Drew's Lawyers contradict themselves

Let's see how many times they do this........do they REALLY know the case..........
please no mistrial..........
DP is a serial wife killer........

I call this the "Just In Case Defense"....just in case one doesn't work, the buffoons will try another. *roll eyes in sarcasm*

closeobserver said:

Defense attorney Andrew Abood said the real killer was Savio's boyfriend Steve Maniaci, who had a tiff with her just before her death.

http://www.wbbm780.com/Hearsay-Hearing-For-Drew-Peterson-Ends/6404027

I thought the defense was claiming that Kathy Savio fell on her own in the bathtub, knocked herself out, and drowned. Today they said she was murdered by her boyfriend. Make up your minds!!

Click to expand...

But see they thought she knocked herself out and drown because Steve Maniaci did such a stunning job making it look like an accidental death that even her own police detective husband didn't suspect foul play.

But now, with the new evidence that she was murdered, clearly her boyfriend did it <insert eyeroll here>

It is the "spaghetti theory" of defense-throw what you can at the wall and see what sticks.

You made a great observation, which might sink Drew in the end as anyone with common sense is going to say to themselves, "wait, he claimed that his wife fell in the tub originally..."

OR, Peterson is a serial wife murderer.

I believe that JB must be taking lessons from the other JB on the Anthony case. (Both cases used the same publicist.) And it works for this JB the same as it did for the other one. It just destroys any credibility that they might have had *not much* to start with.

closeobserver said:

Defense Calls Hearsay Evidence a 'Lynch Mob Effect'
"Why is it that so many people from varied backgrounds… all seem to be saying that his wives told them that he was likely to kill them?" said Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodksy. "I think it's almost like, call it a mob effect, a lynch mob effect. Everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon because they want a result." "Things are never that consistent," Brodsky said, "So when you have this, what I call eerie consistency, I think it really gives rise to lessening the credibility rather than strengthening it."

Gee, if the story's had been varied, Brodsky would have said they couldn't be true because they were inconsistent. He is the worst spin doctor I've ever heard. ...and he thinks everyone else is stupid.

Click to expand...

I thought consistency was the measure of credibility. If everybody in a crowd says one thing happened, it usually makes it more believable that it happened.

mysteriew said:

I thought consistency was the measure of credibility. If everybody in a crowd says one thing happened, it usually makes it more believable that it happened.

Click to expand...

Well, people that have a working brain would agree with you. However, what we have here is the Oz affect.

We have the Cowardly Lion and The Scarecrow here. You know, "If I only had a brain"..... We're just waiting for the rest of the cast.

BUT, if we go by Brodsky's standards, then we must wonder about this recent article in which he and Reem Odeh disagree.

Attorney withdraws from Peterson Case
http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=13231615

Since they have differing recollections of what took place, how then does one go about determining the truth? I know which one I'd believe.......


I'd love to be privy to Reem's reason for leaving really is considering she fears retaliation from Brodsky if she were to reveal her reason. I'm guess it isn't because Drew ordered her off the case either, that wouldn't be something she would be fearing retaliation for.

Curiouser and curiouser........