Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would DP have known who was scheduled to be on duty when to time it so the newbies were who would be at the scene?
 
I will never understand all the "predicting". How can anyone know how this will end? It is more stressful to try to project an outcome based on each person's testimony. Just my own feeling, but no one can know, that question is just filler to me. :)
 
Shelby1 said:
Vinnie is interviewing a lady that has been in the courtroom 4 days to watch the trial. He asked who, in her opinion, was winning. She said "THE DEFENSE". She said the defense has an answer for everything.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

The lady he had the interview with, is some one who post on another message board that I also enjoy going to...infact, she mentioned the name of the forum on the show;)

I myself dont think the state is doing that good of a job, and I am worried that drew will walk...If I was a juror, I could not find him guilty with what the pros have showed thus far..

I think drew to be guilty. and it is killing me that that the state cant get in certain things..

I do not want drew to walk, I want him found guilty. but I gotta feeling he just might walk..jmo
 
WindyCityGirl said:
I didn't think that their was going to be so much information about Stacey. Aren't the jurors going to wonder why she herself isn't being called to testify? The elephant in the room is going to get bigger and bigger
Click to expand...


:seeya: I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the part of the testimony where Stacey was mentioned !

The jury has got to notice that Stacey is NOT there to testify -- and will NOT be there to testify ... I hope this does NOT get lost on the jurors.

:waitasec: I sure hope they KNOW that Stacey is missing and has been missing for over 5 years now !

I mean if I were on the jury :innocent: that right there is a "no brainer" !

:moo:
 
ohiogirl said:
I will never understand all the "predicting". How can anyone know how this will end? It is more stressful to try to project an outcome based on each person's testimony. Just my own feeling, but no one can know, that question is just filler to me. :)
Click to expand...


No one knows. I was just sharing my feelings. I'll refrain from that :)
 
I have to say, DP saying "can I sit in?" on the questioning of Stacy -- they can't make it sound like he was asking almost like it was an after-thought when he had the 4 chairs arranged before he asked. That shows me he WAS controlling things - however subtly. Just like he was using the guys he worked with who would say 'I know Drew...he's a good guy...he's not capable...'
 
imawitch said:
The lady he had the interview with, is some one who post on another message board that I also enjoy going to...infact, she mentioned the name of the forum on the show;)

I myself dont think the state is doing that good of a job, and I am worried that drew will walk...If I was a juror, I could not find him guilty with what the pros have showed thus far..

I think drew to be guilty. and it is killing me that that the state cant get in certain things..

I do not want drew to walk, I want him found guilty. but I gotta feeling he just might walk..jmo
Click to expand...


I heard that! Very cool :)


There's a 2% chance that my husband and I need to do some business near Joliet in the next few weeks....if the trial is still going, you can bet I'll be there :)
 
fifteen89 said:
I have to say, DP saying "can I sit in?" on the questioning of Stacy -- they can't make it sound like he was asking almost like it was an after-thought when he had the 4 chairs arranged before he asked. That shows me he WAS controlling things - however subtly. Just like he was using the guys he worked with who would say 'I know Drew...he's a good guy...he's not capable...'
Click to expand...

The fact remains that he knew better than to ask and he used his position on the police department to do so. If he had nothing to hide why would he have not taken the children outside and let Stacy give a statement. The fact that he answered some of the questions tells me she was about to give them information that was counter to what he told them. Stacy not being present is a big problem for him. If she ran off and has not even contacted family to get her children she would be in fear of her life, or he got rid of her. Everyone knows Stacy disappeared and he will never be able to get past that whether it can be brought in or not. jmo
 
The jurors and the witness have returned to the courtroom. Prosecutor Connor resumes his direct examination. “Did you attend the autopsy of Kathleen Savio in 2004?” “No.” “Did you conduct some follow-up interviews with the medical technicians who handled her body that night?” “As part of the follow-up investigation, yes.” “You did not ask for the phone records until April, 2004?” “Yes.” “And received them sometime after that?” “Yes.”
 
In Session “After you received those phone records, were there any follow-up interviews regarding those phone records?’ “That I personally conducted, no.”
 
In Session The witness is handed some of the phone records in question. “Is there anything on that document that gives you an idea of when you received it?” “Yes, it’s a FAX... 5/17/2004, at 12:18 pm.” “Whose records were received, based on that ex...hibit?” “Kathleen S. Peterson... work number and home number.” “Which number did you subpoena records for?” “A mobile telephone number” (he reads the number aloud). The witness is then handed another phone record, which has a highlighted call at 2/27/04, at 6:09 pm. “During the course of your investigation, did you determine that phone number was Drew Peterson’s cell phone number?” “Yes.” “And that call was placed from the cell phone of Kathleen Savio to the cell phone of Drew Peterson?” “Yes.” “So you received a record on May 14, 2004, that reflected a phone call from the cell of Kathleen Savio to the cell phone of Drew Peterson on Friday?” “Yes . . . that question was asked at the time of the initial interview of Drew Peterson.” “And you never went back and asked about this?” “No..."
 
In Session The witness is handed some additional documents. Objection/Overruled. “Have you ever seen this document before?” “No.” “Was it ever given to you in 2004 by the defendant?” Objection/Sustained. The witness is then handed the second document. “Do you recognize that document at all?” “No.” “Never seen it before?” “No.” The witness also says he has never seen the third of the three documents.” “In 2004, did the defendant give you any documents in the course of your investigation?” “No.” “At some point, did you provide information to the State’s Attorney’s office, in order to figure out how to proceed with your investigation?” “Yes.” “Recall how you were able to close this file out?” “I took this file to the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office... a couple weeks later I gave them a call, and they advised me that I had permission to close out the case.” (Note: This was during the tenure of the former Will Co. State’s Attorney, not James Glasgow.) “I asked you about the early morning hours of March 2, when you interviewed the neighbors... were there any subsequent interviews with those particular individuals?” “Myself, no, personally. Some of my co-workers might have interviewed some of those.” “Did you or Trooper Falat ever speak to either of the children the defendant had with Kathleen Savio?” “No.” “Were they ever asked to be taken to the child advocacy center?” Objection/Sustained.
 
Drew Peterson's boys were sitting in the courtroom on the first day of the trial--at least I think that they were his sons. (they both were blonde with very short crew cuts and were wearing nice blue dress shirts) Ordinarily when someone is going to be called as a witness they don't spend time in the gallery during the trial. I am just wondering if the children are going to be called to the stand during this trial. I read that they say that their father is "innocent" and they have removed themselves from the civil suit that is still in the works against DP by Kathleen's father. Just wondering about all this....
 
In Session “When you interviewed the first responders, the paramedics, did you show them photographs of the scene?” “Me, personally, no.” That ends the direct examination of this witness
 
In Session Attorney Brodsky begins his cross-examination. The witness says he’s been retired since May of 2008. “That just means you’re not working for the Illinois State Police anymore?” “Right.” “You’re still active in your field?” “Somewhat, yes.” He worked for the ISP for “28 years, six months... that’s when we can retire with benefits.” The witness confirms he graduated from the University of Wisconsin, with a degree in Education. “Your first assignment as an investigator was doing what?” “The drug unit.” “Drug investigations?” “Yes, Sir... drug buys, drug conspiracies.” “Would you do undercover work?” “Yes, Sir.” “And you’d build cases?” “Yes, Sir.” “That’s where you started learning how to become an investigator?” “Yes, Sir.” “You took all the courses in investigations?’ “The ones that were assigned, yes, Sir.” “And you had to take proficiency exams?” “We took tests for several things.” “And you passed them?” “Yes, Sir.”
 
In Session The witness continues to be questioned about his work in the Illinois State Police. He went from drug investigations to gaming investigations to general investigations. “Over your career, you’ve kind of developed a sixth sense?” “That’s kind of up to the investigator... at times.” “That’s something that helps you in investigating whatever you’re assigned to look into?” “Yes.” “You investigated some vehicular homicides?” “I assisted in several.”
 
In Session “You did investigations in shootings, correct?’ “Yes.” “Burglaries, forgeries, all that kind of stuff?” “Some... not all that you just mentioned.” “Remember being sworn before the grand jury in this case, on July 10, 2008?” “Yes.” “You were sworn to tell the truth, and you did, in fact, tell the truth to the grand jury?” “Yes.” At this point, the attorneys approach the bench for a sidebar.
 
WindyCityGirl said:
Drew Peterson's boys were sitting in the courtroom on the first day of the trial--at least I think that they were his sons. (they both were blonde with very short crew cuts and were wearing nice blue dress shirts) Ordinarily when someone is going to be called as a witness they don't spend time in the gallery during the trial. I am just wondering if the children are going to be called to the stand during this trial. I read that they say that their father is "innocent" and they have removed themselves from the civil suit that is still in the works against DP by Kathleen's father. Just wondering about all this....
Click to expand...


It doesn't show the boys listed......

http://66.158.72.242/pa/cms/Parties.php
 
ohiogirl said:
In Session “He stated he would not benefit from any insurance policy, because she had changed the paperwork and left that as a trust to the kids.” “So the insurance policy was going to the children?” “Yes, he did.” “Did you ask him about the last time he spoke to Kathy?” “The last time he picked up the kids, it was Friday, at about 5:00 pm.... Kathy indicated to Drew that she had made plans for the weekend, but didn’t indicate anything in particular.” “He indicated to you the last time he saw or spoke to her was on Friday?” “At 5:00, when he picked up the kids. He said she appeared to be fine physically, and also mentally.” “Did you ask him if Kathy might have contemplated suicide?” Objection/Overruled. “He said no way. He could never see her living without the kids.” "Did you ask about any medications?” “He informed me that she was on some kind of antidepressant... because of the stress of the divorce, because she had a feeling of being abandoned, and in her childhood she had incidents in which she was molested and physically abused.”
Click to expand...


BBM. I wonder if this is correct. Drew said he could never see her living without the kids? That doesn't right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 3,473 (members: 148, guests: 3,325)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
3,325
Total visitors
3,473
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,296
Messages
17,966,867
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top