Player written all over him
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 ...
Nancy G...Scott having jabs made at him(cad testimony) to lay groundwork for his being in the near vicinity when Laci disappeared ,(10 minute timeline) and fishing that same day in the same area that the bodies were discovered months later....
If I hear "none of this testimony of being a lying, womanizing, adulterous, faithless, creep is proof Scott is a murderer" again I'll throw up.Of course it isn't proof he is a murderer but it sure does destroy the glorious marriage myth.
THs: Double life in jeopardy..swinger life ,lifestyle endangered by baby and divorce, picked Christmas eve because so few people would be around bay.
Realizes he is in danger of being exposed as married
6th, calls Amber to say "lost" his wife..8th, studies tides ..9th..bought boat.
I was watching, too, Meg - and taking notes. I don't have to post a thing - you got it all perfectly!
Just another crackpot, CO!
Runningbear, you poor girl, I find it slightly amusing, but also kind of annoying, that they always pick you to address their inane comments to! I know it's b/c you are the one who takes the trouble to post the threads that we all want to read.
They obviously don't know you as we do, or they would never speak so rudely to you!
The fact that these crackpots post to you shows that they just flash onto these threads, don't read a single detail, pronounce judgment on us all, and dart away. Boy, there sure are a lot of idle, lonely people out there!
Thanks redlipstick...Looks like next week is foundation for wiretaps, tapes....
Oh Wow..Did you see that quick tape of Distaso asking judge to allow him to demonstrate how Scott got Amber in the boat?..guess this clip was taped long ago?
LFNF?"
Need Help..... What does that stand for...???
That was very interesting, Jackie!
I agree with the analyst--that when Scott said his affair was "inappropriate", he was probably borrowing that namby-pamby term from Clinton, who used it years earlier.
Why is it so hard for people to make the connection? CHEATING ON YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND IS DISHONEST. IF YOU ARE DISHONEST, THEN HOW CAN WE TRUST ANYTHING YOU SAY?
Scott gave several interviews where he proclaimed his innocence. But we know he did something really dishonest, not long before he gave those interviews: we know he cheated on Laci, and lied to Amber, and lied to Shawn. So why are we then supposed to just take every word he utters as the Gospel truth?
I can take a wild guess..not for family viewing!...
Why does little Houston have a different last name from little sis Alexia (not Alexis, Alexia!) and Mom?
did Peterson mention the triple-lindy?
After this testimony,tapes, Ambers testimony, they can play his "innocent" interviews and the jury can decide if he is a truthful individual....;)
The woman, whom Peterson had just met, said that she tried to talk about other things such as business, but that he kept turning the conversation to sex.
He was obviously trying to initiate a sexual relationship with this woman that he'd just met.
In doing this, he was cheating on his wife.
Cheating on one's wife is dishonest.
Scott has made statements that he had "nothing to do" with the murder of his wife.
Those statements will come in as evidence in this trial.
If the prosecution wants the jury to not believe Scott's denials, then it needs to show that he is dishonest. Showing that he was cheating on his wife = showing that he was dishonest.
Think of it this way: A president cheats on his wife. Knowing this, it does not surprise you as much when you are asked to believe that this president also committed perjury, which = LYING.
If, OTOH, you think the Clinton impeachment was "just about sex", then please disregard all of the above.
It wouldn't have been allowed into the trial "second hand", except for the fact that Peterson's DUMBSH*T LAWYER set a precedent for such statements to come in second hand, and now he is reaping what he sowed.
No! I missed that!
Awfully pleased/relieved that DiStaso realizes he really needs to give a boat-fitting demonstration.
Clinton was charged with perjury, not with being a POS.
Some truly amazing guys manage to simultaneously be a POS while they are committing a crime. Isn't it amazing how versatile some guys are?
Aren't you a lawyer? Ever heard of a "foundation"? This woman is part of the foundation needed to bring in statements such as Scott's prophetic statement that his wife was dead. He made this statement around Dec. 9--approximately 2 weeks before, lo and behold, his wife died.
I don't know about you, but if I heard that my spouse was going around saying I had died, I would tend to wonder if that old lovin' feeling was still there...
If he lies, then he is a murderer. Not!
Okay, so people "drink and say stupid things" at conferences.
So, was he still at the conference when he called Shawn up "in tears" and said that his wife was dead?
I heard that Eric Olsen was present on Scott's end when Scott called Shawn and said that. I can't help but wonder if Scott gave young Eric a sly smile as he picked up the phone, and said "Hey, watch my technique here..."
You may be thinking of co-ed Kristin Smart, who was murdered. Apparently the police concluded that she was probably done in by a weird ex-boyfriend--or wannabe boyfriend.
Scott was not implicated in that case. There is nothing to indicate that he ever knew her.
Player written all over him
Thanks, rb! This trial is getting crazy!
If he lies about his wife being dead and his wife turns up dead the equation changes. If he lies about his wife being dead and his wife turns up dead and she is found in his fishing hole the equation changes again. If he lies about his wife being dead and his wife turns up dead in his fishing hole and he has professed his love for another woman the equation changes, yet, again. Add the possible future evidence of pliers with her hair in the boat, cement anchors found at the dumping ground matching the one in the warehouse, sonar and underwater photographs of evidence and you can see how guilt, at some point, may be reasonably deducted starting with the lying.
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.