The VERDICT! He's....GUILTY!!!

[LambChop]

But the bad thing is that one could make a case that Stacy made it all up. It is technically possible that Drew was home asleep that night, and later on Stacy made up that story to get back at Drew in the divorce/ [ I know it is not true, but there is nothing to prove her story at this time.]

So she really did not have to have anything of 'substance' to extort him. She was his alibi so all she had to do was withdraw his alibi and embellish it.

I think that is what Brodsky was hoping to sell to the jury. But luckily they saw through his BS.

There was one thing. The lack of the clothes that Kathy had taken off. They were no where to be found. Stacy describes DP as washing women's clothes. How would she know that in advance of an investigation that was not done yet???? So she was telling the truth and why would DP be concerned if Kathy actually did die accidentially. It certainly wouldn't make DP upset because he would know better. Fact is Stacy is gone without the benefit of a male missing who she supposedly ran off with. Even if she left him she would have let someone in her family know and I doubt she would have left those babies behind. jmo

 

[ChickenPants]

I disagree heartily with the assessment that the jury could not have found DP guilty without the hearsay evidence. First of all, I'm personally sick of hearing the word "heresay" and I wish they would refer to it as the "victims' evidence", as it was the two deceased women who testified in spite of his efforts to silence them.

The fact is, there was overwhelming evidence of murder. There were several reasons jurors decided it could not have been an accident. I think they could have come to this decision even without the expert testimony. Their post-verdict interview revealed they had a lot of intelligence and the ability to, as a group, re-create a lot of scenarios in which a homicide could have occurred. Which the prosecution did not, by the way. But the most important fact is they determined HOMICIDE from the beginning.

Next they were supposed to conclude without a reasonable doubt that DP killed Kathleen. Well, no other suspects were interviewed or investigated to my knowledge. The juror knew the parties were involved in an acrimonious divorce. The DT tried to paint her as a "feisty" woman who was willing to fight back. That in itself infers she had something to defend herself against. She was his third wife and Drew standed to lose a lot of money.

He was a police officer and had access to the house (IMO the locksmith was a bogus move on his part that made him look more guilty), he had the training, he had the knowledge and he had the experience in dealing with bad-a##es enough to write a book on Homicide 101. Even without so-called statements he could kill her and make it look like an accident, the fact is he COULD do that. His own actions the day of and following were suspicious (i.e., cleaning the tub). His fourth wife being mysteriously missing and unable to testify was suspicious.

I watched the whole loooonnnng interview with the so-called "hold-out" juror and he was IMO your typical person who just pick, pick, picks and there's one in every crowd. Anybody who has ever attended college will recognize this person as the one who has just one more question when everybody is ready to go home.

The first vote was favored guilty and that was even before they had looked at the evidence.

Just MOO.

 

[~n/t~]

I apologize if this was already posted. Just saw it now.

Q&A: Inside the courtroom for the Peterson verdict

Editor's note: In Session correspondent and former prosecutor Beth Karas was in the courtroom Thursday as the judge read the guilty verdict. Here she talks with HLNTV's Graham Winch about her experience.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/09/07/qa-inside-courtroom-peterson-verdict

 

[CodeSiren]

When I think of Stacy, I have to remind myself that she was only 17 when she fell into Drew's clutches. And at first KS was made out to be her 'mortal' enemy. Drew played them against each other. He even got them to assault each other physically. And he probably told Stacy that KS was out to get her, and to get the kids from her.

Stacy was absolutely totally dependent upon Drew. He made sure of that. She was the legal parent of four young kids, and had no education or much job experience. She was living in a nice home with a nice car and had $ for the kids---ALL because of Drew. But she was trapped. When Kathleen turned up dead, Stacy must have taken awhile to process it. But what could she do?

He wouldn't even let the cops talk to her alone. And once he steered her into those lies, then he probably told her she was part of the crime. I am sure he tried to scare her into silence by saying her lies would make her an accessory. She couldn't go to the cops, because he was the cops. So at some point she KNEW she was going to be next. :rose:

I think this is a good point. I sometimes catch myself questioning some of Stacy's actions, but then I have to remind myself that I'm looking at it from the perspective of a 40 year old woman. In your teens and early 20s, often you don't have the self-esteem or self-confidence to escape that kind of control - particularly if you had a rough childhood. Predators like DP probably seek out young women with those vulnerabilies in the first place - they would more susceptible to his manipulations.

