Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

[CarolinaMoon]

:seeya:

BBM: I agree : it was absolutely DESPICABLE ! I, too, felt so bad for her bf and father who had to listen to this unnessary -- and I'm sure embarrasing -- testimony !

The judge's DOUBLE STANDARD is so obvious :

The judge allows unnecessary testimony that had aboslutely NOTHING to do with Kathleen's murder such as what her bf had to testify to today regarding their "personal life" ...

BUT -- yet the judge will NOT allow ANY testimony that is "damaging" to the defendant !

JMO ... but this judge has NO SYMPATHY for the VICTIM !

:banghead:

I mostly agree with you, but he did make a couple of rulings today that the defense whined over, saying it would make DP look bad. The judge even said that it was up to the jury to decide.

I'm hoping the medical testimony comes in soon.

Oh, and for that wine glass, IIRC, no alcohol was found in Kathleen's blood and there has been zero testimony about a wine glass in the crime scene. We kept wondering about why the prosecutors kept asking about it. Now, we know. DREW said there was one there!

(that last part is just added here and not part of my response to you!)

 

[LaLaw2000]

BBM

This is it. They are doing their job, that is the way it is. But there is no amount of objecting or sidebars that will take away from the true colors. They know it, they have to work with it within the rules of litigation.

I am still catching up but wanted to comment.

All of these sidebars the DT is calling is meant to interrupt the flow of the testimony, IMO. I think that the DT wants the jury to think that the prosecution is continually asking inappropriate questions and the DT wants to challenge the questions on points of law. It is one of their little tacky strategies, IMO. I hope the jury is taking comprehensive notes!

This poor jury needs springs on their backside. The members of the jury are people just like all of us who are probably frustrated just as we are by all of the sidebars called by the DT. If we see or feel that the judge is too lenient with the DT, then surely they can also. I do wonder what the jury thought when the judge told Ms. Doman not to 'fence' with the defense lawyer? I thought it was wrong of the judge and felt so badly for her. Then he again reprimands her for even looking at the prosecution before answering one question maybe even waiting to see if the peosecution was going to make an objection to the question. I have never seen a judge behave this way. I have also never seen a more biased judge being so in favor of the defense. In a sense, this judge is letting the DT run the courtroom insofar as the calling of all of these sidebars.

With the sidebars and the judge hinself bouncing on and off the bench so much, this trial will take far longer than it should, IMO.

If the DT cannot run a plausible defense (and they cannot, IMO), then they have chosen to attempt to 'baffle with BS.'. We have seen their slimy little offensive tactics, and I believe this jury has also.

Sorry for this long post. I have had company for a few days and could only read at different times. I usually leave the computer on all day and with tabs open on what I am following. Maybe I can keep up now!

lease:...............I pray that DP will not walk. I consider him to be a double murderer and one who should never again breathe the same air as the rest of us! Justice for Kathleen Savio and her family!!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I think the witnesses are all residents of Illinois. If DP walks, he really can no longer remain a resident of Illinois. His life in Illinois is over. If he walks IL LE would be looking for him to make a mistake and lock him back up. He knows that, so if he walks he'll move out of state.

:seeya: Yes, I see what you mean ... I did not even think of this, which is a good point that he may want to get the hello out of dodge ...

BUT ... DP is so brazen, and he is the type who would run around town bragging and boasting, and "throwing his weight around" IF -- IF he is found innocent, which he is NOT !

lease: I hope the jury sees through all the bull !

lease:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I have to wonder if DP broke into Steve's house in order to get something to plant at Kathleen's in order to incriminate Steve. Sounds like something he would do.

:rocker: B I N G O ! You nailed it ... and it does sounds like something DP would do !

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I sure hope some of the jurors are of Italian descent and take offense at those remarks. These defense attorneys are as disrespectful and pompous as their dispicable client. :banghead:

:seeya: I hope so, too ...

And what makes me even more furious about this is the judge did NOTHING about these prejudicial ethnicity remarks ! He should have WARNED the DT NOT to go there ! As usual, he gave the DP a "pass" :banghead:

You can bet that IF the prosecutors were to bring up "ethnicity" or "race", the DT :clown: :clown: would have been screaming for a mistrial !

:moo:

 

[fifteen89]

:seeya: Yes, I see what you mean ... I did not even think of this, which is a good point that he may want to get the hello out of dodge ...

BUT ... DP is so brazen, and he is the type who would run around town bragging and boasting, and "throwing his weight around" IF -- IF he is found innocent, which he is NOT !

lease: I hope the jury sees through all the bull !

lease:

IA. I can see him staying right there (saying it's because of his children or something) and walking the streets just like Mel Ignatow did. I wish they'd change our system to Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven and if the verdict is NP then there's no double jeopardy in case new evidence is found.

 

[fifteen89]

I wonder if cops/friends that worked with or were close to DP have tried to think like DP and figure out where he put Stacy's body. I guess they wouldn't necessarily come forward and do an interview about it, but surely at the very least it's occurred to his fellow cops that they have what would be considered an advantage when it comes to ways to get away with murder and disposing of the body AND evidence. jtol.

 

[fifteen89]

I'm sure this has already been answered, but I thought it was possible the 100 dollars Drew took from Kathleens purse saying this belongs to the kids. Or said something like that...... now I don't recall off the top of my head if the jury heard that via previous testimony or not.

That was all I could think of but I thought the jury heard that already. I remember commenting that the IS comentators changed the wording from DP saying "this is for the kids" to "this belongs to the kids" when he took the $. IDK. Maybe the jury was out when it was said.

 

[fifteen89]

Thank you very much! :yourock:


Now, who wants to count the Objections? :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

We should have a guess-how-many contest......what does the person who guesses closest win?! I'm going with a bazillion and a half.

 

[shotgun09]

As a resident of Will County, Illinois ( sad I wasn't on the jury) and after the fiasco of a trial in Orlando, I am watching and learning more than ever about our Justice system.
The fact that victims cannot and do not have a voice, or if they do it is so restricted, while the defendant gets to "speak" through attorneys with lies and innuendos, and trash mouth and defy the victims is so appalling to me. My vote does count, and I will be an active participating voter, especially with the Judicial area. Our rights, which we stand by proudly in this country, have been over-used and abused when it comes to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Victims are all but forgotten, and protecting the accused becomes more important.

The boys in blue system, and protecting one of their own is so apparent in this case, yet this also will probably not be allowed...and I have to continue living in this county...knowing it goes on and on and on. I know a few wives/ex-wives of PD's...it is a fact that this goes on. If ya talk to a cop about this case, there is a silent understanding and it is very apparent to me. They don't say much, but I can read expressions pretty well. They know he got away with murder, and he probably had a little help too.

 

[Niner]

I had an error on a couple of days when I went back to count "who" asked for siddebars - a NEW total!!

1st Week

Tuesday, July 31st - Prosecutors: 1

Wednesday, August 1st - Defense: 1 / Prosecutors: 1 // Total: 2

Thursday, August 2nd - Defense: 1 / Judge: 1 // Total: 2

Friday, August 3rd - Defense: 1 / Prosecutors: 1 // Total: 2

1st Week Total: 7

***

2nd Week

Tuesday, August 7th - Defense: 7 / Prosecutors: 1 / Judge: 4 // Total: 12

Wednesday, August 8th - Defense: 3 / Prosecutors: 8 / Judge: 3 // Total: 14

Thursday, August 9th - Defense: 4 / Prosecutors: 2 // Total: 6

Friday, August 10th - Defense: 16 / Prosecutors: 7 / Judge: 2 // Total: 25

2nd Week Total: 57

Total Sidebars: 64

Defense Total: 33 / Prosecutors: 21 / Judge: 10

Here's the thread that I will updating:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181291"]Total Sidebars for Trial - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


Edited to add: If it said "attorneys go to sidebar - and it's not clear 'who' asked for it - I gave it to the Judge!

 

[AngelWings444]

Drew Peterson will stay right there, in everyone's faces, to smirk to the public, to laugh with the police etc.. This is what he did before he was arrested. He was even at a bar drinking one night (Tailgaters), and someone took a picture of him TALKING TO THE POLICE at their cars, hamming it up. He then got into his vehicle at 2 a.m. The "police" have never done a damn thing about DP and they certainly wouldn't now. DP relishes in making a spectacle of himself in public, he will continue to do the same if/when he is ever released, right there in Bolingbrook.

JMO on him staying in BB.

Fact about the picture of DP in front of bar, hamming it up with the police. :banghead:

 

[songline]

I am still catching up but wanted to comment.

All of these sidebars the DT is calling is meant to interrupt the flow of the testimony, IMO. I think that the DT wants the jury to think that the prosecution is continually asking inappropriate questions and the DT wants to challenge the questions on points of law. It is one of their little tacky strategies, IMO. I hope the jury is taking comprehensive notes!

This poor jury needs springs on their backside. The members of the jury are people just like all of us who are probably frustrated just as we are by all of the sidebars called by the DT. If we see or feel that the judge is too lenient with the DT, then surely they can also. I do wonder what the jury thought when the judge told Ms. Doman not to 'fence' with the defense lawyer? I thought it was wrong of the judge and felt so badly for her. Then he again reprimands her for even looking at the prosecution before answering one question maybe even waiting to see if the peosecution was going to make an objection to the question. I have never seen a judge behave this way. I have also never seen a more biased judge being so in favor of the defense. In a sense, this judge is letting the DT run the courtroom insofar as the calling of all of these sidebars.

With the sidebars and the judge hinself bouncing on and off the bench so much, this trial will take far longer than it should, IMO.

If the DT cannot run a plausible defense (and they cannot, IMO), then they have chosen to attempt to 'baffle with BS.'. We have seen their slimy little offensive tactics, and I believe this jury has also.

Sorry for this long post. I have had company for a few days and could only read at different times. I usually leave the computer on all day and with tabs open on what I am following. Maybe I can keep up now!

lease:...............I pray that DP will not walk. I consider him to be a double murderer and one who should never again breathe the same air as the rest of us! Justice for Kathleen Savio and her family!!

Hi LA
Can the Judge be removed?
Why would he not see that this man is a monster.?
Why is he making it hard on anyone but the monster?

<modsnip>.

 

[songline]

Drew Peterson will stay right there, in everyone's faces, to smirk to the public, to laugh with the police etc.. This is what he did before he was arrested. He was even at a bar drinking one night (Tailgaters), and someone took a picture of him TALKING TO THE POLICE at their cars, hamming it up. He then got into his vehicle at 2 a.m. The "police" have never done a damn thing about DP and they certainly wouldn't now. DP relishes in making a spectacle of himself in public, he will continue to do the same if/when he is ever released, right there in Bolingbrook.

JMO on him staying in BB.

Fact about the picture of DP in front of bar, hamming it up with the police. :banghead:

SADLY DP was an LE and he knows too many of them.
I think they stick together
Not very just.

I fear they contribute to him smirking and thinking he is free again lease:

 

[LaLaw2000]

Hi, songline!

I doubt this judge can or will be removed from this trial unless he commits a very serious and egregious legal error, IMO.

IDK, songline, but this judge seems so for the DT that I am not sure whether it really is because of an old grudge toward Glasglow, or he is just a pro-defense judge.

I have no right answers. This trial is driving me nuts!!!!!

MOO

 

[songline]

Hi, songline!

I doubt this judge can or will be removed from this trial unless he commits a very serious and egregious legal error, IMO.

IDK, songline, but this judge seems so for the DT that I am not sure whether it really is because of an old grudge toward Glasglow, or he is just a pro-defense judge.

I have no right answers. This trial is driving me nuts!!!!!

MOO

Thank you, LA
Me too that is why I am not posting. I get too angrey on this one.
If he has an old grudge toward Glasglow - I think he would know that, and he can call it conflict of interest -- Maybe:waitasec:


I get way to passionate, about justice for both of his Ex wivses if I post on this one, and the SOB is set free he is going to come
after me, the way I feel about this poor excuse of a human.

 

[katydid23]

Thank you, LA
Me too that is why I am not posting. I get too angrey on this one.
If he has an old grudge toward Glasglow - I think he would know that, and he can call it conflict of interest -- Maybe:waitasec:


I get way to passionate, about justice for both of his Ex wivses if I post on this one, and the SOB is set free he is going to come
after me, the way I feel about this poor excuse of a human.

Hey, we actually can agree on something. :smile:

 

[songline]

Hey, we actually can agree on something. :smile:

GLAD we can agree sometimes.

 

[Cubby]

:seeya: Yes, I see what you mean ... I did not even think of this, which is a good point that he may want to get the hello out of dodge ...

BUT ... DP is so brazen, and he is the type who would run around town bragging and boasting, and "throwing his weight around" IF -- IF he is found innocent, which he is NOT !

lease: I hope the jury sees through all the bull !

lease:

DP's weight came from his position as a cop. He no longer has that weight. It no longer exists. who, besides the media, would listen to any bragging and boasting he might attempt to do? Even the cops that looked the other way back then, know they are now under the spot light thanks to their buddy Drew. Drew's gig is up. What does life offer OJ and Casey these days? I'm sure neither of their lives are happy or peaceful. (Oj when he was free, he's behind bars now iirc.)


Even if he walks on this, which I pray he doesn't, he still has to watch over his shoulder for being charged with Stacy's murder. I'm sure Drew's aware there are no body murder cases and convictions and he knows there is no statute of limitations. He'll have to forever cover his arse. Free or not.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Susan Doman, Savio's sister, is on the witness stand being questioned by prosecutor Connor.


In Session
The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Prosecutor Connor begins his redirect examination. &#8220;You were asked a number of questions about this rights agreement . . . did you have an attorney with you when you signed this?&#8221;
&#8220;No.&#8221; &#8220;Have you ever dealt with the entertainment industry before?&#8221; &#8220;No.&#8221; &#8220;Have you made any money off this contract?&#8221; &#8220;No.&#8221; &#8220;And when you signed this contract in 2009, it was supposed to last for two years?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;If there was an advance of any sort, how much of that went to you?&#8221; &#8220;Nothing.&#8221; &#8220;So only if something is sold and produced successfully . . .&#8221; Objection/Sustained. &#8220;At the time in 2009 when you signed this contract, had you already spoken to the state police and gone before the grand jury?&#8221; &#8220;I believe so.&#8221; &#8220;So what you told the jury today are the same things you told long before this contract?&#8221; Objection/Overruled. &#8220;Yes.&#8221;

question ~ Why doesn't the Prosecutor say something like so the grand jury was on (insert date) and you spoke to the state police on
(insert date) and then later on (insert date) you signed this contract, AFTER you testified.
In other words, make it a more concrete point versus letting the witness end by saying "I believe so." :waitasec: