Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Employee recalls sex talk between Peterson and woman at trade show
The San Mateo County Times ^ | June 30 2004 | Jason Dearen

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

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: avoidingchildsupport; baby; babyunborn; conner; deathpenaltytime; dontubelievemyalibi; getarope; ibefishing; laci; lacipeterson; smallbaby; smallchild; sonkiller; unborn; wifekiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 501-518 next last
To: sissyjane

Suppose Geragos can somehow convince the judge that this really was misconduct on the part of Brocchini? What else could the judge do, then, except declare a mistrial? And where would a mistrial leave Scott? No better off than he was--and maybe worse off.


281 posted on 07/01/2004 1:29:23 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: drjulie

If a mistrial were granted, the prosecution would be able to try him again. The only thing that can prevent that would be a valid claim of double jeopardy. And this ain't it!


282 posted on 07/01/2004 1:32:12 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
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.

Good point and I'm sure Geragos has this all figured out too. Tuesday is going to be interesting to see where he goes with it.

283 posted on 07/01/2004 1:35:40 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: juzcuz

Very well said, juzcuz.

In a post-Clinton world, Scott's just telling it like it is--honestly, instead of with obvious lies--is just really hard for some to understand.


284 posted on 07/01/2004 1:40:51 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse

In my opinion, the tip was considered to NOT be credible, because it was phoned in AFTER the bodies were discovered. Now if the tip was recieved before the discovery of the bodies, it would have been considered in a completely different light.


285 posted on 07/01/2004 1:41:32 PM PDT by sissyjane (You're either with us or against us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse

Can't the judge tell the jury to disregard it?

....but can't the jury also --in the jury instructions be told that if they find that a witness has lied in one instance, that the jury can then disregard all of that witnesses testimony??


286 posted on 07/01/2004 1:44:01 PM PDT by sissyjane (You're either with us or against us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Jackie-O
Her married ex-flame's name is Dave.

It's NOT me!!! :)

287 posted on 07/01/2004 2:00:37 PM PDT by Diver Dave (Stay Prayed Up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez

Yes, we can sit around and marvel at his rotten luck. Or we can do another fun mental exercise: we can imagine that Laci was actually killed by someone else.

I try to do that sometimes. Okay, when could it have occurred? 1. During the 10 minutes when it was possible that she was walking her dog.

I doubt that.

2. Some time between 10:08 (when her stalwart protector-husband left her side) and 4:45 (when said protector returned.)

Let's see. Laci, at home that day... not a single person she knew spoke to her or heard from her, though more than one tried to call her, on more than one phone. Oh! I know! It happened when Laci was NOT at home! It must've happened when she went out somewhere in her car!

Uh-oh. How could it have happened that way? How would her car have returned back to its exact same position in her driveway, all safe and sound?

Okay, so what we have left is that some OTHER PERSON(S) took Laci, but Laci must have been near or in her home, b/c her car never left home.

So that means some time during the BROAD DAYLIGHT, someone boldly walked up to Laci, who was on foot, dog-less, and near her home, and just took her. No screams, no screeching tires, no threatening yells, no blood from a struggle, no dropped personal property (such as purse, keys, or cellphone), no drag marks on the ground, no ransom calls, no mess in her house, no dead body left lying in a ditch, no USE OF HER CREDIT OR BANK CARDS, and NOT A SINGLE WITNESS TO EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF THIS BIG ABDUCTION, which must SURELY have been at least a little violent or loud--given that Laci, as Mr. Geragos was at pains to point out, was a "spitfire".

Even Dru Sjodin left a SHOE and a CELLPHONE.

Oh, and these evil persons are still out there. They had such success in that extremely dangerous Covena Ave. neighborhood, you'd think they'd have come back since Dec. 2002 and gotten some other women, too. Strangely, they haven't.

For those who believe the stranger came into the home to get her, please tell me why the stranger left diamond jewelry and a loaded purse behind. Don't tell me it was b/c the stranger was a sex criminal, not a money criminal: we all know that rapists take their victims' property, too. Especially cash, even small amounts--and she had that in her purse. Oh--and guns. The house contained several guns. NO WAY IN HELL is a violent criminal going to pass up stealing at least one of those guns. No way in hell. NOT gonna happen.

If any woman believes it happened that way, then I don't care if she thinks she lives in a safe neighborhood or not. Laci's neighborhood was considered safe enough for people to walk to the park. So any woman who actually thinks it happened that way had better not EVER venture out onto the sidewalk in front of her home, or stay home with any doors unlocked. Because you can just disappear into thin air if you do.


288 posted on 07/01/2004 2:05:10 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

Yes, and yes.

In the case of an admonition to disregard, I think it would be more elaborate than his previous ones. I mean, if the judge really thinks Brocchini committed perjury, then B. is in trouble. Who would (later) prosecute Brocchini for this? (Hee hee... um... the Stanislaus Co. DA?... naw... maybe a special prosecutor...)

And if Distaso is found to have suborned perjury, then he could lose his license.

Both Brocchini and Distaso know the possibilities well, and I don't for a moment think that either of them did this thing--if there even IS a "thing"--deliberately.


289 posted on 07/01/2004 2:12:31 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Diver Dave

ROFL!!!

And all this time I thought you were that male dancer that Amber used to gad about with...


290 posted on 07/01/2004 2:13:24 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse

...and if it was one of the homeless people, I guess after they attacked and kidnapped her, they pushed her away in their grocery store cart with the plastic bags of crap!

The homeless people I've seen don't drive around in vans, at least if they're type of homeless that are living in parks.


291 posted on 07/01/2004 2:14:00 PM PDT by sissyjane (You're either with us or against us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: fiesti
Time to put you on ignore along with blues apple

Ignore away. You are ignoring anything that might go against the decision anyhow.

But, I won't put you on ignore. I'm sure on another thread I will agree with you. Best Regards, BJN

292 posted on 07/01/2004 2:19:50 PM PDT by BJungNan (Stop Spam - Start Charging for Email - You get 2000 a month for free, then you pay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: All

And for those who firmly believe it was done by someone other than Scott, would one of you please tell me where the heck is the shirt Laci was wearing??

The pants lasted through a long time in the water, though they were apparently threadbare. Where's the shirt? How did it, and not the pants, get off her body?

Oh! I forgot! Sometimes rapists or similar sickos take off part of their victim's clothes, don't they?

Yeah, that's it. The sicko took off her shirt. Must've wanted to see her breasts--the scumbag!

But he left her bra on her. Hmmm. So he didn't get a very good view of them, did he?

Oh, and then he raped her. With her pants on. That's it.


293 posted on 07/01/2004 2:19:59 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane; Devil_Anse; Jackie-O; runningbear; Canadian Outrage; All

Just saw over on websleuths that Nancy Grace is giving an update at 2:30 pacific time on CTV. According to poster she has mentioned bombshell and mistrial in her radio show....

Stay tuned..


Check it out!!


294 posted on 07/01/2004 2:21:23 PM PDT by sissyjane (You're either with us or against us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: All

And then the rapist, in order to make sure that the sperm evidence was still there where he had raped her, put her pants back on and taped up her crotch area?


295 posted on 07/01/2004 2:21:33 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

Thanks, will do!


296 posted on 07/01/2004 2:22:25 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

Oh, yeah! Haven't you heard? Geragos found a truckdriver who saw a homeless person pushing their shopping cart, with a big heavy bundle in it, down the highway between Modesto and Berkeley, some time around Dec. 24.

Oh, dang it. I think I must be mixing that up with something about a truckdriver seeing a guy pulling a boat trailer with his pickup truck on that same highway...


297 posted on 07/01/2004 2:26:12 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Another reason testimony you might consider irrelevant might come in is that the defense is letting the prosecution hang itself. Why object if they are making points for you.

For example, the police officer that said he talked to one of Peterson's friends that said Peterson talked about how he would dispose of a body. If the prosecution is never able to produce this witness, why raise an objection. When it comes time to call up the police office, all the defense needs to say is, where is the friend that said this. If they can not produce him and if the officer has been discredited on other issues - as he has - it is not going to look good.

You know, I have not made up my mind on this case. Likely never will be able to because I am not on the jury. But it sure seems like a lot of people have made up their mind that he is guilty and they are getting irritated at me for suggesting he might be innocent.

I sure would hate to be back in the days of some wild west town and you all had a rope in your hand. Anyhow, I will leave all you fine folks alone on this thread. Best Regards, BJN

298 posted on 07/01/2004 2:28:13 PM PDT by BJungNan (Stop Spam - Start Charging for Email - You get 2000 a month for free, then you pay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse

You're my hero! ;-) LOL

Pinz


299 posted on 07/01/2004 2:28:49 PM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez

LOL. You're pretty brilliant yourself, really, Pinz.

C'mon. Let's assume that someone other than Scott killed her. How would it have happened?

It could've happened... (and, to quote an old line from "Wayne's World", and "monkeys might fly out of my..." well, you get the picture.)


300 posted on 07/01/2004 2:30:02 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 501-518 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson