Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 21222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 751 to 775 of 813

Thread: Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

  1. #751
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,299
    Hearsay front and center in the Peterson trial

    http://drbrianrussell.wordpress.com/...eterson-trial/

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ~n/t~ For This Useful Post:


  3. #752
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    497
    Hello Fellow Websleuths! This is my very first post here to this wonderful community. I have been following the Drew Peterson case very carefully and even attended the trial this past week. I am baffled about the issue of the hit man testimony. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't have it on board at the beginning (or were they indeed trying to sneak it in as the defense accused them of doing?) and why it is included in other barred "bad acts" when it is so obviously pertinent and vital to this case? If anyone has any information on this, please let me know. From what I have read legal experts say it is unlikely that the judge will permit that testimony. They are setting the prosecution up for failure if they decide to do so and it is very discouraging.

  4. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to WindyCityGirl For This Useful Post:


  5. #753
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,394
    I've concluded that one of the main problems in these trials is not allowing "prior bad acts" in. How can a jury establish criminal intent if they are not allowed to know that the defendant is a habitual perpetrator of inappropriate or illegal activities? In this case, the bullet in the neighbor's driveway (put there by DP or perhaps even a police friend - the elephant in the room), connected to the strange disappearance of the 4th wife, etc., and also connect that to Kathleen's sister being loathe to come forward because she may be terrified that a bullet in her driveway or WORSE could happen to her...

  6. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to ChickenPants For This Useful Post:


  7. #754
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Google Earth
    Posts
    35,525
    Quote Originally Posted by WindyCityGirl View Post
    Hello Fellow Websleuths! This is my very first post here to this wonderful community. I have been following the Drew Peterson case very carefully and even attended the trial this past week. I am baffled about the issue of the hit man testimony. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't have it on board at the beginning (or were they indeed trying to sneak it in as the defense accused them of doing?) and why it is included in other barred "bad acts" when it is so obviously pertinent and vital to this case? If anyone has any information on this, please let me know. From what I have read legal experts say it is unlikely that the judge will permit that testimony. They are setting the prosecution up for failure if they decide to do so and it is very discouraging.

    ************************************************

    FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
    www.twitter.com/kimsterws


    In memory of Ron Pruitt

  8. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Kimster For This Useful Post:


  9. #755
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Google Earth
    Posts
    35,525
    Quote Originally Posted by WindyCityGirl View Post
    Hello Fellow Websleuths! This is my very first post here to this wonderful community. I have been following the Drew Peterson case very carefully and even attended the trial this past week. I am baffled about the issue of the hit man testimony. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't have it on board at the beginning (or were they indeed trying to sneak it in as the defense accused them of doing?) and why it is included in other barred "bad acts" when it is so obviously pertinent and vital to this case? If anyone has any information on this, please let me know. From what I have read legal experts say it is unlikely that the judge will permit that testimony. They are setting the prosecution up for failure if they decide to do so and it is very discouraging.
    Thank you for this post and I have to say that most of us are concerned about these issues as well. There seems to be some political issue that is beneath this trial and it should be about Kathleen's early death and her kids not having a mother. It's difficult to read about the shenanigans going on. Have you heard that the judge might have some sour grapes regarding an election he didn't win?
    ************************************************

    FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
    www.twitter.com/kimsterws


    In memory of Ron Pruitt

  10. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Kimster For This Useful Post:


  11. #756
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    497

    Thank you, Kimster! I did read about the political sour grapes

    Quote Originally Posted by Kimster View Post
    Thank you for this post and I have to say that most of us are concerned about these issues as well. There seems to be some political issue that is beneath this trial and it should be about Kathleen's early death and her kids not having a mother. It's difficult to read about the shenanigans going on. Have you heard that the judge might have some sour grapes regarding an election he didn't win?
    The obvious disdain that the judge has for Glasgow was palpable at the trial, but I wasn't certain what it was about until I read up on it. There is clearly a bias in this trial. While I applaud the judge for trying to do his job to uphold the law of everyone deserving a "fair trial" in no way is barring the testimony of the solicitation of a hit man and/or the request for a referral for another hit man not pertinent and necessary to a fair trial for the victim.

    It was very hard to see Kathleen's father and step-mother at the trial. The first day I rode the elevator with them and their eyes were swollen, red and dark from crying. I think that the salacious insinuations about the neighbor boy and her alleged "rough sex" with the boyfriend were repulsive. It must have been torture to sit there and listen to that garbage.

  12. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to WindyCityGirl For This Useful Post:


  13. #757
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    497
    Adding--the defense team really looked like a bunch of gangsters wearing flashy suits and sunglasses. Apparently Joe Lopez "the shark" has a history of representing mobsters. He was very lacking in respect and decorum during the trial as he was cutting up with the other members of the defense team while Glasgow was presenting his opening arguments and other issues. I guess that is their schtick to try to minimize the seriousness of the prosecution's case by having a few yucks between themselves. His wife is a very attractive redhead who isn't a seasoned attorney but is nonetheless on the legal team (carrying a huge Prada tote bag) I think it was sexist and inappropriate when Brodsky introduced the legal team as from brains to beauty with her being last though. Just eww. /

  14. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to WindyCityGirl For This Useful Post:


  15. #758
    I haven't read the over 700 posts in this thread but do have a question. Kathleen's body was laying in a near fetal position in that round bathtub. If she fell and stuck her head, how could she end up in a fetal position? If she had a natural sudden death, is it likely she would lay herself in a fetal position in water covering her mouth (she drowned)? Some say that nothing was knocked off the tub shelf indicating a stuggle. Those items could have been carefully replaced after her death by someone else. All signs of a stuggle could have been eliminated by a careful, knowledgeable person (cop). But it is the position of her body that stumps me the most. Almost too perfect.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ShadyLadySleuth For This Useful Post:


  17. #759
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,394
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadyLadySleuth View Post
    I haven't read the over 700 posts in this thread but do have a question. Kathleen's body was laying in a near fetal position in that round bathtub. If she fell and stuck her head, how could she end up in a fetal position? If she had a natural sudden death, is it likely she would lay herself in a fetal position in water covering her mouth (she drowned)? Some say that nothing was knocked off the tub shelf indicating a stuggle. Those items could have been carefully replaced after her death by someone else. All signs of a stuggle could have been eliminated by a careful, knowledgeable person (cop). But it is the position of her body that stumps me the most. Almost too perfect.
    If she had taken a bath, there would have been clothes either on the floor of the bathroom, on her bedroom floor or even in a hamper. Most people taking a bath/shower undress in the bathroom, IMO. A person doing this would also have clothes they were planning to put on afterward, even if a robe. You wouldn't strip down in the bedroom, get into the tub, wash, dry off with a skimpy towel and walk around in that or stark naked while looking around for something to wear. Who is going to testify that she was a nudist or even slept in the nude?

    There would also be soap, soap residue or body wash. There would be towel(s), a mat on the floor, washcloth(s) or even a loofah...to prove it was an accident they would have to show that she died as soon as she stepped into the tub, before she could have filled it with water. How did she die? Did the autopsy show heart disease like Lena Kaufmann? Did she have a stroke, or throw a blood clot?

    Also, if you fill a tub with water, you plug the tub. No way an entire tub filled with water would have drained completely even if there was a slow leak in the plug. If she took a shower, her hair would be wet or at least damp beyond the matted portion. I am incredulous that it was ruled an accident. I can only surmise that he staged it and others knew and it was covered up, meaning that anybody who suspected foul play kept their mouths shut. And what assumptions can we make about that?

    Of course, we know through the testimony of his "missing" wife to her pastor that there was no bath. He killed KS and then took her bloody clothes home with him.

    It has been stated elsewhere on these threads that if DP claims he did not kill her, then who did? If it was the boyfriend, it still would be strange that DP, as a police officer, did nothing at the scene in any investigative capacity, even if it was fake. This to me shows his arrogance and his presumption that nobody would bother to look into it. And why is that?

    I would like to know anybody's opinions or theories about how he planned, perpetrated and covered up the killing, the whole scenario, including who he may have urged to say nothing and how he did that. I am looking forward to Dr. Baden's autopsy testimony, hope that he will explain thoroughly the cause and manner of death. Then let the defense try to explain away all of those bruises, how she could fall and lacerate the BACK of her head, then turn over and land in a fetal position.

  18. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to ChickenPants For This Useful Post:


  19. #760
    Cubby is offline 50K reward, Bob Harrod-Missing: Call Det. Radomski 714-993-8176
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    71,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelonline View Post
    I feel for Kathleen's sister, but if I had been in her shoes it would have been really hard for me to not try to make Kathleens last wish come true about making sure the boys were taken care of. It does strike me as odd that she never saw the boys or even sent them a card. Maybe she was intimidated by Drew or maybe he wouldnt allow it. If that is the case the prosecution needs to work that in somehow. Personally if I were on the jury that would give me pause. After her sister told her, I am afraid for my life please take care of my boys then why did she not try to do that after she was gone? Also today they made it seem like she put that briefcase on a shelf and did not even look to see what was in it for several years, if that is not true the pros also needs to make a point of that somewhere down the line. .. Just some thoughts I am having, trying to put myself in the mind of a juror.. I sure don't want the prosecution to lose this and DP to be back on the streets.

    MOO
    Angelonline, I have had the same thoughts. I can speculate on answers being possibly because Aunts and Uncles don't have visitation rights and without the custodial parent agreeing it's a losing battle. As for the breif case, what might be in there that Kathleen's attorney wasn't already aware of? and maybe the papers would be best saved for the children when they became legal adults.

    Though, I think answers from Anna herself would be beneficial to the jury, if they are not veering too far off track. I'm not part of this legal team, just really not sure....

    justice for Kathleen
    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.


    Websleuths Resource Center

    Call Kurtis - Psychics and the Missing

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Cubby For This Useful Post:


  21. #761
    Cubby is offline 50K reward, Bob Harrod-Missing: Call Det. Radomski 714-993-8176
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    71,929
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    There is NO WAY that DP was going to ever let any of Kathleen's family have anything to do with those boys.

    What the sister was probably afraid to say, for fear of getting into trouble, was that she was secure in knowing that Stacey was watching and caring for the boys. And it was not until she went missing, that the family became more worried about their welfare.

    Get out of my head! Ditto!
    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.


    Websleuths Resource Center

    Call Kurtis - Psychics and the Missing

  22. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Cubby For This Useful Post:


  23. #762
    Cubby is offline 50K reward, Bob Harrod-Missing: Call Det. Radomski 714-993-8176
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    71,929
    Quote Originally Posted by CarolinaMoon View Post
    When she testified to that, all I could think of was Cindy Anthony taking Amy's money out of Casey's wallet that night.

    As to Anna Doman, I have a feeling that after the neighbor let slip about the bullet, the prosecution reminded her of all that she couldn't say. I would be terrified on the stand of blowing the whole trial. I also have to wonder if she is still afraid of what Drew will do to her and her family should he get off.

    Also, the defense knows very well what she can't say and are making the biggest issue of bringing her to the limits and trying to get her to slip up. When she is legally barred from testifying to the full array of information and pushed and pushed to make an irreversible error, it has to be a nightmare.

    I'm still obsessing about the blue towel. I can't help it. I hope the jury is obsessing over it as well. I went to take a bath in my soaking tub yesterday. It is larger than the one in Kathleen's home, but just as deep. I never fill it up all the way.

    Anyway, I keep a very small bath-mat hung over the side to put down when I bathe. It's an automatic reminder to put it down prior to drawing the bath. I wouldn't want it to accidentally get soaking wet if I draw a somewhat deeper bath.

    Well, on InSession yesterday, they showed a masked photo of the tub with Kathleen's body in it and the towel hung over the side, well into the tub. I hadn't realized before seeing this, that the towel had to be placed there sometime between the paramedics leaving and Bolingbrook police arriving.

    Anyhow, I want the CSI who (mis)processed the scene to tell us if the bottom of the towel was wet or dry. If, indeed, Kathleen drowned in the tub, it would have gotten wet. As most people know, a soaked towel will not completely dry if left in that position for a couple of days.

    To me, it's the "Smoking Towel" that shows SOMEONE with an interest in making her death an accident would be the only one with a motive to add the towel to the scene.

    Excellent post. I agree with all of it. Do we know who the CSI is who (mis)processed the scene and if he or she is on the witness list?

    Kind of interesting to think it might be a blue towel instead of a blue barrel which finally breaks this wide open and put's DP where he belongs-permanently.
    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.


    Websleuths Resource Center

    Call Kurtis - Psychics and the Missing

  24. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Cubby For This Useful Post:


  25. #763
    Cubby is offline 50K reward, Bob Harrod-Missing: Call Det. Radomski 714-993-8176
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    71,929
    Welcome to WS WindyCityGirl!

    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.


    Websleuths Resource Center

    Call Kurtis - Psychics and the Missing

  26. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Cubby For This Useful Post:


  27. #764
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    27,066
    Quote Originally Posted by WindyCityGirl View Post
    Adding--the defense team really looked like a bunch of gangsters wearing flashy suits and sunglasses. Apparently Joe Lopez "the shark" has a history of representing mobsters. He was very lacking in respect and decorum during the trial as he was cutting up with the other members of the defense team while Glasgow was presenting his opening arguments and other issues. I guess that is their schtick to try to minimize the seriousness of the prosecution's case by having a few yucks between themselves. His wife is a very attractive redhead who isn't a seasoned attorney but is nonetheless on the legal team (carrying a huge Prada tote bag) I think it was sexist and inappropriate when Brodsky introduced the legal team as from brains to beauty with her being last though. Just eww. /
    First of all to WS.


    Did you get a chance to see the jurors reactions at all? I am wondering what they are thinking of the Defense team and their antics?

    I am hoping they are having the same emotional reaction as you did tho their shtick.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  28. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to katydid23 For This Useful Post:


  29. #765
    Cubby is offline 50K reward, Bob Harrod-Missing: Call Det. Radomski 714-993-8176
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    71,929
    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenPants View Post
    If she had taken a bath, there would have been clothes either on the floor of the bathroom, on her bedroom floor or even in a hamper. Most people taking a bath/shower undress in the bathroom, IMO. A person doing this would also have clothes they were planning to put on afterward, even if a robe. You wouldn't strip down in the bedroom, get into the tub, wash, dry off with a skimpy towel and walk around in that or stark naked while looking around for something to wear. Who is going to testify that she was a nudist or even slept in the nude?

    There would also be soap, soap residue or body wash. There would be towel(s), a mat on the floor, washcloth(s) or even a loofah...to prove it was an accident they would have to show that she died as soon as she stepped into the tub, before she could have filled it with water. How did she die? Did the autopsy show heart disease like Lena Kaufmann? Did she have a stroke, or throw a blood clot?

    Also, if you fill a tub with water, you plug the tub. No way an entire tub filled with water would have drained completely even if there was a slow leak in the plug. If she took a shower, her hair would be wet or at least damp beyond the matted portion. I am incredulous that it was ruled an accident. I can only surmise that he staged it and others knew and it was covered up, meaning that anybody who suspected foul play kept their mouths shut. And what assumptions can we make about that?

    Of course, we know through the testimony of his "missing" wife to her pastor that there was no bath. He killed KS and then took her bloody clothes home with him.

    It has been stated elsewhere on these threads that if DP claims he did not kill her, then who did? If it was the boyfriend, it still would be strange that DP, as a police officer, did nothing at the scene in any investigative capacity, even if it was fake. This to me shows his arrogance and his presumption that nobody would bother to look into it. And why is that?

    I would like to know anybody's opinions or theories about how he planned, perpetrated and covered up the killing, the whole scenario, including who he may have urged to say nothing and how he did that. I am looking forward to Dr. Baden's autopsy testimony, hope that he will explain thoroughly the cause and manner of death. Then let the defense try to explain away all of those bruises, how she could fall and lacerate the BACK of her head, then turn over and land in a fetal position.

    I'll add the lack of blood from a head wound. IF the judge doesn't rule Dr. Baden's testimony as being too prejudicial. I didn't think it was possible I could dislike this judge more than I dislike the defense team, but I do. This judge is clearly letting the defense run his court room and run this trial and it is outrageous.
    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.


    Websleuths Resource Center

    Call Kurtis - Psychics and the Missing

  30. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Cubby For This Useful Post:


  31. #766
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    3,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubby View Post
    Excellent post. I agree with all of it. Do we know who the CSI is who (mis)processed the scene and if he or she is on the witness list?

    Kind of interesting to think it might be a blue towel instead of a blue barrel which finally breaks this wide open and put's DP where he belongs-permanently.


    I am pretty sure that I heard on IS that the pros is calling the first medical examiner to the stand.

    However, after some research, I think his name is Dr. Bryan Mitchell and I don't see him on the list that ACR has.......


    from this article:
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/justic...ial/index.html

    On March 20, Dr. Bryan Mitchell from the Will County coroner's office said in an autopsy report that the cause of Savio's death was drowning, her hair was soaked in blood from a cut on her scalp, and she had small bruises on her body.


    ACR's list

    http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_names.htm

  32. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Shelby1 For This Useful Post:


  33. #767
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenPants View Post
    I've concluded that one of the main problems in these trials is not allowing "prior bad acts" in. How can a jury establish criminal intent if they are not allowed to know that the defendant is a habitual perpetrator of inappropriate or illegal activities? In this case, the bullet in the neighbor's driveway (put there by DP or perhaps even a police friend - the elephant in the room), connected to the strange disappearance of the 4th wife, etc., and also connect that to Kathleen's sister being loathe to come forward because she may be terrified that a bullet in her driveway or WORSE could happen to her...
    I always thought that 'prior bad acts' was something like- before the defendant did the crime he had other arrests, not related to this crime but important to see who the defendant REALLY is. I know prior bad acts aren't allowed, but for Pete's sake, information he had talked to someone about whacking Kathleen, and even had a dollar amount attached to it! Information from other witnesses (Sharon, and Kathleen's best friends testimony) should be allowed in. WHY the heck did this judge decide to not ALLOW THIS TESTIMONY??? In Florida, Casey Anthony's escapades with the gas cans, breaking the lock on the shed, etc were allowed in...is that not 'prior bad acts'? I am not liking this judge, immensely!!!! I am afraid Kathleen won't get a chance at Justice.

    Why no testimony about the bullet? It's so important!!!! I only hope those Jurors, at least one of them, has knowledge of Drew's behavior and past and will 'spread the word' among the other jurors. Oops, bet that's not allowed either. He was the Intimidator.

    If I ever commit a crime I hope my defense team, the judge, the good ole boy network and whoever else is involved panders to me and I win my case, guilty or not. That's how the justice system seems to work these days.

    They let all kinds of trash be known to the jury about Kathleen. I doubt most of it is true. But the judge let Brodsky and his 'crew' trash Kathleen to no end. On the FIRST day of the trial, no less!! How is it the information that she had sex that weekend with her boyfriend related to this case? Get the BF on the stand, ask him if they had rough sex ever, and that would tell if the bruising was from him or Drew. Get those ex wives on the stand and let the 2nd wife tell how controlling Drew was...(If she is 'Allowed") Lets let the jury know about the 18 domestic violence calls to 911 by Kathleen!!! In any other police department in this country, 18 domestic violence episodes would get him kicked off the force, suspended, or at least earn him some disiciplinary action. But, no...
    Last edited by AbbieNormal; 08-04-2012 at 02:22 PM.

    Rest in Peace, Robbi 1980-2012

  34. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to AbbieNormal For This Useful Post:


  35. #768
    atthelake's Avatar
    atthelake is online now Walking on ice these days, glad it's a thick glacier!
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,360
    When did that pastor release the information? Just starting to follow this trial, TIA? if somone can answer or share a link. I am wondering if that all was well publisized and considered fact, or was it tabloid?
    Walking On Ice.....but it's a glacier!

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to atthelake For This Useful Post:


  37. #769
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Tulessa View Post
    Hmmm. Looks like Brodsky is no better- in fact on paper he is worse- than Jose Baez. Brodsky is so cocky I really can't stomach him. He is JUST LIKE DREW.
    I wish the state had requested a change of venue so DP could be tried somewhere other than Joilet. Seems all are corrupted there, JMO.

    Judging from the way the Judge is behaving, he's coddling the defense soooooo obviously. I was hoping on day 2 or 3 the judge would turn away from defense and just let the trial be fair. But no.

    Rest in Peace, Robbi 1980-2012

  38. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to AbbieNormal For This Useful Post:


  39. #770
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by atthelake View Post
    When did that pastor release the information? Just starting to follow this trial, TIA? if somone can answer or share a link. I am wondering if that all was well publisized and considered fact, or was it tabloid?
    Wasn't tabloid. Stacey really did talk to her pastor and really did tell him she thought DP had killed his first wife and she was afraid she was next. She was making plans to leave Drew.

    JMO

    Rest in Peace, Robbi 1980-2012

  40. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to AbbieNormal For This Useful Post:


  41. #771
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    3,357
    Quote Originally Posted by atthelake View Post
    When did that pastor release the information? Just starting to follow this trial, TIA? if somone can answer or share a link. I am wondering if that all was well publisized and considered fact, or was it tabloid?

    The pastor's name is Neil Schori. Here's a link from ACR (a billion thanks again for all of the hard work, ACR!) that has several stories.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_pete...ess_schori.htm

  42. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Shelby1 For This Useful Post:


  43. #772
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    2,506
    Quote Originally Posted by AbbieNormal View Post
    I always thought that 'prior bad acts' was something like- before the defendant did the crime he had other arrests, not related to this crime but important to see who the defendant REALLY is. I know prior bad acts aren't allowed, but for Pete's sake, information he had talked to someone about whacking Kathleen, and even had a dollar amount attached to it! Information from other witnesses (Sharon, and Kathleen's best friends testimony) should be allowed in. WHY the heck did this judge decide to not ALLOW THIS TESTIMONY??? In Florida, Casey Anthony's escapades with the gas cans, breaking the lock on the shed, etc were allowed in...is that not 'prior bad acts'? I am not liking this judge, immensely!!!! I am afraid Kathleen won't get a chance at Justice.

    Why no testimony about the bullet? It's so important!!!! I only hope those Jurors, at least one of them, has knowledge of Drew's behavior and past and will 'spread the word' among the other jurors. Oops, bet that's not allowed either. He was the Intimidator.

    If I ever commit a crime I hope my defense team, the judge, the good ole boy network and whoever else is involved panders to me and I win my case, guilty or not. That's how the justice system seems to work these days.

    They let all kinds of trash be known to the jury about Kathleen. I doubt most of it is true. But the judge let Brodsky and his 'crew' trash Kathleen to no end. On the FIRST day of the trial, no less!! How is it the information that she had sex that weekend with her boyfriend related to this case? Get the BF on the stand, ask him if they had rough sex ever, and that would tell if the bruising was from him or Drew. Get those ex wives on the stand and let the 2nd wife tell how controlling Drew was...(If she is 'Allowed") Lets let the jury know about the 18 domestic violence calls to 911 by Kathleen!!! In any other police department in this country, 18 domestic violence episodes would get him kicked off the force, suspended, or at least earn him some disiciplinary action. But, no...
    Just wish some of the "blue wall" that protected him before would grow a conscience and spill the truth about DP. He is such a disgusting pig.
    "The word which God has written on the brow of every man is Hope." - Victor Hugo

    "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Plato


    Everything I post is my opinion only, but it is both my God given and Constitutionally protected right to do so!

  44. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Mama-cita For This Useful Post:


  45. #773
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby1 View Post
    I am pretty sure that I heard on IS that the pros is calling the first medical examiner to the stand.

    However, after some research, I think his name is Dr. Bryan Mitchell and I don't see him on the list that ACR has.......


    from this article:
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/justic...ial/index.html

    On March 20, Dr. Bryan Mitchell from the Will County coroner's office said in an autopsy report that the cause of Savio's death was drowning, her hair was soaked in blood from a cut on her scalp, and she had small bruises on her body.


    ACR's list

    http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_names.htm
    BBM.
    Head wounds bleed a lot which makes most of them look worse than they really are. I am wondering how she could have drowned under water and not have that blood from the head wound bleed into the water. The description of her head was matted and wet. Hair still wet yet the tub was dry? My hair dries faster than that, and it's down my back past my bra strap. Kathleen's hair looked thick. I think maybe there was a little blood in the tub when her body was removed. It's appalling that they did not do a thorough CSI on her and the scene, even if it was supposed to be "an accident".

    The fact that DP was gone that night, that Stacey tried to get ahold of him by phone and could not, and the fact that he was in the basement later, stripping down out of his ALL BLACK clothes, plus a woman clothes, all need to be told to the jury. Good Lord. I have never seen a case like this where the defendant and his lawyers make things up, say them in interviews or to the media, and then when its found to be untrue, they are just 'meh'. Its a big deal when lawyers say untrue things- once it's left their mouth it's too late. People hear it and it does stick in their minds. Results in unfair, false portrayal. Why is the court allowing the atty's to be so down and dirty?

    Is this how our system of justice works now? Should we all just throw up our hands and allow lawyers to act this way, allow Judges to just throw out testimony about Kathleen that would work in her favor, but oh no we can't muddy Drew's reputation... I am just soooo frustrated.

    Rest in Peace, Robbi 1980-2012

  46. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to AbbieNormal For This Useful Post:


  47. #774
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Auburn, California
    Posts
    4,196

    Smile

    Whew... finally! caught up on this thread and trial!! A few comments...

    Quote Originally Posted by Leila View Post
    A good prosecuting attorney could raise these questions during closing arguments. Just based on these first few witnesses, he or she could state these unanswered questions............"why was there no bath mat or towels set out by Kathleen if she was intending to take a bath?" "Where were the clothes she removed to take a bath?" "Why was the dead bolt not locked from the inside?" "If he was concerned about his ex-wife, why did DP casually chit-chat with the locksmith after the door was opened?" When he responded to Mary Pontarelli's screaming, why didn't he think there was danger and draw his pistol?"

    These can all be brought up in summarizing the state's case during closing arguments.
    Let's HOPE the Proscutors reads here!! They would get some VERY good ideas for their closing! I too think Drew "staged" that blue towel after the body was discovered and before the official cops showed up. From what I recall the neighbor Tony P. said he left Drew by himself up there in the bathroom after the body was discovered, and fire chief (supervisor) said Drew was upstairs when he came up. I'm sure he was looking for a chance to put that towel there - plus the bath mat (?) don't know about that, as I haven't seen the picture of the bathroom setting. And what's with the picture frame face down??!!
    Also they should have asked the locksmith guy how many times has he seen the cops let civilians in first for a wellness check, as Drew did?

    respectfully snipped...
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubby View Post
    Back to reading to catch up.... thanks to everyone, including acandyrose, who pitched in when ~n/t~ had to leave for a bit.
    and OhioGirl = you guys are GREAT!!



    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenPants View Post
    I've concluded that one of the main problems in these trials is not allowing "prior bad acts" in. How can a jury establish criminal intent if they are not allowed to know that the defendant is a habitual perpetrator of inappropriate or illegal activities? In this case, the bullet in the neighbor's driveway (put there by DP or perhaps even a police friend - the elephant in the room), connected to the strange disappearance of the 4th wife, etc., and also connect that to Kathleen's sister being loathe to come forward because she may be terrified that a bullet in her driveway or WORSE could happen to her...
    Totally agree with these "prior bad acts"! I really have a problem with that in this case, as they (bad acts) ALL seem related to this case and not something else (Stacy's disappearance!) So frustrating!!

    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    First of all to WS.


    Did you get a chance to see the jurors reactions at all? I am wondering what they are thinking of the Defense team and their antics?

    I am hoping they are having the same emotional reaction as you did tho their shtick.
    I too was wondering about that (bold)??!! Glad to have someone here that's in the court room! We need your input on here about the reactions of the jury!!

    needed to edit and say:

    WindyCityGirl!!
    ******
    Life isn't about waiting for the storms to pass...
    It's about learning to dance in the rain!

    ******
    ******
    We are not human beings having a spiritual experience,
    we are spiritual beings having a human experience.

    ******
    ******~~Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    I came, I saw, I stuck around!~~

    ******

  48. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Niner For This Useful Post:


  49. #775
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,394
    Quote Originally Posted by AbbieNormal View Post
    I always thought that 'prior bad acts' was something like- before the defendant did the crime he had other arrests, not related to this crime but important to see who the defendant REALLY is. I know prior bad acts aren't allowed, but for Pete's sake, information he had talked to someone about whacking Kathleen, and even had a dollar amount attached to it! Information from other witnesses (Sharon, and Kathleen's best friends testimony) should be allowed in. WHY the heck did this judge decide to not ALLOW THIS TESTIMONY??? In Florida, Casey Anthony's escapades with the gas cans, breaking the lock on the shed, etc were allowed in...is that not 'prior bad acts'? I am not liking this judge, immensely!!!! I am afraid Kathleen won't get a chance at Justice.

    Why no testimony about the bullet? It's so important!!!! I only hope those Jurors, at least one of them, has knowledge of Drew's behavior and past and will 'spread the word' among the other jurors. Oops, bet that's not allowed either. He was the Intimidator.

    If I ever commit a crime I hope my defense team, the judge, the good ole boy network and whoever else is involved panders to me and I win my case, guilty or not. That's how the justice system seems to work these days.

    They let all kinds of trash be known to the jury about Kathleen. I doubt most of it is true. But the judge let Brodsky and his 'crew' trash Kathleen to no end. On the FIRST day of the trial, no less!! How is it the information that she had sex that weekend with her boyfriend related to this case? Get the BF on the stand, ask him if they had rough sex ever, and that would tell if the bruising was from him or Drew. Get those ex wives on the stand and let the 2nd wife tell how controlling Drew was...(If she is 'Allowed") Lets let the jury know about the 18 domestic violence calls to 911 by Kathleen!!! In any other police department in this country, 18 domestic violence episodes would get him kicked off the force, suspended, or at least earn him some disiciplinary action. But, no...
    GREAT POST...the judge allows in "prejudicial" information about the victim, but not the defendant. Too bad the "State", whose case it is, can't stand up more for the victim. In otherwords it should be The State AND Kathleen Savio, deceased vs. Drew Peterson. Then an attorney could go to bat using statements Kathleen made and/or others made on her behalf. MOO. Our justice system is screwed up in that all of the rights seem to go toward the defendants. I understand that there are many people wrongly incarcerated and things need to be fair, but I maintain that prior bad acts and inappropriate behaviors of WHATEVER kind and wherever perpetrated - illegal or not, convicted or not, would give the real facts needed to make an informed decision about whether or not an alleged perpetrator would be deemed to be a danger to society. How else can that be determined????

  50. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to ChickenPants For This Useful Post:


Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 21222324252627282930313233 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*
    By Kimster in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 1683
    Last Post: 08-21-2012, 12:38 AM
  2. Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*
    By CarolinaMoon in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 1059
    Last Post: 08-14-2012, 09:56 AM
  3. Replies: 133
    Last Post: 07-30-2012, 11:26 PM
  4. Drew Peterson murder trial delayed
    By Paintr in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 10:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •