Posted on 11/17/2003 5:38:18 AM PST by runningbear
Detective: Laci Peterson's body dressed in tan pants, contradicting husband's account
Detective: Laci Peterson's body dressed in tan pants, contradicting husband's account
BRIAN MELLEY, Associated Press Writer Friday, November 14, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11-14) 12:31 PST MODESTO, Calif. (AP) --
A police detective acknowleged Friday that he didn't follow up on a tip from a woman who claimed to have seen someone resembling Laci Peterson in a park on the day her husband says she disappeared.
Under cross-examination by attorneys for Scott Peterson, Detective Philip Owen said he didn't pursue the tip because he didn't think it was "going in the right direction."
Peterson's attorneys have suggested during the preliminary hearing, in its ninth day Friday, that detectives zeroed in on Laci Peterson's husband as a suspect, and ignored other leads.
Owen said he didn't feel the woman's tip was credible because it conflicted with other information detectives had received.
The woman, an employee at the Stanislaus County Hospital, told police she saw a woman who resembled Laci Peterson walking a barking golden retriever in the park near the Peterson home at around 10:45 a.m. on Dec. 24. The tipster reported that two men walking near the woman told her to shut the dog up.
On Thursday, Karen Servas, who lived near the couple, testified that she found Laci Peterson's golden retriever wandering in the street at "approximately 10:18 a.m."
Scott Peterson told police that he last saw his wife, who was eight months pregnant, on the morning of Christmas Eve as he left to go fishing.
Laci Peterson's remains washed ashore in San Francisco Bay in April, just three miles from where her husband said he'd been fishing that day.
On Thursday, Owen said Laci Peterson's body was clad in tan pants -- not the black pants her husband reported she was wearing when he left on his fishing trip.
The pants matched a pair bought on Peterson's account at a Modesto maternity store, Owen said. Her half sister, Amy Rocha, testified she was wearing tan pants Dec. 23 -- the last time anyone other than her husband reported seeing her alive.
Prosecutors contend that Peterson killed his pregnant wife later that night or early the next morning and then dumped her body in San Francisco Bay.
Owen was the third policeman to take the stand in Stanislaus County Superior Court to determine whether the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman is tried on murder charges in the slayings of his wife and unborn son.
Detective Al Brocchini, the first detective on the case, wrapped up his third day of testimony Thursday, revealing more details about what led police to keep their focus on Peterson.
On three days in early January, undercover police officers trailed Peterson to the Berkeley Marina -- the place he said he launched his boat to go fishing........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'TEE' TWIST IN LACI-SLAY ALIBI
'TEE' TWIST IN LACI-SLAY ALIBI
By HOWARD BREUER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 16, 2003 -- MODESTO, Calif. - Avid golfer Scott Peterson not only told his sister-in-law about his plans to play golf the day he allegedly murdered his pregnant wife and dumped her off his fishing boat - he had a reservation at the course that he never used, The Post has learned.
"He had a tee time of about 9 a.m. or 9:30 on Dec. 24, and he never called to cancel it. He just didn't show up," said an insider at the Del Rio Country Club, where Peterson bought a $25,000 membership months before Laci's Christmas Eve disappearance.
The club discreetly booted Peterson out after the public began to suspect he killed his wife.
"He was such an avid golfer," the insider said. "It seems unusual that he didn't show up. It seemed that something else intervened."
Although Peterson's preliminary hearing on double-murder charges enters its fourth week tomorrow, witnesses have so far offered no testimony that Peterson went so far as to book a tee time at his golf club.
In recent court testimony, witnesses testified that, when Scott reported Laci missing Christmas Eve, he told police that he had planned to play golf Dec. 24 but he decided that morning it was too cold so he went fishing by himself at the Berkeley Marina.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are not allowed to discuss evidence with the media because of a gag order. Officials at the upscale country club have repeatedly refused to discuss Peterson.
On Dec. 23 - the last time family members saw Laci Peterson alive - Scott told sister-in-law Amy Rocha that he planned to play golf the following day.
University of Washington law professor Lis Wiehl........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By HOWARD BREUER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 15, 2003 -- MODESTO, Calif. - Scott Peterson's defense may subpoena his former mistress Amber Frey in a bold gamble to put the prosecution's ace witness on the stand early, lawyers close to the case said yesterday. It became clear last week that the prosecution would not call Frey as a witness during Peterson's preliminary hearing on charges that he murdered wife Laci Peterson and their unborn son Connor. That hearing is now in its second week.
But when Peterson is eventually tried, Frey could supply damaging testimony about her extramarital fling with Peterson, and provide crucial motive evidence.
Defense lawyer Mark Geragos refused to confirm or deny a report by the Fox News Channel that he's issued a subpoena for the blond massage therapist. But the lawyer said yesterday he has the right to make Frey testify.
"If I want her, they [prosecutors] have to produce her," Geragos told The Post.
A legal analyst said the defense could benefit from the unconventional move.
"Up to now, it's always been believed she'd be damaging to the defense, but maybe Geragos has something on her - he was clearly upset when the prosecution said they weren't going to be calling her," said Fox News Channel legal editor Stan Goldman, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
"I spoke to Mr. Geragos and he told me no final decision has been made," said Gloria Allred, Frey's lawyer. "There will be no decision on that until at least Monday.
Even then, she added, "the defense will still have to show .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge may accept DNA evidence
Last Updated: November 14, 2003, 03:41:00 PM PST
3:37 p.m., PST: Judge Al Girolami is leaning toward allowing mitochondrial DNA evidence in Scott Peterson’s ongoing preliminary hearing, the judge said this afternoon.
