SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

[WindyCityGirl]

victims of crime, I am in no way always pro-prosecution by any stretch of the imagination. There have been several high profile cases where I disagreed with the prosecution and while I remain sympathetic to the victim, I am fully aware that there are many victims of our imperfect legal system who are tried and convicted for crimes that they never did.
In this particular case, there is strong hearsay evidence, strong motive and opportunity. We simply do not have anything that puts him there at the crime scene physically, but we have had strong testimony that any thinking person would be able to put together to see that this man is indeed guilty of murder.
He may very well walk and I think that will be a travesty.

I have followed this case very carefully in the news over the past number of years and know quite a bit. Thus far, the defense has only offered salacious innuendo about both Stacy and Kathleen--lStacy's intentions for meeting her pastor being seduction and "rough sex" being the cause of Kathleen's injuries which caused internal hemorraging.....not the result of a passionate romp. There has even been vulgar innuendo about a 14 year old boys crush on Kathleen.
They are mud slinging and there will be even more when the defense takes its turn. What about Kathleen's cries for help---writing the State's Attorney stating that she feared for her life? going to her sisters home with her will, begging her to take her boys as she wouldn't be making it to the divorce proceedings because he was going to kill her? What about the hitman who Drew offered 25k to take out his wife? (or you believe that a man with an embarrassing past subjected himself to this public scrutiny for kicks?) Joe the Shark Lopez would love to have you on the jury.
What about Kathleen's report of Drew holding her at knife point saying that he should just kill her and why doesn't she just die?
What about the Stacy telling her pastor that Drew coached her to lie about the night before they found Kathleen dead in the tub? How he came home wearing black and holding a bag of women's clothes?

This isn't a weak case....I don't think that the people here on WS are biased.
No one here wants to see an innocent person go to prison for a crime that they did not commit. This is a group of informed, aware, decent people who want justice.

Convictions are made on circumstantial evidence all the time.....is there doubt in this case? Yes, if you need to have some physical evidence at the scene to convict, but is there reasonable doubt?
No. Not when you add up the facts.
He is guilty as sin.

I do not visit this board much, as it usually ends up turning me off. In just about every case I've looked at on the board, everyone seems VERY pro-prosecution, convicting the defendants in your own court of public opinion, without ANY weighing of the evidence. It does not seem to be very useful, seems to get most of you wound up, without much objective thought and considering the case from both sides. I do not know why this is. Maybe people who think about cases from the defendant's side quit coming to your board.

With that said, I think he will walk. I am sure he is guilty, but the evidence is weak as hell. The who, what, when, where, and how have not been proven by the evidence shown. No physical evidence to place him there, we do not know what he did to her. The when? We probably do know that... as well as the where. The how is left to pure speculation. Even though I know he's guilty, I would not feel comfortable convicting him based on the evidence presented. Thats the way the ball bounces!!

 

[WindyCityGirl]

Is there doubt? Perhaps if you need DNA to show that he murdered Kathleen--
In this case, you had an inept investigation team that didn't collect any of the things that you mentioned....hair or fingerprints, etc.
is there reasonable doubt though? I don't think so. I can't believe that a jury
adding up all of the threats, the hitman, the pastor,etc, etc, would not see that this is not an innocent man. To me, there isn't reasonable doubt. They should bring home a verdict of GUILTY
bbm

well........ unfortunately, I don't think the State has proved their case. JMO.

of course, I'm not on the jury so who knows what they think.

I would have to vote him Not Guilty if I was on the jury.

and IF the police actually collected evidence while they were at the house, The state just might get their conviction.

Did they collect ANY evidence from Kathleen's body? fingerprints? hair samples? etc.

and I though the CA trial was a circus.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

mafia-speak. haha Did we need anymore proof of what a The Shark really is?

Just one of those little sayings you hear every now & then:

As in "Take no prisoners." -- meaning "Kill 'em all."

or "Leave no witnesses." -- meaning "Kill 'em all."

 

[LambChop]

If it is true that DP owned a bar I would think that a lot of his customers were LE who probably ran a tab at the bar. When a group of LE get together in a bar the stories fly. Or just on single officer who happens to be drinking too much at the bar may reveal too much information to a certain person who is also a police officer. The bar was a perfect place for DP to get information on his fellow officers that those officers might now want shared with the public or their superiors. They all do it so I imagine DP has a lot of dirt on a lot of people. jmo

 

[ChickenPants]

As a juror I would also think if there were no evidence to consider why would the defense be prepared to put on a list of witnesses. I would think the defense attorneys would have disproved the State's case through their cross examinations.

Some of what the judge has kept out I can understand but as a juror I would still want to hear it and decide for myself. Other testimony which was kept out the juror's should have been able to hear such as his training. Relevence being the jury heard how DP told Kathy he could kill her and make it look like an accident and this is why he is on trial. A homocide which was staged to look like an accident. Not sure why the judge could not connect the dots on that one?????? jmo

All great points. As for his training, why would defense fight to keep that out? I thought they were great spin masters. They could just remind the jury that the training was mandatory for any police officer and then trot out examples of all the good deeds DP did on the force, saving the community from criminals, protecting society, etc., and then kick and scream their usual: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE HE USED THIS AGAINST KATHY SAVIO. BTW it angers me to no end to hear them refer to her as "Kathy". As if they were her buddies. The victim should be referred to as "Ms. Savio," or "the late Mrs. Drew Peterson".....wouldn't it be great if prosecution referred to her as that? Every time they said it, the jury would remember she had been alive and vibrant UNTIL she became Mrs. Drew and then The Late Mrs. Drew.

 

[ChickenPants]

Exactly Lambchop! And, of course the BBPD is not on trial here, and probably all of this information will continue to be swept under the proverbial rug. But, DP's knowledge of laws, comfort of his "boys in blue" backing him up, and his total narcissitic attitude (threats) all tie him up with a bow. Will this jury see this?

The jury will see it and will hear it, but unfortunately there is no hard evidence to prove there was a cover-up. The jury is going to have to take all of the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, PLUS the unreasonableness of how that crime scene was handled, PLUS the testimony about the domestic violence, and make some very brave decisions, IMO.

 

[Wishbone]

I don’t feel good about the testimony of the hitman and the pastor. I thought the hitman’s testimony was very weak and vague when it could have much stronger if he really had anything of substance to say. As for the pastor, the whole scenario doesn’t set right with me. What pastor councils with someone but insists on it being in a public place. I’ve talked with many pastors in my lifetime and have never once had one suggest we meet in public let alone him bring a witness along to watch us. Something just isn’t right and it has nothing to do with DP.

 

[AbbieNormal]

Is there doubt? Perhaps if you need DNA to show that he murdered Kathleen--
In this case, you had an inept investigation team that didn't collect any of the things that you mentioned....hair or fingerprints, etc.
is there reasonable doubt though? I don't think so. I can't believe that a jury
adding up all of the threats, the hitman, the pastor,etc, etc, would not see that this is not an innocent man. To me, there isn't reasonable doubt. They should bring home a verdict of GUILTY
bbm

well........ unfortunately, I don't think the State has proved their case. JMO.

of course, I'm not on the jury so who knows what they think.

I would have to vote him Not Guilty if I was on the jury.

and IF the police actually collected evidence while they were at the house, The state just might get their conviction.

Did they collect ANY evidence from Kathleen's body? fingerprints? hair samples? etc.

and I though the CA trial was a circus.

They bagged her hands at the scene and later the coroners office stated her nails had nothing underneath them. I can envision Drew scrubbing her nails with a little nail brush...... scrubby scrubby scrubby......:bath:

abbie

 

[LambChop]

All great points. As for his training, why would defense fight to keep that out? I thought they were great spin masters. They could just remind the jury that the training was mandatory for any police officer and then trot out examples of all the good deeds DP did on the force, saving the community from criminals, protecting society, etc., and then kick and scream their usual: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE HE USED THIS AGAINST KATHY SAVIO. BTW it angers me to no end to hear them refer to her as "Kathy". As if they were her buddies. The victim should be referred to as "Ms. Savio," or "the late Mrs. Drew Peterson".....wouldn't it be great if prosecution referred to her as that? Every time they said it, the jury would remember she had been alive and vibrant UNTIL she became Mrs. Drew and then The Late Mrs. Drew.

Not to be confused with "The Latest Late Mrs. Drew Peterson" which would be Stacy. jmo

 

[ChickenPants]

This is probably a very stupid question. Is there ANY evidence of domestic violence between Stacey and DP? Is there information (heresay) that he threatened her? I don't recall hearing any. Apologize if I missed something. It would be beyond great if anything was documented or woven in. Even without it, and with Drew claiming that she 'found somebody else' and just disappeared (and that hasn't been brought in).....there have to be REASONS she wanted out of the marriage. Even before the night he came home late washing women's clothing and haranguing her with an alibi. If I am a juror, I am going to wonder why four wives wanted to get out and away from him.

Significant, too, that even after he hooked up with his younger wife, he wanted to live in the same neighborhood as his ex-wife? I'd see that as a big POWER AND CONTROL issue.

 

[ChickenPants]

I don’t feel good about the testimony of the hitman and the pastor. I thought the hitman’s testimony was very weak and vague when it could have much stronger if he really had anything of substance to say. As for the pastor, the whole scenario doesn’t set right with me. What pastor councils with someone but insists on it being in a public place. I’ve talked with many pastors in my lifetime and have never once had one suggest we meet in public let alone him bring a witness along to watch us. Something just isn’t right and it has nothing to do with DP.

I'm thinking about something someone said earlier about DP having made veiled threats against the Pastor for having met or talked with Stacey. Pastor would be exhibiting common sense if he knew DP was a loose cannon, had a history of violence and strong-arming people, and/or had made threats.....which is why he would meet with her in a public place to prove there was nothing untoward going on, AND have someone there as a witness in case DP showed up and tried to do anything?

 

[AbbieNormal]

I don’t feel good about the testimony of the hitman and the pastor. I thought the hitman’s testimony was very weak and vague when it could have much stronger if he really had anything of substance to say. As for the pastor, the whole scenario doesn’t set right with me. What pastor councils with someone but insists on it being in a public place. I’ve talked with many pastors in my lifetime and have never once had one suggest we meet in public let alone him bring a witness along to watch us. Something just isn’t right and it has nothing to do with DP.

I respectfully disagree. He was a single pastor counseling a married woman. He did not want any appearance of impropriety. He was covering his a$$, which is a smart thing to do in his particular position. I wish they had asked him if he followed this practice with all married women- public place. Maybe the other man he brought along was in case DP showed up and caused a scene. He knew Drew was a bad apple. I would have brought along back-up, too, in his situation.

Imagine if he had met with Stacy alone, in the church office, with nobody else around. To me, that would be reckless, foolhardy, ridiculous, dangerous, open for any interpretation, and just plain stupid. This assinine defense team would have tore that up, said they were having trists at the church, etc.

JMO

abbie

 

[LambChop]

I don’t feel good about the testimony of the hitman and the pastor. I thought the hitman’s testimony was very weak and vague when it could have much stronger if he really had anything of substance to say. As for the pastor, the whole scenario doesn’t set right with me. What pastor councils with someone but insists on it being in a public place. I’ve talked with many pastors in my lifetime and have never once had one suggest we meet in public let alone him bring a witness along to watch us. Something just isn’t right and it has nothing to do with DP.

With all the problems lately with priests being brought up on molestation and sexual abuse charges I think the precautions the minister took were appropriate. It's possible this man is attractive and has had some close encounters with some overly eager women who were willing to share their marital problems with him in the past and wanted him to "comfort" them. He has the right to protect himself. If Stacy was not okay with it she would have said so. Also he could have just happened to run into her at the coffee shop and sat down to talk with her and that is the way it would appear to many who were running in and out to get coffee. Who tries to hide in open public. Most people would not give it a second thought. It is not always the minister who wants to meet in a public place. Sometimes it is the person who wants advice because they feel more at ease in a public place. So it a mutual agreement, I'm sure. Certainly no one twisted Stacy's arm to meet him there. jmo

 

[Livingthedream]

In any trial, it's all about putting together a puzzle. The puzzle has to have certain pieces that "fit" so that in the end you have a picture.

Using an analogy of a baseball game, if you have 50 pieces that have scenes of that game, I'm sure you'd have a field, players, fans, etc.

Lets say you have 49 pieces of the puzzle that fit and the one you are missing (or lost) happens to be in the batters box waiting for the pitch. One could reasonably assume you are missing the batter. He would complete that puzzle even if you could not prove it because you did not have it.

The same thing applies in this case like any case. The puzzle has a broken marriage with a history of abuse and threats. These threats have been real or spoken.

All of the pieces are in place except for one. The jury has to come to a reasonable conclusion on who that missing piece is.

 

[Wishbone]

I respectfully disagree. He was a single pastor counseling a married woman. He did not want any appearance of impropriety. He was covering his a$$, which is a smart thing to do in his particular position. I wish they had asked him if he followed this practice with all married women- public place. Maybe the other man he brought along was in case DP showed up and caused a scene. He knew Drew was a bad apple. I would have brought along back-up, too, in his situation.

Imagine if he had met with Stacy alone, in the church office, with nobody else around. To me, that would be reckless, foolhardy, ridiculous, dangerous, open for any interpretation, and just plain stupid. This assinine defense team would have tore that up, said they were having trists at the church, etc.

JMO

abbie

Was the question ever asked as to why he held the meeting in that particular way? If it was, I missed it which isn't unusual for me.........

 

[Wishbone]

With all the problems lately with priests being brought up on molestation and sexual abuse charges I think the precautions the minister took were appropriate. It's possible this man is attractive and has had some close encounters with some overly eager women who were willing to share their marital problems with him in the past and wanted him to "comfort" them. He has the right to protect himself. If Stacy was not okay with it she would have said so. Also he could have just happened to run into her at the coffee shop and sat down to talk with her and that is the way it would appear to many who were running in and out to get coffee. Who tries to hide in open public. Most people would not give it a second thought. It is not always the minister who wants to meet in a public place. Sometimes it is the person who wants advice because they feel more at ease in a public place. So it a mutual agreement, I'm sure. Certainly no one twisted Stacy's arm to meet him there. jmo

Not saying you're not right, but I have never heard of a pastor that wouldn't council his members in his office.

 

[Wishbone]

Was the question ever asked as to why he held the meeting in that particular way? If it was, I missed it which isn't unusual for me.........

Found where the question was asked and the answer was that the pastor normally meets in public. No reason given.....






Lopez also asked why Schori decided to meet Stacy Peterson at a coffee shop rather than in private, blurting at him, "You knew that she was trying to seduce you!" Schori denied that and said he normally met in public with those he was counseling.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...poke-of-3rd-s-death-3809961.php#ixzz24ZaWbOSl

 

[LambChop]

Not saying you're not right, but I have never heard of a pastor that wouldn't council his members in his office.

Not all his members were the wife DP. I believe he did the right thing. I would see nothing wrong with a pastor suggesting meeting somewhere for lunch or even just for coffee. We have all seen DP on interviews and pretty much agree he creeps most people out and I'm sure this pastor caught that right away when he met him. Minister's are usually have a good sense of character and moral fiber in a person. I think Stacy was more aware of the danger of meeting the pastor at the church than the appearances of just running into him at Starbucks right out in the open. Who would think there would be anything to it???? He did the right thing. In this case he absolutely did the right thing to protect himself. He made it appear it was just a casual runin with someone from his church and he sat down to chat. And he is a minister so we should respect the fact that he was doing what he felt at the time would protect both himself and her. I think this is a very smart man. jmo

 

[shotgun09]

I recall reading somewhere ( here?) that the defense has some "dirt" on Pastor Schlori, and possibly will be calling him back, to testify and sling the mud his way.

 

[Wishbone]

Not all his members were the wife DP. I believe he did the right thing. I would see nothing wrong with a pastor suggesting meeting somewhere for lunch or even just for coffee. We have all seen DP on interviews and pretty much agree he creeps most people out and I'm sure this pastor caught that right away when he met him. Minister's are usually have a good sense of character and moral fiber in a person. I think Stacy was more aware of the danger of meeting the pastor at the church than the appearances of just running into him at Starbucks right out in the open. Who would think there would be anything to it???? He did the right thing. In this case he absolutely did the right thing to protect himself. He made it appear it was just a casual runin with someone from his church and he sat down to chat. And he is a minister so we should respect the fact that he was doing what he felt at the time would protect both himself and her. I think this is a very smart man. jmo

Pastor said said he normally met in public with those he was counseling.