Dear Viewers,
Tonight the show is "on the road" from Redwood City, California. It is expected that Amber Frey will take the stand tomorrow, Tuesday, — but that would surprise me. Lawyers and judges always do their best to predict when a particular witness will hit the witness stand but rarely do things go as planned.
It would not surprise me if she were not called to the witness stand until Wednesday or Thursday, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and this train will run on time! I am anxious to be in the courtroom and hear her testimony since she is a key witness for the prosecution.
There has been so much build up as to the importance of her testimony, that I wonder if perhaps there has been an "oversell" and that her testimony, while important to fill in background, is not powerful towards showing guilt but rather only powerful towards showing Scott is a cheater and a horrible husband (something we all know.)
Gloria Allred, Amber's lawyer, has certainly suggested that Amber is key to proving guilt. Adding information that points towards or proves guilt is substantially different from simply adding more information that he is a cheater.
Everyone knows he is a cheater ... but did he say anything to Amber that suggests he would kill his wife? Is there anything on those tapes which adds more information towards guilt than that he is cheater? Of course what matters in the end is NOT what we think ... but rather what the jurors do.
Note in particular e-mail No. 4 below ...
E-mail No. 1
Hi Greta, love your show. I have a quick question for you that has been bugging me for a while. A while ago a fishing license was shown on the TV screen that I thought was said to have been bought by scott a few days before he went fishing on christmas eve, but the fishing license said 1999 on it? Was I seeing things or what. Can you please check on this for me and let me know, so I can stop wondering about it. Thanks so much, keep up the good work!
Sherry M
ANSWER: Sherry, - there were several purchased fishing licenses - including one that covers the period right before Christmas.
E-mail No. 2
Greta,
I really think the reason that the Hacking families, unlike the Peterson families can get along so well, it's that Mark Hacking's family was always willing to admit that their son might have done this. And didn't let up until they got answers. Where as the Peterson family immediately came out saying their son didn't do this. The day the Mr. Hacking said he looked him in the eye and said he had nothing to do with her death, you could tell even he was doubtful. Had the Peterson family been willing to accept the fact that Scott might have done this, and less willing to point fingers at everyone else, I believe the Rocha family would have been able to be more compassionate to them.
If Scott Peterson had done what Mark Hacking did and admit what he did and help out with finding Laci, people might have been more sympathetic towards him also.
Both cases are very sad.
Barb Christianson
Colorado
E-mail No. 3
Hello Greta,
My husband and I really enjoy your show. We find you to be very informative at getting the facts out. We have been listening a lot lately as you have covered the Peterson trial and also the disappearance of Lori Hacking, and Mark Hacking's arrest. I can only imagine what these family's that lost their family members is going through. My heart goes out to them and I pray that justice will prevail and the guilty will be punished.
Sincerely,
Donna Lunceford (Arkansas)
E-mail No. 4
Greta-
I was at the Scott Peterson trial last Wednesday (the last day before it was halted). They had the computer forensic expert on and Garagos(sic) was cross examining him as court finished up. All day the expert testified that Scott searched the internet on Dec. 8 around 10:00pm for marina and fish information. He stipulated that he gathered evidence about the date and time stamp from "Temporary Internet files"which are found on computers when people search the world wide web. Garagos(sic) asked him if he checked Scott's computer to see if he had bookmarked these sites or save them in his "Favorites" folder (which might make these searches somewhat inoucuous if he had searced these same sites with relative frequency) and the detective said "I never checked!" Clearly Garagos the next day pressed Delucchi that these tests need to be done and hence Delucchi's response "we are at an impasse until these forensic tests are done"! They have put off Detective Wall's testimony until after Amber Frey so I believe this is the test that may "exculpate Scott" according to Garagos.
I know everyone thinks that the forensic tests have something to do with the bodies being washed up, but because they called Det. Wall a forensic computer expert then these computer searches might be called forensic tests as well.
Thoughts?
I love your show!
Sandy
E-mail No. 5
Do you know if the investigation looked at other locations from which Scott
could have put the body in the Bay? He could have placed them in elsewhere
and then drove to the marina to obtain the parking ticket, resulting in the
police concentrating on the waters around the marina. Have they tried to
determine the possible areas the bodies could have come from based on where
they were found?
Don F.
ANSWER: DON - It is true that Scott could have put the body in the water from another point than the Berkeley Marina — but apparently the prosecution's theory is other and this is what they seek to persuade the jury.
Greta
Do you have something you'd like to say to Greta? Please write to her at ontherecord@foxnews.com!
Watch On the Record with Greta Van Susteren weeknights at 10 p.m. ET
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox