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

Skip to comments.

Remains to be released to family; dogs, hypnosis may be part of hearing
The Modesto Bee ^ | August 19, 2003 | John Cote'

Posted on 08/20/2003 5:23:46 AM PDT by runningbear

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last
To: Nettie
I can't imagine who the sources are either. Who would benefit most from this leak? IMO, the prosecution and Amber benefit most.

What do you think would have happened if Amber *had* agreed to a meeting with Scott after the yes...um...no, phone call? Do you suppose he may have said "I did it for you, Amber"? (gag, barf) I think I'm just toooo curious about how this went down.
51 posted on 08/25/2003 6:29:06 PM PDT by Velveeta (Nettie sounds sweet. My nana's name was Violet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
But it sure sounds LAME, even as a "what if"! Buzz off
52 posted on 08/25/2003 6:31:51 PM PDT by Velveeta (Ooooops, did *I* type that "out loud"? Not my fault folks, the Devil made me do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
You've got a good point there, Sandy! I do wonder when Amber starting taping for the police?
53 posted on 08/25/2003 6:35:25 PM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
He can testify, sure, but it's going to be hard to explain how he said "yes" when he meant "no".

You're right about that. It's going to be interesting to see if he does testify. It could get pretty brutal. ;-)

54 posted on 08/25/2003 6:50:30 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta; Devil_Anse; Nettie; Canadian Outrage; All
excerpt from Fox News article below:

In a Fox News exclusive, sources close to the case said that during a taped phone call between Peterson and Frey, Frey asked her former lover whether he'd had anything to do with his wife Laci Peterson (search)'s disappearance.

Responded Peterson, according to the sources: "Yes … uh … uh … but no. But I know who did and I'll tell you later when I see you."

We need to keep in mind that Amber apparently asked Scott if he had anything to do with Laci's disappearance--not her murder, and we didn't get a direct quote of Amber's question. Also, could someone help me out here about why the word "search" appears in parens in Fox's article?

55 posted on 08/25/2003 8:01:28 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Well, I used to think there was only one consideration in deciding if a person should testify in his own criminal trial: does he have a record which could be brought up? But it didn't take long to realize that there is that other thing: can this person make a good witness? Is he trainable as a competent witness? Can he be taught to say less, rather than to over-explain, so that he will put his foot in his mouth less? Is he or she arrogant-appearing?

And how does the person dress? Are they insistent on dressing in a "rich" way? I knew of a woman who was like that. SHE wasn't going to be seen in anything "off the rack". EVEN when it was explained to her that, combined with her rather superior demeanor, "rich" clothes would doom her in the eyes of a jury of average people. AND they did, IMO!

I don't think Scott is smart or quick enough to make it on the witness stand. I mean, if the story is true--look how easily Amber got an admission out of him.
56 posted on 08/25/2003 8:04:26 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
You know what, Sandy? If Amber taped Scott on her own, without having first gone to the police, I think THAT tape would be MORE likely to be admissible even than the police-made tapes.

I mean, the main objection to something like that is that the STATE/GOVERNMENT was "violating his rights" under the Constitution. The State/government is allowed to be only so intrusive. But there is NO constraint on how intrusive an individual can be.

So if someone did that to him, some individual, then yes, he could take her to CIVIL court over it, perhaps. And if they have a wiretap law in CA, if she violated it, there might be trouble with that. BUT just b/c she might have violated some wiretap law doesn't automatically mean that her privately made tape would be inadmissible. I haven't read the CA law that says individuals can't tape THEIR OWN conversations with another person--I don't even know whether such a law exists. And Amber is not the State/government, so he can't complain that she violated his Constitutional rights--at least, not with the same punch that he could if the Big Bad State had "violated his Constitutional rights".
57 posted on 08/25/2003 8:12:50 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Great post.

It's nearly always dangerous for a criminal defendant to testify, but you've listed many of the imprortant factors which must be considered. Another important factor is the strength of the prosecution's case. If it's weak, a defendant's testimony may be a gratuitous risk. On the other hand, if the prosecution's case is overwhelming, the defendant's testimony may be the only remaining hope.

If this case actually gets tried, it'll be interesting to see if Peterson testifies. If he does, the cross-examination is likely to be very brutal very extensive. It will be well worth watching. LOL

58 posted on 08/25/2003 8:16:04 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
Okay, okay, I'm sorry! It's not lame!

"Scott Peterson is a one-woman man. And the love had gone out of his marriage due to the selfishness of his wife. And he had no one. No one. No one to comfort him in his loneliness, the loneliness that ate away a little bit of his soul each day. It was the bleakness of a Modesto winter, ladies and gentlemen. You know how desperate that can be. The wind through the palm trees sings a kind of sad song, a song of desolation... And this man, this man yearning to be faithful to that one woman, to take in his arms and protect and love that ONE woman, this lonely man looked up and saw Amber one day, and suddenly a little bit of life was breathed in by him. And he was almost re-born.

He went from grey winter to spring in that moment. Look at this picture of him! Dressed in his Santa hat, you can just barely see a trace of the yearning, behind his wide smile...

And then he was torn from her. Torn from his woman. Torn from her like a baby from its mother's... I mean, I mean, torn from her. Like a b--I mean, well, anyway, she went away and he was alone again.

Now he was desperate. She was his blood, his oxygen, his spring sunshine!! He had to do something. And so this desperate lonely man LIED to her, and said "yes" to any question she asked. And she just happened to ask that one prying question. He said yes because he NEEDED her, and he thought it would please her! HE DIDN'T MEAN IT! HE WAS CRAZED WITH LONELINESS!"
59 posted on 08/25/2003 8:21:25 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
They put "search" in those articles, and the word is clickable, and it takes you to the stats on the person they're talking about. It's there so, just in case some person who has never heard of Laci Peterson is reading the article, that person might be saying, "who on earth is Laci Peterson", see, and so they can click on "search" and get the basic facts on Laci.
60 posted on 08/25/2003 8:23:40 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
You may be right and probably are, Anse. It's just that a lot of people (myself included), would wonder how a fair, impartial, objective judge, who is working under a presumption of innocence for the defendant, would let a tape made by the prosecution's witness (BEFORE she began working with LE), be played. Such a tape IMO would come under the heading of a personal agenda.
61 posted on 08/25/2003 8:31:38 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Duh, thanks, Anse.
62 posted on 08/25/2003 8:34:24 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
You know what? I (search) never was any good at doing those "explain such-and-such in 25 words or less" things.
63 posted on 08/25/2003 8:48:10 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
Personal agenda? Her personal agenda was that she was romantically interested in Scott! So what?! (At least, she was interested in him before she began to suspect that he'd killed his wife and baby and thrown them in the bay... sigh... it's always something, just when a person thinks she's found Mr. Right... )
64 posted on 08/25/2003 8:51:47 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Good point. If they haven't got much to show, I guess the best defense strategy is for everyone to sit back and keep their big fat flapping lips shut! (Picture Geragos doing THAT... nahhhhh... )
65 posted on 08/25/2003 8:54:38 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Good point. If they haven't got much to show, I guess the best defense strategy is for everyone to sit back and keep their big fat flapping lips shut! (Picture Geragos doing THAT... nahhhhh... )
66 posted on 08/25/2003 8:54:39 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Fantastic!

I love your version... but "what if" he simply had a pinched nerve and was trying to make an appointment with his masseuse? (grin)
67 posted on 08/25/2003 8:57:31 PM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Personal agenda? Her personal agenda was that she was romantically interested in Scott!

Well, I know, but she could have been wanting to give a baby shower and knew she couldn't do it while Laci was missing. /saracasm off

68 posted on 08/25/2003 9:02:40 PM PDT by Sandylapper (GM's? I had two. Nancy and Letitia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
Pinched nerve... hmmmmm! No, wait, I know! He had undiagnosed Spastic Speech Syndrome! This odd syndrome makes a person blurt out inappropriate words in the middle of a normal conversation.

"Amber, you are the light REDRUM! of my life. I can't live DIE! without you, sweetie. I didn't YES! do anything..."
69 posted on 08/25/2003 9:17:02 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: runningbear
been kind of busy with a crazy summer

Boy, I can certainly relate to that :):)

70 posted on 08/25/2003 9:38:16 PM PDT by DreamWeaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
He had undiagnosed Spastic Speech Syndrome! This odd syndrome makes a person blurt out inappropriate words in the middle of a normal conversation.

The proper DSM-IV term for that would be: Amberette Syndrome

Recent studies report a close link between Amberette Syndrome and Killthebrunette Syndrome. Initial (unconfirmed) reports suggest that peddling manure and the unresloved conflict of yearning for a Corvette and a Bimbette, contribute to the disastrous consequences.

The good news is that a combination of three drugs (sodium pentothal, an anesthetic which puts the afflicted to sleep; Pancuronium, which paralyzes the muscles and stops breathing; and potassium chloride, which stops the heart)permanently cures this syndrome.

71 posted on 08/25/2003 9:47:31 PM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
Velveeta, that post was a masterpiece!

And I'm sending in your two new syndromes to Syndrome-lover's Monthly!

"Yes...uh...uh...but no..." Guess he was feeling Amberbivalent that day.
72 posted on 08/25/2003 10:20:46 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
LOL! That Amber! Always giving baby showers!
73 posted on 08/25/2003 10:25:16 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
In a Fox News exclusive, sources close to the case said that during a taped phone call between Peterson and Frey, Frey asked her former lover whether he'd had anything to do with his wife Laci Peterson (search)'s disappearance.

Responded Peterson, according to the sources: "Yes … uh … uh … but no. But I know who did and I'll tell you later when I see you."

I'm going to make this a hypothethical that the Sandlapper and I were having this same conversation about a person/family member, (not me, of course), and tell you how I would interpret it. I would think Sandlapper was telling me that yes, he knew something about it, maybe paid somebody to do it, but he didn't do it himself. It does not speak to murder--it speaks to kidnapping.

74 posted on 08/25/2003 10:36:05 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
I don't know; I prefer to look at it as being more hopeful (that he will pay for what he apparently did).

The article said she asked him whether he had anything to do with Laci's disappearance. I envision her question as being just that: "Scott, did you have anything to do with her disappearing?" His initial answer: "yes".

I interpret that as "yes, I had something to do with her disappearing."

And we all know that Laci didn't just wander off, or go home to mother. She was TAKEN away.
75 posted on 08/25/2003 11:03:18 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
this isn't new "news"....I read about what he said to AMber some time ago...including the part about how he knew who did "it"....

I go to a lot of forums, but I really believe that I read it here on FR....

76 posted on 08/25/2003 11:07:21 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
The article said she asked him whether he had anything to do with Laci's disappearance. I envision her question as being just that: "Scott, did you have anything to do with her disappearing?" His initial answer: "yes".

Well, we can hope that was her exact question, but we weren't given direct quotes on her question. The question could just as well have been, "Scott, do you know anything about your wife's disappearance"?

The conversation that will be equally interesting will be the one where he admits that he HAS a wife. Remember, Amber supposedly learned that he HAD a wife from a taped conversation between Scott and her.

77 posted on 08/25/2003 11:16:23 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: cherry
So, Rita is just trying to stir the pot with old news? I thought I recalled seeing this astounding news some time back. Small wonder no one but Fox was saying much about it.
78 posted on 08/25/2003 11:22:46 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
Sure, but the article portrays it as her asking him if he had anything to do with his wife's disappearance. If it's wrong about that, it could be wrong about his "yes". But Fox supposedly is at least reputable, and at least presumably checks out stories b/f publishing them.

Suppose she HAD just asked him "do you know anything about your wife's disappearance?" Well... and he answers YES??!

Even with Vel's earlier scenario--in which Scott claims he killed Laci b/c the satanists made him do it--even with that, Scott would still be a principal. So what if someone "made" him do it? He's not off the hook for murder in that event. And if he merely "knew something" about her disappearance, well, that sounds like he's liable as an accomplice, at least.

I mean, criminal law doesn't vary TOO much from state to state. And I know that in this state, if you take part, you can be held liable as a PRINCIPAL--even if others were doing more of the crime than you were. That is, for example, if you are the getaway driver for the bank robbers, and you never even go into the bank, you can still be convicted of bank robbery, right along with the guys who actually went inside.

And I know you know that, for example, if a man hires someone to kill his wife in some American city, and then hops a plane to Paris, and the hired killer kills her, the guy who hopped the plane to Paris is still legally guilty of murder.
79 posted on 08/25/2003 11:31:13 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper; cherry
I remember hearing that Amber had asked him if he had anything to do with it. I remember that the answer he made was supposedly: "no, but I know who did..."

Never have I heard that he initially said the word "yes" in response to her question!
80 posted on 08/25/2003 11:38:19 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
According to Cherry and my recollection, (now that she jolted it), this is not new news.

On your second point, I thought I sort of addressed that in my hypothetical. If one knows something, it doesn't necessarily mean that one actually participated, does it?

Liable as an accomplice doesn't mean full punishment for a capital murder, does it, unless you're being held liable as a principal, and it's probably very unlikely they'd give the "principal" the death penalty, isn't it?

At this juncture, we can only hope that prosecution has a hell of a lot more than they've publicly revealed, and that somewhere in their bank of evidence, there's something of a smoking gun. I just hope they aren't playing too many games with the defense.

My bedtime. I need to be up by 11. LOL
81 posted on 08/25/2003 11:58:28 PM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Thanks for the heads up! My, oh my. If that yes is clearly audible and Geragos doesn't make the jury think it was a sneeze or a throat clearing, that is awesome evidence for the prosecution. Wonder what ELSE they have?
82 posted on 08/26/2003 12:12:00 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Can he be taught to say less, rather than to over-explain, so that he will put his foot in his mouth less? Is he or she arrogant-appearing?

Scott will ham it up like all else he does, and he can't do anything without that arrogant smirk.

And how does the person dress? Are they insistent on dressing in a "rich" way?

You know Scotty will have a well-cut suit and a new haircut.

83 posted on 08/26/2003 12:17:36 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
What if his whole deal at the time of that call was to get Amber alone and send her to the sturgeons?

What if his goal was to be free, not to be tied down to another needy chick with a kid? Maybe he wanted to intimate that he had some very important news about what happened to Laci to get her to agree to see him so he could eliminate her as the perfect witness she has turned out to be?

84 posted on 08/26/2003 12:21:25 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
ROFL! Actually, a great new haircut and color job will reduce the worst of the symptoms significantly.
85 posted on 08/26/2003 12:23:38 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DreamWeaver
LOL...still gets kind of crazy, and where does my time go to... ;o) Last of the summer holiday weekend coming up. Labor Day, and I bet lots are off for a final weekend camping get away...Including myself.. Up to the Yuba River for a day... should be fun, for a final run of it.. ;o)
86 posted on 08/26/2003 2:39:45 AM PDT by runningbear (Lurkers beware, Freeping is public opinions based on facts, theories, and news online.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

To: Sandylapper
The word "yes" coming out of Scott's mouth is new news to me--and to lots of others, too, I think.

If you're a principal, people are just as likely to give you the chair, if they think the whole thing warrants it. A principal is "one of the ones who did it."

As for an accomplice, I don't believe Scott was an accomplice. Either he did this, as one of the actual murderers (which includes--if he hired someone to do it), or he's uninvolved. JMO.

And this is big news. If this story is accurate, and if it is admitted, I think the incident it describes will go a long way towards convicting him.
88 posted on 08/26/2003 5:34:11 AM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
Any way you look at it, if I were Amber, I'd be afraid. Not just afraid of Scott himself, but afraid about Lee and Jackie, and about people like Matt Dalton, etc. Not to say that all of the above would have something done to this witness, but... stranger things have happened.
89 posted on 08/26/2003 5:36:46 AM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse; runningbear; All
What relief! I've had computer trouble and have not seen FR in weeks! Series withdrawl! ;0)
90 posted on 08/26/2003 6:43:38 AM PDT by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jackie-O
So that was it! Glad you're back again, lol!

The title of this thread/article is driving me crazy. Every time I skim past it, I think it said "Remains to be released to family dog". Horrible, I know.
91 posted on 08/26/2003 7:24:17 AM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: Devil_Anse
If they haven't got much to show, I guess the best defense strategy is for everyone to sit back and keep their big fat flapping lips shut! (Picture Geragos doing THAT... nahhhhh... )

LOL. Nahhhhh. ;-)

93 posted on 08/26/2003 7:44:02 AM PDT by Scenic Sounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nettie
I'm beginning to suspect you like the attention.

Not me!! My darling daughter is the drama queen....I like things nice and quiet!

94 posted on 08/26/2003 8:00:30 AM PDT by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
I read the title the same way at first! ;0)
Just got the puter at work fixed this AM and a few minutes ago District Office sent me over a brand new Dell!
Not going to shut this Mac down till I make sure the other is up and running a-ok.
95 posted on 08/26/2003 8:04:13 AM PDT by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

Comment #96 Removed by Moderator

To: Jackie-O
Nice to see you Jackie!

There isn't anything much more maddening than a sick/dead computer! I could handle not having use of some of my appliances but I never could handle being without my computer! :)
97 posted on 08/26/2003 8:12:14 AM PDT by Wednesday's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse; Velveeta; Nettie; All
The words "yes, but" are new, and it changes the original reporting significantly. I'm still wondering where that leak came from. While Fox is generally pretty accurate with their reporting, they do sometimes make errors. I won't speculate about those mistakes, but I have a hunch they'll back away from the direct quote.

As for Vel's speculation about the "cult", there is another remote possibility here. WHAT IF Scott was involved in some kind of drug ring operation; that he was indebted heavily to his "bosses", and they wanted their share, or something along those lines. If there really was some other explanation along those lines, prosecution nor defense will never go there. JMO

98 posted on 08/26/2003 9:58:40 AM PDT by Sandylapper (Tapu? Robert and George here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Jackie-O
Gosh, girl, it's good to see you! You do worry me, you know. All these comings and goings.
99 posted on 08/26/2003 10:00:51 AM PDT by Sandylapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Sandylapper
I'm sorry Sandy! :0( I knew my SCOWS would be worried about me. But please know that I am a very tough, stubborn Italian girl and I might get down at times, but I always come back strong! Plus I get alot of great support from you all...how could I go wrong??
It was just puter problems this time tho. Nettie says that I like all the attention...drama. (NOT!!!)
Honestly, I like peace and quiet! ;0)
100 posted on 08/26/2003 6:08:42 PM PDT by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 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