Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2

According to Steven Jacobson's testimony, the first wiretap on Scott's phones was authorized January 10, 2003. It was called Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2 because it was the 2nd wiretap in Stanislaus County for that year.

JACOBSON: The first wiretap was designated Stanislaus County wiretap number 2.
DISTASO: Okay. And let me stop you. Why did that one get the Stanislaus County number 2?
JACOBSON: Because that was the first, that was the second wiretap that was used in Stanislaus County on the state side, for our particular county.
DISTASO: So for Stanislaus County, that was, this was our second wiretap?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: And the other wiretaps that you talked about were federal wiretaps; is that right? When you said you've been involved in these wiretaps, you've been involved in wiretaps on the federal side as well?
JACOBSON: I've been involved in wiretaps on the state and federal side. Stanislaus County wiretap number one I was involved with as well.
DISTASO: Okay. And,
JUDGE: And that's completely unrelated to this case?
JACOBSON: It's completely unrelated, your Honor.
DISTASO: Right.
DISTASO: The, what were the dates that wiretap number two was up and running?
JACOBSON: January 10th, sir.
DISTASO: It started on January 10th?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: And when was, when did it close down?
JACOBSON: On February 4th, 2003.


The second wiretap on Scott's phones, Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 3, didn't start until April 2003.

DISTASO: And then the second wiretap that was authorized in this case was authorized on what date?
JACOBSON: April 15th, I believe, to April 18th.
DISTASO: So just for that three day period?
JACOBSON: Yes, sir.
DISTASO: And what was that wiretap's designated number?
JACOBSON: That was designated as Stanislaus County wiretap number three.


In the previous article, I quoted from Brocchini's testimony that his findings on the meringue were used in the wiretap affidavit.

DISTASO: Okay. The -- that information, did you also give that information to Investigator Jacobson?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I did.
DISTASO: And to your knowledge did he use that information as part of an affidavit that he wrote for -- for a wiretap in the case?
BROCCHINI: Yes, he did.
>>>
GERAGOS: Now, after that you gave the information to Investigator Jacobson, right?
BROCCHINI: Sometime after that, yeah.
GERAGOS: Yeah. And he filed a wiretap application, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes, he did.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he, when he files that wiretap application, he prepares an affidavit, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And that affidavit is based upon what the detectives in the Modesto Police Department tell him are the results so far of their investigation, right?
BROCCHINI: It's based on what the detectives believe are, what the, what's in the investigation up to that point.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that, is that accurate?
BROCCHINI: That's accurate.
GERAGOS: And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?
BROCCHINI: No. Wiretap.
GERAGOS: Wiretap.
BROCCHINI: That's correct.


Brocchini specifically said that he viewed the Martha Stewart tapes on January 17, 2003.

DISTASO: Okay. Now, when you watched these shows originally, what date did you watch them?
BROCCHINI: On January 17th of 2003.
DISTASO: Okay. How is it -- how did you watch it?
BROCCHINI: I plugged it in a VCR, sat in a -- a lunch room and watched it.
DISTASO: Okay. Were you familiar with the Martha Stewart show?
BROCCHINI: I've heard of it. I never watched it before.
DISTASO: Okay. Up 'til December -- up 'til January 17th of 2003, had you ever seen a Martha Stewart show?
BROCCHINI: I'd never watched one. I'd flipped through channels and seen it on there, but I'd never watched one.
DISTASO: The -- when you watched the show on January 17th, what were you looking for, if anything?
BROCCHINI: I was looking for Martha Stewart baking with meringue, or something similar to that.
DISTASO: Okay. And on the 23rd, so December 23rd of oh two, does Martha Stewart bake something with meringue or use meringue?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
DISTASO: And did you notice that when you watched the show on the 17th?
BROCCHINI: Yes.


How could what he learned from that viewing on January 17 be used in an affidavit for Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2 when that wiretap, per Jacobson, was up and running on January 10?

In the pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the wiretaps, Jacobson gave January 20th as the date the Stanislaus County Wiretap No. 2 was authorized.

DISTASO: When was Wiretap Number 2 authorized?
JACOBSON: Wiretap Number 2 was authorized on January 20th of 2003.
DISTASO: And when did it terminate?
JACOBSON: Terminated on February 4th of 2003.

2 comments:

Bruce Dombrowski said...

would love to see what the other information was on the request for a wiretap....

Burkey said...

I second that Bruce...


So the idea I'm getting here is that Brocchini used this information for a wiretap warrant before he watched the show, and then when he did watch the show, he missed the meringue mention anyway and decided that meant Scott was lying. But he already had decided Scott was lying so he gave this info to Jacobson for a wiretap approved for Jan. 10th.

I don't believe it was the 20th because shortly after Amber Frey's Jan. 6th conversation, didn't they decide they needed to make their own tapes of the phone calls? The 10th makes more sense to me. But was someone lying under oath here, is the thing, and what about the judge who approved these warrants on such thin evidence?
Yeah, I'd like to see the rest of the request too...definitely...since my taxes pay directly for Scott's punishment, I really don't see why we should not be able to see that at this late date.