SCOTT BURNED IN RAGE

The NY POST ^ | June 10 2004 | Howard Breuer

[runningbear]

ALL EXCERPTS:

SCOTT BURNED IN RAGE

SCOTT BURNED IN RAGE

By HOWARD BREUER

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

June 10, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — Scott Peterson was more distraught when he burned chicken at a family barbecue than the night his pregnant wife Laci vanished, a witness testified yesterday.

Laci's cousin, Harvey Kemple, also said that Peterson gave conflicting stories to relatives regarding his whereabouts on the day of the tragic mom-to-be's disappearance.

"I saw more reaction out of him when he burned the God-darned chicken than when his wife went missing," Kemple said at the fertilizer salesman's double murder trial.

Kemple, a self-proclaimed grill guru, said he tried to give Peterson tips on how best to cook the chicken during a July 4 backyard barbecue just months before Laci's disappearance.

But Peterson, 31, wouldn't listen, and became visibly.......

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

Peterson Relative Says He Noticed Inconsistencies

Peterson Relative Says He Noticed Inconsistencies

By CAROLYN MARSHALL

Published: June 10, 2004

EDWOOD CITY, Calif., June 9 - Statements made by Scott Peterson to relatives of his missing wife, Laci, were so inconsistent, one family member testified on Wednesday, that he secretly followed Mr. Peterson to a shopping mall and a golf course to see if something was amiss.

"I was very suspicious from that first night," said the relative, Harvey Kemple, in testimony at the murder trial of Mr. Peterson, who is accused of killing his wife and unborn son. "That's why I followed him to the mall, hanging back a bit to see what was happening."

Mr. Kemple, who is married to a cousin of Ms. Peterson's mother, said he was put off when Mr. Peterson told him that he had been playing golf on Dec. 24, 2002, the day Ms. Peterson disappeared, because Mr. Peterson had told Mr. Kemple's .......

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

Peterson defense homes in on witness discrepancies to create reasonable doubt

Peterson defense homes in on witness discrepancies to create reasonable doubt

By Associated Press

Thursday, June 10, 2004

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Scott Peterson assured some of his in-laws he was fishing the day his pregnant wife disappeared, although he told one member of his extended family and a neighbor that he had been golfing.

It's a contradiction prosecutors in Peterson's capital murder trial revisited several times Wednesday in their effort to assert that Peterson switched his alibi after saying he returned to an empty home on Christmas Eve day, 2002.

Peterson, 31, ultimately told authorities he went fishing alone on San Francisco Bay. ..........

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

Surveillance gets a satellite assist

Posted 6/9/2004 10:31 PM Updated 6/9/2004 11:45 PM

Surveillance gets a satellite assist

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

Just after Laci Peterson disappeared in Modesto, Calif., on Christmas Eve 2002, her husband, Scott, assured police that he had nothing to do with it.

But police were suspicious. Without Peterson's knowledge, they received court permission to attach global positioning system (GPS) tracking devices to the undersides of three vehicles he was known to drive. The devices, which use cell phone networks and signals from orbiting satellites to pinpoint land locations, indicated that twice in January 2003, Peterson drove to a San Francisco Bay marina near where the bodies of his .........

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

Witness testifies that Peterson lied about golfing

Witness testifies that Peterson lied about golfing

Kemple

By JOHN COTÉ and GARTH STAPLEY

BEE STAFF WRITERS

Last Updated: June 10, 2004, 05:22:12 AM PDT

REDWOOD CITY -- Scott Peterson was more upset about burned barbecue chicken than he was about his wife's disappearance, an extended family member testified Wednesday during Peterson's double-murder trial. "I was so gol-darn mad because I saw more emotion out of him when he burnt the damn chicken than when his wife was missing," said Harvey Kemple, a construction worker married to a cousin of Laci Peterson's mother.

Kemple's testimony dominated a day in which the prosecution continued to cobble together a case against Peterson -- attempting to establish a timeline of what happened along the couple's quiet street on Dec. 24, 2002, and to highlight allegedly inconsistent statements Peterson made. ...........

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

Burnt chicken testimony at Peterson trial

Stacy Finz and Diana Walsh, Chronicle Staff Writers

Scott Peterson seemed more upset about burning his chicken than he did about his wife's disappearance, said a fiery construction worker who had jurors and observers erupting into laughter during the second week of the capital-murder case today.

Peterson, 31, is on trial in Redwood City for allegedly murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn child.

Harvey Kemple, a lifelong Modesto resident and Laci Peterson's cousin by marriage, told reporters outside the courthouse that while other family members stood by the defendant in the beginning, he was suspicious of the fertilizer salesman from the start.

Inside the courtroom, Kemple glared at the defendant while testifying. Peterson, dressed in a suit and tie, looked away.

"I saw more reaction out of.........

[Devil_Anse]

Saying that he felt suspicious is a statement of one's state of mind.

What year did you get your law degree? Mine: 1984.

As far as I know, Geragos and his cohort Harris also have law degrees.

Perhaps you are ill-informed because you have not read the actual transcripts, or excerpts from them. I would suggest that you buy the relevant pages, highlight in yellow the parts where you think Geragos did not adequately safeguard his client's interests from testimony YOU think shouldn't be admitted, and send it to him with a note. You might also want to send a note to the judge, reminding him of his dereliction of duty.

A lay witness can testify that, to him, Scott acted suspiciously.

Contrary to popular belief, lay witnesses can sometimes testify as to their opinions--or, as you expressed it, to "conclusions" made by them. [You said they were "speculative" conclusions, but they weren't speculative, b/c the conclusions of the witnesses were reached after actually seeing and being there.)