 

[Clio]

BBM and JMO

I think sometimes women have a false sense of security about their abusive partners. Even though you 'know' someone is capable of violence and dangerous sometimes you don't believe they could ever hurt you physically.

Despite my ex threatening to kill me, pulling a gun on me twice, and breaking furniture and a door down to get to me I really never believed he was capable of actually hurting me. Until I left him and his mother called me to warn me I was in danger. The psychology of abuse is just so convoluted, and without the benefit of distance and clarity, it is so difficult to discern just how volatile a situation may truly be.

I'm sorry to hear about your experience so thanks for explaining - it's been bothering me. It just seemed such a reckless thing for Stacy to do but I understand what you are saying. Hope things are all good for you now.

 

[panthera]

But the bad thing is that one could make a case that Stacy made it all up. It is technically possible that Drew was home asleep that night, and later on Stacy made up that story to get back at Drew in the divorce/ [ I know it is not true, but there is nothing to prove her story at this time.]

So she really did not have to have anything of 'substance' to extort him. She was his alibi so all she had to do was withdraw his alibi and embellish it.

I think that is what Brodsky was hoping to sell to the jury. But luckily they saw through his BS.

Not a big deal now that he's convicted, however, there is one thing that stood out to me in the testimony regarding the womens' clothing in the washer. How did Stacy know they were in the washer, and not hers, by merely looking inside? During the wash cycle I can't see through the soap, and after it's finished clothes are lumped together along the sides of the tub.

Also, DP's supposed remark "You know where I was". How would she unless she knew he was going there?

I do think there's more to the story that wasn't told......

MOO

 

[krkrjx]

Not a big deal now that he's convicted, however, there is one thing that stood out to me in the testimony regarding the womens' clothing in the washer. How did Stacy know they were in the washer, and not hers, by merely looking inside? During the wash cycle I can't see through the soap, and after it's finished clothes are lumped together along the sides of the tub.

Also, DP's supposed remark "You know where I was". How would she unless she knew he was going there?

I do think there's more to the story that wasn't told......

MOO

Somewhere along the way I recall a statement having been made that Stacy saw Drew at the washer dressed in black, with a bag of clothing that he emptied into the washer. If this is true, she could have actually witnessed him putting the items in the washer, and could have seen then that they were women's clothing, and not hers.

Or, in her retelling of the incident she could have given a condensed version, leaving out that maybe she saw the clothing items later, coming out of the dryer or whatever.

This incident itself is weird enough for a person to witness that I think they might pay attention to details. I don't know if Stacy would have taken in all the details or not, but I know that in such a situation, I probably would have.

One more thing I thought of regarding this is that Drew could have made a big production putting K's clothing in the washer, as a taunt to Stacy. It's right up his alley to do such a thing, IMO.

 

[Niner]

Question? Instead of reading the 50 pages of the "We the Jury, Deliberations..."

Did the Jury ask any other questions except for the definition of unanimous???

TIA!

 

[panthera]

Somewhere along the way I recall a statement having been made that Stacy saw Drew at the washer dressed in black, with a bag of clothing that he emptied into the washer. If this is true, she could have actually witnessed him putting the items in the washer, and could have seen then that they were women's clothing, and not hers.

Or, in her retelling of the incident she could have given a condensed version, leaving out that maybe she saw the clothing items later, coming out of the dryer or whatever.

This incident itself is weird enough for a person to witness that I think they might pay attention to details. I don't know if Stacy would have taken in all the details or not, but I know that in such a situation, I probably would have.

One more thing I thought of regarding this is that Drew could have made a big production putting K's clothing in the washer, as a taunt to Stacy. It's right up his alley to do such a thing, IMO.

That is quite possible. It does appear to have been a condensed version, with her having seen more than she told. And I would agree that he could have made a production out of it, to let her know what fate she faced if shee ever crossed him.

MOO

 

[Clio]

Question? Instead of reading the 50 pages of the "We the Jury, Deliberations..."

Did the Jury ask any other questions except for the definition of unanimous???

TIA!

IIRC They asked for DP's phone records and for the photos of the body in the bath. They also wanted transcripts of the testimonies of Niel Schori and Harry Smith. The judge wouldn't give them the transcripts but he brought the jury back into court where the transcripts were read to them.

 

[Madeleine74]

THANK YOU ChickenPants for articulating exactly what I've been trying to say.

