  That it was a strategy that was put in place to bring immense pressure on us to break us.

That strategy by some in the department, claims John Ramsey, included a relentless campaign of leaks, fed mostly to the nation’s tabloids, that had a devastating effect on public opinion.

Lin Wood:  They convinced the public of guilt.

Lin Wood is John and Patsy Ramsey’s attorney.

Lin Wood:  You couldn’t go to buy groceries for your family without passing headlines that said that John Ramsey had — had molested his first daughter. Absolutely false.

Lin Wood: Headlines that John and Patsy Ramsey were pornographers. Absolutely false.

Headlines that they were devil worshipers. Absolutely false.

The Ramseys believe that the Boulder Police still to this day continue to ignore evidence pointing to other suspects.

John Ramsey:  It’s frustrating, it’s disappointing. It makes me angry.

Erin Moriarty:  You say it makes you angry, but you don’t seem angry. Do —  do you think that s — also hurt you in the eyes of the public?

John Ramsey:  Well, we’re not soap opera actors. I mean, I — I suppose if I was an actor, I could act really angry. But I’m not. That’s who I am is what you see, and I’m angry. This is angry for me.

Angry because John Ramsey says a killer or killers remain free.

John Ramsey: What I do know is that we didn’t kill our daughter so let’s look at the rest of the picture guys.

THE 1998 POLICE INTERROGATION OF JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY

Originally aired on Oct. 4, 2002

On June 23, 1998 in Broomfield, Colorado — a year-and-a-half after JonBenét was murdered, John and Patsy Ramsey, sitting in separate rooms at the same time, were questioned by Boulder authorities in a Colorado police station. These tapes have never before been seen publicly.

Questioning John is Lou Smit, a homicide detective then working for the Boulder D.A.’s office.

DET. LOU SMIT: (from police interrogation tapes) There’s been a lot of speculation by a lot of people that maybe you didn’t know anything about the murder, but maybe Patsy did.

JOHN RAMSEY:  No, that’s preposterous. I mean, Patsy loves both her children dearly. But frankly she and JonBenét were extremely close.

Detective Tom Haney questioned Patsy, who at the time was taking medication for both anxiety and depression.

DET. HANEY (from police interrogation tapes):  If I told you right now that we have trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of JonBenét, what would you tell me?

PATSY RAMSEY: That is totally impossible. Go retest.

DET. HANEY: How is it impossible?

PATSY RAMSEY: I did not kill my child. I didn’t have anything to do with it. And…

DET. HANEY:  And — and I’m not talking, you know, somebody’s guess or some rumor or some story. I’m talking …

PATSY RAMSEY: I don’t care what you’re talking about.

DET. HANEY:  I’m talking about scientific evidence.

PATSY RAMSEY: I’m — I don’t give a flying flip how scientific it is. Go back to the damn drawing board. I didn’t do it. John Ramsey didn’t do it. And we didn’t have a clue of anybody who did do it. So we all got to start working together from here — this day forward to try to find out who the hell did it.

“48 Hours Investigates” has acquired the tapes — hours upon hours of footage that take you inside the investigation. While the tapes show how strongly prosecutors believed John and Patsy Ramsey were responsible for the death of their daughter, frankly, there isn’t a lot of physical evidence that links them. So questioners looked for inconsistencies and focused on minute details from the crime scene.

DET. SMIT: What have you heard about pineapple?

JOHN RAMSEY: Well, we were asked, did JonBenét eat pineapple and — and — because, apparently, it was found in her system. I think part of the question was, too, “When did she eat it? When she got home?” You know? I’m sure she didn’t because she was absolutely sound asleep.

The Ramseys told police that JonBenét had gone straight to bed that night and had not eaten at home. But autopsy results did find undigested pineapple in JonBenét’s stomach. And police discovered fingerprints on a bowl of pineapple left in the family’s dining room on the morning of the murder.

PATSY RAMSEY:  I didn’t put the bowl there, OK? I did not put the bowl there.

DET. HANEY: OK.

PATSY RAMSEY:  I would not do this set-up like this. All right.

DET. HANEY:  But, OK, let’s go back to your line of reasoning here. If they weren’t — now talk

to me. Look at me.

PATSY RAMSEY:  OK. All right.

DET. HANEY:  If they’re not yours and they’re not John’s, then they would be somebody else’s.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

DET. HANEY: Now I’m telling you they’re not somebody else’s. Those prints belong to one of the two of you.

PATSY RAMSEY: They do? You’re sure? Well, I don’t know. I did not put that there.

The fingerprints on the bowl are Patsy’s, according to police, suggesting that she’s the one who gave the fruit to her daughter. But if Patsy did give it to JonBenét, and is lying about it, then investigators wondered — could she be lying about everything?

DET. HANEY:  You know, sometimes the simplest, most obscure little thing —

PATSY RAMSEY:  I don’t know.

DET. HANEY:  — could be so significant.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I did not feed JonBenét pineapple, OK? So I don’t know how it got in her stomach and I don’t know where this bowl of pineapple came from. I can’t recall putting that there.

After three days of questioning, the interrogation in 1998 ended. And even though the Ramseys were not indicted, Boulder authorities continued to believe they were guilty. So in August of 2000, prosecutors flew to Atlanta, where the Ramseys were living, asking to see and hear new evidence. “48 Hours” has also acquired those tapes.

MICHAEL KANE (2000 interview with prosecutors): If ever there were going to be an intruder on trial, the defense is going to be that you did it. Do you remember that?

JOHN RAMSEY: I remember that. But I’m not here to prove my innocence. I’m here to find the killer of my daughter.

With John, prosecutors asked questions mostly about leads he had uncovered on other suspects. But with Patsy, interrogators were more accusatory, suggesting they had new evidence — clothing fibers that would tie her directly to the murder.

BRUCE LEVIN | Boulder D.A.’s Office: You were shown …  in photographs … wearing a red coat.

PATSY RAMSEY: It’s kind of a black and red and gray fleece.

BRUCE LEVIN: More like a blazer?

PATSY RAMSEY: Like a pea coat.

Bruce Levin from the Boulder District Attorney’s Office led the questioning.

BRUCE LEVIN: Mrs. Ramsey, I have scientific evidence from forensic scientists that say that there’s fibers in the paint tray that match your red jacket.

The paint tray is significant because a brush from it, along with some rope, was used to strangle and sexually abuse JonBenét.

BRUCE LEVIN: And we believe that fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenét’s neck, were found on the blanket that she’s wrapped in, were found in the duct tape that’s found on her mouth. … I have no evidence from any scientist to suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket.

LIN WOOD (Ramseys’ attorney): Well, again, that’s — come on. I mean, they — what other sources did they test?

Patsy’s attorney, Lin Wood, asked prosecutors to produce the evidence. When they wouldn’t, he refused to let Patsy go on the record. But she did go on the record with us.

Erin Moriarty: What do you think about these fibers?

Patsy Ramsey: After John discovering the body and she was brought to the living room, when I laid eyes on her, I knelt down and hugged her … But I was — had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers, or whatever I had on that morning, are going to transfer to her clothing.

In all the questioning, the prosecutors focused more on Patsy than John, following their belief that she was the killer.

DET. HANEY: JonBenét got up, and somebody in that house legally, lawfully, in that house, one of the three of you, also happens to be up, or gets up, because she makes noise. And there is some discussion or something happens, there’s an accident, somebody …

PATSY RAMSEY: You’re going down the wrong path, buddy.

DET. HANEY: OK. Somebody accidentally or somebody gets upset over bed-wetting, that’s one of the things that’s been proposed, OK?

PATSY RAMSEY: Didn’t happen. If she got up in the night and ran into somebody, it was somebody there that wasn’t supposed to be there. I don’t know what transpired after that, whether it was an accident, intentional, premeditated or whatnot …

DET. HANEY: OK.

PATSY RAMSEY: … it was not one of her three family members that were also in that house. Period. End of statement.

These tapes don’t always show the Ramseys at their best. But remarkably, it was the Ramseys who made them available, saying they want all the information on this case out in the open. As for the Boulder Police and prosecutors, they denied repeated requests from “48 Hours” to discuss these tapes or any of the issues we’re raising tonight. Their only comment on the Ramsey murder investigation is “no comment.”

PATSY RAMSEY: (from police interrogation tapes) I mean, I appreciate being here. I appreciate it. It’s very hard to be here. But it is a damn sight harder to be sitting at home in Atlanta, Georgia, wondering every second of every day what you guys are doing out here. You know. Have you found anything? Are we any closer? Is the guy out here watching my house? You know, is my son safe? My life has been hell from that day forward. And I want nothing more than to find out who is responsible for this.

RULING OUT THE RAMSEYS AS SUSPECTS IN JONBENÉT’S MURDER

Originally aired on Oct. 4, 2002

One hundred miles away from where JonBenét Ramsey was murdered, in a modest home in Colorado Springs, 67-year-old Lou Smit works every day alone trying to find her killer.

Det. Smit: I keep a picture of her in my wallet.

Erin Moriarty: You have JonBenét in your wallet?

Det. Smit: Sure. I keep it all the time.

This is the same Lou Smit you saw interrogating John Ramsey back in 1998.

A veteran detective with such an impressive record for solving homicides that the Boulder district attorney hired him on the Ramsey murder case.

DET. SMIT: (from police interrogation tapes) I have to stick up for the Boulder Police Department a little bit.

Erin Moriarty:  And when you started, who did you believe killed JonBenét Ramsey?

Det. Smit:  My gut feeling was her parents did it.

But as Smit followed the evidence and questioned the Ramseys, the more he became convinced that the Boulder Police were focusing on the wrong suspects.

Det. Smit: John Ramsey came through very, very sincere.

JOHN RAMSEY: (from police interrogation tapes) So when I first found her, I was, like, “Thank God, I found her.”

Det. Smit: When I left that interview, there was no doubt in my mind that he had nothing to do with the death of his daughter.

Smit quit the investigation in disgust.

Det. Smit: They’d hired me as a detective to take a look at this case. They may not like what I say, but I’m gonna say it. I don’t think the Ramseys did it. And I think they ought to start looking for the people that did.

Erin Moriarty: How would you describe Lou Smit?

Patsy Ramsey: He’s my hope in finding out who killed my daughter.

Det. Smit: As a detective, I’m looking for clues.

What is it that convinces Smit that someone other than the Ramseys killed their 6-year-old daughter? First and foremost, the brutality of the crime. Nearly every medical expert who has seen the autopsy report agrees on one thing: this was not an accidental death. JonBenét Ramsey was cruelly and deliberately murdered.

JonBenét was strangled not once, says Smit, but twice, with an intricately made device known as a garrote that had to have been made by the killer during the murder.

Erin Moriarty: What do we see here?

Det. Smit: You see hair, right inside the windings of that cord; that’s JonBenét’s hair.

It’s a device, says Smit, that was not left there for show. Whoever killed JonBenét used the garrote to strangle her. Smit believes she was fighting for her life. There were marks that look a lot like scratches on her neck.

Det. Smit:  She did have her own DNA under her fingernails. I’m pretty sure that’s the scratch to get that off. I think she was struggling then

At some point the child was then hit over the head with such force it crushed her skull, but her nightmare wasn’t over. Shortly before she died, investigators believe she was sexually assaulted with a piece of the paintbrush that was used to make the garrote.

Det. Smit: There’s no motive for the parent to do that.

The evidence, says Smit, simply does not support the popular theory that the Ramseys struck their daughter and then tried to cover it up.

Det. Smit:  It’s not a mother waking up in the middle of the night saying, “Oops, I think I hurt my child. Oops, I got to bring her downstairs and fashion one of these things. And then I’m going to put it around her neck and I’m going to tighten it a couple times while she’s struggling.”  Now, if you want to believe that, go ahead. I can’t say this on the air but that’s bull****.

But what about those fibers from Patsy Ramsey’s jacket that police say were in the paint tray and on the sticky side of duct tape covering JonBenét’s mouth?

Erin Moriarty: Is the fact that there were fibers that were consistent with Patsy Ramsey’s jacket incriminating?

Det. Smit: Sure.

Erin Moriarty:  But does that shake your faith that the Ramseys were not involved?

Det. Smit: No … You just can’t rely on fiber evidence. Because fibers could come off with a jacket or something similar to the jacket.

What’s more, says Smit, there were also dozens of unidentified fibers that didn’t come from the Ramseys. And Smit is unaware of a single case where a parent used a garrote to kill a child.

Det. Smit: This is one of the best clues left behind by the killer. This shows what’s going on in his mind. This is a sexual device. I’m looking for a pedophile that’s a sexual sadist. That’s what Lou Smit’s looking for.

Smit’s not the only one.

Colorado private detective Ollie Gray and his partner, John Sangustin, were hired by the Ramseys in 1999.

Even when the Ramseys ran out of money, Gray and Sangustin stayed on the job.

Ollie Gray: We’d probably do something on it, two or three times a week.

Erin Moriarty: Even though you’re not getting paid?

Ollie Gray: Sure.

John Sangustin: Yeah.

They became convinced of the Ramseys’ innocence after seeing this lab report.

Ollie Gray:  I acquired a document that you see right here that names John and Patsy Ramsey as suspects was submitted for analysis reference DNA.

Just days after JonBenét was murdered, her parents were asked to give DNA samples to the Boulder Police.

Erin Moriarty: The two of you have given DNA evidence to the police?

Patsy Ramsey:  Absolutely.

John Ramsey:  Absolutely. Blood, hair, DNA, everything — we’ve given them everything they’ve asked for.

Their DNA was compared to foreign DNA found under their daughter’s fingernails and in her panties, which may have been left by the killer.

Erin Moriarty: Does any of that DNA match anyone in the Ramsey family?

Ollie Gray: No. This analysis eliminates the Ramseys.

Patsy Ramsey:  If our DNA matched anything significant, they would have arrested us in a New York minute. And don’t ever think they wouldn’t have.

If not the Ramseys, then who killed JonBenét?

THE INTRUDER THEORY

Originally aired on Oct. 4, 2002

Retired homicide detective Lou Smit was still working on the official investigation when he concluded that a stranger came into the Ramsey home and killed their 6-year-old daughter.

Det. Smit: This is why I believe that the killer got in. … He opened the grate, he went in.

Det. Smit: There’s three windows there. The center one was the one that was open. Take a look real closely at the window on the left … What you’re going to see is leaves and debris pressed right up against the window … Now let’s take a look at the one again in the center — no leaves or debris …

Erin Moriarty: Which says?

Det. Smit: That window was opened. Directly below that opened window you have a suitcase…. … Directly around that suitcase you have leaves and debris from that window well around that suitcase … Also see — if you look very closely, you’re going to see a mark that goes right down the wall…

A scuff mark that Smit believes was left by someone either climbing in or climbing out.

Erin Moriarty: You can fit through that window?

Det. Smit:  Oh, without any problem.

Det. Smit: It is much easier to go out that window if you stand on something … You put the suitcase in front, you step on the suitcase and you’re right out into the window well. Lift the grate, you’re gone. It’s that easy.

But why would an intruder who intended to kill JonBenét leave the bizarre two-and-a-half-page ransom note written with paper and a pen belonging to Patsy? Boulder police have always believed that Patsy used it to make the killing look like a kidnapping.

Erin Moriarty: But if someone had been targeting JonBenét Ramsey, wouldn’t he at least bring the — the paper and the pencil to write this ransom note? I mean …

Det. Smit:  Well, if you want to look at it from a sophisticated criminal’s mind, they probably wouldn’t bring it in. Why would you bring in something that could be traced back to your house where you have actual — the pen and the ink and you have the — the paper right there that it was written on?

Erin Moriarty:  But you can’t count on finding that in the house.

Det. Smit:  Can’t count on it; most houses have that.

Erin Moriarty: No expert could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the ransom note … That’s damning, isn’t it? 

Det. Smit: No, not at all … You always are going to have similarities in handwriting. To sit down and write a note like that with all of those details in there after you brutally killed your daughter, you’d never done that before. Come on, give me a break.

But more than any other evidence, Smit believes small marks left on JonBenét’s face and back prove an intruder killed her.

Det. Smit: The killer had a stun gun. I am sure the killer had a stun gun.

A stun gun, an electrical weapon used to incapacitate the little girl in order to move her to the basement. Smit believes only an intruder would need to use one.

Det. Smit: There’s no reason at all for the parents to have used a stun gun to help stage the murder of their daughter.

Erin Moriarty: Was there any indication that — that the Ramseys had ever owned a stun gun?

Det. Smit: There is nothing to indicate the Ramseys ever owned a stun gun.

What’s significant about these injuries, says Smit, is that those on the child’s face and those on her back appear to be an equal distance apart, much like the prongs of this a stun gun.

Det. Smit: They’re approximately 3.5 centimeters. And they’re approximately 3.5 centimeters apart.

Dr. Michael Doberson, the coroner for neighboring Arapahoe County, also believes the marks on JonBenét were left by a stun gun.

Dr. Doberson:  And if I push this … you can see the electricity arching.

Dr. Doberson:  If it’s not a stun gun, I’d like to know what it is.

Three other pathologists agreed, but the Boulder Police are relying instead on this man’s opinion.

Dr. Werner Spitz:  They don’t look …

Erin Moriarty: How sure are you that it’s not a stun gun on her back?

Dr. Spitz: Well, I’m 100% sure, because stun gun injuries don’t look that way.

Dr. Werner Spitz, a nationally known forensic pathologist who has worked on major cases including the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Dr. Spitz: A stun gun injury is a — is an electrical burn, is a burn, essentially, and these don’t look like burns.

Unfortunately, with only photographs to go by, no expert, not Spitz nor Doberson, can be 100% sure.

Erin Moriarty: Wouldn’t that have been the best way to know or come the closest to knowing is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see if it matches those injuries?

Det. Smit: Sure. I believe that — that would have probably been the most accurate way to do it.

Smit admits that in the months following JonBenét’s death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it.

John Ramsey: We had buried our child. She was at peace. That was just an – a — an abhorrent thought.

Erin Moriarty:  But, John, that might have been the one way to know for sure. That could have resolved the whole issue. Because if a stun gun was used, it was not the parents.

John Ramsey:  No, we — certainly. And we’ve got people that have told us that know what they’re doing that with 95% medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question.

Erin Moriarty:  But you would have known with 100% certainty if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been.

John Ramsey: This is my child you’re talking about. It’s not a body. It’s different.

Still, Smit believes a stun gun is the key to JonBenét’s murder, and he’s searching for a killer or killers who own one.

Det. Smit: The person who did this, if we’re right, he’s still out there.

A PERSON OF INTEREST?

Originally aired on Oct. 4, 2002

On the cold December night that marked the one-year anniversary of JonBenét’s murder, dozens of mourners showed up for a candlelight vigil outside the Ramsey home. One man in particular caught investigator Lou Smit’s eye.

Det. Smit: Many times criminals do return to the scene, and that was on the anniversary. That puts him right there at the Ramsey house a year later.

He’s Gary Oliva, a 38-year-old convicted sex offender from Oregon who lives in Boulder.

Det. Smit: He definitely is a sex offender for assaulting another 7-year-old girl in Oregon. He spent time in prison for that.

Smit is convinced that a pedophile came into the Ramsey home and killed their daughter.

Det. Smit:  On my computer I’ve probably got 25 good leads, and I probably have another 50 pages of other leads to follow.

Among the files he’s keeping on sex offenders in Boulder, Oliva’s name stands out. In 1991, the year after he sexually assaulted the little girl, police reports say he tried to strangle his mother with a telephone cord. And in December 1996, Oliva may have been only a few houses away from JonBenét’s bedroom window.

Ollie Gray: This is the alley that runs behind the Ramseys’ home. It leads into the backyard, to the garage area.

John Sangustin: It wasn’t uncommon for JonBenét and Burke to ride their bicycles around the alleyway.

John Sangustin and Ollie Gray, the Ramseys’ private investigators, say Oliva frequented  buildings (in the alley) owned by a local church.

Ollie Gray: You have a lot of transient people come here for food and also to pick up their mail.

Erin Moriarty: But why is this relevant?

Ollie Gray:  The Ramsey home is — What? — 10 houses?

Erin Moriarty: Right up this alley.

Ollie Gray: Right up this alley.

What did the Boulder police do with this? Nothing. According to Smit, the police didn’t follow up on 95% of the more than 3,000 phone tips that came in. In Oliva’s case, they didn’t investigate him until nearly four years after JonBenét Ramsey’s death, when he was caught with drugs. And guess what else? A stun gun.

Erin Moriarty: Did you ever use that stun gun on a child?

Gary Oliva:  No.

Oliva, who was wanted in Oregon for parole violations, turned himself in to the Boulder police two weeks ago.

Erin Moriarty: Did you hurt or kill JonBenét Ramsey?

Gary Oliva:  No. No, I didn’t …

Erin Moriarty:  Didn’t you tell your friend that you were attracted to little girls?

Gary Oliva:  I don’t think I want to answer that.

Erin Moriarty:  OK. You were living in Boulder at the time JonBenét was killed.

Gary Oliva:  Yeah.

Erin Moriarty:  Just down the street.

Gary Oliva:  Yeah.

He will admit to an obsession with JonBenét.

Gary Oliva:  I believe that she came to me after she was killed and revealed herself to me.

As it turns out, we’re not the only ones interested in Oliva. A Boulder police officer showed up to take notes.

Alex Hunter | Former Boulder District Attorney:  I would be concerned if any lead was not fully taken to ground.

Former Boulder district attorney, Alex Hunter, says police tried to follow up on pedophiles, but admits that early on the force was clearly overwhelmed.

Erin Moriarty: Didn’t your office have to tell police officers, “You’ve got to look at these other leads? You can’t just focus on the Ramseys.”

Alex Hunter: Well, it — it was said, probably not in quite that language, but yes.

Why didn’t authorities take a sex offender like Oliva more seriously? Just this week, Boulder police said Oliva is not a suspect. Sources say his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene.

John Ramsey:  Nor does ours.

Erin Moriarty:  What do you think of that?

Patsy Ramsey: I think it’s a double standard. Don’t you?

Erin Moriarty: Is it fair to say then that the state of the evidence right now, there just isn’t enough to convict the Ramseys beyond a reasonable doubt?

Alex Hunter:  There isn’t enough to convict anybody beyond a reasonable doubt.

But Hunter believes this case someday can be solved, although he doesn’t think Smit is the man to do it.

Erin Moriarty: Do you feel that Lou Smit’s feelings for the Ramseys clouded his judgment?

Alex Hunter: I think a little bit.

Hunter believes Smit, a devout Christian, crossed a line. When working as a D.A. investigator, he prayed with the Ramseys.

Erin Moriarty: Do you think maybe you’ve gotten too close to the Ramseys?

Det. Smit:  Well, let’s put it this way, I don’t think I did. If the Ramseys did this and I found out, I’d be the first one standing in line at the Boulder Police Department.

JonBenét Ramsey would have been 12 years old this year and in sixth grade. Instead, she’s buried in a Georgia cemetery, while her brutal killer or killers go free.

2024: JOHN RAMSEY STILL HAS HOPE

Remarkably, not much has changed since that 2002 program. The case is at a standstill. But with the passage of so much time comes the loss of some key figures. Most notably Patsy Ramsey, who died of cancer in 2006. She was 49. John Ramsey remarried five years later.

Erin Moriarty: I think back about Patsy. And I remember Patsy saying that your lives could not go on until the killer was found.

John Ramsey: Well —

Erin Moriarty: How much weight was that on Patsy before she died?

John Ramsey: Patsy was a very strong woman. She really was and a very kind person, a wonderful mother. She got pretty vilified of the media, which was horribly unfair. … I think hurt deeper than it showed.

Investigator Lou Smit worked on the case almost until the day he died in August 2010. His family continues to pursue leads.

Erin Moriarty: John, do you believe this case could be solved …?

John Ramsey: Yes, I do. If the police will take advantage of all the technology that’s available to ’em and that’s, uh, going to one or two of the world’s cutting-edge labs for DNA testing. … And I think if they do that and if we’re successful getting a sample in the right format and then do the genealogy research, I’m 80 percent confident it could be solved. … but you gotta do it.

In November 2024, the Boulder Police Department released a statement which said: “The assertion that there is viable evidence and leads we are not pursuing — to include DNA testing — is completely false.” The department said there is an ongoing investigation, and they are looking into the recommendations made by a recent Cold Case review team.

CHIEF STEPHEN REDFEARN | BOULDER POLICE DEPARTMENT: … we have thoroughly investigated multiple people identified as suspects throughout the years, and we continue to be open-minded about what occurred as we investigate the tips that come in to detectives. 

John Ramsey remains hopeful that these new efforts may finally reveal the killer — a killer he believes was already waiting in their house when the family came home from dinner that Christmas night.

John Ramsey: — we were casual with our security in our home in Boulder. We thought it was a safe place … and we got casual and — and complacent.

Erin Moriarty: When you look back, are there any things you wish you had done differently?

John Ramsey: Well … the little beauty pageants they participated in. … I wouldn’t have done that. You need to keep your children private. … it was conflict for me because Patsy just recovered from stage four ovarian cancer, was grateful to have some life ahead of her in remission. … She didn’t know how long, to spend with her children and to raise her children. … I think she tried to pack a lot of mother-daughter time in that period of time that she knew she had ahead of her.

Erin Moriarty: Do you ever dream about JonBenét?

John Ramsey: Once in a while.

Erin Moriarty: Or wonder what she would’ve been like now?

John Ramsey: Well, I dream … I occasionally have dreams and they’re really wonderful dreams, but I don’t try to imagine what she would’ve been. … She’s — she was in my life for six years and was my little girl. And that’s how I remember her.

HAVE INFORMATION?

If you have information about the case, please call the Boulder Police Department at 303-441-1974 or email BouldersMostWanted@bouldercolorado.gov. 

[This story previously aired on Dec. 18, 2021. It was updated on Dec. 21, 2024.]

In 2004, Scott Peterson was convicted and later sentenced to death for killing his pregnant wife Laci and dumping her body in the San Francisco Bay. There was a twist in the case. 

In 2020, California’s highest court overturned Peterson’s death sentence. In December 2021, he was re-sentenced to life in prison without parole. Peterson’s supporters want him to be retried on all charges, and in 2024, the Los Angeles Innocence Project joined his fight for a new trial.several

“Scott did not get a fair trial,” Peterson’s sister-in-law, Janey Peterson, tells CBS News correspondent Jonathan Vigliotti.

Janey Peterson maintains police did not look hard enough at others or consider a connection to Laci’s death and a burglary that happened across the street from the Peterson’s home. “The wrong person’s in prison,” she says.

Jon Buehler, one of the original detectives on the case, disagrees.

“There’s nothing that’s come out that’s made me change my view that Scott got a fair trial and that Scott is the one who killed Laci,” he tells Vigliotti.

“Twenty years later, this case still holds a lot of interest,” says Jack Leonard, senior editor of investigations at the Los Angeles Times. “Mostly because it remains an enduring mystery. 

CHRISTMAS EVE 2002

The infamous San Quentin prison is the last stop for men on death row in California, and where our story begins. Because that’s where Scott Peterson remains behind bars.   

For years, the Peterson murder mystery captivated America. 

SHARON ROCHA | LACI PETERSON’S MOTHER [at press conference]: Laci and her unborn child did not deserve to die.  

Peterson was ultimately convicted of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn child Conner. He was sentenced to death.   

But several questions still remain. Some people believe he is innocent – that he was railroaded, even framed.  Others say there is no question he is guilty.  

It was just on the other side of the same bay in 1994, the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child washed up on shore.  

On Christmas Eve 2002, Laci Peterson was first reported missing by her family.  

GRETCHEN CARLSON [CBS News report]: Police in Modesto, California, have a mystery on their hands. A woman who is eight months pregnant has been missing since Tuesday when she left home to take her dog for a walk.   

It happened in the city of Modesto, in California’s Central Valley. Scott and Laci Peterson lived here on a quiet residential street.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: Christmas Day morning, about 9 o’clock, I get a call … I was a police detective at Modesto Police Department.  

Detective Jon Buehler worked the case from the beginning.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: Laci was as about as pure a victim as you can get.

She was about eight months pregnant when she disappeared. 

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  We went over to the Peterson house, which is when I first met Scott.  

And the detective remembers noticing something odd about Scott’s behavior.   

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  He was a little bit – he just didn’t seem interested.   

Before the sun rose on Christmas Day, police interviewed Peterson:

POLICE: You have no idea where Laci is?

SCOTT PETERSON: I do not.

POLICE: You guys didn’t have any problems? Marriage problems?

SCOTT PETERSON: No.

POLICE: Everything’s good?  

SCOTT PETERSON: Mm-hmm.  

Scott told police that Christmas Eve day he left Laci alone and went off a fishing trip. He said when he got home Laci wasn’t there – only their dog McKenzie.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  McKenzie’s there in the front yard area, the street area with a leash on that’s kind of muddy. And he’s thinking that this is kind of strange. Why would that be? His theory was that she had gone down into the park and had been walking the dog and something happened down there, abduction or something like that.  

Police immediately started a search.  

NEWS REPORT: Officers returned in force this morning combing the park and creek bank on foot and on horseback. Relatives, friends, and neighbors joined in distributing fliers and searching the park.

But Buehler saw no sense of urgency from Scott Peterson:

POLICE: You have any questions?

SCOTT PETERSON: No, I mean I’ve asked you a couple times what to do, um, so I have the answers to that. 

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: Oftentimes, a victim who’s left behind is firing tons of questions at us. … And we didn’t get any of that from him.

The response from everyone else close to Laci was very different.

SUSAN CAUDILLO | SCOTT PETERSON’S SISTER: We’re searching we’re looking and we’re going to find you.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: Everybody was going crazy. Everybody was impatient.  

SHARON ROCHA: Whoever has her, please, please, please, let her go.  Bring her back to us…”

DENNIS ROCHA | LACI PETERSON’S FATHER [sobbing]: Please … let us have her back.

Family, friends – the whole community mobilized immediately to join the search for Laci.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  Sharon Rocha, Laci’s mom, her stepdad, Ron Grantski, her friends … her brother Brent, her sister Amy. They just saw this whole world coming down. They were always struggling to hold back tears. 

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: But when it came to Scott, he always would hold back a little bit. He wouldn’t show you all of his cards.   

LOCAL NEWS REPORT: Officers began a search of the couple’s home late last night …  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: We knew we had to focus on him from the start … because that’s the way you work a homicide.

DOUG RIDENOUR | MODESTO P.D. [at press conference]: Nobody’s been ruled out. That’s what we’re trying to do right now.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: Because generally, there’s going to be somebody with motive and generally, the motive is going to be somebody close.  

On the morning of Laci’s disappearance Scott told police he drove to a boat launch about 90 miles away from his home. He said he wanted to take his brand-new boat out on the water to go fishing for sturgeon, but he never caught a single fish. As he drove home, he called Laci and left a message on her phone:

SCOTT PETERSON [voicemail]:  Hey, beautiful. I just left a message at home 2:15. I’m leaving Berkeley.  I won’t be able to get to Vella Farms to get the 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.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  it seemed like a very scripted message. … It just it seemed phony to me.  

Skeptical detectives also wondered why Scott would have gone fishing in the first place. It was Christmas Eve and his wife was eight months pregnant.  Peterson told investigators he had originally planned to golf that day but decided to go fishing because of the chilly weather.  

SCOTT PETERSON [police interview]: It seemed too cold to go play golf at the club, so …

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: You got a guy who … said it was too cold to golf, but it ain’t too cold to go fishing. Are you kidding me? 

Day after day, the search widened, and the story spread.

DENNIS ROCHA :  Whoever has Laci. The reward is 500 thousand. Take the money, bring my daughter back safe … and take the money and go get away free.  

Jack Leonard:  First of all, you had an attractive looking couple. Why would – a pregnant woman suddenly disappear when she’s got plans to be with her family?  And it was Christmas Eve, so there’s nothing else going on in the news. So, this attracted attention, first of all, from local news, and then national, and then it went global.  

But hopes for finding Laci Peterson alive were fading.  

DOUG RIDENOUR | MODESTO P.D. [at press conference]: We still don’t have any significant lead into finding Laci Peterson …  

SHARON ROCHA: Please don’t give up on us.  

JACKIE PETERSON | SCOTT’S MOTHER: Please send Laci back to us.   

And police continued to play close attention to Scott Peterson.   

DOUG RIDENOUR | MODESTO P.D. [to reporter]: Our discoveries during the investigation have resuscitated the revisiting of the Peterson residence with a second search warrant.  

They also asked him to take a polygraph. He refused. 

Ret. Jon Buehler: Scott told us that he wouldn’t take the polygraph … And so that arched our eyebrows a little bit that he wouldn’t take this thing. 

GLORIA GOMEZ |NEWS REPORT]: Recently authorities released photos of Peterson’s pickup and boat, hoping someone could back up his story.

Both Scott and Laci’s family stood with him. 

LEE PETERSON | SCOTT’S FATHER: There is no way in god’s green earth that he is, you know, even remotely involved in this thing.   

SHARON ROCHA: We feel Scott has nothing to do with it.   

LEE PETERSON: We’re looking for Laci, and we’re gonna find her.  

Then it looked like there was a break in the case.

POLICE PRESS CONFERENCE: We’re received a tip yesterday …  

Detectives discovered there had been a burglary just across the street from the Peterson home. One witness told police she believed that burglary happened the same morning Laci disappeared.

Police quickly put that clue to rest. 

DOUG RIDENOUR | MODESTO P.D. [at press conference]: We’re confident that we have the people in custody for the burglary and they are not connected with the missing of Laci Peterson. 

Then, about a month after Laci went missing …

DOUG RIDENOUR | MODESTO P.D. [at press conference]: She is prepared to give a statement.

This case took a dramatic turn.

Ret. Jon Buehler: The first big break we got in the case was of course Amber coming forward.  

AMBER FREY [at press conference]: We did have a romantic relationship.

THE OTHER WOMAN

SCOTT PETERSON [phone recording]: I wanted to call you.

AMBER FREY: Thank you. 

Amber Frey had no idea her boyfriend Scott Peterson was married with a pregnant wife.  In 2005 she told “Inside Edition” all about their love affair.

AMBER FREY [“Inside Edition”]: He was looking for someone to be with, someone to spend the rest of his life with. … You know, I was at a point in my life that I was ready to meet someone, too. 

Amber was 27 years old when she met Peterson. It was November 2002 – a month before Laci went missing. Amber says Scott told her he was a widower. They dined on strawberries and champagne and she was beginning to fall for him. 

AMBER FREY [“Inside Edition”]:  It was real for me. And it felt real for him, too.

But after a friend saw the Peterson story in the news, he told Amber. And Amber called the police.  

Detective Buehler and his partner raced down to Amber’s home. 

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: Her recall was fantastic. It was almost like it was a script from a Hallmark TV show or something. She could remember restaurants they went to and what they ate. …  She could remember what Scott was wearing. She would remember what she was wearing.

And Amber had pictures.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  You know, Scott’s in a tux and Ambers in that red dress they’re getting ready for the Christmas party. 

That Christmas party was just a week-and-a-half before Laci would go missing. The detectives were stunned.   

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  We had a guy who looked like the guy you want to marry your younger sister. … But now we found that there was that chink in the armor.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  It doesn’t mean that he killed Laci. But what it meant to us is there was another side to him that had not been exposed before.  

Investigators saw an opportunity.  Maybe Amber could help them find out what happened to Laci. 

AMBER FREY [“Inside Edition”]: They asked how I felt about tape-recording conversation with Scott … And I said “yes.”  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  She had an investment, an emotional and a budding romantic investment in this guy … I think she saw it crumbling in front of her.

The recordings would become part of a damning case against Scott, but first, Amber addressed the questions about her relationship.  

AMBER FREY [at press conference]: Scott told me he was not married.  

AMBER FREY [at press conference]: I am very sorry for Laci’s family and the pain that this has caused them. 

Laci’s family turned on him.    

BRENT ROCHA | LACI’S BROTHER [addressing reporters]:  I would like Scott to know that I trusted him.  However, Scott has not been forthcoming with information regarding my sister’s disappearance and I am only left to question what else he may be hiding.  

The story sparked a media frenzy.

Jack Leonard: It was huge. It was wild. And it made the case even bigger. … You really had the rise of the 24-hour cable news. … You had Larry King on there interviewing legal experts, including Nancy Grace.

Jack Leonard: Almost from the beginning, she was zeroing in on Scott. 

NANCY GRACE [“Larry King Live”]:  Why did he leave his wife alone, eight months pregnant, on Christmas Eve?  

Scott Peterson gave an interview to ABC’s Diane Sawyer while Laci was still missing. When asked about the marriage, he appeared to refer to Laci in the past tense:

SCOTT PETERSON: We took care of each other very well.  She was amazing – is amazing. 

NANCY GRACE [“Larry King Live”]: Ever heard the phase a slip of the tongue?

And there was another interview Scott gave with then-CBS reporter Gloria Gomez:

GLORIA GOMEZ: Why would you leave Laci … alone to go fishing on Christmas Eve?

SCOTT PETERSON:  OK. 

Scott explains that as a couple they had different interests:

SCOTT PETERSON: We have separate pursuits. … and being, you know, seven-and-a-half months pregnant she’s not going to want to go out in a boat. 

But critics of Scott say the most surprising moment may be what happened when Scott’s phone began to ring during the interview. Laci was missing and Scott doesn’t pick up the phone.   

SCOTT PETERSON: Want me to turn that off? 

GLORIA GOMEZ: Yeah, what is that?

SCOTT PETERSON: That’s my phone, unfortunately. I thought it was off. [Scott gets up] …  Yeah, it’s kind of going crazy isn’t it. 

Gloria Gomez: He didn’t hesitate to turn it off and some would say that why, if you’re a concerned husband, if your wife is missing, you know, you would have that cell phone clinging to you and every call would be an urgent call. 

And then, more than three months after Laci disappeared, in San Francisco Bay the bodies of Laci and Conner washed up only a few miles away from where Scott Peterson said he was fishing.

With the discovery of the bodies, detectives decided to move quickly. 

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  Our concern was maybe he’s going to head for the border.

Authorities finally caught up with Scott at a San Diego golf course. He told them he was supposed to play a round with his father. He also had about $15,000 in cash and his hair was dyed blond.  

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler:  He had his brother’s driver’s license … in the car with him, two or three cell phones. And so, you know, not the normal stuff you have if you’re going down to the local Winn-Dixie to get groceries.  

POLICE PRESS CONFERENCE: Scott Peterson has been arrested.  He is in the custody of Modesto Police Department detectives.

Just over a year later in Redwood City, California, Scott Peterson went on trial. The trial had been moved about 90 miles from Modesto because of the huge amount of publicity.

Peterson had a high-priced Hollywood dream team of attorneys led by Marc Geragos, famous for defending celebrities like Michael Jackson.  

MARC GERAGOS [at trial]: This is a capital case. I’m worried about my client’s life. 

Jonathan Vigliotti: What did the state say they believed happened?

Michael Cardoza: Which part of the trial? [laughs] They changed their story a couple times.

Attorney Michael Cardoza also worked on Scott Peterson’s case. And though he was not part of the court room defense team he says the prosecutors’ theory of what Scott did to Laci was confusing.   

Michael Cardoza: First, it was he killed her the night before, put her in the rug, put her in the truck, took her to the warehouse. Took her to – Berkeley and dumped her in the bay. Then later it was, “Yeah, I guess we really don’t know when she was killed, where she was killed. But we do know he did it.” Well, come on, guys. Make up your mind.  

But the case against Scott would get a lot clearer when prosecutors started playing recordings – the ones Amber Frey managed to secretly make. 

AMBER FREY [phone recording]: Hello. 

SCOTT PETERSON: Baby? 

AMBER FREY: Yes. 

SCOTT PETERSON: Hey. 

AMBER FREY: Oh, my goodness. 

THE DAMNING PHONE CALLS

SCOTT PETERSON [phone recording]: Amber are your there? 

AMBER FREY:  I’m here. 

SCOTT PETERSON:  Amber. 

AMBER FREY:  I wish you could hear me. … Happy New Year.   

Just about everyone who was inside the courthouse at the time agrees it was the tape- recorded phone calls between Amber Frey and Scott Peterson that really grabbed the jury:

SCOTT PETERSON [phone recording]: … I’m near the Eiffel Tower, the New Years’ celebration is unreal. 

That’s Scott Peterson – one week after Laci went missing – on the phone with Amber Frey pretending he’s calling from Paris when authorities say he was really in Modesto while the search for Laci was still going on. 

Michael Cardoza: Amber Frey. Simply. That’s what turned that trial … It was the pretext phone calls that Amber Frey made to Scott Peterson.

Jonathan Vigliotti: They were pretty damning.  

Michael Cardoza: There’s no question. … That’s what changed this trial. 

As jurors listened, Amber confronts Peterson about Laci: 

AMBER FREY [phone recording]: 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 how all- of-a sudden your wife’s missing? Are you kidding me? …

SCOTT PETERSON: I never cheated on you – I never did.

AMBER FREY:  You’re married. How do you figure you never cheated on me? Explain that one to me.

After the jury heard those calls with Amber, attorney Cardoza says everything changed.

Jonathan Vigliotti: So, you’re saying the emotion, the high emotion here drowned out the facts that were introduced by the defense?

Michael Cardoza: That emotion was so loud, they could hear nothing else. 

And then, with crowds gathered outside and no cameras allowed in court, on November 12, 2004, a verdict: We the jury, in the above entitled cause, find the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the crime of murder of Laci Denise Peterson. 

Michael Cardoza: When the guilty verdict came back, you could hear the crowd outside – when you were in the courtroom – cheering. Cheering. You don’t think the jurors heard that? What kind of effect did that have on the next phase of the trial, the death.  

Four months later, sentenced to death, the applause was even louder.  

But inside the courtroom, it seemed to Laci’s family that Scott hardly responded. 

Harvey Kemple | Laci’s Uncle: It was just like always, no emotion. No nothing. The man is a definite psychopath.  He is getting exactly what he deserves. 

After sentencing, some of the jurors lashed out at Peterson:  

RICHELLE NICE |JUROR [to reporters]: He is a jerk and I have one comment for Scott: You look somebody in the face when they’re talking to you. 

MIKE BELMESSIERI |JUROR [to reporters]: Well, Scott came in with a great big smile on his face, laughing. It was just another day in paradise for Scott, another day that he had to go through emotions. But – he’s on his way home, Scott figures. Well, guess what, Scotty… 

RICHELLE NICE:  …San Quentin’s your new home. 

MIKE BELMESSIERI: …And it’s illegal to kill your wife and child in California. 

Michael Cardoza: Juror number seven – Miss Nice. … Listen to what she says.  … You’ve just sentenced a man to death and you’re that bold in your statements? You’d think you’d be a little introspective about that because there’s nothing worse, nothing more ultimate, nothing more final than taking someone’s life.  

Michael Cardoza: Scott Peterson, I have no opinion on whether he’s guilty or not guilty. But I do know Scott did not get a fair trial. He absolutely did not. 

Scott Peterson’s attorneys filed appeals and nearly 16 years after his conviction, a decision.

Last summer, as Scott sat behind bars in San Quentin, the California Supreme Court threw out his death sentence. 

Pat Harris: … The Supreme Court said, “He is going to get a new trial on the death penalty phase.”  

Pat Harris was part of Scott’s defense team in the original trial and he continues to represent him.   

Pat Harris: They determined that the judge had made a mistake in how the jurors were selected based on the death penalty part of the trial. 

The result of that mistake, Scott supporters say, was that the jury was stacked against him with pro death penalty jurors. 

Peterson’s team is also arguing that it’s not just his death sentence that was all wrong.   They say Scott deserves a completely new trial to determine guilt. The reason:  that juror number 7 – Richelle Nice.   

Pat Harris:  According to one of the jurors who was interviewed, he said that … she walked into the jury room and said, “What are we waitin’ for? Let’s get rid of this guy.”

Nice declined “48 Hours”‘ request for an interview.  Harris maintains that Nice was biased from the beginning and when they were picking the original jury Nice was not forthcoming about her own history.   

Pat Harris:  It’s pretty clear … that she lied to us straight to our face about her own situation.  

Prospective jurors filled out a questionnaire asking if they had in the past been in a lawsuit and if they had been crime victims.  And Nice checked “no”.

Pat Harris: And we’ve come to learn that in fact … there were issues in her own – circle of people. And there were restraining orders.  

In fact, Nice was involved in two domestic disputes in the past. But prosecutors say when Nice filled out that questionnaire she didn’t lie, she just didn’t think her past experiences were relevant to the questions and didn’t see herself as a victim. 

Janey Peterson:  Every piece of information we find out about this day further confirms that Scott is innocent. 

Scott’s sister-in-law Janey Peterson says there are witnesses who claim they saw Laci very much alive after Scott had already left for his fishing trip that day.

Jonathan Vigliotti: And you think this is enough to prove his innocence?  

Janey Peterson:  Absolutely.

SUPPORT FOR SCOTT

Jonathan Vigliotti: Where are we right now?

Janey Peterson: This is our family business … we have a back office here that we’ve dedicated to the case files –

Jonathan Vigliotti: Oh, wow.

Janey Peterson – for Scott’s case.

Jonathan Vigliotti: So, this is really the war room, here?

Janey Peterson: Yeah. Yeah.

And Scott’s sister-in-law Janey Peterson has been at war. Even though Scott was only granted a new trial on the death penalty, Janey is gearing up to prove his innocence.

Pat Harris: Janey is the heart and soul of the – the case.

Janey Peterson: I’m not talking about emotions. I’m talking about evidence. Everything on this board is a fact.  … there’s no scenario of guilt for Scott.

Much of the case for Scott, she says, comes down to the timeline – what happened the morning Laci disappeared.

Janey Peterson:  If Scott Peterson is guilty, what time did he commit this crime? … He’s on death row for the murder of his wife and child. And no one has ever said what time he did this crime, how he did this crime, or the series of events of how he carried out this crime that fits the evidence.

Janey Peterson [pointing to evidence board]: Basically, the day starts on the left side…

According to Scott, that morning he and Laci had breakfast and watched Martha Stewart.  

POLICE: You remember what part you saw?

SCOTT PETERSON: … cookies of some sort – they were talking about what to do with meringues.

Scott told police Laci told him she was going to clean the house and then walk their dog, McKenzie.  He told them that he left the house around 9:30 a.m. He said he went to a nearby warehouse where he had an office and sent an email from his computer, before setting off with his boat to the Berkeley Marina.

The prosecution argued that Scott had killed Laci sometime before he left the house that morning.

Janey Peterson: The state asserts that – Scott murdered Laci and that he loaded her body in his pickup, drove it to his warehouse.

But if Laci was seen alive after Scott left the house, Janey says the prosecution’s case falls apart.

Janey Peterson: There’s an abundance of evidence that shows that Laci was alive when he left for the day.

Jonathan Vigliotti [pointing at evidence board]:  What does this show here?

Janey Peterson: The pink squares are all the people in the neighborhood who reported seeing Laci or McKenzie that morning.

Janey says most of these witnesses reported the sightings between 9:45 and 10:30 in the morning – after Scott said he left the house. She says so much depends on these witnesses, but the defense never called them to defend Scott at his trial. 

Jonathan Vigliotti: If so many people saw Laci, claim to have seen Laci after that point … Why didn’t the defense bring them to the stand so that we could hear from their mouth what they saw?

Janey Peterson: I think there were – multiple factors that played into it.  … you had people who, as time went by, thought that maybe what they saw wasn’t relevant to the case.

Pat Harris: There’s been a lot of criticism because we didn’t call some witnesses who saw Laci that day.

Scott Peterson’s attorney Pat Harris.

Pat Harris: The original thought process at the time was … a number of the witnesses who saw her didn’t have great – memories or had contra – were contradicting each other.

Police Detective Jon Buehler says none of the witnesses were actually sure if they did in fact see Laci.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: There were three girls in the neighborhood, two of which were pregnant at the time … and two of them having dogs walking in the neighborhood … So, it would be real easy for somebody to mistakenly see one of those three girls as being Laci.

Still, Janey Peterson says there is a witness who helps prove Laci was alive after Scott left that morning. It was the mailman. 

Janey Peterson: What the mailman said is that, when I went by the Peterson house the morning of December 24th, I went by there between 10:30 and 10:50. … the gate was open, and McKenzie was not on the property.

Janey says that’s because Laci was out walking McKenzie. If McKenzie had been home, she argues, he would have barked at the mailman – because he always did.

 Janey Peterson: … this dog, in particular, barked at that mailman every single day, whether he was behind the gate or in the house.

Jonathan Vigliotti: So, what you are saying is during this time, Laci had McKenzie and they were –

Janey Peterson: On a walk.

And according to Janey, if Laci was out walking her dog, then Scott – who was in his office sending an email – could not have killed her.  But when it came time to testify, the mailman didn’t have a clear recollection and said “nothing out of the ordinary” happened that day. 

Maybe more importantly to a new defense case though, is what Janey believes actually happened to Laci. Instead of Scott killing his pregnant wife, she says it’s more likely it was those burglars who robbed the house just across the street.

Janey Peterson: There’s too many unanswered questions about that burglary to set it aside.

The day Laci disappeared, December 24, the homeowners left to go on a trip around 10:30 in the morning.  Scott Peterson and his team believe that Laci actually confronted the burglars and something bad happened. To prove it, they point to what they call the “Aponte tip.”

Janey Peterson [pointing at evidence board]:  This is the Aponte tip … that was the call that was overheard by Lieutenant Aponte at Norco Prison.

Lieutenant Xavier Aponte was a corrections officer. He called in a tip about a phone recording he had heard about a month after Laci disappeared.

Janey Peterson: And he said he had an inmate who was on the phone with his brother in Modesto discussing the fact that Laci had encountered the burglars across the street from her house.

Janey Peterson: When we heard this, we all thought, “Wow, maybe – maybe this’ll give us some answers as to what happened to Laci.” 

But remember, police dismissed the burglary early on:

DOUG RIDENOUR | MODESTO P.D. [at press conference]: We do not believe at this time that there’s any connection with the missing of Laci.

Here’s why:

Pat Harris: The police figured out who did it. … They asked the culprits, “Well, when did you do this?” And the two gentlemen that were arrested said, “Oh, it was – December 26th, the day after Christmas.”

Not on December 24, when Laci went missing, but two days later.  Peterson’s defense isn’t buying it.

Pat Harris: On December 26th, there was a line of media … reporters standing outside the Peterson home up and down that street. There is no way in hell you could burglarize a house with all those people standing out there.

But police say the burglars broke in through a back door on the 26th, out of sight of the street and any reporters who may have been there.     

As for the tip about an inmate phone call from prison, prosecutors say the phone call is just hearsay. Still, Peterson’s attorney says if Scott gets a chance at a new trial, that burglary will be front and center. And so will their theory of the crime: that Scott Peterson was actually framed for his wife’s murder.

Janey Peterson: What better way to get out of trouble than go put the body where the husband was?

WAS SCOTT PETERSON FRAMED? 

In a 2017 A&E documentary, Scott Peterson spoke about the moment he heard the word “guilty.”

SCOTT PETERSON [phone recording]:  I was staggered by it.  I had no idea it was coming.

SCOTT PETERSON [phone recording]:   … and I just had this weird sensation that I was falling forward.

Those thoughts seem starkly different from courtroom reports that describe Peterson as “emotionless.” 

JUROR [at press conference]: Scott had no emotion on his face, Scott was being Scott.

And according to his lawyer, that lack of outward emotion hurt Scott from day one.

Pat Harris: I think the biggest problem I have is … what I call the “he didn’t act right” evidence. There is no such thing as how to act. There’s no playbook on how to act when your wife has been murdered. … No matter what you do, when you’ve built the narrative in your mind that he’s guilty, whatever Scott did was gonna be interpreted through the lens of he’s guilty …

Pat Harris: It was a terrible investigation from the first minute.

Harris says authorities had tunnel vision. He claims they never looked at other possibilities, or even the logic of their own theories.

Pat Harris: We did an experiment which we filmed. 

The defense team loaded weights into a boat.

Pat Harris: We took the exact weight – We had the boat, similar …  We recreated it, did a video. And sure enough, when the body was dumped over, the boat flipped. We had a video of this. The judge refused to let it in.

But the Supreme Court said that the judge was correct not to let it in. They said the defense had used a different boat, a different motor, in different weather, and one of their own employees who stepped on the side of the boat to let in water and allow the boat to swamp. They even pointed out that the original judge offered the defense a chance to redo the experiment with the original boat and someone who was not a defense employee. But the defense declined. Still, Janey says if given a chance, the defense will present other exonerating evidence.

Janey Peterson: We have an ongoing investigation that we don’t discuss publicly. But I guarantee you that Scott will never be convicted of capital murder again in a court of law.

Jonathan Vigliotti: Some of the most damning evidence is where Laci and her unborn child were found. They washed up very close to an area where Scott Peterson was fishing. Are you saying that’s just coincidence?

Janey Peterson: I’m not saying it’s a coincidence. I’m – I would argue it was on purpose.

Jonathan Vigliotti: On purpose?

Janey Peterson: On purpose.

They claim that Peterson was actually framed for the murder, and the real killer or killers held on to Laci’s body, eventually dumping it into the San Francisco Bay.

Janey Peterson: Her body wasn’t taken to the bay December 24th. The bay wasn’t sealed off as a crime scene. …There are multiple points of access directly to the water, 24 hours a day. I think they took Laci, had Laci, realized the national attention that this case was getting, realized they were in trouble. What better way to get outta trouble than go put the body where the husband was?

Jonathan Vigliotti: Who is they in this scenario?

Janey Peterson: Well I – I can’t get past the burglary.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: The two burglars that were involved in that both told consistent stories that were backed up by other independent witnesses. 

Detective Jon Buehler, one of the original investigators, says burglars had nothing to do with Laci’s murder. And the idea that Laci was kidnapped in broad daylight in that neighborhood just doesn’t make sense.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: Well, how come nobody saw Laci get abducted? … nobody saw an abduction in broad daylight where a girl had a dog, and the dog would be barking, and a girl would be screaming. Tell me how that is going to happen because I don’t see it.

As for the idea that Scott was framed …

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: What is the likelihood that somebody is going to abduct Laci, and then all of a sudden, the media has intense scrutiny and attention to it. And then they’re going to take her 90 miles to San Francisco Bay, and they’re going to put her in the exact same area that Scott said he was fishing in? All the while we’re doing searches up there, all the while that the media is camped out over there, that you’ve got cops and deputies and other agencies over there looking into this.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: You want to try and make that stretch with me that somebody is going to drive from Modesto to Berkeley to take a body out there in the midst of that? Well, I guess possible. But you know, there’s still people that believe the earth is flat, too.

The District Attorney is not commenting on the defense’s theories, but at Peterson’s trial, contrary to what the defense argued, prosecutors laid out their relatively clear theory of the crime: that Laci had been murdered in the home either the night before or the morning she disappeared. And they focused on all the falsehoods Peterson had told.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: We knew that he was able to lie fairly easily.

Everything from the big lies he told to Amber Frey …

SCOTT PETERSON [phone recording]:  It’s pretty awesome, fireworks there at the Eiffel Tower.

SCOTT PETERSON [phone recording]: I have – I’ve lied to you that I’ve been traveling.

… to the little lies prosecutors say he told about the morning Laci vanished.  Remember he said he left home around 9:30 a.m.:

POLICE INTERVIEW: OK, so then about 9:30 you left?

SCOTT PETERSON:  Mm-hmm [affirms].

But that Martha Stewart segment on meringues he talked about watching with Laci? 

SCOTT PETERSON: We were watching her favorite show, “Martha Stewart.”

That didn’t come on until 9:48 a.m.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: You have to dismiss so much circumstantial evidence in this case to believe that Scott didn’t do this.

Ret. Det. Jon Buehler: In a circumstantial evidence case becomes like a big rope. It’s got strand after stranded after strand. And when you get so many strands weaved together on this big rope, this rope is very, very strong.

Buehler remains as confident as he ever was in Peterson’s guilt. But Scott’s defenders are just as confident.   

Jonathan Vigliotti: So, are you saying he’s innocent?

Pat Harris: Yes.

Jonathan Vigliotti: Or – you are.

Pat Harris:  Yes.                                                         

Pat Harris: Oh, he’s innocent. … I would bet my life on it. 

While the case still plays out in court, we’re left with an almost unspeakable tragedy: the murder of 27-year-old Laci and her unborn baby, Conner —– and you have to wonder what’s going through Scott Peterson’s mind as he sits in prison just a few short miles across the bay from where their bodies washed ashore.

On Dec. 8, 2021 Scott Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the deaths of his wife and unborn child.

In 2024, the Los Angeles Innocence Project  took up Peterson’s fight for a new trial.  

Since then, a California judge has granted his defense team access to previously undisclosed evidence as well as permission to do additional DNA testing.

---

Produced by Chuck Stevenson. Michelle Fanucci is the development producer along with Ryan Smith. Emily Wichick is the field producer. Lauren Turner Dunn is the associate producer. Richard Barber is the producer-editor. Phil Tangel is the editor. Patti Aronofsky is the senior producer. Nancy Kramer is the executive story editor. Judy Tygard is the executive producer.