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 ...
I sure would not want to be indited by a Grand Jury.
Prosecution by Information and Indictment: A Comparison
In a prosecution by information, (Preliminary)California law requires that there be an independent evidentiary determination of probable cause in an adversary proceeding before trial [46] but no equivalent right is granted to an accused who is prosecuted by grand jury indictment. Where an indictment is issued by the grand jury, the accused is not afforded the safeguard of an independent judicial evaluation of the evidence.
Indictment by grand jury affords none of the fundamental rights provided in a preliminary examination.[47] Unless he is called as a witness, the defendant has neither the right to appear and present evidence to the grand jury nor to confront witnesses against him [48] Only the district attorney, the attorney general or special counsel may appear and present evidence.[49] Even if called as a witness, a defendant may not have the assistance of counsel to advise him.[50] Although the grand jury may require the district attorney to issue process for defense witnesses when it "has reason to believe that such evidence exists,²[51] this provision is of little practical value since the proceedings are held in secret with no notice to a defendant. Furthermore, as indicate by the opening statement of Penal Code Section 939.7, the grand jury is "not required to hear evidence for the defendant," and thus may reject such evidence at the very outset [52] Without hearing the evidence in the first place, the opportunity to determine whether evidence exists to "explain away the charge" is in effect foreclosed, virtually assuring the finding of an indictment under Penal Code Section 939.8 on the basis of "unexplained or uncontradicted" evidence.[53]
In support of its finding, the grand jury is required to "receive none but evidence that would be admissible over objection at the trial of a criminal action . . . . [54] In determining what is admissible evidence, the grand jury may ask for the advice of the judge or district attorney. However, unless such advice is requested, the judge is excluded from the session,[55] leaving the jury to rely upon the prosecutor to advise it.[56] These contradictions have been the object of criticism by one commentator who has observed:
When the function of indictment . is mated with the responsibility of determining the character of the evidence that supports it, and with the right to exclude all evidence which could explain or contradict, the result is not proper. In short, it is both derogatory of the jury's basic purpose and devoid of fairness.[57]
Thus, a defendant who is subject to indictment by grand jury is denied the right to present evidence to explain or contradict the charge, has no right to appear or to have the assistance of counsel, and may not confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. On the other hand, a defendant charged by information has all of these rights in addition to the fact that, unlike the grand jury indictment process, the evidence is judged by a neutral and detached magistrate capable of independently evaluating the admissibility of that evidence.
Wait a sec, where exactly were you gonna wear that getup at? Unless it is TO your bacolerette party. To wit I still need an invite (hint, hint) you ARE still in town are you not?
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.