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

[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.