Laci and Scott Peterson
Posted on 06/28/2004 5:39:59 AM PDT by runningbear
TRIAL BY TELEVISION
By LINDA STASI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laci and Scott Peterson
June 28, 2004 -- ALMOST as riveting as an Ann Rule book, tonight's A&E special, "The Trial of Scott Peterson, (A Bill Curtis Special Report)," brings us up to the second on the case that has captured the nation.
How could it not?
On Christmas Eve, 2002, adorable "five-foot nothing," pregnant-as-can-be Laci Peterson took her dog for a walk. Whether she walked into the hands of a brutal stranger or was already dead at the hands of her loving husband, Scott, is the question now facing the six women and six men jurors.
(This number is not counting, of course, the country's newest media star, bounced juror Justin Falconer who was thrown off for violating jury ethics. Why haven't they charged him with contempt, by the way — instead of letting him be flown around the country to appear on more talk shows than Bill Clinton?) .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson prosecution faces uphill climb
Article Published: Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 7:28:54 PM PST
Peterson prosecution faces uphill climb
By Brian Skoloff
Associated Press
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- As Scott Peterson's double-murder trial enters its second month, many courtroom observers say the prosecution's case appears to be faltering.
Defense attorney Mark Geragos has used several prosecution witnesses to make his case that the investigation which led to charges Peterson killed his pregnant wife was shoddily executed and designed from the start to implicate Peterson.
Geragos was scheduled to resume his cross examination today of Detective Allen Brocchini, the first investigator assigned to the report that Laci Peterson had vanished. Last week, Geragos got Brocchini to admit to several investigative lapses.
"It's still a horse race.........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson's prosecutors watch trial go downhill
Despite bad week, it's too early to panic, experts say
Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer
Sunday, June 27, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutors have been thrown off kilter by their own witnesses. A juror who was excused blasted their case.
Sure, it's been a rough week for prosecutors in the Scott Peterson double- murder trial in Redwood City, but that's no reason to panic, say legal experts. It's still early in a case that's expected to last months.
"I'm sure the prosecutor has realized that he hasn't come close to proving his case,'' said former San Francisco prosecutor Bill Fazio. "But he should start getting his act together........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. June 25, 2004 — Police said Friday that Scott Peterson's lawyer tried to give jurors the false impression that authorities investigating the death of his pregnant wife conspired to hide a sympathetic witness.
During his questioning Thursday of Detective Allen Brocchini, defense lawyer Mark Geragos got the man to concede that he failed to record a witness who recalled seeing Laci Peterson at the warehouse where her husband stored his small boat the same boat prosecutors claim Scott Peterson hid from his wife so he could use it later to dispose of her body.
Sgt. Ed Steele, a spokesman for the Modesto police department, said Friday that officials detailed that account in other reports provided to the defense. He said Geragos was trying to mislead the jury..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police say so-called missing details provided to Peterson defense
Police say so-called missing details provided to Peterson defense
BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer
Friday, June 25, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(06-25) 13:43 PDT REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) --
Modesto police said Friday that Scott Peterson's lawyer tried to trick the jury into believing authorities conspired to hide a sympathetic witness when, in fact, police detailed the account in reports provided to the defense.
It was a blow in the short-term to the prosecution's double-murder case against Peterson because it looked like a detective intentionally deleted the witness account from his report after realizing it didn't fit with their theory that Peterson killed his pregnant wife.
But it may now work in the prosecution's favor as the trial trudges on into its second month, experts said Friday.
During his questioning Thursday of Modesto police Detective Allen Brocchini, defense lawyer Mark Geragos got the man to concede he failed to record a witness who recalled seeing Laci Peterson at the warehouse where her husband stored his small boat -- the same boat prosecutors claim Scott Peterson hid from his wife so he could use it later to dispose of her body.........
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Who knows, maybe the same careless clerk advised SP on which enhancement stamps to buy. That would explain that part of the equation, hope they call the clerk to testify. If the clerk testifies that SP wanted the license and enhancement stamps to fish in SF Bay on Dec.23 and 24th, premeditation would be easier to prove.
Were these calls taped by Amber??The police weren't taping yet.
---
Don't know what kind of record Amber was keeping. She might have been keeping a log. She didn't contact the Modesto Police until Dec. 30th.. Don't know yet when she started working with them, I'm trying to read the time line it's difficult cuz it's so long. The amount of calls on that one day --JUMPS OUT AT ME....
>>The amount of calls on that one day --JUMPS OUT AT ME....<<
If you figure it out, would you please ping me??
No, I have not heard a news reader come right out and say “He is guilty”, but the tone of the coverage does say it. Leaked evidence against him is highlighted, evidence in his defense is treated as less than meaningful. They are careful to use the term “alleged”.
This is one explanation...IMHO..it might indicate that Amber was accustomed to talking to Scott daily...she got upset on no calls on the 24th, had already started thinking he was married and not being truthful...?
Lots of splainin' going on and his hiding from the camera, no pictures of him with Laci order, no TV interviews might indicate this.
Oh, you mean when the defense is doing a good job, and maybe blow a few holes in an investigation. I always thought that was what trials were all about. Stupid me.
I believe she has that wrong....He may have called her the early morning hours the 25th from his shower , with the Sharon in the next room but I do not believe he had time to go the his MIL's home to shower on the 24th..
Ron Granski:" When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bull"
I AGREE!!! Can you believe that A&E is running the ORIGINAL "Who killed Laci Peterson" show right NOW???? I mean that is so out of date. It just seems like the ENTIRE media want to see this KILLER walk!! They need to be hit in the pocket book that's the only thing they listen to.
but I do not believe he had time to go the his MIL's home to shower on the 24th.. Why would he need another shower having taken one around 5:00ish after he returned from fishing, or am I wrong in believing he took one?
I think I take everything that has not been verified with a block of salt..I don't think he had time to go to Sharon's on the 24th and have never before heard it said that he did...The water running/shower running part doesn't concern me..the timing of his visit to Sharon's does.
Please. You have already decided the guy is guilty, and nothing short of forensic proof is going to change your mind. Unfortunately for you, forensic proof is not the standard. Reasonable doubt is.
I have posted to very few of these threads, and then only recently. And every time I have said that I think the guy is guilty. I haven't seen proof of this though.
My personal feelings aren't important, but I think under such circumstances, a jury should be able to find an individual guilty. All this does is shift the burden of proof to the defendent.(Except when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty.)
If he is found Not Guilty....it is over....and no amount of proof can convict him.
I think Amber was probably pumping for information. Remember the Prosescution have heard all these tapes. He was STILL lying to Amber the FIRST night Laci was being searched for. He called her from the Search center. I think anything about Amber will be cleared up. She did pass a polygraph test. He WOULDN'T take one.
>>Westerfield's came out only because his lawyer's goofed<<
Westerfield was also charged with having the child porn. Peterson does not have any such charges. If I were betting, I'd say it doesn't come in. Hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Nope, I meant what I said. You haven't heard the Prosecution case. An outline only.!! Clearly you and I view the Law differently PLUS there is just good old plain COMMON SENSE. This guys actions don't even come within the boundaries of ABNORMAL. They are WAAAAAAAAAAY out of whack. It was clearly obvious within the first hours he was RELIEVED TO BE RID OF HIS WIFE AND CHILD!!
If your interested there is a scottisinnocent site!! I SEE NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, pointing to his Innocence.!!
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.