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 ...
Dev that could well be spin!! I'll wait till we find out something from a credible source.
After hearing lots of details about various activities of Laci and Scott in October, November, and December, I begin to think that this couple were leading pretty separate lives, and they knew it. They were mostly getting together for the benefit of family, and maybe also for the benefit of what the neighbors might think.
No wonder Laci's pregnancy was so difficult during this time. No day-to-day support.
But still, in her wildest dreams, I'm sure she had no idea what it would come to.
I'm not saying she knew about Amber--just that she and Scott were on different tracks, and maybe she was just sort of holding her breath, concentrating on the matter at hand, the baby.
I once worked under a woman who was on her second marriage. She was pregnant. It was a relatively new marriage. I remember overhearing her telling a friend, "Well, he certainly doesn't care anything about this baby." It confirmed what I thought I already saw--that they were pretty much splitsville, and were just sort of in a holding pattern at the moment.
I can't think of a sadder way to spend the holidays than how Laci must've felt. No wonder Sharon can't keep her composure in the courtroom.
Good point RG.
Yup. She said, "If I were Mark Geragos, I would ask for a mistrial."
She is overlooking Geragos' ego. If he thinks he is winning, why would he want a mistrial? Probably the Petersons can't keep paying out this type of money next time around, even though they do have an ongoing business. (Next chapter would be: "Re-trying him would violate double jeopardy!" Yeah, right. Not if Brocchini's "perjury" was an inadvertant mistake, which it apparently was.)
Oh, well, I guess they can always rent Janey out to children's parties as a clown...
I always switch the channel when that the Pixey talks. Cardoza also. They irritate the bejeezus out of me.
If you are following the facts of the case...can you tell me if it was true that they had declared bankruptcy, or were living over their means? I seem to remember hearing that last year sometime. I haven't followed it since.
Oh horsethit!! Perjury my butt.
YES I did!! I mean he's proving to be a pathological liar.
A mistrial equals a re-trial!! That is certainly no acquittal.
They were in financial trouble AND they were living beyond their means.
He is able to lead a double life with ease; when he lies, he takes care of details which might reveal his lies.
No one can doubt that this guy is capable of anticipating problems, that he is capable of making a very detailed plot, covering most or all of the bases.
Well I think I'm going to pack it in for the night. I'm really sore. Tomorrow I am going to have trouble plenty. I haven't been to the gym for almost a year.!!
I took a brief look-see, and I think you're right.
I don't think Geragos is going to even move for a mistrial. I think he'll just play the "horror" of Brocchini's supposed "perjury" for all it's worth, till the judge tells him to sit down and shut up.
Whatever Brocchini or Distaso forgot (or, in Geragos' world, misrepresented), there is plenty of time for the judge to take remedial measures.
If Geragos sincerely asks for a mistrial, it would be b/c he didn't think he was winning the case. If he asked for one, he might get one (though probably not.) If he got one, Scott would get to sit in jail for another year until the state retried him. I don't think he'd have Geragos second time around. Not enough money, probably.
As RG said, that's it. Let the trial continue.
I've come to the conclusion that some folks have made up their mind because of who they are not what Scott Peterson is.
Now that you've made that facile point, why not read up on some of the other stuff he did? Or wait till all the evidence is presented?
I've come to the conclusion that you are on this thread not because you are interested in discussing this case, but because you feel "special" when you stubbornly oppose other posters' explanations of THEIR opinions.
Why not get into the case? You could do with a bit more information about this story. It's not just about opinions, it's about facts, too.
If, OTOH, you are one of those who believes that "nothing we ever hear reported in the media is fact... we weren't there, so we don't KNOW", then I would suggest that you cancel your newspaper, turn off all news channels forever, never listen to radio newsbreaks, and above all, shun news forums on the internet.
Link says invalid, what did Janey have to say in her rant?
She implies some involvement by Amber....I have her on ignore because her total contribution is "Scott is innocent"..no facts, no new insights, no contribution but to attack..
If I find someone on there who adds nothing, not even a good question, does not answer questions after making unsourced assertions...I add them to my "ignore" list..
Way down the thread list there is a fact based post on "Prosecutorial Misconduct and Mistrials"...worth a look for info....Rememember..we are hearing (after closed door conference with the judge)court house "hallway buzz" and TH comments...not facts yet.
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.