I think the info about the LE report from Tom Harshman is convoluted, may have been taken out of context by the media and it wasn't investigated thoroughly by LE.
JMO
From the Motion, pg 57-58.
As with the other eyewitnesses who reported seeing Laci Peterson alive after 10:18 a.m. on December 24, Mr. Harshman’s report was not taken seriously, nor was it investigated, nor did 57 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR DNA TESTING; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Harshman testify at trial.
Counsel for Mr. Peterson met with Mr. Harshman on October 6, 2023, and he confirmed that on December 28, 2002, he and his wife were driving on Scenic Drive and Claus Drive, north of La Loma Park, when he saw a woman he believed was Laci Peterson, who looked like she was in need of some help because there was a man standing by her looking like he was trying to control her. (Exh. 19 at ¶¶ 3–11, Exhs. A–D.) Mr. Harshman stated that the woman he believed was Laci was squatting with her back against a chain link fence, possibly urinating, and he saw her walk to the driver’s side of the van with one of the male subjects she was with while a second male reached out the open driver’s door with his hand and held the female’s hand, pulling her into the van at the driver’s door. (Exh. 19 at ¶ 12, Exh. E.)
It looked to Harshman like the female may have needed assistance, and he thought the male was trying to stay close by her, trying to control her. (Ibid.) After Mr. Harshman called in his report, no one from MPD returned his call, so he went to the Command Post located in La Loma Park and again made a report. (Id. at ¶¶ 6–8.)
Again, no one from MPD reached out to Mr. Harshman during the investigation to interview him about what he reported seeing. Not until Mr. Peterson’s trial was about to begin did Det. Grogan finally contact Mr. Harshman on May 18, 2004, to interview him about his report. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–13.) Det. Grogan did not ask Mr. Harshman if he could identify the man he saw or the van he saw. Instead, Grogan asked Mr. Harshman if the pregnant woman he saw on December 28, 2002, had a dog with her.43 (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. F.) As with the other eyewitnesses who reported seeing Laci alive after Mr. Peterson left home on December 24, Harshman’s report was not taken seriously, and he did not testify at trial.
As occurred with eyewitness Diane Jackson, the jury only heard about Mr. Harshman’s report through Det. Grogan, who testified about his interview with Mr. Harshman, but he did not explain why Mr. Harshman’s report was not investigated or taken seriously at the time Laci Peterson was missing. (99 RT 18670–18671.) The new exculpatory evidence strongly points to Mr. Peterson’s innocence, including (1) D.M.’s statements that he was involved in Laci Peterson’s murder, which occurred in connection
JMO
