Posted on 07/20/2004 5:33:48 AM PDT by runningbear
SCOTT'S LAWYER HACKS AWAY AT 'BLOOD' EVIDENCE
SCOTT'S LAWYER HACKS AWAY AT 'BLOOD' EVIDENCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 20, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — A series of suspicious stains in Scott Peterson's pickup truck were not blood, and cops couldn't link a hair in his toolbox to his murdered wife, a detective testified yesterday. Modesto, Calif., Detective Henry Hendee returned to the witness stand at Peterson's murder trial as defense lawyer Mark Geragos resumed his attack on the investigation into the deaths of Peterson's pregnant wife, Laci, and her fetus.
Jurors were told that eight stains found in Peterson's truck, which cops had believed were blood, all tested negative.
Geragos also asked Hendee about a hair found inside the large toolbox in the bed of Peterson's truck, pointing out that tests indicated it came from an officer at the crime scene.
Prosecutors allege Peterson used the toolbox to conceal Laci's body while taking it from the couple's Modesto home, where he murdered her, to San Francisco Bay.
Hendee acknowledged no incriminating evidence was found on the box.
As for a single strand of hair found in Peterson's pliers, prosecutors have already said DNA tests show that one is likely Laci's.
Prosecutors allege Peterson murdered his wife on or around Dec. 24, 2002, then dumped her corpse in the bay. The body, and that of the fetus, washed up on shore the next spring.
Geragos asserts that someone else abducted and killed Laci, then ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man's '03 'admission' eliminated
Man's '03 'admission' eliminated
BY GARTH STAPLEY and JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: July 20, 2004, 05:06:40 AM PDT
REDWOOD CITY -- Modesto Police discounted a sex offender's claim that he killed Laci Peterson because of the man's "history of mental illness," a detective testified Monday in Scott Peterson's murder trial. Also Monday:
Detective Ray Coyle said police found a diary in a dresser while searching the Petersons' home three days after the pregnant woman vanished on Christmas Eve 2002. No details were revealed.
Scott Peterson told police he made a concrete anchor in his warehouse, Detective Dodge Hendee testified, though a pitcher found amid cement powder there did not match a homemade anchor recovered from his boat. Prosecutors have suggested Peterson made a number of anchors to help sink his wife's body in San Francisco Bay.
Stains on the tailgate of Peterson's pickup, the steering wheel and a large storage box in the bed all tested negative for blood, Hendee testified. Only one spot on the interior driver-side door glowed -- signifying blood -- when FBI technicians sprayed it with a special chemical, the detective said........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex Offenders Said Questioned on Peterson
Sex Offenders Said Questioned on Peterson
Tuesday July 20, 2004 12:16 PM
AP Photo NY117
By BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press Writer
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) - Scott Peterson's attorney got a detective to acknowledge that police questioned hundreds of registered sex offenders and parolees as possible suspects in the murder of Peterson's wife, but never found 24 and did not always check alibis.
One potential suspect even confessed to the crime but the man's admission was discounted because he had mental problems, Detective Ray Coyle said Monday under questioning from defense attorney Mark Geragos.
``He said he murdered a female named Lisa Peterson, right? ... He said the only witness was the dog ... He said he broke her neck?'' Geragos asked Coyle.
``Yes,'' Coyle replied. .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spots, yes. Blood, no. Peterson detective recounts dead ends
Spots, yes. Blood, no. Peterson detective recounts dead ends
Defense lawyer Mark Geragos cross-examines Detective Henry Hendee Monday.
By Harriet Ryan
Court TV
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — In the end, the spots on the kitchen floor weren't blood, the hair in Scott Peterson's toolbox wasn't Laci's, and the police detectives' "perfect" anchor theory did not hold.
Evidence that seemed to promise insight into the disappearance of Peterson's pregnant wife often led to dead ends, a detective admitted Monday at the fertilizer salesman's murder trial.
The investigator's recounting of fruitless leads underscored the fact that even two months into the capital case, much about Laci Peterson's death remains a mystery.
Prosecutors have suggested Peterson killed the petite brunette in their tidy home, drove her in his truck to a warehouse, packed her in his fishing boat and took her to the San Francisco Bay where he threw her body into the tossing water.
Story continues ........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PETERSON TRIAL
285 sex offenders ruled out as suspects
Defense team tries to show police work was hasty, haphazard
Stacy Finz and Kelly St. John, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modesto police searching for Laci Peterson's killer ruled out a number of registered sex offenders and parolees without ever checking what appeared to be flimsy alibis, a detective testified Monday.
Investigators reviewing 285 sex offenders and parolees also dismissed the confession of an ex-convict after concluding he had a history of mental illness, Detective Ray Coyle testified.
The testimony came as the defense in the double-murder trial of Laci Peterson's husband, Scott Peterson, tried to show that investigators cut corners while tracking down the ex-cons and haphazardly cut them loose because they had already concluded the 31-year-old salesman was guilty of killing his wife and unborn child.
Coyle, a prosecution witness who was recalled to the stand in Redwood City by defense attorney Mark Geragos, acknowledged that in some cases investigators had accepted unverifiable explanations for some of the ex-convicts' whereabouts Dec. 24, 2002, the day Laci Peterson was reported missing. Some of the sex offenders and parolees lived within a mile of the Petersons' Modesto home, Coyle said.
"So you say (attempts to contact all 285 ex-convicts) were completed?" Geragos asked. "That does not mean by any means that (they) were eliminated as suspects?" .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scott Peterson Trial:
Can Prosecutors Win the Case? And If So, How?
The Scott Peterson Trial:
Can Prosecutors Win the Case? And If So, How?
By JULIE HILDEN
julhil@aol.com
---- Tuesday, Jul. 20, 2004
So far, the prosecution's case against Scott Peterson, in his ongoing California murder trial, has been unimpressive. The prosecution's opening was unconvincing - relying heavily on weak circumstantial evidence that could have an innocent interpretation.
For instance, prosecutors pointed out that (in a wiretapped call) Scott Peterson gave a whistle of relief when an object found on the floor of San Francisco Bay was an anchor, not his wife Laci's body. But so what? Maybe he was relieved because this meant she might still be alive. Is it really evidence suggesting Peterson murdered his wife, if he was happy that an object found was not his wife's body?
To take another example, prosecutors noted in their opening that the jewelry Laci wore every day was still in her bedroom when she disappeared. They imply that therefore she never left the house, and Scott must have killed her there.
But would Laci necessarily have worn her diamond earrings and sapphire ring to walk the dog - which is what the defense, supported by three witnesses, will maintain that she was doing when she disappeared? It wouldn't have been very surprising, especially given that she was eight months pregnant, if she'd walked the dog in her pajamas.
In the last few weeks, as the prosecution's case has unfolded with witness testimony and other evidence, it hasn't improved much. As a result, commentators have been almost universally harsh in their condemnation of the prosecution's effort.
Meanwhile -- as I noted in an earlier column -- Justin Falconer, the juror who was recently dismissed, was adamantly anti-prosecution. . If even one remaining juror feels as strongly as Falconer, the prosecution is in serious trouble.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stains In Peterson Truck Weren't Blood
Stains In Peterson Truck Weren't Blood
POSTED: 7:16 am PDT July 19, 2004
UPDATED: 4:55 pm PDT July 19, 2004
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- Tests showed that many of the suspicious stains in Scott Peterson's pickup truck were not blood, and there was no incriminating evidence in a tool box in the vehicle, a detective testified Monday at Peterson's murder trial.
Video
Video On Demand: Claudine Wong Reports On Monday's Peterson Testimony
Video
Video On Demand: Excused Juror Justin Falconer Talks About Death Threat, Fame And Peterson Trial
Detective Henry "Dodge" Hendee returned to the witness stand as defense attorney Mark Geragos continued to attack the investigation, highlighting for jurors that seven stains found in Peterson's truck -- blotches in places including the steering wheel and in the truck's bed that police suspected were blood -- all tested negative.
Geragos continued to pepper the detective with questions about even more tests on suspicious stains found in the Petersons' kitchen, bedroom and on a pair of gloves taken from his truck, repeatedly asking, "What were the results?"
"Negative," Hendee replied.
Hendee said one test of a spot on the inside driver's door of Peterson's truck did test positive for blood. Peterson previously told authorities he had cut his hand and they would likely find his blood on the truck.
Geragos then asked Hendee about a hair found inside a large tool box in the bed of Peterson's truck, pointing out that testing indicated it came from a law enforcement officer processing the crime scene.
"At the time I thought it could possibly be Laci's," Hendee said.
Prosecutors allege Peterson used the tool box to conceal Laci Peterson's body during the drive from the couple's Modesto home to San Francisco Bay.
Hendee acknowledged Monday that no incriminating evidence was found on the tool box...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Pinging......
Pinging......
This guy is going to get off.
won't know until it is over, and verdict reached.... Thanks for the opinion... Pundits interpretations wants me to hurl on the justice system.
That's a nice way of reporting: the article tells us what Pickle-Nose said, but not what the witness said. I assume they swore Pickle-Nose in before he testified...
As far as I could tell, Court TV did not have Nancy Grace's show on last night.
Guess her viewpoint doesn't fit in with their own bought-and-paid for promotion of only the defense side. We can look to see Geragos face, with its flapping lips and eyes that won't open all the way, on Court TV as practically a permanent fixture, after this case is over.
I've been saying that for several months, and so far the prosecution is basically proving their own case weak, bogus, and contrived.
It's looking more and more like the defense won't even have to put on a case. Unless the prosecution can come up with a LOT more than it has, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict a directed verdict of not guilty when the prosecution rests its case. This thing isn't even going to go to the jury.
I basically concur. There needs to be some more evidence, which I am afraid they don't have. Geragos is very good, and if you show you have a weak case, he will punish you.
Funny thing was of that fire, as I was calling my sister for a heads up alert, this Egret bird was flying all over the fire and smoke area, continuously going into the smokey area, and after a while, I lost sight of the bird. Wonder why it kept circling? Co worker thinks, food!
Juror #5 was on Catherine Crier yesterday and basically admitted that the jury discussed the case on breaks. I could tell that Mickey Sherman & Leslie Schneider were shocked, however, they tried to gloss it over by saying that all juries talk before deliberating (which I thought was stupid). I've been on two juries and never violated this rule. What is the chance that this would cause a mistrial? Do you think the judge will question the other jurors? I'm sure he'll hear about it!
Wow, you had a close call, didn't you??
Those fires look terrible on TV, that's all I know! As for that crazy bird, I can't imagine. Maybe that bird has developed a taste for cooked food...
LOL... maybe.. It was still burning but on the other side of the river this morning. Glowing....
I've been thinking about a possible scenario, one that pretty much assured Scott that there would be no evidence to trip him up. Try this one...
Scott put the date-rape drup into her beverage that she drank with her pizza. It hit her as she was undressing. He bundled the living, but comatose, Laci into the truck, drove her to the Bay and popped her over the back of the boat, with her weights, shrink wrap etc. (that he had previously applied at his secret warehouse.)
He drove up the next day, worried that he didn't get her into the channel the night before. He had to check his handy work. When he was seen, he decided to use that alibi, knowing no one could swear to seeing anything but a lone fisherman.
He may have used a different launch site for the first trip. How long does the drug work? Asking about the cadaver dogs would just be a joke at the cops' expense, since he would know there was no corpse smell to track. And he worked hard to confuse the live scents.
To me, this makes the lack of evidence fit. He must have thought long and hard, and did the computer research, to pull off the 'perfect' crime, so there aren't going to be conventional pieces of damning evidence.
I think his own voice is going to provide the best circumstantial evidence to condemn him.
I also hope the prosecution is putting its dead ends and weakest evidence on at the beginning, so it doesn't slow down momentum later on.
But then, I'm a NG on Westerfield, so I don't have my hopes up too high for a big finish, either. I just know in my heart the guy did it.
Pinz
(re Westerfield: I've watched closely for a description of his offering up the body. I've only seen carefully worded statements 'suggesting' that offer, while the action was coming from the prosecutors asking him to mark the map. Just saying...)
Yes, I heard he said that. I can't help but think he was, er, shall we say, embellishing?
This fool ran out of useful information about this trial some time ago. So he is grasping at straws to make any sort of relevant comment, to justify the TV appearances and limelight which he apparently loves.
If the judge were to think it was true, I'm sure he'd call the jurors in and instruct them about this yet again. I don't think this will cause a mistrial.
on Court TV as practically a permanent fixture, after ..
---
Only if he wins. If he looses, with all the help he's getting from the pros., then he'll just look bad. Still, they'll have him on occasionaly as focused expert on LE/DA screw ups. I wonder if Grandeos has a contract with CTV, that maybe has been deferred till this case is over?
If Snott is found not guilty could Snott sue S. County LE?
It appears so, but there's a long way to go in the trial yet and with a little luck the prosecution will come up with more solid evidence to prove their case.
I think your idea about the GHB sounds possible. We know he researched GHB on the computer. (When will they get to the computer evidence? So far they've only discussed his "fishing" research, which happened to be printed out next to his office computer... that scored a point for the prosecution, btw.)
Maybe she was comatose, and dying from overdose, when he did all his wrapping, and maybe he himself is not sure exactly at what point she died. B/C I think he asked about cadaver dogs out of worry.
Remember, there was also a story, apparently true, that when they'd cleared off some road so the dogs could track, Scott drove past the barricades and was hanging around. The police thought he was trying to confuse the dogs, if the dogs were at the moment tracking HIS scent. Although apparently they can't introduce evidence of the dogs' findings, I wonder if they can introduce evidence of Scott's guilty behavior that day they were searching with the dogs. Alas, probably not.
My problem is I can't remember what's already been testified to, and what hasn't. I hope they've already gotten in the part about his calling the police in the middle of the night, asking about his gun, and about "cadaver dogs", and about "grief counselors".
Actually, that's what I was thinking: that he has an incipient contract with Court TV. Certainly, I really believe that he has Court TV in his pocket.
Heaven knows, he was always all over TV before he took this case--and not just as a Peterson case commentator. You couldn't get away from him. Regardless of what happens with this trial, I dread the day when he is free again to be constantly on those shows. I remember thinking that he was on Larry King more than Larry King was!
Yes, Scott could sue for malicious prosecution. One can only do this if there is a not guilty. But I don't think the evidence is there to sustain a suit for malicious prosecution: the police's actions in this case were understandable. They weren't out to target him--why should they? What was he to them? Just a citizen with no prior criminal record.
I still want to know why Court TV didn't have Nancy Grace's show on last night!!
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.