Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Peterson's ex-girlfriend testifies today
The National Post ^ | 11/12/03 | Julie Smith

Posted on 11/12/2003 5:28:47 AM PST by runningbear

Peterson's ex-girlfriend testifies today
Amber Frey: Detective told court husband lamented wife's death weeks before her murder

Peterson's ex-girlfriend testifies today
Amber Frey: Detective told court husband lamented wife's death weeks before her murder

Julie Smyth
National Post

Wednesday, November 12, 2003


Laci and Scott Peterson celebrate Christmas in this undated family photo. Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant, disappeared last Christmas Eve. Her body and that of her unborn son were found in April.

The murder trial of Scott Peterson, accused of killing his pregnant wife and their unborn child, has not even begun, yet a preliminary hearing is already providing the tabloids and talk shows with enough salacious details to keep the American public captivated.

The hearing is set to provide even more fodder for the media this week -- Amber Frey, Mr. Peterson's former girlfriend, is expected to take the stand as early as today as a key witness. She will be speaking for the first time since she went public in January about their affair, when she claimed she had no idea her ex-boyfriend was married and expecting a child. She went to the police when she discovered his pregnant wife was missing.

Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant with her first child, disappeared from her Modesto, Calif., home on Christmas Eve.

In April, her body and that of her unborn son, whom she wanted to name Connor, washed up on the shore of San Francisco Bay, just miles from where Mr. Peterson had told police he was fishing the day his wife vanished.

The most sensational details came on Thursday, when a police detective revealed to the court that Mr. Peterson told Ms. Frey on Dec. 9, more than two weeks before Mrs. Peterson went missing, that he had "lost his wife" and that the upcoming holidays would be his first without her.

Ms. Frey told police her former lover said he would be able to spend more time with her after Jan. 26, Detective Al Brocchini told the court.

Mr. Peterson initially denied to police that he had been involved with Ms. Frey, a massage therapist and single mother, but eventually went public about his affair during a television interview with Diane Sawyer. He said Mrs. Peterson, a 27-year-old substitute teacher, knew about the affair and they were working through their problems. Speaking through teary eyes, he told the cameras they had a "glorious" marriage and never fought about his infidelity.

Det. Brocchini, who investigated Mrs. Peterson's disappearance, testified last week that police discovered on Dec. 9 that Mr. Peterson had bought a boat and paid for it with cash -- more than a dozen US$100 bills, according to the man who sold him the boat. He said Mr. Peterson also paid cash -- 36 US$100 bills -- for a car, according to another man who sold Mr. Peterson the vehicle in San Diego shortly before his arrest. Mr. Peterson filled out the paperwork using his mother's name, the court heard.

Mr. Peterson, a 31-year-old fertilizer salesman, spent days leading a volunteer search when his wife first went missing. However, he came under the spotlight when police began searching his house, boat and truck and after Ms. Frey admitted to their affair. Police arrested him on April 18, not far from the Mexico border. His hair was bleached blond and he was carrying US$10,000 in cash.

He was charged with two counts of capital murder and could face the death penalty.

Mr. Peterson has denied any guilt and his lawyers have vowed to find the real killers, raising the possibility of a satanic cult killing.

The preliminary hearing at Stanislaus County Superior Court................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modesto Man Goes Hollywood, Opens Speciality Shops

Modesto Man Goes Hollywood, Opens Speciality Shops

Tue, Nov 11, 2003, 05:11 PM PT
By Hanh Nguyen

LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - Former hotel general manager Brad Saltzman, who served as a chief volunteer in the search for missing Modesto, Calif., woman Laci Peterson, has gone Hollywood.

He's opening a Pure Foods, a chain of retail stores specializing in

b, low-fat and sugar-free items important to diets such as the Atkins, Zone and South Beach diets, which are popular in the showbiz world.

Celebs such as Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt owe their svelte bodies to the Atkins diet, while Madonna, Demi Moore and Charlie Sheen are fans of the Zone.

