CLOSING ARGUMENTS (Tues 09/04/2012)

[katydid23]

Glasgow said Tom Peterson gave "valuable information" when he said it'd be unlikely for his mom to take a bath in the morning....

Glasgow: Pachter "basically paid a price for coming in here."

Glasgow says Pachter would give more detail if he planned to make a name for himself.

Glasgow: DP chose Pachter to hire hit man "because if he did say something, no one would believe him." Pachter had legal issues.

Glasgow says witness who says Drew tried to hire him to kill Savio is believable, he didn't come forward or try to profit

 

[WindyCityGirl]

n Session “That brings us to Neil Schori, Pastor Neil Schori. He told you he had been counseling Stacy Peterson, and got a call on the 30th of August, asking for an appointment the next day . . . he is very cautious in his professional life, to maintain his integrity. At one point, she was crying . . . and proceeded to tell him that Drew Peterson had killed Kathy Peterson . . . she said she’d gone to bed with Drew, woke up during the evening, and he was gone . . . she tried to reach him by phone, and was unsuccessful. IN the middle of the night, he came back, all dressed in black, and put his clothes into the washing machine . . . she looked into the washing machine ,and saw women’s clothes that weren’t hers. . . she said she lied to the police on his behalf. We know Harry Smith got a call from Stacy Peterson, asking if she could use in her divorce how Drew Peterson killed Kathy Peterson. She also said that Drew Peterson was very angry at her, because he thought she had told Tommy Peterson that Drew killed his [Tom’s] mother . . . the same Tommy Peterson who came in her and testified. And Jeffrey Pachter . . . he did not call the police; the police called him. The defense trashed him, made him look like the most demonic person who ever came into a courtroom. Drew chose him because he did have his problems and might not be believable . . . but he was believable, and he gave the statement that you heard. He didn’t embellish it . . . so if he’s coming in here to make a name for himself, write a book, or make a lot of money for himself, he’d come up with a better story than that . . . in fact, what did he get out of coming in here, except having the world know he’s a registered sex offender? He basically paid a price for coming in here . . . he suffered embarrassment by coming in here.” Objection/Sustained.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I hope we can also have a regular thread as well as the deliberations thread where we can discuss the case as well as the closings.

I'm not at all sure I can confine my thoughts to just what the jurors know. My old brain will get confused, lol!

 

[LambChop]

Something just dawned on me! LE has rotation calls on wrecker companies for towing vehicles, AND they also have locksmiths that rotate the calls. This is done so as not to show favoritism to any one company. This I know as a fact. THAT, IMO, is why he called the locksmith he wanted to be there. DP knew this locksmith and wanted this particular one there for some reason. Even though LE used this locksmith, DP had no idea who was next up. I guess DP was the one stuck with the bill because it was a personal call to him, not a department call. Had this been an official wellness check by LE, the dispatcher would have called the locksmith next up on the list. DP orchestrated this whole thing, IMO. This locksmith was not disfavorable (is that a word?) to DP. Quite the contrary.

This has not played into the trial; I don't even know why I brought it up other than DP even controlled which locksmith was called.

JMO

Not sure about this but I believe the locksmith said he did not charge DP. jmo

 

[katydid23]

Glasgow says Savio didn't tell police about keeping knife for fear of Drew because she didn't want him to lose his job...

Jury leaving again during Glasgow's rebuttal statement. # :rollercoaster:

 

[WindyCityGirl]

In Session “The incident Kathy Savio reported, the July 5th incident . . . she wrote the knife in there, and then crossed it out . .. she told Ofc. Kernc that she did not want him to lose his job . . . she’s trying to make ends meet. And if her husband does not have a job . . .” Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar.

 

[fifteen89]

It seems ridiculous to me for him to bring the crime scene home......

Ok, I'll bite. Where was he going to dispose of them in the dark of the wee hours of that morning in his own neighborhood so that no one would ever find them?

 

[WindyCityGirl]

In Session The sidebar ends. The jurors are excused from the courtroom. Attorney Joel Brodsky addresses the judge, claims that the State has injected information before the jury that was previously stricken. The State responds, reads from the transcript of Teresa Kernc’s testimony. Judge: “The [defense] objection is overruled.” He sends for the jury.

 

[borndem]

Won't they be sequestered during deliberation? Not sure I understand what he saying. If he predicts a verdict by 9:30, the jury would have been sequestered? :waitasec:

They will be in the jury room, but they will go to their homes when they leave the jury room for the day, unless they have a verdict -- but IIRC, they will not be sequestered.

 

[ChickenPants]

One thing I picked up on today has been DT deciding they forgot to mention the reason DP didn't go into the house was because of a court order, blah blah blah. First of all, it seems hinky that DT "forgot" to mention it, because you would think they'd feel it was crucial to their defense. I don't recall any such order being mentioned in testimony.

Now....what that says to me is: Why was there a court order forbidding him to go into the house, anyway? There are lots of divorces where judges do not issue orders against one party from going into the other party's home. It just reinforces he was and is a bad-A$$ and as a juror I am just adding that to the pile of evidence that he was and is untrustworthy, violent and adds to the likelihood that he is a murderer. So I think that backfires for the defense.

Would anybody comment on my other question? If I am a juror I am wondering WHY WAS THERE A SECOND AUTOPSY DONE? This, to my knowledge, has not been brought in. If defense tried to argue that the second autopsy was done to try to frame Drew because Stacey was missing, the jury learns in testimony what they most likely already know from her obvious absence - that she is missing or dead.

If they could present an alternative reason for a second autopsy, do it. As a juror this question is hanging out there big time.

My second question is did either pros. or DT try to locate Stacey at all for subpoeana as witness? I wondered about this as DT has harped so much about what a bad person she is and how she tried to rip DT off, etc.

I apologize for my ignorance as I have followed this case, but not as thoroughly as a lot of folks here.

Thanks.

 

[LaLaw2000]

The entire defense team was absent from law school the day it was taught what a bonafide 'objection' was.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

jury being sent out of the courtroom for the third time during rebuttal as defense argues over reference ..

prosecutor Glasgow says circumstantial evidence is better than eyewitness evidence. "It's solid, it's real."
And it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that #DrewPeterson murdered Kathleen Savio in cold blood."

 

[WindyCityGirl]

n Session The jurors are back in the courtroom. “Mr. Lopez talked to you about circumstantial evidence. The hearsay presented to you is substantial evidence, the same as if the person was here on the stand . . . circumstantial evidence can many times be more powerful than direct evidence . . . if you combine the circumstantial evidence, with the expert testimony, Stacy’s evidence, the hiring of a hit man . . . when we combine the reasonable inferences from each of those pieces of evidence, you can absolutely see that this case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s solid, it’s real, and it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio in cold blood. And we ask you to go to the jury room and return a verdict of guilty.”

 

[katydid23]

trial in recess ahead of jury instructions, deliberations.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

In Session That ends the closing arguments in the Peterson case. The judge calls “a brief recess so that the jurors can eat their lunch.” He leaves the bench, and the trial is in a recess of undetermined length.

 

[Wishbone]

Ok, I'll bite. Where was he going to dispose of them in the dark of the wee hours of that morning in his own neighborhood so that no one would ever find them?

Disposal would depend on if he used his car or not. Maybe parked just a little away from KS’s house. Makes more sense than trying to go all the way on foot. Also it would make a difference if it was in the daylight hours vs night. The time has not been established. Too much has not been established. To me, anything makes more sense than taking the incriminating evidence to his own home.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Well.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I am holding up my blue sign that says the day went for the prosecution. They were much more convincing than the defense team, IMO.

 

[nursebeeme]

I hope we can also have a regular thread as well as the deliberations thread where we can discuss the case as well as the closings.

I'm not at all sure I can confine my thoughts to just what the jurors know. My old brain will get confused, lol!

you guys can discuss away on the deliberations thread

btw... has the jury gotten the case yet???

 

[Lera213]

LOL the fact that the PT didn't mention the blue towel themselves was a smart calculated move. PT allowed the DT to bring that tidbit up, PT didn't have to, cause the DT did it for them. LMAO...what clowns those defense attorney's are.

I wouldn't hire them for a traffic ticket. I hope their biz goes down in the sewer after this case.