"What I've garnered from the various press reports was that the "defense" set that Tuesday date for Sharon to enter the home under strict guidelines set by the *defense*. Press reports indicated that the *defense* team would accompany Sharon and videotape her visit to the home and record everything she did and every item she touched or wanted removed from the home."
The articles say that there was an agreement upon the date by the parties. It does not state that the defense dictated the date, especially for some nefarious reason. I believe that there was an intent to document what was removed from the home. This is not surprising nor objectionable considering that there is a capital murder case involved. It is also not unusual. In other criminal and civil cases that I am aware of, there have been times that this has been done by both by the prosecution or complainants and the defense or respondants.
"...I this were me....this would have been an unacceptable scenario! How on earth could she have walked into her dead daughter's home with *defense* cameras recording her heartbreak?"
And if it were you and you objected then you or your attorney would be free to reject the agreement. There was no intent to document her grief, besides her grief has already been documented by the press with Sharon Rocha's permission and cooperation. As to the camera phobia, the press was clearly informed prior to the entry. The press was on site before the Rochas arrived and have described the trucks arrival at the Peterson residence. Clearly Geragos and the defense did not call the press. They knew nothing about the impending break in. It is doubtful that the attorneys for the Rochas called the press, they advised her earlier not to enter the home and by informing they press the would be in ethical breach. Besides they deny it. I for one, believe them. That leaves only the Rochas themselves.
"I'm quite sure that cameras were not present when the Peterson's entered. Why should the Rocha's be subjected to such a humiliating injustice?"
True, but then there would be no reason to believe that the Petersons bear any angst or rancor toward the defendant in this case. The same cannot be said for the Rocha family. They have openly displayed their feelings for the defendant, understandably so. However, the defense was doing what it is required to do by the Bar's Code of Ethics and the law---acting in the best interest of their client.
"The defense team is now stating that there was a "deal"...perhaps the defense said: this is the deal take it or leave it...and the Rocha's chose to leave it".
Actually the Rocha's attorneys are stating the there was a deal and complaining that Geragos and the defense withdrew the deal. I suppose you can say the "Rochas chose to leave it", but if that was their choice they should not have agreed to it in the first place. To unilaterally revoke it with no notice to the other party involved, is a breech of ehics, an affront to honest negotiation and smacks of a deliberate deception by the Rochas.
Sharon Rocha had an opportunity to revoke or "leave" the deal as you put it on the Greta program. She did not. Instead she deliberately chose not to mention the deal at all. She chose to claim that she was being denied any entry by Jackie Peterson, making Mrs. Peterson out to be callous, indifferent and vindictive. The record clearly shows that this was not true and Mrs. Rocha knew it.