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 ...
>>>>Tomorrow is my last day of work till July 12<<<<
We'll miss you. Hope you have lots of fun on this well deserved vacation.
By this standard, every spouse that cheats is motivated to kill and I don't buy that.
----
You just called it a standard I didn't.. Your statement that this is a standard is illogical. His own motivation in fact is just that- His. In my mind it points strongly to HIS culpability...
You bring up a good point. Folks wander in here and think there is a bloodlust, based on thin air.
Most of this info has been hashed and rehashed by the regulars for 18 months now.
There's no rush to judgement here, just a long time of looking at likely evidence, weighing of different stories, and a group of brilliant minds coming to similar conclusions.
To mess with your mind, try compiling a list of Scott's rotten luck if he ISN"T guilty. He should be sobbing uncontrollably everytime another piece of evidence comes in proving that his lot in life is worse than Job's!
Pinz
Shucks, I thought his name was Josh. Josh and Michelle Hart. She didn't end up dead and she did have her baby and the Harts reconciled. Not hardly like the Petersons, I'd say there were very few similarities.
If she was in on it or did it and working with the police in recorded calls, don't you think she would ask him what happened to Laci. I hardly think she would be talking to police about it. That she repeatedly asks what happened to Laci in a taped phone conversation does not mean anything. Anyow, who know on this point of speculation. I was just mentioning what was covered about her on FoxNews.
Regarding his question about cadaver dogs: After he was dropped off at his house early Dec 25 and discover the gun was gone from the glove box and called back to ask about it, he was told LE did have the gun. He then asked that famous question "are you using cadaver dogs?" I took that as sarcasm implying "you think she's dead and I shot her".
The part about telling a couple people he had been playing golf can be understood if you're talking to a distraut husband saying golfing when he meant to say fishing. If he were guilty, he would have been consistant with his alibi, knowing these people would be questioned.
Laci and Connor's bodies turning up where they did is something I cannot explain. I'm waiting to see what both prosecution and defense have to say about this. Hopefully this fiasco on Wednesday won't result in a mistrial. Time will tell.
If she was in on it or did it and working with the police in recorded calls...
---
Describe a possible senario for how Amber could have killed Laci...
It is anything but illogical. If I remember my college logic class, here is how I would map your argument.
(A)A person cheats on their spouse.
(B)The person's spouse turns up dead.
(C)Therefore that person must have killed her.
A + B does not necessarily = C
And I don't see what is illogical about a statement that says cheating on one's spouse is not an uncommon occurance and that everyone that cheats on their spouse should not automatically be assumed to be a murderer.
I am only passing along information that was brought up on FoxNews. I have no idea if or how she might have been involved. Did you see what they were talking about on FoxNews. It was the commentator named Aphrodite that mentioned the coincidence of Amber Fry's past relationships, how they were so similar to the relationship she was in with Peterson. Let's watch and see if anything more is said about this. I don't have any more to go on that what the commentator said about it.
Pardon me for asking, but how many times is it necessary for you to drone on about how you are "not convinced"?
In the great scheme of things, your lack of being convinced means nothing. In fact, in the smaller scheme of things--the trial itself--your lack of being convinced also means nothing. It is not your decision to make.
Regarding relevance, let me fill you in on something: it's true that sometimes irrelevant testimony is brought forth in a trial. If the other side does not object, often the irrelevant testimony just keeps coming in.
Why would the other side not object? Because sometimes they realize that jumping up and down, nitpicking over every word, and whether it is "relevant", will only annoy the jury. Neither side wants to annoy the jury.
Another reason testimony you might consider irrelevant might come in is, a judge gives pretty wide latitude on cross-examination. For example, I realize that talking about Kim McGregor's ex-boyfriend's supposed "Hawaiian roommates" is about as relevant to this trial as is, say, Larry King's spouse-of-the-month. Yes, it's irrelevant, but a lawyer is allowed to explore a little bit when he's doing cross-examination.
I can tell you why I think he's guilty--though MY opinion on this is worth as much to this trial as is YOURS: NOTHING.
I think he's guilty b/c there is simply no other person I know of, in whom all three of the following come together: motive, means, and opportunity. It's one of those things where I say, "If he didn't do it, who else could have?" Who has been proven to be around her that day? Only Scott. Who had reason to want her gone (because he'd moved on to a new love)? Only Scott. We've never, ever heard of a single enemy this girl had--not one.
And who was strong enough, resourceful enough, and conniving enough to do it? Scott. Were other men in her life strong, resourceful, perhaps conniving? Maybe they were--but they weren't around her when she disappeared. Scott was.
As for your "Men Are Pigs" comment, I see you've been watching cable TV.
I was NEVER "ready to lynch him before the trial even started." I am offended that you would imply that I was. If the people on here already felt they knew for sure he was guilty, then they would lose interest in these threads. They haven't.
I'd like to ask you a couple of things. Do you feel that the Clinton impeachment was really just much ado about a man being a "pig"? Also, do you admire Mark Geragos?
I will never feel admiration for Mark Geragos. I had that opinion of him long, long before he represented this relatively insignificant manure salesman. How about you? Did you find Geragos' behavior admirable during and before the impeachment?
yuk!!!!!! that pic of Bubba makes him look like some dude who is on the PBS children's show "Between the Lions." He gives me the creeps.
Ah, but there's the rub! If Geragos doesn't object and move for a mistrial, then he has lost his chance to appeal based on that issue!
A lot of good issues get lost, and are not allowed to be raised on appeal, because the lawyer didn't object or move for mistrial during the trial, and therefore the appeals court will consider any objection the lawyer might have raised as WAIVED.
If Geragos wants to have any chance of bringing this up as a grounds for appeal, he must object on the record. I don't know if he did; Greta said he didn't.
If he does decide to try to derail the prosecution b/c of Brocchini's alleged "perjury", then he must move for a mistrial. BUT if he moves for a mistrial, he is in danger of GETTING a mistrial. (I mean, if you ask for something, you might get it, right? Even if there's only a small chance?)
Geragos has to think: Do I really want a mistrial at this point? That would mean Scott goes back to jail for maybe another year, we start all this over again, we haven't gained an acquittal, and we might not do as well next time as I think we are doing this time.
All in all, I don't see Geragos sincerely asking for a mistrial here. And if he doesn't ask for a mistrial to preserve the record now, then he can't bring this up on appeal, b/c the appeals court will say he WAIVED his problems with this issue by not asking for a mistrial.
Really, after first wondering, then listening to other posters, then thinking it over, I think this is all much ado about nothing!
Time to put you on ignore along with blues apple
And I don't see what is illogical about a statement that says cheating on one's spouse is not an uncommon occurance and that everyone that cheats on their spouse should not automatically be assumed to be a murderer.
----
The problem I have is that you termed it a standard(as a custom, as a norm) spouses who cheat as a custom commit murder. I did not imply that custom as a standard. You did.. it's certainly false. If you implied that "all" married persons who cheat murder than that is illogical
Obviously, normally people who want to be free of their spouses customarily get divorced. However, that is not always the case. I think Scott's own motivations are just that "not" the norm. That's why he's on trial for his life..
>>Really, after first wondering, then listening to other posters, then thinking it over, I think this is all much ado about nothing!<<
Don't you think that it's just to counter the devastating testimony that the jury heard this week? Just Defense spin that Geragos is hoping the jury hears about.
Someone needs to keep that nutcase, dumbs$%t juror #5 off of the television!! I swear everytime he opens his mouth I hear exact phrases come out of him that I've read by disruptors on this thread, and other forums.
Scott wanted to be free and single. If he became a father, and got a divorce, he would have to pay alimony and child support. Since he was already in a poor financial situation that would have put a severe crimp in his lifestyle.
You two are brilliant! :-) And I agree with your conclusion.
Pinz
No, you're on track, and that opinion was also voiced on Websleuths.
Over and over, we see Geragos faced with something that is damaging to Scott, and he invariably reacts in a way that makes whatever it is seem very glaring, very big, very memorable. I'm sorry, I have no business judging this hi-falutin' lawyer, but I just don't see any sense in his doing that!
This college friend statement was pronounced by BROCCHINI, of all people, to be NOT CREDIBLE. Why not let it go at that? And then remind the jury in closing arguments that BROCCHINI didn't even believe the tip, so they should just forget it? It was apparently a very weak tip, something even the prosecution thought not worth using, and here is Geragos making it seem like it was some big, significant thing that this college friend said.
As usual, I'm slow to catch on to some things, but I now realize that this is exactly as others on here saw from the very first: it is just this week's "bombshell", just part of a technique Geragos is using to hoodwink everyone. Just tabloid hyperbole!
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.