Drew Peterson heads to trial. Jury selection begins Monday July 23

[borndem]

Originally Posted by Coldpizza

Heard on IS that Drew is his own Jury Consultant

fwiw

If IS has the facts right, then I must comment(!).

Just who's running the Defense Team anyway??

Is there no limit to this man's love of himself? What gall!!

[borndem]

Originally Posted by Cubby

My understanding of the hearsay stuff, is that some was ruled out. I think, the way I am hearing it, the prosecution wants the judge to say yes info will be admitted now, before the trial starts.

How I interepreted what I heard on AM 780 WBBM radio was the judge will make the decision as to whether certain hearsay information will be admissable as the prosecution presents it during trial.

I could sware I heard the newscaster on 'BBM say earlier this afternoon (paraphrased from memory) the judge said the prosecution could bring it in but the defense could still object.

anyone else listening to 'BBM? What are they hearing?

bbm
That's the same way I understood it to be, too, Cubby! I heard that the judge did not want to rule on the statements, etc., all in one "hunk."
He said he preferred to rule on it as it was presented if the defense made an objection.

[borndem]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

Yes Cubby, that is the way I remember it also, that some was going to be allowed but some was not.

As far as cameras and Illinois, they are allowed I know as there is a local murder trial that they are allowing cameras (Nicolas Sheeley trial) and I want to say this was the first Illinois trial that they are allowing them. I know they are allowing them, just not certain that it's the first Illinois trial.

Please please please, let's get this creeper convicted and settled into a really nice Illinois prison. I want to see that smugly grin wiped off his chin.

bbm
I surely don't want to jinx anything, but I would love to see that swagger go away when the LEO's waltz him into prison. I'm sure he would have a lot of friends and big fan club in the Big House...

[borndem]

Originally Posted by Leila

I so agree! I expect that when Stacy is called to the stand and doesn't show up, the defense will ask for her to be cited for contempt of court.

Very good point, Leila!

Further, when the Defense states, "Defense calls Stacy Peterson," I expect the whole defense table to turn around & look for her to come walking in the door. Perfect Perry Mason moment. Grrrrrrr.

[borndem]

Originally Posted by Coldpizza

Jury selection begins in Drew Peterson trial

Peterson, his trademark mustache shaved off, stood and spoke to some 40 potential jurors as jury selection began Monday.

"Good morning ladies and gentlemen, I'm Mr. Peterson," he said in a steady voice.

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/articl...CFRONTPAGE%7Cp


Is that normal protocol for a defendant to introduce themselves to potential jurors?

bbm

I'll answer that with an entirely irrelevant statement: Not in North Carolina!

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by ~n/t~

Meet the jury that will hear Drew Peterson's case

The jurors:

The men and women chosen as the 12 main jurors for the Peterson trial include:

A woman in her 50s who took college classes in business and child care. She is married to an auto body technician, and is one of eight children. She likes to read The National Enquirer, but says she doesn’t really believe the stories it prints.

[ She sounds like she might be sympathetic to the victims. And if she reads the Enquirer, then she has a pretty good idea of who Drew really is. ]

A 22-year-old man who was born in Puerto Rico, but moved to Bolingbrook, Illinois, in 2001 with his family. He is attending Columbia College in Chicago, and hopes to become a sports broadcaster.

[ Not sure about this one. A 22 yr old might not understand how cruel a man Drew is.]

A man in his 50s who has lived in Joliet his entire life. He has worked at the same job for 30 years, and previously worked for Texaco. His wife is a retired school nurse.
[ I hope this man is sympathetic to the cause. He has been married fifty years so he values the women in his life. He might be a good pick.]

A woman in her 50s who was born in Poland and moved to Chicago when she was five. She is a high school graduate, who now watches her six-year-old granddaughter for her own daughter, a single mother.

[ I love this pick. Her daughter is a single mom with a child. I think this juror will relate to the missing women's plight.]

A man in his 40s or 50s who is a senior research technician. His first marriage ended in divorce, but there were no children and no property to settle. Now remarried, his hobby is photography.
[ not sure about him. He might be a real stickler for 'solid proof' and might be hard to convince.]

A man in his 60s who is married and works as a plant manager. He said that he hasn’t paid any attention to the Peterson case, because three years ago, the original trial judge, Stephen White, told prospective jurors not to follow the case. He uses the Internet primarily to purchase parts for his motorcycle.
[ no clue about him really ]

A woman in her 60s who works for a telecommunications company. Her husband is retired. She has two sons and five grandchildren.

[ I am just hoping the women will see through him.]

A man in his 40s who grew up in Hawaii and then lived in Virginia before moving to Bolingbrook. A former member of the Hawaiian Army National Guard, he works for the U.S. Postal Service as a mail carrier.
[ I have no clue]

A man in his 50s who has lived in Will County his entire life. He works as a homebuilder, developer and consultant, and he used to own his own construction company. He is married and has a cousin who’s a retired Joliet police officer. He’s also taking flying lessons to become a pilot.
[ could go either way. he might relate to Drew, as a brother cop. ]

A woman in her 50s who lived in New Jersey and California before moving to Illinois 14 years ago. An inventory manger, she has a brother in California who’s an attorney. The mother of two grown children, a son and a daughter, she occasionally spends “a little time” on the Internet, “to see what my kids are doing on Facebook.”
[ I am hoping she has stumbled upon Drew's story somewhere along the line.]

A woman in her 60s who writes poetry, likes to read biographies and books about old movies, and watches nonfiction television. She works as an administrative assistant and said she likes to hear both sides of a story. The two-time divorcee offered the opinion that “all divorces are unpleasant.”
[ could go either way I guess.]

A man in his 20s or 30s who is single and lives with his parents. He was laid off a few months ago from a job as a cashier and bagger. He spends five to 10 hours a week on the Internet, reads science fiction novels and works out regularly. He said he doesn’t know anything about the Peterson case.

[ I hope he listens closely to the case and the evidence. ]

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07...ry?hpt=hln10_3

My comments about the jurors are in bold. I am a bit nervous about them so far.

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by borndem

Very good point, Leila!

Further, when the Defense states, "Defense calls Stacy Peterson," I expect the whole defense table to turn around & look for her to come walking in the door. Perfect Perry Mason moment. Grrrrrrr.

I don't think they are really going to call her. If they do, they deserve to rot in hell, all of them. JMO

[trigger]

Anyone have a link to watch online? TIA


See you all on Tuesday! Its finally here. Finally Justice for Kathleen!

[packerdog]

Originally Posted by borndem

Very good point, Leila!

Further, when the Defense states, "Defense calls Stacy Peterson," I expect the whole defense table to turn around & look for her to come walking in the door. Perfect Perry Mason moment. Grrrrrrr.

And the only person not looking at the door is DP. He knows she is dead.

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

Originally Posted by packerdog

And the only person not looking at the door is DP. He knows she is dead.

I pray for swift justice, and a guilty verdict for this monster.

[fran]

Drew Peterson facing murder trial after bitter comments by him and former wives’ relatives

CHICAGO — One relative of Drew Peterson’s long-missing fourth wife calls him a dog who deserves to be chained. The boorish, motorcycle-loving ex-police officer on trial in the death of his third wife makes unsavory comments about his alleged victims’ families, calling some money-grubbers. He points out one relative’s criminal history.

full article ................ http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...MGX_story.html

[panthera]

Originally Posted by katydid23

I don't think they are really going to call her. If they do, they deserve to rot in hell, all of them. JMO

If the defense were to actually follow through with this and call Stacy as a witness wouldn't it backfire in a huge way? Wouldn't calling her as a "witness" simply bring to the jury's attention the fact that his fourth wife (Stacy) is "missing" and has been for a few years? I believe that alone could sway the jury into a guilty verdict for the death of his third wife, Kathleen.



MOO

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by panthera

If the defense were to actually follow through with this and call Stacy as a witness wouldn't it backfire in a huge way? Wouldn't calling her as a "witness" simply bring to the jury's attention the fact that his fourth wife (Stacy) is "missing" and has been for a few years? I believe that alone could sway the jury into a guilty verdict for the death of his third wife, Kathleen.



MOO

EXACTLY. I don't even understand why they put her name on the witness list. Is it some cute, arrogant attempt to make a point of some kind? Like to pretend she is alive? I don't get it.

Are they trying to say she is on Drew's side and if she decides to 'come home' from her vacation with her new boyfriend, that she would surely testify in Drew's defense?

I hope the prosecution brings it up and asks why she is on that list.

[panthera]

Originally Posted by katydid23

EXACTLY. I don't even understand why they put her name on the witness list. Is it some cute, arrogant attempt to make a point of some kind? Like to pretend she is alive? I don't get it.

Are they trying to say she is on Drew's side and if she decides to 'come home' from her vacation with her new boyfriend, that she would surely testify in Drew's defense?

I hope the prosecution brings it up and asks why she is on that list.

I wish I could follow their thinking on this. Kathleen's death was originally ruled an accident. Isn't this what the defense should be trying to ascertain? Why would they want Stacy even brought into the scenario since after all, that would give DP a motive to want Kathleen gone?

Even though, in my opinion, by the defense calling Stacy as a "witness" would aid the prosecution, it could also go to ineffective counsel as an appellate issue.

MOO

[Lera213]

um those juror's read just like the Anthony trial juror's! I am praying that by picking men that they will hate DP and slam him by voting GUILTY!

[Lera213]

Originally Posted by panthera

I wish I could follow their thinking on this. Kathleen's death was originally ruled an accident. Isn't this what the defense should be trying to ascertain? Why would they want Stacy even brought into the scenario since after all, that would give DP a motive to want Kathleen gone?

Even though, in my opinion, by the defense calling Stacy as a "witness" would aid the prosecution, it could also go to ineffective counsel as an appellate issue.

MOO

I think the defense will be that Stacy killed her and that is why she ran away!

[panthera]

Originally Posted by Lera213

I think the defense will be that Stacy killed her and that is why she ran away!

I suspect you could be right. The defense must be in a fantasy world where Stacy takes the stand and confesses to killing Kathleen, thereby exonerating DP of any involvement with either Kathleen's death or Stacy's disappearance.



MOO

[Lera213]

I think DP will take the stand, and he will try to say, SP had the key to the house, SP was upset at KS, SP made threats, defense calls SP to the stand, juror's Look, no Stacey, so Juror's think, ahha, she isn't there that means it must be true, and she took flight cause she is guilty.

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by Lera213

I think DP will take the stand, and he will try to say, SP had the key to the house, SP was upset at KS, SP made threats, defense calls SP to the stand, juror's Look, no Stacey, so Juror's think, ahha, she isn't there that means it must be true, and she took flight cause she is guilty.

I kind of HOPE they try to make that one fly. They are just smarmy enough and cocky enough to arrogantly try that. Let's hope they do. Even Casey's jury would have trouble accepting that crock, I believe.

[panthera]

Originally Posted by Lera213

I think DP will take the stand, and he will try to say, SP had the key to the house, SP was upset at KS, SP made threats, defense calls SP to the stand, juror's Look, no Stacey, so Juror's think, ahha, she isn't there that means it must be true, and she took flight cause she is guilty.

Sounds like an excellent plan........to convict him.

MOO

[Simply Caustic]

It may sheerly be because of my prior knowledge of Burmilla, but I'm nervous. You may ask, "Why?!?! He's guilty as all hell - we all know it!"

I'd respectfully ask you to reflect upon a case regarding a beautiful young toddler, murdered in cold blood by her mother, who then spent weeks partying and enjoying La Dolce Vita...and is now walking free...wealthier than before, from tellin' her story (IMO).

I'm nervous. Burmilla is tough. He will follow the law to a "T". For those interested, (if anyone is), I can post some references to cases where he made unpopular choices regarding rulings because it was in the letter of the law.

This case is not, imo, airtight. It's not even a case I would want to prosecute. It's a case that makes me mildly sick to my stomach, because I know, in discussions with other paralegals, ASAs (assistant state's attorneys), and lawyers, that the general consensus is that this case is not going to be an easy win. This case is littered with circumstantial evidence and much of it will attempted to be refuted by the defense.

It is my humble opinion that he is, in fact, guilty - and that the State's Attorney's Office can pull this one off. A thinking jury should be able to see through the defense experts re: the autopsy, who are disputing the prosecution. They should be able to weed their way through all the ******** that is rife in this case, and come back with a verdict of guilty.

I pray they do.

I will be at the courthouse on Tuesday. God help me, it's going to be a zoo. It's unavoidable, it seems that everything is scheduled for Tuesdays @ WCC ! Can I skip the hoopla, please? (I'll admit that I'm looking forward to lunch at the Department, the restaurant frequented by court insiders, attys, staff, etc. Gotta get the gossip!)

[katydid23]

Just saw Drew's attorney on Judge Jeannine show.

She asked him why Stacey was on the witness list. He answered very seriously-- " You never know judge, once a trial starts you cannot add a name, so we wanted to play it safe and add her in case she show up."

GIVE ME A FREAKIN BREAK!!!!!!!!! What a bunch of pathetic losers. Sorry.

[passionflower]

Originally Posted by katydid23

My comments about the jurors are in bold. I am a bit nervous about them so far.

my thoughts also, Oh dear Lord PLEASE not another Casey (freed murderer)

[borndem]

Originally Posted by katydid23

I don't think they are really going to call her. If they do, they deserve to rot in hell, all of them. JMO

First, katydid, let me thank you for the jury run-down. It took a lot of work, seems to me for you to put together, and this really helps make the trial much more real for me (and probably all of us!). I'm sure I'll refer to it more than once during this thing.

As to the witness list having Stacy on there, now that I have thought about it, I almost wish they would call her -- it would be in horrible taste for them to do so -- just plain tacky, to say the least. Horribly insensitive and ignorant, IMO. If I were a juror -- and I knew who she was (will they?) -- I would have to put a big black mark under the DP/Defense Team scorecard.

Get real, Defense Team -- this ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around....

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by borndem

First, katydid, let me thank you for the jury run-down. It took a lot of work, seems to me for you to put together, and this really helps make the trial much more real for me (and probably all of us!). I'm sure I'll refer to it more than once during this thing.

As to the witness list having Stacy on there, now that I have thought about it, I almost wish they would call her -- it would be in horrible taste for them to do so -- just plain tacky, to say the least. Horribly insensitive and ignorant, IMO. If I were a juror -- and I knew who she was (will they?) -- I would have to put a big black mark under the DP/Defense Team scorecard.

Get real, Defense Team -- this ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around....

First of all, I did not do all that work. n/t did all of that research on the jurors. I only commented in bold. All of the credit for that hard work should go to n/t.