Peterson Hearing Today

abclocal.go ^ | October 17, 2003

[runningbear]

Peterson Hearing Today

Scott Peterson

Peterson Hearing Today

Scott Peterson will be back in court today, as attorneys try to determine what evidence will be presented at Monday's preliminary hearing.

But, that hearing could be delayed, because Peterson's lead attorney, Mark Geragos, may be in court on another case.

Meantime, prosecutors have decided not to use evidence from a hypnotized witness at the preliminary hearing.

According to court documents, prosecutors still plan to call the woman to testify if the case goes to trial.

Scott Peterson is charged with the murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.

He could receive the death penalty if convicted.......

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

Peterson Defense: Laci's Body Never In Boat

Peterson Defense: Laci's Body Never In Boat

POSTED: 5:37 p.m. PDT October 16, 2003
UPDATED: 6:06 p.m. PDT October 16, 2003

MODESTO, Calif. -- On the eve of a court hearing, Scott Peterson's defense team submitted a filing late Thursday claiming that an investigator 'willfully omitted' evidence that allegedly proved the body of Laci Peterson was never in her husband's boat.

According to the filing, the defense believes that the prosecution's claim that Laci Peterson's lifeless body was placed in Scott Peterson's boat and dumped in the San Francisco Bay off the Berkeley Marina on Christmas Eve day is pivotal to the case against the Modesto fertilizer salesman.

Kirk McAllister, a member of Peterson's defense team, asked the court for a 'Franks Hearing' on the alleged omission. A 'Franks Hearing' is simply an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress evidence based on a challenge to the facts included or omitted from a search warrant.

In the filing, McAllister claims that a cadaver dog named Twist was placed in the boat by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Search and Rescue Team and failed to 'alert' -- to signal that a scent of Laci Peterson had been detected.

"This information was purposely omitted from the search warrant affidavits because it destroys the theory on which the prosecution has based its case," McAllister stated in the filing.

He added that such an omission "fatally undermines a finding of probable cause." McAllister went even further to claim that the "prosecution's own investigation proved that Laci Peterson's body was never in Scott Peterson's boat."

Peterson has been charged with the capital murder of his wife, Laci, and the couple's unborn son. A preliminary hearing in the case was scheduled to begin Monday but several reports say that the defense team will ask for at least a one-week delay at Friday's hearing. The delay request comes because Peterson attorney Mark Geragos is currently representing a murder defendant in a Los Angeles trial that has been slow in wrapping up.

Laci Peterson disappeared from the couple's modest Modesto home on Christmas Eve day, triggering a highly publicized search effort. At the time of her disappearance, Scott Peterson has told police he was on a day fishing trip to the San Francisco Bay off the Berkeley Marina.

Laci's partially decomposed body and that of her unborn son was discovered in April by dog walkers on successive days on the shoreline of a park in Richmond, just miles north of the Berkeley Marina. Scott Peterson was arrested in San Diego a few days later with his hair dyed blond and $10,000 in cash in his pocket. Authorities have said they feared he was preparing to flee to Mexico.

He has been held without bail in the Stanislaus County Jail.

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

Evidence gained under hypnosis won't be used at Peterson hearing

Evidence gained under hypnosis won't be used at Peterson hearing

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Published: October 16, 2003, 07:18:49 AM PDT

Prosecutors changed course Wednesday and said they will not introduce evidence from a hypnotized witness at Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing on double murder charges.

But prosecutors still intend to call the woman to testify if the case goes to trial, according to documents filed Wednesday in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

The decision appears to delay a legal showdown over whether Kristen Dempewolf, who may have resembled Peterson's pregnant wife at the time that she disappeared, will be allowed to testify.

Dempewolf, 33, could be used to counter witnesses who contend that they saw Laci Peterson after her husband said he left for a solo fishing trip the day she was reported missing.

Peterson, 30, is charged with murdering his wife and the couple's son, Conner. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Laci Peterson, 27, was almost eight months pregnant when her family reported her missing Christmas Eve. Dempewolf, who lives several blocks from the Petersons' home in Modesto's La Loma neighborhood, was at roughly the same stage of pregnancy.

Peterson's attorneys have asked the judge to exclude Dempewolf's testimony, saying investigators failed to follow strict legal requirements for allowing testimony from hypnotized witnesses in a criminal case.

Her testimony is part of a collection of evidence that the defense is seeking to bar from court, including information from wiretaps, scent-tracking dogs, GPS tracking devices and a hair found on pliers in Peterson's boat. A DNA test shows that the hair could have come from Laci Peterson, according to prosecution documents filed in court.

Judge Al Girolami is likely to hear arguments on the evidence issues at Peterson's preliminary hearing, which is set for Monday but may be delayed.

Prosecutors indicated earlier in court that they would call Dempewolf to testify at the hearing.

In more than 450 pages of documents filed Wednesday, prosecutors said they reserved the right to address the issue of introducing Dempewolf's testimony in the future.

They also contend that the defense objection to Dempewolf's testimony must also apply to Diane Jackson, a second neighbor who went under hypnosis for police.

Jackson is not cooperating with the defense, who notified her that she may be called to testify as a witness.

Jackson told police that she saw three suspicious men standing near a tan van parked directly across the street from the Peterson home at 11:40 a.m. Dec. 24, according to a report of her account.

In Dempewolf's case, defense attorney Mark .......

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

Peterson defense wants evidence thrown out

Peterson defense wants evidence thrown out

Friday, October 17, 2003 Posted: 3:21 AM EDT (0721 GMT)

(CNN) -- Defense lawyers for murder suspect Scott Peterson on Thursday filed court documents seeking to throw out police search warrants and the evidence gathered using them in searches of Peterson's boat.

The documents say police "purposely omitted" the fact that a cadaver dog failed to pick up any scent of a body in Peterson's boat in affidavits to get a search warrant.

Peterson, 30, is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son. Prosecutors believe he killed Laci in their home and transported her body in his boat, later dumping her in the San Francisco Bay.

Both sides will appear in Stanislaus County Superior Court on Friday for a status hearing to discuss preparations in the case, where one court official said it's likely another continuance request may be made in the case.

The preliminary hearing is scheduled to begin October 20. It was originally slated for September but has been postponed due to scheduling conflicts with defense attorneys.

The documents filed Thursday .......

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

Superior Court, Stanislaus County
October 16, 2003

Defendant's Reply to People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Traverse Search Warrants

[MaggieMay]

Thanks Velveeta for the ping.

A brief synopsis(some are my own words, for the sake of brevity)of the DA's filing of as of Oct 17th:

This is from Deputy Anderson's report."The warehouse was used to store chemicals and Mr Peterson's boat.Most of the area was inaccessible to Twist and the chemical smell made searching difficult."

DA Hazelton writes,"From Deputy Anderson's description it is clear that Twist did show mild interest in the boat,and even more interest in an area under the workbench,and along the edge of the boat.

DA Hazelton goes on to say,"It is inconclusive in nature-Twist showed interest but not a "hit" this was probably due to the heavy chemical smell in the warehouse.

DA Brazelton adds,"that leads one to the obvious conslusion that Laci Peterson's body was in the warehouse and boat."

DA Brazelton comments,"Investigator Jacobson did not have posession of Deputy Anderson's report at the time he wrote either affidavit."(requesting wiretaps)

DA Brazelton concludes with the statement,that Inv. Jacobson did not improperly omit facts and that there is no basis for a Frank's Hearing.

[Devil_Anse]

Hiya, girls!!!!! Greetings from way down here, where it's always warm!!!!!

[Devil_Anse]

The 27th?? Oh, I always get dates like birthdays and anniversaries wrong, dang it!

Hey, you know, Oct. 27 is rather uncomfortably close to Halloween, for an anniversary... must ask her why they chose that date?

[Devil_Anse]

Thanks, all of you, for the new filing. So now we find out that the guys doing the affidavits didn't even KNOW whether the dogs hit on the boat or not? It says they didn't have Eloise Anderson's report at the time?

Also remember that that case in the defense's filing, U.S. v. Jacobs, that case whose facts (about the scent dogs not making hit) sounded so similar, is from the 8th federal circuit. Where Laci's case is is in the 9th circuit, of course. Furthermore, this case is not a federal case but a state case. I don't see that the judge in our case is required to follow whatever U.S. v. Jacobs says. (I looked for U.S. v. Jacobs yesterday, but the databanks I had access to didn't go back as far as 1993, which is that case's date.)

[Velveeta]

Some of the other boards are discussing the rumor "early on" about SP washing down his truckbed with gasoline and his boat with bleach. I don't remember those rumors. Does anyone else remember this?

[MaggieMay]

Good morning! Hazelton writes," Inv.Jacobson was not aware of Deputy Anderson's report at the time he wrote the affidavits. Jacobsons affidavit for witretap #2 was dated January 10th. Deputy Anderson's report wann't reviewed by her lieutenant until January 21st after Inv.Jacobson's 1st affidavit was written."

[Velveeta]

LOL! Don't you think Snotty wished Siegfried would come visit him at his jail cell and make him disappear out of the cell?

[Devil_Anse]

That part about his possibly washing the truck bed with gasoline rings a bell. I vaguely remember that.

As for the bleach in the boat, no, I don't remember hearing that. Of course we all heard that the house smelled of bleach.

[Velveeta]

I've got to say that the delay in Anderson getting her report back to MPD troubles me.

[Devil_Anse]

I read the DA's filing. Seems that they are on solid ground with regard to this Franks hearing.

Very interesting behavior by the dog. This sounds like one of those "half-full vs. half-empty" situations. I find it very creepy and significant, what the dog did. Skeptics will find it to be "aw, nothing."

[Devil_Anse]

You know, skeptics can say the police are hedging on the dates, and say, how do we know what the internal workings of the police really were, so how do we know that the affiant-cop didn't have access to Dep. Eloise Anderson's report at the time he made the affidavit for the warrant.

But there's one thing that skeptics can't doubt: the actual wording of Eloise's report. It's there in black and white, and it's a lot more detailed than just "the dog didn't hit on the boat." And the defense had that document since May, and knows that's what it said. What she said was in no way a conclusive statement that the dog found no signs of Laci in/near the boat, or in the warehouse. Quite the opposite!

[MaggieMay]

The first I remember,hearing about the warehouse is when Scott was talking about his acitvities on Dec.24th to John Walsh. He said he went to the warehouse to "work for a few hours",then"after working decided to hook his boat up and take a short fishing trip". I never read or heard of strong chemical smells from that location being reported at least to my recollection.

[Devil_Anse]

I was especially interested in the fact that she said the dog "barked to show frustration". She said there were a lot of places the dog couldn't get to.

Our dog has his chew toys. I always call his current chew toy a "bone", b/c that's the word I taught the dog to understand for that object. That way, if I say "go get your bone", he goes and gets his current chew toy.

Sometimes his chew toy falls under a table against the wall, or under a cabinet. The dog won't stick his head very far into enclosed spaces, his instincts must tell him that his head could get caught doing that!

So when his chew toy is stuck under some piece of furniture, he sits there in front of where it is, and BARKS. With FRUSTRATION. Makes me think that search dog wanted to go deeper in there, that it smelled something interesting, but it couldn't get to it!

[Devil_Anse]

Remember how when we heard Scott claimed to have left the house at 9:30 to go fish off Berkeley, people spent a lot of time calculating how long it would take him to get to Berkeley? And they came up with, approximately 11:00.

We heard the police got the time-stamped marina receipt, but they carefully said they didn't necessarily get it from Scott himself.

It was only later that we heard that no, he hadn't headed straight to Berkeley, he'd gone and "worked for a few hours" at the warehouse.

It sounds like Scott was having to revise his story in order to match whatever that marina receipt was telling the police.

And if the police didn't get the receipt from Scott, but, say, found it in his truck, maybe that was the only reason he even SAID he went fishing off Berkeley! Maybe he was forced by circumstances to place himself in that area. That might answer the question: "Since we now know that the Bay is where Laci ended up, why would the defendant voluntarily place himself in that very same area?" Maybe it wasn't voluntary on his part.

[Velveeta]

It WAS a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Geragos to circumvent the gag order and spread misinformation in the media to benefit their client. Stinky tactics.

[MaggieMay]

When I originally responded to your post #25,I afraid my musing on the warehouse,got in the way of my answer. No,I do not recall references to Scott washing his truckbed with gas or washing his boat with bleach.

I pinged runningbear and Canadian Outrage, to see if it brought back any recollections to them.

[MaggieMay]

I accidently typed Velveeta's post #25,it should read post #125.

[RGSpincich]

I know many think that the boat was washed out. BUT that kind of conflicts with the statements made by the former owner of the boat, Mr. Peterson. He said that there was a cement like residue/powder in the boat when the police asked him to look at it. The powder may have affected the scent as well.

Decomposition was in it's early stages and most of the bodily fluids may have been left in the house. Not much of a cadaver scent was there and wrapped up tightly in plastic even less of a scent would be transferred to the boat. The dogs showing interest in the boat at all bolsters the DA's case. This defense maneuver does not jepordize the search warrants, IMO.

[Velveeta]

>>>>And if the police didn't get the receipt from Scott, but, say, found it in his truck<<<

....or the dumpster

[Devil_Anse]

It worked, too, at least towards me. I was sitting here trying to figure out why the dog(s) would have detected no scent of Laci, or of a dead person, in the boat.

Rather a shading of the truth, to say the least. Typical of a Clintonista like Geragos.