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 ...
You know what he'll do? He'll try to trash Brocchini up, down, and sideways, using this alleged "lie".
Of course, hey wait a minute, hasn't Brocchini left the witness stand? Well, I guess Geragos, during the defense case, could call him as a witness and say, "I just wanted to call you as a witness to talk about your blatant lies again!" LOL.
No CTV update. Websleuths wrong!!!!
Court TV reporting Garagos asked yesterday for a "mistrial with prejudice" - meaning Scott walks away.
Are you watching this now??
I live in California, and it's not about Peterson case.
YIKES!!!!!
Did the judge give a ruling?
When did he ask for the mistrial-yesterday?
I'm in Florida. It's on now.
Nancy said all hell broke loose yesterday afternoon, and MG asked for a mistrial. She doesn't think it's at all likely to happen.
No court Monday - damn! There will be hearings in chambers Tuesday morning to let the judge hear the claims from both sides.
Nancy has moved on to "kook" theories about Scott being framed - she's messing with the defense THs. The THs are caught up in the "live birth" lies of MG.
If anything else is said about the mistrial, I'll take notes.
Meg, are you watching?
Thanks...CTV deprived!!
Yes--apparently he has moved for a mistrial. A "mistrial with prejudice".
Nancy had an excellent point: the original statement of the witness is on paper and on tape, and Geragos has it, and HAS had it. This is exactly the sort of situation that cross-examination is designed for.
It's basically an impeachment situation. Brocchini says, "Here's what was said/done when I talked to the college friend." Geragos supposedly knows that Brocchini is not accurately relating what was said/done. So Geragos should whip out his copy of the statement and say, "If that's how it went, Detective, then why isn't it like that in this statement here?"
Did Geragos do this? I would hope that he did. If he didn't do what it was legally possible for him to do, then how can he now complain?
In order for that "with prejudice" thing to apply, I would think that some really heinous, horrifying, double-dealing, deceptive misconduct would have to have been done by the prosecution. Somehow, I don't think that was the case...
Last night Greta said that the problem is that Distaso did not get Broccini to say that the duct tape thing is not on the taped interview, and that is why Geragos can ask for a mis-trial. As I understand it, it's because Distaso did not correct his own witness when he testified to something that was false. I'm no lawyer, so I do not know if this is true or not.
I swear Nancy has this thread open on her desk! Hi, Nancy. :-)
If Laci went out with the dog and let go, she went out in her bare feet, without a coat, without her purse or cell phone, and without any of her jewelry, except perhaps earrings. (Personally, I'm expecting that Amber got those, but I'll wait and see.)
I wonder how her cell phone got so dead. She didn't have it with her when she did her errands the day before? I've never seen/heard a bit of info on any of her cell phone records.
Pinz
Gotta go start dinner, but first...
Geragos' only possible win will come from something like this. So he needs to get all the witnesses rattled, be as confusing as possible in his behavior and questioning, and pray that he can find a technicality.
There is no other way to get a 'Not Guilty' for his client.
He probably wouldn't mind a mistrial Without Prejudice, so much, either. Another chance to find a loophole, any loophole.
And Scott won't mind sitting in jail another year while he does it. He knows it's the only way out of prison, excpet for in a body bag.
BBL,
Pinz
I've seen trials where a witness is called back after a day or so to correct a mistake.
I guess the judge will decide (if the tipster actually didn't say duct tape) if it was a mistake, or perjury.
Pinz
Leaving now, really!
It appears that in order to win a mistrial with prejudice, defense must show that the prosecution deliberately "brought on" the mistrial through "bad faith misconduct".
I don't see that happening here.
If there were any mistrial granted here, it would almost certainly be the type after which the prosecution could come back and try the defendant again. The winning of such a ruling would not improve Scott's position at all.
I don't think the judge will grant a mistrial at all here.
I don't know, I think Scott would mind very much if he had to wait another year in jail before having his trial! Scott is a "here-and-now" kind of guy, you know!
There is, er, one other possible way for that NG, Pinz: cheating. I can't say that I know anything firsthand about Scott or his defense team, but sometimes funny things happen... money changes hands. Guess it depends on how much cheating the Petersons can afford to buy--probably not too much, at this point.
Oh no doubt about it Geragos will play this sorry episode up for everything he can squeeze out of it, mostly through his surrogates in the media. And with months left to go in the trial we'll probably be hearing about it for the duration.
ROFLMAO!!!
I just heard Dan Abrams' lead-in: He said, "Week X of the Scott Peterson trial, and it looks like the prosecution finally had a good week... we'll tell you about it when we return."
That was all I heard. Hilarious! After Greta's wailing and gnashing of teeth, of all people, DAN ABRAMS says this!
I do not depend on Aphrodite Jones for information to base opinions on...just because Amber had affairs with married men who lied to her before about "lost wives"..it doesn't make her a murderess...(see how it goes when accusations are flipped?)
All unfaithful husbands aren't murderers, the vast majority aren't...Most husbands who commit murder are also being unfaithful.
You will find case information, preliminary trial hearing transcripts, links to index's of the case since the beginning...in other places...
If you are interested, you can seek them out on Court TV.com,findlaci.com, Modesto Bee, etc. Timeline information is important, motive, means and opportunity are all there....
Many loved and respected men who one would never suspect of murder have murdered or hired someone else to murder their wives.
My opinion of his motive, based on Scott's activities is that he did not want to be tied down to marriage complicated by fatherhood..
He liked his freedom to lead his doublelife and he was being threatened with exposure ,feared Laci not "understanding" and being OK with it, filing for divorce resulting in alimony and child support payments....and he would be embarrassed to have his "lost" soulmate, "lost wife" lies exposed to Amber, his affair exposed to family and friends.
His freedom to act as he pleased is threatened..his image was threatened.
In my opinion: He is a narcissistic human being who needs adoring, freedom to do as he pleases, who can be a charming, accomplished liar, who felt shame but not guilt..
He is embarrassed to be exposed but his continuing calls to Amber after Laci's disappearance indicate no guilt over his affair or true concern about Laci's fate.
This is my motive appraisal.
Glad to see FR is back up and running!!
I completely lost ability to log on to FR during my "motive" post...
I wonder who could have leaked the info of a closed door hearing, conference, rant??...Who would start a media buzz over a long weekend about police lies, prosecutorial misconduct and request for a mistrial?..Hmmmm?
I'm waiting till Tuesday and the judge's announcement, decision, ruling or... silence on the subject!
Having said that, this case has been a bust (although I have not had the time to follow it closely).
But I think it is about to become more interesting.
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.