SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
fifteen89 said:
This trial has me thinking they should change the oath witnesses swear to when they take the witness stand. How about:

"Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, or the redacted truth and wording as haggled out and agreed upon by the DT and the Judge, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?"

Schori was told what words he could and couldn't use - instead of allowing him to testify to exactly what Stacy had told him. Hearsay is one thing. Having someone else change the words is another.

And then there's all the dancing around Stacy the PT and their witnesses had to do. imo DP shouldn't be able to use him making her vanish to his advantage but that's exactly what happened in this trial.
Click to expand...

LOVE the oath Fifteen! It is so true, as indeed witnessed in this trial. Don't want to make Drew look bad now, do we?
 
I was reading articles online -- if DP is found guilty that the maximum sentence he could receive is 60 yrs. Why is that? (I mean as opposed to a Life Sentence, etc)
 
MrsPC said:
I was reading articles online -- if DP is found guilty that the maximum sentence he could receive is 60 yrs. Why is that? (I mean as opposed to a Life Sentence, etc)
Click to expand...

Special Illinois treatments? You know, our prison system is over-loaded. Just sayin'.
 
Let's hope it is at least 50 years. Then it will be a life sentence for sure:please::jail:
 
shotgun09 said:
Special Illinois treatments? You know, our prison system is over-loaded. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

I found it under the Illinois statutes

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=073000050K5-4.5-20

(a) TERM. The defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment or, if appropriate, death under Section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/9-1). Imprisonment shall be for a determinate term of (1) not less than 20 years and not more than 60 years; (2) not less than 60 years and not more than 100 years when an extended term is imposed under Section 5-8-2 (730 ILCS 5/5-8-2); or (3) natural life as provided in Section 5-8-1 (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1).

(and IL abolished the death penalty last yr)...darn
 
Noway said:
Reading reviews of this site that say it is not free and they indicate a movie title is available when they do not really have.

If anyone has tried this site with success (and no charge) please let us know.

Reviews
Click to expand...

I used it last night and watched the whole movie....only to find out afterward that the movie was actually on TV last night (on AT&T uverse)...lol
 
Peliman said:
I'm using Chrome as a web browser. I clicked on the link and was taken to the video. At the top of the video was a banner that said something like to close this ad and watch free click here, I did so and am viewing the movie now but don't have time to watch.

Here's the link I'm viewing with but the other link does work.

http://www.fastpasstv.ms/watch/?url=3uXn46ChlNzr7Z/j6Nre1Mjf2+Oh1tXflMvd4taitp2omJqtq6i5p6ujnpm4qQ==
Click to expand...

yep, that's what I did last night & saw the whole movie (and I also use Chrome with extension)
 
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

It isn't circumstantial thought, or circumstantial possibility, theory, coincidence, etc., it is EVIDENCE.

There is definitely a preponderance of (circumstantial) evidence in this case. To disregard or downplay the so-called hearsay evidence regarding Stacey, the jury would have to conclude that everyone involved, including Stacey, were all liars or misunderstood what they said or were told, and that is highly unlikely. So put that together with the other evidence.

In reasonable doubt, the operative word is "reasonable", and has the defense provided reasonable doubt? They may have tried by manipulating the language of the law, and grandstanding with a lot of sidebars and objections, but IMO the jury is going to see right through that. They are going to interpret that as desperate (and annoying) measures by DT to railroad the case. I think it's a fatal error on the part of DT to infer that the jurors are too stupid to see through their tactics. I think (hope) it backfires on them.
 
MrsPC said:
yep, that's what I did last night & saw the whole movie (and I also use Chrome with extension)
Click to expand...

What did you think of it? I saw it when it aired. I thought Lowe did an awesome job and i think he really nailed DP. As to who and what he really is.
 
While we have a moratorium on the death penalty here in Illinois, we certainly sentence people to life without possibility of parole. I don't understand the max 60 year sentence.
Is the first charge not Murder 1? I thought that murder in the first degree always had the possibility of Life.

This whole thing is so repulsive......we are supposed to believe that Kathleen made up all of her reports of domestic violence/abuse because she wanted to get more money out of poor Drew? We are supposed to believe that Stacy was trying to leverage more money out of Drew by making up a false accusation of murder? Puh-leaze.
Funny how Stacy's little "story" also was in alignment with forensic experts and testimony of friends and family.
I don't understand why that monster could not have been stopped. It is sickening. If there is any justice in the world, for the rest of his life, he should NEVER again see the light of day! NEVER!:jail:





shotgun09 said:
Special Illinois treatments? You know, our prison system is over-loaded. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
 
ChickenPants said:
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

It isn't circumstantial thought, or circumstantial possibility, theory, coincidence, etc., it is EVIDENCE.

There is definitely a preponderance of (circumstantial) evidence in this case. To disregard or downplay the so-called hearsay evidence regarding Stacey, the jury would have to conclude that everyone involved, including Stacey, were all liars or misunderstood what they said or were told, and that is highly unlikely. So put that together with the other evidence.

In reasonable doubt, the operative word is "reasonable", and has the defense provided reasonable doubt? They may have tried by manipulating the language of the law, and grandstanding with a lot of sidebars and objections, but IMO the jury is going to see right through that. They are going to interpret that as desperate (and annoying) measures by DT to railroad the case. I think it's a fatal error on the part of DT to infer that the jurors are too stupid to see through their tactics. I think (hope) it backfires on them.
Click to expand...

Agree and I hope this Jury is able to see it. Poor DP. All these people and most who don't even know each other conspired against him :floorlaugh:
 
UPON COMPLETION OF THE FREE TRIAL PERIOD, YOUR PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTION WILL RENEW AUTOMATICALLY UNDER THE ONE (1) MONTH (30 DAY) PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP PLAN, REGARDLESS OF THE LENGTH OF YOUR FREE TRIAL.

The first (1st) day following the expiration of your free trial period will be your anniversary date for billing purposes during your Membership Term. Your Payment Card will be charged the recurring monthly membership fees and any applicable sales tax on the day following the expiration of your free trial period, unless you have chosen to cancel your subscription prior to the conclusion of the free trial period. YOU MUST CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION PRIOR TO THE END OF THE FREE TRIAL OFFER TO AVOID CHARGES TO YOUR PAYMENT CARD. Please note the expiration date of your free trial period for your records.

https://www.movielush.com/terms


I think this is where most people got hit ... they did not cancel before the end of the trial period.
 
Bravo said:
What did you think of it? I saw it when it aired. I thought Lowe did an awesome job and i think he really nailed DP. As to who and what he really is.
Click to expand...

I had watched all the various tv interviews DP did and then after watching the moving I was really impressed with Lowe's portrayal - his nonchalant demeanor, his voice/inflection, etc.

And in reading about the initial jury selection in this case, I learned that the majority of jurors have seen the movie too.
 
MrsPC said:
I had watched all the various tv interviews DP did and then after watching the moving I was really impressed with Lowe's portrayal - his nonchalant demeanor, his voice/inflection, etc.

And in reading about the initial jury selection in this case, I learned that the majority of jurors have seen the movie too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your review. Now there is a little gem i missed. Interesting most of the Jurors saw the movie.
 
I didn't realize the majority had. Remember 1 had but wasn't clear whether that juror was selected.
 
LINK

This is reference to the 1 juror

eta
One potential juror Monday admitted to watching the Lifetime movie, "Drew Peterson: Untouchable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 3,494 (members: 74, guests: 3,420)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
3,420
Total visitors
3,494
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,155
Messages
18,020,312
Members
229,586
Latest member
C7173
Back
Top