Sun 11 Jul 2004
Posted on 07/12/2004 5:39:31 AM PDT by runningbear
‘No Joy in Our Lives’
Peterson's Parents Speak Out on Son's Murder Trial
July 9, 2004 — A year and a half ago Lee and Jackie Peterson were eagerly awaiting the birth of their grandson. Today, they say, there is no joy in their lives.
Watch Barbara Walters' full report tonight on 20/20 at 10 p.m.
Their son Scott is on trial, accused of the savage murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, a baby they planned to name Conner.
Lee and Jackie Peterson tell 20/20's Barbara Walters they are convinced of their son's innocence. But as the case unfolds in a Redwood City, Calif., courthouse, the Petersons must reconcile two versions of their son: one, a wrongly accused husband who grieves for his murdered wife and unborn son, and the other, an adulterer turned cold-blooded monster. ........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson Trial Enters 7th Week
Jurors in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial have had more time outside the courtroom than in it recently to mull the prosecution's claims that the former fertilizer salesman killed his pregnant wife.
SLIDESHOW: Peterson Case Images
Heather's Trial Notes
The case resumes today following a four-day weekend -- the beginning of its seventh week, one that could see the most-anticipated witness called to the stand.
Prosecutors are still making their case that Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home on or around Dec. 24, 2002, trucked the body to San Francisco Bay in a large tool box and plunged it overboard from a small boat.
His alleged motive: an affair with massage therapist Amber Frey.
Frey, who began cooperating with authorities soon after Laci Peterson was reported missing, could testify this week. Though a judge has imposed a gag order, preventing attorneys from discussing who will be called, court officials recently advised media about special procedures for when Frey testifies. .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone records raise queries
By JOHN COTÉ and GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: July 10, 2004, 07:04:26 AM PDT
Scott Peterson's girlfriend called a Fresno police homicide detective's home in the days before and after Peterson's wife disappeared, partial cell phone records show.
Detective Richard Byrd's name surfaced in Peterson's double-murder trial during questioning about when Amber Frey called Modesto police about her relationship with Peterson and her whereabouts the day that Laci Peterson was reported missing.
Frey placed an almost hourlong call to Byrd's home the night of Dec. 21, 2002 -- three days before Peterson was reported missing, according to the phone records.
The next two calls from Frey's cell phone were to Scott Peterson the next morning, the documents show.
Frey called Byrd's home at least three times, for a total of 84 minutes, from Dec. 21, 2002, to Jan. 2, 2003, the records show. A 26-minute call from Frey's cell phone to Byrd's home took place the evening of Jan. 1, 2003 -- two days after Frey reportedly became aware that Peterson was married and his wife was missing.
Byrd declined to comment on the phone records, Frey's calls or the nature of their relationship.........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PETERSON TRIAL
Prosecution faulted by observers in court
Defense seems to be scoring points during D.A.'s time
Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer
Sunday, July 11, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Scott Peterson's defense team that good? Or are the prosecutors just not up to snuff?
That's what veteran trial lawyers are mulling over as they watch prosecutors try to convince a jury in Redwood City that Peterson is guilty of double murder.
After all, legal experts say, this is the prosecution's chance to bring out its most incriminating evidence, to build a rock-solid case against the Modesto fertilizer salesman who is accused of the 2002 slaying of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son.
But after five weeks of testimony, Mark Geragos, Peterson's noted defense attorney, instead seems be scoring one point after another, experts say.
During intense cross-examinations, Geragos has been able to produce evidence supporting his version of the facts, hammer away at the credibility of prosecution witnesses and even assume control of the courtroom, according to lawyers who have been observing the trial from the gallery of the Redwood City courtroom.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all out missed this ping over the weekend
Sun 11 Jul 2004
Double act: Experts believe Senator John Edwards, right, brings real strengths to John Kerry’s Democratic ticket. He is an attractive figure who may help Kerry appeal to centrist voters in the presidential quest.
Picture: Justin Sullivan/ Getty Images
Dream team ready for Bush
ALEX MASSIE IN WASHINGTON
BATTLE is now officially joined. John Kerry’s selection of John Edwards as his running mate completes the rival tickets for this year’s presidential election and allows the campaign to start in full-blooded earnest.
Already Kerry’s choice is reaping rewards. Edwards, whose sunny, optimistic populism appealed to independent and moderate voters during the primary season, fills in some of the blanks in Kerry’s political curriculum vitae.
Where Kerry is a son of privilege, Edwards is self-made and his southern charm neatly balances Kerry’s New England and mildly aristocratic appearance while also giving the ticket a geographic spread that makes it seem as though it is appealing to all America.
On the stump, too, it is merely a small exaggeration to argue that in terms of eloquence Edwards is to Kerry as Tony Blair is to George W Bush.
An initial, post-announcement, CBS poll gave Kerry a four-point boost but that may only be the beginning of the good news for the Democrat challenger.