While California has its own evidence code, the fact is that the rules of evidence for each state have more similarities than differences. Because of that, the following passage, which is NOT from California, but is from another state, is applicable:

"[C]ourts historically have recognized a number of subjects about which a lay witness is permitted routinely to offer an opinion because such opinions are a shorthand rendition of the facts upon which they are based."

Lest you think that the witnesses are usurping the jury's role as the sole 12 people who are to decide if Scott is guilty, let me point out that for a witness to say (in essence) that Scott acted suspiciously, is for him to give proof of a fact that, if true, TENDS towards the ultimate conclusion that Scott is guilty. Obviously, that ultimate conclusion is for the jury to reach/not reach. But whether he acted in a certain way is highly relevant, probative of facts which are material, and it is permissible for a lay witness to describe his/her experience of how Scott was acting.

[Canadian Outrage]

NO, Don't think so!! He gave them plenty to question!!

[Devil_Anse]

Where have you been? Laci's family couldn't sing Scott's praises enough in the early days of this case. They obviously didn't want to believe that he was a murderer. If they now believe that, it is only after seeing fact after fact pointing in one direction: to Scott.

Are you truly interested in this case, or are you just part of the little club of idle people who get a false sense of superiority out of dabbling in these threads (in between going to the sports threads)?

[juzcuz]

What was in the package that the mail guy saw in Scotts mail box. -Poll-

1.) Wine of the Month
2.) Viagra Refills
3.) Burnt Chicken
4.) Amber Pics

[Canadian Outrage]

LOL!!

[Devil_Anse]

ROFL!!!

I think it was "Viagra of the Month".

[juzcuz]

Actually

I think this case and her murder was all about money.

[Canadian Outrage]

I think it had a LOT to do with it also. IF Scott ONLY wanted to be free, he could have filed for Divorce as millions of folks do every year. He's greedy, He's, self-centered, he didn't want to pay child support or alimony. And it is conceivable that on the other side of the coin, that WHEN Laci received her inheritance SHE would have NO dependence upon him at all. I don't think he would like that as Laci's father says he was WAAAAAAAY too controlling of Laci!! btw. I just read on WS that a Talking Head on Fox just said that the Prosecution has pretty CLOSED the time line. IMO that leaves Geragos without ANY credible Defense.

[Canadian Outrage]

Listen to this Dev: The Medinas Left their home across the street from Petersons (to go away for two days) at 10:30am on Dec. 24th, Karen Servas returned MacKenzie to Peterson's yard at 10:18 Dec. 24th and the mailman delivered a package to Petersons at 10:38 on December 24th as well as being on the street during that time period. WHERE is the time for ANYBODY to abduct LACI????? The DEFENSE are as BOXED IN as they can be.

[kmiller1k]

I keep thinking about the Martha Stewart Meringue Show. Do you think it is possible that Distaso knew all along that Martha discussed egg whites at approx 9:40 on 12-24 and was HOPING that Geragross would arrogantly use this "misstep" by the prosecution in order to box Scott's time frame in--whew!!

[juzcuz]

Peterson's yard at 10:18 Dec. 24th and the mailman delivered a package to Petersons at 10:38 on December 24th
---
I heard on Fox:
the reporter stated that the mail guy saw a package that he did not place there. I have not read that he delivered one yet. But that there was one already there in the box at Petersons house.

[Canadian Outrage]

Yes I do!!I think the Prosecution is a LOT smarter than Geragos is ready for. They are gonna clean his clock imo !! I just hve not been very happy with a lot of the Talking Heads. Some are Great, others have been just awful!!

[Canadian Outrage]

AND the Medinas were leaving from across the street at 10:30!! Talk about BOXED in!!

[Liberatio]

Yeah, I seem to remember. It has been in the news for a long time.

[Liberatio]

Yeah, I agree now that I have thought about it and read some more things.

[Liberatio]

I have been trying not to pay too much attention until the trial but it was hard before the trial. I say fry him already now that I have thought about the news coverage I have seen and read a little more now the trial has started.

There are lots of people who automatically think people are guilty no matter what. I like to hear evidence before I make a decision. I have heard enough now to make a decision.

I am interested in this case ans not in a little club of people who get a false sense of superiority out of dabbling in these threads. I do not read sports page much at all or even care about sports as much as other people do let alone go to the sports threads.

[Canadian Outrage]

Something I would have liked to witness I just read on another site. I guess after Gwen Kempler (Harvey's wife), ran into Lee Peterson in the hallway of the Courthouse and he was grinning: She marched up to him and said "What are you grinning about?" He said is grinning against the law too? She snapped back, I don't see anything funny about what's going on right now,he just said " I guess there is no grinning allowed in this Courthouse", then one of the Rocha's came and led her away. LOL I'm waiting to see the JURY wipe their snotty grins away. The Peterson family have acted like low life, low class barroom brawlers. They have no shame. They have shown NO consideration to the Rocha's or have they shown that they cared for Laci either.

[iconoclast]

If someone else had kidnapped Laci and was going to kill her at a later date, what better location to dump the body then in the bay where the husband said he was on the day of her disappearance.

Have you thought about contacting MG with your theory?

I don't think he's thrown this particular piece of crap up against the wall yet.

[Canadian Outrage]

I think he might have icono!! But alas, he MUST be almost fresh out "theories"!! LOL Every single ONE of them stink too! Truth: He has NO Defense!!

[EllaMinnow]

I heard two interesting tidbits from Gloria Allred at the 4:30 CourtTV update - the jurors refused to look at SP while they were filing by him on their way out of the courtroom and lunch, AND the Peterson section was quite empty today.