Remains to be released to family; dogs, hypnosis may be part of hearing

The Modesto Bee ^ | August 19, 2003 | John Cote'

[Sandylapper]

Responded Peterson, according to the sources: "Yes … uh … uh … but no. But I know who did and I'll tell you later when I see you."

Question: who are these sources? These tapes are sealed potential evidence. It is unclear that they will be used, isn't it? MG, we know, will object to them. It's almost certain that the "sources" are not the defense. All persons--Amber, MPD, prosecution are under gag order. As reported by Fox, this was a direct quote. Is this not a serious violation of the gag order?

[Canadian Outrage]

I am surprised at Fox News for this!! It could eliminate the use of that particular taped conversation. However, Amber is still a witness and they cannot eliminate her. Notice how DESPERATE the Defense is? Quote from Geragos" If this information gets out to the public it will cause IRREVERSIBLE harm to SP getting a fair trial"!! That tells me that the evidence is indeed DAMNING. Probably damning beyond what the scream team defense can think up.!!

[Constitution Day]

Big news!

LOL... thanks for the heads-up.

[Velveeta]

Thanks for the info! Here's a "what if" for you. What if, SP when he said "yes....um,um....but...no" intends to finish that off by saying "the Devil Satanists Club of which I'm a member.......MADE me do it".

Do you think that's Gergi's spin? SP was innocent cause the big bad satanists.....made him offer his wife??

[Devil_Anse]

Haw haw haw--if this Fox story is accurate, looks like that's gonna HAVE to be Gergi's spin! He hasn't been given much wiggle room by his client there! But it sure sounds LAME, even as a "what if"!

[Devil_Anse]

Oh, I'm quite confident that it'll be admitted (assuming this news story is accurate in the first place.)

He can testify, sure, but it's going to be hard to explain how he said "yes" when he meant "no".

[Devil_Anse]

I've been telling Scott how you've all been talking about him and suggesting explanations for his inexplicable actions. Early this morning, I felt he could hear me. He thanks you.

(Not really.)

Well, you've given him an explanation for his saying "yes": "Ladies and gentlemen, he was desperately obsessed with Amber Frey, and he only said what he thought she would buy as the truth, and he knew she wouldn't be a pushover and just take a straight no... he was saying yes to see if he could keep Amber placated and get to see her..."

Er, he's in a bit of a tight spot.

[Sandylapper]

I am surprised at Fox News for this!! It could eliminate the use of that particular taped conversation.

And WHAT IF our girl Amber was taping conversations, or, at least, one particular conversation, with Scott BEFORE she went to MPD? Wouldn't prosecution want that "particular" conversation to be leaked, knowing that it was inadmissable? I don't want to be a spoiler here in regard to Scott's guilt because I think he's guilty as sin, but I can see how this latest breathless reporting can hurt the prosecution's case. Heck, it could even lead to a change of venue; e.g., these selective leaks aren't coming from another county, are they? Exactly who was talking in direct quotes about what was said on any of those tapes?

[Canadian Outrage]

sANDY: I wouldn't put it pass some of Amber's so called friends. This could have been said right at the very beginning "before" there ever was a gag order. Amber's "friends" have stabbed her in the back before.

[Velveeta]

I can't imagine who the sources are either. Who would benefit most from this leak? IMO, the prosecution and Amber benefit most.

What do you think would have happened if Amber *had* agreed to a meeting with Scott after the yes...um...no, phone call? Do you suppose he may have said "I did it for you, Amber"? (gag, barf) I think I'm just toooo curious about how this went down.

[Velveeta]

But it sure sounds LAME, even as a "what if"! Buzz off

[Velveeta]

You've got a good point there, Sandy! I do wonder when Amber starting taping for the police?

[Scenic Sounds]

He can testify, sure, but it's going to be hard to explain how he said "yes" when he meant "no".

You're right about that. It's going to be interesting to see if he does testify. It could get pretty brutal. ;-)

[Sandylapper]

excerpt from Fox News article below:

In a Fox News exclusive, sources close to the case said that during a taped phone call between Peterson and Frey, Frey asked her former lover whether he'd had anything to do with his wife Laci Peterson (search)'s disappearance.

Responded Peterson, according to the sources: "Yes … uh … uh … but no. But I know who did and I'll tell you later when I see you."

We need to keep in mind that Amber apparently asked Scott if he had anything to do with Laci's disappearance--not her murder, and we didn't get a direct quote of Amber's question. Also, could someone help me out here about why the word "search" appears in parens in Fox's article?

[Devil_Anse]

Well, I used to think there was only one consideration in deciding if a person should testify in his own criminal trial: does he have a record which could be brought up? But it didn't take long to realize that there is that other thing: can this person make a good witness? Is he trainable as a competent witness? Can he be taught to say less, rather than to over-explain, so that he will put his foot in his mouth less? Is he or she arrogant-appearing?

And how does the person dress? Are they insistent on dressing in a "rich" way? I knew of a woman who was like that. SHE wasn't going to be seen in anything "off the rack". EVEN when it was explained to her that, combined with her rather superior demeanor, "rich" clothes would doom her in the eyes of a jury of average people. AND they did, IMO!

I don't think Scott is smart or quick enough to make it on the witness stand. I mean, if the story is true--look how easily Amber got an admission out of him.

[Devil_Anse]

You know what, Sandy? If Amber taped Scott on her own, without having first gone to the police, I think THAT tape would be MORE likely to be admissible even than the police-made tapes.

I mean, the main objection to something like that is that the STATE/GOVERNMENT was "violating his rights" under the Constitution. The State/government is allowed to be only so intrusive. But there is NO constraint on how intrusive an individual can be.

So if someone did that to him, some individual, then yes, he could take her to CIVIL court over it, perhaps. And if they have a wiretap law in CA, if she violated it, there might be trouble with that. BUT just b/c she might have violated some wiretap law doesn't automatically mean that her privately made tape would be inadmissible. I haven't read the CA law that says individuals can't tape THEIR OWN conversations with another person--I don't even know whether such a law exists. And Amber is not the State/government, so he can't complain that she violated his Constitutional rights--at least, not with the same punch that he could if the Big Bad State had "violated his Constitutional rights".

[Scenic Sounds]

Great post.

It's nearly always dangerous for a criminal defendant to testify, but you've listed many of the imprortant factors which must be considered. Another important factor is the strength of the prosecution's case. If it's weak, a defendant's testimony may be a gratuitous risk. On the other hand, if the prosecution's case is overwhelming, the defendant's testimony may be the only remaining hope.

If this case actually gets tried, it'll be interesting to see if Peterson testifies. If he does, the cross-examination is likely to be very brutal very extensive. It will be well worth watching. LOL

[Devil_Anse]

Okay, okay, I'm sorry! It's not lame!

"Scott Peterson is a one-woman man. And the love had gone out of his marriage due to the selfishness of his wife. And he had no one. No one. No one to comfort him in his loneliness, the loneliness that ate away a little bit of his soul each day. It was the bleakness of a Modesto winter, ladies and gentlemen. You know how desperate that can be. The wind through the palm trees sings a kind of sad song, a song of desolation... And this man, this man yearning to be faithful to that one woman, to take in his arms and protect and love that ONE woman, this lonely man looked up and saw Amber one day, and suddenly a little bit of life was breathed in by him. And he was almost re-born.

He went from grey winter to spring in that moment. Look at this picture of him! Dressed in his Santa hat, you can just barely see a trace of the yearning, behind his wide smile...

And then he was torn from her. Torn from his woman. Torn from her like a baby from its mother's... I mean, I mean, torn from her. Like a b--I mean, well, anyway, she went away and he was alone again.

Now he was desperate. She was his blood, his oxygen, his spring sunshine!! He had to do something. And so this desperate lonely man LIED to her, and said "yes" to any question she asked. And she just happened to ask that one prying question. He said yes because he NEEDED her, and he thought it would please her! HE DIDN'T MEAN IT! HE WAS CRAZED WITH LONELINESS!"

[Devil_Anse]

They put "search" in those articles, and the word is clickable, and it takes you to the stats on the person they're talking about. It's there so, just in case some person who has never heard of Laci Peterson is reading the article, that person might be saying, "who on earth is Laci Peterson", see, and so they can click on "search" and get the basic facts on Laci.