But he agreed to hear one last argument from each side. Girolami did not say if he intends to issue a ruling when court adjourns for the day at about 4 p.m.
A subhearing on mitchondrial DNA testing has been woven into the larger preliminary hearing since it began Oct. 29. The Peterson proceeding is breaking new ground because mitochondrial DNA analysis has never before been used for forensic evidence in California courts.
Two FBI experts have testified that such testing is accepted in the scientific community, while a defense expert said it is unreliable and vulnerable to contamination.
The issue is important to both sides of the Peterson case. A prosecution theory relies on a test showing that a hair found in Peterson’s boat could have come from his pregnant wife; authorities say the defendant could have used the boat to transport his wife’s body.
Peterson is charged with murdering Laci Peterson and their unborn son, who was to be named Conner.
Girolami, however, said he has “issues” with the relatively small database used by the FBI for mitochondrial DNA analysis. It has only 5,071 samples, with only 1,833 from Caucasians.
Also this afternoon, defense attorney Mark Geragos appeared to suggest that a hair from Laci Peterson could have attached to a tracking dog in her home, then fell off in the boat when officers asked the dog to try picking up the missing woman’s scent.
The hair has taken center stage of a legal battle, with disputes over whether it broke in two while in police custody or whether another hair was introduced into the original sample.
Rodney Oswalt, a state Department of Justice criminalist, acknowledged under questioning by Geragos that he did not conclude that two fragments were parts of the same hair.........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court, Stanislaus County
November 14, 2003
Minute Order: Preliminary Hearing
(ie; Tenth day court provided overview)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer tried to trap Peterson Detective testifies that he prodded suspect's friends, mistress for clues.
Bee News Services
(Published Thursday, November 13, 2003, 9:40 AM)
MODESTO -- A detective who spent Christmas Eve questioning Scott Peterson and the next four months trying to find his missing pregnant wife testified Wednesday about how officers enlisted Peterson's friends, neighbors and mistress in the effort to snare him.
Detective Al Brocchini said he called friends of Scott and Laci Peterson to point out news articles about his extramarital affair and a $250,000 insurance policy Peterson took out on his wife. The insurance policy information later turned out to be inaccurate.
The officer said he asked neighbors to provide tips and tried to get friends to prod Scott Peterson for details about what happened to his wife.
The remains of the 27-year-old substitute teacher and her unborn son washed ashore in San Francisco Bay in April only a few miles from where Peterson said he was fishing Christmas Eve when she vanished.
At one point, Brocchini made a note that he "was attempting to plant the seeds of suspicion" in the mind of a friend of Laci Peterson's.
The testimony came as the defense continued cross-examining Brocchini, the first detective to investigate the disappearance of the pregnant woman. The defense has claimed investigators focused suspicion on Peterson and failed to catch the "real killers."
Defense lawyer Mark Geragos also renewed his claim Wednesday that investigators neglected to notify him of surveillance tapes of the Peterson home. He called the failure "a problem of monumental proportions" and said it could lead to a request to dismiss the case.
Brocchini said he took part in discussions with other officers about themes that mistress Amber Frey should discuss with Peterson to coax a confession from him during phone calls she was secretly recording.
Brocchini said he gave Frey a tape recorder Dec. 30 and bought equipment at a Radio Shack store to help with her taping. Investigators hoped Peterson would not realize she was cooperating with them, the detective said.
Laci Peterson's mother and brother, Sharon and Brent Rocha, also ......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Your comment is yet ANOTHER good illustration of why the police do not tell the public everything immediately! I know you see how much more credible that witness' statement would be if the name of the boat was NOT released at that time!
It's things like that that make me disagree strongly with those who think the police have an obligation to tell us, the public, all sorts of information, as soon as they have it. IMO, just b/c the police keep some things under their hats during an investigation does NOT mean they are necessarily engaging in a "cover-up".
(I'm not aiming this mini-rant at you, Sacajaweau, I'm addressing comments that have been made by some other posters from time to time.)
PS He also knew he'd need that fishing license when he WAS out on the water--presumably in the dark wee hours of Dec. 24--just in case some fish/game warden stopped him while he was out there.
If you feel like wading through all this, it gives a better understanding of a Preliminary Hearing versus a Grand Jury in Calif.
It appears to me a District Attorney can either proceed by a Preliminary or by Grand Jury, but not both at the same time.
It also appears though that if they go with a Preliminary Hearing and the Judge decides there is not enough evidence to go to Criminal Trial, then the District Attorney can take it before a Grand Jury.
Below is the Conclusion of the long article about Grand Juries versus Preliminary Hearings
Conclusion
Felony suspects who desire to contest the existence of probable cause to support a formal accusation against them presently face a substantial handicap when accused by a grand jury indictment as opposed to being accused by information.(Preliminary) Under the latter procedure, they are entitled to the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses and the right to present evidence--rights which protect fundamental interests at a critical stage of the proceedings.[105] Yet, those rights may be entirely denied in the absolute discretion of the district attorney to proceed by grand jury indictment in lieu of prosecution by information.
No compelling state interest is apparent to justify such discrimination. Because of the California Supreme Court¹s recently articulated equal protection-due process test for invidious discrimination [106] and the United States Supreme Court¹s recent expansion of due process requirements [107] in dealing with parole revocations, it would appear that a modification of this arbitrary power to prosecute by grand jury indictment sans preliminary hearing may soon be anticipated
Grand Jury Indictment Versus Prosecution By Information
But I may be misunderstanding the whole process still as I can do that. :-)
Bingo! That makes sense to me.
Thanks for the research, Spunky!
Oopps! I forgot about it being a Federal Grand Jury.
When I get more time I will try and research that, but now off to the Dentist.
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.