PDA

View Full Version : Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12


Pages : [1] 2 3

CW
12-17-2007, 10:11 PM
Continue here.

#11 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57251

#10 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56885

#9 http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56677

#8 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56345

#7 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56117

#6 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56008

#5 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55978

#4 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55919

#3 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55851

#2 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55720

#1 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55533

Tom'sGirl
12-17-2007, 10:17 PM
Thank you WindChime! :)

mysteriew
12-17-2007, 10:35 PM
You know usually by this time we have one or two people who remain unconvinced of a person's guilt or who seem to want to support the accused. This case is one of the few I have seen who no one seems to believe that he is innocent, or at least that their is lingering doubt.

Vegas Bride
12-17-2007, 11:17 PM
You know usually by this time we have one or two people who remain unconvinced of a person's guilt or who seem to want to support the accused. This case is one of the few I have seen who no one seems to believe that he is innocent, or at least that their is lingering doubt.

hmmmm maybe old DrewP isn't pretty enough for anyone to want to think he's innocent :)

Seriously tho, when you combine everything we've heard about Kathleen and then add to that Stacy now missing when she started to move towards her independence, what else could we all think but guilty!

VB

SeriouslySearching
12-18-2007, 05:07 AM
Maybe because there is no lingering doubt in the court of public opinion on this creep. He has been alienating people right and left. He just isn't a nice or likable person in any way. He has belittled Kathleen, Stacy, her mother, the rest of her family, his step-brother, the police force, the pastor, women in general, men who ever knew or talked to Stacy, his own friends, Stacy's neighbor, and so many others. I realize there isn't evidence yet to say what he did to Stacy...but I believe there is plenty of evidence to show he not only is the type of person to do it...but to think he could get away with it.

SeriouslySearching
12-18-2007, 05:25 AM
Did you all see on Dan Abrams where old Joe B screwed up LMAO he said since Stacys disapearnce but real fast said ran off. What a bozo, Dan just told JB he's not going to get a special prosecutor. Now Dan is showing Drews statement about the pastor. Dan said Drew is now sliming everyone who had contact with Stacy. He makes me puke ohh..how I long for the day in the very near future that Drew is arrested and I don't bet but I'd about bet on this one that JB is a paper pusher attorney, I wouldn't hire that man for my worst enemy.:furious:
Windchime made this post on #11 thread. I had to also mention that Brodsky said now they have money coming in from the website...they were able to hire an investigator and they have found the Pastor to be "an honorable man to his wife" etc.

Quite a statement in two regards!

One: Saying that Drew isn't using his own money to pay for his defense.

Two: The Pastor is credible.

Dobler
12-18-2007, 06:30 AM
Wow! What quick PI work, finding a pastor "an honorable man to his wife"- I think there were only 3 people saying he wasn't-DP, JAB, & the "puppet" Steve C. So with this whirlwind P.I. they should find Stacy in no time-

DeltaDawn
12-18-2007, 07:13 AM
Wow! What quick PI work, finding a pastor "an honorable man to his wife"- I think there were only 3 people saying he wasn't-DP, JAB, & the "puppet" Steve C. So with this whirlwind P.I. they should find Stacy in no time-

Right Dobler..with the PI on the case she'll be jetting back from Jamaica to spend Christmas Eve with the kids and get Drew out of this jam he's in now.

Camper
12-18-2007, 08:17 AM
Wow! What quick PI work, finding a pastor "an honorable man to his wife"- I think there were only 3 people saying he wasn't-DP, JAB, & the "puppet" Steve C. So with this whirlwind P.I. they should find Stacy in no time-



--->>>Good job on the line up of questionable problems THEY created themselves, and the solving of them so FAST. LOL. PI is a regular Sam Spade, Jim Rockford and lets not leave out Columbo.

This case has created a new effort for the TV networks to create a NEW comedy show, about a bumbling attorney and his PI. Can't wait, it would be a hit!!!!!!!!! I love comedy. Who is the guy who played ELF, can't remember his name he could play either role, atty or PI. Someone like Don Knotts for the PI. That actor who played in My Cousin Vinny, who stuttered, could play the attorney too.:waitasec: :waitasec: Laffin here already!!!

Whats next on 'their' defense program?

.

SuziQ
12-18-2007, 11:36 AM
by Greta Van Susteren
You need to know this: to arrest someone, you need only probable cause. To convict at trial, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt….much more than what you need to arrest.
When police/prosecutor make an arrest, they better be sure they have enough to meet the heavy burden at trial….why?
Here is why: speedy trial statute!! (more at link)

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/12/18/law-101-and-why-the-illinois-prosecutor-is-not-pushing-for-an-arrest/

Seahorseladydi
12-18-2007, 12:28 PM
--->>>Good job on the line up of questionable problems THEY created themselves, and the solving of them so FAST. LOL. PI is a regular Sam Spade, Jim Rockford and lets not leave out Columbo.

This case has created a new effort for the TV networks to create a NEW comedy show, about a bumbling attorney and his PI. Can't wait, it would be a hit!!!!!!!!! I love comedy. Who is the guy who played ELF, can't remember his name he could play either role, atty or PI. Someone like Don Knotts for the PI. That actor who played in My Cousin Vinny, who stuttered, could play the attorney too.:waitasec: :waitasec: Laffin here already!!!

Whats next on 'their' defense program?

.


Will Farrel

This case is open and closed in my opinion..... they just need to cross the t's and dot the i's..... HE IS GUILTY! :behindbar

SeriouslySearching
12-18-2007, 02:39 PM
This case is open and closed in my opinion..... they just need to cross the t's and dot the i's..... HE IS GUILTY! :behindbarGlad to see you on the boards, LadyDi! :blowkiss: Hugs~

panthera
12-18-2007, 07:55 PM
by Greta Van Susteren
You need to know this: to arrest someone, you need only probable cause. To convict at trial, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt….much more than what you need to arrest.
When police/prosecutor make an arrest, they better be sure they have enough to meet the heavy burden at trial….why?
Here is why: speedy trial statute!! (more at link)

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/12/18/law-101-and-why-the-illinois-prosecutor-is-not-pushing-for-an-arrest/
I heard her talking about this last night and saying that's what happened with OJ ~ they arrested and charged him before the DA was ready and he wanted a speedy trial. I think with DP they really should make sure they could get a conviction for both Kathleen & Stacy's death.

Wudge
12-18-2007, 08:14 PM
SNIP

but to think he could get away with it...just like he did with Kathleen's death.


Reviewing torts/libel/defamation would be prudent.

thesleuther
12-18-2007, 09:01 PM
Reviewing torts/libel/defamation would be prudent.

This didn't work out for you at the CourtTV Forum so you decided to try it here?

Wudge
12-18-2007, 09:16 PM
This didn't work out for you at the CourtTV Forum so you decided to try it here?

Unlike a thank you when money is slipped into a blind man's tin cup, I don't get (nor do I expect) the same for online nicities.

Be wise. Libel cases are flourishing, and lives are destroyed as a result. Defending yourself in a libel suit is very expensive. I know over twenty-five law students who attend the top law schools that are learning a hard lesson (courtesy of a defamation law suit) in what not to say on line.

Taximom
12-18-2007, 09:19 PM
Come on, Joel, bring it on.
:rolleyes:

Wudge
12-18-2007, 09:42 PM
For waking the deepest sleepers up, a defamation law suit definitely beats an alarm clock.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1529267420070616?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

SuziQ
12-18-2007, 09:51 PM
For waking the deepest sleepers up, a defamation law suit definitely beats an alarm clock.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1529267420070616?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

That would only fly if Drew were found innocent. I think that we here are way down the list of Drews problems. Thanks for worrying so much about us though.

robthomaseyes
12-18-2007, 09:53 PM
For waking the deepest sleepers up, a defamation law suit definitely beats an alarm clock.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1529267420070616?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

Sweetie, Drew is awfully fond of defaming people himself. Now, here's how it works. Drew will have to bring a lawsuit for defamation in which he will have the burden of proving he has been defamed. Or that he is a victim of libel. Now, if he's brought up on charges, that's going to be awfully hard to prove, isn't it? If he's convicted, his case is nonexistent.

I am not losing sleep over a man who has defamed his missing wife, his dead ex-wife, his sister-in-law, his ex-friend, his ex-fiance, his other ex-wife, his step-brother, a pastor...shall I go on?

Littledeer
12-18-2007, 10:22 PM
I'm losing sleep, but not for the above last few posts! :)

gee, did I accidently hit the "findstacy.com" favorite instead?? :) They do have some nasty cat fasts over there.

This is way off the wall, but, has anyone heard since the earlier days when DP said that Stacy took a "deed" if a deed is filed somewhere and there is no way she could have taken a deed? I mean, if the house is not paid off, doesn't the bank hold the deed or the mortgage company??

Wudge
12-18-2007, 10:27 PM
Sweetie, Drew is awfully fond of defaming people himself. Now, here's how it works. Drew will have to bring a lawsuit for defamation in which he will have the burden of proving he has been defamed. Or that he is a victim of libel. Now, if he's brought up on charges, that's going to be awfully hard to prove, isn't it? If he's convicted, his case is nonexistent.

I am not losing sleep over a man who has defamed his missing wife, his dead ex-wife, his sister-in-law, his ex-friend, his ex-fiance, his other ex-wife, his step-brother, a pastor...shall I go on?

Truth (legally speaking) is a perfect defense. Drew being convicted of murder would moot a lawsuit based on same having been said online prior to a conviction.

You are free to say whatever is on your mind. Other truths are that it is a crime to say some things while saying other things are actionable torts.

The seemingly fearless law students were advised of the wisdom in reigning their posts in. Now, as a result of that referenced law suit, law careers have already been lost or seriously damaged, and some libel attorneys are making a lot of money. Unfortunately, it seems like most people need to learn for themselves that a stove can get very hot.

Taximom
12-18-2007, 10:29 PM
Wudge, why don't you start your own thread about that subject if it interests you so much? Seems off-topic here on the Stacy Peterson thread.

thesleuther
12-18-2007, 10:40 PM
I'm losing sleep, but not for the above last few posts! :)

gee, did I accidently hit the "findstacy.com" favorite instead?? :) They do have some nasty cat fasts over there.

This is way off the wall, but, has anyone heard since the earlier days when DP said that Stacy took a "deed" if a deed is filed somewhere and there is no way she could have taken a deed? I mean, if the house is not paid off, doesn't the bank hold the deed or the mortgage company??


Where I live, everyone has a deed to their property whether it's paid off or not. A mortgage lien would be filed at the courthouse. Once the mortgage is paid, the lien would be removed. But, they should have had a deed at the house (or in a safe deposit box). Their house was lien free until Drew took the equity out via the line of credit which he then apparently funneled to Steve.

Littledeer
12-18-2007, 10:41 PM
I, for one would be more than happy for Wudge to start that thread.

I keep posting (what I believe are good questions/thoughts) only, to have everyone including Wudge, talk about tort, lawsuits, etc.

But it definately says at the top of my screen "Stacy Ann Peterson, Bollingrook IL #12).

I was thinking that Stacy supposedly had said she was going to see an attorney the next day (Monday). She must have felt very scared since the day she made that decision and most assuredly on Sunday, the day before.

She was also planning, in her own mind. Could she have left something somewhere, that maybe Cass, or someone close to her might figure out if they thought about it? I mean, if she thought her life was in danger ,(which it was), some sign or significant item that could mean only that someone in her house had something to do with her disappearance?

thesleuther
12-18-2007, 10:47 PM
hmmmm maybe old DrewP isn't pretty enough for anyone to want to think he's innocent :)

Seriously tho, when you combine everything we've heard about Kathleen and then add to that Stacy now missing when she started to move towards her independence, what else could we all think but guilty!

VB
Agreed. It seems that some people want to equate a discussion forum such as with the standards of guilt required for a criminal trial: guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not what this is. It's a discussion to throw ideas out about what we do know or think we know about a case. I think most posters here are reasonable in what they put forth; I don't view it as an unreasonable witch hunt. If it were like that, I wouldn't bother to read or post. To try to post legalistic mumbo jumbo is ridiculous in my opinion. In this case - just like the Laci Peterson case - it's hard to come to any other conclusion than the husband did it.

Leila
12-18-2007, 11:41 PM
I heard her talking about this last night and saying that's what happened with OJ ~ they arrested and charged him before the DA was ready and he wanted a speedy trial. I think with DP they really should make sure they could get a conviction for both Kathleen & Stacy's death.

I watched Greta last night too, and I hope the DA waits until he's got enough evidence to ensure a conviction and a life sentence.

SeriouslySearching
12-18-2007, 11:46 PM
Reviewing torts/libel/defamation would be prudent.Point taken...and corrected. :angel:

thesleuther
12-18-2007, 11:49 PM
I, for one would be more than happy for Wudge to start that thread.

I keep posting (what I believe are good questions/thoughts) only, to have everyone including Wudge, talk about tort, lawsuits, etc.

But it definately says at the top of my screen "Stacy Ann Peterson, Bollingrook IL #12).

I was thinking that Stacy supposedly had said she was going to see an attorney the next day (Monday). She must have felt very scared since the day she made that decision and most assuredly on Sunday, the day before.

She was also planning, in her own mind. Could she have left something somewhere, that maybe Cass, or someone close to her might figure out if they thought about it? I mean, if she thought her life was in danger ,(which it was), some sign or significant item that could mean only that someone in her house had something to do with her disappearance?

Personally, I think that during their argument (that the son told about), Stacy let it be known that she was seeing a divorce attorney on Monday. I think that's why Drew acted when he did. It may even had been the precipitating factor for the argument. I think if Stacy left anything behind in the house that Drew would have found it by now. The only thing I've heard Cassandra say is that she was scared for her life. The preacher said Stacy confided that Drew murdered Kathleen. Beyond that, I don't know of anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if she hadn't confided something to the neighbor - who isn't really talking (can you blame her?). You know, sometimes when girls are from the kind of difficult background that Stacy was from, they keep their feelings to themselves.....it feels normal. She dealt with an awfully lot of heartache up to the point where she began seeing Drew....at 16. She may have kept so much to herself.

philamena
12-18-2007, 11:59 PM
Reviewing torts/libel/defamation would be prudent.

Wudge,
To give one's opinion is not libel if it's simply an opinion.

libel-
1. n. to publish in print, writing or broadcast
2. n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement

SeriouslySearching did neither.

Wudge,
At the beginning of all missing women's cases we discuss here at WS, maybe you could write a little comment to be used as a sticky.....something like:
the husband didn't do it would suffice nicely, followed by your name of course.:cool:

Tom'sGirl
12-18-2007, 11:59 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if she hadn't confided something to the neighbor - who isn't really talking (can you blame her?). You know, sometimes when girls are from the kind of difficult background that Stacy was from, they keep their feelings to themselves
Early in the case this was posted in the media.

And at least one of Stacy Peterson's friends is stepping forward, saying Stacy Peterson was trying to leave her husband.

"She felt trapped. I talked to her a month ago, and she wanted out of the marriage, and she feared for her life, she feared for the children," said Sherrie Mills.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=l...&id=5737534 (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=l...&id=5737534)

SeriouslySearching
12-19-2007, 12:00 AM
You would think that libel attorneys would have their hands FULL with reports from National Enquirer and other national media heads instead of worrying about some armchair sleuths on the internet, wouldn't you?! The money to be made off some of those statements and articles would certainly be more worthy of their attempts to gouge people instead of going after pennies. I guess they feel perhaps going after John Q. Public online one dime at a time would be more lucrative since the chance of winning without this group being able to hire a team of high priced attorneys is simply like shooting ducks in a barrel.

dee10134
12-19-2007, 09:48 AM
Where I live, everyone has a deed to their property whether it's paid off or not. A mortgage lien would be filed at the courthouse. Once the mortgage is paid, the lien would be removed. But, they should have had a deed at the house (or in a safe deposit box). Their house was lien free until Drew took the equity out via the line of credit which he then apparently funneled to Steve.

From what I understand, that's not the way it is here in Illinois. The bank holds the deed until the house is paid off. Then the deed is sent to the owner.

DP's house was paid off. He recently obtained a home equity line of credit on it, which would mean he PROBABLY had to take the deed to whichever bank supplied the equity line as collateral for the loan. They would then hold the deed.

So if this really is the case, then it BLOWS DP's story that Stacy "took" the deed of the house with her right out of the water!

I believe this is how it works. I'm not 100% sure on it though. (We still have 30 more years on our mortgage... LOL)

SuziQ
12-19-2007, 09:56 AM
From what I understand, that's not the way it is here in Illinois. The bank holds the deed until the house is paid off. Then the deed is sent to the owner.

DP's house was paid off. He recently obtained a home equity line of credit on it, which would mean he PROBABLY had to take the deed to whichever bank supplied the equity line as collateral for the loan. They would then hold the deed.

So if this really is the case, then it BLOWS DP's story that Stacy "took" the deed of the house with her right out of the water!

I believe this is how it works. I'm not 100% sure on it though. (We still have 30 more years on our mortgage... LOL)

That is my understanding of how it would work as well.

SuziQ
12-19-2007, 10:14 AM
Drew Peterson's new outbursts

Dec. 18: Drew Peterson publicly slams his dead third wife's family as his investigators supposedly try to find his missing fourth wife alive. Dan Abrams speaks with investigator Paul Ciolino, legal analyst Susan Filan and attorney Joe Tacopina.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#22319217 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#22319217)

Taximom
12-19-2007, 10:27 AM
From that video:
Drew or his representatives have reached out to Joe Tacopina, but he doesn't want anything to do with him because he doesn't think Drew can be controlled from what he's seen. LOL

close_enough
12-19-2007, 02:17 PM
i keep checking this forum to see a new thread titled "DP has been arrested"....i see there's nothing new, to speak of, ugh....

SeriouslySearching
12-19-2007, 03:50 PM
Is there anyone that Drew and Brodsky haven't slammed yet? Seriously! I can't think of one person involved in the case other than Steve C. and his children that they haven't attacked.

panthera
12-19-2007, 03:56 PM
From what I understand, that's not the way it is here in Illinois. The bank holds the deed until the house is paid off. Then the deed is sent to the owner.

DP's house was paid off. He recently obtained a home equity line of credit on it, which would mean he PROBABLY had to take the deed to whichever bank supplied the equity line as collateral for the loan. They would then hold the deed.

So if this really is the case, then it BLOWS DP's story that Stacy "took" the deed of the house with her right out of the water!

I believe this is how it works. I'm not 100% sure on it though. (We still have 30 more years on our mortgage... LOL)
Thanks for explaining that ~ I wouldn't know either since we're also paying off a 30 yr. mortgage. What I wasn't sure of is if he had lost the deed (like he says Stacy took it) if a duplicate one could be issued by the County Recorders office or Title company.

panthera
12-19-2007, 04:00 PM
i keep checking this forum to see a new thread titled "DP has been arrested"....i see there's nothing new, to speak of, ugh....
Maybe after Christmas! Even though its very possible he killed Kathleen and Stacy, I'd hate to have to try to explain to the young children that their dad's in jail for killing their mom, at Christmas. It's bad enough that their mom isn't around.

robthomaseyes
12-19-2007, 04:46 PM
You would think that libel attorneys would have their hands FULL with reports from National Enquirer and other national media heads instead of worrying about some armchair sleuths on the internet, wouldn't you?! The money to be made off some of those statements and articles would certainly be more worthy of their attempts to gouge people instead of going after pennies. I guess they feel perhaps going after John Q. Public online one dime at a time would be more lucrative since the chance of winning without this group being able to hire a team of high priced attorneys is simply like shooting ducks in a barrel.

How will Drew pay for an attorney to bring a libel suit? he's soooooooo broke, remember? He can't possibly spare a penny on it.

:rolleyes:

Wudge
12-19-2007, 04:55 PM
How will Drew pay for an attorney to bring a libel suit? he's soooooooo broke, remember? He can't possibly spare a penny on it.

:rolleyes:


This case is shaping up to be another big winner for Lynn Wood.

SeriouslySearching
12-19-2007, 04:57 PM
Who is Lynn Wood?

Honestly, I am sitting here looking at the cover of the NE and HOW do they get away with the things they are saying about Drew? I just don't understand.

Wudge
12-19-2007, 05:01 PM
Who is Lynn Wood?


He handles libel, slander, defamation, emotional distress et al cases on behalf of those who have been injured.

robthomaseyes
12-19-2007, 05:02 PM
"Searching your house is like a major violation of your rights. So it's like, OK, I have nothing to hide, so it's like, come and look. But they did so under court order, and I didn't have no choice," Drew Peterson said.

Interesting comment for a 29 year veteran of law enforcement to make...that searching a house is a major violation of rights? How so, when there is a warrant? I'm sure in his 29 years he's done this to others plenty of times and had no problems with it. Why does he suddenly feel the job he's done all his life is a violation of rights?

birdie
12-19-2007, 05:13 PM
Lin Wood is a high profile attorney that represented the Ramsey's, Gary Condit, Kobe Bryant's victim and Richard Jewell who was thought to be the Atlanta bomber.

If I remember correctly, he's representing Howard K Smith in one of his law suits. Maybe the one against Rita and the book?

Wudge
12-19-2007, 05:42 PM
Lin Wood is a high profile attorney that represented the Ramsey's, Gary Condit, Kobe Bryant's victim and Richard Jewell who was thought to be the Atlanta bomber.

If I remember correctly, he's representing Howard K Smith in one of his law suits. Maybe the one against Rita and the book?

Correct and credited. And color Rita poor.

thesleuther
12-19-2007, 07:07 PM
Correct and credited. And color Rita poor.

That's good news......as she should be!

philamena
12-20-2007, 12:26 AM
This case is shaping up to be another big winner for Lynn Wood.
Oh no you didn't! :doh::crazy:

philamena
12-20-2007, 12:34 AM
He handles libel, slander, defamation, emotional distress et al cases on behalf of those who have been injured.

You forgot to mention he represented parents who most likely murdered their child.
And he also used/uses threats of lawsuits to quiet those who say negative things about the Ram's. :sick:

Camper
12-20-2007, 05:55 AM
This case is shaping up to be another big winner for Lynn Wood.



--->>>Where is Mark Gerago's? LKL, should have him on to discuss the Peterson case.

.

SeriouslySearching
12-20-2007, 05:58 AM
OK Now I am feeling very shaky about posting anything on here anymore. I thought we were here to share our opinions, theories, and try to reach logical conclusions. I am quite confused at this point.

Are we only allowed to discuss things which are known facts about people? Can't we speculate on cases anymore? Maybe there is a thread which lines out what we can and cannot discuss and I have missed it?

Camper
12-20-2007, 06:12 AM
OK Now I am feeling very shaky about posting anything on here anymore. I thought we were here to share our opinions, theories, and try to reach logical conclusions. I am quite confused at this point.

Are we only allowed to discuss things which are known facts about people? Can't we speculate on cases anymore? Maybe there is a thread which lines out what we can and cannot discuss and I have missed it?



--->>>At 3 AM, a few posts of minor pauses found in miles of posts on this case, should not cause confusion.:angel:

Carry on.:angel:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

.
.

SeriouslySearching
12-20-2007, 06:14 AM
Thanks, Camper. : )

Wudge
12-20-2007, 07:18 AM
You forgot to mention he represented parents who most likely murdered their child.
And he also used/uses threats of lawsuits to quiet those who say negative things about the Ram's. :sick:

He's a nice guy that way.

SuziQ
12-20-2007, 09:28 AM
Here is info I found at Findstacy.com, that I had previous posted in the errie coincidence thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1861715&postcount=47

Today, 02:31 AM
SuziQ (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/member.php?u=16842) http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_1861715", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,228


Also found at Findstacy.com:

We provide global commerce, assuring fast and efficient worldwide-integrated shipping services for all international customers, as defined by every customer. Committed to providing the best resources required for commerce, and maintaining delivery of on-time shipments internationally to every customer&#minus;Reference Url: <a href="<A href="http://www.bizearch.com/company/Nashak_Enterprises_14149.htm">Business">http://www.bizearch.com/company/Nashak_Enterprises_14149.htm">Business Directory</a>

Year Established 2000
Legal Representative(CEO) Michael Robinson
&#minus;Reference Url: <a href="<A href="http://www.bizearch.com/company/Nashak_Enterprises_14149.htm">Business">http://www.bizearch.com/company/Nashak_Enterprises_14149.htm">Business Directory</a>

******
Nashak Enterprises


Offline Contact Information
Contact Person: Mr. Michael Robinson
Job Title: President
Address: 436 Rebecca Lane, Bolingbrook, Illinois, United States
Zip/Postal Code: 60440
Telephone: 1-630-6755091
Fax: 1-630-7719108

Rhett
12-20-2007, 09:43 AM
I have a question. It may have been answered before and I apoligize if so. How old is Stacy's sister Cassandra? She must be younger than 18 to have a guardian or is she handicapped in some way? No real reason for asking other than curious. Thanks.

robthomaseyes
12-20-2007, 10:06 AM
He handles libel, slander, defamation, emotional distress et al cases on behalf of those who have been injured.

Good, maybe Stacy's entire family, and the Savios will hire him, and Tom Morphey. They may just feel they've been injured publically by Drew peterson.

Wudge
12-20-2007, 10:34 AM
Good, maybe Stacy's entire family, and the Savios will hire him, and Tom Morphey. They may just feel they've been injured publically by Drew peterson.

He well could. Lin also represented Beth Holloway (Natalee Holloway's Mother) and Sharon Rocha (Laci Peterson's Mother). Civil litigation attorneys will gun sling in a courtroom for anyone.

robthomaseyes
12-20-2007, 11:18 AM
He well could. Lin also represented Beth Holloway (Natalee Holloway's Mother) and Sharon Rocha (Laci Peterson's Mother). Civil litigation attorneys will gun sling in a courtroom for anyone.

What's so amazing is how Drew has no problem slandering his wife, who of course could sue him since she's "still alive". You'd think a man who knows his wife is "still alive" wouldn't slander her and open himself up to a lawsuit.

;)

Wudge
12-20-2007, 12:09 PM
What's so amazing is how Drew has no problem slandering his wife, who of course could sue him since she's "still alive". You'd think a man who knows his wife is "still alive" wouldn't slander her and open himself up to a lawsuit.

;)

Basis for divorce proceedings based on irreconcilable differences.

robthomaseyes
12-20-2007, 12:15 PM
Basis for divorce proceedings based on irreconcilable differences.

yes, basis for her divorce case AND for slander. Speaking of the divorce case, when she comes back from her "vacation", won't she be wanting that 200,000 back since it came out of an account she jointly held? I sure hope Drew's son doesn't do anything with it. Of course, maybe Drew has reason to believe she won't be back to ask for her half of that money.

Wudge
12-20-2007, 12:27 PM
SNIP

Of course, maybe Drew has reason to believe she won't be back to ask for her half of that money.

That possibility is being investigated.

Tom'sGirl
12-20-2007, 12:28 PM
I have a question. It may have been answered before and I apoligize if so. How old is Stacy's sister Cassandra? She must be younger than 18 to have a guardian or is she handicapped in some way? No real reason for asking other than curious. Thanks.

Cassandra is 22 years old.

panthera
12-20-2007, 01:25 PM
"Searching your house is like a major violation of your rights. So it's like, OK, I have nothing to hide, so it's like, come and look. But they did so under court order, and I didn't have no choice," Drew Peterson said.

Interesting comment for a 29 year veteran of law enforcement to make...that searching a house is a major violation of rights? How so, when there is a warrant? I'm sure in his 29 years he's done this to others plenty of times and had no problems with it. Why does he suddenly feel the job he's done all his life is a violation of rights?
Yes, it's very interesting! I guess it's ok for everyone but him. :rolleyes:

MysteryAddict
12-20-2007, 05:28 PM
OK Now I am feeling very shaky about posting anything on here anymore. I thought we were here to share our opinions, theories, and try to reach logical conclusions. I am quite confused at this point.

Are we only allowed to discuss things which are known facts about people? Can't we speculate on cases anymore? Maybe there is a thread which lines out what we can and cannot discuss and I have missed it?

Oh my, SS, that's what I had thought too. If it's no longer true then forget it!!

What happened? I missed it.

Mostly I come up with questions relating to rumors I've heard relating to cases, directed to those who are more knowledgeable than I.

Why ask a question if you already know the facts?

Oh well!

SeriouslySearching
12-20-2007, 05:35 PM
Unlike a thank you when money is slipped into a blind man's tin cup, I don't get (nor do I expect) the same for online nicities.

Be wise. Libel cases are flourishing, and lives are destroyed as a result. Defending yourself in a libel suit is very expensive. I know over twenty-five law students who attend the top law schools that are learning a hard lesson (courtesy of a defamation law suit) in what not to say on line.MysteryAddict...This is what I am referring to. :confused: Are we are being threatened by lawsuits over what we post now?! I am very concerned and we all should be, if so. Since I am not a legal eagle or anything, I don't know the laws regarding libel, torts, and/or defamation.

Reviewing torts/libel/defamation would be prudent.

This case is shaping up to be another big winner for Lynn Wood.

Taximom
12-20-2007, 05:51 PM
Maybe Wudge could start a libel/tort/defamation thread and teach everyone.

SuziQ
12-20-2007, 05:52 PM
Just ignore the troll and continue on. If there was anything wrong with what we are saying, then the mods would let us know.

Taximom
12-20-2007, 05:57 PM
I guess nobody caught my sarcasm. LOL :D

Has there been anymore on Drew's Disney trip? IIRC, the flight left the 21st.

SeriouslySearching
12-20-2007, 06:03 PM
They will certainly have photogs all over both airports to catch a sighting of DP and the children. Of course, they could all wear little flag bandanas and wearing sunglasses to slip by the media crunch. : )

Taximom
12-20-2007, 06:05 PM
Well, that's not till tomorrow. I just wondered if it had been confirmed. In a way, I hope the kids can enjoy some fun, if it's true.

SeriouslySearching
12-20-2007, 06:06 PM
Well, that's not till tomorrow. I just wondered if it had been confirmed. In a way, I hope the kids can enjoy some fun, if it's true.LOL You are right. I have lost track of the days around here since the ice storm...maybe the frigid cold affected my brain. :doh:

robthomaseyes
12-20-2007, 06:39 PM
MysteryAddict...This is what I am referring to. :confused: Are we are being threatened by lawsuits over what we post now?! I am very concerned and we all should be, if so. Since I am not a legal eagle or anything, I don't know the laws regarding libel, torts, and/or defamation.

First of all, as I understand it, the person bringing a suit has to prove real and actual damages to him, whether to his reputation or economically. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of comments being made on the internet about this case; it would have to be proved that any of our comments are not only false, but that we intended to damage him and that he was harmed financially (or socially). And it would have to meet the level of what a reasonable person would believe as fact. If you called DP "Satan", for instance, no reasonable person would believe he was, in fact, Lucifer.

Mr. Peterson has more problems with the damage he's done to his own reputation, IMO.

Wudge
12-20-2007, 06:58 PM
First of all, as I understand it, the person bringing a suit has to prove real and actual damages to him, whether to his reputation or economically. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of comments being made on the internet about this case; it would have to be proved that any of our comments are not only false, but that we intended to damage him and that he was harmed financially (or socially). And it would have to meet the level of what a reasonable person would believe as fact. If you called DP "Satan", for instance, no reasonable person would believe he was, in fact, Lucifer.

Mr. Peterson has more problems with the damage he's done to his own reputation, IMO.


People who are sued for defamation will need to hire an attorney. If they decide to settle out of court, they will pay to settle plus pay the fee of their attorney.

If people decide to go to trial, their attorneys fees should be expected to be very high, for even simple trials are extremely costly. Plus, to say the least, they (and perhaps their family) will be worried sick thoughout the process

Setting yourself up for a potential defamation lawsuit is just plain dull.

MysteryAddict
12-20-2007, 07:32 PM
Quoted from SS..

"MysteryAddict...This is what I am referring to. Are we are being threatened by lawsuits over what we post now?! I am very concerned and we all should be, if so. Since I am not a legal eagle or anything, I don't know the laws regarding libel, torts, and/or defamation."



"Legal Eagle"? Oh you've got to be kidding! But what happened to freedom of speech?

I think of us as a group of friends gathered together discussing subjects we are commonly interested in. Isn't that what we are?

Why should there be a problem with that? We do not pronounce anyone guilty of anything, we just speculate on possibilities and compare thoughts and ideas.

Since when is there a law against that?

Is this still America or not?

Littledeer
12-20-2007, 07:54 PM
SS:

Freedom is speech is still alive! And it ALWAYS WILL BE. (God Bless the USA)

I, for one, am not worry about voicing my OPINIONS, that being the key word, about DP and Stacy.

Not once have I said anything as a FACT. So I have nothing to worry about.

And Neither do YOU.

Wudge might be referring to the "defaming of character" that a person could bring a suit against someone for. But, sorry, DP would have to bring that suit against THOUSANDS of people.

All of the above is in MHO.

mysteriew
12-20-2007, 07:56 PM
IThey will certainly have photogs all over both airports to catch a sighting of DP and the children. Of course, they could all wear little flag bandanas and wearing sunglasses to slip by the media crunch. : )

ROFL, I just had a 'vision' of DrewP strolling through the airport wearing his bandana, sunglasses and ballcap and leading 4 kids with their heads covered ala Michael Jackson!

Wudge
12-20-2007, 08:02 PM
So what you are saying is that boards like this one should not exist? We are no longer free to write our opinions and to participate without the law hanging us out to dry? I don't know where you are going with this. Please DO start a thread somewhere to explain it. I thought freedom of speech was still alive and well...but looks like I have a lot to learn.

Saying that you "suspect" represents opinion. Saying that you "feel" represents opinion. Saying that you "think" represents opinion. Saying that you "believe" represents opinion. Etc.

Defamation suits are not grounded in statements that represent opinion. Defamation statements are usually grounded in a statement or statements that portray a fact or facts that are deemed to be defaming to one or more parties -- where one of more of the alleged facts is claimed not to be true. Repeating false rumors can also lead to a defamation suit.

Gary Condit sued Dominic Dunne for defamation during a Larry King appearance. It took Dominic off the air for over a year, and Dominic admitted it was, to say the least, a very trying period for him. It cost him a ton of money in a number of ways. Moreover, he settled out of court as well.

Simply put, he was not maze bright (dull) while on Larry King that night, and it cost him dearly.

Littledeer
12-20-2007, 08:08 PM
Wudge:

What about what I posted? Isn't that also true??

robthomaseyes
12-20-2007, 08:11 PM
People who are sued for defamation will need to hire an attorney. If they decide to settle out of court, they will pay to settle plus pay the fee of their attorney.

If people decide to go to trial, their attorneys fees should be expected to be very high, for even simple trials are extremely costly. Plus, to say the least, they (and perhaps their family) will be worried sick thoughout the process

Setting yourself up for a potential defamation lawsuit is just plain dull.

Again, I'm not exactly worried about a man who has stated he's so broke he has to beg charity over the internet to pay for a private detective and for his legal bills.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

robthomaseyes
12-20-2007, 08:14 PM
Saying that you "suspect" represents opinion. Saying that you "feel" represents opinion. Saying that you "think" represents opinion. Saying that you "believe" represents opinion. Etc.

Defamation suits are not grounded in statements that represent opinion. Defamation statements are usually grounded in a statement or statements that portray a fact or facts that are deemed to be defaming to one or more parties -- where one of more of the alleged facts is claimed not to be true. Repeating false rumors can also lead to a defamation suit.

Gary Condit sued Dominic Dunne for defamation during a Larry King appearance. It took Dominic off the air for over a year, and Dominic admitted it was, to say the least, a very trying period for him. It cost him a ton of money in a number of ways. Moreover, he settled out of court as well.

Simply put, he was not maze bright (dull) while on Larry King that night, and it cost him dearly.

Yes, dear, but Dominick Dunne writes for a major publication and has deep pockets (which makes it a better bet). This is not a major publication; we are incapable of damaging DP's reputation. Again, he has to prove real damages. Not hurt feelings. It doesn't work that way. Bringing a costly lawsuit against people whose pockets aren't deep is risky. You may never, ever recoup the cost of legal bills.

It would simply be silly and financially damaging to bring a lawsuit against a peon on an internet chatboard. Besides, I'm not sure if setting up an internet begging site for cash would work a second time.
:)

If I were DP I'd be more worried about the slanderous and very public things I've said about the entire Savio and Cales families, and the pastor. Now those remarks were damaging, as they were stated on NATIONAL TELEVISION, as fact.

Wudge
12-20-2007, 08:25 PM
Wudge:

What about what I posted? Isn't that also true??

Regarding your post, I will simply note that not everyone would have to be sued. Plaintiffs are free to fashion their lawsuits as they wish.

Wudge
12-20-2007, 08:44 PM
Yes, dear, but Dominick Dunne writes for a major publication and has deep pockets (which makes it a better bet). This is not a major publication; we are incapable of damaging DP's reputation. Again, he has to prove real damages. Not hurt feelings. It doesn't work that way. Bringing a costly lawsuit against people whose pockets aren't deep is risky. You may never, ever recoup the cost of legal bills.

It would simply be silly and financially damaging to bring a lawsuit against a peon on an internet chatboard. Besides, I'm not sure if setting up an internet begging site for cash would work a second time.
:)

If I were DP I'd be more worried about the slanderous and very public things I've said about the entire Savio and Cales families, and the pastor. Now those remarks were damaging, as they were stated on NATIONAL TELEVISION, as fact.


Deep pockets matter to many, if not most, plaintiffs. While to other plaintiffs that is not even a faint consideration.

Please take what I said previously in the spirit in which it was offered; be wise in what you say here and elsewhere. The number of defamation lawsuits is exploding.

Parents of children hear how their parents express themselves, and parents are sued for what their children say -- in alarming fashion nowadays. In any such lawsuit, the attorney will sit the child down and ask them: Why did you say that? An all too familiar answer: Well, Mommy and/or Daddy or Mom and/or Dad says that "so and so" are xxxxx xxxxx, so I called yyyy (their child) that too.

Habits gather by unseen degrees as brooks run to rivers and rivers to seas. You just never know. Be wise.

Littledeer
12-20-2007, 09:01 PM
WUDGE:

I made a whole thread just for you and where we can "talk" with you on legal matters.

Please post there. If you have anything for "Stacy", by all means PLEASE POST HERE.

Wudge
12-20-2007, 09:18 PM
WUDGE:

I made a whole thread just for you and where we can "talk" with you on legal matters.

Please post there. If you have anything for "Stacy", by all means PLEASE POST HERE.

Thank you but please delete it. I have nothing more to offer here.

Littledeer
12-20-2007, 09:41 PM
Wudge:

Sorry that your leaving..................you did have some good points. But I am going to leave it there if the mods think it's okay. Appears we might have another "attorney" that can answer some of our legal questions".

I will leave this one up to the mods and other WS posters.

SuziQ
12-20-2007, 10:27 PM
Peterson's Former Friend Testifies Before Grand Jury

Mims Scheduled To Testify Next Month


http://www.nbc5.com/news/14902143/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

i.b.nora
12-20-2007, 10:56 PM
Keep an eye out for the Nancy Grace transcript tonight. Brodsky was on.
He totally disparaged and dismissed Rick Mims as well as Stacy's brother Yelton.
Said that their private investigators would be looking into friends of Yelton's.

SuziQ
12-20-2007, 11:16 PM
Keep an eye out for the Nancy Grace transcript tonight. Brodsky was on.
He totally disparaged and dismissed Rick Mims as well as Stacy's brother Yelton.
Said that their private investigators would be looking into friends of Yelton's.

WTF for???!!! Is this Brodsky and Drews backdoor way of harrasing Stacy's family?

philamena
12-20-2007, 11:45 PM
Peterson's Former Friend Testifies Before Grand Jury

Mims Scheduled To Testify Next Month


http://www.nbc5.com/news/14902143/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

Next month?!:slap:
I guess in reality next month is only a few days away. Still I hope and pray that local dects and other LE will continue to investigate this case.

Taximom
12-21-2007, 12:53 AM
Keep an eye out for the Nancy Grace transcript tonight. Brodsky was on.
He totally disparaged and dismissed Rick Mims as well as Stacy's brother Yelton.
Said that their private investigators would be looking into friends of Yelton's.

I NEVER thought I'd say this, but I can't wait for NG to come back and harrass these stupid defense lawyers. JAB will go running back to Greta after 1 show with NG.

I think Greta asks much better questions, and we get more out of Greta, but NG does not care WHO she tells off (even if she's got the facts wrong!). IMO anyway.

I think she'll put up with even less now that she's a mom!

SuziQ
12-21-2007, 01:04 AM
Police chief gives latest on Sergeant Drew Peterson and his missing wife (http://gretawire.foxnews.com/#)

http://tinyurl.com/25u6p9

Taximom
12-21-2007, 01:08 AM
I just heard the BBPD Chief say he's pretty sure Drew's children will make a GJ appearance. (Greta's show)

SeriouslySearching
12-21-2007, 01:17 AM
Yes, I heard that, too! I hope they aren't so scared of Drew that they hedge on the truth tho. : ( They do have to go home afterwards.

SeriouslySearching
12-21-2007, 04:43 PM
Didn't Sharon mention where the cadaver dogs supposedly "hit"? I have looked and looked to no avail for that.

Tom'sGirl
12-21-2007, 04:48 PM
Didn't Sharon mention where the cadaver dogs supposedly "hit"? I have looked and looked to no avail for that.
Yes I remember reading somewhere it was neighbor Sharon who said that SS, not the media. The media as I recall when mentioning the 'hits' at the house were only the bedroom and at the garage door.

Here's a photo of dog at garage door.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=868jek2&s=1

fundiva
12-21-2007, 05:10 PM
WTF for???!!! Is this Brodsky and Drews backdoor way of harrasing Stacy's family?
IMO Brodsky is trying to throw mud and make it look like someone else is a suspect. Brodsky said that there was a "Mr. Cales" that was now in jail as a sex offender. Brodsky felt he should be looked at because he was the person that Stacey was meeting that day to paint with. Brosky never said this was Stacey's brother. Pam, the family spokesperson, was the one that said that Yelstin being a sex offender had no relevence to Stacey missing at all. She wanted to know why Brodsky would make that comment when he represented someone who dated and married 16 year olds when he was 46 year old. She stated in her opinion DP was a sex offender. I don't remember Yelstin being the person Stacey was meeting to paint with. I thought it was Cassandra's boyfriend. Methinks Brodsky is mixing up his stories in an effort to make someone else look like they had a motive or could possibly be a suspect. Lame try IMO

SeriouslySearching
12-21-2007, 05:26 PM
LOL I don't think Brodsky is trying to mix up the stories...but possibly he is actually mixed up about the stories. This wouldn't be the first time he has mispoken, imo!

i.b.nora
12-21-2007, 05:48 PM
The original plan was for Stacy, Cassandra and her friend Bruce to go paint the rented house that had been YELTON's. Yelton had apparently violated his parole and was returned to prison.
They wanted to do it so they could get either a deposit back, or get out of the lease or something along those lines.

SuziQ
12-21-2007, 07:19 PM
IMO Brodsky is trying to throw mud and make it look like someone else is a suspect. Brodsky said that there was a "Mr. Cales" that was now in jail as a sex offender. Brodsky felt he should be looked at because he was the person that Stacey was meeting that day to paint with. Brosky never said this was Stacey's brother. Pam, the family spokesperson, was the one that said that Yelstin being a sex offender had no relevence to Stacey missing at all. She wanted to know why Brodsky would make that comment when he represented someone who dated and married 16 year olds when he was 46 year old. She stated in her opinion DP was a sex offender. I don't remember Yelstin being the person Stacey was meeting to paint with. I thought it was Cassandra's boyfriend. Methinks Brodsky is mixing up his stories in an effort to make someone else look like they had a motive or could possibly be a suspect. Lame try IMO

I love how Pam turned this around on Brodsky. Everything Pam said is true. IIRC, the crime Yelton is in jail for isn't any worse than what Drew commited with Stacy. My understanding is that Stacy's brother is still in jail, or at least was at the time Stacy went missing. And Stacy was supposed to meet Cassandra and her friend, (Bruce?), to paint. IIRC, the house used to be rented by Yelton, and because he was in Jail, they were going to paint it for him so it could be re-rented out.

Brodsky is not only dumber than a bed or rocks, he's several cards short of having a full deck, IMO.

SuziQ
12-21-2007, 07:21 PM
The original plan was for Stacy, Cassandra and her friend Bruce to go paint the rented house that had been YELTON's. Yelton had apparently violated his parole and was returned to prison.
They wanted to do it so they could get either a deposit back, or get out of the lease or something along those lines.

Yes, that's my understanding as well. Sorry, I posted my previous post before I read yours.

SuziQ
12-21-2007, 07:23 PM
by Greta Van Susteren
[/URL] Eavesdrop on my phone conversation with Ric Mims- where has he been!!!? We finally got him on the phone… Listen here to find out!!
Click on the blue box to listen…

[URL]http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/12/21/eavesdrop-here-on-ric-mims-where-has-he-been/ (http://gretawire.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/gretacast.jpg)

SuziQ
12-21-2007, 07:58 PM
In the above linked Gretacast with Ric Mims (about halfway through) Greta asks him if he could fit her 5'3" body into one of the containers that him and Drew bought from the cable company. Ric says...Yes Mam!

TGIRecovered
12-21-2007, 08:21 PM
Thanks for the info SuziQ! I still haven't got my audio fixed...hardware problem.

Susan

SeriouslySearching
12-21-2007, 09:55 PM
Drew is going to be on Dateline very soon!! I would guess 5-10 minutes.

mysteriew
12-24-2007, 07:28 PM
Does anyone know about the area where DrewP's parents live, what it is like? How much property they have?

Tom'sGirl
12-24-2007, 07:53 PM
Does anyone know about the area where DrewP's parents live, what it is like? How much property they have?

They may live in Burr Ridge

SeriouslySearching
12-25-2007, 11:34 AM
Burr Ridge (formerly Harvester) is an affluent suburb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb) of Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago), in Cook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_County%2C_Illinois) and DuPage Counties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPage_County%2C_Illinois), Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois). The population was 10,408 at the 2000 census. (Wikipedia)

It is just south of Downers Grove and south of I-55.

Lisa Too
12-25-2007, 11:40 AM
Yes, Burr Ridge is a very affluent suburb. It is east of Lisle, approximately 20 minutes east via I-55.

SeriouslySearching
12-25-2007, 11:43 AM
I don't know why, but I wasn't expecting DP's mom to be "affluent" in any manner. Maybe because I felt everything she has been quoted as saying so far, I would consider to be low class and tacky.

Pharlap
12-25-2007, 01:10 PM
Yes, Burr Ridge is a very affluent suburb. It is east of Lisle, approximately 20 minutes east via I-55.


Yes it is, however how long has she lived there?
There are some much lowered priced houses there....

panthera
12-25-2007, 01:59 PM
Merry Christmas everyone ~ and especially to Stacy's children who must be having a very difficult day without their mom. My thoughts and prayers for them and hoping Stacy will be found soon.

SuziQ
12-25-2007, 03:46 PM
The family also has a trust set up. Although not confirmed, I've heard she recently had the house builit for 400K and that she's loaded.

SuziQ
12-25-2007, 04:01 PM
The top story on CNN this afternoon:

Search for police officer's wife yields many questions, no answers
Witnesses' statements contradict husband's, but evidence lacking
Police, volunteers look for blue barrel that may contain body
Results of autopsy on third wife not released

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/25/missing.woman.ap/index.html

SeriouslySearching
12-25-2007, 08:28 PM
Thanks, Suz! They are talking about the children tonight on NG, too. It is probably a rerun not sure, but it is one I haven't seen.

SeriouslySearching
12-25-2007, 08:30 PM
The family also has a trust set up. Although not confirmed, I've heard she recently had the house builit for 400K and that she's loaded.Interesting! I would like to know because if Mom is so loaded, why is her darling son begging for money on a website to pay for his lawyers and PIs?! If she deems him to be this misunderstood, innocent man...it seems she would be putting her money where her mouth is, imo.

Taximom
12-25-2007, 09:14 PM
Reminds me of another Mother Peterson that was somewhat affluent and yet low class and tacky at the same time.....

SeriouslySearching
12-25-2007, 09:55 PM
Mmmm hmmmm sure does.

kpass
12-26-2007, 02:07 AM
Reminds me of another Mother Peterson that was somewhat affluent and yet low class and tacky at the same time.....

DITTO!

:slap:

Taximom
12-26-2007, 09:59 AM
Slightly off-topic, but did you read the Peterson Family email I posted on the Scott P thread? Talk about wanting to :slap: someone.

SuziQ
12-26-2007, 10:45 AM
Slightly off-topic, but did you read the Peterson Family email I posted on the Scott P thread? Talk about wanting to :slap: someone.

Do you have a link? I would love to read it. Interestingly, I was up late reading about the SP trial.

SuziQ
12-26-2007, 10:47 AM
Thanks, Suz! They are talking about the children tonight on NG, too. It is probably a rerun not sure, but it is one I haven't seen.

I wish Nancy was here to put Brodsky in his place. She's been on leave a long time. I hope everything is ok.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 11:32 AM
I wish Nancy was here to put Brodsky in his place. She's been on leave a long time. I hope everything is ok.

Nancy Grace holds a doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups. You might as well wish Nifong could take on Brodsky too.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 11:37 AM
Do you have a link? I would love to read it. Interestingly, I was up late reading about the SP trial.

The record in the Scott Peterson case shows he was convicted based on insufficient evidence (no inculpatory evidence), which is the same problem in the investigation against Drew.

Taximom
12-26-2007, 11:56 AM
Hi Suzi, it's post 308 on this thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55398&page=8

Sorry to go off-topic.

Taximom
12-26-2007, 11:59 AM
I wish Nancy was here to put Brodsky in his place. She's been on leave a long time. I hope everything is ok.

I said this too a few weeks ago! Even if she was wrong with the facts, which is sad but she is wrong quite often, it would be fun to watch her rip into JAB. I think he'd go running back to Greta, who is far more intelligent and fair.

According to the CNN site she's due back 1/7/08.

SuziQ
12-26-2007, 11:59 AM
Nancy Grace holds a doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups. You might as well wish Nifong could take on Brodsky too.


Yeah, but she's a b*tch and very intimidating.

SuziQ
12-26-2007, 12:02 PM
The record in the Scott Peterson case shows he was convicted based on insufficient evidence (no inculpatory evidence), which is the same problem in the investigation against Drew.

And yet, SP is sitting on Death Row where he should be.

SuziQ
12-26-2007, 12:06 PM
I said this too a few weeks ago! Even if she was wrong with the facts, which is sad but she is wrong quite often, it would be fun to watch her rip into JAB. I think he'd go running back to Greta, who is far more intelligent and fair.

According to the CNN site she's due back 1/7/08.

Thanks for the link! I remember you saying that and I have to agree, Nancy needs a better research staff. But she's very intertaining to watch.

Taximom
12-26-2007, 12:12 PM
I heard one lawyer, brought on by FOX to discuss the Peterson case, talk about the truckers as if that were still something to be investigated. :eek: I guess these relative unknowns just want to be on tv? They are definitely misleading a lot of people that don't stay up-to-date on the case.

Nancy should get live chat or read email during her show. Can you imagine the emails she'd get when she messed something up?! lol

Wudge
12-26-2007, 12:20 PM
And yet, SP is sitting on Death Row where he should be.

A defendant cannot be penalized because they chose to remain silent. A defendant cannot be found guilty of murder based only on collaborative evidence. A Judge cannot remove a juror without establishing good cause in the trial record.

These and ten or more other substantial appeal issues will either reduce Scott's sentence or result in a second trial or result in a finding that attaches jeopardy, which would free Scott forever.

It's wise that you are studying that case to assess the case against Drew. Continue to do so.

SuziQ
12-26-2007, 12:40 PM
A defendant cannot be penalized because they chose to remain silent. A defendant cannot be found guilty of murder based only on collaborative evidence. A Judge cannot remove a juror without establishing good cause in the trial record.

Was I talking about any of that? Besides, the last time I checked, it's the decision of the defendant himself to remain silent or testify.

These and ten or more other substantial appeal issues will either reduce Scott's sentence or result in a second trial or result in a finding that attaches jeopardy, which would free Scott forever.

And they are standard appeal issues that happen in every DP case. I am not familiar with the California DP process. However, appeals are generally automatic and don't have anything do with whether anything improper happened during the trial. It's merely a process to make sure all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed before someone is put to death. It's a fair process that should happen. You are grasping at straws to make a point.

It's wise that you are studying that case to assess the case against Drew. Continue to do so.

I hope you don't intend to debate Scott Peterson's case here. I don't care to. Thanks.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 12:46 PM
I hope you don't intend to debate Scott Peterson's case here. I don't care to. Thanks.

My point was and remains that there are substantial comparatives between the two cases.

thesleuther
12-26-2007, 02:20 PM
Nancy Grace holds a doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups. You might as well wish Nifong could take on Brodsky too.

I thought your big concern was defamatory statements. What's this?

Your statement is obviously UNTRUE and can be proven as such.

thesleuther
12-26-2007, 02:25 PM
The record in the Scott Peterson case shows he was convicted based on insufficient evidence (no inculpatory evidence), which is the same problem in the investigation against Drew.

I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.

thesleuther
12-26-2007, 02:28 PM
My point was and remains that there are substantial comparatives between the two cases.

Yeah, both slimeballs think they are far smarter than anyone else; and both slimeballs murdered their wives because they posed problems for them, and divorce apparently was not an option because of presumed financial obligations.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 02:37 PM
I thought your big concern was defamatory statements. What's this?

Your statement is obviously UNTRUE and can be proven as such.


How did Nancy do in the OLympic park bombing case (Richard Jewell)?

Wudge
12-26-2007, 02:40 PM
I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.


Cite the inculpatory evidence?

I ask the same in this case.

In murder cases, please understand that corroborative evidence without inculpatory evidence is insufficient evidence.

mysteriew
12-26-2007, 02:58 PM
It is my understanding that the appeals process only looks at the court procedure. They look at if any errors were made by the judge or DA, and whether the defense gave an adequate defense. They don't look at reviewing the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the jury decision is considered final unless there was a fault in the court procedure. IOW the appeals court doesn't retry the case or send it back for retrial unless they find grievous errors that could affect the outcome of the case.

No SP was not found with a weapon in his hand. But there was overwhelming evidence of his actions up to and following the death of Laci. People have been found guilty on less evidence than was found in that case. And a jury found him guilty. So he is considered guilty as charged unless the appeals court finds some indication that the court made a grievous error in procedure.

mysteriew
12-26-2007, 03:05 PM
I wasn't sure of the exact meaning of the term inculpatory evidence so I looked it up.

Inculpatory evidence is a legal term used to describe evidence that shows, or tends to show, a person's involvement in an act, or evidence that can establish guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculpatory_evidence

And at this point we don't know what or how much "inculpatory evidence" the police have as they haven't talked about the case.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 03:14 PM
It is my understanding that the appeals process only looks at the court procedure.

SNIP



Appellate Courts adjudge submitted issues. For example, an insufficient evidence issue.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 03:15 PM
I wasn't sure of the exact meaning of the term inculpatory evidence so I looked it up.



And at this point we don't know what or how much "inculpatory evidence" the police have as they haven't talked about the case.

Thus, Drew should be held presumed innocent.

Floh
12-26-2007, 03:21 PM
Thus, Drew should be held presumed innocent.

Is there such a legal phrase? "held presumed innocent"? :waitasec:

mysteriew
12-26-2007, 03:31 PM
Thus, Drew should be held presumed innocent.

In a court of law that is true. However, this is not a court of law. And interested parties do have a right to form their own opinions and to discuss those opinions.

Wudge I respect and even appreciate your reasoning for the warnings about slander, libel and defamation and I actually try to use them when I discuss a case. I try to remember to make it clear when I am stating my own theories and opinions. But what you seem to be doing now is criticizing our justice system and the way it works. A system that has stood for hundreds of years. And while I will admit it isn't a perfect system, it is the best we have, and much better than many others I have seen. The judge was there to oversee the trial and had the right and responsibility to throw the case out if he did not feel the evidence to convict was there or if errors were made. The DA had the responsibility to make sure all the evidence against SP was presented. And the defense attorney was there to make sure that any evidence in SP's favor was presented. And the jury was there to independently make a decision on guilty or not guilty. They saw what they deemed to be "incupatory evidence" and the process was completed and SP was found guilty.

So unless the appeals court finds some error, then SP is guilty he is in prison and if the appeals court doesn't find grievous error then presumably in 10-20 years he will be put to death (if the death penalty is not overturned.)

In the meantime this is Stacy Peterson and Drew Peterson, not Scott and Laci.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 03:32 PM
Is there such a legal phrase? "held presumed innocent"? :waitasec:

As regards criminal cases in America, "presumed innocent" is our statutory holding.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 04:10 PM
In a court of law that is true. However, this is not a court of law. And interested parties do have a right to form their own opinions and to discuss those opinions.

Wudge I respect your reasoning for the warnings about slander, libel and defamation and I actually try to use them when I discuss a case. I try to remember to make it clear when I am stating my own theories and opinions. But what you seem to be doing now is criticizing our justice system and the way it works. A system that has stood for hundreds of years. And while I will admit it isn't a perfect system, it is the best we have, and much better than many others I have seen. The judge was there to oversee the trial and had the right and responsibility to throw the case out if he did not feel the evidence to convict was there or if errors were made. The DA had the responsibility to make sure all the evidence against SP was presented. And the defense attorney was there to make sure that any evidence in SP's favor was presented. And the jury was there to independently make a decision on guilty or not guilty. The process was completed and SP was found guilty.

So unless the appeals court finds some error, then SP is guilty he is in prison and if the appeals court doesn't find grievous error then presumably in 10-20 years he will be put to death (if the death penalty is not overturned.)

In the meantime this is Stacy Peterson and Drew Peterson, not Scott and Laci.


Our system certainly can be improved. And you are free to conclude Drew is guilty without either the evidence or due process that our imperfect legal process requires. However, most evidence deficient conclusions of guilt in high-profile cases are not supported in a subsequent trial.

As regards my posts today, some reference Scott's case only because it was brought up by another poster (and subsequently others), and there are strong comparatives to this case. As such, it represents a strong and relative comparison case and learning base.

As a getaway note, unless an Appellate Court affirms the jury's verdict (or his appeal is otherwise exhausted), Scott's alleged guilt is legally in limbo. Should Scott die tomorrow, the jury's verdict would almost assuredly be vacated, and Scott would be considered not guilty in the eyes of the law, forever.

HTH

SeriouslySearching
12-26-2007, 05:02 PM
Well, I do agree our system needs improvement. The best improvement would be to stop creating new laws to protect the suspects! Victims should have all the cards geared towards them and not against them, especially the children. Men suspected of killing their wives should not be with their children and walking free while police are trying to gather such evidence, imo. Men suspected of murder or abuse of a spouse should also have to give up the children until the matter is resolved in court.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 05:15 PM
SNIP

Victims should have all the cards geared towards them and not against them, especially the children. Men suspected of killing their wives should not be with their children and walking free while police are trying to gather such evidence, imo. Men suspected of murder or abuse of a spouse should also have to give up the children until the matter is resolved in court.


No cards for suspects. All cards for victims. Novel.

Another thought: You might want to consider guarding against sexism in 2008.

TGIRecovered
12-26-2007, 05:56 PM
This thread is quickly descending in to and off-topic and very annoying war of words. We have a thread for this legal drivel (referring to the post,not attacking the poster).
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57642

I hope you will enjoy hashing it out in it's proper forum as much as I will enjoy returning to an interesting conversation relevant to Stacy Peterson.

Susan

thesleuther
12-26-2007, 08:01 PM
How did Nancy do in the OLympic park bombing case (Richard Jewell)?
First, wouldn't know.

Second, irrelevent.

Third, you said that Nancy Grace holds a "doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups." That, of course, is untrue as I don't believe such a doctorate exists.

thesleuther
12-26-2007, 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesleuther http://websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1872710#post1872710)
I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.

Cite the inculpatory evidence?

I ask the same in this case.

In murder cases, please understand that corroborative evidence without inculpatory evidence is insufficient evidence.

First, this isn't a discussion on the Scott Peterson case.

Second, the jury spoke, I don't think I need to recap.

Third, if all crimes required eye-witness testimony and didn't permit circumstantial evidence, where would we be? Wudge World?

If this particular case ever goes to trial, it will be with circumstantial evidence since it appears that he murdered his wife in their bedroom while his little children were elsewhere in the house.

If you don't think there was overwhelming evidence in the Scott Peterson case, then I believe that you couldn't possibly be convinced of Drew Peterson's guilt in the murder of either wife. Yes, I know, we don't know for certain that Stacy Peterson was murdered, but common sense says she was.

We are all aware of the standard of guilt in a criminal case. But, we aren't the jury in this case. We're discussing possibilities in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. And while I'll certainly concede that there are some odd comments made at times, common sense says that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio and then continued the pattern of abuse that began years ago, and subsequently murdered Stacy Peterson.

TGIRecovered
12-26-2007, 08:24 PM
Wudge wrote:

Nancy Grace holds a "doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups.


Oh my! Could this be...:eek: slander:eek: ?

Susan

Wudge
12-26-2007, 09:09 PM
Wudge wrote:


Oh my! Could this be...:eek: slander:eek: ?

Susan


How did Nancy do on the Elizabeth Smart case?

TKS2003
12-26-2007, 09:19 PM
How did Nancy do on the Elizabeth Smart case?


How did ANYONE do on the Elizabeth Smart case?
Who cares "how" Nancy does? She technically isnt "on" any case, she is broadcast personality now, she is no longer a prosecutor.
I am not particulary a big fan of Nancy Grace, but if I ever have a missing family member, and a suspect, I hope it gets her interest--she is a tenacious victims advocate, and in this case, Stacy is surely a victim.

biggirl
12-26-2007, 09:24 PM
How did ANYONE do on the Elizabeth Smart case?
Who cares "how" Nancy does? She technically isnt "on" any case, she is broadcast personality now, she is no longer a prosecutor.
I am not particulary a big fan of Nancy Grace, but if I ever have a missing family member, and a suspect, I hope it gets her interest--she is a tenacious victims advocate, and in this case, Stacy is surely a victim.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Wudge
12-26-2007, 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesleuther http://websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1872710#post1872710)
I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.



First, this isn't a discussion on the Scott Peterson case.

Second, the jury spoke, I don't think I need to recap.

Third, if all crimes required eye-witness testimony and didn't permit circumstantial evidence, where would we be? Wudge World?

If this particular case ever goes to trial, it will be with circumstantial evidence since it appears that he murdered his wife in their bedroom while his little children were elsewhere in the house.

If you don't think there was overwhelming evidence in the Scott Peterson case, then I believe that you couldn't possibly be convinced of Drew Peterson's guilt in the murder of either wife. Yes, I know, we don't know for certain that Stacy Peterson was murdered, but common sense says she was.

We are all aware of the standard of guilt in a criminal case. But, we aren't the jury in this case. We're discussing possibilities in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. And while I'll certainly concede that there are some odd comments made at times, common sense says that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio and then continued the pattern of abuse that began years ago, and subsequently murdered Stacy Peterson.

I've posted proof elsewhere that there was insufficient evidence to convict Scott. That will be one of many appeal issues as regards his case.

Sometimes defendants are wrongfully convicted. Sometimes Appellate Courts see that sufficient evidence was not presented during the course of a trial, and they reverse the verdict and attach jeopardy. Thus foreclosing on a second trial.

In another fairly recent trial (late 2005) that I had closely followed, that being the murder trial late in 2005 of Cynthia George, Cynthia was convicted of complicity to commit murder and sentenced to 23 years in prison. On appeal, an Appellate Court in Ohio reversed the verdict, which was a bench verdict set down by Judge Patricia Cosgrove. The Appellate Court also attached jeopardy. Cynthia is now free, forever.

Right now, there is nothing in the public domain that would support finding proof beyond a reasonable doubt in either a Stacy murder case or a Kathleen murder case.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 09:35 PM
First, wouldn't know.

Second, irrelevent.

Third, you said that Nancy Grace holds a "doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups." That, of course, is untrue as I don't believe such a doctorate exists.

As regards a celebrity, hyperbole is not slander (nor is parody).

HTH

DeltaDawn
12-26-2007, 10:39 PM
Okay Wudge...what do you think happened to Stacy..please give a timeline and a reasonable explanation of who, beside Drew, would want to harm her.. in the spirit of debate..which I can see you so enjoy. Let's get down to business here..if we aren't right ..then what is your explanation...it is easy to ridicule others..harder still to come up with the correct answer..so far I have heard of no theory or explanation for Stacy's disappearance from you.

So..what is your theory on what happened to Stacy...

PS ...Don't bring up the slander issue again..I come from a long line of lawyers... 90% of what you have to say is not specificaly revelant to this case..it belongs in the jury room or a political thread..we are not here to debate law with you.. we are here to find out the truth about Stacy's demise.

Wudge
12-26-2007, 10:52 PM
Okay Wudge...what do you think happened to Stacy..please give a timeline and a reasonable explanation of who, beside Drew, would want to harm her.. in the spirit of debate..which I can see you so enjoy.

I assess timelines offered at trial for reasonableness and alternative considerations, best to wait.

I have no idea who might want to harm her. The husband and/or boyfriend is a suspect in most such cases. Did she have another friend on the side?

DeltaDawn
12-26-2007, 11:23 PM
Well..if you want to wait till trial to debate this..why are you debating this now, Wudge? Why even sign in an give your opinion..if infact you are saying you have no opinion until trial?

philamena
12-27-2007, 12:38 AM
DD,
Wudge lovessssss doing this.
You have to admit he makes one think.... ;)

Taximom
12-27-2007, 02:05 AM
Well, my previous comment should have gone on the thread about the pics! Drats.

i.b.nora
12-27-2007, 02:19 AM
Home Videos Show Peterson Before Disappearance (http://cbs2chicago.com/westsuburbanbureau/stacy.peterson.video.2.618299.html)
Footage Given Exclusively To CBS 2 News, Family Hopes
It Will Help Them Find Stacy Peterson

"In a CBS 2 exclusive, the public is for the first time seeing video images of Drew and Stacy Peterson in happier times, before the Bolingbrook mother disappeared two months ago. As CBS 2 West Suburban Bureau Chief Mike Puccinelli reports, the video shows the couple during family celebrations.

The video shows Stacy Cales just days before her 19th birthday and more than a year before she became Stacy Peterson. The video was shot in California where she and Drew Peterson traveled to watch her aunt renew her marital vows."

more text at link as well as the video

robthomaseyes
12-27-2007, 10:32 AM
Nancy Grace holds a doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups. You might as well wish Nifong could take on Brodsky too.

Now now, Wudge. That's libel.

robthomaseyes
12-27-2007, 10:33 AM
As regards a celebrity, hyperbole is not slander (nor is parody).

HTH

Not necessarily. Ask Tom Cruise about his successful suits.

Wudge
12-27-2007, 11:56 AM
Not necessarily. Ask Tom Cruise about his successful suits.

Citation?

TGIRecovered
12-27-2007, 12:21 PM
Down, down, down we go...

accelerating in spiral as we are sucked in

to infinite depths

of insignificance...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help awaits! It is a thread for legal questions and repetative, boring debates. This thread is in dire need of posters, as it has lain idle since 21 December.
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57642

Please! Help a thread in need, and save the Stacy Peterson thread from an ugly demise.

Susan

SuziQ
12-27-2007, 12:33 PM
Home Videos Show Peterson Before Disappearance (http://cbs2chicago.com/westsuburbanbureau/stacy.peterson.video.2.618299.html)
Footage Given Exclusively To CBS 2 News, Family Hopes
It Will Help Them Find Stacy Peterson

"In a CBS 2 exclusive, the public is for the first time seeing video images of Drew and Stacy Peterson in happier times, before the Bolingbrook mother disappeared two months ago. As CBS 2 West Suburban Bureau Chief Mike Puccinelli reports, the video shows the couple during family celebrations.

The video shows Stacy Cales just days before her 19th birthday and more than a year before she became Stacy Peterson. The video was shot in California where she and Drew Peterson traveled to watch her aunt renew her marital vows."

more text at link as well as the video

Thank you for the link. What cutie Stacy is.

Littledeer
12-27-2007, 04:16 PM
TGI:

lol!!!

SeriouslySearching
12-27-2007, 04:34 PM
OK, back to STACY! The whole fiasco yesterday was bizarre, but it doesn't send the case in a new direction, imo. However, the person responsible will have lots of explaining to do when they catch up with them. I would assume LE will check out what the person was trying to convey with such a stunt, but I personally don't feel they will find a thing.

I did notice on Gretawire (which I never read the comments on her blogs, but I was bored), that people are becoming more aware of WS. I haven't decided if it is a good thing in this case or not. LOL

Trino
12-27-2007, 04:46 PM
OK, back to STACY! The whole fiasco yesterday was bizarre, but it doesn't send the case in a new direction, imo. However, the person responsible will have lots of explaining to do when they catch up with them. I would assume LE will check out what the person was trying to convey with such a stunt, but I personally don't feel they will find a thing.

I did notice on Gretawire (which I never read the comments on her blogs, but I was bored), that people are becoming more aware of WS. I haven't decided if it is a good thing in this case or not. LOL

I find with each new case on WS that new people pop up, some connected, remotely connected, or just interested. Once the perp is caught or the case becomes cold, interest wanes. The true WSers will always be around.

Soonerbabie
12-27-2007, 04:52 PM
Hope the situation that happened yeterday gets cleared up in a jiffy so we can put our focus to more important things in the case. We need to keep that spotlight on DP if you ask me!

Pharlap
12-27-2007, 05:06 PM
I find with each new case on WS that new people pop up, some connected, remotely connected, or just interested. Once the perp is caught or the case becomes cold, interest wanes. The true WSers will always be around.

U have a little over 2000 posts and I little over 1900.
I come out of the woodwork when the case interests me and you?
Surely alot just read and never post.....

SeriouslySearching
12-27-2007, 05:06 PM
The spotlight isn't going to go away on DP anytime soon. With every day that passes, LE is still investigating and the GJ, although taking their sweet time, is going to be uncovering more and more testimony. This should keep him in the hot seat.

Littledeer
12-27-2007, 05:11 PM
And shouldn't the latest autopsy report be completed on Kathleen Savio and given to either ISP or the FBI sometime soon? I know it will not be "public" information. But don't you think at least the GJ will hear it???

Anyone know how this works??

SeriouslySearching
12-27-2007, 05:15 PM
Very good question! Will it be presented to the GJ? Of course, it has to be given to the ISP and they surely have it now. I would have to assume it must be presented to the GJ, as it is current evidence. (We can only hope the autopsy results match those of Dr. Baden, but we won't know unless it comes out in trial for either a criminal or civil suit for KS.)

Littledeer
12-27-2007, 05:21 PM
So, if the GJ is in possession of those results now, don't you think that they will be asking some hard questions of Steve C, Mary, and, why not DP as he was "supposedly" the third person that saw Kathleen in the tub dead?????

Also, I would think they would like to talk to the "investigating officer" that originally wrote up the report of that day when they arrived.

SeriouslySearching
12-27-2007, 05:35 PM
I don't see how they can "investigate" without talking to all those above...except DP. We can assume he took the 5th since he was only there a very, very short time. Of course, Steve C. could do the same.

Wudge
12-27-2007, 06:19 PM
Very good question! Will it be presented to the GJ? Of course, it has to be given to the ISP and they surely have it now. I would have to assume it must be presented to the GJ, as it is current evidence. (We can only hope the autopsy results match those of Dr. Baden, but we won't know unless it comes out in trial for either a criminal or civil suit for KS.)



I've yet to hear admissable and probative inculpatory evidence that Drew murdered Kathleen. If the prosecutor handling the GJ were to claim that an autopsy alleging Kathleen was murdered somehow proved Drew murdered Stacy too, they would be making a huge mistake. For if the GJ were to indict Drew with Stacy's murder by relying on such a claim, the GJ would later find out that an autopsy alleging Kathleen was murdered was not probative evidence in a murder trial wherein Drew was charged with murdering Stacy.

HTH

mysteriew
12-27-2007, 06:44 PM
So, if the GJ is in possession of those results now, don't you think that they will be asking some hard questions of Steve C, Mary, and, why not DP as he was "supposedly" the third person that saw Kathleen in the tub dead?????

Also, I would think they would like to talk to the "investigating officer" that originally wrote up the report of that day when they arrived.

We don't know who all is being called before the GJ. We do know that Steve C. has been called before them because he said so. But no one in media seems to have talked to Mary so we don't know if she has been called to testify or not. I would expect that she would be.
I hope they do talk to the investigating officer- lol if he isn't on "vacation" like he allegedly was during the coroner's jury.

Camper
12-27-2007, 07:01 PM
I find that my job in watching this case is to merely wait and see what the GJ determines.

Legal professionals are dealing with the legalities of the findings being discovered in the Grand Jury ceremony, and WE as a group have not been consulted. Our peers are present doing their civic duties.

This is rather like having a brain surgeon posting here while we ask questions such as where is the head located?

Our justice system is at work, I say let it work, while I merely wait and observe. Who went in and who came out etc. is at least interesting.

I would like to know where the one trucker who appears to have not lied about being offered an 'opportunity' to transport a 'container' is, where is he, who is he, etc.

.

SeriouslySearching
12-27-2007, 07:08 PM
LOL I love the analogy of the brain surgeon. Good point, Camper!

Trino
12-27-2007, 07:50 PM
I find that my job in watching this case is to merely wait and see what the GJ determines.

I would like to know where the one trucker who appears to have not lied about being offered an 'opportunity' to transport a 'container' is, where is he, who is he, etc. .

My guess it that he/she will get out of this, i.e confused as to the person/place. It's just misinformation, which is what the police get every day.

SeriouslySearching
12-27-2007, 10:26 PM
Am I thinking correctly that this is the same GJ that is investigating Lisa Stebic's case, too? How many cases do they hear at once?!

Pharlap
12-27-2007, 10:30 PM
Am I thinking correctly that this is the same GJ that is investigating Lisa Stebic's case, too? How many cases do they hear at once?!

I don't know how many but Plainfield is in Will County too.

Bolingbrook and Plainfield are both in Will county

Littledeer
12-27-2007, 10:31 PM
A grand jury only listen to cases within its "county" jurisdiction.

Did Lisa Stebic live in the same county as Stacy?

SuziQ
12-28-2007, 01:31 AM
I've yet to hear admissable and probative inculpatory evidence that Drew murdered Kathleen. If the prosecutor handling the GJ were to claim that an autopsy alleging Kathleen was murdered somehow proved Drew murdered Stacy too, they would be making a huge mistake. For if the GJ were to indict Drew with Stacy's murder by relying on such a claim, the GJ would later find out that an autopsy alleging Kathleen was murdered was not probative evidence in a murder trial wherein Drew was charged with murdering Stacy.

HTH

Oh dear Wudge, the only people guilty of murder are the ones who are caught actually commiting the act? Are their victims the only ones deserving of justice? Your arguments are flimsy and narrow minded at best. Sometimes your posts are interesting. Lately they have not made much sense.

Wudge
12-28-2007, 08:12 AM
Oh dear Wudge, the only people guilty of murder are the ones who are caught actually commiting the act? Are their victims the only ones deserving of justice? Your arguments are flimsy and narrow minded at best. Sometimes your posts are interesting. Lately they have not made much sense.

The point was that if the GJ were to use a revised autopsy report on Kathleen's death to indict Drew for Stacy's alleged murder, it would not be inculpatory evidence that Drew murdered Kathleen or Stacy.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 09:06 AM
I believe that the autopsy report will show that Kathleen was murdered. I don't know that I would call it revised because Dr Baden said that the first report if a cornorer had made the decision instead of the cornorer's jury it would have been a similiar outcome to this autopsy. Meaning the both autopsys point to foul play.

We also have the addition of the phone records from that night when Stacy is trying to reach Drew. We don't know what they show..but it is probable that they will back up what the pastor said Stacy told him.

And if they found Stacy's journal with what she told the pastor backing up that info..then it would not be hearsay with the addition of the phone records.

Certainly this has got to play a part in this, is the letter Kathleen herself wrote to the Attorney General (?) saying she feared that her husband was going to kill her.

Then we have the Will, with the witnesses being Drew's family and friends..and Drew then getting his share of that and not having to pay child support. Which then goes toward setting a motive for the murder.

Then there is a good possiblity that there is other testimony and info the GJ has that we do not know about. But with what we do know there would be reason enough for a person on the GJ to think that Drew had motive, opportunity and was at the scene of the crime.

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 09:15 AM
Does anyone know where Drew and Stacy was standing that night?
Where did they live back then?

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 09:21 AM
Does anyone know where Drew and Stacy was standing that night?
Where did they live back then?

They lived in the house they currently live in is my understanding. And that this house is only a couple of blocks from where Kathleen's house was.

Camper
12-28-2007, 09:24 AM
WElllllllll, IF IF the autopsy report is valid on cause of Kathleens death, WE would still have not positive proof that DP did ITor killed her in other words.

The only thing that WE know now is that Stacy told the minister that DP did IT. Stacy is missing and or not living, so she cannot speak up. Unless she is in HIDING, hmmm, er, huh, welllll, without a body no one really knows er?

BUT WE do know that Mark F. discovered that the telephone records of THAT night COULD be unearthed from the cell phone records that are STILL available. WE donut know IF IF those records have been found and what they show.

What else might the GJ have found that will add up to a grand total of things to hang DP?

Do any of us know what else is scheduled to happen in the GJ, people to call yet or what?

Meanwhile, in real time, just where are DP and the children? Surely LE knows ya think?

.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 09:28 AM
No idea where Drew and the children are at the moment.

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 09:28 AM
They lived in the house they currently live in is my understanding. And that this house is only a couple of blocks from where Kathleen's house was.


Tks.
The cell pings should show that.
If Drew had his phone with him. Could he of put it somewhere else so he couldn't of been tracked? He didn't answer it right?

ThoughtFox
12-28-2007, 11:05 AM
A grand jury only listen to cases within its "county" jurisdiction.

Did Lisa Stebic live in the same county as Stacy?
I think Pharlap already answered this, but it's clear from this article that the Will County police are searching for both women:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/676992,4_1_JO02_STEBIC_S1.article

The reason Stacy's case has received more press time than Stebic's is because Drew was a cop, and this is the second wife who has had something mysterious happen to her.

Trino
12-28-2007, 11:29 AM
The point was that if the GJ were to use a revised autopsy report on Kathleen's death to indict Drew for Stacy's alleged murder, it would not be inculpatory evidence that Drew murdered Kathleen or Stacy.

You are correct that the evidence is circumstantial in relation to DP and KS. We, as well as law enforcement, can speculate forever and be certain in our minds that DP is involved, but speculation is not evidence that connects DP to a crime.

First, we have two different opinions on how KS died. While the latest called it homocide, and we can perhaps agree that this is correct, still, there are two opinions.

Second, DP has not been directly connected to KS's death. Where is any real factual evidence? Again, we can speculate, but opinions are not facts.

Third, S told the minister. Defense attorneys would tear this apart. Why didn't the minister come forward earlier? Was S lying? S's past will be raked through the mud.

Fourth, about the evidence connecting DP and S when she was out of town. So far, there is no evidence that has been uncovered, and we're not certain that S is DP's only alibi.

Fifth, SuziQ, please don't call anyone on this board narrow minded. We are all entitled to express our opinions.

SuziQ
12-28-2007, 11:37 AM
Fifth, SuziQ, please don't call anyone on this board narrow minded. We are all entitled to express our opinions.

I didn't call Wudge narrow minded. I said the legal arguments are. And we all need to remember that everyone here is entitled to express their opinions without feeling threatened with a lawsuit for expressing them. (that's not directed at you Trino).

Wudge
12-28-2007, 12:01 PM
You are correct that the evidence is circumstantial in relation to DP and KS. We, as well as law enforcement, can speculate forever and be certain in our minds that DP is involved, but speculation is not evidence that connects DP to a crime.

First, we have two different opinions on how KS died. While the latest called it homocide, and we can perhaps agree that this is correct, still, there are two opinions.

Second, DP has not been directly connected to KS's death. Where is any real factual evidence? Again, we can speculate, but opinions are not facts.

Third, S told the minister. Defense attorneys would tear this apart. Why didn't the minister come forward earlier? Was S lying? S's past will be raked through the mud.

Fourth, about the evidence connecting DP and S when she was out of town. So far, there is no evidence that has been uncovered, and we're not certain that S is DP's only alibi.

Fifth, SuziQ, please don't call anyone on this board narrow minded. We are all entitled to express our opinions.


Circumstantial evidence can certainly be sufficient evidence as regards satisfying the proof beyond a reasonable doubt requirement. However, strong circumstantial evidence (inculpatory evidence not collaborative evidence) would still have to satisfy the charges. For murder two, at a minimum, the State would need to prove malice aforethought. For murder one, the State would need to prove the added elements of willful, premeditated and deliberated.

Without a time of death, a place of death, a cause of death, a manner of death, an eyewitness, a crime scene, forensic evidence, a confession or a clear motive, I would not expect a GJ to indict Drew for murder. Nor would I expect the prosecutor to ask for such an indictment, for I can't see how the prosecutor could hope to prove a murder charge.

Taximom
12-28-2007, 12:20 PM
Tks.
The cell pings should show that.
If Drew had his phone with him. Could he of put it somewhere else so he couldn't of been tracked? He didn't answer it right?

I think what LE is going to prove is Stacy's statement that Drew wasn't home and she didn't know where he was at the time. She SAID she made many calls to his cell that night. That's what I believe LE is going to look for to back-up what she told the pastor.

Sure all the extra info about where/when pings hit might be good, but he could have put the phone anywhere. There also might only be one tower handling the pings from KS's home and SP's home, so that might not prove anything.

Yes, yes, I know. Whether it's admissible in court or not, I don't know and could care less. You still have to find any information available in an investigation.

Trino
12-28-2007, 12:31 PM
Circumstantial evidence can certainly be sufficient evidence as regards satisfying the proof beyond a reasonable doubt requirement. However, strong circumstantial evidence (inculpatory evidence not collaborative evidence) would still have to satisfy the charges. For murder two, at a minimum, the State would need to prove malice aforethought. For murder one, the State would need to prove the added elements of willful, premeditated and deliberated.

Without a time of death, a place of death, a cause of death, a manner of death, an eyewitness, a crime scene, forensic evidence, a confession or a clear motive, I would not expect a GJ to indict Drew for murder. Nor would I expect the prosecutor to ask for such an indictment, for I can't see how the prosecutor could hope to prove a murder charge.

And, a change of venue would probably be in order. In no way am I indicating DP is innocent - just stating how difficult it would be to prosecute.

Wudge
12-28-2007, 12:35 PM
And, a change of venue would probably be in order. In no way am I indicating DP is innocent - just stating how difficult it would be to prosecute.

Credited. Based on what we know, I totally agree.

TGIRecovered
12-28-2007, 12:54 PM
I hope that by some miracle, a jury of reasonable, intelligent citizens is seated in this case. If that happens, it will be in spite of efforts of defense lawyers to get someone on that jury who will argue that evidence must be physical or eye-witness in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an incorrect assumption used by people who would rather argue and cause dissent than convict a murderer to his proper punishment. I am sure that the defense' dream jury would be composed of one very vocal juror with a chip on his/her shoulder and eleven less intelligent sheeple to blindly follow along.

I would guess that even you, Wudge, believe that DrewP is responsible for the demise of both Kathy and Stacy. I have yet to see one poster here at WS who truly believes that he had nothing to do with either crime.

I believe that we are reasonable, intelligent people.

Defense lawyers trash witnesses as a diversionary tactic. It is to be expected and IMO it is a tired old trick. Any one of us, I expect, could be trashed in some way. We need jurors intelligent enough to see past the smoke and mirrors and hear the truth. We need jurors who understand the meaning of reasonable doubt, and who will refuse to vote "not guilty" when they believe that they would be allowing a murderer to walk free.

Delta Dawn's post #190 on this thread deserves a second look. I think she summed it up well.

Susan

Wudge
12-28-2007, 01:34 PM
I hope that by some miracle, a jury of reasonable, intelligent citizens is seated in this case. If that happens, it will be in spite of efforts of defense lawyers to get someone on that jury who will argue that evidence must be physical or eye-witness in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an incorrect assumption used by people who would rather argue and cause dissent than convict a murderer to his proper punishment. I am sure that the defense' dream jury would be composed of one very vocal juror with a chip on his/her shoulder and eleven less intelligent sheeple to blindly follow along.

I would guess that even you, Wudge, believe that DrewP is responsible for the demise of both Kathy and Stacy. I have yet to see one poster here at WS who truly believes that he had nothing to do with either crime.

I believe that we are reasonable, intelligent people.

Defense lawyers trash witnesses as a diversionary tactic. It is to be expected and IMO it is a tired old trick. Any one of us, I expect, could be trashed in some way. We need jurors intelligent enough to see past the smoke and mirrors and hear the truth. We need jurors who understand the meaning of reasonable doubt, and who will refuse to vote "not guilty" when they believe that they would be allowing a murderer to walk free.

Delta Dawn's post #190 on this thread deserves a second look. I think she summed it up well.

Susan

In a criminal trial, it's not supposed to matter what people (jurors who took an oath) think, feel, hope, believe, suspect or what their gut or tea leaves tells them. What is supposed to matter is whether prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Around the time of Dr. Sheppard's first trial, Perry Mason told me: "What you suspect matters not. What matters is what you can prove".

Notwithstanding that inherent wisdom, wrongful convictions do happen. Though they happen moreso in the court of public opinion than in a courtroom; unless the proof is sufficient, I don't think its right villify, demonize or persecute others at any time, anywhere.

I believe, strongly, in not bearing false witness, and I believe this falls under that commandment. I'll have to answer for some sins, but I hope to have a clean slate there.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 02:17 PM
Well, the thing we need to remember is that the GJ is still meeting. And the the GJ needs far less evidence to bring about a verdict to go to trial.

That being said I don't think the State will proceed with their case until they feel they have all their ducks in a row..because then the clock starts ticking and they have to be ready to proceed. If the defense decides at that point to waive their right to a speedy trial so be it. But the prosecution needs to be prepared once they make an arrest. They have a very short timeframe in which to gather more evidence.

However, One thing I like to keep in mind is that the family and the pastor have stated several times that someone out there knows more and they need to come forward. Hopefully that person will come forword to ISP.

MaddyDecaf
12-28-2007, 04:35 PM
I hope that by some miracle, a jury of reasonable, intelligent citizens is seated in this case. If that happens, it will be in spite of efforts of defense lawyers to get someone on that jury who will argue that evidence must be physical or eye-witness in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an incorrect assumption used by people who would rather argue and cause dissent than convict a murderer to his proper punishment. I am sure that the defense' dream jury would be composed of one very vocal juror with a chip on his/her shoulder and eleven less intelligent sheeple to blindly follow along.

I would guess that even you, Wudge, believe that DrewP is responsible for the demise of both Kathy and Stacy. I have yet to see one poster here at WS who truly believes that he had nothing to do with either crime.

I believe that we are reasonable, intelligent people.

Defense lawyers trash witnesses as a diversionary tactic. It is to be expected and IMO it is a tired old trick. Any one of us, I expect, could be trashed in some way. We need jurors intelligent enough to see past the smoke and mirrors and hear the truth. We need jurors who understand the meaning of reasonable doubt, and who will refuse to vote "not guilty" when they believe that they would be allowing a murderer to walk free.

Delta Dawn's post #190 on this thread deserves a second look. I think she summed it up well.

Susan

Hi Susan,

Isn't the essence of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' totally fact-based? I have read your post a couple of times before responding -- and it appears that you're saying you're hoping that jurors will see beyond facts and instead, go with what they feel (because we all feel that DP has played a role in the disappearance of SP and/or KS.)

The justice system dictates that jurors must rule on facts only, so if they let [who we deem to be] a murderer walk free, it's because the evidence to convict wasn't present.

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but it sounds like you're saying that you hope the only jurors who you would deem to be intelligent would look PAST the hard evidence and instead, go with their gut hunch.

If you feel I read you wrong, what do you feel I missed from your post?

~Maddy

SeriouslySearching
12-28-2007, 05:40 PM
We don't know what has been given to the GJ during testimony. There could be testimony which ties DP to Kathleen's death already and has given them a reason to reopen her case independently from Stacy's disappearance. Mary P's testimony could contradict the accounts from DP and Steve C. perhaps. Being Kathleen's best friend, she probably knows much more about the situation than anyone not unlike Sharon B. with Stacy. Her husband and son were on the scene, too. The paths a case can go down during GJ testimony are many due to the fact they can ask whatever they desire of the people and aren't silenced by attorneys.

My guess about DP's cell phone the night Kathleen was killed will show he was in his home. I think he probably turned the ringer off and left it at his house for an additional alibi.

MaddyDecaf
12-28-2007, 06:02 PM
We don't know what has been given to the GJ during testimony. There could be testimony which ties DP to Kathleen's death already and has given them a reason to reopen her case independently from Stacy's disappearance. Mary P's testimony could contradict the accounts from DP and Steve C. perhaps. Being Kathleen's best friend, she probably knows much more about the situation than anyone not unlike Sharon B. with Stacy. Her husband and son were on the scene, too. The paths a case can go down during GJ testimony are many due to the fact they can ask whatever they desire of the people and aren't silenced by attorneys.

My guess about DP's cell phone the night Kathleen was killed will show he was in his home. I think he probably turned the ringer off and left it at his house for an additional alibi.

Hi S.S.! I'd agree he likely left the cell phone at home that night. But then again, that was 4 years ago when our everyday knowledge regarding technology/tracking wasn't as prevalent as today. But then again, I would never pretend to guess what LE (which he was part of) knew 4 years ago vs. what we know/are privy to, today.

PS: It's good to have dialogue with you here, where we aren't judged for having an operating mind.
;)

SeriouslySearching
12-28-2007, 06:25 PM
Hi S.S.! I'd agree he likely left the cell phone at home that night. But then again, that was 4 years ago when our everyday knowledge regarding technology/tracking wasn't as prevalent as today. But then again, I would never pretend to guess what LE (which he was part of) knew 4 years ago vs. what we know/are privy to, today.

PS: It's good to have dialogue with you here, where we aren't judged for having an operating mind.
;)I think LE was using this technology long before we were aware of it. It was much to their dismay when it became common knowledge with the public.

Yes, we can discuss this case and the elements a bit more openly here. Welcome to the real world of armchair sleuthing. LOL We try to see things from every angle and take into account what really could have happened...instead of only being able to discuss what is in favor of one person or another. :rolleyes:

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 06:47 PM
I think what LE is going to prove is Stacy's statement that Drew wasn't home and she didn't know where he was at the time. She SAID she made many calls to his cell that night. That's what I believe LE is going to look for to back-up what she told the pastor.

Sure all the extra info about where/when pings hit might be good, but he could have put the phone anywhere. There also might only be one tower handling the pings from KS's home and SP's home, so that might not prove anything.

Yes, yes, I know. Whether it's admissible in court or not, I don't know and could care less. You still have to find any information available in an investigation.


There's another thing that bothers me, since Kathleen and Drews place was so close I don't think the phone company can say is it that block or this one. Anyone know?
Could Stacy been calling to put him in another place? If indeed his phone was way somewhere else....Could she have been with him at kathleens that night?
Wish the le would tell us what location the pings were.
Thinking outside the box. Got to look at ALL angles.

Think this should go under a different thread, sorry

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 07:19 PM
I think the point to that is that if DP were at home why would Stacy be calling him? If
the cell phone pings in the same general area that means he was very close to home. That means also he was MIA when he should have been in bed with Stacy..not a stretch to envision this when other facts are known.

MaddyDecaf
12-28-2007, 07:25 PM
There's another thing that bothers me, since Kathleen and Drews place was so close I don't think the phone company can say is it that block or this one. Anyone know?
Could Stacy been calling to put him in another place? If indeed his phone was way somewhere else....Could she have been with him at kathleens that night?
Wish the le would tell us what location the pings were.
Thinking outside the box. Got to look at ALL angles.

Think this should go under a different thread, sorry

I'm with you re: looking at all angles. Stacy may be gone, but that doesn't mean she didn't know about and/or participate in what happened the night of Kathleen's demise!

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 07:51 PM
I think the point to that is that if DP were at home why would Stacy be calling him? If
the cell phone pings in the same general area that means he was very close to home. That means also he was MIA when he should have been in bed with Stacy..not a stretch to envision this when other facts are known.


To give both an alibi.
It just bothers me that a person will keep quiet for 4 years, that Drew killed his wife Kathleen. For me I can't get past that. Which is my problem.
Life is stranger then fiction.

And I have still gone out 14 times looking for the body....with my dogs.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 07:58 PM
Well the point is Stacy is gone and Drew is still here being Drew and even able to be on vacation with the kids...so something definitely is amiss in this situation.

I do not feel Stacy is a saint. I do feel from what the pastor and others have said that she felt her demise was eminent and also that she was trying to make a clean break of it so to speak. I think that if she did cooperate in Kathleen's murder, even as a person with second hand knowledge that was wrong. She should have gone to her pastor then. But I have to admit that Drew put her between a rock and a hard space and set this scene up very well so he would have her fearful cooperation. He made it known to her that no one would believe her story, in my opinion. So where was she to turn..not the police..he was one of them, her family..would that have put them in jeopardy...who then could she trust at that point?

I think she was not only making plans to leave Drew, but also using the murder of Kathleen as her ace in the hole. Unfortunately, you can't make deals with the devil..and Drew was not about to let her go with the knowledge she had. I don't think she particiated in Kathleen's murder, I think she found out unexpectantly..to both herself and Drew. And I do believe Drew would have said that if you ever try to leave me or let this murder be known I will kill you.

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 07:59 PM
Well the point is Stacy is gone and Drew is still here being Drew and even able to be on vacation with the kids...so something definitely is amiss in this situation.


Kathleen and Stacy...

ThoughtFox
12-28-2007, 08:15 PM
I think the point to that is that if DP were at home why would Stacy be calling him? If the cell phone pings in the same general area that means he was very close to home. That means also he was MIA when he should have been in bed with Stacy..not a stretch to envision this when other facts are known.
That's really the "aha" thing for me. If being at home with Stacy was the alibi, then why would the "ping" be somewhere else, and why would Stacy call him?

I think Stacy grew up in the four years after Kathleen's death, and she was raising Kathleen's children. I think she learned to feel remorse about another woman and another mother.

I don't think she was a saint, either. But now she is another victim of possibly a serial wife-killer, so I can understand her fear and her confusion. Drew made her an accomplice by burdening her with what he had done. She wasn't strong enough to break away from him at first, but before her disappearance she was trying, so I have to give her credit for that.

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 08:18 PM
[quote=ThoughtFox;1877416]That's really the "aha" thing for me. If being at home with Stacy was the alibi, then why would the "ping" be somewhere else, and why would Stacy call him?


You know the locations of the pings in Kathleen's case?
And do you know for sure Stacy was at home or just in the area..
You have a site where I can see that please.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 08:21 PM
Kathleen and Stacy...

You are absolutely right about that! No question that two women are dead, both having been mistresses and then wives to this man. Neither of these woman are a saint in my opinion. I think if you know a man is married you do not insert yourself in a relationship with him. But those are my morals..and obviously Drew did not take his marriage vows too seriously.

But the bottom line is not the morals, or lack of morals, of these women but it is that the same man was their husband when both met their demise. And yes young ladies need to look before they leep..but in youth we all do things we regret and would not repeat later.

SuziQ
12-28-2007, 08:31 PM
[quote=ThoughtFox;1877416]That's really the "aha" thing for me. If being at home with Stacy was the alibi, then why would the "ping" be somewhere else, and why would Stacy call him?


You know the locations of the pings in Kathleen's case?
And do you know for sure Stacy was at home or just in the area..
You have a site where I can see that please.

The point isn't where the phone(s) pinged it's to compare the time of the calls versus the alibi Stacy gave, that's all. If Stacy gave an alibi that Drew was in bed with her, then why would she need to call him?

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 08:39 PM
The FACTS will come out in the future.
Le are still working on the case.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 08:43 PM
[quote=Wudge;1876605]In a criminal trial, it's not supposed to matter what people (jurors who took an oath) think, feel, hope, believe, suspect or what their gut or tea leaves tells them. What is supposed to matter is whether prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are right Wudge..it is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

So far the little we know does point to beyond a reasonable doubt..not eyewitness testimony, not an accomplice coming forward..but beyond reasonable doubt..yes. I have no reason to believe that Stacy ran off and Kathleen fell in the tub..that opinion is unreasonable given the fact we now know that the cororner at the time had problems believing this was an accident, the fact Stacy felt that Drew might murder her ( requesting that her sister know this if she suddenly went missing, her family and friends all knew she feared him.) Then we have Kathleen who even wrote a letter to the Attorney General requesting help in fear of her life and made the statement that Drew said he could kill her and make it look like an accident, then we have the 2nd wife saying Drew told her the same thing and her daughter as witness to the fact, plus her physical abuse by him. It may sound like hearsay..but it sounds like 3 wives..two of which are dead, all describing their relationship with their husband the same way..brutal. Most normal people would find that he is guilty..all the LE need now is some small piece of evidence to back that up.

Reasonable doubt also includes statistics..in this case what are the chances that a man with 4 wives, has three of them claiming abuse, that he tells them that he could kill them and make it look like an accident, that they have voiced that phrase to family and friends previous to any of these events and then suddenly one wife is dead ( who he claimed had heart conditions which the autopsy proved was not true) and the other is missing under circumstances even LE thinks believe foul play and not his story of the run away wife? Statistics claim the odds are very slim for that happening. LE has better evidence then that..I feel that beyond a reasonable doubt is already a sure thing in this case.

Wudge
12-28-2007, 09:03 PM
[quote=Wudge;1876605]In a criminal trial, it's not supposed to matter what people (jurors who took an oath) think, feel, hope, believe, suspect or what their gut or tea leaves tells them. What is supposed to matter is whether prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are right Wudge..it is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

So far the little we know does point to beyond a reasonable doubt..not eyewitness testimony, not an accomplice coming forward..but beyond reasonable doubt..yes. I have no reason to believe that Stacy ran off and Kathleen fell in the tub..that opinion is unreasonable given the fact we now know that the cororner at the time had problems believing this was an accident, the fact Stacy felt that Drew might murder her ( requesting that her sister know this if she suddenly went missing, her family and friends all knew she feared him.) Then we have Kathleen who even wrote a letter to the Attorney General requesting help in fear of her life and made the statement that Drew said he could kill her and make it look like an accident, then we have the 2nd wife saying Drew told her the same thing and her daughter as witness to the fact, plus her physical abuse by him. It may sound like hearsay..but it sounds like 3 wives..two of which are dead, all describing their relationship with their husband the same way..brutal. Most normal people would find that he is guilty..all the LE need now is some small piece of evidence to back that up.

Reasonable doubt also includes statistics..in this case what are the chances that a man with 4 wives, has three of them claiming abuse, that he tells them that he could kill them and make it look like an accident, that they have voiced that phrase to family and friends previous to any of these events and then suddenly one wife is dead ( who he claimed had heart conditions which the autopsy proved was not true) and the other is missing under circumstances even LE thinks believe foul play and not his story of the run away wife? Statistics claim the odds are very slim for that happening. LE has better evidence then that..I feel that beyond a reasonable doubt is already a sure thing in this case.


You would find Drew guilty of murder one based on what you know?

boody
12-28-2007, 09:09 PM
Um. I would.

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 09:11 PM
[QUOTE=DeltaDawn;1877476]


You would find Drew guilty of murder one based on what you know?

What difference does it make---DeltaDawn, are you on the grand jury???
I swear Wudge, you test my ability to remain quiet, and let everyone exercise their right to free speech.....
And YES, I would convict him....but no worries, not a chance I would be in the jury pool.
I realize you enjoy pulling peoples strings Wudge, and I really dont like myself for responding to your post, makes me feel all "scott peterson-y" again....and if it needs to be said, this is JUST MY OPINION...

Pharlap
12-28-2007, 09:14 PM
[quote=Wudge;1877515]

What difference does it make---DeltaDawn, are you on the grand jury???
I swear Wudge, you test my ability to remain quiet, and let everyone exercise their right to free speech.....
And YES, I would convict him....but no worries, not a chance I would be in the jury pool.
I realize you enjoy pulling peoples strings Wudge, and I really dont like myself for responding to your post, makes me feel all "scott peterson-y" again....and if it needs to be said, this is JUST MY OPINION...




You go girl.......:woohoo:

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 09:14 PM
I would find Drew quilty of murder one based on what we know so far..his track record..and what is to come..solid evidence that LE is working on acquiring through phone records , DNA, fingerprints, the GJ , and other avenues. Drew isn't perfect, he made some mistakes and LE just has to pinpoint those mistakes to get the physical evidence they need. I think that the evidence will back up the fact that Drew is infact a wife murderer.

I would not go just on what we know, if I didn't feel that solid evidence was mounting against him. His demeanor and actions suggest he knows that too. If what is known now to LE was not enough to even guess this may be true they would not be persuing this so zealously as they are..they have somethings that we don't know about..they have played this very close to the chest. So much so that even Brodsky is constantly acting the fool to try to get a reaction from them on what they have and what he suspects they have..they haven't taken the bait.

Also, the GJ doesn't decide anything on this other then if there is enough evidence to go to trial..and yes..if I heard all this that has been leaked, plus what these people on the GJ are hearing that we aren't privy to, then you bet I would send old Drew to trial for murder one..no doubt about that.

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 09:18 PM
[quote=TKS2003;1877537]




You go girl.......:woohoo:


thanks Pharlap!
I realize that I dont have many posts to my name(usually because someone says what I want to say before I can type it!!), but I have been here almost daily for years, ever since Laci P disappeared, and I am having severe flashbacks, and feel like I want to throw my computer out the window, lol....
I love websleuths, I love reading what all you smart people have to say about cases I am interested in, but sometimes my patience wears thin.....

Wudge
12-28-2007, 09:22 PM
[QUOTE=Wudge;1877515]

What difference does it make---DeltaDawn, are you on the grand jury???
I swear Wudge, you test my ability to remain quiet, and let everyone exercise their right to free speech.....
And YES, I would convict him....but no worries, not a chance I would be in the jury pool.
I realize you enjoy pulling peoples strings Wudge, and I really dont like myself for responding to your post, makes me feel all "scott peterson-y" again....and if it needs to be said, this is JUST MY OPINION...

In Salem, 1692, due process also differed.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 09:26 PM
Wudge...aren't we talking due process here ...a GJ and then if the Gj finds there is reason to arrest and then go to trial. We're just at the GJ stage, no burnings or hangings, or drownings going on here. No one has even been arrested..although the defense seems to believe that is eminent, thus the defense fund for someone not even charged or arrested yet for any crime. If he were so innoecent and they thought there was no evidence why would Drew mount a defense fund..no arrest..no trial?

My discussion is based at where we are today..the GJ..that has nothing to do with Salem in the 1600's.

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 09:28 PM
[QUOTE=TKS2003;1877537]

In Salem, 1692, due process also differed.

And this applies to Stacy's disappearance, how?

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 09:44 PM
I will post this again for reference only..we are not talking about a trial here..we are talking about the GJ.

The GJ does not need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to send a person to trial..they just need to hear what the prosecution and those called before the GJ have to say and any evidence the prosecution has. Then they decide if they think an arrest and trial is called for. This isn't a trial ..it is a hearing to decide if he should be arrested and go to trial.

So could we please leave the "beyond a reasonable doubt" discussion until later when an arrest is made and a trial commences? All the GJ needs to determine that someone needs to be arrested and tried is far less evidence then a jury needs to convict.

Wudge could we stick to the subject at hand please..that is the GJ.

Wudge
12-28-2007, 09:48 PM
[QUOTE=Wudge;1877579]

And this applies to Stacy's disappearance, how?

Children are taught that a suspect is presumed innocent and has a right to a fair trial. Often, high-profile case discussions seem to forget those teachings.

Wudge
12-28-2007, 09:52 PM
I will post this again for reference only..we are not talking about a trial here..we are talking about the GJ.

The GJ does not need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to send a person to trial..they just need to hear what the prosecution and those called before the GJ have to say and any evidence the prosecution has. Then they decide if they think an arrest and trial is called for. This isn't a trial ..it is a hearing to decide if he should be arrested and go to trial.

So could we please leave the "beyond a reasonable doubt" discussion until later when an arrest is made and a trial commences? All the GJ needs to determine that someone needs to be arrested and tried is far less evidence then a jury needs to convict.

Wudge could we stick to the subject at hand please..that is the GJ.

It might be a GJ process discussion to you, but others moved straight to the hanging tree. Bad GJ form.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 09:52 PM
[quote=TKS2003;1877598]

Children are taught that a suspect is presumed innocent and has a right to a fair trial. Often, high-profile case discussions seem to forget those teachings.

Again Wudge..he hasn't even been arrested has he? This is only the GJ..they are needing less evidence ..they aren't assembled to convict..they are assembled to see if he should be arrested and sent to trial. That to me says we are following the letter of the law and should be debating if we were on the GJ now would we send this man to trial? The Gj does not, nor have they ever convicted anyone. It is simply a hearing.

SeriouslySearching
12-28-2007, 09:53 PM
I grew up in a political family and I wasn't taught that, Wudge. I was taught that in politics, it is not just who you are or who you know....but what you know about who you know that is sometimes as important as presumed innocence. I was raised to understand the underbelly of political pull, the good 'ole boy political party, and how the system REALLY works in a tight knit community. This includes a GJ investigation, being arrested on trumped up charges, and being able to wiggle your way out with the right people being in the right places to help you.

I believe that DP has been living in this type of system for a long time and taking advantage of it. It is going to depend on the people actually on the GJ and if they are connected to other people who DP is connected to. We can only hope this jury is free of his influence so justice can actually move forward this time!

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 09:55 PM
[QUOTE=TKS2003;1877598]

Children are taught that a suspect is presumed innocent and has a right to a fair trial. Often, high-profile case discussions seem to forget those teachings.

That is true Wudge, and that's why I am here, I want to learn what I can. However children are also taught that here in America we are granted free speech, so people like our fellow WS'ers can sit back and discuss, toss ideas around, etc. to get to the truth. To be honest, I dont remember my children being "taught" that a suspect has the right to be presumed innocent, though my children didn't attend law school. Perhaps in high school in a civics class.

Please stop trying to antagonize people, its so counter productive to what Websleuths is all about.
I understand your proclivity to remind people that Drew is innocent until proven guilty, but honestly, everyone here knows that. We are all interested in what happened to Stacy and where she is. Drew's status as a prisoner is secondary at this point.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 10:15 PM
I grew up in a political family and I wasn't taught that, Wudge. I was taught that in politics, it is not just who you are or who you know....but what you know about who you know that is sometimes as important as presumed innocence. I was raised to understand the underbelly of political pull, the good 'ole boy political party, and how the system REALLY works in a tight knit community. This includes a GJ investigation, being arrested on trumped up charges, and being able to wiggle your way out with the right people being in the right places to help you.

I believe that DP has been living in this type of system for a long time and taking advantage of it. It is going to depend on the people actually on the GJ and if they are connected to other people who DP is connected to. We can only hope this jury is free of his influence so justice can actually move forward this time!

I agree SS..and the good ole boy club is crumbling around him. They are turning tail and he is left to hang out and dry by himself. Infact he even stated in one of the interviews that he felt that people he thought were friends, etc that would rally round him have stayed their distance.

Wudge
12-28-2007, 10:19 PM
[QUOTE=Wudge;1877666]

That is true Wudge, and that's why I am here, I want to learn what I can. However children are also taught that here in America we are granted free speech, so people like our fellow WS'ers can sit back and discuss, toss ideas around, etc. to get to the truth. To be honest, I dont remember my children being "taught" that a suspect has the right to be presumed innocent, though my children didn't attend law school. Perhaps in high school in a civics class.

Please stop trying to antagonize people, its so counter productive to what Websleuths is all about.
I understand your proclivity to remind people that Drew is innocent until proven guilty, but honestly, everyone here knows that. We are all interested in what happened to Stacy and where she is. Drew's status as a prisoner is secondary at this point.

You said: "And YES, I would convict him" (of murder one).

I think that's (how should I say it) a bit early. Is it not?

And if you think I occasionally note due process or sufficient evidence to "antagonize", you are very mistaken. I treat all case discussions the same.

Right now, I am reminded, greatly, of the lynch mob discussions that occurred when Richard Ricci was an imprisoned suspect (suspected of rape and murder) in Elizabeth Smart's disappearance. The 900 unexplained (allegedly) miles on his car was sufficient evidence for everyone but two of us. Everyone else knew no one else had taken her.

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 10:21 PM
It might be a GJ process discussion to you, but others moved straight to the hanging tree. Bad GJ form.

Wasn't your friend Mr Geragos famous for saying "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich?"
Isnt it true that GJ's have indicted people on perhaps less or flimsier evidence?Shouldn't we all be able to discuss EVERY possibility of what has happened to Stacy, and who is responsible for her not spending the holidays with her children and family. Do you have any thoughts on where Stacy is, or may have caused her to be missing?

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 10:25 PM
[QUOTE=TKS2003;1877694]

You said: "And YES, I would convict him" (of murder one).

I think that's (how should I say it) a bit early. Is it not?

And if you think I occasionally note due process or sufficient evidence to "antagonize", you are very mistaken. I treat all case discussions the same.

Right now, I am reminded, greatly, of the lynch mob discussions that occurred when Richard Ricci was an imprisoned suspect (suspected of rape and murder) in Elizabeth Smart's disappearance. The 900 unexplained (allegedly) miles on his car was sufficient evidence for everyone but two of us. Everyone else knew no one else had taken her.

I dont think Murder One was specified.
Lynch mob? There are 30 people reading this forum, voluntarily.
Yes, I will say it again. In my opinion, Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio, and I think he has caused grievous harm to Stacy Peterson.
And yes, I do think you antagonize people when you are posting.

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 10:26 PM
Dear Mods,
I know, and I am putting myself in time out. Going to simmer down, I hope I can return.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 10:34 PM
Wudge if you want to post where a true lynch mob is try FSP..they are truly going in all directions but forward.

Also inorder to indite a person for murder one, which is a capitol offense..premeditated murder, don't you need that handed down by a grand jury? I could be mistaken but that is what I thought was going on here. That they have enough evidence, most of which we don't know about, to make an arrest. But if you want murder one to stick you need lots of evidence and an inditement from the GJ. I think that LE is going about this the correct way..no arrest until they have all the evidence in a neat orderly package, no inditement until they have had the GJ listen to every person and every bit of evidence they have. Anyway, that is why I think they are looking at the money trail, the death of Kathleen re-examined and the current evidence. The money trail alone looks like premeditation to me. Drew made a big mistake when he started transferring money to Steve so early in the investigation..he should have known better. Then his lack of concern with Stacy's disappearance, his rediculous behavior and his referring to her as "IT" isn't here, we did all these repairs on her..you only refer to objects as it, yu only make repairs on objects..not people. He has botched things up this time..those are obvious clues..so there has got to be evidence that he left behind somewhere.

Wudge
12-28-2007, 10:51 PM
SNIP

Also inorder to indite a person for murder one, which is a capitol offense..premeditated murder, don't you need that handed down by a grand jury? I could be mistaken but that is what I thought was going on here. That they have enough evidence, most of which we don't know about, to make an arrest. But if you want murder one to stick you need lots of evidence and an inditement from the GJ. I think that LE is going about this the correct way..no arrest until they have all the evidence in a neat orderly package, no inditement until they have had the GJ listen to every person and every bit of evidence they have.

Correct in process. Wrong about the content of the recent discussion. GJ's "indict", juries adjudicate and "convict".

SuziQ
12-28-2007, 10:54 PM
[quote=TKS2003;1877694]

You said: "And YES, I would convict him" (of murder one).

I think that's (how should I say it) a bit early. Is it not?

And if you think I occasionally note due process or sufficient evidence to "antagonize", you are very mistaken. I treat all case discussions the same.

Right now, I am reminded, greatly, of the lynch mob discussions that occurred when Richard Ricci was an imprisoned suspect (suspected of rape and murder) in Elizabeth Smart's disappearance. The 900 unexplained (allegedly) miles on his car was sufficient evidence for everyone but two of us. Everyone else knew no one else had taken her.

Don't get me started on Richard Ricci. I know plenty about that case. It happened practically in my backyard. While Richard Ricci was in jail it was not because he was arrested for Elizabeth Smarts kidnapping. He was arrested for other crimes because he was a low life thief not deserving of any sympathy, IMO. Richard Ricci was named a POI by LE and that is all. He wasn't even investigated as much as Elizabeth's uncles were!!! Once again Wudge, you are grasping at straws to make a point and point that doesn even belong in this thread.

DeltaDawn
12-28-2007, 11:03 PM
You know I am still puzzled as to why Tom M would assume he had just moved Stacy's body in the box/ container that was warm. There has got to be more to his explanation then just that. Drew gave him hints and clues to what was going on..or why would he suspect that? Did he also know about Kathleen's demise? As far as the memory lapses I don't buy that either..I think that is just an easy answer for LE to keep him underwraps along with the he is in treatment story. I think he told them alot more then we know. They are not calling him to the GJ because they don't need his testimony there to get the indictment. They want to keep what he knows quiet until trial. I think he told LE about talking to his friend and then they used that as a cover to have the friend go public with that part of the story..then follow up with the memory lapses and his being in treatment.

Do you think that is possible and do you think there are others out there that might be in the same boat as Tom?

Leila
12-28-2007, 11:19 PM
I think the point to that is that if DP were at home why would Stacy be calling him? If
the cell phone pings in the same general area that means he was very close to home. That means also he was MIA when he should have been in bed with Stacy..not a stretch to envision this when other facts are known.

If DP was indeed at home and in bed, there wouldn't have been any calls to DP's cell phone. If there are calls to his cell phone, and those calls are so close to his home that it involves the same cell tower, that's all the more evidence to suggest that DP wasn't at home, but was in the neighborhood.

It's circumstancial, but what are the odds? A man's ex-wife, with whom he had a contentious relationship, is murdered within the same neighborhood. On the night she's murdered, the ex-husband, who should be at home and asleep, is not at home as evidenced by calls to his cell phone from his current wife's phone. But, while he's not home, he's not far away either, as the cell tower being used is the same tower, meaning the ex-husband is nearby.

closeobserver
12-28-2007, 11:28 PM
If DP was indeed at home and in bed, there wouldn't have been any calls to DP's cell phone. If there are calls to his cell phone, and those calls are so close to his home that it involves the same cell tower, that's all the more evidence to suggest that DP wasn't at home, but was in the neighborhood.

It's circumstancial, but what are the odds? A man's ex-wife, with whom he had a contentious relationship, is murdered within the same neighborhood. On the night she's murdered, the ex-husband, who should be at home and asleep, is not at home as evidenced by calls to his cell phone from his current wife's phone. But, while he's not home, he's not far away either, as the cell tower being used is the same tower, meaning the ex-husband is nearby.
Yes, that would all be nice and neat, but we don't know about the phone calls yet. If we can assume that the pastor is correct and Stacy made calls, we don't know if Drew had his phone on to receive any pings.

TKS2003
12-28-2007, 11:33 PM
[quote=Wudge;1877768]

Don't get me started on Richard Ricci. I know plenty about that case. It happened practically in my backyard. While Richard Ricci was in jail it was not because he was arrested for Elizabeth Smarts kidnapping. He was arrested for other crimes because he was a low life thief not deserving of any sympathy, IMO. Richard Ricci was named a POI by LE and that is all. He wasn't even investigated as much as Elizabeth's uncles were!!! Once again Wudge, you are grasping at straws to make a point and point that doesn even belong in this thread.

SeriouslySearching
12-29-2007, 12:27 AM
You know I am still puzzled as to why Tom M would assume he had just moved Stacy's body in the box/ container that was warm. There has got to be more to his explanation then just that. Drew gave him hints and clues to what was going on..or why would he suspect that? Did he also know about Kathleen's demise? As far as the memory lapses I don't buy that either..I think that is just an easy answer for LE to keep him underwraps along with the he is in treatment story. I think he told them alot more then we know. They are not calling him to the GJ because they don't need his testimony there to get the indictment. They want to keep what he knows quiet until trial. I think he told LE about talking to his friend and then they used that as a cover to have the friend go public with that part of the story..then follow up with the memory lapses and his being in treatment.

Do you think that is possible and do you think there are others out there that might be in the same boat as Tom?If I recall, DP and Brodsky were the ones who mentioned something about "memory lapses" and Tom. I think this is probably the "advice" given to TM when DP went to visit him in the hospital (not once, but twice as indicated by Brodsky). I do believe that TM knows a lot more and it came from DP at KK's on the evening before he moved the container. This is why I think that TM is being kept away from the media and public...to insure his safety until he can testify. Most rehabs are 30 day programs and it has been since Oct. 31 or so. Where is he? I bet LE knows.

Do I think there are more people with such knowledge? Absolutely! Look at his inner circle.

Schmerty_Jones
12-29-2007, 01:41 AM
If I recall, DP and Brodsky were the ones who mentioned something about "memory lapses" and Tom. I think this is probably the "advice" given to TM when DP went to visit him in the hospital (not once, but twice as indicated by Brodsky). I do believe that TM knows a lot more and it came from DP at KK's on the evening before he moved the container. This is why I think that TM is being kept away from the media and public...to insure his safety until he can testify. Most rehabs are 30 day programs and it has been since Oct. 31 or so. Where is he? I bet LE knows.

Do I think there are more people with such knowledge? Absolutely! Look at his inner circle.

You are absolutely right! There is more to come. Do not be distracted. We are on the right track.....!