Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Laci's things in tug of war
The Modesto Bee ^ | May 31, 2003 | Garth Stapely and John Cote'

Posted on 05/31/2003 8:41:50 AM PDT by runningbear

Laci's things in tug of war


Laci Peterson's brother Brent Rocha loads a rocking chair from her Modesto home into the back of a truck Friday morning.

Laci's things in tug of war

By GARTH STAPLEY and JOHN COTÉ

BEE STAFF WRITERS

Published: May 31, 2003, 07:16:10 AM PDT

Laci Peterson's family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman's house on Friday, touching off controversy between her family and that of her husband.

Police responded to the Covena Avenue home at about 10 a.m. after a security company reported that the alarm had been triggered, Capt. Greg Savelli said.

Officers determined that Laci Peterson's family and friends were removing items that belonged to Laci, said Savelli, who added that officers documented what was taken.

"We're treating this as a civil dispute over property," he said. "It was clear to the Police Department that this was not a burglary.

Peterson's husband, Scott, 30, has been charged with double murder and faces the death penalty in the killings of his 27-year-old wife and their unborn son, Conner.

Savelli said the fallout from Friday's property removal "was best handled between the families and their attorneys."

Adam Stewart, an attorney for Laci Peterson's family, said the family had been in contact with Scott Peterson's defense team, who had agreed to allow Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, to go through the house on Tuesday. She was to be accompanied by representatives of the defense team, and all items taken were to be photographed and videotaped.

Scott Peterson's parents and lawyers expressed outrage that the Rochas did not follow the agreement.

Jackie Peterson said the people who went into the home Friday had "absolutely no permission to be in that house. I have a lot of empathy for Sharon, but she does not have a right to go in our house and take what she wants."

Rocha did not appear to be among the packers. Calls placed to the Rocha home were not accepted.

Seven vehicles loaded

Among the items loaded into seven vehicles were a crib, a rocking chair and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco makes such products as strollers, highchairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson's family announced Wednesday that it had hired attorneys to help recover items from the house. A list included her wedding dress, jewelry and Conner's crib.

Jackie Peterson told The Bee that the security company notified her by telephone in San Diego County that the house alarm had been tripped.

The property removal appeared to take Scott Peterson's defense team by surprise.

Matthew Dalton, an attorney with lead defense attorney Mark Geragos' law firm, drove to the house and asked reporters if someone had reported a burglary.

Dalton went to Stewart's Modesto law office Friday morning and dropped off some items requested by the Rocha family, Stewart said.

Monday, the defense team moved other items, including what appeared to be gifts, to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister, for transfer to Laci Peterson's family. But the items had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

Stewart said in front of the home that it would be "ridiculous" to suggest that the Rochas broke into the home.

"I apologize for it coming down to this," he said. "This is not the way we operate. This is for Laci, for Conner and Laci's family. It is not for the media or Mr. Scott Peterson's defense in any way, shape or form. It's depressing that it's come down to this."

Stanislaus County Chief Deputy District Attorney John Goold said prosecutors had no legal authority over the house.

"It's not a crime scene," Goold said. " This is a civil problem between the Rochas and the Petersons."

The house title is in Laci and Scott Petersons' names, county records show. In such a joint tenancy, when one titleholder dies, the title goes to the other.

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

Incident brings Peterson case close to home
Victim's family moves items from house, raising the issue of ownership.

Incident brings Peterson case close to home
Victim's family moves items from house, raising the issue of ownership.

By Garth Stapley and John Coté
The Modesto Bee

(Published Saturday, May 31, 2003, 4:47 AM)

MODESTO -- Laci Peterson's family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman's house Friday, touching off controversy between her family and that of her husband.

Police officers were dispatched after a security company notified them that the alarm at the Covena Avenue home had been triggered, Capt. Greg Savelli said.

Officers determined that members of the Rocha family and friends of Laci Peterson were removing items that belonged to the slain woman and documented what was taken, Savelli said.

"We're treating this as a civil dispute over property," he said. "It was clear to the police department that this was not a burglary. It was a dispute over property and was best handled between the families and their attorneys."

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

Judge cites Peterson right to fair trial in denying report access

Judge cites Peterson right to fair trial in denying report access

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Published: May 31, 2003, 07:16:56 AM PDT

A Stanislaus County judge on Friday ordered that arrest and search warrants remain sealed in the case against Scott Peterson, who is accused of murdering his pregnant wife and unborn son.

Superior Court Judge Al Giro-lami's ruling also ordered the autopsy reports for Laci and Conner to stay sealed.

