Wednesday, July 18, 2012

This isn't "All About Amber"

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/07/scott-peterson-appeal-amber-frey-ex-mistress-laci

Hopefully, the 2nd trial judge will be courageous enough to rule that the Amber testimony has nothing of value to explain Laci's disappearance and only served to prejudice the jury against Scott -- so Amber can sit on home on the couch and watch it all on TV.

However, I do hope Ron Frey is right when he said that he hopes that at the 2nd trial, we'll finally learn what happened to Laci.  That will only ensure to win Scott's full acquittal.  Hopefully, we don't find out that somehow his daughter had something to do with it, or some knowledge of what went down.  But it's quite a frequent occurrence that a witness at the trial that convicted an innocent person was actually involved in some manner.

12 comments:

Jane said...

Ron Frey is just trying to get his hands back in the money pot.

Scott Peterson never gave Amber or anyone else any reason to fear him.

From Amber's trial testimony:

GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that he thinks that you know him well enough to know. And you said, well, you lied. And he said, he told you, I would never hurt anybody. That he knew he hurt you by lying to you. And he knew that the situation was hurting you, correct?

FREY: Un-hun.

GERAGOS: You have to say yes.

FREY: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you have got to know that physically he could never hurt anybody. He made that distinction between emotionally hurting you by lying to you, and physically hurting someone, correct?

FREY: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, in the times that you were with him, and that was, I guess we went over it exhaustively, been gone over exhaustively, the, basically the 20th of December, December 2nd, 3rd and 4th, and then the brief period of time on the 9th and, what, the 15th, 14th, 15th?

FREY: 11th, 14th, 15th.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in all of those times, did he ever physically hurt you?

FREY: No.

GERAGOS: Did he ever physically assault you?

FREY: No.

GERAGOS: Did he ever do anything that would, that gave you any pause whatsoever to be in fear of him physically from assaulting you?

FREY: No.

Goebel Doll Collector said...

Amber Frey is the REAL murderer!!!!

Pat361 said...

I see that Amber is going to be on an upcoming episode of "Who the Bleep did I Marry?" First of all, she was not married to Scott, so I guess she thinks she'll be speaking for Laci. Amber says in the promo for the episode that she was "crying and shaking." She is still using her couple of booty calls with Scott to make money. After all, she is getting to be a little long in the tooth to be a "massage therapist".

Goebel Doll Collector said...

She is a LIAR! Scott and Amber were just friends and SHE wanted Scott but he didn't want to have an affair with her!

Grant Peterson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mlc2005 said...

If you are going to run an advocacy blog, you should be aware of basic criminal law procedure, and I mean no disrespect in that. Regardless of one's opinion about guilt or innocence, it is ludicrious to suggest Amber's testimony was irrelevant, and no court in the country would exclude such evidence. Criminal statutory law allows "ANY relevant evidence" that could, however slightly, explain the motive for a crime. Obviously when a husband is on trial for murdering his wife, the fact that he was seeing another woman, and telling the woman that his wife had died IS incredibly relevant for a jury to hear. Arguing that Amber's testimony wasn't relevant is grasping at straws.

Marlene Newell said...

mlc2005 - and just how did that affair explain Laci's disappearance? Distaso even admitted in his CA's that Amber was NOT the motive for the murder. So just how did it explain Laci's disappearance? Scott made no incriminating statements at all during all of those hours of taped conversations, and even though he knew on Jan 6 that she was going to the police, he couldn't have imagined that she was taping all those phone calls. There is an issue whether evidence is probative or prejudicial -- and Amber's testimony was purely prejudicial. It shed no light whatsoever on Laci's disappearance, even if you do believe Scott is guilty.

Burkey said...

mc2005, I'm a lay person. But common sense should tell anyone that Amber Frey's testimony is compromised by her keeping her book deal a secret. From Joanna Spilbor, who knows more law than I do:

"That brings us to the question of whether Frey can be prosecuted - either for concealing the book or for profiting from her largely self-created role as star witness.

The California Penal Code prohibits non-experts in criminal cases from receiving compensation by virtue of their bearing witness. To this effect, it states, in part:

"A person who is a witness to an event or occurrence that he or she knows, or reasonably should know, is a crime or who has personal knowledge of facts that he or she knows, or reasonably should know, may require that person to be called as a witness in a criminal prosecution shall not accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or benefit in consideration for providing information obtained as a result of witnessing the event or occurrence or having personal knowledge of the facts."

A violation of this section is a misdemeanor -- and punishment is a mere $1000 fine and/or six months in jail.

Granted, the same prosecution that enlisted Frey's help, is unlikely to prosecute her.

But if it chose to, could it? My guess is yes.

The question of will a district attorney's office pursue criminal charges against Frey or her publisher -- or her famed lawyer, Gloria Allred, who no doubt knew of, if not negotiated, her book contract -- most likely is a resounding, no.

The "exception" to the rule that Frey and her publisher may have on their sides, is that the prohibition does not apply once final judgment has been rendered in the action.

But when does "final judgment" occur?

Peterson has not yet been sentenced.


To be safe, Frey and her publisher might have waited to publish.

But publishing the book now, while the case is still warm, is likely to generate more sales."

And that's what they did, didn't they?

Get it while it's hot. $$$$$$$$$$$$

Burkey said...

mc2005, I'm a lay person. But common sense should tell anyone that Amber Frey's testimony is compromised by her keeping her book deal a secret. From Joanna Spilbor, who knows more law than I do:

"That brings us to the question of whether Frey can be prosecuted - either for concealing the book or for profiting from her largely self-created role as star witness.

The California Penal Code prohibits non-experts in criminal cases from receiving compensation by virtue of their bearing witness. To this effect, it states, in part:

"A person who is a witness to an event or occurrence that he or she knows, or reasonably should know, is a crime or who has personal knowledge of facts that he or she knows, or reasonably should know, may require that person to be called as a witness in a criminal prosecution shall not accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or benefit in consideration for providing information obtained as a result of witnessing the event or occurrence or having personal knowledge of the facts."

A violation of this section is a misdemeanor -- and punishment is a mere $1000 fine and/or six months in jail.

Granted, the same prosecution that enlisted Frey's help, is unlikely to prosecute her.

But if it chose to, could it? My guess is yes.

The question of will a district attorney's office pursue criminal charges against Frey or her publisher -- or her famed lawyer, Gloria Allred, who no doubt knew of, if not negotiated, her book contract -- most likely is a resounding, no.

The "exception" to the rule that Frey and her publisher may have on their sides, is that the prohibition does not apply once final judgment has been rendered in the action.

But when does "final judgment" occur?

Peterson has not yet been sentenced.


To be safe, Frey and her publisher might have waited to publish.

But publishing the book now, while the case is still warm, is likely to generate more sales."

And that's what they did, didn't they?

Get it while it's hot. $$$$$$$$$$$$

Burkey said...

The link is here, pardon the double post.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-19/justice/spilbor.frey_1_amber-frey-peterson-trial-scott-peterson/3?_s=PM:LAW

Burkey said...

mcl005 means no disrepect, but look what someone with the same ID has to say on Youtube:

"I know there will always be some wackos who will think someone is innocent, no matter what! I think they like to pick a fight or seem cool by taking the unpopular view; BUT, if you actually think Scott didn't do this, and that the media convicted him, WOW. Seriously folks, just look at the evidence people... all his actions, all his lies; I don't want to accept that he could do this either, but theres no doubt if you actually have read trial testimony, facts, etc... Pick another fight!"

Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAP9zBoYf48

Goebel Doll Collector said...

Amber had a motive to kill Laci. She was jealous that Scott never wanted her and that he was going to start a family without Fray. Scott and Amber were really just friends but Amber wanted more than that and Scott refused. So Amber decided that if SHE couldn't have Scott then no one would and she set up the whole things I keep getting vivid visions of what truly happen and each time, Amber is in them all. I know for a fact Amber is the murderer and she has been fooling everyone but me that she's just some "innocent victim."