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 ...
What closed door hearing? BTW, I like your tagline.
Hmm, ideed. Who likes to get the last word in before the weekend break, especially a 4 day weekend? Who's ears are burning from hearing the prosecution praised this week?
Does it start with an M and rhyme with asparagus?
C'mon. Let's assume that someone other than Scott killed her.... How could it have happened?
---
I've been racking my brain... I just can't imagine who else.. Who else could be out there? Who else had inside knowledge of both Scot and Laci with opportunity, time and for what motive?
The Dr. Greineder and Rabbi Fred Neulander cases are examples of men who murdered, (Fred had someone else do it) their wives rather than get a divorce..
.Divorce would have been more painful and threatening to their "image", family relations and financial state than total "erasure" of the "problem wife"...No more sneaking around, no more questions, no more demands and expectations from the totally disposable little wife, no more hassles..
A child was a potential responsibility hassle looming over Scott, financially, freedom wise, and it would be complicated by family expectations/judgements of whether he was a good father...He needed to erase hassle.
It happened before court yesterday ,I believe..Let's call it a meeting as I don't know if it was a formal hearing. Meeting before court in the judges chambers happens often if there is a problem to work out.
Think about "What rhymes with ark" and I believe we may be onto something! Ark Asparagus...LOL!
A child was a potential responsibility hassle looming over Scott...
Remember when Scott was first arrested. A few days after that, is first lawyer Macalister released this statement: "Scott did not know she was pregnant." It was all over the news. I think that could have been interpreted to read that Scott did not know she had gotten pregnant when she did. That maybe she wanted a baby and didn't tell him. If that happened, maybe he resented that too.
This is from memory..do not take as fact:...Laci had one ovary and Scott was reported to cooperate in being home when her"fertile" cycle was happening as they had not been successful in getting Laci pregnant...He told one of Laci's relatives he had kinda hoped for infertility.
I believe there was speculation early that Scott didn't believe he was the father but rumors were wild then...I recall the DNA of the baby settled that rumor.
I will forever have this implanted in my brain now when his name or picture appears!...LOL
Well said.
I wonder if he had a nice routine worked out with Laci before the baby came along...
He told her lies, she was happy homemaking. There was enough money for her to stay busy with the house, garden, parties and cooking, and he managed to fund his activities, maybe with a little business on the side to bring in 'cheating' cash.
The baby was going to bring all of this to a screeching halt, with Laci not working, wanting a husband who would be present and attentive to the baby, her family around more. He seems to have come up with a neat and tidy solution. Too bad in would only work out well in a dream world. But then, he managed to skirt so many other rules that would impinge on us mere mortals....
Motivation, oh yes!
Pinz
The personal information about Scott that the DA is bringing out in the trial IMHO is relevant. It more and more points to Scott being more than a cad but also a sociopath.
This would counter his parents claim that he is a sweet, lovable son and husband who wouldn't hurt a fly and will make the jury accept the possibility (at least those who are more intelligent and open minded that Justin No. 5) that he could be capable of killing his wife and unborn child.
As for the duct tape, I understood Nancy Gracy saying that this is at this stage just a rumor and that it has not been established that it was not said.
She also dismissed the chance of a mistrial since Geragos had a chance to correct it but goofed up.
I don't disagree with a thing you've written here. :-)
I don't see her wandering off, or being kidnapped, or being robbed. The jewelry, dog, shoes, purse all point against this.
I'd still like to know why her phone wasn't working, with Scott going off on trips and her not feeling well.
Pinz
The only thing that can prevent that would be a valid claim of double jeopardy. And this ain't it!
OJ is protected from thr double jeopardy because he was already tried and a verdict given...that is the only time a person can claim double jeopardy to my knowledge
>>Having said that, this case has been a bust <<
I totally disagree, however you are entitled to your opinion.
That Cardoza is creepy and comes up with truly stupid statements. I don't know if he is that stupid or tries to kiss up to Geragos. I've stared to press the mute button whenever he's on. And so arrogant!
Certainly OJ has a very, very good case for double jeopardy, should anyone ever try to put him on trial for murder again.
But there are some weird instances in which the police/prosecution may deviously seek to cause a mistrial. If the mistrial is all the prosecution's fault (or if it is the prosecution who is requesting it), and not the defense's, the equation changes. Otherwise, every prosecutor who found himself losing big would be tempted to just bring on a mistrial, in order to get a chance to start anew--since, if there's a loss for the prosecutor (acquittal), the prosecutor has NO chance to appeal.
My opinion: this is not one of those weird instances. If a mistrial were granted here (doubtful on what we currently know), then the prosecution could still try Scott later.
Side note: A lot of defendants are unpleasantly surprised to find that they can be prosecuted by the state, and then AGAIN by the feds, for the very same offense. One example is the offense of "felon in possession of a firearm." This is a state crime, AND also a federal crime. YES, they can prosecute you in the state court and AGAIN in the federal court, for the same incidence of this crime. It's not double jeopardy, b/c you are not being prosecuted twice by the same sovereign.
Cardoza is a Geragos shill...IMHO....They all jump on anything that they can talk about but Michael said the trial is over and the trial is lost over the deletion of the warehouse witness...and said it with great conviction.
Over the top!...then Broncchini was rehabbed in redirect, barely noted on the night shows, and we moved along.
According to the testimony, it turns out that he did not actually ask his question about cadaver dogs at the same time he called to ask whether they had taken his gun.
He called to ask if they'd taken the gun early on Christmas morning, not long after getting out of his interview with police.
He made the call in which he asked about cadaver dogs over 12 hours later, on the evening of Christmas Day.
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.