Peterson Hearing Today

abclocal.go ^ | October 17, 2003

[Sandylapper]

According to MG, McAllister's court filing on Oct. 16, Eloise Anderson and Twist searched the boat and warehouse on December 27, 2002. On December 29th, she filed her report.

Also, as an aside, which is interesting, I noticed in Brazelton's filing on Oct. 17th, the excerpt from Eloise Anderson's report states in the first sentence, that after searching the first location, they then "moved to the warehouse". Humnn, where did she and Twist go first? The house, the truck, the other "secret warehouse"? Just thought I would pass that along for discussion.

[Canadian Outrage]

That's interesting Sandy?? This is WHY we need to get to trial. Right now we are getting confusing bits and pieces. We need to see the whole picture. The Prosecutors have the whole picture and they have been ready to go ahead for awhile now. If there is one more Delay I'm gonna throw a fit!!

[Sandylapper]

That's interesting Sandy??

Well, I thought it was interesting. I'd like to know if and where Twist made a hit of a dead body. The prosecutors, you say, have the whole picture, but there is a school of thought, CO, that they don't have evidence to back up their picture. Whenever prosecution and their evidence has been questioned on our threads, the answer was always something like "they're still collecting evidence", and that's why they're so willing to go along with the delays. So, which is it? They're ready or not?

[Canadian Outrage]

I think they are ready. For one thing, Scott may well convict himself with his OWN mouth. The Jurors will surely get to hear that. Phoning his mistress on the 6th day of your pregnant wife's disappearance and telling the mistress that he loves her, wants to have a family with her and wants to spend the rest of his life with her would convict him almost by itself. He OBVIOUSLY wanted rid of his wife. He was NOT grieving at all. Then all the other things we will get to learn. Notice how the Defense leaks everything they can find that is a little on the weak side yet they keep stalling going to Court. Your worried about every little thing, but I don't. I still think they have a pretty complete picture. Most common sense jurors will evaluate ALL of the evidence and come to a decision. I doubt they will get stuck on one dog only being frustrated. What about the 15 others? What about the fact that 2 cadaver dogs got hits in the Bay (right near the fishing spot)? on and on. The Jury in the Micheal Peterson case convicted him on a lot LESS evidence than there is in this one. I still think Scott has convicted himself. Only guilty people lie constantly and attempt to flee to another country also.

[Devil_Anse]

All we got to see was that one little excerpt from Anderson's report. It was intriguing, though. Did you see it? The dog was limited in the areas he could actually get to. He barked in frustration about something that he must have smelled coming from an area he couldn't get into. He was somewhat interested in the edge of the boat; he was somewhat interested in some boxes under a workbench.

You're right, I imagine they got warrants to dog-search the other warehouse, as well as maybe Scott's many vehicles. I guess they wouldn't have had the dogs at the house, b/c it would be no surprise to them if the cadaver dog said there was a dead person at the house--that's the police's theory anyway. They feel that they already KNOW that there was a dead person at the house.

Maybe they also tried the dumpsters at the warehouse(s).

[Devil_Anse]

Phoning his mistress on the 6th day of his pregnant wife's disappearance

The 6th day? As nearly as I can tell, he was phoning his mistress the DAY of his wife's disappearance, and the day AFTER her disappearance, and probably the day after that, etc. Not to mention, it appears he was also phoning his mistress directly BEFORE her disappearance.

It doesn't even look like there was a slight break in their contacts, in spite of what would have been an earthshaking event for any normal husband!! Amber, of course, didn't know at first, but Scott knew all along and still continued on as though nothing had happened!!

[Devil_Anse]

They've got their probable cause, for the prelim, for sure. Otherwise, I doubt they'd have been able to hold Scott on 1st degree murder, which is holding him without bail, as extreme as it gets. IMO, all they have to do to establish probable cause is to put Ridenour on the stand, and he can say how Scott told them he was right out by Brooks Island that day, and later, in April, the bodies washed up, and they have experts who say the places the bodies washed up are fed by currents from right near where Scott said he was.
And Ridenour can talk about how they found Scott was having an affair, which implies that maybe Scott wanted to be free from his wife. And then they can talk about the CEMENT ANCHOR they found in the bay, if what we heard about that is accurate, and maybe about the FINGERPRINT on the tape which was on the tarp that washed up by Laci's body, if what we've heard about that is accurate.

And of course, Ridenour or whoever can recount how Scott was asked by Amber, "did you have anything to do with it?" And how he answered, "Yes... um... no, but I know who did and I'll tell you when I see you..." Hearsay is allowed in a prelim, so a policeman can repeat what others said.

[Canadian Outrage]

Yes Dev I know he phoned her non-stop but it was New Years Eve that he reported made those lovey dovey statements!! In my book that not quite 7 days!! What a POS and a slimy creep.

[Canadian Outrage]

'zactly. Probable cause is pretty ease here. And having good evidence out of the perps OWN mouth is unbeatable. WHO can really twist that much. Oh they may say, he "really" meant something else but once it's said and caught on tape - well too bad. As to Sandy's fears about LE, I think they are basically unfounded because it appeared to ME anyway, that the Modesto Police Department were extra careful in the way they conducted everything!! There is NO NEED for Prosecutors to lie or deliberately omitt earth shattering evidence in their briefs. There is just no need. So Sandy, DON'T worry, be happy!! LOL I know your gonna worry anyway, I just know it. *sigh*

[Devil_Anse]

That's true--Geraldo and the NE reporter last night said the "romantic" phone calls took place on New Year's Eve, the same day as the vigil for Laci.

I'll bet his Merry Christmas call to her at 8 a.m. Christmas was pretty mushy, too.

[Devil_Anse]

Heh heh--as to what he "really" meant, I don't see how they could "prove" that he meant something other than what he said, unless... unless they call HIM as a witness! (Not gonna happen, at least not in the prelim.)

Oh, and let's not forget the taped interviews of him by Gloria Gomez and Diane Sawyer. He had some real slip-ups in those, too, talking about her in the past tense, and that time Gomez cornered him and he finally said, "I'm not going to talk about that at this time" or some such thing.

Admissible!

[Sandylapper]

I guess they wouldn't have had the dogs at the house, b/c it would be no surprise to them if the cadaver dog said there was a dead person at the house--that's the police's theory anyway. They feel that they already KNOW that there was a dead person at the house.

To me, that doesn't quite make sense, Anse, for LE's, who are going very slowly and methodically, to make a case against SP. I would think, under the circumstances that they had no body on December 27, that they would want to verify by a cadaver dog, at least, that Laci's body had been in the house.

[Canadian Outrage]

Yup I'll bet it was mushy. Can you imagine how this stuff will sound to Laci's family? Even Snotty's family SHOULD have cause for embarassment. As whacky Jackie said: " No other girl ever made Scott smile like that." And, he's grief stricken too." Blah blah blah. All this stuff he is saying on the tapes, well it's not gonna cause the Jurors to like him. Quite the opposite. I'll bet Laci's Mom, Dad, step-Dad, half-sister and her brother are feel like they are being pierced through the heart. They may well also experience deep distaste for Peterson, even more than they feel already.

[Canadian Outrage]

Well I think if he took the witness stand, his Lawyers would probably quit. Oh and I remember that Gloria Gomez interview well. She pinned him down on a lie and just wouldn't let it go until he finally say: "Look, I'm not going to dwell on me, we should be focusing on finding Laci in the short time we have left"!! It was exactly like I have posted but pretty close. He was nailed and he Knew it!!

[Sandylapper]

Would the judge make a probable cause ruling before he makes a ruling on defense's motion re the Frank's hearing? That would seem backward to me--defense is charging that LE obtained some kind of blanket warrants from the judge based on an omission in the affadavit submitted by LE to said judge.

Argh, whadda I know?

While I heard about a fingerprint on some tape, I never heard specifically if they determined it was Scott's. OTOH, I never heard that they found an anchor that they concluded came from SP's cache of anchors.

[Devil_Anse]

True--I guess they weren't convinced THAT early that Laci wasn't alive. But I think the police concluded that long b/f that horrible day they announced it publicly (some time in March.)

And they certainly did have dogs at the exterior of the house, driveway area, from the first.

But that first search they got, I don't think they got to bring in dogs to the interior of the house. I'd love to know what, if anything, they did find out in that first search. We know they seized computers and vehicles.

According to things I've read here lately, it's just possible that a dead body doesn't smell like the cadavers those dogs are trained to track, for about the first 24 hours. If Laci did die at the house, I doubt her body remained there for that long.

[Devil_Anse]

Oh, I don't think he'll be testifying at the prelim, and maybe not at all. I just mean that if they want to split hairs as to the meaning of what HE said, the only person who can shade the meaning of what HE said, would be HIM. So they'll just have to live with the plain meaning of his words, rather than some hidden meaning known only to him, b/c as you say, they probably don't want him to testify, even at the trial.

I wish I could have seen the whole Gomez interview. Just from what I saw, it looked much more informative than the Sawyer interview.

[Canadian Outrage]

Good post Dev. Now I'm off to have a bath and get ready for bed. Busy day tomorrow. Night all.

[Canadian Outrage]

Exactly!! The only way that Peterson can rebutt his words is to testify. Don't count on it! LOL NOW, Goodnight all.

[Devil_Anse]

The way I understand it, the judge will hear and decide several motions, some of which might deal with the prelim, some of which deal with the case as a whole, all b/f he starts the prelim.

I think one of those motions is the question of: is the defense entitled to the Franks hearing, or not?

So whatever he decides on that, say he decides they DO get a Franks hearing, that hearing would still not be held till after the prelim.