Posted on 06/30/2004 5:34:17 AM PDT by runningbear
Employee recalls sex talk between Peterson and woman at trade show
Article Last Updated: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:38:31 AM PST
Employee recalls sex talk between Peterson and woman at trade show
By Jason Dearen, STAFF WRITER
REDWOOD CITY -- A ribald conversation between Scott Peterson and a woman he had just met at a trade show was so inappropriate it made one of Peterson's employees uneasy, according to the employee's testimony Tuesday in Peterson's double-murder trial. "Scott and (the woman) had a conversation that I believe was somewhat inappropriate for a married man and an engaged woman. There were discussions about sexual positions and what she liked and what he liked," said Eric Olsen, a fertilizer salesman hired by Peterson. Olsen said the steamy conversation occurred at a trade show the two men were attending at the Disneyland Hotel in October 2002. Prosecutors wanted the jury to hear the conversation, because the woman involved was Shawn Sibley, who introduced Peterson to Amber Frey shortly thereafter. Olsen's testimony marked the beginning of the prosecution's groundwork for their star witness, Frey, whom they believe inspired Peterson to murder his pregnant wife. More than a month after the dinner conversation, Sibley called Olsen with a serious question. "She wanted to know if Scott was married. At that point, as an employee of Scott's, I didn't want to be plugged into the situation going on," Olsen said. Shawn stated she wanted to set up Scott with one of her friends. I told her she needed to talk to Scott about this," Olsen said, his eyes darting between prosecutor David Harris and Peterson, who ..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson talked sex at trade show
Witness says he was uneasy as Scott chatted with woman
Article Last Updated: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:38:10 AM PST
Peterson talked sex at trade show
Witness says he was uneasy as Scott chatted with woman
By Jason Dearen, STAFF WRITER
REDWOOD CITY -- A ribald conversation between Scott Peterson and a woman he had just met at a trade show was so inappropriate it made one of Peterson's employees uneasy, according to the employee's testimony Tuesday in Peterson's double-murder trial.
"Scott and (the woman) had a conversation that I believe was somewhat inappropriate for a married man and an engaged woman. There were discussions about sexual positions and what she liked and what he liked," said Eric Olsen, a fertilizer salesman hired by Peterson. Olsen said the steamy conversation occurred at a trade show the two men were attending at the Disneyland Hotel in October 2002.
Prosecutors wanted the jury to hear the conversation, because the woman involved was Shawn Sibley, who introduced Peterson to Amber Frey shortly thereafter. Olsen's testimony marked the beginning of the prosecution's groundwork ............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventioneers recount Peterson's bawdiness
Conventioneers recount Peterson's bawdiness
By Harriet Ryan
Court TV
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — At a fertilizer convention two months before his wife vanished, Scott Peterson led a female colleague to believe he was single and then grilled her about her preferred sexual positions, a former employee and another conventioneer testified Tuesday afternoon.
The men told jurors in Peterson's capital murder trial that his dinnertime discussion with Shawn Sibley, a businesswoman who went on to introduce him to his mistress, became so raunchy that they wolfed down their meals and fled.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert: Judge goofed
By Marie Szaniszlo
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The judge in the capital murder trial of Scott Peterson paved another avenue to appeal yesterday by allowing a police officer to testify about an anonymous tip, a legal expert said.
``This alleged conversation between the defendant and an anonymous caller is clearly inadmissible as evidence,'' said J. Albert Johnson, a defense attorney and former prosecutor.
Johnson was referring to Judge Alfred A. Delucchi's decision to allow Detective Allen Brocchini to testify about a man who claimed that Peterson had told him nine years earlier that if he ever killed someone, he would dump the weighted-down corpse in the ocean and let the fish eat it. .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dismissed Juror in the Peterson Case:
Why He Should Have Been Kept on the Jury
The Dismissed Juror in the Peterson Case:
Why He Should Have Been Kept on the Jury
By JULIE HILDEN
julhil@aol.com ((I guess this writer wants feedback. Otherwise, why list your email?))
---- Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2004
On Wednesday, June 23, the judge in the Scott Peterson criminal trial removed one of the jurors, Justin Falconer, and called on an alternate to replace him. After Falconer was dismissed, the defense then moved for a mistrial, but its motion was denied.
