Watered Down Theory

Dear Viewers,  

I don't want to bore you with details, but we have the e-mail and the video streaming fixed. Click on the text in the video box to the right to watch Bernie Grimm and me answer your e-mail questions that poured in during the show last night.

There are many things you don't see during the show because the camera is either fixed on a remote guest or not pointing at the desk set. Last night you may have noticed I "caught" Bernie Grimm and Ted Williams.

From time to time during the show they 'pass notes' — almost like the 7th grade. I could not resist last night grabbing Bernie's note pad and showing you because he did make a very important point. He wrote on his note pad (and I read it upside down when the camera was on a remote guest and when he was showing Ted) that the Peterson prosecutor had just given the defense team another gift.

What was the gift? The prosecutor brought in evidence that a 7 inch plus hair had been found in Scott's toolbox which was neither Scot's hair nor Laci's and probably was that of a police technician.

Why is this so important? It shows how easy it is to lose hair ... to transfer hair ... and this is sure to be used by the defense to explain why Laci's hair showed up on the pliers in the boat. Did it "transfer" from Scott to Laci? One police report puts her in the warehouse where the boat was on December 23 the day before she vanished (and was then murdered.) Was this the time of the hair transfer?

You may recall that the prosecution's theory of the case included that Laci had not known of the boat (but their own notes show she was there WITH the boat on December 23) and that her hair was in the boat on the pliers because the pliers were used to help dispose of her body.

With the prosecution now bringing out evidence of the 7 inch hair and how easy for hair to be transferred — which they were not obliged to do so - they have "watered down" their own theory before the jury. Sure Mark Geragos might have brought it out during the defense case — but maybe Geragos would not have done so and it is so much more powerful for the defense if the prosecutor dilutes his own theory.

It is difficult to figure out the prosecution's strategy in this case and why they select the strategy they employ. I admit I am not daily in the courtroom looking at their files and interviewing their witnesses — which makes a huge difference — but some things they do or don't do seem very odd.

I am reading the transcripts from the daily testimony of the trial but even that is not the same as being in the courtroom. Maybe they have a "plan," a strategy that will surprise me in the end. While I think they commit blunder after blunder, it does not mean they will lose in the end.

I have been "around the block" enough times to see that even lawyers who seemingly are not "thinking" when they present their cases win jury verdicts. Cases also change from day to day — one side seems to be way out ahead and suddenly there is a key piece of evidence which turns the case completely around.

Plus don't forget that the prosecutor's key evidence — the testimony of Amber Frey (search) and the playing of the tapes — is yet to come. I have no idea whether this evidence will be convincing or not — only that it is yet to come.

I have heard through the grapevine — but only through the grapevine — that Mark Geragos does not believe the tapes are incriminating but rather simply re-emphasize what we know: Peterson is a creep who was cheating on is pregnant wife. What we all want to know — will it also prove that he is a creep who not only cheats on his pregnant wife but murders her? This is why Amber's testimony is so important.


Do you have something you'd like to say to Greta? Please write to her at ontherecord@foxnews.com!

Watch On the Record with Greta Van Susteren weeknights at 10 p.m. ET