Posted on 08/17/2004 5:31:58 AM PDT by runningbear
August 17, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — Stunning new phone tapes from Scott Peterson's slay trial yesterday depicted his miffed mistress demanding to know if he slept with wife Laci the night before she vanished — and Peterson insisting he told Laci about their affair after their first date.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Just 15 days after his pregnant wife mysteriously vanished, Scott Peterson spent an hour on his cell phone with his secret lover apologizing, cajoling and begging for a second chance.
Amber Frey told Peterson that she had been through some rocky relationships in her time, but now she was unwittingly caught up in the sinister intrigue of his wife's disappearance — and she wanted answers.
This morning, prosecutors played the Jan. 8, 2003, telephone conversation between the Modesto fertilizer salesman and the Fresno massage therapist. It's one in a series of phone discussions between the pair that investigators secretly recorded with Frey's help. Each one is being played to the jury. ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frey unconvinced on tapes
By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: August 17, 2004, 04:30:55 AM PDT
REDWOOD CITY -- On the same days Scott Peterson ordered TV pornography channels, he tenderly assured his girlfriend he cared for her -- and that he loved his missing, pregnant wife, according to telephone conversations she secretly taped.
Peterson maintained that he had nothing to do with Laci Peterson's disappearance, even when Amber Frey insisted, "All fingers point to you."
And, he vowed to volunteer in future search efforts for other missing people. Calling him a "pathological liar," his irritated girlfriend openly mocked him.
"No one will think your behavior is innocent," Frey said in one of five recordings played Monday at her former lover's double-murder trial.
He could face the death penalty if convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, on or just before Dec. 24, 2002. His attorneys say he was framed.........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurors listen to more recorded calls
Jurors listen to more recorded calls
Peterson refused to talk to Frey about his last night with his wife, Laci
By Jason Dearen, STAFF WRITER
REDWOOD CITY -- Despite police and media suspicion pointing to him, Scott Peterson asked Amber Frey if she might be involved in his wife's disappearance -- all the while continuing to read her poetry and Bible scripture. Peterson's question came in one of a series of secretly recorded phone calls played to the jury Monday at his double-murder trial.
In a Jan. 8, 2003, call recorded by Frey at police request, Frey says people's suspicions will be inflamed by media reports of their affair. Peterson responds: "And I just, you know, I hope that you ... are not, um ... involved to any degree and ..."
"My hands are clean of this, Scott," Frey fires back.............
_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I Interest You in a Murder?
Can I Interest You in a Murder?
By Matt Hutaff
Aug 16, 2004
With each passing day, it looks more and more likely that Lori Hacking was stabbed to death by her husband Mark on July 18th. Having learned that he'd falsified claims of being accepted to medical school in North Carolina, police believe Lori's confrontation of the facts led Mark to kill her in a rage, then dispose of the body and bloodied evidence in a Dumpster.
With Mark having confessed the murder to his brothers Scott and Lance less than a week after Lori's disappearance, the only question I have is: why the hell should I have cared in the first place?.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Miller: These boots were made for talkin’
August 14, 2004
Don Miller: These boots were made for talkin’
Food for thought: what kind of week would see both JULIA CHILD and GYPSY BOOTS pass on?
Yes, what kind of week indeed. A week that saw the California Supreme Court void San Francisco Mayor GAVIN NEWSOM’s gay marriage gala, while the news was breaking across the continent that the governor of New Jersey had resigned because he was being blackmailed by his gay lover.
The kind of week where sensitivity was on trial, and so was perhaps the tackiest, slimiest cheatin’ husband of the ... well, month at least.
Scott and Amber. Scott and Amber. Idiot and dupe. Killer and victim.
Not only were the phone calls that AMBER FREY taped extremely revealing about the unrepentant character of SCOTT PETERSON, but the dialogue will probably be the stuff of magazine covers and books to come.
The most revealing part, according to news accounts, was to see the looks on jurors’ faces as the phone calls played on. The defense had been looking like it might pull out an O.J. in this trial, as the prosecution and the Modesto cops had been giving off that familiar scent of bungling.
But it all changed with the calls. .........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapes: Peterson Evasive About Wife
Jury Listens To Wire Tap Phone Calls
Tapes: Peterson Evasive About Wife
Jury Listens To Wire Tap Phone Calls
(ABC7)
Aug. 16 (AP) — Scott Peterson pursued his mistress even as the search for his missing wife continued a week after she disappeared, according to telephone recordings played for jurors Monday at his double-murder trial........
PINGING.........
PINGING.........
PINGING.........
Mark
RAPID FIRE WITH NANCY GRACE
1-800-345-KNEW call in phone number
Scott needs to admit to the world that his truth is he's gay. It's crazy enough to work!
The Judge on Fox this morning said that since the police were with Amber while she was recording Scott's calls, and how the police were telling her what to ask Scott, that Garagos could have the tapes thrown out because the cops didn't give him his Miranda Rights.
I was wondering about this. Entrapment?
I don't know the law, but I am concerned about this.
With everything in the article, the Post went with that ridiculous headline? He can lie to Amber. He can lie to the families. He can lie to their friends. He can lie to the investigators. Presidents and senators can lie to "the nation" but private citizens can not.
You think Geragos hasn't tried!
I can agree with that assessment. I, too, thought that once again some cops and prosecutors in CA had totally blown a slam-dunk case, but I think these phone calls will be all the jury needs to convict Scott. What a loser! Without these phone calls, he probably would have walked, but now I beleive he has assured himself a death of old age on CA's death row.
And on Greta, did you listen to Amber's (so called) ex boyfriend? He was the one who gave those Christmas parties, and Amber introduced Scott to him? At first I thought Greta was going to do a anti Amber thing... But this guy seems to stick up for Amber!
Did this guy have time to do anything else? It seems he spent every waking hour looking to have affairs. It is the classic motive for killing one's spouse, though I still contend the testimony of Frey may not be enough to get a conviction.
I don't think so. They, PD were investigating. Scott wasn't under arrest so, I don't think Miranda Rights were needed until they arrested him April 2003. Besides, Modesto Judge gave the okay for wiretaps. (just my opinion)
Something I watched on Greta's show, Robert Shipero(sp) was on, and thinks the Jury will convict once all the evidence, or conclusion of the trial. Interesting...but what do they know, just the stuff being discussed at the moment... ;o)
golfing and sex!....lol...
There is one common thread. Juries are very reluctant to convict unless they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Every person on that jury will have known of men that cheated on their wives but did not kill them. Every person on that jury will have known of men that lied to their mistress about their wives. Every person on that jury will have known of men that cheated on wives that were on their death beds. Every person on that jury will have known of men who were absolute scum bags but did not kill their wives.
If the prosecution can not prove that with some solid evidence that he killed his wife, he will walk. Jurors are haunted by the prospect of convicting an innocent man.
Jurors will convict an accused serial killer on slight evidence. They are not only haunted by the prospect of putting an innocent man to death, but by the prospect that they may be setting a killer free to kill again.
But in this case, unless the prosecution can make a much better case than it has so far, I would be quite surprised to have a man convicted of murder on the grounds that he is a scumbag.
There are lots of scumbags that never kill. This is not nearly enough to get Peterson convicted.
He could face the death penalty if convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, on or just before Dec. 24, 2002.
I guess the current conventional wisdom is this: one who kills an unborn child without the consent of the mother is a murderer, but one who kills an unborn child with the consent of the mother is helping her exercise her power of choice.
I would think even the pro-abortion side would experience cognitive dissonance over this.
Maybe they do. And maybe they think of it as one of those "gray areas" they like so much.
(steely)
And a little fishing in there to. Married life must have been a drag for the ol' boy.
It's definitely not entrapment. This defense is usually used in the wrong contaxt when discussing crimes, and is probably about as hard to prove as insanity.
The cops basically have to get you to commit a crime you are otherwise not disposed to do. Just giving you the opportunity is not enough, because if you take the opportunity, you were willing to do it. There has to be virtually coercion or just an ubelievable amount of encouragement from the cops to get entrapment. In this case, he committed the crime way before the police wre involved, anyway.
He also doesn't get Miranda, because that does not apply until a custodial detainment - short of arrest, but it has to be understood that you are not free to leave. Also not applicable in this case.
The question is whether it was an illegal search. I don't know specific case law (I do corporate, not criminal), but basic principles would tell me that it was not illegal. Generally, depending on jurisdiction, a call can be recorded if one person to the conversation knows it is being recorded. Also, searches can be done if the person consents. So, since Amber consented, and she was likely (again, depending on California law) within her righhts to tape it, the tapes are admissible.
A California lawyer or criminal lawyer might correct me, but that it what I see from basic principles.
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.