Thursday, District Attorney James Brazelton reversed his position and asked to have the autopsy reports made public, and the matter is set for hearing June 6.

Brazelton's about-face came after part of the fetus's autopsy report was leaked to the media. Prosecutors said that portion was clearly "skewed in favor of the defense."

Defense attorneys, coroner's officials, police and prosecutors have denied leaking the information.

Friday, in his ruling on all the documents, Girolami said releasing them "might irreparably harm the continued investigation into this criminal matter."

"Despite the fact that the complaint has been issued and a suspect has been arrested, the investigation and search for both incriminating and exonerating evidence in this matter continues," Girolami wrote.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys argued that releasing the documents could impede Peterson's right to a fair trial and damage an ongoing investigation.

Girolami agreed, saying in his ruling that releasing the documents "might result in the evidence being destroyed and witnesses being reluctant to step forward."

A group of newspapers, including The Bee, are seeking to have the documents unsealed.

Right to view reports argued

Charity Kenyon, an attorney representing the newspapers, argued that the public's right to view court documents was fundamental in an open legal system.

Other means exist for ensuring

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

Judge orders Laci Peterson autopsy report sealed

Judge orders Laci Peterson autopsy report sealed

The Modesto Bee

The Associated Press

Published: May 31, 2003, 06:49:17 AM PDT

MODESTO, Calif. (AP) - A judge ruled Friday that an autopsy report on the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son should remain sealed along with other search warrant and arrest records.

Superior Court Judge Al Girolami said releasing the information could hamper the murder investigation and prejudice public opinion before a trial begins.

Girolami is scheduled to hear more arguments June 6 from prosecutors preparing a murder case against Peterson's husband, Scott Peterson. Prosecutors on Thursday asked that the autopsy reports be released to the public. They argued that media leaks of the reports are biased toward the defense.

Girolami also ordered that leaks of sealed information stop and indicated he would consider a gag order to stop the prosecution and defense teams from talking to the media.

Scott Peterson, 30, is accused of killing his wife and unborn son, whom the couple had planned to name Conner, last December in their home. Laci, 27, was eight months pregnant at the time. The bodies washed ashore in San Francisco Bay last month.

Contra Costa County authorities concluded their autopsy report earlier this month, but did not disclose the cause of death.

Several media outlets have released details of the coroner's report, and a spokeswoman for Laci Peterson's family members said Thursday they were "devastated" at hearing autopsy reports without warning on television.

The leaked reports indicated the unborn son had plastic tape wrapped around his neck and a significant cut across the shoulders.

Meanwhile, friends of Laci Peterson removed several personal articles Friday from the single-story Modesto home where she and Scott Peterson lived.

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

MOM'S MOVING MOMENT

MOM'S MOVING MOMENT

By HOWARD BREUER and MARSHA KRANES

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

May 31, 2003 -- Laci Peterson's mother - shattered by the graphic details leaked from the 25-page autopsy of her unborn grandson - yesterday began removing her slain daughter's belongings from the home she had shared with her accused murderer husband, Scott.

Sharon Rocha, accompanied by several friends and relatives, was seen at the Modesto, Calif., house removing the rocking chair Laci had bought to use when she nursed her infant son, as well as unopened Christmas gifts, clothing, chairs, lamps and artwork.

In doing so, she ignored the advice of her lawyer, Al Clark, that she wait until he, Scott Peterson's lawyers and court officials work out the procedures to be followed when she entered the house.

Modesto police arrived while Rocha was there, and she and her entourage left a short time later after packing seven cars full of Laci's belongings.

Hours later, lawyers representing Laci's family and Scott Peterson started haggling over whether removing the items was legal.

Scott Peterson's mother, Jackie, expressed outrage that the items had been removed since Laci's family had "absolutely no permission to be in that house."

Scott Peterson has pleaded not guilty to killing his wife and their unborn son.

Laci's family said Wednesday that they had hired lawyers to help them retrieve a baby crib and jewelry from the home.

Meanwhile, Clark told Fox News his client's anger over the grisly revelations leaked from her daughter's and grandson's sealed autopsy reports drove her to go get her daughter's possessions.

A family spokeswoman said Rocha was "devastated" by the reports describing how the near full-term fetus of her grandson Conner had plastic tape wrapped around the neck and a large cut across the chest when he was found in the shallow waters of San Francisco Bay last month.

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

(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: avoidingchildsupport; baby; babyunborn; conner; deathpenaltytime; dontubelievemyalibi; getarope; ibefishing; laci; lacipeterson; smallbaby; smallchild; sonkiller; unborn; wifekiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 851-894 next last
To: EastCoast
Just curious because of all the high-powered attys out there, why Geragos? Pro-bono, maybe?

Someone on Fox a week or so ago remarked that Geragos is definitely not taking $$ for this. But I haven't heard another word about it.

651 posted on 06/01/2003 6:57:06 AM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: IrishRainy
Your situation that you described in #639 sounds so much like my brother-in-law's situation that I was wondering if that's who posted it, till I saw that you are female!

Amazing.
652 posted on 06/01/2003 6:59:52 AM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
(" finally had to let the armadillo go. I hated to see it go, but there were protesters outside my pants yelling all the time... so, I finally freed it...")

LOL.. now that is a vision I don't think I would want to see... ;o)

653 posted on 06/01/2003 7:07:12 AM PDT by runningbear (Lurkers beware, Freeping is public opinions based on facts, theories, and news online.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: EastCoast
I think it was from the Peterson's who called Geragos.. Can't verify it wholly from source.. Have to find it.> Was about a month ago stated.. Last I heard in Jan, McAllister quit because of scaughty's yapping off his mouth to the media, and couldn't afford McAllister's fees. But boy was I surprised to hear, he joined in the new 'dream team'....lol..
654 posted on 06/01/2003 7:10:40 AM PDT by runningbear (Lurkers beware, Freeping is public opinions based on facts, theories, and news online.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
Thanks, interesting to follow up on, and that as RG has pointed out and others, the dungeon and dragons era, maryiln manson et el songs driving these people to do what they did... A book, in a chapter(s), "the gift of fear, Gavin De Becker states some of this...
655 posted on 06/01/2003 7:15:32 AM PDT by runningbear (Lurkers beware, Freeping is public opinions based on facts, theories, and news online.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
LOL....
656 posted on 06/01/2003 7:18:21 AM PDT by runningbear (Lurkers beware, Freeping is public opinions based on facts, theories, and news online.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: All
There have been posts made regarding attorney Mark Geragos "reneging" on an agreement between the parties to allow Sharon Rocha to enter the Peterson home and retrieve some of Laci's property. It has been presented that this was some kind of "last straw" and Sharon Rocha, in desperation, entered the home without the defense's permission. This is not exactly true.

On Wednesday night Sharon Rocha appeared on Greta's show on FNN. She complained that she was not being allowed to enter the Peterson home by Scott Peterson's mother. She offered a very sad story designed to ellicit sympathy, not only from Greta, but from the audience as well. She accomplished that goal.

What she did not reveal to Greta or the public was that there was already an agreement in place for her to enter the home and retrieve items she had listed as belong to Laci that she would like to have. The date, and presumeably the time, was set for Tuesday, June 3. Instead, she stated that Scott's mother was refusing to allow entry. Scott's mother called in and denied that she was blocking the entry.

The agreement was between the parties was designed to eliminate a media farce. Geragos did not want or need any more negative press and controversy. The negotiations and the agreement itself was kept confidential and was not announced to the press or public prior to the appearance of Rocha on Greta's show.

The following morning, Thursday, Geragos responded to Rocha's attack on Mrs. Peterson by calling Rocha's attorney and in complaining made the "if you want war" statement. He was outraged, I believe righfully so, and responding to the deception and dishonesty of Rocha in light of the agreement. He then apparently, withdrew the agreement.

Sharon, taking advantage of her breech, then entered the home on Friday morning complete with attendant press who were obviusly told there would be an entry prior to the event itself. The press witnessed the arrival of the vehicles and the police as their video reveals.

I think a fair and objective review of the agreement, the statements made by Sharon Rocha and the reports by the press will reveal that this was a pre-planned event orchestrated by Sharon Rocha to accomplish her own ends. In the process she slandered Jackie Peterson to her own advantage.

IMO............

657 posted on 06/01/2003 8:00:06 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks; runningbear
Your posts put me in a mind of reading text generated, by HAL 9000,"2001 Space Odyssey". (especially when HAL is trying to reason with Dave)I agree with runningbear you are a good debater.
658 posted on 06/01/2003 8:12:25 AM PDT by MaggieMay (A blank tag is a terrible thing to waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
I went back over my notes after reading your post. I am going by what was published on KTVU.com. I am quoting from that source:
Al Clark(One of two of the Rocha's attorneys): "We thought we had it worked out with Geragos that Sharon could come in Laci's home next Tuesday". "He (Geragos)called...on Thursday and said he's not going to allow anyone in the house....I called Sharon..she said,"I've got to do something".

I do not know what source you are using in your post, but everything I have read support's the account, I have included in the above paragraph.
659 posted on 06/01/2003 8:40:25 AM PDT by MaggieMay (A blank tag is a terrible thing to waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
What I've garnered from the various press reports was that the "defense" set that Tuesday date for Sharon to enter the home under strict guidelines set by the *defense*. Press reports indicated that the *defense* team would accompany Sharon and videotape her visit to the home and record everything she did and every item she touched or wanted removed from the home.

IMO, I this were me....this would have been an unacceptable scenario! How on earth could she have walked into her dead daughter's home with *defense* cameras recording her heartbreak? I believe this is what Sharon meant when she stated that victim's families don't have any rights. What an awful intrusion of someone's private grief and misery.

I'm quite sure that cameras were not present when the Peterson's entered. Why should the Rocha's be subjected to such a humiliating injustice?

The defense team is now stating that there was a "deal"...perhaps the defense said: this is the deal take it or leave it...and the Rocha's chose to leave it.

I think I would have done the same thing, frankly. There was nothing for the Rochas to lose.....they've lost enough already. For the Petersons and their attorneys to not have any compassion with regard to Laci's family was shameful and disgusting.

660 posted on 06/01/2003 8:43:47 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
"What I've garnered from the various press reports was that the "defense" set that Tuesday date for Sharon to enter the home under strict guidelines set by the *defense*. Press reports indicated that the *defense* team would accompany Sharon and videotape her visit to the home and record everything she did and every item she touched or wanted removed from the home."

The articles say that there was an agreement upon the date by the parties. It does not state that the defense dictated the date, especially for some nefarious reason. I believe that there was an intent to document what was removed from the home. This is not surprising nor objectionable considering that there is a capital murder case involved. It is also not unusual. In other criminal and civil cases that I am aware of, there have been times that this has been done by both by the prosecution or complainants and the defense or respondants.

"...I this were me....this would have been an unacceptable scenario! How on earth could she have walked into her dead daughter's home with *defense* cameras recording her heartbreak?"

And if it were you and you objected then you or your attorney would be free to reject the agreement. There was no intent to document her grief, besides her grief has already been documented by the press with Sharon Rocha's permission and cooperation. As to the camera phobia, the press was clearly informed prior to the entry. The press was on site before the Rochas arrived and have described the trucks arrival at the Peterson residence. Clearly Geragos and the defense did not call the press. They knew nothing about the impending break in. It is doubtful that the attorneys for the Rochas called the press, they advised her earlier not to enter the home and by informing they press the would be in ethical breach. Besides they deny it. I for one, believe them. That leaves only the Rochas themselves.

"I'm quite sure that cameras were not present when the Peterson's entered. Why should the Rocha's be subjected to such a humiliating injustice?"

True, but then there would be no reason to believe that the Petersons bear any angst or rancor toward the defendant in this case. The same cannot be said for the Rocha family. They have openly displayed their feelings for the defendant, understandably so. However, the defense was doing what it is required to do by the Bar's Code of Ethics and the law---acting in the best interest of their client.

"The defense team is now stating that there was a "deal"...perhaps the defense said: this is the deal take it or leave it...and the Rocha's chose to leave it".

Actually the Rocha's attorneys are stating the there was a deal and complaining that Geragos and the defense withdrew the deal. I suppose you can say the "Rochas chose to leave it", but if that was their choice they should not have agreed to it in the first place. To unilaterally revoke it with no notice to the other party involved, is a breech of ehics, an affront to honest negotiation and smacks of a deliberate deception by the Rochas.

Sharon Rocha had an opportunity to revoke or "leave" the deal as you put it on the Greta program. She did not. Instead she deliberately chose not to mention the deal at all. She chose to claim that she was being denied any entry by Jackie Peterson, making Mrs. Peterson out to be callous, indifferent and vindictive. The record clearly shows that this was not true and Mrs. Rocha knew it.

661 posted on 06/01/2003 9:43:02 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
"Al Clark(One of two of the Rocha's attorneys): "We thought we had it worked out with Geragos that Sharon could come in Laci's home next Tuesday". "He (Geragos)called...on Thursday and said he's not going to allow anyone in the house...."

And I've stated no different.

What you are ignoring is the Greta program appearance by Sharon Rocha on Wednesday night effectively denying that any access was being provided to her. That was the precipitant for the Geragos withdrawl of the deal Thursday morning.

662 posted on 06/01/2003 9:50:40 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
for later
663 posted on 06/01/2003 9:52:41 AM PDT by janette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Rusty Roberts
You don't suppose Scott did the same with the jewelry as he did with the car, used it to buy something else? Thus the jeweler contacted the Rochas realizing what had transpired? Just a thought.

Again, what Jackie says the jewelry was doing there....don't mind me if I wait to hear a disintersted party confirm first before I believe her. Too many of her statements have been outright lies to take this at face value.

I think the jeweler just may have contacted the Rochas. Modesto isn't Los Angeles, and public sympathy for Laci's family is running pretty high. I'd be interested to learn when the jewelry was turned over to the jewelry store.

Jackie has a real problem with the truth. In fact she has character issues. Yeah, duuuuh...

664 posted on 06/01/2003 10:00:39 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (America...love it or leave it. Canada is due north-Mexico is directly south...start walking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Bella
From what I've heard, Scott is her only child w/ hubby P...both were previously married and each had 2-3 children w/ their first spouses...I have the same feeling as you re Jackie and she's been hitting the airwaves lately while the others basically hide..Something's definitely amiss..

Who is Janey married to? Besides Maw and Pa, she seems to be the only other Peterson speaking out. In some families there is a "code of silence". They know where the skeletons are buried, so to speak, but they stick together and keep their mouths shut. Quite common in dysfunctional families...

665 posted on 06/01/2003 10:05:19 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (America...love it or leave it. Canada is due north-Mexico is directly south...start walking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage; Bella
One thing about it Bella is that it is very obvious that the Peterson clan were aiding and abetting Snott's attempt to take flight. He had his brother's ID, He had a passport application in a new name, he was driving a Mercedes that his parents bought for $3,600.00 (remember his truck had the listening and tracking device installed in it), he had drastically changed his appearance,AND he was very close to the Mexican border. That statement of Snotts's that his hair and goatee bleached out from swimming in a pool is patently, outrageously rediculous. I mean a stoooooopider lie could not have been told.!!

With everything else being talked about, I forgot all about this. Aiding and abetting, acomplices after the crime? I think maybe Jackie and Lee might want to think about dying their hair and making a run for the border??? Maybe that's why most of the family is laying low...

666 posted on 06/01/2003 10:16:33 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (America...love it or leave it. Canada is due north-Mexico is directly south...start walking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl; MaggieMay
Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother. Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

The Rocha family could not be reached for comment.

Above from post #84, this thread. I could not determine by whom nor when the rings were taken to the jeweler, but just saw a Fox reporter on Tony Snow's program, suggest that the rings were taken in by the Petersons at Scott's request. I took that to mean "Jackie/Lee". No hint as to when.

667 posted on 06/01/2003 10:23:54 AM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
I think the what Rocha's said on Greta's show was, they were upset because they were not allowed inside Laci's house.The said they had faxed the Peterson's and their attorney four times with no response.Daylate-dollarshort,I will see if I can find the actual transcript of the show,and post back later.
668 posted on 06/01/2003 10:25:47 AM PDT by MaggieMay (A blank tag is a terrible thing to waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: cherry
Laci had good taste...except in men...

don't we wish we could have warned her ...

She probably wouldn't have listened : (

669 posted on 06/01/2003 10:29:03 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (America...love it or leave it. Canada is due north-Mexico is directly south...start walking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper; TheSpottedOwl
Interesting post Sandy. I will continue to dig around,to see if I can come up with anything more.
670 posted on 06/01/2003 10:29:04 AM PDT by MaggieMay (A blank tag is a terrible thing to waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort; MaggieMay; Velveeta
Scott Peterson's parents and his attorney have prevented his wife's family from entering the couple's Covena Avenue home and retrieving personal items, according to the statement from attorneys Adam J. Stewart and Albert G. Clark.
The statement came with a 22-point list of items that family members want, including Laci's diplomas and journals, and a watering can that says "Laci's Garden." But family members said that being inside the home that Laci decorated and lived in was more important than retrieving personal items.
According to the statement, lead defense attorney Mark Geragos wrote a letter in response to the request for access. The Laci Peterson family attorneys, in their statement, say that Geragos said it would be "unthinkable to allow anything to be moved or disposed of" until his team had completed its investigation.

This is when the Rochas went on Greta. Bowing to pressure from that appearance Geragos tosses them a bone for the next Tuesday.

Defense lawyer Mark Geragos says he has worked out an agreement to let Laci Peterson's family visit the house and remove her journals, a food processor and a watering can that said "Laci's Garden."

So Geragos tells Clark the Rochas can go in the following Tuesday, failing to mention that they will only be allowed to take three items. Then Clark hears, possibly through the media, about the reduction in the number of items that they will be allowed to take. An argument ensues between the attorneys on Thursday about the "agreement".

Further agitating the situation is the defense leaking of the autopsy. Geragos makes his "wanting war" statement and cancels his token agreement with the Rocha's attorney.

Sharon Rocha, having access to the home and no order restraining her from doing so, decides to retrieve certain items already outlined in the previous 22 point list. Geragos has the list. And Sharon had a key.

The Rochas played it straight up. It was Geragos who was playing games. IMO...

671 posted on 06/01/2003 10:37:56 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl
Janey is Joe Peterson's wife.
672 posted on 06/01/2003 10:39:49 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
You don't have to look for the transcript. Accepting what you say proves my point.

"The[y] said they had faxed the Peterson's and their attorney four times with no response."

The night Sharon Rocha was on Greta, she knew that a deal had been made to allow her to enter the Peterson home. How can she say that they were upset that they were not allowed inside Laci's house and in the same breath say that they have tried repeatedly to contact the Peterson's and their attorney with no response?

The agreement was infact in place at the very moment she was making these claims and had been prior to her appearance. She was a participant in the negotiations that resulted in the agreement. She knew an agreement to enter Laci's home had already been made. A better example of a disengenuous statement would be hard to find.

The morning following her appearance on Greta, Rocha's own attorney says that she was upset that Gergaros had withdrawn the defense's agreement that very morning.

673 posted on 06/01/2003 10:46:56 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: All
"But family members said that being inside the home that Laci decorated and lived in was more important than retrieving personal items."

Just as a point of interest, it seems to me that this sentiment got lost somewhere along the way.

674 posted on 06/01/2003 11:01:41 AM PDT by freedox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
With all due respect, your post is nonsense.

That there was an agreeement is not even a question. Rocha's own attorneys say so. They also say that Gergaros backed out of the agreement the day after Rochas appearance on Gretas show.

Your statement that Gergaros "failed to mention that they will only be allowed to take three items" is unadulterated garbage. Rochas attorneys have stated that Sharon Rocha had originally submitted a list of 22 items that she would like from the home. During the negotiations to arrive at the agreement, this list was reduced by Sharon Rocha to 11 items.

You must be living in a cave or only get your news from these threads.

675 posted on 06/01/2003 11:02:02 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: freedox
You are quite correct.

Skeptic that I am, and in hind-sight, I have come to believe that his was a tatical statement to gather support.
676 posted on 06/01/2003 11:06:36 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
I really should do a better job proof reading.
677 posted on 06/01/2003 11:08:58 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort; clouda
Clouda, do you have the Wednesday night transcript of Greta's show,On The Record". This is the program where the Rocha's discussed access to Laci and Scott's house.

Daylate-dollarshort,I am not sure if perhaps,Sharon was referring to the family, had attempted to get the Peterson's and their attorney by fax to agree to entry,with no response.Then frustrated when their own efforts failed,they hired Clark and Steward to negotiate with the Peterson's and their attorney entry into the home. I just do not remember the entire converstion and the context of how Sharon brought up the subject of the fax.
678 posted on 06/01/2003 11:24:23 AM PDT by MaggieMay (A blank tag is a terrible thing to waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
We could start hearing more about the rings on TV as early as tonight or tomorrow. The Fox reporter mentioned that it was a topic of high interest. Not exact words....
679 posted on 06/01/2003 11:25:00 AM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
That there was an agreeement is not even a question. Rocha's own attorneys say so.

It was a token agreement that didn't last a day. Geragos canceled it. Show me where anything exists that reflects an agreement was made prior to the Greta show. Don't bother with the fax/email thing, that was from Sharon with no response from the defense. No response means just that . How you comprehend that to mean that they were negotiating is ludicrous.

Rochas attorneys have stated that Sharon Rocha had originally submitted a list of 22 items that she would like from the home.

Yeah I said that and Geragos said NO! That's a matter of record.

Your statement that Gergaros "failed to mention that they will only be allowed to take three items" is unadulterated garbage.

Geragos made the statement regarding the three items not me.

You must be living in a cave or only get your news from these threads.

I'll take my cave over your vacuum anyday.

680 posted on 06/01/2003 11:31:33 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
The Rochas left a list of the things that they took with the police who were present.
681 posted on 06/01/2003 11:37:55 AM PDT by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
The rings are being discussed on FOX right now. Jeralyn Merritt is whining that Mark Geragos "will be helpless" with all the things taken. Grrrrrrrrrr.
682 posted on 06/01/2003 11:48:07 AM PDT by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
Hey, Carolinamom! Just wanted to say that I must have overlooked a post that you made to me the other day. It was about the possibility that "evidence had been planted". Hope you found your answer, if it was a question. Do you remember? I think it was a subject that never had any legs.
683 posted on 06/01/2003 11:49:29 AM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
It doesn't make any difference really.

Her attorneys are on record saying the Geragos called the Thursday morning, the day after the Greta appearance, and withdrew the agreement for Mrs Roacha to enter the house. Until the they "thought they had an agreement."

In the post above regarding Geragos letter, that report was made THURSDAY and published THURSDAY night at 7:44 pm--- just over 24 hours AFTER Rocha's appearance on Greta.

Articles state in no uncertain terms that Rocha's own attorney stated that on THURSDAY he advised his client not to go into the Peterson home. This was the day AFTER the Greta appearance.

Try as everyone might, history cannot be changed. To put it simply--- there was a deal in place sometime prior to Rocha's Greta appearance WEDNESDAY evening. Geragos contacted Rocha's attorney the following morning and withdrew from the agreement. Rocha was advised on THURSDAY by her attorney of Gergaros' withdrawl, and he advised her not to enter the home. She is quoted by her own attorney as responding "I have to do something." The next morning, FRIDAY, Rochas et. al. entered the Peterson home.
684 posted on 06/01/2003 11:50:30 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
Oh puh-lease! Not Jeralyn! Might need to go to another TV. The Sandlapper is watching the race in here.
685 posted on 06/01/2003 11:50:59 AM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
"Until the they" = Until then they
686 posted on 06/01/2003 11:55:35 AM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
You know RG, I saw the show with the Rochas with Greta, they had at that point no agreement, no response to several months of attempts to recover Laci's personal items, to go in to the house since early Jan. The Petersons have been in and out of that house, staying in that house at times since Jan. Having attempted oringinally by phone with no response, then by email with no response, they hired lawyers. It was only after going on air that suddenly the next day there were reports that both lawyers were now in negotiations to allow Laci's family in to the house. That was Thursday. Mid day thursday, the autopsy details started leaking about Connor, and we heard Jackie Peterson call in to Greta and state she just didn't know what Sharon was talking about, she could go in to the house at any time, that Jackie would even serve her tea, but that there was nothing of Laci left in that house.

Given that, plus the now stated agreement worked out for June 3rd, then the revoking and call to war from the defense side, we see what transpired on Friday. Sharon did have a key to the house, just not a key to the new padlock, nor the new alarm code.

As to crime scene, If MCAllister has not videotaped that house as one of the first steps when he came on to this case, then he is a fool, forget MG. More people have been in and out of that house since it was released as a crime scene than anyone can count.

This was a stupid issue for the Defense team to take a stand.





687 posted on 06/01/2003 11:57:30 AM PDT by Rusty Roberts (RB and RG have memories like elephants, thankfully for those of us who read but post infrequently)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
I can't even remember.....serious case of whip lash just keeping up! LOL

Jeralyn drives me bats. I cannot believe that she passed law school.

When the FOX babe protested that Laci's family wanted something of Laci's, Jeralyn said the wedding ring was just a little old thing and it belonged to Scott. Completely insensitive to what the Fox gal (sorry, don't know name) was trying to point out.

688 posted on 06/01/2003 12:02:45 PM PDT by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Your statement that Gergaros "failed to mention that they will only be allowed to take three items" Very simple solution post your source!!!!
689 posted on 06/01/2003 12:12:54 PM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
"Jeralyn drives me bats. I cannot believe that she passed law school.

When the FOX babe protested that Laci's family wanted something of Laci's, Jeralyn said the wedding ring was just a little old thing and it belonged to Scott. Completely insensitive to what the Fox gal (sorry, don't know name) was trying to point out."

Just her voice drives me up the wall. However, her credentials are super. There is something about her demeanor on TV that grates and makes her seem non-credible. Maybe it's her liberal bent. As far as understanding the law goes, she is really a head above Greta.

She is correct however about the wedding ring---engagement ring too for that matter--- following Laci's death it does belong to him legally.

690 posted on 06/01/2003 12:23:03 PM PDT by daylate-dollarshort (http://www.strato.net/~cmranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
I have to tell you as I type this, I do not even get Fox. I have to rely on what people post to know what is going on. I believe the reason Sharon and her family were on the show was to advocate victims rights. That being said, I cannot comment further on what she said or meant on Greta's show without the transcript. You are correct that she was advised by her attorney to not go into the house. I believe she was goaded into it by Geragos as a diversion from his troubled defense strategies. I think she felt she had been ignored and jerked around by the Peterson's and their attorney's. I think the comfort of retrieving some of Laci's and Connor's things was worth even a few night in jail if it came to it.There is no doubt in my mind that the Peterson's would have picked that house as clean a swarm of locust and Sharon would have gotten nothing more from that house.Trust me, Geragos is going to milk this for all he can get. He is going to say this compromises Scott's case... yadda,yadda yadda.
691 posted on 06/01/2003 12:29:15 PM PDT by MaggieMay (A blank tag is a terrible thing to waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
yeah but the flack that thread like the one we are on get can you imagine the monkey dung that would be thrown at a freeper dating zone.
692 posted on 06/01/2003 12:41:52 PM PDT by oceanperch (Who needs Hollywood Productions when you have Fox Reality TV?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
#660 - Exactly Vel!! I'm in agreement with you. It's about time there was just a "little" slice of some kind of justice for the Rocha's. There should NEVER EVER have even been a question of them entering THEIR daughter's home to retrieve her personal things. Except of course for Laci's jewelry which Snott had already disposed of. I know they got one ring from the jeweler but other of Laci's jewelry was sent to Amber!!! The Rocha's have kept a very very low profile, causing no media scenes, making no derogatory statements etc. and I support them 100% in this latest move. You can be SURE that Snott or his Evil witch mother, would have sold some of Laci's stuff. eg. the crib and other baby things which never got to be used. Let's not forget, Jackie P. was already calling the Covena house "our" house.!!
693 posted on 06/01/2003 12:45:23 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
On Thursday AM this was reported after the Greta show. I believe Geragos called Rocha's attorney Wednesday night after seeing the show. He said they could go in on 6/3 and didn't say a word about only taking three items. He sprung that on them the next day along with the autopsy blindside. That resulted in the argument and the ultimate breakdown between the parties.

Now where is your source stating they had a deal prior to the show?

Link

Defense lawyer Mark Geragos says he has worked out an agreement to let Laci Peterson's family visit the house and remove her journals, a food processor and a watering can that said "Laci's Garden."

694 posted on 06/01/2003 12:45:27 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: Rusty Roberts
Right on Rusty. You express yourself well. And very good point about McAllister. He was HIRED as Snott's attorney right in the BEGINNING. If he had not video taped and gone through that house after it was released then he is a total dumbass. Geragos has absolutely NO argument of value.
695 posted on 06/01/2003 12:49:43 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: freedox
With this kind of slimy Defense team and slimy clients, I think you'll find a GREAT DEAL will get lost along the way. You don't make deals with those kind of people.!
696 posted on 06/01/2003 12:54:09 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
Thanks for laying all that out.
I was not impressed when the Rochas' set up a fund for their in ability to work due to Lacis' death and this lastest move really made the Rochas' look no better than the Petersons'.

I know someone who worked many years in probate and was told it brings out the worst greediness in all.
697 posted on 06/01/2003 12:57:57 PM PDT by oceanperch (Who needs Hollywood Productions when you have Fox Reality TV?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: runningbear
Just in case you want to know what you are talking about. 

Stage 3: OBTAINING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY


STAGE 1 : THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROCESS
Foreclosure proceedings are initiated with a Notice of Default (NOD). The Notice of Default is recorded at the request of the lender by the trustee which, in effect, gives notice to the public that the loan is in default.

The actual recording of the notice takes place at the County Recorder's Office in the county in which the property is located. It denotes essential data pertaining to the trust deed, the amount in arrears, address of the property, and the date of recording.

In the state of California the trustor (Borrower) has three months from recordation of the notice of default to reinstate the loan (to make the loan current by paying all payments in arrears, any late charges, or other deficiencies). The law requires the lender to accept the trustor's reinstatement money during this three month period.
698 posted on 06/01/2003 1:01:49 PM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
Jeralyn Merritt and Janie Weintraub both inhabit the same "pod"!!
699 posted on 06/01/2003 1:04:13 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
I can't even remember.....serious case of whip lash just keeping up! LOL

Me too, and I was having a particularly bad day when I saw your post. Meant to go back later to respond, but never could muster up the nerve. LOL

So, according to Jeralyn, the wedding ring was just a little old thing, huh? It would be interesting to learn the total value of the newly-made ring, wouldn't it? IIRC, they were talking about some diamonds, weren't they?

700 posted on 06/01/2003 1:10:22 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 851-894 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson