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

Testimony about human scent-tracking dogs and a prosecution witness interviewed using "hypnosis techniques" is expected to play a role in the preliminary hearing for accused double murderer Scott Peterson, newly released court documents show.

A separate court document made public Monday indicates that the remains of Peterson's wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner, will be released to family members no later than Friday after a defense specialist X-rays the fetus.

Scott Peterson, 30, is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths. He has pleaded innocent.

The bodies were found in April along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, roughly four months after Laci Peterson's reported disappearance from her Modesto home touched off a widespread search.

Modesto police used several dogs in the hunt for the 27-year-old substitute teacher.

Scott Peterson said he last saw his wife the morning of Dec. 24 as he left for a solo fishing trip to the bay and she prepared to walk their golden retriever, McKenzie, in Dry Creek Regional Park.

A potentially key development came Dec. 26, when a specially trained bloodhound from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department indicated to its handler that Laci Peterson left her Covena Avenue home in a vehicle, not on foot.

The dog headed to Yosemite Boulevard, away from the park. Later, the dog led its handler from the Peterson house all the way to Maze Boulevard.

The defense has requested a bevy of information about dogs used in the case, including their veterinary records, training reports, reliability tests and trainers' backgrounds, according to court documents filed by defense attorney Kirk McAllister.

In a July 29 letter to Senior Deputy District Attorney Rick Distaso, one of the prosecutors on the case, lead defense attorney Mark Geragos wrote that Distaso had "previously indicated to me that the prosecution intends to call witnesses at the preliminary hearing who will testify as to human scent-tracking dogs."

The defense specifically wants information about a dog named Merlin and the dog's handler, Cindee Valentin, a deputy with the Contra Costa County Emergency Services Search and Rescue Unit, a division of the sheriff's department. Reserve Capt. Christopher Boyer of the search and rescue unit also was named.

Valentin could not be reached for comment. Contra Costa County Sheriff's spokesman Jimmy Lee said Valentin had been subpoenaed and was covered by a gag order imposed in the case by Judge Al Girolami.

The dog information request was contained in an eight-page motion listing 26 areas where the defense wanted more information from prosecutors.

Prosecutors replied in documents filed Monday that they had fully complied with the law, turning over 23,700 pages of documents, 18 videotapes, 100 audiotapes, five DVDs and three CDs of wiretap recordings, among other items.

Distaso also noted in the filing that prosecutors are requesting information from the defense, including the names and addresses of potential witnesses and any real evidence the defense intends to offer at the preliminary hearing, set for Sept. 9.

The prosecution document also indicates that one prosecution witness, identified as "Kristen Deppenwolf" was questioned in a "cognitive interview where hypnosis techniques were used."

A Kristen Deppenwolf could not be identified through public records, and it was unclear what role she could play in the case.

Distaso's response also noted that the prosecution has no known evidence that would clear Peterson.

Geragos alleged in court documents filed last month that prosecution evidence turned over to the defense last month "totally exonerates" Peterson and will tip off the true killers if made public.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Peterson case has attracted national media attention during the search and now the court hearings

Professing a reluctance to turn the proceeding into a "reality" television show, Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami on Monday banned television and still cameras from the preliminary hearing for accused double-murderer Scott Peterson.

Prosecutors are preparing to lay out closely guarded elements of their case during the hearing, sheduled for Sept. 9.

Girolami is expected to decide at the close of the hearing whether there is sufficient evidence to try the 30-year-old fertilizer salesman from Modesto.

Peterson is charged with murdering his wife, Laci, 27, and the couple's unborn son, Conner.

The case sparked intense media attention after Laci Peterson, nearly eight months pregnant, was reported missing Christmas Eve. Her body and that of her son were found in April about a mile apart along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, within miles of the spot where Scott Peterson said he launched his boat Dec. 24 for a solo fishing trip.

Peterson has pleaded innocent to two counts of murder in the deaths. He could receive the death penalty if convicted.

"As this is a death-penalty case, the court must carefully and cautiously consider the impact cameras in the courtroom may have on providing a fair trial," Girolami wrote in his six-page ruling.

Girolami suggested print media coverage had less potential to taint the jury pool.

Prospective jurors will have a more difficult time avoiding or disregarding something they have seen replayed "many times on television in living color as opposed to something they have read about a few times in black and white," Girolami wrote.

The decision came four days after the judge ruled the hearing would be open to the public.

Television networks, including CNN, Court TV and NBC, had filed almost 1,000 pages of documents in their bid to allow cameras in the courtroom.

A group of newspapers, including The Bee, had sought to have a still camera photographer cover the proceeding. Prosecutors had requested the camera ban, and members of Laci Peterson's family joined that request.

The victims' families will be "forced to relive their worst nightmare in a very public way, which unfortunately is necessary for the process," Girolami wrote.

"Televising these passionate proceedings is not, however, necessary to the process."

Scott Peterson's defense attorneys had argued to hold the hearing behind closed doors. When Girolami denied that request last week, they asked that cameras be allowed.

Henry Schleiff, chairman and CEO of Court TV, expressed disappointment with Monday's ruling but said the network's policy is not to appeal such decisions.

"According to our Constitution, trials are meant to be public, and we believe that all citizens -- not just the print press or those few who can fit into a courtroom -- should be able to watch their judicial system in action," Schleiff said in a written statement. "We respect Judge Girolami's decision and will not contest it."

Alonzo Wickers, whose firm represents broadcast media on the issue, said he could not comment on whether other networks would appeal.

"We hope the judge will revisit the issue before a subsequent proceeding in the case," Wickers said.

In the detailed ruling, Girolami cited 18 factors he weighed in his decision, including witnesses' privacy rights, the impact on finding an unbiased jury and the effect on ongoing law enforcement activity in the case.

"Because this case remains in its earliest stages, the possibility exists that the actual perpetrator remains at large," Girolami wrote.

The judge also said television coverage would "significantly increase the odds of requiring a change of venue."

Moving the trial is "not a desirable option" and would result in considerable hardship to the witnesses and added expense to the public, Girolami wrote.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 20, 2003 -- The prosecution in the Laci Peterson murder case hypnotized a dog walker who resembles her in hopes of poking holes in husband Scott Peterson's defense, sources told The Post yesterday.

Cops believe Scott murdered Laci last Christmas Eve, before driving her body to Berkeley, Calif., and dumping it into San Francisco Bay. The defense has claimed witnesses spotted the pregnant woman walking her dog in Modesto at the time Scott Peterson allegedly murdered her.

To cut off the defense, prosecutors hope to show those witnesses were mistaking dog-walking Modesto resident Kristen Dempewolf, 34, for Laci, sources told The Post.

Both women were at about the same stage of pregnancy on Christmas Eve. Dempewolf delivered her baby at a Modesto hospital in early January - around the same time Laci Peterson would have given birth to son Conner.

Dempewolf's name surfaced on Monday, when unsealed court documents listed her - misspelled as "Deppenwolf" - as a witness interviewed under hypnosis. Investigators hypnotized Dempewolf so she could specifically recall .......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Peterson, 30, is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths. He has pleaded innocent.

The bodies were found in April along Bay shore near Richmond, roughly four months after Laci Peterson's reported disappearance from her Modesto home touched off a widespread search.

Modesto police used several dogs in the hunt for the 27-year-old substitute teacher.

Scott Peterson said he last saw his wife the morning of Dec. 24 as he left for a solo fishing trip to the Bay, and she prepared to walk their golden retriever, McKenzie, in Dry Creek Regional Park.

A potentially key development came Dec. 26, when a specially trained bloodhound from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office indicated to its handler that Laci Peterson left her Covena Avenue home in a vehicle, not on foot.

The dog headed to Yosemite Boulevard, away from the park. Later, the dog led its handler from the Peterson house all the way to Maze Boulevard.

Lead defense attorney Mark Geragos wrote in a July 29 letter to Rich Distaso, senior deputy district attorney and one of the lead prosecutors on the case, that Distaso had "previously indicated to me that the prosecution intends to call witnesses at the preliminary hearing who will testify as to human scent-tracking dogs."

Valentin could not be reached for comment. Contra Costa County Sheriff's spokesman Jimmy Lee said Valentin had been subpoenaed and was covered by a gag order imposed in the case by Judge Al Girolami.

The dog information request was contained in an eight-page motion listing 26 areas where the defense wanted more information from prosecutors.

At the defense's request, a hearing on evidentiary issues is scheduled for Sept. 2.

The prosecution document also indicates that one prosecution witness, identified as "Kristen Deppenwolf" was questioned in a "cognitive interview where hypnosis techniques were used."

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?

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.!!

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??

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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".

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

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!"

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.

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.