Posted on 06/07/2004 5:30:22 AM PDT by runningbear
Facing killers at trial no reward for parents
EXCERPTS:
Facing killers at trial no reward for parents
BY JOHN COTÉ and GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: June 7, 2004, 05:05:05 AM PDT
Testifying as the man accused of murdering your daughter looks on is something Teresa Vanderheiden doesn't wish on anybody.
"You try to keep your eyes focused on one thing," Vanderheiden said. "I remember looking at the clock a lot, thinking that would avoid it. But your eyes meet."
Anger flashed through Vanderheiden as -- in separate trials -- she came face to face with the men accused of murdering her 25-year-old daughter, Cyndi, in 1998.
"They're looking at you and as you look down and see them, you want to … " Vanderheiden, speaking from her Clements home, trailed off for a moment. "You just want to get rid of them."........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony Resumes In Scott Peterson's Double-Murder Trial
Laci's Half-Sister Scheduled To Return To Witness Stand
POSTED: 5:14 pm PDT June 6, 2004
UPDATED: 5:22 pm PDT June 6, 2004
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- Testimony is set to resume Monday in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial.
Peterson's deceased wife's half-sister is scheduled to return to the witness stand.
Amy Rocha testified last week about the frantic scene at the Petersons' home on the day Laci Peterson was reported missing. ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N O T E B O O K / T H E T R I A L S O F . . .
Peterson's Martha Defense
By CHRIS TAYLOR
Monday, Jun. 14, 2004
Martha Stewart was back in the legal spotlight last week — at another high-profile trial that has obsessed the media. As Scott Peterson went on trial for the murder of his pregnant wife Laci, the defense scored a surreal but key point by playing a videotape of the TV homemaker. Peterson had said that on the morning the prosecution says he killed Laci, she was watching Stewart talk about meringue. The Modesto, Calif., police department claimed no meringue was mentioned on Stewart's show that morning. But Peterson attorney Mark Geragos, in his opening statement, played the tape and showed otherwise.
That was just the first of many early embarrassments for the authorities. Geragos has displayed a talent for getting prosecution witnesses to point out inaccuracies in police reports. While prosecutors were trying to show that Laci was too tired to walk the family dog, as Peterson claims she was going to do the last time he saw her, they also inexplicably pointed out that she was able to go to a salon and a spa and buy about $100 worth of groceries that day. "It's a bit confusing what the prosecution is doing at this point," says former San Francisco district attorney Jim Hammer. ..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Valet Parking, LLC Announced Today the Company Expects to Hit $500,000.00 in Sales This Year
"LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 7, 2004--
Former Chief Volunteer in the Laci Peterson Case Co-Founded Drive after Being Forced to Resign from His Modesto Hotel for Refusing Rooms to Scott Peterson's Parents
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
Rocha also testified she accompanied police Feb 18 during a search of the Petersons' Covena Avenue home and identified PANTS, a blouse and shoes she thought her sister had worn the last time she saw her but not a black coat she was wearing. If this is just an error on the part of the Modbee, it's a tremendous error and makes you wonder what else they got wrong. There's a big discussion about this over at CourtTV.
How many times can a guy check a hairCUT a day?? How weird!! I still can't get over that TO DO List!! "Practice crying"? Brother. On Websleuths there is a thread talking about all the PARENTS lies!! It's good too.
Oh no, you mean it wasn't real??? Drat!!
I don't know what happened today but if the "expert" is basing his comments on last Thursday's exchange with Geragos, he's wrong. All Amy said was that what Laci was wearing was different than the pants in pictures of pants that Det. Grogan had shown her. Evidently he had some clothing catalog type pictures. Has nothing to do with what they found on Laci in Richmond from what I can tell.
Ben, I read that Rick Distasto said " We'll get back to the pants"!! He had some type of expert lined up will testify to specific things such as the "cut", the stitching", and other things and what the water could have done to them.
#84 - THANK YOU RGS!! The media are reporting this trial just terrible. I'm sick of all of them. Getting the "real" transcripts is the thing to do.
This is my first time posting and I am computer challanged, so bear with me. Reading the article link it talked about the dog being put in the back yard with his leash on. I can't stand it anymore and it finally drove me crazy enough to register and post. Who finds a loose dog and just puts said dog in the yard WITH THE LEASH ON? Wouldn't you go to the door first and see if the owner was home? If the owner wasn't home, or course you would put the dog in the yard, but not with the leash on. If the leash was in the condition that was reported, muddy, wouldn't that set off alarm bells for the person who found the dog knowing whos' dog it was and make sure that person was o.k., given Laci's pregenancy? At the very least a phone call to the owner saying you put the dog in the yard and please call to make sure you (Laci) were all right. I'm sorry but you don't leave a leash on a dog - things can happen.
I see a lot of problems with your scheme...especially since law is, especially Anglo-Saxon/American law something which has evolved being refined for centuries. As bad as our system is...its a lot better than practically anywhere else.
If thumbs up, the guilty spends the rest of his/her life in the Joint - no parole. My idea of prison is 6 days of work in 10 hour days. No TV, movies or phone. Three hots and a cot and adequate medical care but no weight rooms, special diets or heroic medicine. The prison population should sustain itself through industry.
No problem with that...doesn't take a constitutional ammendment to mandate that now--as that's what it used to be in prison...and still is in some states. But why would you leave assertion of justice up to the victim's emotional family? All first degree murderers deserve death, period.
If thumbs down, the family would select a member of it choosing to deliver the injection of the lethal cocktail.
You're assuming that families would have consensus and the guts to go through with it...NOT a good assumption. I would wager that FEWER brutal first degree murderers would get the death penalty if this was the case...a misplaced sense of Christian forgiveness would lead many to give leniancy to the worst sort of murderer. Also, many, even though wanting the death penalty, do not want to be responsible for actually being executioner...not a good burden to put on the victim's family.
In this way, all manner of justice would be served:
1) Society would be protected.
No guarantee of that at all...rather I suspect the opposite...since justice would be arbitrary--some terrible murderers getting off easy, and some not as clear cut, being executed--by the whim of the victim's bitter family.
2) The guilty would pay for their crimes with their lives.
Again, no guarantee of that, AT ALL.
3) The wronged would have justice and, if they wish, revenge.
Personal revenge is not the basis of justice and law...social order and punishment is--and courts are there for that purpose.
4) Lethal power would be restricted to the people.
Government in the courts IS by definition, the power of the people. In as much as it is not...due to corrupt liberal powerful judges, the Legislature needs to take the ball and assert its supremacy.
5) Mercy would be an option for those of merciful inclination.
The purpose of law is not to allow the victim to determine mercy or justice, but rather to punish wrong doers CONSISTANTLY... your scheme would result in just the opposite---arbitrary law.
6) Life imprisonment would be assured if the death penalty were not invoked.
No way you can guarantee that, any more than our system now.
7) Life imprisonment might be worse than death for many criminals.
Do you believe in Hell? I do....
8) Society would be freed from the cost of prisoner support.
Only on the assumption more would be executed...which I've shown is a false assumption.
9) Revenuse might actually acrue from prison work and go towards aiding victims of crime.
Good idea--and the 13th Ammendment's only exception to banning "involuntary servitude" is for prisoners. Prisoners in the USA can, while in prison, legally be slaves.
10) The certainty of death or a lifetime of work would, in fact, deter crime.
I think so...but our current system would too...if we had good judges and lawyers. We do not--and any new system will not solve the problem of legal corruption--which resides in the character, or lack thereof, in the players in our system, the system itself only reflects that...doesn't cause it.
Hi & welcome to FR and the Laci thread. Not only the dog, but there are so many strange things with this case that need answers.
would of posted to ya yesterday, but by the time I got home from work..... tired.. He is doing great now. Feels like a champ... Won't know on going back to work if end of June, or wait til mid July.. Not sure, only the doc will know on that. But he is doing fine since the operation(s). Thanks..
