Posted on 12/08/2003 5:52:00 AM PST by runningbear
Friend: Peterson was frantic
By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: December 5, 2003, 07:25:21 AM PST
Scott Peterson sounded frantic when he called a friend after Peterson's pregnant wife disappeared Christmas Eve, Modesto businessman Gregory Reed said Thursday. Reed's name surfaced in the intrigue-packed preliminary hearing for Scott Peterson. The hearing ended Nov. 18 with a judge ordering the 31-year-old former fertilizer salesman to stand trial on charges of slaying Laci Peterson and their unborn son, Conner.
Other former acquaintances of the defendant, also mentioned at the proceeding, refused to comment.
Reed and his wife, Kristen, held private Lamaze sessions attended by the Petersons, who lived a few blocks away in the La Loma neighborhood. Gregory Reed previously said the Petersons brought meals and visited after the Reeds' child was born.
"They were good people," Reed said Thursday.
At the preliminary hearing, detectives testified that on the night of Dec. 24, Scott Peterson told them he fished alone briefly that day in San Francisco Bay. Peterson said his wife, who had been planning to walk their dog when he left, was gone when he returned.
Prosecutors contend that Peterson used his pickup to transport the body of his wife to his work warehouse and then to the bay.
Steve Jacobson, a prosecution investigator, testified that Peterson used his cell phone to call Reed shortly after leaving the Berkeley Marina on Dec. 24, and again later that evening. There was nothing unusual about the first call, Reed said.
"I could tell he was driving," Reed said, "but I don't know where. I could hear road noise and feedback.
"A few hours later I did get that frantic phone call. I caught up with him and went over to the house."
Family members, friends and neighbors gathered that night to post fliers and search for the mother-to-be.
Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos of Los Angeles, appeared at the hearing to draw the image of a man concerned at having returned to an empty house. Jacobson confirmed that Peterson made numerous calls the evening of Dec. 24, including several to his wife's mother, Sharon Rocha, and sister, Amy Rocha, and later to 911........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taping calls is legally tricky
By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: December 6, 2003, 07:01:58 AM PST
Amber Frey secretly taped her phone conversations with suspected double-murderer Scott Peterson, but such an action is only legal under very specific circumstances. Recording calls is against the law in California -- unless the one taping gets the other person's consent. Another law permits covert recording to gather evidence of certain crimes, including murder.
That's how Frey did it. In fact, she had help from detectives who bought her a recording device and showed her how to use it -- hoping she could extract evidence from her boyfriend.
Peterson, 31, is scheduled to stand trial Jan. 26 on charges of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
In a preliminary hearing last month, authorities suggested that the defendant's romance with Frey may have provided him with a motive to kill his wife.
Frey approached Modesto police on Dec. 30, six days after Laci Peterson went missing, and began cooperating with authorities. Detective Al Brocchini testified that he gave her taping equipment that same day.
Brocchini said he bought some of it at Radio Shack. The store sells a "recorder control" for $24.19 -- with a caution urging buyers to check local laws because taping without consent is illegal in some states.
Questioning from a defense attorney suggested that Frey had begun taping their calls on her own as of Dec. 16.
In any case, she continued recording their calls for about seven weeks. Transcripts from one featured Peterson saying he was "longing to hold onto" Frey; he repeatedly deflected questions about having previously lied about his wife and unborn baby.
Authorities also obtained wiretap warrants for Peterson's cell phones allowing them to record all of his calls. Those recordings were not discussed at the preliminary hearing, though prosecutors reserved the option of introducing that evidence at trial.
Before 1967, anyone in California could tape a phone chat without fear of going afoul of the law. But state legislators that year adopted a series of eavesdropping statutes, including one prohibiting one-party-consent recording.
"To me, it's just offensive that people record conversations, in terms of .......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court, Stanislaus County December 5, 2003
Minute Order: Findings on Sealing Orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court, Stanislaus County December 5, 2003
Minute Order: Correction to Minute Order of 12/3/03.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
Wow, going to get some use to, to a name change after I hung onto mine all my life...lol. Maybe I can use both?
I have used tapes several times in court---to impeach false testimony---you know, to help a LIAR's memory. Courts won't let you bring tapes in directly, but they CAN be brought in to refute false statements by the opposition.
I don't USUALLY tape conversations, but there have been several times when I thought someone was starting to act strangely in a business situation, and would tell me the truth directly, but was sending strangely different signals in their behaviour, so I secretly started taping our conversations.
Sure enough, in EVERY case, they developed amnesia when a really important time came for the truth to be stated. And in EVERY case, their sudden onset of amnesia disappeared---AFTER the tapes came out.
One warning before considering taping, of course, is that YOU must be telling the truth at ALL times, so that in the end, it is NOT "YOUR word against THEIR word," it is "THEIR word against THEIR word!" How can they argue with that? Answer: They CAN'T!
Oh, and if they say "I don't recall" as an answer, and YOU DO recall the situation vividly (and can TRUTHFULLY swear to it under oath), a lawyer of mine once asked the defendant "well, if YOU DON'T recall, and my client DOES RECALL---VIVIDLY---would you have any reason to doubt his/her recollection?"
The good news is that the defendant has two choices: (1) The defendant will virtually certainly say no meaning that YOUR recollection is taken as FACT (and it BETTER be true!!!!), and (2) If they say yes, they are ADMITTING they DO recall and have just PERJURED themselves in the previous claim of not recalling. Either way, it is a WIN-WIN for YOU---again, assuming YOU are telling the truth and the defendant is lying. It worked like a champ!
Scotty-boy smelled funny to me from day one...as did OJ, Susan Smith, Jon Benet's mom, and Walker Railey (the former Dallas Methodist preacher who if I recall correctly was found civilly liable in the attempted murder of his strangled wife and who was left "PVS" (sound familiar to Terri???), etc.
None of them seemed even remotely upset that their "loved one" had been murdered or that a murder was attempted, but which left their "loved one" permanently disabled.
Amazing, isn't it?
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.