The jury can't imagine their deliberations without Smith and Schori's testimony, but if they did have to deliberate and they didn't have statements from those 2 witnesses, they would have deliberated and been none the wiser. Chances are they would still have voted to convict in the end because there was other evidence, not hearsay, that connected Drew Peterson to the crime. His own statements heard, as one example.

 

[STEADFAST]

Just depositing my 8,000th post here to celebrate that I can hit that mark on a thread about Drew Peterson being found guilty of 1st-degree murder.
:skip::skip::skip::skip:

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

woman who went missing in 2007 before Stacy and likewise still hasn't been found.....Lisa Stebic. Her husband remains the only person of interest.
The Sun Times reports that Glasgow is gearing up for that case now.
If it is her husband that they are looking into, I would be concerned that he would be a flight risk as the article states:

Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow said Friday he’s not only pondering charges in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance but is also putting the Stebic case “on the front burner.” Glasgow said investigators have “significant evidence” in the Stebic case, and that as soon as the Christopher Vaughn trial ends, his top prosecutors will review it all.

“With the evidence that we would have, you can prosecute a murder case without a body,” he said Friday.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/...r-missing-will-county-woman-on-the-front.html

WOW. Websleuths we have so much activity in Will County!!

There is a section at Websleuths for Lisa too.

Also, I maintain a case archive for her here:
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Lisa Stebic -IL-/

 

[TallCoolOne]

This is what I don't get. Drew might get to keep his pension because he wasn't on duty, yet he was in uniform and driving his police vehicle at the time.

Was he just getting off duty? Was he scheduled to go on duty soon? these questions have never been fully answered to my knowledge. I have to admit, though, I don't know all the details of what is public information in this case.

I missed over a week of the trial, but I tried to read all the posts. I may have missed if this information.

Thank you for asking the same question that has been niggling away in the back of my mind. I have always wondered about his work schedule that weekend as well. If this has not yet been answered, if anyone knows, please share!!

 

[LambChop]

Thank you for asking the same question that has been niggling away in the back of my mind. I have always wondered about his work schedule that weekend as well. If this has not yet been answered, if anyone knows, please share!!

DP should not get his pension. He used his position as a police officer to get away with murder. At the very least when he called the locksmith to open up Kathy's door he was using police resources to get the door unlocked when he should have called LE and they would have kept him out of the house while they investigated. Essentially he was breaking into her home if he were off duty. DP knew what the procedures were. He totally abused his power as LE to guide those investigators to find she died accidentially. I hope they look into DP's past. There just may too many coinky dinks in some of his past investigations. jmo

 

[Wishbone]

DP should not get his pension. He used his position as a police officer to get away with murder. At the very least when he called the locksmith to open up Kathy's door he was using police resources to get the door unlocked when he should have called LE and they would have kept him out of the house while they investigated. Essentially he was breaking into her home if he were off duty. DP knew what the procedures were. He totally abused his power as LE to guide those investigators to find she died accidentially. I hope they look into DP's past. There just may too many coinky dinks in some of his past investigations. jmo

Peterson's police pension may be challenged

A hearing would be held before Peterson's pension could be revoked, and Peterson would have legal representation and the ability to present evidence and witnesses — a sort of minitrial that might rehash much of the testimony from the murder trial.

Typically the law applies to public employees whose crimes are directly linked to abuse of their official powers or occurred while on duty, such as embezzling government money or taking a bribe, said Jeff Goodloe, a Libertyville attorney who represents numerous police and fire pension boards.

"I think it's a difficult argument for a pension board to make in this case," Goodloe said. "It's a heinous crime, but there didn't seem to be a connection to his service as a police officer."


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...8_1_pension-board-police-pension-joel-brodsky

 

[panthera]

Peterson's police pension may be challenged

A hearing would be held before Peterson's pension could be revoked, and Peterson would have legal representation and the ability to present evidence and witnesses — a sort of minitrial that might rehash much of the testimony from the murder trial.

Typically the law applies to public employees whose crimes are directly linked to abuse of their official powers or occurred while on duty, such as embezzling government money or taking a bribe, said Jeff Goodloe, a Libertyville attorney who represents numerous police and fire pension boards.

"I think it's a difficult argument for a pension board to make in this case," Goodloe said. "It's a heinous crime, but there didn't seem to be a connection to his service as a police officer."


