[Howlin]

Here we go:

Geragos flashed an enlargement of the transcript on a projection screen and then began playing the original tape. At first the transcript followed Brocchini's words exactly. But the transcript abruptly stopped tracking with the tape when the detective began discussing a woman at the warehouse who reportedly let Laci Peterson use her restroom Dec. 23. It picked up again several sentences later when he moved on to another subject.

As jurors stared intently at the document across the darkened courtroom, the missing sentences appeared on the screen.

"Once they were outside, [the agent] pointed out a neighboring building, a neighboring warehouse and advised [former defense attorney Matt] Dalton and [defense private investigator Bill] Pavelic that [a female tenant] had allowed Laci to use the restroom on 12-23-02," the omitted section read, in part.

---

When Geragos pressed Brocchini about who had edited the transcript, he said, "I guess I did. It's not on that page."

---

Prosecutors are sure to question the detective further about the exclusion Monday when testimony resumes. In his answers to Geragos' narrow questions, Brocchini implied that other detectives had questioned the female tenant and written their own reports. The missing section concludes, "[The tenant] told [the agent] she had already been interviewed by law enforcement."

---

The omission does not appear to be a serious violation of evidence rules because the defense independently knew of the woman's story, had the tape and presumably the other police reports.

---

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/062404-pm_ctv.html

[Jackie-O]

Thanks Howl...I wish the TH's would talk about this instead of reporting that LE redacted out exculpatory evidence. I actually heard a report at about 5:30AM on ABC news that said exactly that. Sheesh. If that were the case, Snott would not be on trial right now.

[runningbear]

thanks Howlin....

[RGSpincich]

Using the same level of reasoning and burden of proof as the THs have used concerning the "blunder by the prosecutors", the warehouse witness has not been capable of handling her own business affairs since July 1997. That is when she gave her husband a Power of Attorney to act on her behalf. He acted on her behalf in the purchase of their home in the same month. No rescission has been filed.

Taking that at face value could seem to make her seem incompetent. Of, course we know there may be other reasons why she granted the POA to her hubby. There are, also, other reasons why Brocchini would disregard her alleged contact with Laci.

The point is, this game of "gotcha" is going nowhere for Geragos.

[sissyjane]

>>private investigator Bill] Pavelic <<

Isn't this the same investigator the dream team used in the OJ trial??

I think it is, and he is a real jerk!! Scum-bag!!

[hergus]

Great that they got that much out, too bad the media is ignoring that part. Abrams is about to talk Peterson, we'll see if he goes with the Geragos line or the whole truth.

So far still going only with the G statements...bahhhhhh

Someone needs to email Abrams to keep up with the truth.

[Devil_Anse]

Okay, so it appears that Geragos is making this incident into something it's not. (Gee, what a surprise...)

The tenant said she had already been interviewed by law enforcement. Okay, already! Sounds to me like they were on the ball. And they didn't, like, tell the tenant something like, "We don't like what you're telling us, so we're just going to pretend this interview never happened, okay?" Sheesh!