Saltzman says the stress of the Peterson case caused him to gain weight, especially before being forced to resign in July after refusing to accommodate the parents of Scott Peterson, the husband suspected of murdering Laci and their unborn son last Christmas. Their bodies were found in a marina along the San Francisco Bay shoreline.

"I guess I ate a little too much, for the same reasons a lot of us do -- to escape," says Saltzman about dealing with his dubious notoriety.

But after losing more than 20 pounds on the Atkins Diet while trying to piece back together, Saltzman decided to focus on his health.

"I had several offers from other hotels," he says. "But after all the media attention and negative energy associated with the Peterson case, I decided to take a totally different direction and make a new start."

An estimated 35 million people are now embracing some form of low-carb diet and many more will no doubt make a fresh start after the upcoming ......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson mailbox is alleged

Peterson mailbox is alleged

By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: November 9, 2003, 08:17:54 AM PST

Scott Peterson told his lover in late December to send a Christmas present to his private mailbox, according to well-placed sources.

Peterson rented a private mailbox on Dec. 23 -- the same day that his pregnant wife, Laci, visited her obstetrician and watched her sister cut her husband's hair. Authorities have said they believe Scott Peterson murdered his wife that night or the next morning.

Around the same period, Peterson told Fresno massage therapist Amber Frey that he could not spend the holidays with her, but "would be able to be with her more exclusively like Jan. 25," a detective testified Thursday in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

Peterson also told Frey that he would be out of the country for the holidays, his first without his wife, Modesto police Detective Al Brocchini testified Thursday.

Frey, 28 and a single mother, has said she did not know that Peterson was married when they met Nov. 20. On Dec. 9, he told her that he had "lost his wife," Brocchini said at Peterson's preliminary hearing on double-murder charges.

Also on Dec. 9, Peterson bought a 14-foot aluminum fishing boat -- a central part of the prosecution's case. Authorities say they believe Peterson carried his wife's body in the boat. A hair found in pliers in the boat could have been Laci Peterson's, an FBI expert testified Oct. 29, the first day of the hearing.

Peterson is accused in the deaths of his wife and their unborn son, Conner. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Frey's attorney, Gloria Allred of Los Angeles, refused Friday to confirm or deny the account of Peterson's private mailbox.

Peterson accompanied Frey to a party in Fresno on Dec. 14. A photo, widely circulated since, captured the cozy couple by a Christmas tree.

Sources said Frey, downcast at having to spend the holidays without her boyfriend, talked to him on the phone about exchanging gifts. Peterson instructed her to send a gift to his private mailbox, the sources said.

Brocchini testified Thursday that Peterson denied having an affair when the detective interviewed him Christmas Eve for a missing person report on Laci Peterson.

Scott Peterson also denied the affair to reporters. He came clean Jan. 28 -- four days after Frey revealed their romance at a news conference arranged by Modesto police.

Frey secretly taped her phone conversations with Peterson after she learned the ...........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Boy Named JacquelineA Boy Named Jacqueline

POSTED: 2:56 PM PST November 7, 2003
UPDATED: 5:12 PM PST November 9, 2003

MODESTO, Calif. -- After days of scientific information on DNA, testimony at the Scott Peterson preliminary hearing finally got down to the heart of the prosecution's case with the testimony of detective Al Brocchini. Here are excerpts from Brocchini's testimony about what Scott Peterson told him during their first meeting -- hours after Laci Peterson was reported missing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video

Ted Rowlands Friday Report From Modesto

Video

Ted Rowlands Reports On Brocchini's Testimony

On the happening at the Peterson household on Christmas Eve morning (Brocchini's answers are designated 'A' and Assistant D.A. Rick Distaso's questions are designated

'Q'):

MR. DISTASO: Q. What time did the defendant say he woke up?

A. He woke up about 8:00 o'clock. Laci had gotten up a little bit earlier.

Q. And did he say whether or not they both ate breakfast?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?

A. He said he got up after Laci, took a shower and went had a bowl of cereal.

Q. Did he say what Laci had had for breakfast?

A. Said she had a bowl of cereal.

Q. What did he say happened next? Or what did he say they did next?

A. They watched Laci's favorite show, Martha Stewart.

Q. And did he say whether or not they watched the whole show?

A. No, he said he didn't watch the whole show, but I asked him what he remembered about the show.

Q. Okay. And what did he tell you?

A. That they were cooking meringue, something to do with meringue.

Q. Okay. Did he tell you anything else about the show, anything else that he remembered?

A. No............

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murder hearing turns to home

Murder hearing turns to home

By JOHN COTÉ
and GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITERS

Last Updated: November 11, 2003, 07:56:38 AM PST

The questions "Who cleaned what, and when did they clean it?" are hovering over Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing on double-murder charges.

Much of the six days of testimony in Stanislaus County Superior Court has been devoted to mops, a bucket, towels and laundry.

Prosecutors also have focused their questions on items found in Peterson's truck, including patio umbrellas wrapped in a tarp, a loaded .22-caliber handgun and an unopened package of fishing lures.

Judge Al Girolami's gag order prevents attorneys, investigators and others from providing context for the evidence.

But some details are emerging in the case against the 31-year-old Modesto fertilizer salesman charged with murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.

The focus on cleaning in the couple's Covena Avenue home could address two issues: Peterson's statement about what his wife was doing when he says he last saw her, Christmas Eve morning; and whether he attempted to sanitize a crime scene.

Testimony also focused on whether animals were in the home -- Peterson's explanation for a displaced throw rug and a reason that he gave for cleaning the floors twice in two days.

Peterson said his wife was mopping the floor in front of French doors in the kitchen area as he left at about 9:30 a.m. to go fishing in San Francisco Bay, a police detective testified last week.

Peterson told police that he returned home between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m. and his wife was missing.

House cleaner Margarita Nava testified that she cleaned the home the day before as part of her regular two-week rounds. Nava said she mopped the floors with water and Pine-Sol and used bleach only in the bathroom.

The floors were dirty and there was animal hair in the home, Nava said. There was an animal bed in "Laci's bedroom" and a water bowl in the bathroom. Nava said she did not know if they were for a cat or a dog.

Nava said she put towels used to clean a door in the mopping bucket and placed it on top of the washing machine, behind a set of doors in the living room.

Nava said she then put the mop outside to dry.

Peterson told police that his wife asked him to bring in the mop bucket from outside Christmas Eve morning because "she was pregnant, so she couldn't carry it," Detective Al Brocchini testified.

Peterson said he placed the bucket near the front door, and there were two mops present, Brocchini testified.

Peterson said that upon his return from the bay, he opened the French doors, and the cat and dog ran in, with the cat heading toward the bucket, Brocchini said.

"He thought the cat was gonna spill it or drink out of it," Brocchini said. "He took it out and dumped it."

Peterson told police that he set the bucket and mops outside, along a walkway that leads to the front door, where the first officer on the scene, Jon Evers, said they were in plain sight when he arrived at about 6:30 p.m. Dec. 24 in response to the missing person report about Laci Peterson.

Early in the investigation, police sources said there was a noticeable smell of bleach when officers entered the home, but Evers and Brocchini both have testified that they did not smell bleach or other cleaners.

After putting the bucket outside, Peterson told police, he removed some towels from the washing machine, put them on top of the machine, undressed and washed the clothes that he had been wearing, Brocchini said.

The detective testified that he found a laundry basket overflowing in the master bedroom and dirty white towels on top of the washing machine.

Questioning also keyed on a rug that two police officers said was bunched up against a doorway when they responded to the missing person call..........

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Superior Court, Stanislaus County

November 6, 2003

Minute Order: Preliminary Hearing

(ie; Seventh day court provided overview)

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: avoidingchildsupport; baby; babyunborn; conner; deathpenaltytime; dontubelievemyalibi; getarope; ibefishing; laci; lacipeterson; smallbaby; smallchild; sonkiller; unborn; wifekiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-260 next last
To: Sandylapper
Sounds like Johnnie's talking out his ass, as usual! He's there to sell books.

What the MPD has of those tapes, they're apparently turning over. End of story, IMO!
221 posted on 11/12/2003 10:24:11 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
I never got to see the transcripts of that particular motion by Geragos, and the judge's response. I believe that granting of a "motion for dismissal" would probably not be done if the evidence prosecution presents is so overwhelming that it can't be ignored. You'd better believe that if Girolami can think of any reason for the case to go forward, it's going. How would ever ignore the fact that Laci and the baby's bodies washed up a mile or so from where Scott had been fishing? If the judge did use language such as Cochran's, I need to see the transcript. Alas, the full transcripts are hard to come by.
222 posted on 11/12/2003 10:39:37 PM PST by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
You have mail.
223 posted on 11/12/2003 10:53:52 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
I read that part of the transcript, at least the part from last week where Geragos and McAllister brought it up. I was trying to read carefully, since I was wondering what this FBI surveillance was about. I absolutely do not remember the judge saying anything like that. All the judge did was listen, and then he abruptly just said, okay, let's get to today's witness. And Brocchini began to testify.

If this case gets dismissed, the DA can bring it to the grand jury. (Not the federal one--a state grand jury.) But if it DOES get dismissed, it's NOT going to be b/c of some fantasy Geragos has about these FBI tapes. Not gonna happen.
224 posted on 11/12/2003 11:24:54 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Back atcha!
225 posted on 11/12/2003 11:25:22 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Then Geragos' motion was not a formal motion--just a hypothetical. Right? Seems like a judge would respond to a motion.
226 posted on 11/12/2003 11:48:35 PM PST by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
material things matter more to scaughty than humanoids..... ;o)
227 posted on 11/13/2003 5:00:04 AM PST by runningbear (Lurkers beware, Freeping is public opinions based on facts, theories, and news online.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
I have no doubt that Geragos really moved to have the case dismissed b/c of the FBI taping--that it was not hypothetical. But that doesn't mean the judge has to rule right away. Furthermore, the issue hadn't necessarily "ripened." I mean, okay, suppose the state HAD been remiss somehow. Suppose that under CA law, the state DID have an obligation to go over there, put a choke-hold on the FBI, and FORCE them to turn over those tapes.

Still, that doesn't mean that the state wouldn't be given some time to comply, some time to answer the complaint that the defense was making. Did you read where Distaso outlined all the attempts he'd made to GET these tapes? That counts for something.

The state is entitled to fairness, too. If one side complains of the other, the other is at least given a chance to remedy the situation--if that can be done.

These FBI tapes are not necessarily exculpatory evidence, and therefore they don't necessarily fall under the Brady v. Maryland case. If they are exculpatory, however, it's possible that in CA law the state has some further obligation regarding getting them.

But normally, the state is only required to give the defense those things which it HAS that the defendant is entitled to be given.

Every time Geragos makes a motion, doesn't automatically mean it's going to be granted, nor does it even mean that he necessarily expects it to be successful.

228 posted on 11/13/2003 5:02:24 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
I've been thinking bout snott drowning Laci. No blood, no sign of a struggle, and no noise. Kind of makes sense.
229 posted on 11/13/2003 5:57:15 AM PST by melodie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
"But normally, the state is only required to give the defense those things which it HAS that the defendant is entitled to be given."

At this point would Geragos only be entitled to evidence that is used in the preliminary hearing? If the prosecution is holding some of the evidence for trial can they keep that from Geragos up and until 30 days before the trial begins?
230 posted on 11/13/2003 5:57:47 AM PST by drjulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: hergus
I just had the chance to look at your site - WOW!
Everything is there - Thank you. { you must be way up there in the wiz kid group!}
231 posted on 11/13/2003 6:33:59 AM PST by Cloe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Anse, I do understand that the judge didn't have to make a firm ruling on the motion, but thought that he in some way would have had to acknowledge a formal motion before the court. According to Cochran, it was and in this manner:

"And the judge has said if the FBI doesn't turn those tapes over, that there may be -- a motion for dismissal may be granted."

I don't know if Cochran was lying or not. The exact words of the judge and Geragos are in the transcripts which I haven't seen. Believe you have and don't think he acknowledged the motion.

232 posted on 11/13/2003 9:41:43 AM PST by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay; All
Last night Greta showed the surveillance cameras on the poles from last week and now they are gone, pictures below on URL.

Also, according to KTVU's Ted Rowlands, Kim McGregor broke some glass to enter the Peterson house.
Photos, a videocamera, christmas presents, and several of Laci's sweaters were stolen in this break-in. While in the Peterson house McGregor draped herself in Laci's wedding dress and laid down on Laci's bed.

http://community-2.webtv.net/westri/laci2/page5.html
233 posted on 11/13/2003 1:51:48 PM PST by hergus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich; Spunky; Sandylapper; All
I was watching for pictures of sliding glass doors last night and grabbed this one.

I think I can see them in this URL:

http://community-2.webtv.net/westri/laci2/page6.html

What do you think?
234 posted on 11/13/2003 2:02:36 PM PST by hergus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: hergus; Spunky; All
I think I can see sliding glass doors, but they appear to be the side of the house where the driveway is located (re the truck). Didn't know there was a fence in that specific area. I thought the fence, and the doors (either French or sliding) were on the other side of the house, in the "L". It's still confusing to me. Sorry I'm apparently so dense.
235 posted on 11/13/2003 3:18:19 PM PST by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: hergus
This Kim McGregor is a piece of work, isn't she? Strange selection of items stolen, IMO, and why did she break glass if she had a key?
236 posted on 11/13/2003 3:22:14 PM PST by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: hergus
I see glass. It could be from the sitting area or either of the two bedrooms on that side of the house depending upon the angle of the camera. With the fence and the corner of the living room blocking the full view, it's hard to say if the glass is part of a window or a door. I'm not much help, huh?
237 posted on 11/13/2003 3:34:14 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: drjulie
No, there is a continuing duty for them to turn things over, once the judge has ruled that it is discoverable. They can't hold stuff, if the judge has ruled that they must turn it over.

Geragos has filed a "Brady" motion, asking the judge to order the state to turn over any exculpatory evidence which the state has in its possession. I am sure this motion was granted. If the state then fails to turn over exculpatory evidence, this might cause the prosecution to fail.

Geragos has also asked for discovery of other things, besides just exculpatory evidence. If the state is ordered to turn over certain things, and doesn't, the state may not be allowed to use such evidence at trial. Theoretically, the reverse is also true for Geragos, though obviously if the state loses (if Scott is acquitted), the state can't appeal that.
238 posted on 11/13/2003 3:34:51 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
It appears that the judge is doing everything to promote settlement of this issue regarding the FBI videotapes. He would obviously rather settle the issue than do anything drastic like dismiss the case on such trivial grounds. So I think he is giving the parties a chance to resolve this issue b/f he rules.

Judges take their time ruling on some things. In fact, they do this so often, there are even built-in rules in every code of procedure, rules to tell lawyers what to do in the event that they have made a motion but have received no ruling on it from the judge. An example of such a rule is a rule which says, "if the judge has not issued a ruling on it within 60 days of its filing, the motion is deemed denied." That's just an example, not something that has come up in this case.
239 posted on 11/13/2003 3:38:44 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
That's a good question: why did Kim break glass when she had a key?
240 posted on 11/13/2003 3:40:10 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-260 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson