Posted on 12/08/2003 5:52:00 AM PST by runningbear
Friend: Peterson was frantic
By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: December 5, 2003, 07:25:21 AM PST
Scott Peterson sounded frantic when he called a friend after Peterson's pregnant wife disappeared Christmas Eve, Modesto businessman Gregory Reed said Thursday. Reed's name surfaced in the intrigue-packed preliminary hearing for Scott Peterson. The hearing ended Nov. 18 with a judge ordering the 31-year-old former fertilizer salesman to stand trial on charges of slaying Laci Peterson and their unborn son, Conner.
Other former acquaintances of the defendant, also mentioned at the proceeding, refused to comment.
Reed and his wife, Kristen, held private Lamaze sessions attended by the Petersons, who lived a few blocks away in the La Loma neighborhood. Gregory Reed previously said the Petersons brought meals and visited after the Reeds' child was born.
"They were good people," Reed said Thursday.
At the preliminary hearing, detectives testified that on the night of Dec. 24, Scott Peterson told them he fished alone briefly that day in San Francisco Bay. Peterson said his wife, who had been planning to walk their dog when he left, was gone when he returned.
Prosecutors contend that Peterson used his pickup to transport the body of his wife to his work warehouse and then to the bay.
Steve Jacobson, a prosecution investigator, testified that Peterson used his cell phone to call Reed shortly after leaving the Berkeley Marina on Dec. 24, and again later that evening. There was nothing unusual about the first call, Reed said.
"I could tell he was driving," Reed said, "but I don't know where. I could hear road noise and feedback.
"A few hours later I did get that frantic phone call. I caught up with him and went over to the house."
Family members, friends and neighbors gathered that night to post fliers and search for the mother-to-be.
Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos of Los Angeles, appeared at the hearing to draw the image of a man concerned at having returned to an empty house. Jacobson confirmed that Peterson made numerous calls the evening of Dec. 24, including several to his wife's mother, Sharon Rocha, and sister, Amy Rocha, and later to 911........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taping calls is legally tricky
By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: December 6, 2003, 07:01:58 AM PST
Amber Frey secretly taped her phone conversations with suspected double-murderer Scott Peterson, but such an action is only legal under very specific circumstances. Recording calls is against the law in California -- unless the one taping gets the other person's consent. Another law permits covert recording to gather evidence of certain crimes, including murder.
That's how Frey did it. In fact, she had help from detectives who bought her a recording device and showed her how to use it -- hoping she could extract evidence from her boyfriend.
Peterson, 31, is scheduled to stand trial Jan. 26 on charges of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
In a preliminary hearing last month, authorities suggested that the defendant's romance with Frey may have provided him with a motive to kill his wife.
Frey approached Modesto police on Dec. 30, six days after Laci Peterson went missing, and began cooperating with authorities. Detective Al Brocchini testified that he gave her taping equipment that same day.
Brocchini said he bought some of it at Radio Shack. The store sells a "recorder control" for $24.19 -- with a caution urging buyers to check local laws because taping without consent is illegal in some states.
Questioning from a defense attorney suggested that Frey had begun taping their calls on her own as of Dec. 16.
In any case, she continued recording their calls for about seven weeks. Transcripts from one featured Peterson saying he was "longing to hold onto" Frey; he repeatedly deflected questions about having previously lied about his wife and unborn baby.
Authorities also obtained wiretap warrants for Peterson's cell phones allowing them to record all of his calls. Those recordings were not discussed at the preliminary hearing, though prosecutors reserved the option of introducing that evidence at trial.
Before 1967, anyone in California could tape a phone chat without fear of going afoul of the law. But state legislators that year adopted a series of eavesdropping statutes, including one prohibiting one-party-consent recording.
"To me, it's just offensive that people record conversations, in terms of .......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court, Stanislaus County December 5, 2003
Minute Order: Findings on Sealing Orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court, Stanislaus County December 5, 2003
Minute Order: Correction to Minute Order of 12/3/03.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
LOL, I just bet he does!
Thanks for the ping, RB!
I believed you. I remember posting the California code and wondering if she fit into the special category.
I still wonder if she does on those calls she taped before the detective got involved.
From Article:
Recording calls is against the law in California -- unless the one taping gets the other person's consent. Another law permits covert recording to gather evidence of certain crimes, including murder.
That's how Frey did it. In fact, she had help from detectives who bought her a recording device and showed her how to use it -- hoping she could extract evidence from her boyfriend...............
Questioning from a defense attorney suggested that Frey had begun taping their calls on her own as of Dec. 16.
ROFL!!!
It fits the situation, though!!
Scott's franticity was premature, and his putridity will make the jury hate him.
(and true justicicity, G-d willing!)
The logical thing would have been to wait a few hours, then call friends or relatives simply inquiring whether Laci were there, or if they knew where she was.
FBI profiler John Douglas once remarked upon a case where a woman frantically called 911, claiming that her small son had been kidnapped. This occurred right after the time she discovered him missing, and so she immediately conferred suspicion upon herself, because, as Douglas pointed out, kidnapping is the last thing in the world that would occur to a mother under the circumstances--one would normally assume that the child had wandered off, or something far less threatening. Sure enough, the woman had murdered the child and tried to stage a scenario.
Profilers like Douglas are forever pointing out that if you try to stage a crime scene you are bound to fail, primarily because the police have lots of experience with genuine crime scenes, while the average schmuck does not.
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.