In this column, I will argue that Falconer should not have been dismissed in the first place. Although Falconer slipped up in making what turned out to be an innocuous comment to a Peterson relative, the comment itself did not indicate bias on his part, and should have been forgivable under the circumstances. .......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecution: It is easy to leave a mistaken impression
Prosecution: It is easy to leave a mistaken impression
By SUSAN HERENDEEN and JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: June 29, 2004, 02:14:00 PM PDT
2:14 p.m.: REDWOOD CITY -- Stanislaus County Deputy District Attorney Rick Distaso Tuesday morning showed the jury in Scott Peterson’s double-murder trial that it is easy to leave a mistaken impression.
He asked Modesto Police Detective Al Brocchini about a tip he received from one of Peterson’s college buddies, who said the defendant in 1995 described how he would dispose of a body.
“He said he would tie a bag around the neck with duct tape, put weights on the hands and throw it into the sea,” Brocchini said, recalling the phone conversation.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at sanmateocountytimes.com ...
no...just double dipping... ;o)
Here is Justin AGAIN......on Larry King Live!
I have had ENOUGH of this crackhead!
I now would tend to wonder...but strong evidence suggest otherwise the other uncooperative suspect... ;o)
Good thing I didn't have dinner yet... ;o)
you go!!
I think it means long-- night of fun.
How did Snibley know that Amber would be so willing? It seems like she was assuring Snott that he would have a long --night of fun.. How could she know that? Who is Snibley really? She's reminds me of the type of person that runs a cat house.
bookmarked....
Not only is Justin stretching his 15 minutes of fame but these pundits/attorneys are now asking him his opinion? His opinion is worth as much as ours, not having the benefit of being in court room. This is sickening.
When Justin came on, I turned it off...Michael Cordoza is a great shill for Geragos...and who is the Cole guy?...
I hated to see Nancy Grace make the error about who asked Amy to come share the pizza...Scott did.
Greta is covering the trial but I don't think I can take Bernie Grimm play the 'comic' again or listen to Ted Williams who adds nothing to the panel.
A few months ago Grimm made a rather caustic remark about President Bush which had nothing to do with the conversation. I sent her an e-mail calling him on it and her response: "Don't know why Bernie did that". Yet, she continues to invite him.
They're now discussing the duct tape and the fact that the DA didn't correct the testimony is a monumental error. Grimm said this trial could be over on Monday as one or both are lying and the other covering it up. Again Greta suggests they move for a mistrial. All seem disappointed with the DA who either doesn't know the facts or isn't paying close attention.
Heh heh. I should've known you'd go right to the transcript and find it. (Man, I'm lazy!)
Good! She says "two vehicles", but she doesn't say one of them was Scott's truck.
So... wonder what the vehicle besides the Land Rover was? Hmmm. OR he may have made it back by 5 a.m., just maybe. But if he did make it back by 5, then one of those truckdrivers was probably wrong. That still leaves the other truckdriver, and the guy who saw him from a distance messing around with something on the side of the boat, in the middle of the night!
The truck driver that supposedly saw SP near Berkeley marina, didn't say which direction he was going, So if SP were leaving the marina to go home . He could have been back in his driveway by 5:00 am. There would be no traffic at that time of the morning, and it's an hour and a half trip.
There may not be enough evidence... the jury may want to know exactly how he killed her, and know exactly when and how he got rid of the body. Whether the prosecution can deliver on these remains to be seen.
One point: people talk about how tipping a heavy object (Laci's 140 lbs. plus the weights) out of that small boat might tip over the boat. But on one website someone made a very good point: he could've thrown her out of the back end of the boat. That wouldn't tip it.
There's another point now. Just saw Greta VS. It seems that the college friend was interviewed and his interview was transcribed and everything. Supposedly, in the recorded interview, he doesn't actually mention duct tape. He DOES mention the other details of body disposal--but no mention of duct tape.
So Greta has her drawers in a wad b/c she figures when Brocchini recounted the college friend's statement, he said the man had said "duct tape", when he didn't, so now Greta has Brocchini marked as a perjurer, and says the DA will suffer from not correcting Brocchini on this, should there be an appeal.
Hey, IMO, they need to worry about getting the conviction now--appeal be damned! I don't live in CA; I don't know what their current Supreme Court is like, except to say that THANK GOD Rose Byrd is no longer on it.
But just let me tell you how hard it is to get criminal cases overturned on appeal! The great majority of them are AFFIRMED. In the trial, the prosecution has the burden. Well, all that changes on appeal. The APPELLANT is the one who has to show a really good reason why the conviction should be disturbed. And the appellant in a criminal case is going to be the defendant who was found guilty.Anyway, on to my example:
Woman is tried for grand theft. She allegedly stole from her husband's business. Jury is selected. Let's go back into the jury room, before the jurors are actually herded into the courtroom to be picked over. One woman has come to jury duty ON BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND. He'd gotten the jury summons, but his work was seasonal and he absolutely could not afford to miss that particular day. So she went, carrying HIS jury notice, with HIS name on it.
The court clerk called all the names on her list. When she was through, this woman was still sitting there. So the clerk--mind you, this was the actual elected Clerk of Court--came up and the woman said, "Oh, gee, I, uh, don't know... I, er, think you did call my husband's name, see, but, well, uh... well, I'm here... here's the notice...(and shows the clerk the paper with the husband's name on it)"
The Clerk of Court SENT THIS WOMAN ON TO THE COURTROOM! The woman, who had NOT been summoned for jury duty, actually got picked and placed on the jury.
Finally, AFTER 2 DAYS OF TESTIMONY, the woman came clean and approached the judge and told him what had happened. The judge promptly replaced her with the first alternate.
The defense attorney did not move for a mistrial b/c he felt he was winning the case--but he did move for a mistrial later on, on this same issue.
BTW, the first alternate was a guy who had ONCE BEEN REPRESENTED BY THE DA WHEN HE WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, and YES, that info came out in voir dire. Yet this alternate was placed on the jury.
Jury found her guilty on one count, not guilty on the other count. She appealed.
The appeals court AFFIRMED, saying that having a non-juror on the case for two days was not fatal to the trial. They also didn't think that the defense attorney's allowing a FORMER CLIENT OF THE DA'S to get on the jury unchallenged was ineffective assistance of counsel.
The state supreme court affirmed, too.
YEAH, AMBER--DIAL THE PHONE WITH YOUR TEETH IF HE'S DUCT-TAPED THE REST OF YOUR BODY!
ROFLMAO!!!
Good! So they got caught in that lie! We always thought the Peterson's so-called tip line was bogus!!
OH, yes! Don't worry, we've heard all about that, lol!
Well, let's look at it this way. We presume that his alibi ("where were you on the night of the 23-24?") would be the very smug and virtuous retort, "I was home in bed with my wife."
Unfortunately, the only person who could possibly confirm that alibi is... dead.
I'm about to read your post--looks very interesting!
I do hope it includes the touching story of how "Scott made candy apples for Amber and her family." That one had me rolling on the floor.
LOL. Hey, guess what--Amber had another friend who went by the name of "Saki". How's that for sounding like... what you said.
Saki took some of the pics of Amber and Scott together, IIRC.
Juzcuz, were you following this case when Amber's sister Ava was in the spotlight? (I almost called the sister "Serena", b/c Amber and the sister remind me of Samantha and Serena from "Bewitched". Ava has black hair.)
Clearly, Scott was getting tired of the "homebody" style of women, and was looking more for, um, another type.
But alas, didn't the jackass realize that if he really married Amber, SHE would become "the old ball and chain"? Oh, but hey, we don't suppose that he never meant any of that marriage/love talk he told Amber, hmmm? LOL.
The Cole guy turned out to be pretty good.
Nancy Grace asked the omnipresent Justin, What do you think about how he said his wife was dead, while she was in fact alive, and only a couple weeks later... she died?
(To me, that suggests that he wanted her dead.) Justin had an interesting take on that. He said, "Why would he say that, if he was planning on really killing his wife? Why would he announce his intentions like that?"
Justin kind of had a point with that, BUT he is overlooking the fact that Scott was clearly very confident that Amber and Shawn were completely in the dark about this "wife" of his. We know Scott was confident of this, b/c he was still trying to keep up the charade--still trying to keep up the double life--during the first few media days of this story. He was clearly trying to stay off camera, and to hide who he really 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.