Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session The sidebar ends. Judge Burmila announces that he will release the jurors for the day. He wants to have a conference with the attorneys, but that will apparently take place in chambers.
 
Oh darn. I hope they don't rest their case with a whimper, in an anti-climactic way. Arent there any witnesses left that could button this up better?
 
Kimster said:
Me too! I certainly don't have a window that you can see through completely, lest my neighbors catch me nekkid in there. :yow:

I have to turn on my light - day or night.
Click to expand...

we have one also, but it's one of those 'frosted glass block' ones.
 
Kimster said:
Me too! I certainly don't have a window that you can see through completely, lest my neighbors catch me nekkid in there. :yow:

I have to turn on my light - day or night.
Click to expand...

I have an octagonal window in my bathroom but I would turn the light on if I was planning on taking a bath or shower. Too bad the "Keystone Cops" didn't check for prints on the orange juice bottle and the cup of water. It would look a bit strange if there were "no" prints on them at all. It also irks me that someone was allowed to handle the orange juice bottle and put it back inside the refrigerator. Total lack of investigation.:banghead:
 
I feel pretty good overall about what the state did get admitted into evidence.

But I am kind of worried about what dirty tricks this team has waiting for the state. From what I hear, there is a lot of dirt they are going to throw at the witnesses. And they have some 'well-respected' defense experts to try and convince people it was an accident.

If they can convince the jury that the pastor was having an affair with stacy, and is lying for her now, and that the hitman testimony was false, and that Kathleens boyfriend was possibly the killer if there was one...?
 
katydid23 said:
I wish we could see the entire testimony. It is frustrating just getting bit and pieces.

Did you see the jury? Were they engaged? And of course, what color were they repping?
Click to expand...

You do an awesome job and I know it can be frustrating, Katy. As far as the jury goes, many were taking notes during Schori's testimony. They were focused and a few were peeking over at DP.

What was shocking to me is when they put a photo up of SP on the projection screen for Schori to identify. This had to confuse the jury as to why she is not present. However, I have a feeling they have put two and two together by now.

They also seemed irked with Lopez, which is a good thing for the prosecutors.
They were wearing all different colors today from what I remember.
 
Jackson44 said:
In Session Judge: “If the murder happened at 3:00 am, what is the relevance of where he was Sunday afternoon? You answer is ‘just in case’ he needed to be alibied?” Glasgow: “This would give him alibi for the morning.” Judge: “Just in case no time of death could be determined, he needs as much of an alibi as possible?” Glasgow: “Yes.” Greenberg: “I don’t even know where to begin with that . . . he has to be alibied for Saturday night, and Sunday, and Monday? I don’t get that. What I’m hearing here is the State has no theory about what happened here. They want to put in the kitchen sink, everything they can, and then say ‘We don’t know what happened, but boy, he wanted her dead. So he must have done it.’ That’s what I’m hearing here . . . if they’re going to say the death occurred on Sunday, between 9:00 in the morning and 6:00 at night, then maybe they’d be relevant. Because there’s no dispute that he was at all these places . . . but otherwise, it’s not relevant. And it’s worrying me a little bit that they can’t give you a straight answer on these things.” Judge: “The court took the information into account, and made a ruling as to the admissibility of this evidence, as it related to the defendant’s claim that he wanted to be elsewhere when the murder occurred . . . given the fact that the State has argued to me and intimated to this jury that this crime occurred in the early morning hours . . . I’m unconvinced that the State’s argument that these documents are relevant to where he was the next afternoon . . . given the stance of the State that the defendant alone is responsible for this, Mr. Magliano’s testimony would be irrelevant on this point. But if they present other evidence as to the relevancy of where he was that Sunday afternoon, I will reverse myself . . . if that’s the case, I’ll revisit it.”
Click to expand...

Note to any female with a husband who could possibly be similar to DP:
Install a hidden surveillance system in your home. If it's possible at some point in the future to install a surveillance system somewhere in your body, do that as well. Hire a body guard to follow you around 24/7 whenever you leave your home. Buy said body guard the top of the line in surveillance/digital recording equipment. Give the information regarding these things to your neighbors, friends, family and at least 5 people in every other state in the US. Oh, and document it all in a lock box at every bank in town. Otherwise? Pffffffttttt.

ETA: Don't mean to suggest this only applies to someone you're married to. Boyfriends, stalkers, the perv down the street.......
 
You can bet the defense is about to unload on everyone and suggest things that did not happen (affair with the pastor, etc.).

DP had said that SP would get: "dolled up" when she went to see him. I really feel for Schori's family if they have to hear any of that trash. At first it was Rossetto having the affair with SP.

They will try and trash her hard during their case and one could only hope the jury gets upset by it.
 
Thank you katydid23, ohiogirl, and WindyCityGirl and anyone else that I might have forgotten for keeping us informed today!
 
Well, I guess that does it for today. My hope is that IF the jury thought the defense was getting down and dirty today, they will really think they are even worse in their defense presentation of the case.

At least we have the closing arguments after that. The prosecution can go first if they want to but then they can also have the last word. IDK who on the prosecution side would be the strongest closer. Maybe Glasgow? Whomever it is had better NOT screw up!

MOO
 
Livingthedream said:
You can bet the defense is about to unload on everyone and suggest things that did not happen (affair with the pastor, etc.).

DP had said that SP would get: "dolled up" when she went to see him. I really feel for Schori's family if they have to hear any of that trash. At first it was Rossetto having the affair with SP.

They will try and trash her hard during their case and one could only hope the jury gets upset by it.
Click to expand...

Thinking there was an affair and actually proving it are two things. The way SP is described as acting during the police interview sounds strange enough. The fact that DP insisted on sitting with her and was coaching her is also hinky. Attacking her when she can't speak for herself I do not think would sit well with the jury whether they know she is missing or not. And the fact that she is not called to dispute the state's evidence will ring an even louder bell. jmo
 
LaLaw2000 said:
Well, I guess that does it for today. My hope is that IF the jury thought the defense was getting down and dirty today, they will really think they are even worse in their defense presentation of the case.

At least we have the closing arguments after that. The prosecution can go first if they want to but then they can also have the last word. IDK who on the prosecution side would be the strongest closer. Maybe Glasgow? Whomever it is had better NOT screw up!

MOO
Click to expand...

I think this whole trial will be won or lost in the Closing Statements. If the state can put the whole story together, and make it real, and simple and obvious, which it is, then they can win this trial. imo

THe defense has to rely upon 'everyone else' is lying. And don't believe your own eyes and ignore basic common sense.
 
From the Chicago Tribune:

12:05 p.m. Gallery gasps at attorney question

Defense attorney Joseph Lopez asked why the Rev. Neil Schori had asked another man to accompany him to the meeting with Stacy Peterson.

Schori had testified earlier that the man sat about 10 feet away and was there as a precaution because he was meeting alone with a married woman.


The ONLY thing I can gather from JL asking this question was he is trying to suggest SP was not trustworthy, thus making her comments to him not credible.
 
katydid23 said:
judge now bans receipt testimony because it doesn't speak to Drew's whereabouts at exact time state has suggested Savio died.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:furious:
Click to expand...

okay, so if the state put KP's time of death at 3a.m.....then WHY wasn't the bathroom light still on? Who takes a bath at 3a.m. in the dark?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 3,086 (members: 209, guests: 2,877)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
2,877
Total visitors
3,086
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,138
Messages
17,963,999
Members
228,700
Latest member
amberdw2021
Back
Top