Posted on 08/17/2004 5:31:58 AM PDT by runningbear
August 17, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. Stunning new phone tapes from Scott Peterson's slay trial yesterday depicted his miffed mistress demanding to know if he slept with wife Laci the night before she vanished and Peterson insisting he told Laci about their affair after their first date.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
EXCELLENT POST DEV!! - I'm so sick of these trolls popping up each morning. They can't possibly know the details as those of us who have been discussing every single detail for about 18 months. Some of us have legal training, some of us have medical training, some of us have psychology training. We have a whole range of GREAT input. This other stuff is simply disruption!!
Thanks for the brief run-down of incriminating facts. I'm a little late to the party.
"she was one of the named heirs to approximately $2.1 million"
Is this where Geragos is planning to get his loot?
I'd been wondering how a fertilizer salesman afford such a lawyer.
other subject:
IYO, are women more sympathetic toward Amber than men are?
Hilarious!! I didn't catch that! He orders porn channels and she doesn't hear from him for days!
I don't know, but if that Horowitz has any shame (which is highly doubtful) I'm sure he was put in his place.
I hope his own mother was watching when he made that totally unsupported, stupid, statement.
Eeek! You're giving me the willies!!
That Geragos sucker will never get his dirty fingers on a penny of what would have been Laci's inheritance. Hee hee.
Scott's family has a business which is apparently successful. His parents are fairly well-off and apparently have good credit. Also, Scott reportedly borrowed money using his interest in the Covena Ave. home as collateral.
And Geragos will double or triple what they paid him when he gets to his TV appearances and book deals after this is over--regardless of the outcome.
No, women are DEFINITELY not easier on Amber than men are! When I first heard about her, I just had to say that I thought she was sickening for having had her child w/o even apparently thinking about marrying the father. Not to mention some of her other known escapades.
But after hearing tape after tape of her, after watching (through media) her deeds since this murder occurred, etc., I have come to the conclusion that Amber has had no one to really love her since about when she was born. This does not excuse any bad behavior she may have engaged in, but it does explain it. She apparently thinks it's normal to have all these problems in one's life. She appears to have never known anything else. And she hasn't killed anyone yet--including, by all reports, any unborn children of hers. Amber is definitely worth saving.
LOLL
I just had that thought. She did give him a key(?). He could have gone and put one up to check on her to see if she had other suitors; to see her nekkid (or her daughter) or to see if - WHEN - the cops found her, he could see what was going on.
(note to self...proofread next time)
My apologies in advance if that post was hard to follow.
Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence??
It has the same weight as direct evidence, according to the law.
No apology needed - I got the picture and it's not a very pretty picture either. Remember Sharon Rocha said the FIRST night as she was frantically searching along with others, she kept trying to get Scott's attention, but he wouldn't acknowledge her. Plus, she stated, he was "ALWAYS" ON THE PHONE!! That is sooooo eerie. The writing was on the wall from night one I believe. Frankly, I don't know what women saw in him. At first glance I thought he was a good looking young man but as he began to speak and as I saw him in other situations, he has become "ugly" to me. I can't stand that sucking on his bucky beaver teeth!!
There was circumstantial evidence that I had commited the crime I was questioned for. The door had been kicked in, and the bootprint on the door was of the same type and size as what I wore. A 'witness' placed me in the area at the time of the burglary. Further, I had had an argument with that person just two days before.
Do you think I should have been tried for it the B/E and the burglary?
I'm not privie to the evidence that law enforcement had on you. --Nor am I interested.
Hi sis, I'm at work. Have their been any mid day updates or is that at 1:30?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5727556/
Cross examination of Amber ..Dan Abrams views....
Seems Geragos needs time to set up a power point presentation putting the police on trial for feeding her questions...just proposed on CTV
Tough, you're going to get it any way. Your lead premise is that circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Under your scenario, that would have been enough to convict.
Problem being is that at the time the B/E and burglary occured, I was miles away on post going under the knife for scheduled knee surgery, on my left knee. I had been on crutches for some time with a badly damaged kneecap, waiting for that surgery. Another person was tried and convicted of the crime after he tried to pawn the stolen items one town away. He confessed to being the doer.
So circumstantial evidence isn't always indicative of guilt. Sometimes it is just that... circumstantial. Unless you have no problem putting innocent people in prison?
Poor baby..sorry for your wrongful arrest and conviction..
Now here is the trial we are discussing.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/index.html
Full coverage
Court TV has been playing tapes from yesterday.
Going to finish with tapes after lunch, then direct testimony.
Cross exam to start tomorrow after a 402 hearing this afternoon. Supposedly Geragos is going to be setting up a power-point for his cross.
I know that many folk hang on every aspect of these trials, but I suspect the "nation" could care less about Scott Peterson.
YAWN-
BAH-BYE!!
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.