Posted on 05/25/2003 7:33:51 AM PDT by runningbear
Peterson had called girlfriend
Peterson had called girlfriend
Suspect in killing of Laci Peterson talked with Amber Frey after she went to police.
By Garth Stapley and John Coté
The Modesto Bee
(Published Saturday, May 24, 2003, 5:53 AM)
MODESTO -- Scott Peterson talked with his girlfriend four weeks after his pregnant wife was reported missing, according to court documents filed late Friday. The wiretap documents reveal that Scott Peterson called Amber Frey and discussed his hiring of a private investigator. The call came late on Jan. 20, almost a month after Frey had gone to police to tell them about her romantic relationship with Peterson, and four days before she went public with the information.
The documents also reveal that authorities intercepted 69 calls between Peterson and his Modesto attorney and two calls between Peterson and his private investigator.
In other developments Friday:
Two sources confirmed autopsy information that Laci Peterson's body was recovered without its head and feet.
A woman from the Petersons' neighborhood who resembles Laci Peterson told The Modesto Bee she was not pregnant when Laci went missing. Defense sources said the woman could not have been mistaken for Laci Peterson by potential witnesses interviewed in the investigation.
Prosecutors filed the wiretap documents late Friday in an apparent attempt to explain that they had inadvertently intercepted telephone conversations Peterson had with his attorney and investigator.
Because monitoring attorney-
client and investigator-client discussions is illegal, prosecutors wrote that they immediately stopped listening in most cases and did not learn anything "substantive."
The attorney, Kirk McAllister, called the eavesdropping "worse than underhanded" and vowed to "pursue this fully and vigorously."
He said Peterson's defense team will review the documents this weekend and consider asking the Superior Court to throw out double-murder charges against Scott Peterson.
Peterson, 30, is charged with murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner. She was eight months pregnant when family members reported her missing from the couple's Modesto home on Christmas Eve.
The wiretap documents state that a judge referred to Peterson as a suspect, though police insisted that he was not a suspect -- nor had he been ruled out -- before his arrest April 18.
Stanislaus County Superior Court has sealed the original wiretap recordings, and a district attorney's investigator has copies.
But prosecutors in District Attorney James Brazelton's office say they have not listened to them, preferring to have the court sanction their release to the prosecution and defense. Otherwise, the recordings should be kept secret, prosecutors argue.
Judge Al Girolami is set to take up the matter Tuesday.
On Jan. 20, while tapping Peterson's cellular phone, investigators heard him tell Frey about his private investigator and say that a tabloid newspaper also had tried to hire the investigator, according to the documents.
Authorities apparently disclosed the conversation to explain why they erroneously intercepted Peterson's discussions with the private investigator. They simply had not known before that he was working for Peterson's defense team, investigators wrote.
They also wrote that Peterson's mother, Jackie Peterson, offered to pay the private investigator and her son accepted. Authorities listened to that conversation as well.
On the autopsy details, one source close to the investigation said in addition to the missing head and feet, significant parts of Laci Peterson's torso were missing.
"There were no organs, no skin, nothing from the belly button up to the chest area," said a source familiar with the autopsy report, which a judge has sealed from public review.
Two forensic experts, however -- without having seen the autopsy -- offered differing opinions on whether the body might have been mutilated before being dumped in the San Francisco Bay.
"The absence of parts of [Laci Peterson's] body says to me it was dismembered before being placed in the water," said Dr. Michael Baden. He is a New York forensic pathologist who worked on O.J. Simpson's defense team and helped Chandra Levy's family after the Modesto woman's remains were found in Washington, D.C.
But Dr. Gregory Schmunk, Santa Clara County coroner, said news of the headless torso "doesn't surprise me at all." He said it's perfectly natural for tidal activity, boat propellers and feeding animals to break apart bodies.
As for the Laci Peterson look-alike, two people who insist they saw the pregnant Laci Peterson walking her dog after 9:30 a.m. Christmas Eve now have a reason to believe they are right after Mark Geragos, Peterson's lead attorney, said the neighborhood woman who resembles Laci Peterson "debunks [the prosecution's] whole theory."
The woman, who has since moved, has a golden retriever named McKenzie -- the same breed and name as the Petersons' dog.
But the woman, who asked not to be identified, said she is sure she did not walk her dog on Christmas Eve because her husband's two sons were at their home preparing to go shopping that day.
"I'm 99.9% sure I was not walking that day," said the woman, who is a prosecutor in another county.
She said she was no longer pregnant in December, suggesting that the woman walking on Christmas Eve most likely was Laci Peterson.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week's bay search in Peterson slaying ends Authorities refuse to talk about what they were looking for
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, May 24, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richmond -- Divers hunting for more evidence in the slaying of Laci Peterson and her unborn child wrapped up their weeklong search of San Francisco Bay on Friday.
The divers, assisted by high-tech sonar devices, had been scouring a section of the bay off Richmond since May 16. Authorities declined to say what they were looking for in the murky waters or whether they had found anything that would bolster their case against Peterson's husband, Scott Peterson.
"Barring unexpected developments, the search of the bay will not be conducted over the Memorial Day weekend," Stanislaus County District Attorney Jim Brazelton, whose office is prosecuting Scott Peterson, said in a statement Friday. "Police may return to the bay at a future date."
The searchers included dive teams from the Marin County and Contra Costa County sheriff's departments, Modesto police and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The search area was not far from where the decomposed bodies of Laci Peterson, 27, and her unborn son washed ashore last month near Point Isabel in Richmond. Published reports have said that not all of Peterson's remains were found, and that her body may have been wrapped in plastic and weighted with heavy material.
Scott Peterson was charged last month with two counts of murder and could face the death penalty if convicted. He told police he had gone on a fishing trip off the Berkeley Marina on Christmas Eve, the day his pregnant wife was reported missing.
The 30-year-old fertilizer salesman has pleaded not guilty and remains jailed without bail.
The end of the search came as the legal team defending Scott Peterson indicated it had found an unidentified woman whom defense attorney Mark Geragos had said could shed light on the case.
Reports have surfaced that defense attorneys are trying to build a case suggesting that Laci Peterson may have been abducted from her Modesto neighborhood by someone other than her husband. The defense team is reportedly looking for a tan van seen near the Petersons' home on Christmas Eve.
Geragos and prosecutors have declined to comment publicly about the theories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers push for Peterson records
Posted on Sun, May. 25, 2003
Lawyers push for Peterson records
By Brian Anderson
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Lawyers for the Contra Costa Times and two other newspapers will argue Tuesday that search warrant information relating to the arrest of Scott Lee Peterson should be released to the public.
Peterson was arrested April 18 and charged with killing his wife, Laci Peterson, and the couple's unborn son. The woman, who was eight months pregnant, vanished Dec. 23 or 24.
In the days and weeks after Laci Peterson was reported missing, investigators served a series of search warrants on a warehouse, boat, truck and trailer that Peterson used. A Stanislaus County judge also allowed police to examine phone records and the Peterson home, where officials believed Laci Peterson was killed, court records showed.
Attorneys for the Times, San Jose Mercury News and the Modesto Bee have said in court papers that there is a compelling public interest in the case that should dictate disclosure of the documents.
But lawyers on both sides of the criminal case have fought newspaper requests to release eight returned search warrants, an arrest warrant and affidavits supporting the documents. Publicity surrounding the case could hurt a continuing investigation as well as Peterson's right to a fair trial, prosecutors and defense lawyers have argued.
On June 3, Judge Roger Beauchesne will decide whether another series of search and arrest warrants relating to the Peterson case should be unsealed.
Three days later, Judge Al Girolami will hear a motion brought on behalf of reporters whose conversations over certain telephone lines relating to the Peterson investigation might have been recorded.
Officials with the district attorney's office mailed out notices earlier this month to reporters at multiple news organizations stating that their calls might have been intercepted. Conversations Scott Peterson had with his lawyers also were intercepted, officials said.
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Peterson's Parents Convinced Son Innocent
AMERICAN MORNING
Scott Peterson's Parents Convinced Son Innocent
Aired May 23, 2003 - 08:07 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Heidi, Scott Peterson's parents are convinced their son is innocent and they want the world to know about it. Peterson is accused of murdering his wife Laci and their unborn son. In the new issue of "People" magazine just on stands today, Scott's parents, Jackie and Lee Peterson, say their son is not the monster the media has made him out to be.
So, why, then, the preemptive P.R. strike?
Anne Marie O'Neill, senior editor for "People," is here to tell more about the Peterson interview.
Good morning to you.
ANNE MARIE O'NEILL, SENIOR EDITOR, "PEOPLE" MAGAZINE: Hi.
HEMMER: Their only son of Jackie and Lee.
Why did they agree to talk?
O'NEILL: I think they're doing what any loving parents would do. They think their son is innocent. He's really being given a bad rap in the press, rightly or wrongly we won't know until the trial. But they're basically coming out and trying to say that he really was a good husband and father.
HEMMER: What you will find in this issue of "People" is a lot of pictures Scott as a kid. You say these strike you. Why?
O'NEILL: I think it's really striking to look at Scott growing up and to just see a really normal boy, from a very happy family. And obviously that's why the pictures are out there, from the parents' point of view. But, you know, it really does portray, you know, incredible normality in his upbringing. You look at it and you think, well, OK, could this guy kill his wife?
HEMMER: Mark Geragos is the attorney right now. We know he's very media savvy. He's been here on CNN many, many times. There he is in video.
Is he training the parents right now on how to address reporters like yourself?
O'NEILL: I would suggest he is. You know, I don't know. I haven't been witness to any of that. But I'd suggest he is because, you know, as you said, he's really media savvy. He knows the questions we're going to ask. He knows the answers he wants out there.
HEMMER: What is his, what is he basing this theory about a satanic cult? Where does he get this information and what is the facts that he believes could support such a theory?
O'NEILL: What he believes and what he is floating out there is this theory of the brown van that was on the street before Laci Peterson disappeared. There is a woman who he says he has who claims she was almost abducted by the guys in the brown van. And the other piece of evidence that he has come up with is that Laci Peterson and another woman who was abducted more than a year ago, a woman by the name of Hernandez, both disappeared on what he says are high holy days in the satanic church.
HEMMER: So he's done his research?
O'NEILL: He's done his research, yes.
HEMMER: Even though it sounds a bit farfetched, would you not agree?
O'NEILL: Yes, oh, well, I mean, you know, believe him or not, people are listening.
HEMMER: Let's talk about the suit, the clean shaven Scott Peterson that we now see right now in court.
Did the parents address the possibility, if he is found guilty, he could pay for this crime with his life? Have they thought about that yet?
O'NEILL: I think they've probably thought a lot about that and I think that's part of what's motivating them to get out there and talk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further indepth info on May 27th hearing, Press Release
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
I agree competely with that. But I have read conflicting rumors -- and at this point, that is all they are -- about whether Laci did have more insurance on her than Scott. One account has it that they each bought $150,000 policies last July, which would have been shortly after she learned she was preggers. If that is true, that *by itself* would not be an unusual thing for a couple to have done.
Life insurance always means SOMETHING--not "nothing"--if someone is murdered. Some of the best leads depend on WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT from the person's death.
Yes, but...
Scott did not in fact stand to benefit. Maybe he thought he did, but that's hypothetical rather than pobative.
I will agree, however, that if he had loaded her up with policies which exceeded the value of his own, that starts to get probative. It could demonstrate intent.
But it's still illogical. If you are intending to kill someone in order to collect on their life insurance, wouldn't you at least check into the rules about how that works? Scott had months and months to do that.
Maybe he never watched Columbo or Perry Mason.
"Any fool knows" that he couldn't collect immediately on the life insurance w/o a body. Ah, but this isn't just any fool--this is a fool who thought he might just be able to sell the house w/o any death certificate on Laci. And the house was owned in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. He thought he could sell it w/o Laci's signature. He even discussed this w/ a realtor...
But, see, this all argues that he had not pre-planned the killing. Perhaps I'm giving Scott too much credit for intellect. But these are not complicated things to figure out. Someone with an IQ of 80 could probably do it in under 30 minutes.
His behaviors demonstrate a complete ignorance of the law, which imo argues against the notion that he had planned it.
The whole way he went about it (we are assuming it was him) is more consistent with someone who had killed his spouse in a moment of passion, panicked, and then tried to hide her body. There are *so* many things about it that are not neat.
Taking that boat up to SF Bay is a totally irrational act. You can't "plan" to do something that stupid.
I don't know about this chicken wire theory. I guess the wire could have rotted off in the salt water.
I will say this: If they can locate the boat anchors -- which I think they will -- Scott is toast. They will be able to tie them to that specific bag of cement in his backyard. It still wouldn't show any planning or premeditation, however.
With O.J., I think the evidence of premeditation was clear. You don't just go by your ex-wife's house with a hunting knife unless you intend to do harm.
With Robert Blake, pretty much the same thing. He staged the needing to go back to the restaurant. Obvious BS.
It's more complicated with Scott. All of his prior acts could have been completely innocent -- the ones we know about, anyway. The *only* prior act which I've seen discussed which would not seem innocent would be if he loaded her up with life insurance. If there was more on her than on him, that's not good.
But even then, it could be explained. A good insurance salesman can sell people things which don't make sense. I have seen it happen too many times to think it's impossible.
He has done and said some things which are unbelievably illogical. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd made a mistake regarding the life insurance.
Well, maybe you're you're right. We agree that many of the things he has done seem totally illogical. I just think that goes against any form of pre-planning or premeditation.
I'd sure like to know what went on in the house on the night of the 23rd. We never will, though.
Perhaps either Amber or Scott's computer will be able to shed some additional light.
This makes sense.
It is likely true that she is not the girl next door, but her profession description neither confirms it or refutes it.
Immorality and sleaze is not exclusively a trait of certain classes of people. By the same token, one may not be automatically assumed to be somehow above reproach due to a particular "status".
Exactly right, South. I know Lawyers that are sluts. Profession, in this case, is irrelevant, imo.
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.