Witnesses Who's Credibility is Questionable

[thinkaboutit]

There were witnesses who either contradicted themselves pre-lim to trial testimony or had other issues that cause people to question their credibility. Let's post the information here.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

There were witnesses who either contradicted themselves pre-lim to trial testimony or had other issues that cause people to question their credibility. Let's post the information here.

What are the rules....post what we recall...or post snips of conflicting statements?

[attorneywan2be]

Let's start with Karen Servas....

[thinkaboutit]

Harvey Kemple testified that someone with the last name of Tobin and someone named Stephanie -were friends of his that worked at the Del Rio Country Club and they told him that Scott had been golfing there. When Grogan went to check it out - there was no one named Stephanie that worked there and Mr. Tobin said he was not aware of Scott having golfed there.

HARRIS: All right. You testified that, or excuse me, I'm sorry. You told the investigator that you had followed Scott to the country club, the Del Rio Country Club; is that correct?

KEMPLE: Yes.

HARRIS: And you told them that you knew he was a golfer?

KEMPLE: Yes.

HARRIS: And that, in fact, you had friends at the Del Rio Country Club and these friends had actually called you and told you that Scott had been showing up at the country club; is that correct?

KEMPLE: No one specifically called me. It was in person that I had heard it.

HARRIS: Okay. Did you give the names of these friends to the investigators so they could follow-up?

KEMPLE: I wasn't asked.

HARRIS: You weren't asked that question?

KEMPLE: No.

HARRIS: The investigators never bothered to find out whether or not they could back up this story?

DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative.

KEMPLE: I wasn't asked.

JUDGE: The answer can go out. Sustained. Next question.

HARRIS: Could you tell us who these friends are?

KEMPLE: Yes.

HARRIS: I'm sorry?

KEMPLE: Yes, I could.

HARRIS: Okay. Could you please give me the names?

KEMPLE: Dennis Tobin, for one.

HARRIS: I'm sorry, what was the name?

KEMPLE: Dennis Tobin.

HARRIS: Hogan?

KEMPLE: Tobin, T-O-B-I-N.

HARRIS: And who else?

KEMPLE: I'm trying to think. I can't think of a last name right off the top of my head, but a young lady by the name of Stephanie that works at the golf course.

HARRIS: And you don't, you just know Stephanie, do you know,

KEMPLE: I can't think.

HARRIS: I'm sorry. Overlapping.

JUDGE: She works at the golf course.

HARRIS: We're going to get yelled at again. Do you know where she works at the golf course?

KEMPLE: No, I don't. I think she is part of the pro shop, or something like that, you know, but I...

GERAGOS: How about Harvey Kemple talking about the golf course. The, whatever the name of that golf course is, testified here that six months later he had this epiphany basically, did you guys send somebody out to the country club to check out what he said?

GROGAN: About, yeah, there was a statement about Scott golfing there or something to that effect, is that right?

GERAGOS: Right. And then he mentioned somebody by the name of Stephanie or something like that so you send somebody out there to check up on this information, right?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: It turns out it was his long time friend, Mr. Tobin, who he's known since third grade, right?

GROGAN: That was one of the people that was contacted and I don't think there was a Stephanie that we could find.

GERAGOS: Right. So the name Stephanie that Harvey Kemple testified to this jury at the country club that would back up his memory, there was no Stephanie that even worked at the country club, correct?

GROGAN: There's no Stephanie that works there.

GERAGOS: And the guy that he'd grown up with since grade school told him said, no, Scott wasn't over here golfing, right?

GROGAN: Yeah, he said that he wasn't aware of that.

Also for six months Kemple never called the police to tell them that Scott told him he was golfing on the 24th. Not once. He testified he told all of his friends and family - but never called the police to tell them that. He did not tell them anything about it until they contacted him regarding the burnt chicken incident.

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

There were witnesses who either contradicted themselves pre-lim to trial testimony or had other issues that cause people to question their credibility. Let's post the information here.

There were three witnesses who were brutally impeached by Geragos.

Detective Brocchini

Detective Hendee

Eloise Anderson, a dog handler.

Judge Delucchi instructed the jury on CAJIC 2.21 (witness willfully false)

[Beebee]

Amber Frey is not credible, imo.

By the way, did that guy who she lied about and said fathered her child ever sue her? I can't remember his name. How many years did Amber collect child support? The actual father (married at the time) had the last name Funch. Amber's got some real issues with men, imo.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

What are the rules....post what we recall...or post snips of conflicting statements?

No recall. I prefer the testimony be included to back up the point.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

No recall. I prefer the testimony be included to back up the point.

Transcripts are not available to the public ( unless an individual chose to pay for them, download them, and store them in files). There are those who have claimed the "Scott is Innocent" site is not a reliable source for transcripts ( claim has been made that they may have been edited, I have no idea if this is true). Do you know of an unbiased site where transcripts of actual testimony can be read & copied/pasted? I would comply with a "rule" to include excerpts of actual testimony on this thread if it were possible. TIA.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

Transcripts are not available to the public ( unless an individual chose to pay for them, download them, and store them in files). There are those who have claimed the "Scott is Innocent" site is not a reliable source for transcripts ( claim has been made that they may have been edited, I have no idea if this is true). Do you know of an unbiased site where transcripts of actual testimony can be read & copied/pasted? I would comply with a "rule" to include excerpts of actual testimony on this thread if it were possible. TIA.

I do not know of another site that provides the transcripts. IMO SII is reliable.

[cookiewench]

Originally Posted by Beebee

Amber Frey is not credible, imo.

The tapes with her, containing Scott's own words - are.

[accordn2me]

Steven Howard Gebler

...from the minute he opens his mouth, until the minute he shuts it.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial...ses/Gebler.htm

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

Speaking of her credibility, I have heard that Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler, claimed or implied that Frey was a hooker or escort or words to that effect. I'm still wondering if Gloria Allred will sue him over this - so far I haven't heard that she has tried to. Considering that she shepherds Frey and Bird at all of their interviews, I find that surprising. Did he ever say it? Will he be sued?

Amber dropped the law suit about her porno pics. I'm not sure if that Schmitty guy still has them or not.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Steven Howard Gebler

...from the minute he opens his mouth, until the minute he shuts it.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial...ses/Gebler.htm

I have to agree with you there! You can serve up BS on a silver platter (which is what MG put the chunk on concrete on) but it still doesn't make it anything but BS.

JMHO

[Spencer]

GERAGOS: So she gets a phone call from someone. Do you know if it was from a Richard Byrd?

SIBLEY: I don't know who she received the phone call from.

GERAGOS: Do you know who Richard birth is? (typo I assume)

SIBLEY: No.

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

GERAGOS: Now, when was the first time that detective Byrd

FREY: I don't recall the exact date. It was within, it was December 20th, in that timeframe. So it could have been the 21st is when we discussed.

GERAGOS: Did he tell you what he was going to do in order to, when you say in that timeframe we got this call lasts almost an hour. Three minutes shy of an hour on the 21st. Is that your best recollection, that's the day that you had, he had expressed some concerns to you?

FREY: Yes.

GERAGOS: Does he know Shawn Sibley?

FREY: They have met.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do they talk?

FREY: No.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distaso: Now, when you got home, was Sharon home, on the 24th?
Grantski: Yes.

Geragos: And Sharon was home?
Grantski: I can't remember. It might have been, you know, later. I have to admit I don't worry about times as much as everybody else, because, but that's just the way I am.

Shawn says she doesn't know Byrd but Amber indicates she does. Ron on direct was emphatic that Sharon was home but on cross, stumbles for clarity and says he can't remember.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Spencer

GERAGOS: So she gets a phone call from someone. Do you know if it was from a Richard Byrd?

SIBLEY: I don't know who she received the phone call from.

GERAGOS: Do you know who Richard birth is? (typo I assume)

SIBLEY: No.

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

GERAGOS: Now, when was the first time that detective Byrd

FREY: I don't recall the exact date. It was within, it was December 20th, in that timeframe. So it could have been the 21st is when we discussed.

GERAGOS: Did he tell you what he was going to do in order to, when you say in that timeframe we got this call lasts almost an hour. Three minutes shy of an hour on the 21st. Is that your best recollection, that's the day that you had, he had expressed some concerns to you?

FREY: Yes.

GERAGOS: Does he know Shawn Sibley?

FREY: They have met.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do they talk?

FREY: No.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distaso: Now, when you got home, was Sharon home, on the 24th?
Grantski: Yes.

Geragos: And Sharon was home?
Grantski: I can't remember. It might have been, you know, later. I have to admit I don't worry about times as much as everybody else, because, but that's just the way I am.

Shawn says she doesn't know Byrd but Amber indicates she does. Ron on direct was emphatic that Sharon was home but on cross, stumbles for clarity and says he can't remember.

Geragos is the common denominator in all of your examples. I agree...his credibility is questionable. If you were trying to imply Shawn's, Amber's & Ron's credibility is questionable, I don't see it in what you posted.

Amber said Byrd had met Shawn. Met and know are completely different. Shawn didn't recall who Byrd was when Greragos asked. Why would she have a reason to be dishonest about knowing who he is?

MG was trying to get Grantski to recall the specific time when he & Sharon got home on the 24th. He said he couldn't recall the time. Nothing strange or sinister about that. I can't recall the specific time I got home last night, much less what happened 2 years ago!

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Steven Howard Gebler

...from the minute he opens his mouth, until the minute he shuts it.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial...ses/Gebler.htm

Just out of curiosity - are there any specifics in the testimony that make you feel this way?

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by Spencer

GERAGOS: So she gets a phone call from someone. Do you know if it was from a Richard Byrd?

SIBLEY: I don't know who she received the phone call from.

GERAGOS: Do you know who Richard birth is? (typo I assume)

SIBLEY: No.

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

GERAGOS: Now, when was the first time that detective Byrd

FREY: I don't recall the exact date. It was within, it was December 20th, in that timeframe. So it could have been the 21st is when we discussed.

GERAGOS: Did he tell you what he was going to do in order to, when you say in that timeframe we got this call lasts almost an hour. Three minutes shy of an hour on the 21st. Is that your best recollection, that's the day that you had, he had expressed some concerns to you?

FREY: Yes.

GERAGOS: Does he know Shawn Sibley?

FREY: They have met.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do they talk?

FREY: No.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distaso: Now, when you got home, was Sharon home, on the 24th?
Grantski: Yes.

Geragos: And Sharon was home?
Grantski: I can't remember. It might have been, you know, later. I have to admit I don't worry about times as much as everybody else, because, but that's just the way I am.

Shawn says she doesn't know Byrd but Amber indicates she does. Ron on direct was emphatic that Sharon was home but on cross, stumbles for clarity and says he can't remember.

To add to your post Spencer - Amber writes in her book that the night she found out Scott Peterson was married to the missing Laci Peterson - she was at Shawn Sibley's house - and Byrd came over. I don't have the book with me - but as soon as I get home - I will quote from the book.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

Just out of curiosity - are there any specifics in the testimony that make you feel this way?

Pretty much the whole testimony. Here's a sample:

HARRIS: So when you did your examination with Mr. Vollmer, only one item was examined to determine what the microscopic chemical properties of this cement paste were; isn't that a fact?
GEBLER: That is correct.
HARRIS: So when you talk about these samples being exactly the same as Mr. O'Neill's, that is not true, because you don't know, as you sit there at this point in time; isn't that a fact?
GEBLER: That is not true.
HARRIS: You just told us you only did a test of the properties of one sample, right?
GEBLER: Yes.
HARRIS: Did you test any of Mr. O'Neill's samples?
GEBLER: I accepted Mr. O'Neill's analysis that he was correct, in that there was fly ash in this particular sample.
HARRIS: Okay. So you accepted him because he is a petrographer. He did this microscopic examination of every single sample, right? That's what you saw in his report?
GEBLER: Yes.
HARRIS: And so you accept that, because he's experienced, he's qualified, and he did the test, right?
GEBLER: I didn't have any reason to dispute what he said from the standpoint of a fly ash.
HARRIS: And the samples that you have there in that box, 1 through 17, only tested one for the chemical properties?
GEBLER: For only fly ash.
HARRIS: Well, isn't what Mr. O'Neill was saying is fly ash was present in his samples?
GEBLER: Fly ash present in his sample. And fly ash present in the Sample 11 of Item Number 4.
HARRIS: We don't know if there was fly ash present in your Sample 1, do we?
GEBLER: I'm pretty sure there is.
HARRIS: You don't know that there is in Item 2, do you?
GEBLER: I can certainly take them back, do the exact same thing just like Mr. O'Neill did. It's not that difficult to do. If you want to spend the money, we can certainly do it. From.
HARRIS: Where is your lab at?
GEBLER: In Skokie, Illinois.

[Spencer]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

To add to your post Spencer - Amber writes in her book that the night she found out Scott Peterson was married to the missing Laci Peterson - she was at Shawn Sibley's house - and Byrd came over. I don't have the book with me - but as soon as I get home - I will quote from the book.

I think you're right! I thought this thread was a great place to document the differences in testimony regardless of the inference of what those differences might mean to the reader. Then comparing what was said in testimony to what was written in the books would only add to the whole picture.

Amber's book, page 50:" The next thing I knew, Richard showed up at the Benson's. He brought a couple of newspaper articles and I had a look, and one of the first things I saw was a photograph of Scott's truck. The article described Scott as a fertilizer salesman, and even mentioned that he was a member of the Rotary Club. Now there could be no doubt. "I can't believe this is happening to me," I said.

I looked over at Shawn............

[Toggie]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

Brocchini admitted in a TV interview after the trial that he knew about Frey before he ever went to Scott's house. How? From another MPD officer? Who was asked by Frey's 'friend' in the local police force? Who told her Scott was married?

So I don't believe Frey either. She lied about her baby's daddy to get money. What else has she lied about?

I always felt that Amber knew exactly who Scott Peterson was and where he resided from the time they met....

Geragos should have put Byrd & Perez (Byrd's roommate w/the DOJ) on the stand to explain exactly when and how they found out information for Amber.

It's too bad the search warrants were sealed. I'm guessing they'll stay that way...Geragos didn't seem to mind...I guess there must be more stuff in them that hurt Scott more than help him.

[accordn2me]

HARRIS: I'll do my best. Going back through this, you mentioned something about being a member of ASTM?
GEBLER: Yes.
HARRIS: What is that?
GEBLER: American Society of Testing and Materials.
HARRIS: And ASTM C295, what is that?
GEBLER: That is the 295. That is a standard for petrographic examination of aggregates.
HARRIS: Now, in this particular case, you are not authorized, pursuant to that particular standard, to do a petrographic examination, are you?
GEBLER: I don't follow your question.
HARRIS: Well, are you a petrographer?
GEBLER: No. But I teach petrographers.
HARRIS: In this particular case did you do the petrographic examination?
GEBLER: No, I didn't. Dave Vollmer at our laboratory did.
HARRIS: What is the requirement under the ASTM standard to do petrographic examinations?
GEBLER: First of all, it's not right one. It's ASTM C 856 is the proper one. 295 is not the one that would be appropriate in this particular test.
HARRIS: Okay. Let's go, what is C 295?
GEBLER: I'm sorry?
HARRIS: What is C 295?
GEBLER: C 295 is for petrographic examination of rock and sand, coarse and fine aggregate, not for concrete. But they are ultimately used in concrete.
HARRIS: The components of concrete as you have been describing for us, and tell us, that is it reason why you know how this happened is because you were looking at the differences in the aggregate; isn't that the a fair statement?
GEBLER: Yes, I saw them. I inspected them and viewed them.
HARRIS: Pursuant to the standards of the society that you are a member of, you don't meet the requirements to make that petrographic examination, do you?
GEBLER: Like I said, my petrographer, Dave Vollmer, is a petrographer. He did the work under my direction.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

Brocchini admitted in a TV interview after the trial that he knew about Frey before he ever went to Scott's house. How? From another MPD officer? Who was asked by Frey's 'friend' in the local police force? Who told her Scott was married?

So I don't believe Frey either. She lied about her baby's daddy to get money. What else has she lied about?

Well, you know, everybody lies.
Why can't you cut her the same 20 lie slack that you cut Scott?

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by Spencer

I think you're right! I thought this thread was a great place to document the differences in testimony regardless of the inference of what those differences might mean to the reader. Then comparing what was said in testimony to what was written in the books would only add to the whole picture.

Amber's book, page 50:" The next thing I knew, Richard showed up at the Benson's. He brought a couple of newspaper articles and I had a look, and one of the first things I saw was a photograph of Scott's truck. The article described Scott as a fertilizer salesman, and even mentioned that he was a member of the Rotary Club. Now there could be no doubt. "I can't believe this is happening to me," I said.

I looked over at Shawn............

Yep that's it!! Thanks Spencer!

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

Insulting Jackie Peterson adds nothing to the case. Sharon and Ron aren't exactly models of propriety either.

How about we not insult either one of them? Thank you.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

Yep that's it!! Thanks Spencer!

Hmmmm...are you going to make a list like on the Common Ground thread?

[Spencer]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Well now, this is certainly earth-shattering information. Totally proves ISP was set up. Yeesh.......

No, not earth shattering, however the idea of the thread was to post items that one might consider when weighing the credibility of witnesses. There are certainly bigger items contained in all of the testimony but due to lack of time, I posted the above.

If this thread succeeds, it would be kind of like putting together pieces of a puzzle..........sort of like what the jury said they did........

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

You are wrong. Several people saw it on the Court TV site. I tried to download it but couldn't get it to work on my old computer however I have no doubt that he said it. The others from the MPD tried to shut him up but it was a bit too late. :lol:

You mean there's no transcript of this conversation anywhere? Not even on the SII site?

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

I believe it was discussed on fartpack at some length. Try over there.

I'm sorry but my question was sincere. I'm not sure why it was answered with such disrespect. I'm not familiar with "fart"pack. Would you care to elaborate? TAI

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Hmmmm...are you going to make a list like on the Common Ground thread?

Did you want me to?

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

Did you want me to?

well...LOL...it might be interesting, imo,...i was thinking about it when i came up with the question that i posted in the 'ineffective counsel' thread about who was the strongest witness for the defense. i'm curious to know if there were any...in anyone's opinion.
don't go to any trouble just for me...

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

well...LOL...it might be interesting, imo,...i was thinking about it when i came up with the question that i posted in the 'ineffective counsel' thread about who was the strongest witness for the defense. i'm curious to know if there were any...in anyone's opinion.
don't go to any trouble just for me...

Bump....


"i was thinking about it when i came up with the question that i posted in the 'ineffective counsel' thread about who was the strongest witness for the defense. i'm curious to know if there were any..."

Good question - I'm curious as well??

[SPANKS]

Jackie Peterson lied on the stand big time. She didn't do her son any favors. Why did she have to lie? Is it because she knew from day one that Scott murdered Laci and Conner and didn't care? That is my belief and she still acts that way to this day.

[thinkaboutit]

I assume you are referring to Jackie's testimony regarding the cash given to Scott.....Jackie Peterson did not lie on the stand. Everything she said was supported by bank statements that were introduced as evidence.

[accordn2me]

Karen Servas (no supporting testimony provided - NST)

Harvey Kemple

Detective Brocchini - NST
Detective Hendee - NST
Eloise Anderson, a dog handler - NST

Amber Frey

Steven Howard Gebler - defense, concrete expert

Shawn Sibley

Ron Grantski

Jackie Peterson - NST

Dr. March - (request for stipulation b/c it would take too much space to post all of his testimony)

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

I do not agree with this. Jackie Peterson lied many times on and off the stand. I have never seen the bank statements that supported her whole screwy story about the cash. She can present withdrawl statements but that doesn't necessarily support her balony.

Hi Lavindar

The FL that started this thread wants us to provide testimony to support our claims of witnesses whose credibility is questionable. I feel there are some witnesses that you'd have to post their entire testimony almost and it would take too much space.... However, if you have time....would you please post a snip of the testimony that you feel Jackie was dishonest about. I haven't read her testimony yet so I'm very interested to see what the buzz is all about. TIA

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Karen Servas (no supporting testimony provided - NST)

Harvey Kemple

Detective Brocchini - NST
Detective Hendee - NST
Eloise Anderson, a dog handler - NST

Amber Frey

Steven Howard Gebler - defense, concrete expert

Shawn Sibley

Ron Grantski

Jackie Peterson - NST

Dr. March - (request for stipulation b/c it would take too much space to post all of his testimony)

Thanks for the list A2M!!!

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Sassie

Amber really didn't have a choice, but to drop the charges. IMO, the pictures became the camera guys once Amber refused to pick them up on more than one occasion.

I also feel she planned this in advance. She refused them because she wanted him to put them in a paper. Amber is out for money and more money.

Amber is very greedy when it comes to sharing anything, including her kids with their father at the time.

Do you have links to back up those accusations? or is that your opinion? And do you know her personally to know those things firsthand about her?

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Sassie

They are my opinion of course.

I don't knowher personally, but her not picking the pictures up makes a person wonder.

Why did she never get the nude photos for? If she wanted tosee how she looked, she could have stood in front ofamirroror took them herself.

Why does a person go to a restaurant and order food? They want to eat or they are getting it for someone else.

Why does it make you wonder? and at this point in time what does it matter?
I don't understand your correlation between Food vs nude photo's?

I'm confused Sassie - maybe its time for me to say goodnight.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by Sassie

Amber really didn't have a choice, but to drop the charges. IMO, the pictures became the camera guys once Amber refused to pick them up on more than one occasion.

I also feel she planned this in advance. She refused them because she wanted him to put them in a paper. Amber is out for money and more money.

Amber is very greedy when it comes to sharing anything, including her kids with their father at the time.

do you have a source for any of this information. The "father" at the time claimed to be making over $150,000 a year yet was paying a whole $75 a month in support. What's wrong with that picture - given what he CLAIMS as his salary on his Myspace page, he should be paying about 50 times what he is paying.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Sassie

Amber really didn't have a choice, but to drop the charges. IMO, the pictures became the camera guys once Amber refused to pick them up on more than one occasion.

I also feel she planned this in advance. She refused them because she wanted him to put them in a paper. Amber is out for money and more money.

Amber is very greedy when it comes to sharing anything, including her kids with their father at the time.

I don't understand what you mean that she "planned this in advance." Do you mean that she planned to somehow get involved in a high profile murder case sometime in the future and then these photos would come to light?