Perhaps in an effort to shake voters out of complacency, Bush’s own campaign strategists said they expect Kerry to have a 15-point lead by the end of the month, boosted as he will be by the acres of publicity Edwards has brought and, more importantly, by the party’s convention...........
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Laci's uncle,commenting on Scott's demeanor, I believe testified that he saw Scott get more upset over burning chicken at a cook out than he seemed after Laci disappeared.
I've heard of that blood thinner, and knew two people who were on it temporarily--one b/c he had a blood clot (it was called deep vein thrombosis), and the other b/c he had thrombophlebitis. Those two illnesses are obviously very similar, or at least related.
I was thinking something like that, when Eva said her husband was bleeding a lot. Or I was going to ask her if he was hemophiliac. Turns out he's just careless, lol.
As for hotel rooms, ewww. But it's really not surprising. I've seldom seen hotel custodians who looked (to me) like they did very much work. It's a good thing most biological materials are much less likely to get us sick when they have already dried.
The same could be said of restaurants. If you read George Orwell's "Down and Out in Paris and London", his descriptions of behind the scenes at restaurants is pretty gross.
Right. Just as when he threw an album full of their wedding pictures in the trash! It just doesn't get more Freudian than that!
Great post!
And as far as the legal concept of premeditation, it can occur in only a few seconds.
I remember reading that she specifically got a facial WAX on Dec. 23rd! So, it follows that she may have been one of those who wax their legs also!
Oh, well. I said I'd "seen hotel custodians who looked to me like they did very much work." I meant to say I'd seen hotel custodians who looked to me like they DIDN'T do very much work.
Obviously, some greater force wants me to quit picking on hotel custodians!
I think because of the timing of the boat purchase..many think it was supposed to be a prosecution point that he premeditated the murder back then...
I think he just showed a total disregard to his married life. His upcoming fatherhood combined with business travels would seem to make a boat a very untimeley, frivolous, unrealistic purchase.
He was wishing to "lose" Laci, whether he had actually formulated a way by that time to "lose" her and the approaching fatherhood....only he knows. He told Amber he did not want children, hers was enough.
PUHLEEZE!
We're talkin murder here, not a minor teeny nose bleed!
This sounds like somethin Guhsparagus would come up with. The prosecution did raise this, no?
This PA is, IMHO, frighteningly incompetent.
If there was violent bloodshed involved in this killing then SURELY the investigation during which 5000 bags of "evidence"(?) was carted out would have revealed it.
I believe the PA should come up with a plausible theory, start to finish, beginning with strangulation and abandon these crap-stick, waste of time, water-muddying suggestions.
Could Scott's having finally decided to go through with it have been related to the fact that he and Laci were due to go eat dinner with her family on the evening of the 24th?
I got the impression that Scott and Ron Grantski were not really very good friends. (Curiously, Scott and Dennis Rocha don't seem to have been very good friends, either.)
I think maybe Scott gets kind of intimidated by these men who are a generation older than he. Look at how it was when he was around Harvey Kemple. Same thing--not the best of relationships.
Some guys find it very, very easy to snow the women, but they don't come out so well with the men. My friend's ex-husband was that way. He was the ultimate con artist. Successful sales rep. A real charmer. He knew exactly how to make women feel special. This even appeared to work on older, savvier women. But after the two were divorced, I found out that the various women's husbands had actually disliked him. They hadn't said that when he was still married to my friend, but they just had a visceral dislike of him. They saw through him. They found him bogus.
Scott and Laci were going to be eating dinner with Sharon, Ron, Ron's sister, and Ron's mother. Probably Ron had, in the past, expressed his true opinion of Scott to his sister and mother. So those two maybe wouldn't be ready to swoon over that "nice young man", Scottie.
Laci tried to give her mother an excuse, tried to get out of going over to Sharon's. Maybe Scott had told her he just refused to go. Maybe he said, "Go ahead, if you insist, but I'm not going."
Maybe that was the source of the discord. Scott (Mr. "Action", Mr. "Horny B*****d") definitely would have felt it was a waste of his precious time, at that point, to be having to spend what he'd consider a boring evening, making nice with Laci's step-father's relatives.
I don't think Scott stood up to Laci very much. Brent said Laci would tell him things, and he would just do whatever it was that she wanted. Maybe he really, really wanted to stand up to her about this, but just couldn't, being the weenie that he is.
So he had to kill her. Ludicrous, yes, but some people think that way.
Lizzie Borden killed her step-mother (whom she disliked) upstairs in the bedroom. Later her father (whom she loved) came home and she killed him as he slept on the couch. I never could escape the thought that Lizzie followed up with that second murder because the whole time after her father came home, she was feeling increasing dread at how he would never love her again when he finally went upstairs and saw what she had done to his wife.
yep, just like a heroin user too....only if they mainline for 5 yrs, stats showed they don't live too much longer, if not from OD either.
Blood Stained Comforter Recovered From Peterson Home
POSTED: 7:54 am PDT July 12, 2004
UPDATED: 3:30 pm PDT July 12, 2004
REDWWOD CITY, Calif. -- A comforter apparently stained with blood was among numerous pieces of evidence seized from Scott Peterson's home in the days after his pregnant wife vanished, a police detective testified Monday.
Video
Video On Demand: Claudine Wong Reports On Monday's Testimony
Modesto police Detective Ray Coyle testified he examined the Petersons' home for "blood spatter and blood drops" after search warrants were served on Dec. 26 and Dec. 27, 2002.
Coyle said he found small spots that appeared to be blood on a comforter on the couple's bed, but did not elaborate.
**Lee and Jackie Peterson tell 20/20's Barbara Walters they are convinced of their son's innocence**
Huh?
Oh, Scott! You should've soaked your bedroom comforter in gasoline to destroy that biological material!
Frrepmail my dear.
I heard there has been yet another hissy fit about the prosecution "violating discovery". That Officer Coyle, the one who testified about finding the blood on the comforter, also testified that the police had a list of 309 sex offenders, and that they had successfully found and interviewed 285 of them. Pickle-nose Geragos got his panties in a wad b/c he said that list had not been provided to him.
The judge will apparently remedy the situation by recessing the proceeding long enough for the defense to have the time they need to investigate this list which they say they were never given.
This works beautifully to break up Coyle's compelling testimony of finding BLOOD. It provides just the distraction Geragos needed, as he probably was about to have urinary incontinence when he realized that the time had come to talk about the BLOOD.
Thanks!
in the article Coyle states that the list was not updated.... They investigated those you stated..... Geragos is always whinning about something...... ;o)
iconoclast. I think it is highly unfair of you to class Rick Distaso as frighteningly incompetent. In fact he is just the opposite. He has a very very good record. He is known for his honesty. Other Lawyers have stated that if Rick tells you something, you can bank on it. This is a "detail, common sense" case. He HAS to work with details and hundreds of them. He has to weave all of this into a picture which the Jury will understand. I'm of the opinion that Scott Peterson attempted a bloodless kill here. Recall his arrogant snotty statement when Ted Rowlands mentioned to him that LE was about to make an arrest? The words out of Peterson's mouth were "Well they don't have anything on me",!! Not Great, I hope they caught the creep. Distaso was a former Military Prosecutor and he's a very disciplined man. Perhaps you prefer the antics of a Geragasbag. I don't. Where the blood ties in I don't know. But I know one thing, Geragos and all his minions have been bragging for a year now that there is 'NO FORENSIC evidence. We'll see. I'll put my faith in Distaso.
Heading home with a little stop and gym *groan*
Very good points, CO. I think I see the problem: it's an honest guy vs. Geragos.
In my opinion, Geragos is a very dishonest person. I base my opinion on: 1. I recall while the Chandra Levy/Condit story was in the news, Geragos was one of the talking heads who appeared constantly on the cable shows. Sometime during this period, behind the scenes, he was HIRED--as in, a PAYING RELATIONSHIP--by Condit. Yet he never informed the viewers of his true position. He just continued to go on the cable shows, as though he were still a disinterested commentator. This is DISHONEST.
2. It is very clear that there are paid shills among the media reporting on this case--and they are NOT being paid by Distaso! They are being bought and paid for by Geragos. He not only wants to get his client off, he also wants to preserve this image which he has continually forced down viewers' throats--the image that he is some latter-day Clarence Darrow, when in fact in my opinion, there are many well-known lawyers all across America who could easily match his performance.
And why would Geragos be putting out misinformation in the media? Why, indeed? The jury is not supposed to see ANY media about this case. So it would be a wasted effort, right? But Geragos is clearly counting on jurors watching/reading media about this case. IOW, he is trying to circumvent the standard rule that the jury not be influenced by media. This is cheating; this is DISHONEST.
The prosecution is supposed to turn over various evidence to the defense. I know California seems to have a rule in which they are required to turn over everything; they practically demand that the state do all the work for the defense. But the general rule is NOT that. On a general (all 50 states) level, the evidence which must be turned over to the defense (assuming the defense makes the proper motion and gets an order) is EXCULPATORY material which is IN THE POSSESSION OF THE STATE.
Speaking generally, and not for California specifically, if it isn't exculpatory and it isn't in the possession of the state/prosecution, it does not fall under the above rule.
Which brings up a problem the state has that the defense doesn't have. The state HAS to be sure the exculpatory evidence is turned over. One would think this would be simple, b/c the lead prosecutor should know his case, know what's what, and know what he has--so he can then easily know what is to be turned over. But the prosecution is actually two entities combined: the police, and the district attorney's office.
The problem is that the police do not always communicate to the DA's office as they should. And vice versa.
This case has huge amounts of material. No one would be able to sift through it all alone, and Distaso needs support. Yet he is not in charge of the money which funds him, whereas Scott and his parents ARE in charge of the money which funds the defense, and can allot it where it is needed.
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.