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 ...
Naw, he probably doesn't care, except how it might affect his own (mostly delusional) image. But a disgruntled client is not a good thing to have out there!
Good night!
Good point about the shirt...where was it if she was dressed and out walking?...
Of course the one she wore to the salon when last seen by anyone but Scott was in the hamper,partially hanging out, like it was the first thing she removed while getting undressed for bed...just before the last breaths she would ever take?
You said it, Blondee!
I know for a fact that I viewed Scott as an all-right guy at first, b/c I was impressed that his IN-LAWS, of all people, had such warm, kind things to say about him.
I remember people on here were NOT condemning Scott at first. It was just a mystery, and some of us love a mystery.
And Amber. When she first came to light, I remember posting that I had seen a Forensic Files show on which a guy's ex-girlfriend came to his home while he was away. The guy had since married, and he and his wife had a young infant. The ex-girlfriend--with whom the guy had NOT been carrying on an affair--killed the wife and baby, apparently just out of spite.
So I suggested to the posters that maybe Amber did this, as a sort of "Fatal Attraction" kind of thing. A few others suggested it, too. Others refused to believe it, and it turns out they were right. Amber was not involved in this. I firmly believe she'd have been charged, if she had been.
I mean, if they could've brought charges against her, what better way to force her into testifying against anything Scott might have done in concert with her?
I would love to ask the defense why the police would insist on "getting" this obscure manure salesman. What's so special about him? If they'd found evidence leading to Amber, I believe they would have been just as happy to "get" her.
Remember there was something about Laci having worn Scott's blue pajamas? I thought about this; that must've meant, the pajama top only. I mean, there is no way she could have worn the pajama pants!! They'd have been hanging off her feet, or she'd have had to roll them up about a hundred times--not likely.
I think the pajamas were found in a grocery bag in the closet? Just a rumor, so far. But we did hear actual testimony that the shirt was found balled up in a drawer. (Like a woman nicknamed "Martha Stewart" is going to ball up a shirt and stick it in a drawer--sounds like something one of my teenage sons would do, yeah right!)
Suppose she had just taken off the shirt and put on Scott's pajama top? Once she was dead, of course he'd have to remove a pajama top, b/c she wouldn't have "walked the dog" wearing his pajama top!
Meg, why do they keep coming back to that closet in which the two duffel bags were disturbed? They mentioned it again during Brocchini's recent testimony. That is starting to give me the willies. I am even starting to have visions of his hanging his poor wife from the bar of that closet, the better to strangle her. Brrr!
LOL. Something similar to the plot of the Doris Day movie happened in the book (later a movie) "Far From the Madding Crowd". Great story, btw.
I guess it's possible that Scott thought, well, if she's missing, I can easily get myself named to handle her affairs. So I guess he thought he'd at least have a chance of getting his meat-hooks into the inheritance, about 3 years later, when the "missing" Laci turned 30. But I think it turned out that a large part of that (grandmother's) money would have still been tied up, if their grandfather had still been living. (He apparently died after Laci did.) It was all rather "iffy".
The thing is, another 4 years go by, Laci is declared dead, and since Laci could not have willed her inheritance money to her dear husband (since she was "missing" during all that time, so not making any wills), I think Brent and Amy would then have come back with a vengeance and demanded that the money go to them. Then Scott would have to explain where "Laci's" money was. (He would surely have violated his role as her representative, and have spent it up.)
I think there was a hesitancy to consider this man had the capacity to kill his pregnant , beautiful wife by many....His not going on camera to plead for his wife, not sitting with the family at the vigil...all seemed strange, puzzling and suspicious to some but but certainly not damning yet...There was that strange sign thanking the volunteers signed "Laci's husband"...
The declaration he was going golfing and therefore pick up the basket for Amy, then the "impulse" fishing trip on Christmas Eve (that he bought a fishing license for on the 20th) so far away from his pregnant wife in a boat no one was aware of seemed suspicious and things heated up..Then the double life was exposed, continued calls from Scott to Amber after the disappearance were revealed, and then there were his interviews , not a good thing for him in the end.
The bodies wash up where he was fishing, tan not black pants on the body....
The timeline of his cell phone calls , dog put back in the yard on his leash time revealed and I was more convinced he really did it...
The items he had with him when arrested, change of appearance and car purchased under his mother's name all sealed my beliefs....I would love to be wrong...I don't believe I am...
"Why" was the hardest part for me to work out in my own mind...Even though I know murder doesn't make sense,WHY always is on the mind...Amber is just a symptom of his need to be free and able to do as he pleases, free to seek new thrill of the chase, free from responsibilites of fatherhood. Instead of being exposed as a skirt chasing, lying , faithless husband and negligent father, he becomes an object of sympathy from his family. Scott needs to be center of the universe.
Can the prosecution prove it to the jurors? I never know what a jury will do.
Blouse was photographed in hamper on the night of the 24th...later found balled up in a drawer when the police took Amy in to check on missing clothing,etc...
The trust would have been divided among trust's beneficiaries that were surviving..Scott would have received nothing from that trust.
Your guess about how she died is chilling... strangling or suffocating her would have left no forensics.
I try not to put too much significance in the duffle bags..so much they enter into evidence leaves you hanging without there ever being anything but conjecture...
It shows something out of place that Laci would not be likely to leave...unless she was saying, "Pack your things and get out?"
I hope I'm not being old-fashioned here, but... the way Scott insisted on being a "horndog" with this Shawn, the moment he met her... I know it's trite and almost humorous to think that he was clearly signalling to her that she was just a piece of tail...
It kind of shows a tendency to regard people as objects.
Someone who regards people as objects might think of a wife as just another possession, to be gotten rid of when she had (in his mind) outlived her usefulness.
That's a thought. Duffel bags on the floor, or otherwise thrown around, might be telling us that SOMEONE was packing their things and getting out!
Pinz was talking about: what if the time came for the trust to be ended and for its assets to be distributed, what if at that time, Laci was "missing" but not legally considered dead? B/C her body had never been found and the requisite 7 years had not passed?
If it happened that way, seems like her share would have vested. But it obviously couldn't be given to HER, since her whereabouts would be unknown, so someone would have to be appointed to represent her and... guess who? Dear darling husband, of course.
If that happened, it would not mean that he would be the owner of the assets; it would just mean that he would be a fiduciary, in charge of holding her assets. Technically he wouldn't have the right to spend up the money, but let's face it, fiduciary duty would mean nothing to Scott.
Of course women are good for adoring him, appreciating him, sex, and being impressed by his grandiose impression of who he is....If not, they are as disposable as a worn out couch or a cheap trinket..
Laci was pregnant and the center of attention and concern, Laci was pregnant and thinking about a new baby, Laci was pregnant, tired and big, gave him honey do lists...not making him the feel like a prince...A baby would have taken attention away from Scott...Disposable.
I'd love to see that court battle...!
I'm glad to hear you disagree. I couldn't wait until this case began ... then I became too busy to follow it closely. All I read is negative about the prosecution. But if a good case is being made ... I'm delighted!
Have a great trip!...Happy Fourth of July!
Now back to the articles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Detective erred on duct tape statement
Source: Detective erred on duct tape statement
By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: July 2, 2004, 04:46:53 AM PDT
REDWOOD CITY -- A detective who told jurors he received a phone tip that Scott Peterson had once described how he would dispose of a body misstated part of the tip in his testimony, a source said.
Modesto police Detective Al Brocchini testified this week that a college acquaintance of Peterson's told him that in 1995, Peterson said if he ever killed somebody, he would dump the body in the ocean.
"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 testified.
Sea life would eat the hands, feet and head, leaving few means to identify the body, Peterson allegedly told the tipster.
Laci Peterson's severely decomposed remains washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay in April 2003 without feet, arms or head. Duct tape was attached to the tattered remnants of her tan maternity pants........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge Problem for Peterson Prosecution
Thursday, July 01, 2004
By Greta Van Susteren
Dear Viewers,
If you are following the Scott Peterson (search) double murder trial, you have reason to be very disappointed. In the end, we all want — or should want — justice. Justice means the right verdict — "guilty" if proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the 12 jurors or "not guilty" if not proven. We have a right to expect that the police do a good job — and, in most instances, they do. One of the detectives in the Peterson case is falling short of that "good job" to put it gently. And, if I were the assistant DA prosecuting this case right now, I would be furious. Frankly, as good citizens, we should all be furious.
Let me outline 3 instances of police work that must have the DA's office up in arms:
1. Shortly after December 24, the lead detective investigating the disappearance of Laci Peterson went to a judge and swore under oath to certain "facts." Those "facts" were what the judge relied upon in issuing a search warrant and an order to wiretap Peterson's phone. It is demanded that this affidavit be true — not fudged, and no lies — since the issuance of warrants is so important......
_-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frey friend: Peterson on the make
Frey friend: Peterson on the make
By JOHN COTÉ and SUSAN HERENDEEN
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: July 1, 2004, 05:00:20 AM PDT
Editor's note: This story contains language some might find offensive.
REDWOOD CITY -- Two months before his wife disappeared, Scott Peterson told a woman he had "lost his soulmate" and wanted to meet her single friend, the woman testified Wednesday.
Shawn Sibley of Fresno, who set Peterson up with Amber Frey, offered provocative details during an hour on the witness stand that painted Peterson as a womanizer who lied about his finances.
Peterson said he owned two homes, had sold a business in Europe, liked thin women and thought about printing "HB" -- for horny bastard -- on his business cards, Sibley testified.
"Scott acted like he wasn't married..........
Take care, RB!!! Have a good time!!!
You're right, RB. If a freeper gets accidentally pinged and is not normal, we sure don't want them around here!!
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.