Laci Peterson hearing set to begin

USAToday ^ | Posted 10/29/2003 6:53 AM | Al Golube

[veronica]

Ben was good in Kevin Smith's Chasing Amy. Way before he became Mr. Booty.

[Sandylapper]

She is beautiful, and even has the dimples, but she doesn't have the all-American, girlish look that Laci had. Looks older, but maybe they could fix all that!

[Velveeta]

BARF ALERT!!

Modesto Bee update:

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/updates/story/7661192p-8566479c.html

...snipped
During her testimony, bailiffs handed notes to Scott Peterson's parents, Lee and Jackie Peterson, on separate occasions.

The couple sat with other family members in the front row behind the defense table. All Scott Peterson's family members appeared to wear pins in the shape of a yellow ribbon overlaid with blue.

Pale yellow and blue ribbons were a near ubiquitous symbol during the massive search for Laci Peterson: the yellow to symbolize hope and the blue for the son Laci Peterson was expecting.

[Jackie-O]

I truely think that Amy will testify about what Laci was wearing on the 23rd, because that's what she was found wearing. If it turns out to be the same outfit that Snott said she had on the 24th, it would look strange that Martha Stewart Jr. would wear the SAME clothes 2 days in a row..and if it is different than the one Snott reported, he's toast too. She will also testify that Snott said nothing about going fisning in a boat that NO ONE knew about, only tee time on the 24th. It's real important that NO ONE knew about that boat. Wouldn't you thing if your brother in law just bought a fishing boat, and was thinking of going out the next day, he would have said, "hey, I just got a new boat and I think I may go fishing tomorrow if it's a nice day. Ya want to come???" He had plenty of time to determine that it was not an ideal day to take a 14ft tin can out on the turbulant bay on a stormy day. He did enough tidal study on the net!

[Devil_Anse]

All I can tell you is that I once put a witness on the stand who was the victim of a burglary. The person who burglarized him, someone he knew well from before, called the victim and essentially told him (gloatingly), "Yeah, I've got your stuff."

The defense wanted to dot every i and cross every t as to whether the victim could really know whom he was talking to on the phone, w/o actually seeing the person.

But in the end, the judge decided that the victim's knowing the guy before enabled the victim to recognize very well the voice of this person. So then the victim began to tell about the content of their phone conversation.

And of course, essentially, the content of their conversation was a confession by the burglar of his crime.

No wiretaps or recording of any kind were involved.

So picture Amber in the place of the victim in the above account. Picture Scott as the "burglar". Amber knows Scott's voice very, very well. She is competent to testify that "yes, that was Scott".

And, I mean, in the conversations where she was the actual caller, all they have to do is ask her, "What number did you call?" If pressed, they can bring in a phone company person who would testify, "that number is registered to Scott Peterson."

How likely is it that some other man would be answering Scott's phones and pretending that he was Scott?

[Velveeta]

Oooh, I wanna see the maid! Anyone else think she's going to be honked at Snott for saying she only washed half the floor?

[RGSpincich]

but maybe they could fix all that!

If these dipwads will cast James Brolin as Ronald Reagan, you can bet that the utmost of care will not be taken to cast anybody properly.

[Devil_Anse]

Glad to see you back!

Hee hee... that's an amusing thought. Inmate: "Hey, Peterson, what did your mommy buy us today?"

[Jackie-O]

Loved that movie, have seen them all..Mall Rats, etc.

[Devil_Anse]

Depends on CA's individual law about recording phone calls. Remember how Linda Tripp, one of two parties to phone calls, consented that they be recorded, so did not fall afoul of federal wiretap laws? Yet the Maryland laws were stricter. So she DID fall outside of those, I think.

Regardless of whether the way Amber herself recorded calls (if she did), whether it was in accordance with CA law, still, I don't see why Amber can't simply recount HER conversations with someone she knew very well, Scott.

If Amber and Scott sat on a park bench and Scott told her the same things he told her in the phone calls, Amber could then get up and testify, "He told me such and such in conversation." It is not hearsay. It comes under an exception to the hearsay exclusion called "party admission". (Scott being a party in this litigation.)

[Sandylapper]

Heh heh. You didn't think Babs and CBS would put this on without a piece of the take, did you?

[Jackie-O]

Oh Paaahhleeezzee! Wonder how long it took for them to dream that obvious attention seeking symbol. Maybe that's why Jackie was not at court last week on Baby Boy's birthday...maybe she was sitting at her diningroom table making courtroom favors.

[Sandylapper]

Think I heard they're trying to get a translator for the maid--she doesn't speak English. That shouldn't be difficult, should it? Think she's Spanish.

[Sandylapper]

ROFL!!

[Devil_Anse]

He said she only washed half the floor? Weird!

She certainly seems to have done a good job of avoiding the media!

[Jackie-O]

Yes isn't it nice to have Mother back??
Alex, I have only seen you over at the Terri and Richard Haynes threads. Ola!!

[Velveeta]

"Courtroom favors"

LOL, you got me giggling on that one!

[Devil_Anse]

LOL!! She's so domestic! Maybe she baked some cookies for the reporters, too.

[Sandylapper]

The maid didn't do a good job on that floor. Poor Laci mopped it again on the 24th, then Scott went fishing, brought dirt in on his shoes, and remopped again. ;^)

[Devil_Anse]

Oh, no! Not another Rosa Lopez type! (Wasn't that the name of the maid in the OJ trial?)