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 ...
In fact, I think this very thing was in an interview on t.v. in the Rocha home. I just can't remember who did the interview.
I thought then, as I do now, that that was a strange thing to ask THIS PERFECT good guy who everyone just loved ! If you know someone who is just a terrific person, WHY would you ask him THAT question ? Yet, there has never been any print on if Laci did know, or admit Scott had had affairs.
Just wondered.
My question is...I wonder if Geraldo is a informant of Garagos? To me, it sounded like he KNEW strategy that was going to be taken. I think he said that at first there were going to be few questions, but now, he was going to really go into her "past" and "present" and "during" history.
He said something formed like a question to Hannity (who don't know what in the heck he is talking about).." Oh, and Amber..is it true that while you were seeing Scott, you were also sleeping with ANOTHER man ? " (Paraphrased, of course).
I just wondered if anyone got the same feeling as I did after listening to Geraldo that he know some tactic of Garagos from talking to him.? I may hold my nose and hold a paper bag in front of my face today and catch his seedy show on FOX.
(That is if I am not passed out from hyperventilating listening to the transvestite voice of Riiiiiita.) *sorry*
The only reason they know where the blouse was is that it is pictured in a photograph taken on the night of the 24th hanging out of the hamper.
What can I say about Geraldo. He and Gagagross are two of a kind.
Anyway let Gagagross come on with all that BS if he wants to because even if Amber did sleep around on Scott it would have absolutely no relevance to the case. Amber is not the one on trial here. If she were then her history would be relevant but she isn't. If Gagagross goes this route he will only make the jury see how little he has.
Geraldo and Gagagross are two of a kind. If Gagagross takes this route in questioning Amber the jury will not take to kindly to him. First of all Amber is not the one on trial here so therefore if she did sleep with someone besides Scott it has no relevance to this case.
Gagagross will be barking up the wrong tree if he tries to make Amber out to be a "slut."
Geeeeez! I checked and checked and never saw my posting so I thought well maybe I didn't send it so I wrote it again. A little differently though. LOL!
LOL ! I hate when that happens !!
sw
Yes, I do remember that it was reported that Ron Grantski asked that question of Scott early on. I think he called him aside to do so--didn't do it in front of everyone.
I think it was a sort of "man-to-man" thing. We always hear that "men are more likely to blink at an affair than are women", supposedly. I think Ron was able to put himself in the shoes of a young guy who might be worried and sexually frustrated with his wife being in the late stages of pregancy--when just sleeping in the same bed can be a drag, much less wild sexual antics. I think Ron really tried to get the truth, but Scott just wouldn't give it to him, so he had to guess--and he guessed right.
I bet you're right! We already heard that there was a Peterson family-owned condo in San Diego, and that was referred to by Scott when he talked to Amber--but of course, in Scott's version, it was "his" condo.
Regarding Amber "sleeping with another man" while seeing Scott, I think it is killing Geragos, trying to read something into Amber's knowing that ex-cop Byrd.
And if Amber DID have another bed-partner during that time, I HARDLY think the jury would even blink at that, because hearing about Scott's flagrant infidelity has already hardened them.
And Scott was married to one woman, but seeing Amber, and he had the gall to tell Amber he'd never "cheated" on her! The absurdity of that claim should override any "infidelity" on Amber's part.
Scott and Amber knew each other for not quite a month, when he said he couldn't see her from about Dec. 15 through Jan. 25. What single person WOULDN'T see others after such a small period of dating? Especially during the holidays, when they'd at least want to go out a few times?
Your right Dev. A crime like this is purely PERSONAL!! No Satanists or park bums could or would do a crime like this and take such CARE to HIDE the evidence. Satantists leave their "offerings" for all to see. No, We are down to a "frame up" which is delusional.!!
You know what else is funny about all this? Here we have this liberal, Clintonista lawyer, Geragos. And YOU BET he was one of those who used to scream that the Clinton perjury, etc., was "just about sex".
Amber's past, her dating of various men, her children out of wedlock, her sleeping with Scott on the first date--it's all just about sex, if we use the same standards the Clintonistas wanted us to use. But all of a sudden, we're all supposed to CARE about such things. And the people who want us to care about all of the above are the same people (liberal people like Geragos) who've been telling us for decades, "Oh, it doesn't matter... people sleep together... a piece of paper doesn't mean anything... free love... don't be a prude..." etc. All of a sudden those same people are hoping that a jury will react like puritans to this pathetic woman and her post-sexual revolution ways.
They can't seem to make up their minds whether they want people to care about sexual promiscuity, or not. I guess a good rule is, they want us to look down on sexual promiscuity ONLY when it serves their interests for us to be that way.
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/laci_peterson/peterson/trial/story/8145919p-8998424c.html
Here's something I hadn't known about. Scott didn't just make 3 trips in Jan. 2003 to gaze at the Bay, he made 5. The two I hadn't known of were in the period of Jan. 25-27. On those days, there was no story in the newspaper about search efforts at the Bay. (Regarding the earlier 3 trips, Jan. 5-9, I think there was only a story published about the search at the Bay on one or two of those days.)
Actually when I read the above article, I counted SIX trips to the Bay, but I probably just didn't read carefully enough. But there were at least 5, for sure.
And lest we forget, a long time ago we heard that in one of his conversations with Amber, Scott is heard asking if maybe he could buy the pictures of her and Scott together from whoever had them (Saki?). I don't think this conversation was played at trial, but I remember reading this in an article which I looked back at just now. It's a tabloid article, but I notice that its other tidbits from the tapes have turned out to be true, according to the evidence.
And wasn't that gal who had Snott & Laci's checks a known speed freak ? and she was at his warehouse where she got his mail....coincidence ? or did he have a going relationship with the "cookers" and if so, I wonder how Laci would feel about all that, it's basically selling drugs (in another form). Hopefully the cops have followed him and checked out his "clients". I saw on Drudge where the FBI will conduct an investigation about all this also.
So taking one out of the Sopranos, maybe Snott has the Meth people come by and take Laci, possibly kill her and drive out to the Bay and dump her off the bridge that night. The following day Snott goes out there in his boat to make sure the body sunk. This could be why there is no trace of Laci on the boat. Scott did tell Amber "he knew who did it" could it have been a slip of the tongue ? But in any event this whole thing could have happened to relieve a debt owed to Snott for selling the fertilizer. He would still be guilty of murder 1 having arranged all of it, but he may have had some help along the way. He would not implicate them because he would be busting himself too.
I agree about the Detective Dev and the reason for the delay. In my own opinion, this delay was requested BY THE DEFENSE. WHY, because Geragos was NOT READY to take on Amber yet. Apparently she was certainly ready to face him and was quite disgusted that she couldn't testify. I think this girl has done FANTABULOUS. Also, Amber is headed in the right direction. She SPECIFICALLY told her friend that wouldn't date a MARRIED man. That's why her friend Shawn Sibley was SO MAD when Peterson turned out to be married. This is NOT a pattern on Amber's part. Peterson, the pathological liar, is the problem.
Doesn't it just irk the bejeezus out of you the way the Defense oriented TH's try to say that that conversation was NOT a confession. I think THAT tape, really threw Geragos. I truly do. I have loved Nancy Grace's commentary on this case. The only thing I wish Nancy would NOT do is keep saying Geragos is a good Attorney. I don't think he is that good. He's a CLOWN. And he gives the profession a black eye. I just find him to be a grandstander and it's always a crock when you get right down to it.
Your right Meg. When the Judge blew his top over Discovery a while ago I'm sure IF that 6000 pages was still outstanding it would have been taken care of. But I can't see why these Prosecutors should even have the responsibility for what the Public Defender gathered. It was up to the PD to turn this stuff over to Geragos when he took over the case. And it was Geragos who should have ENQUIRED of the PD if there was any discovery. This is baloney.
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.