Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session Connor asks for a moment. He then says that he has nothing further at this time.
 
In Session Brodsky begins his recross. “You didn’t ask him about the financial burden that having two more children inside his household was going to be, did you?” “No.” “You didn’t even ask him if he wanted that?” “No, I didn’t ask him that.”
 
In Session The attorneys need to discuss some legal matters prior to the next witness. So the jurors are excused from the courtroom.
 
I am going to have to leave in a few minutes. Press on regardless!
 
InSession: The next witness will be Kristin Anderson. Prosecutor Glasgow: “She is one of the hearsay statement witnesses that Judge White made a finding to exclude. Her statement is, ‘I can kill you and make it look like an accident.’” Greenberg then notes that Anderson “cannot lay any foundation as to when this statement might have
been made by Mr. Peterson... this statement could have been made in 1995, 1996.” As far as the foundational question goes, Judge Burmila finds for the prosecution. Greenberg then moves to the issue of reliability. “The ruling of Judge White is that these statements are unreliable as to time content and circumstances... and the interests of justice.” Prosecutor Colleen Griffin replies: “In a question of forfeiture by wrongdoing, there is no hearsay problem. The defendant forfeits his right to object on that ground. This very issue has been discussed. Griffin then goes on to cite case law on this issue. “None of the statements that Judge White kept out are facially unreliable... that does not make the statements unreliable under due process.”
 
In Session Prosecutor Griffin continues to argue why the hearsay statement of Kristin Anderson should be admissible. “She called the State Police three times directly following the death of Kathleen Savio... we would ask that Your Honor deny the [defense] motion.” Judge Burmila then questions the prosecutor about her argument. Judge: “This case is completely unique; there will never be another case like this in the history of Illinois... Judge White made these findings, and there was a hearing... how do I completely ignore the findings that Judge White made? Do I just make off he didn’t make them? ...He found that some of these statements are unreliable. What do I do with Judge White’s rulings?” Griffin: “I don’t believe this court has to ignore Judge White’s ruling to find that these statements are not inadmissible under the due process clause.” At this point, there is a lengthy exchange between prosecutor Griffin and Judge Burmila regarding this issue.
 
In Session Judge: “Tell me what the State’s position is on whether Judge White’s rulings were right or wrong. Are you refusing to tell me that?” Griffin: “I’m saying that it doesn’t matter.”
 
LambChop said:
They had no reason to suspect him....he was a "good old boy", one of them. This from the beginning was a problem and it should have been investigated because of who DP was. jmo
Click to expand...



With the explanation being given by the two ISP, it's pretty apparent there was no real investigation. Just a courtesy walk through so to speak.

Now I'm wondering, what kind of DV training did these officers have? When cops are abusive to their wives, kids.... it seems no one wants to address it.... :sigh:

If Drew walks, I can guaranty Stacy will not be his last victim. :(
 
Has anyone responded about counting the sidebars yet? If no one has volunteered - I don't mind doing it, as I did it for the Anthony trial!! :fence:

If anyone IS doing the counting - please post and I wont!! :seeya:
 
In Session The exchange between Judge Burmila and prosecutor Colleen Griffin continues on and on. Judge: “I’m telling you... the judge made four rulings. You asked him to make the rulings. Can I completely ignore the findings you asked him to make?” Griffin: “Your Honor can ignore them under the due process rules.” Glasgow now joins the discussion” “This is an incredibly important ruling in this case... this evidence should have life. Judge White’s rulings are void in this proceeding.” The judge is very calm, but Glasgow sounds very excited, and quite worked up. “Judge White’s rulings on this are void...” Glasgow is now practically yelling, and honestly becoming somewhat shrill. Finally, he concludes his part of the argument. Glasgow: “Thank you.” Judge: “You’re welcome.”
 
ohiogirl said:
In Session “Just to know, your report of the interview with Stacy Peterson... according to your report, Drew was present, correct?” “It’s not my report, it’s Trooper Falat’s report. I was present during the interview.” “You agree it’s not in the report of the interview of Stacy Peterson that Drew Peterson was present?’ “I’d have to look at it.” The witness is shown the report. “Again, this report was written by Trooper Falat, not myself... no, it’s not in there.” “You reviewed and initialed the report that leaves out that Drew was present when Stacy was interviewed?” “Yes.”
Click to expand...

BBM.

:what: :thud: Not one, but two ISP LEO's leave out of the report that Drew was present for questioning. :furious:
 
Cubby said:
BBM.

:what: :thud: Not one, but two ISP LEO's leave out of the report that Drew was present for questioning. :furious:
Click to expand...

Because he was not suppose to be there. They were investigating trying to rule out the possibility of a crime. They were 100% wrong in what they did. jmo
 
In Session Attorney Steve Greenberg now argues the defense position in this matter. “The appellate court was quite clear in saying the forfeiture by wrongdoing did not require this reliability factor. We’re not disputing that... the State keeps coming back to this... we keep coming back to this footnote... the State has never been able to give you a reason to ignore Judge White’s rulings, nor have they argued that they’re incorrect. Because they’re not incorrect! ...What more is left? ...the fact is, we have the law on our side on this issue... it’s unreliable, Judge. And that can’t be changed.”
 
In Session Prosecutor Griffin briefly responds. But as before, every time she makes an argument, Judge Burmila jumps in and challenges her.
 
ohiogirl said:
Now this judge is working for the defense, imo.:maddening:
Click to expand...

I'm already getting a bad feeling. Is this going to be another Casey Anthony trial? Why is it the worst of the worst get preferential treatment?
 
Cubby said:
BBM.

:what: :thud: Not one, but two ISP LEO's leave out of the report that Drew was present for questioning. :furious:
Click to expand...


This INFURIATES me.

I have first hand knowledge of how a member of LE can abuse his privileges for his own gratification. It has been a good long time ago, and hopefully there are more rules in place now, but it's damn scary what they have access to and what that badge can get them. :moo:
 
I've learned to never predict an outcome in a trial. I thought Scott Peterson would get off and that CA would be convicted. However, I never wrote it in a post because I believed it would jinx the case! After hundreds of trials, I've come to the belief that I have to just watch it, comment on it, but never predict.
 
In Session Judge: “We’re in a situation again here where the State believes the court should take into account more than the law... the State has refused on multiple occasions to answer the Court’s questions as to whether or not Judge White’s rulings can be ignored; all they do is dance around that issue... Judge White made a series of rulings in this case that the State asked him to make. Now the consequences of those rulings are before this Court... the volume of their argument is unpersuasive. The defense, however, says that Judge White’s rulings are based in stone... Judge White made those findings during the hearsay ruling, using a lower standard of proof... and he made the decision that these statements should not be admissible... the application of the due process application is a higher standard, a higher burden for the defendant to meet. The questions becomes, do these rulings reach the level of a due process unreliability. While I recognize how unique this is... in this particular situation, I do not believe that I’m bound by Judge Whites’ rulings... it has not been demonstrated to me that the witness’ statements are unreliable, and the defense’s motion to deny them is denied.”
 
ohiogirl said:
In Session Brodsky begins his recross. “You didn’t ask him about the financial burden that having two more children inside his household was going to be, did you?” “No.” “You didn’t even ask him if he wanted that?” “No, I didn’t ask him that.”
Click to expand...


Now Brodsky's reaching. Two more children in his household would mean 28% of his income didn't go to Kathleen for child support. Didn't one of the troopers direct quote state DP said "she'd never live without the kids" when asked about possible suicide? TIE IT TOGETHER PROSECUTION! Let's not forget Drew wasn't new to divorce court. He was an old pro by now and knew well what the possibilities were for CS and spousal support.

After this afternoon's testimony, I'm curious to see if the opinion is still that the defense is "winning".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 116 more.
Total: 3,006 (members: 117, guests: 2,889)

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
2,889
Total visitors
3,006
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,180
Messages
17,964,683
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top