When 27-year-old pregnant Lacey Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve of 2002, it didn't

take long for the story to ripple across the country. Her panicked family spread word of her

disappearance throughout the community, but soon after, a nation watched in real time as hope gave way to heartbreak.

Last week, we walked through the prosecution's case against Scott Peterson, one of the most

closely followed murder trials of the early 2000s. Prosecutors said the evidence led to only

one conclusion. Scott Peterson was a husband living a double life, and his secret affair was the motive.

According to the state, Scott's conflicting statements, suspicious movements around the San Francisco Bay,

and the bodies discovered in the very place he said he went fishing on the day Lacey disappeared,

all fit neatly into a narrative of guilt.

But in a case this big, this polarizing, there's always another side.

And this week, we're taking a look from that perspective.

Because although the prosecution called this a straightforward case of a man who murdered his wife,

the defense argued the opposite.

The evidence was flimsy.

The timeline didn't hold up.

And investigators focused on Scott Peterson too early before fully exploring other possibilities.

Their narrative? The state built a theory first and then shaped the evidence to support it.

It's not unusual for defense attorneys to challenge an investigation or point out weaknesses

in the evidence.

Sometimes that strategy works.

Sometimes it doesn't.

But years later, when an innocence organization, one known for stepping in only when serious questions exist, took an interest in the case, it brought a different level of scrutiny and

...