Posted on 06/30/2004 5:34:17 AM PDT by runningbear
Employee recalls sex talk between Peterson and woman at trade show
Article Last Updated: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:38:31 AM PST
Employee recalls sex talk between Peterson and woman at trade show
By Jason Dearen, STAFF WRITER
REDWOOD CITY -- A ribald conversation between Scott Peterson and a woman he had just met at a trade show was so inappropriate it made one of Peterson's employees uneasy, according to the employee's testimony Tuesday in Peterson's double-murder trial. "Scott and (the woman) had a conversation that I believe was somewhat inappropriate for a married man and an engaged woman. There were discussions about sexual positions and what she liked and what he liked," said Eric Olsen, a fertilizer salesman hired by Peterson. Olsen said the steamy conversation occurred at a trade show the two men were attending at the Disneyland Hotel in October 2002. Prosecutors wanted the jury to hear the conversation, because the woman involved was Shawn Sibley, who introduced Peterson to Amber Frey shortly thereafter. Olsen's testimony marked the beginning of the prosecution's groundwork for their star witness, Frey, whom they believe inspired Peterson to murder his pregnant wife. More than a month after the dinner conversation, Sibley called Olsen with a serious question. "She wanted to know if Scott was married. At that point, as an employee of Scott's, I didn't want to be plugged into the situation going on," Olsen said. Shawn stated she wanted to set up Scott with one of her friends. I told her she needed to talk to Scott about this," Olsen said, his eyes darting between prosecutor David Harris and Peterson, who ..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson talked sex at trade show
Witness says he was uneasy as Scott chatted with woman
Article Last Updated: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:38:10 AM PST
Peterson talked sex at trade show
Witness says he was uneasy as Scott chatted with woman
By Jason Dearen, STAFF WRITER
REDWOOD CITY -- A ribald conversation between Scott Peterson and a woman he had just met at a trade show was so inappropriate it made one of Peterson's employees uneasy, according to the employee's testimony Tuesday in Peterson's double-murder trial.
"Scott and (the woman) had a conversation that I believe was somewhat inappropriate for a married man and an engaged woman. There were discussions about sexual positions and what she liked and what he liked," said Eric Olsen, a fertilizer salesman hired by Peterson. Olsen said the steamy conversation occurred at a trade show the two men were attending at the Disneyland Hotel in October 2002.
Prosecutors wanted the jury to hear the conversation, because the woman involved was Shawn Sibley, who introduced Peterson to Amber Frey shortly thereafter. Olsen's testimony marked the beginning of the prosecution's groundwork ............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventioneers recount Peterson's bawdiness
Conventioneers recount Peterson's bawdiness
By Harriet Ryan
Court TV
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — At a fertilizer convention two months before his wife vanished, Scott Peterson led a female colleague to believe he was single and then grilled her about her preferred sexual positions, a former employee and another conventioneer testified Tuesday afternoon.
The men told jurors in Peterson's capital murder trial that his dinnertime discussion with Shawn Sibley, a businesswoman who went on to introduce him to his mistress, became so raunchy that they wolfed down their meals and fled.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert: Judge goofed
By Marie Szaniszlo
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The judge in the capital murder trial of Scott Peterson paved another avenue to appeal yesterday by allowing a police officer to testify about an anonymous tip, a legal expert said.
``This alleged conversation between the defendant and an anonymous caller is clearly inadmissible as evidence,'' said J. Albert Johnson, a defense attorney and former prosecutor.
Johnson was referring to Judge Alfred A. Delucchi's decision to allow Detective Allen Brocchini to testify about a man who claimed that Peterson had told him nine years earlier that if he ever killed someone, he would dump the weighted-down corpse in the ocean and let the fish eat it. .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dismissed Juror in the Peterson Case:
Why He Should Have Been Kept on the Jury
The Dismissed Juror in the Peterson Case:
Why He Should Have Been Kept on the Jury
By JULIE HILDEN
julhil@aol.com ((I guess this writer wants feedback. Otherwise, why list your email?))
---- Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2004
On Wednesday, June 23, the judge in the Scott Peterson criminal trial removed one of the jurors, Justin Falconer, and called on an alternate to replace him. After Falconer was dismissed, the defense then moved for a mistrial, but its motion was denied.
In this column, I will argue that Falconer should not have been dismissed in the first place. Although Falconer slipped up in making what turned out to be an innocuous comment to a Peterson relative, the comment itself did not indicate bias on his part, and should have been forgivable under the circumstances. .......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecution: It is easy to leave a mistaken impression
Prosecution: It is easy to leave a mistaken impression
By SUSAN HERENDEEN and JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: June 29, 2004, 02:14:00 PM PDT
2:14 p.m.: REDWOOD CITY -- Stanislaus County Deputy District Attorney Rick Distaso Tuesday morning showed the jury in Scott Peterson’s double-murder trial that it is easy to leave a mistaken impression.
He asked Modesto Police Detective Al Brocchini about a tip he received from one of Peterson’s college buddies, who said the defendant in 1995 described how he would dispose of a body.
“He said he would tie a bag around the neck with duct tape, put weights on the hands and throw it into the sea,” Brocchini said, recalling the phone conversation.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at sanmateocountytimes.com ...
I. Ben, I would like very much to believe that it was not Scott who killed his own wife and baby. Seriously, if she was really with him the night of the 23-24, up till about 10 a.m. the 24th--which is what he says--then she could only have disappeared between 10 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. on the 24th. What do you think happened during those hours to cause her to disappear? Where do you think it happened? Do you think she was walking the dog when she disappeared--if so, then it could only have happened between 10:06 and 10:18, if you believe Scott's cellphone records and Karen Servas... or do you not believe Scott's cellphone records and/or Karen Servas? If you don't believe them or her, why?
If you don't think it happened btw 10:06 and 10:18, then I assume you think it happened between 10:18 and 4:45. Do you think she was walking the dog during these hours, and was abducted, and if so, how did the dog get back in the yard with the gate closed?
Do you think it happened within walking distance of her house? Or do you think she was out somewhere in her car? If you think she was somewhere she went in the car, how did the car end up back in the driveway, and how did the car keys end up back in her purse?
If you think, OTOH, that the car had no role, wouldn't you agree that it must have happened at or near the house? If so, where might it have happened?
If you think it happened in the house, then why were diamonds, guns, bank/credit cards, Land Rover, and cash left untaken? Why was there no sign of any trouble except one scrunched up throw rug? Why did Karen Servas, who was home some of the day, right next door, hear nothing? Why did the other neighbors such as Tara V. and Amie K., who were also home, not see/hear any struggle or trouble? How did the killer know that Scott might not be coming back to the house soon?
You agree that you can't explain how the body got to the Bay. Neither can I, under this scenario. But we must live with the fact that the body did indeed go into the Bay. If we accept the scenario that it was done by someone else, then it has to have happened between about 10:08 and 4:45 on Dec. 24, since if Scott is innocent, he would be telling the truth when he says she was with him the other times.
We know that the heat came down on the area near Berkeley sometime shortly after the police interviewed Scott (Dec. 24-25), b/c we know that is when he told them he'd been to Berkeley. If someone kept Laci alive for some days after the 24th, how did they get her into the Bay, obviously weighted down (b/c otherwise she'd have floated up much, much sooner), while there was all that heat in the very area of the Bay where it turns out her body actually was?
If, OTOH, someone abducted/killed her on the 24th, and got her into the Bay shortly thereafter, what are the odds that this person picked the very two places Scott had also been (home, and the Bay)?
Why would someone who had done this gruesome murder take the risk and make the extreme effort to transport this woman's body, which they later have to have weighted down, for 90 miles? Wouldn't there be much more risk of capture if they spent all that time with the corpse, as opposed to leaving the dead woman wherever it was they found and killed her in Modesto?
I can only think of two other people, besides Scott, who even began to have a motive: Brent and Amy. B/C their inheritance would have eventually increased if Laci were dead.
Both of them have good alibis. The testimony shows that the police checked out these alibis thoroughly. Brent doesn't even live in Modesto, and wasn't even in Modesto during the pertinent time period.
And I'm sorry, I find it absolutely impossible to believe that these two, who are seen in videos clearly interacting lovingly with Laci, would have done this. Like Scott, they have absolutely no criminal records. Unlike Scott, they both had lifelong histories of being friendly and close with Laci.
And I'm sure there are many people here who have been co-heirs with someone. How many of you killed your co-heir so all the money would go to you? (C'mon guys, raise your hands!) I shared an inheritance with my brother. It did not occur to me that if he were to suddenly die, I would get more. I mean, come ON!
Great post! Add to that: if he is a divorced man, there are going to be some who take sides with his wife and will probably begin to think of him with contempt, disdain, even hatred.
If, OTOH, he is the widower, he gets..... SYMPATHY. Love. Kindness. Understanding. Compassion. Positive attention.
WHOA! If I had ever known that, I had forgotten it!
"Scott did not know she was pregnant." Yeah--and Clinton mistook Monica for Hillary, crawling in there under his desk...
I believe all of what you said here is true. Some of it is borne out by the testimony: Mark G. spoke to the clinic people about how she had an ovulation predictor, and they agreed. The part about one ovary is true, too; I think that may have been mentioned in the testimony too.
And the part about "kinda hoping for infertility" was testified to.
I have something much less pleasant implanted in my brain whenever Geragos' name or picture appears.
Hey, Pinz, he was funding his cheating sessions with cash from the sale of her jewelry! They even went and sold or pawned some of it on Dec. 14, and later that evening he was wining and dining Amber.
So- are you ready for that Margarita yet??
I give up 'til Tuesday....unless something really gets my goat!
Yes--without KEYS. Without KEYS! Meaning she'd have had to leave a door open at home. Leaving a door open, when, according to Geragos, she was so concerned about the homeless people who trooped by on their way from shelter to park, park to shelter... when, according to Scott, he took to parking his truck in the driveway with the front facing outward, b/c he said that way he had less people getting in and rummaging around in the truck's toolbox to steal from him.
Oh, and let's not forget--she would have gone out to walk the dog w/o keys, therefore having left a door open, and also having left the gate to her backyard open, b/c we know Karen Servas found it open. Might as well put out an engraved invitation to thieves: "Please burglarize this house."
LOL. Well, it's a thought!
I read on one of the recent timelines here that she shared the $$$ form one of the sales with Amy.
Another $$$ angle... I remember an old Doris Day movie I saw as a kid, where her husband was missing for 7 years, he was declared dead, she remarried, then husband #1 returned. What a mess! But funny. :-)
What if Scott wanted her dead BUT MISSING, so that her estate would stay with him, as her next of kin? She was going to get a million dollars from the sale of her grandmother's house (or 1/3 of that million). If she's reliably eaten by the fishes and crabs, it would all go to Scott after 7 years.
I can't but help think that that lends an additional motive to his dropping her into the Bay.
Your endless lists of questions fleshes out those nagging thoughts about no one else doing it. Thanks for having the patience to type it all out!
Pinz
Don't forget she left all the diamonds on the dresser with the door unlocked.
And left her shoes in the closet with her coat and purse. And her cell phone was dead in her car.
Pinz
Good Night.
Your statement doesn't even make sense. You're just here looking for a good arguement.
Thanks MEG33, I am always on too late & miss everything, but if that poster is just another "he is innocent" one on CTV board, then I didn't miss much!
I still don't understand why they are allowed to talk about the trial or anything in any way related to scott. Is GAG order different in Calif???? (sarcasm)
She admitted she is JANEY??? WOW!! thanks for that info...
This has been discussed on here since Laci first went missing, I think that most of the posters are tired of repeating & repeating the "whys" to new posters to this thread.
Exactly what I tried to tell that poster. We have been talking about this for months & months, we get tired for repeating & repeating. And did you notice the new posters come up with facts that are sooooo old news then want us to rehash them too. Like Amber is involved, well I think the LE cleared her or she'd be in a cell too!
Devil, do you really think Geragross really cares if snotty sits in jail another year, he's already made a bundle of $$$$$ off Lee & Jackie!! Either way, snotty is not out on the golf course or chasing skirts!! LOL
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.