'Horny bastard'
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 ...
"...just in case some jurors are reading and watching the media."
Key point. I get the feeling that MG has quite a few people working on the media end of this. He probably believes that jurors are being exposed to media on the case (and he's probably right). Look at juror#5...his girlfriend was telling him what was being said. If you listen to his interviews (tough to do, I realize) he spouts some of the same things being said on tv & message boards.
BUT...maybe the prosecution is allowing MG to take some rope and maybe just maybe the prosecutors have something else to tie the duct tape faux pas into a noose.
"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."
After thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that MG just threw this out for weekend fodder. How could he address this in court without it hurting SP just as much or more than the prosecution? If he plays a tape of the tip or reads the transcript, it will be awful. The tipster says that SP would dispose of a body by putting weights on, throwing it in the sea, etc. is still pretty damning, even though duct tape is not mentioned. Am I off track here?
>>The tipster says that SP would dispose of a body by putting weights on, throwing it in the sea, etc. is still pretty damning, even though duct tape is not mentioned. Am I off track here?<,
I know you did not post this to me, but from what I understand, the problem is that if the DUCT TAPE info is not on the taped interview, and Distaso did not bring it out in court,after Broccini testified to it, then the prosecution can be in trouble! ...or it's all another big fat red herring leaked to the media by Geragos!!...and remember, the last time Geragos did this and a member of the Modesto P.D. tried to counter act the spin, they were admonished by the judge.
Greta made such a big deal over the tipster's mention of duct tape the day it was testified about, she seems angry and is calling (IF what she is hearing is true)it now a HUGE, HUGE mistake if Broncchini lied about, inserted the duct tape mention....She is on a tear about it....
Aphrodite Jones is calling it "the OJ glove incident" of the trial. Mission accomplished for Geragos. Hello jurors!
"....then the prosecution can be in trouble!"
Yes, I understand that there is a real problem if the detective perjured himself and/or the prosecutor didn't correct it. It seems that the worst that could happen is a mistrial with no opportunity to have another trial. It doesn't sound likely in this situation (but I don't know for sure). However, if you think of other, more likely, remedies the "remedy" may cause more pain than gain for the defense. For instance, even telling the jury to disregard the "duct tape" part is still damning because it implies that the person did in fact say everything else (weights, dumping in the sea, etc).
There was a good explanation for the unlkely declaration of a mistrial on CTV board ,now on page two of the threads...had some legal rulings, interpretation ..Prosecutorial misconduct is mentioned in this post,too, because Distaso should have caught it before redirect if the statement was not true about duct tape....IF if if if!
Tuesday will come and we will know then.
I have not opposed anyone's opinion regarding this case. I have been stuck defending my position which is that I am not convinced, the prosecution has not presented a convincing case, it has presented a lot of irrelevant information and what they have presented that is relevant is very weak.
That apparently is not an acceptable position to some on here that were ready to lynch him before the trial even started.
I asked what relevance some testimony has had to this case. Like Peterson talking about sex at a convention he attended. If all he was doing at the convention was talking about it, he is a saint.
Anyhow, if I appear stubborn to you, try getting some people on here to explain why they think he is guilty. One person told me the reason she thinks he is guilty is because she is a mother with children. You know, the Men are Pigs School of Prosecution.
The consensus over at the CTV boards is that his is another red-herring tossed out by the MG camp to his pals in the media for weekend fodder...just like last weekends "redacted" Brochinni report...which we found out later that part was covered by other LE. Those reports were in the hands of the defense for some time.And MG knew it, still tried to play dirty pool.
That's what I'm hoping. We'll find out Tuesday.When do you leave for vacation?
snipped...
At one point in his cross-examination, Geragos seemed to suggest Frey might have something to do with the murders. He asked Sibley her whereabouts on Dec. 24, 2002, the day the expectant mother was reported missing, and specifically if she had seen Frey that day. Sibley said she thought she had worked that day, but could not remember if she talked to Frey.
Mike Almasri, Sibley's co-worker, briefly testified Wednesday morning. He said he learned Peterson was married during a job interview with him and mentioned it to Sibley in December.
Before dismissing jurors for the long Independence Day weekend, Delucchi warned the panel to be vigilant in avoiding news coverage of the trial.
"I know it's going to be a temptation, but don't be looking at anything about this trial," the judge said.
Testimony resumes Tuesday.
The trial, which is expected to last about six months, is in its fifth week
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/063004_ctv.html
'Horny bastard'
Have a great time!!
Wish I was going on vacation, but not this year!!BOO-HOO!!
explain why they think he is guilty..
I think he's guilty because of his shifting alibi that he wouldn't commit to any one story. His first impulse was to lie. His alibi shifted from golf to fishing to golf to fishing on Dec.24th. I think he's guilty because he was at all the potential scenes of crime his house, the warehouse, the bay and he had access to a boat which would have been needed to bury her body at sea. I think he's guilty because he had the time to do the deed about some 8 hours. He also had motive. He was 'extremely' motivated to seek sexual favors elsewhere..
He would have had a more believable alibi if he were to prove he was busy with one of his affairs on Dec. 23-24th. But of course it couldn't have happened that way because well how can you murder your wife while in the company of your mistress, who by the way, has no knowledge of the wife and child..
So when people spout that he's a cad (a man who acts with deliberate disregard for anothers feelings), I'm reminded that he is a CULPABLE ARROGANT DEFENDENT= CAD.....
Perfect, jc!
You should be on the prosecution team. You are more convincing than they are. A couple of points.
I think he's guilty because of his shifting alibi that he wouldn't commit to any one story. His first impulse was to lie. His alibi shifted from golf to fishing to golf to fishing on Dec.24th.
There are reasons to give a conflicting story to different people for the same day. This itself is not reason enough to convict. That he mentioned fishing at all would seem to be in his favor. That is the last thing I think someone that did this would mention. Or, maybe his alibi of golf was not a good one and that is why he mentioned the fishing trip.
I think he's guilty because he was at all the potential scenes of crime his house, the warehouse, the bay and he had access to a boat which would have been needed to bury her body at sea.
That would certainly lead someone to suspect him. But, people can be the victim of circumstances. It has happened many times before. And if he was set up by someone, as in framed, then of course it would look this obvious. That is why we should need much more than this to convict.
He also had motive. He was 'extremely' motivated to seek sexual favors elsewhere..
Perhaps, perhaps not. By this standard, every spouse that cheats is motivated to kill and I don't buy that.
You could have added, why did he change his hair color and try to run before being arrested. It is not unreasonable, though, that someone would consider running even if they are innocent. If he realized he had been set up or that it sure looked bad even though he was innocent, why stick around.
Again, what you say points in his direction. Too me, though, it is not enough to convict.
Did you hear the stuff that came out on Amber Fry? According to what I heard on Greta, she has been in some very similar situations with other men. Some and exact match to the circumstances in this case. Did anyone consider that she could be involved? The cicumstantial evidence you say points to Scott Peterson could as easily point to her. What if she told Peterson what she did, that she had done it. And let him know he had set him up. Had you considered this?
This has been out for a while...was discussed ad nauseum this time last year. Alot of flames tossed on this subject.
Her married ex-flame's name is Dave.
There are reasons to give a conflicting story to different people for the same day. This itself is not reason enough to convict. That he mentioned fishing at all would seem to be in his favor. That is the last thing I think someone that did this would mention. Or, maybe his alibi of golf was not a good one and that is why he mentioned the fishing trip.
----
What pray tell are reasons to give conflicting stories. If he were innocent he would have felt comfortable with the truth and stood on it.. till kingdom come....Why would he give a d*** what others think enough to shift his story, What he did, Was what he did= this is where I was PERIOD. The fact that he shifted points strongly to his guilt. I think the only reason he 'finally' committed to fishing in the bay is that he felt comfortable (at the time) that the body would never be found. But then later, he became less confident an made repeated trips back there before the bodies were recovered..
Not only that, but Golfing would have involved a lot more witnesses who could have denied that he was ever there.
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.