Posted on 06/10/2004 5:28:09 AM PDT by runningbear
ALL EXCERPTS:
SCOTT BURNED IN RAGE
By HOWARD BREUER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 10, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — Scott Peterson was more distraught when he burned chicken at a family barbecue than the night his pregnant wife Laci vanished, a witness testified yesterday.
Laci's cousin, Harvey Kemple, also said that Peterson gave conflicting stories to relatives regarding his whereabouts on the day of the tragic mom-to-be's disappearance.
"I saw more reaction out of him when he burned the God-darned chicken than when his wife went missing," Kemple said at the fertilizer salesman's double murder trial.
Kemple, a self-proclaimed grill guru, said he tried to give Peterson tips on how best to cook the chicken during a July 4 backyard barbecue just months before Laci's disappearance.
But Peterson, 31, wouldn't listen, and became visibly.......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson Relative Says He Noticed Inconsistencies
Peterson Relative Says He Noticed Inconsistencies
By CAROLYN MARSHALL
Published: June 10, 2004
EDWOOD CITY, Calif., June 9 - Statements made by Scott Peterson to relatives of his missing wife, Laci, were so inconsistent, one family member testified on Wednesday, that he secretly followed Mr. Peterson to a shopping mall and a golf course to see if something was amiss.
"I was very suspicious from that first night," said the relative, Harvey Kemple, in testimony at the murder trial of Mr. Peterson, who is accused of killing his wife and unborn son. "That's why I followed him to the mall, hanging back a bit to see what was happening."
Mr. Kemple, who is married to a cousin of Ms. Peterson's mother, said he was put off when Mr. Peterson told him that he had been playing golf on Dec. 24, 2002, the day Ms. Peterson disappeared, because Mr. Peterson had told Mr. Kemple's .......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson defense homes in on witness discrepancies to create reasonable doubt
Peterson defense homes in on witness discrepancies to create reasonable doubt
By Associated Press
Thursday, June 10, 2004
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Scott Peterson assured some of his in-laws he was fishing the day his pregnant wife disappeared, although he told one member of his extended family and a neighbor that he had been golfing.
It's a contradiction prosecutors in Peterson's capital murder trial revisited several times Wednesday in their effort to assert that Peterson switched his alibi after saying he returned to an empty home on Christmas Eve day, 2002.
Peterson, 31, ultimately told authorities he went fishing alone on San Francisco Bay. ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveillance gets a satellite assist
Posted 6/9/2004 10:31 PM Updated 6/9/2004 11:45 PM
Surveillance gets a satellite assist
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
Just after Laci Peterson disappeared in Modesto, Calif., on Christmas Eve 2002, her husband, Scott, assured police that he had nothing to do with it.
But police were suspicious. Without Peterson's knowledge, they received court permission to attach global positioning system (GPS) tracking devices to the undersides of three vehicles he was known to drive. The devices, which use cell phone networks and signals from orbiting satellites to pinpoint land locations, indicated that twice in January 2003, Peterson drove to a San Francisco Bay marina near where the bodies of his .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness testifies that Peterson lied about golfing
Witness testifies that Peterson lied about golfing
Kemple
By JOHN COTÉ and GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: June 10, 2004, 05:22:12 AM PDT
REDWOOD CITY -- Scott Peterson was more upset about burned barbecue chicken than he was about his wife's disappearance, an extended family member testified Wednesday during Peterson's double-murder trial. "I was so gol-darn mad because I saw more emotion out of him when he burnt the damn chicken than when his wife was missing," said Harvey Kemple, a construction worker married to a cousin of Laci Peterson's mother.
Kemple's testimony dominated a day in which the prosecution continued to cobble together a case against Peterson -- attempting to establish a timeline of what happened along the couple's quiet street on Dec. 24, 2002, and to highlight allegedly inconsistent statements Peterson made. ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burnt chicken testimony at Peterson trial
Stacy Finz and Diana Walsh, Chronicle Staff Writers
Scott Peterson seemed more upset about burning his chicken than he did about his wife's disappearance, said a fiery construction worker who had jurors and observers erupting into laughter during the second week of the capital-murder case today.
Peterson, 31, is on trial in Redwood City for allegedly murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn child.
Harvey Kemple, a lifelong Modesto resident and Laci Peterson's cousin by marriage, told reporters outside the courthouse that while other family members stood by the defendant in the beginning, he was suspicious of the fertilizer salesman from the start.
Inside the courtroom, Kemple glared at the defendant while testifying. Peterson, dressed in a suit and tie, looked away.
"I saw more reaction out of.........
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
With MG's track record grasping at straws seems to be his talent.
I'm surprised that the judge even allowed the witnesses to testify as to their "suspiscions." Fact witnesses are supposed to testify to what they observed -- what they saw, heard, or physically felt -- not their suspiscions, which are nothing more than surmise and spectualation.
Scotts problem solving alot like Charred Chicken.
He had to have forgotten about it on the grill... I'm trying to imagine that scene with his Chicken in flames. I wonder what problems he was solving at the time that took his attention away from the Grill. Probably one of his other Hens left a Chicken S*** message on one of his numerous problem solving cell phones.
...walking the dog and mopping the floor
... and sitting at her dressing table looking cute while arranging her hair... This woman must've been a skilled juggler...
In January, 2003, I remember that we heard something like, the police said "If you knew what we knew, you'd understand why we keep going back to the Bay." Something like that.
Well, what they knew was: Scott kept inexplicably driving to the Bay. And he was attempting to do it secretly. Rather than (as Geragos says) Scott's having driven to the Bay b/c the police were going there, I think a large part of the time, the police were continuing to dive in the Bay b/c they saw that Scott kept going there.
Was she fixing her hair before going to mop the floor?
LOL! Imagine his thought processes... "Okay, that one that just rang, that's my Friday cellphone... let's see... that's the one that I take my calls from Georgette on... now what story did I give Georgette? Gotta think..."
It's permissible for a witness to speak of his own state of mind.
LOLOTFL
I think he's probably guilty; however, the story of Scott at the bay was out from the begining and the media coverage was non-stop. If someone else had kidnapped Laci and was going to kill her at a later date, what better location to dump the body then in the bay where the husband said he was on the day of her disappearance. Afterall, the husband is always the first suspect in these cases.
If you think Laci's family are not exactly impartial observers, wait till Scott's family members start testifying.
The story that Scott had SAID he spent "the day" fishing in the Bay was out, yes. But nobody, and I mean nobody, knew what time the parking ticket for the marina had stamped on it. Nobody who talked about this case could do anything but go on what Scott said: "Okay, he says he left home at 9:30, so he must've gotten to Berkeley about 11:00..."
That was all the public had. Furthermore, there were doubts raised from the beginning--sometimes it appeared that most people doubted he had really gone to the Bay at all. It was by no means an accepted fact that he had even gone to the Bay.
And if the "story of Scott at the bay" was constantly being told, that works both ways: since the alleged involvement of the Bay was well-known, you can bet that if anyone had done anything suspicious in the ensuing days, such as dump a body, at the Bay, SOMEONE would have noticed.
Hah! Scotty led LEO all the way.
Dumb jerk.
That's not state of mind testimony. For example, "I was angry," "I was sad," "I felt humiliated," all refer to the witnesses' state of mind. "The defendant acted suspisciouly" is nothing more than a speculative conclusion based upon other facts. The witness should testify as to what he or she observed and let the prosecutor argue to the jury that the defendant's conduct was suspiscious.
Even so...it seems like her family and friends are out to get him no matter even...even from the beginning sometimes it seemed to be the case.
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.