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...8_1_pension-board-police-pension-joel-brodsky

BBM

I respectfully disagree with Goodloe. Not only did he use his position as a LE officer (Sergeant/Watch Commander no less) to gain entry into Kathleen's house when he directed neighbors to find her body, there are accounts of him stalking Kathleen and/or Stacy in his patrol car, in addition to him allegedly soliciting a hit-man while on duty. Isn't it also possible Kathleen may still be alive if she had been able to follow through with complaints against him but didn't do so because of fear he would lose his job?

MOO

 

[borndem]

When I think of Stacy, I have to remind myself that she was only 17 when she fell into Drew's clutches. And at first KS was made out to be her 'mortal' enemy. Drew played them against each other. He even got them to assault each other physically. And he probably told Stacy that KS was out to get her, and to get the kids from her.

Stacy was absolutely totally dependent upon Drew. He made sure of that. She was the legal parent of four young kids, and had no education or much job experience. She was living in a nice home with a nice car and had $ for the kids---ALL because of Drew. But she was trapped. When Kathleen turned up dead, Stacy must have taken awhile to process it. But what could she do?

He wouldn't even let the cops talk to her alone. And once he steered her into those lies, then he probably told her she was part of the crime. I am sure he tried to scare her into silence by saying her lies would make her an accessory. She couldn't go to the cops, because he was the cops. So at some point she KNEW she was going to be next. :rose:

I think this is a good point. I sometimes catch myself questioning some of Stacy's actions, but then I have to remind myself that I'm looking at it from the perspective of a 40 year old woman. In your teens and early 20s, often you don't have the self-esteem or self-confidence to escape that kind of control - particularly if you had a rough childhood. Predators like DP probably seek out young women with those vulnerabilies in the first place - they would more susceptible to his manipulations.

ITA with you both! Poor little Stacy. He really had her completely under his thumb. And they both knew it. <smh>

All DP had to tell her was that if she went to the "authorities" (police or whoever else she might have in mind), she would be considered an accessory to the crime -- and she would probably get the same sentence he would if he were to be convicted -- so there goes her getting the children, any child support, alimony, pension, property or anything. She would probably never see her children again....

And who was she to argue? He was a veteran LEO who had testified in court; I'm sure he reminded her that he knew everything there was to know about the law, so her goose would be cooked. "They'd probably arrest you as soon as you went in there and told them that -- right straight into a cell. You'd be a fool to try it. But go ahead Stacy, just go on down there and see what happens to you." Grrrrrr.

But he was wrong.

 

[borndem]

This is what I don't get. Drew might get to keep his pension because he wasn't on duty, yet he was in uniform and driving his police vehicle at the time.

Was he just getting off duty? Was he scheduled to go on duty soon? these questions have never been fully answered to my knowledge. I have to admit, though, I don't know all the details of what is public information in this case.

I missed over a week of the trial, but I tried to read all the posts. I may have missed if this information.

Thank you for asking the same question that has been niggling away in the back of my mind. I have always wondered about his work schedule that weekend as well. If this has not yet been answered, if anyone knows, please share!!

Me three -- I guess "they" know when he was on and off duty, but isn't that splitting hairs? (Of course, there's no reason to a lot of rules having to do with employees, & it's probably crazier with LEO's.)

 

[krkrjx]

BBM

I respectfully disagree with Goodloe. Not only did he use his position as a LE officer (Sergeant/Watch Commander no less) to gain entry into Kathleen's house when he directed neighbors to find her body, there are accounts of him stalking Kathleen and/or Stacy in his patrol car, in addition to him allegedly soliciting a hit-man while on duty. Isn't it also possible Kathleen may still be alive if she had been able to follow through with complaints against him but didn't do so because of fear he would lose his job?

MOO

I completely agree with all you have stated. DP used his position in LE numerous times in a number of ways in the commission of this crime. So what if he was off duty at the time of the murder...this was not a crime that happened spur-of-the-moment. Drew plotted, planned, solicited, stalked, and it all led up to murder. Also what cannot be ignored is what affect Drew's position in LE had on Kathleen's expectations for anyone within LE seriously coming to her aid if she complained about Drew harrassing, stalking or threatening her.

I am torn on the pension issue because on one hand I do not want DP given anything. He is no longer a free man and should not have the rights of a free man. But on the other hand, there are minor children to consider--I would not want them to suffer any more than they already have. Still, I worry that even if the pension is paid for the care of the minor children, if monitoring of expenditures is not strictly enforced a significant portion of the funds could end up in the murderer's control.