Peterson's Mistress Seeks To Stop Sale Of Nude Photos

NBC4.com ^ | Oct 21, 2003

[CheneyChick]

Peterson, who turned 31 today, is charged in the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their son, Conner. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Do you think he's wondering how many birthdays he has left to celebrate?

[Devil_Anse]

LOL, good compromise--we'll call it the data sheet agreement! Who knows what the heck it is? I'm thinking of e-mailing Thesmokinggun.com and telling them to get off their Geragos and go get the thing, as well as a copy of the lawsuit complaint.

[Devil_Anse]

We can hope!! The way he seems to think, he's probably counting on hearing the judge say "no probable cause" on Thursday, and being out and about for Halloween on Friday.

[RGSpincich]

I dug up the name by backtracking from the Emerald Online Magazine to Emerald Photography to the Fresno County Recorders listing for Emerald Photography in Clovis. Danny Ayers is the owner. I'm pretty sure I saw the name long ago on one of the other slueth sites, too.

[MaggieMay]

In my post #679,which is from today's hearing,2nd from the last paraagraph,"The judge, however, ruled against special hearings on cadaver dogs and global positioning system tracking technology".Do you know if the judge's refusal covers both the Frank's Hearing and the 402's on the cadaver dogs evidence.

[MaggieMay]

Yes,plus, he is probably wondering where mommy and daddy were today.I think it was Scott's brother John who said, the family are out of town. On Scott's birthday? When Jackie and Lee have always attended these hearings before? I wonder what gives?

[Devil_Anse]

It shouldn't cover the Franks hearing, but it should be the end of further hearings about the validity of presenting dog evidence.

[Devil_Anse]

Lee and Jackie are probably hiding in a jail laundry truck, dressed as laundry workers, ready to hijack the truck to help Scott escape!

(The above is my opinion only, and is not even a serious opinion!)

[MaggieMay]

Thanks! I knew you would have the answer. :)

[Devil_Anse]

Thanks, Maggie--but don't forget that I'm guesstimating (being usually too lazy to go and read the documents myself!)

[CheneyChick]

Maybe they are out shopping for his trick or treat costume.

[MaggieMay]

Cheney Chick,I think all they need to do,is pick up is some lipliner and a hat and he could go as Boy George,right Jackie-O? :)

DevilAnse,I wouldn't be at all suprised to find Lee and Jackie-O doing something totally bazaar like that(hiding in a laundry truck) to spring Scott.

[Sandylapper]

You seem to have a lot of facts that I don't have.

Most of what I have is coming from what has been discussed on TV (MSNBC--Abrams report) and Fox News. From what I've heard Allred and Schmidt both discussing, and subsequent responses from lawyers/pundits, coupled with my own experience of having performed due diligence for a rather large corporation (including intellectual property), I believe that the "data sheet" included legally binding language. The agreement has been flashed on TV screens and I have glanced at the legal wording, but can't recite it to you. Nevertheless, signed agreements, (or even verbal agreements), are just as binding as "contracts". The agreement, I understand, is available at Schmidt's website for a fee.

If she was offered her pics, as you say, I am guessing that she wasn't offered them just as a gift, or I bet she'd have taken them.

If Amber was pursing a modeling career and then decided to abandon it, Danny Ayers probably did offer her the pics for a fee; otherwise, he would be "in the hole" for his time, film, etc., so, it would not be improper to "sell" her the pics. It seems that Amber did not compensate him for his time and expense, so, legally Danny was entitled to that "intellectual property". Apparently, he sold it to Schmidt.

Unless there are some facts out there for us, the public, to know, it's kind of silly for us to draw any conclusion yet as to what "rights" this Schmidt may have to publish the pictures.

I disagree, Anse, because Amber is a key witness in a high profile case, and questions have been raised about her credibility, although she hired Allred to shut everybody up for fear of being sued. I see that whatever went on between Amber and Danny could speak further to her credibility. JMO

[CheneyChick]

I might have missed this somewhere here, but have you guys seen this website?

http://www.scottpetersontrial.com/index.html

I think all they need to do,is pick up is some lipliner

Speaking of lipliner, maybe Jackie can share hers.

[Lucy Lake]

When Jackie and Lee have always attended these hearings before? I wonder what gives?

Wonder if the truth is slowly dawning on them?

[Lucy Lake]

Oh, Eeeeeek!

You shoulda warned us!

[Sandylapper]

Do you know if the judge's refusal covers both the Frank's Hearing and the 402's on the cadaver dogs evidence.

I don't. Sounds like the judge "split the baby", doesn't it? What happens about the wiretaps, Anse?

[CheneyChick]

Sorry, it must be Jackie-O's fault for posting #641.

[MaggieMay]

My understanding is the judge ruled against hearing the 402's.

Now,there is only the Frank's hearing left,which will be held on October 29th. The trial court must decide whether there would have been probable cause to issue the search warrant had the judge been aware of the misstatements or omitted information.(which is what the defense claims) Of course the prosecution has came back with their response,so the judge will have to make a ruling on which has merit. DevilAnse,please feel free to make any corrections or add information,to what I have said in my post.

[Devil_Anse]

Unless there are some facts out there for us, the public, to know, it's kind of silly for us to draw any conclusion yet

I reiterate the above. Though you disagree, I still think it is futile for us to attempt to argue the finer points unless/until we have the pertinent FACTS.

I agree with you that if a contract did in fact exist btw Amber and this photographer, it probably need not have been a written one. I agree with you that public reaction to this business of Amber posting nude may affect her credibility to an extent.

As to who has the right to make money off these pics, we're just going to have to wait till we can at least see the complaint b/f we know the issues here. We know that there exist pictures of Amber posting naked, but we do not really know what happened btw her and this photographer. None of us were there, and no one who was there has been interviewed, nor does any record of their conversation exist, apparently. For all we know, this photographer could have been another of her "clients" (a la the private detective) who said to her, hey, pose for me, maybe we can sell your pictures and YOU can make some money.

I will say that having someone sell the privilege of viewing this "intellectual property" which Amber has created was probably the object of the photo shoot in the first place. And that's what's happened: someone's selling views of the photos. But I believe that Amber only took her clothes off b/c SHE anticipated that SHE would get some of the money, if there was any money from this undertaking. IMO, the suit is mostly about her not getting paid, rather than about her being embarrassed that her nude image is being seen by strangers.