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 ...
I think this post would make a great ending to Distaso's closing....
Thread was pulled, the usual scottisinnocent rant.
One comment was about(herself) Janey, how she is a "pillar of the Peterson family."
Saw on Greta last night that Tuesday, the judge might declare a mistrial, or admonish the DA for letting the detective state something about duct tape that may not of been in discovery materials... Greta thinks for sure something bad or a huge "no no" will be Tuesday... Guess the DA is ranking on the detective to back up his facts if that was indeed part of the investigation reports of duct tape.
At work and have to leave right now out in the field... if breaking news, buzz me....lol..I mean freep me.... yeah! BRB....
Yes, I saw that too, RB, and wondered.
But the people here are right--it's definitely much ado about nothing.
Why would Geragos ask for a mistrial now, when he just might get what he asked for? If Geragos asks for a mistrial, then that means he thinks he's losing this case, bigtime. Now, I know WE all think he is losing, but there's really no telling what sort of people those jurors are--look at the ditzy one, Justin.
A mistrial at this point would be bad news for Scott: another year in jail, awaiting the next trial. I thought he might make a double jeopardy claim and try to get out of being tried again, but I looked at the law and there is NO WAY he could succeed in such a claim. Mistrial = retrial and more time for Scott to wait in jail.
And besides, it turns out, according to RG, that Brocchini was not embellishing in his testimony.
This thing is being played to the public for sure, and for sure old Big Nose is making sure there's a false "bombshell" every weekend.
Now, what is said in the media shouldn't matter, b/c the jury isn't watching the media, right? Well, apparently Geragos is such a crummy lawyer, that he must win his case based on something that isn't even supposed to happen: the supposition that jurors are somehow reached by a media they aren't supposed to see.
The mistrial or appeal would be based on Brocchini making statements that are not factual... mainly about the duct tape. Unfortunately this detective is turning the trial into another circus.
Nov. 13, Peterson Prelim:
Det. Philip Owen testified that when Laci Peterson's body washed ashore in April a few miles from the Berkeley Marina, it was clad in tan maternity pants. Her sister, Amy Rocha, testified earlier that Laci Peterson was wearing tan pants on Dec. 23, the last time anyone other than Scott Peterson reported seeing her alive.
Owen also said there was duct tape around her crotch.
This is exactly why they should have brought the college friend in, it's all too coincidental considering how Peterson's wife was found.
Hey, IMO, they need to worry about getting the conviction now--appeal be damned!
Absolutely, Brocchini may have set in motion a basis for an appeal with his testimony should there be a conviction but like you said winning it is a whole other matter. It does happen though occasionally which is why I don't anticipate Geragos going with a mistrial. His chances of success would be stronger on appeal than retrying the case all over again.
We need the transcripts from Greta to determine a couple of things. One, to see exactly what Brocchini supposedly did wrong and two according to who?
If the defense claims that the transcript of the taped interview does not contain references to duct tape, I would refer them to the transcript of Kim McGregor's taped interview. In Brocchini's 6/28 testimony he cites numerous errors and ommissions in the transcript of that interview. The defense knows those transcripts are incomplete.
The taped interview itself may differ from the phone tip that was called in by the friend. Brocchini was referring to tips called in when he testified about the duct tape.
Greta is obviously connected to the defense in some way. To combat her proclamation the day before that "nobody knew about duct tape" and that the tipster may in fact have been telling the truth, the defense feeds her a line that has her backing up wildly to save face (nip tuck 2).
>>I agree RG. Too much time for the fodder, I suppose Juror #5 will still be lurking around the shows. Plus there is the interview with the Petersons tomorrow nite on 20/20.(How convenient, MG)
Man I hope the rest of these jurors have at least half a brain in their heads and follow the letter of the law...stay away from the boob tubes, the coverage<<
...But the judge told both families to cool it with the comments. Can the Petersons still go on 20/20???
I think the problem is that Broccini said that Scotts friend in 1995 SAID THAT SCOTT WOULD USE DUCT TAPE-He said it twice under oath. Distaso did not approach the judge and tell him that the statement was wrong, and did not impeach his own witness.
The problem -from what they were talking about last night, is that on THE TAPED INTERVIEW, SCOTT'S FRIEND DOES NOT MENTION DUCT TAPE. It makes Broccini look like he is lying-again.
Thanks! I missed that.
So I think -to make a long story short, the problem is not with the transcript, but rather with the tape. You can bet that Geragos is going to play this for all he's worth, to make Broccini look like he is trying to plant evidence.
>> but rather with the tape<<
Not enough coffee....I want to make myself clear. I mean taped interview!!!
Was that what they were talking about last night when they said something about it becoming another OJ glove case?
Now you're talking!!!!
You've got it.........
The conference was held behind closed doors...Wonder who created "the buzz" in the hall...?..I'll wait til Tuesday for the whole story instead of "Court House buzz" before getting too upset....It will be disturbing if the tip was misquoted twice by Broncchini...we shall see.
I think the whole flap was leaked from the defense to the media talking heads, to counter the devastating testimony against Scotty-boy. Something for the flapping jaws for the long weekend.(just in case some jurors are reading and watching the media)
I am sure it was spread by the defense...but what is spin and what is truth will have to wait for the judge to inform us...
I said I couldn't wait for the next weekend Geragos bombshell..and this is it..True or false, the THs are enthralled...If this turns out to be exagerrated or false, I might send my first Email to Greta.
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.