Posted on 08/19/2004 5:13:15 AM PDT by runningbear
August 19, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — Laci Peterson's furious mother called her son-in-law a "f---ing liar" and begged him to tell her where he ditched the body, it was revealed yesterday — as Scott Peterson's murder trial screeched to a halt due to a mysterious "potential development Sharon Rocha became convinced of Peterson's guilt in January 2003, not long after his affair with Amber Frey became public.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Like I said, Geragos had a hot date. Court postponed. LOL
I'm sure that's the statement the very proper Dr. Lee would put out, but somehow I can't shake the feeling that if the money were right...
They are going to say that the Prosecution and Amber's attorney would NOT let the Defense talk with the Fresno Detective friend of Ambers. How that gives her a credibility problem I don't know. I know that the Detective friend won't speak with Geragos investigators. Sso I guess they could just subpoena him. Geragos is also still fighting to slime Amber over having a "history" of dating married men. Which is UNTRUE. She did the Once. But that she was determined NOT to get into that situation again. That's why her best friend Shawn told Scott that he HAD to be not married to be set up with Amber. Both Shawn and Amber were really mad when they found out first he lied about losing his wife before she was lost, and lying about being married when he first dated Amber.
I love the way she said that!!
And Amber won't talk to Geragos--which is her right.
Aw, but that's okay, Mark! You can always get the straight story about those phone calls (if any) from your client, right? What's that... you can't get a straight story from your client about anything?
I love the way she said that!!
And Amber won't talk to Geragos except from the witness stand--which is her right.
Aw, but that's okay, Mark! You can always get the straight story about those phone calls (if any) from your client, right? What's that... you can't get a straight story from your client about anything?
I love the way she said that!!
And Amber won't talk to Geragos except from the witness stand--which is her right.
Aw, but that's okay, Mark! You can always get the straight story about those phone calls (if any) from your client, right? What's that... you can't get a straight story from your client about anything?
That's a great idea. I remember that same question was raised on the internet when people were wondering what had happened to Chandra Levy. But I never heard an answer to it.
Have you noticed how that Peterson has never ONCE said "I did not kill my wife, Laci" it's always, "I had nothing to do with her disappearance". I always found that strange. I have not, to this day, heard him state that he didn't kill his wife and baby.
Hi GMO! So nice to see you again. :-)
I know what you're talking about, I was able to find a pic of my house as well. I think it's from 1999 though and hasn't been updated.
I have zip knowledge about satellites so I can't answer that part of your question. If Scott dumped Laci's body at night though, I can't imagine that any satellite could capture that detail.
Dev these two stories are being mixed up. I agree the Public Defender didn't have time (or money) to generate 6000 pages of work. But the confession that LISA BLOOM was talking about this morning, I watched it because I'm home with grandkids today, was the "you have guessed all the answers" statement. I heard her with my own ears and saw her with my own eyes today. That was what she was referring to.
LOL!
Amber's love life has no effect on what Scott said..and what he said was what was important....Amber has interested me more since I heard the tapes but the only interest I had before was that she taped his calls....
I am now hoping she survives whatever Geragos throws her way.. She doesn't have good sense about men and the importance of having a husband before having a child...but she has grit and I'm pulling for her.
Frankly I hope she makes a few dollars off this...but she would have so many hanging on for dear life to get a piece of her...and her money..I don't think she has the best family situation!(understatement)
Rats, I gotta give the puter up to a grandson. Tomorrow afternoon freepers. CO
Exactly! Somebody (Amber) does the right thing and Lee has no clue why she would do such a thing. Telling.
Isn't it...indeed!...
Well, I'm watching Greta. She is sickening the way she keeps insinuating that the prosecution is responsible for the delay, and that the prosecution is responsible for some sort of discovery gaffe regarding the 2 CD's which were supposedly given to the public defender back when he/she was representing Scott.
Greta has no facts to back up these insinuations, as Allred pointed out.
Allred pointed out that if the DA gave "6000 pages of discovery" to SCOTT'S ATTORNEY AT THE TIME, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, then the DA's obligation regarding that disclosure is OVER. They gave the stuff to Scott's defense. It's not their fault if Scott changed lawyers. If Geragos doesn't have what the original lawyer(s) had, IT'S GERAGOS' NEGLIGENCE that's responsible.
As for the delay, Jim Hammer (of all people) mentioned some of what I was thinking. Of course, I wouldn't have thought of this if MEG33 hadn't mentioned something about it first. There are 2 parties in this case: the State of Calfornia, and Scott. When the DA plays a voluntary statement by Scott (such as his conversations with Amber), Scott's statement is NOT hearsay. It is an exception to the hearsay rule: it's called "admission by party-opponent."
But if Scott wishes to play his own words in a different voluntary statement, then it's hearsay. Scott can't be his own "party-opponent." It would amount to Scott's being able to testify in his own favor, but w/o cross-examination. That's not fair to the State, especially since they cannot force Scott up onto the witness stand to be cross-examined.
So if Geragos wanted to play some different Scott-Amber tapes that HE likes, that issue came up, and apparently the DA wouldn't back down. Good.
Incidentally, Hammer also mentioned something else which has come up: why the jury must hear the WHOLE tape of a conversation that is offered. Why not just let the prosecution play the parts that are probative of something? Because when they want to offer anything off a tape or other statement, the other side has a right to then demand that the tape or other statement be admitted in its ENTIRETY. So, in a way, the defense is responsible for the jury having to sit through all those repetitive parts of the conversations: I'm sure they were not about to let the State just play parts of the tapes.
Hooray! Nancy Grace's show is on, and she just said flat-out that this delay is the DEFENSE'S fault.
If Geragos didn't go and ask Scott's earlier attorney(s) for what they had, then it is Geragos who was negligent.
Or how about, someone went up to Geragos and said, "Your village called, they want their idiot back"?
If that Detective Byrd didn't wish to speak with Geragos w/o having Geragos force him to court with a subpoena, that is his right. He's no fool. Police know they don't HAVE to talk out of court with anyone. If only more witnesses realized that.
That puts Geragos in the position of possibly having to do that thing a lawyer is never supposed to do: to ask a witness a question to which he does not already know the answer.
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.