All it takes is one reporter or talking head to misinterpret the facts...I saw the testimony for what it was , like you, and will wait to see how the rest of the case comes to light. The CTV boards were going on and on about this too until someone pointed out that she was only referring to a picture, not the actual pants. I can't wait to read Sharon's testimony..her words about her encounters with Snott on that first night must have been power-full!
Great blog!
http://psychesknot.typepad.com/psyches_knot/
Oh yeah, and there is nothing harder to deal with than a large dog that has not been strictly trained to heel. Most pets haven't been rigorously trained this way. I think that's why, while there are leash laws almost everywhere, when you see the people with the Golden Retrievers and labs, you almost always see them exercising their dogs w/o a leash. Those dogs will unwittingly pull you down, if you lose your footing for an instant. Just last night I was watching that footage of when the Reagans were given a large dog, and the camera showed it pulling Nancy while Ronnie was turned the other way, chatting. It was a cute video, but it also showed how hard it is to walk a big exuberant dog.
No, you're not mistaken! It was at some theme park or something. I think it was in San Diego, during Thanksgiving 2002!
I don't think those women on the jury are gonna have any trouble believing that Laci was tired, and men seem also to recognize the perils of pregnancy.
As Rusty Roberts pointed out, walking down the beach at Carmel is a far cry from walking a large, frisky dog.
Check out what juzcuz told us in post 67.
Says Scott invited Amy to join them for pizza at their house Dec. 23. (I know what you're saying... "before or after the murder"?) So if he did ask her over, what does that mean? Is he that good an actor, that he'd make an invitation that he didn't really want her to accept?
Hey, there was leftover pizza in the fridge, according to Scott, on Dec. 24. Maybe they ordered pizza for dinner on Dec. 23. (We know Laci was alive, talking to her mother, at 8:30, anyway.)
So does that mean a pizza deliveryman visited the house on the evening of Dec. 23?
Yes, but that still doesn't make the tan pants she was found in be black pants, as Scott said she was wearing when she was "about to walk the dog".
"Ron Frey speaks out
Last Updated: June 8, 2004, 05:29:53 AM PDT
June 7, 2004
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, THE MODESTO BEE
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you as the father of Amber Frey and as a possible witness myself in the Scott Peterson murder trial.
Since the trial began last week, I have listened with a sinking heart to the opinions of national experts who have strongly criticized the performance of the Modesto prosecutors and second-guessed them.
If I am asked to testify, I would prefer to be examined by the District Attorney, Jim Brazelton, rather than a younger assistant district attorney. Mr. Brazelton is the person I dealt with after the case began and I appreciate his experience and wisdom.
I would also prefer to be cross-examined not by Mr. Geragos, but by his assistant. I find it hard to forget it was Mr. Geragos, through his appearances as an expert on TV after Laci Peterson disappeared, who convinced me that Scott was guilty. Now he's trying to prove that Scott is innocent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Bee posted Ron's letter with his address. I cut it out for privacy reasons. Anyone can click the link and read the full article, and respond if the reason is, Ron wants corresponding letters.
Amber Frey's dad wants Brazelton to question him
Amber Frey's dad wants Brazelton to question him
Ron Frey speaks out
By GARTH STAPLEY and JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: June 8, 2004, 05:37:29 AM PDT
REDWOOD CITY -- Discouraged at pundits' criticism of Scott Peterson's prosecutors, the father of his former girlfriend said Monday that he wants to be questioned on the witness stand by their boss: Stanislaus County District Attorney James Brazelton.
In an exclusive interview with The Bee and a letter to the editor, Ron Frey, father of Fresno massage therapist Amber Frey, also said he doesn't want to answer questions from defense attorney Mark Geragos, whom he called "an apparent liar."
EXCERPTED:
'Missing' triggered alarms
By JOHN COTÉ and GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: June 8, 2004, 05:29:50 AM PDT
REDWOOD CITY -- It was more than women's intuition. Call it a mother's instinct.
"I knew," Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, testified in court Monday as rapt jurors hung on her words. "I just knew something was wrong."
Rocha was describing the call she'd just received from her son-in-law, Scott Peterson, on Christmas Eve 2002, when he said her daughter was .........
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.