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

[Madeleine74]

Only an arrogant, blind attorney wold think he could control the testimony of a seasoned lawyer who was angry and upset with Brodsky's client.

And dumb. Let's not forget dumb too! The trifecta of traits, which JB had in spades, thank goodness.

 

[fifteen89]

I'm sure this has been said by everyone.......
But yeesh. How 'iornic' that DP fires the one attorney he had that successfully kept the witness that sealed his fate off the stand.....well, until Brodsky screwed up. Wow. Just. Wow.

 

[heidisams]

Note to self: Stay away from lawyers with the initials JB!

Just watching Brodsky call him a total and complete failure! IMHO, he was the best of the bunch. He had some feisty debates with Beth Karas and actually made sense, from a defense attorney point of view.

Also IMHO, Peterson and Brodsky are two peas in a pod. Yeah, put Smith on the stand to prove Stacy was a rotten little liar. That sure worked out! :floorlaugh:

Two peas in a pod, for sure... I think, after witnessing their publicity tour, they both made it perfectly clear how they feel about women. They were degrading, chauvinistic, and down right rude, imo. So, of course, it made sense to them to put Smith on the stand, and that everyone would see Stacy the way that they saw her. Brodsky is such a dishonest, immature hypocrite, imo. I'm astonished that he has the audacity to blame the conviction on Greenberg, especially when we all just heard from the jurors who, in perfect english, told us that without Smith's testimony they would've acquitted...
Brodsky, trying to deflect the blame, said that the jurors were going to convict him without Smiith's testimony anyway, that once they decided it was a homicide it was over... Wrong... That's a bold face lie!!! The jurors said nothing of the sort! My question is, since Brodsky (saving face, imo) just said the hearsay evidence had nothing to do with the conviction, how can he then turn around on appeal and claim the hearsay evidence hurt his client? In this pathetic attempt to salvage what's left of his spiralling career, he's digging himself deeper. He just doesn't have any idea when to shut up and stay away from the camera...he will never learn...

All jmo.

 

[wishinuall]

Brodsky used no common sense. Harry Smith was Kathleen's attorney. He was her advocate and Brodsky KNEW that Smith knew all about Drew and his violent tendencies.

And Brodsky KNEW that Stacy called and confided in Smith. And just two days later she went missing. And they knew that Smith overheard Drew yelling at her while she was on the phone, asking who she was talking to.

Didn't Brodsky understand how guilty Smith must have felt, for Kathleen to have been killed and for Stacy to go missing because she was talking to him on the phone? He must have felt horrible about those two deaths.

Knowing all that, how in the world could Brodsky have wanted Smith anywhere near the witness stand? Only an arrogant, blind attorney wold think he could control the testimony of a seasoned lawyer who was angry and upset with Brodsky's client.

Knowing that Harry Smith had to be outraged by all the facts you just outlined, I think Brodsky called him fully believing he could push his testimony right into their much sought after mistrial! Lord knows he certainly asked EVERY witness the questions whose inadmissable answers would have accomplished that. I'm still blown away at some of the antics these guys pulled!

 

[borndem]

Brodsky used no common sense. Harry Smith was Kathleen's attorney. He was her advocate and Brodsky KNEW that Smith knew all about Drew and his violent tendencies.

And Brodsky KNEW that Stacy called and confided in Smith. And just two days later she went missing. And they knew that Smith overheard Drew yelling at her while she was on the phone, asking who she was talking to.

Didn't Brodsky understand how guilty Smith must have felt, for Kathleen to have been killed and for Stacy to go missing because she was talking to him on the phone? He must have felt horrible about those two deaths.

Knowing all that, how in the world could Brodsky have wanted Smith anywhere near the witness stand? Only an arrogant, blind attorney wold think he could control the testimony of a seasoned lawyer who was angry and upset with Brodsky's client.

bbm -

Maybe DrEWWWWW does have a decent shot at a case for inadequate counsel!!! <gag>

(But in reality, it's on record that one of DP's own counsel & the Judge warned against it, each in his own way, so Nahhhhh, it probably wouldn't fly...) "Ain't that a shame? My tears fell like rain. Ain't that a shame? You're the one to blame ...." as Fats Domino would sing.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Another thing that sticks out in my mind is why did he call the locksmith. He essentially was breaking in. Why not call all her relatives, boyfriend, etc. and tell them he is going to keep the boys until she returns his phone calls? He was too eager to get the neighbors into that house, way too eager. There was no proof she was even there. Let them check it out. Too many things just do not add up. jmo

BBM:

Apparently DP did not even call any of Kathleen's family to see if she was at one of their homes, or to ask if anything had happened to one of her family members.

oops!

*I hope DP is so, so miserable every moment of every day.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Two peas in a pod, for sure... I think, after witnessing their publicity tour, they both made it perfectly clear how they feel about women. They were degrading, chauvinistic, and down right rude, imo. So, of course, it made sense to them to put Smith on the stand, and that everyone would see Stacy the way that they saw her. Brodsky is such a dishonest, immature hypocrite, imo. I'm astonished that he has the audacity to blame the conviction on Greenberg, especially when we all just heard from the jurors who, in perfect english, told us that without Smith's testimony they would've acquitted...
Brodsky, trying to deflect the blame, said that the jurors were going to convict him without Smiith's testimony anyway, that once they decided it was a homicide it was over... Wrong... That's a bold face lie!!! The jurors said nothing of the sort! My question is, since Brodsky (saving face, imo) just said the hearsay evidence had nothing to do with the conviction, how can he then turn around on appeal and claim the hearsay evidence hurt his client? In this pathetic attempt to salvage what's left of his spiralling career, he's digging himself deeper. He just doesn't have any idea when to shut up and stay away from the camera...he will never learn...

All jmo.

I woke up to a couple of excellant articles about the trial which make those very points.

Drew Peterson juror foresaw possible acquittal early in trial

That's when the prosecution was making all those horrible mistakes!

In the most extensive interview of any juror since the guilty verdict, Bond weighed in on the trial’s strange twists, flamboyant cast of characters, the panel’s deliberations and her attempt to regain normalcy in her life. The secretary admitted during a three-hour interview that she at times had to stop her own dislike for Peterson from clouding her objectivity.

Bond said she never believed Kathleen Savio’s battered body was the result of a slip-and-fall tub accident as the defense argued. The fear in Savio’s written words to police and prosecutors before her March 2004 death resonated with Bond, who also endured a contentious divorce years earlier.

But it took the pastor of the defendant’s missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, to convince her “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stacy’s alleged remarks to the Rev. Neil Schori and divorce attorney Harry Smith that she lied to police to protect her husband helped seal his fate, Bond and some other jurors said.

Much more at link:
http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/20...aw-possible-acquittal-early-in-trial/aff1nk4/

Drew Peterson 'Dream Team' Nightmare Continues With Split

Brodsky apparently called Smith in hopes of painting Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, as a gold-digging blackmailer plotting to use the murder of Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, as the means to more money in a divorce.

Instead, Smith repeatedly drove home to the jury that Stacy told him Peterson killed Savio.

Jurors who were interviewed following the trial said it was Smith's testimony that pushed them to convict Peterson of murdering Savio.

Brodsky last week refused to say how responsible he feels for Peterson's conviction. On Tuesday he failed to return calls for comment on Greenberg's firing, on whether he instructed Peterson to sack him, or if he was jealous that Greenberg performed more ably at the trial.

http://naperville.patch.com/article...-team-nightmare-continues-with-split-986606d7

 

[ohiogirl]

I am glad that we finally know what was behind the jury dressing alike. Fitting that they were mocking the DT Lopez couple dressing alike. Greenberg seems to be the only atty on that team with any sense. I thought a bench trial would have made more sense too. One judge is much more likely to keep emotion out and go strictly by the law than twelve jurors. Go figure.

 

[Lera213]

hahahhaa not caught up at all but how funny that it was Smith that pushed some juror's to vote guilty. LMAO

 

[Lera213]

Jurors said they began dressing alike to camouflage the extra pounds and mock married defense attorneys Joseph and Lisa Lopez, who often wore matching colors to court.

http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/20...ible-acquittal-early-in-trial/aff1nk4/?page=2

Love love this part.

 

[wickedlovely]

Does anybody know if the same judge will sentence Peterson? Who will determine the length of the sentence?

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Drew will be sentenced by Judge Burmilla to up to 60 years. Both sides will hold a mini-trial before him, using sentencing guidelines based on information about Peterson. the prosecution will present aggravating circumstances in a plea for the longest possible sentence (although the maximum the ask for is up to them, I'm imagining they will go for all 60) and the defense will present mitigating circumstances. Peterson will have a chance to speak, if he so desires.

Then, the final sentence will be decided by the judge.

 

[wickedlovely]

Drew will be sentenced by Judge Burmilla to up to 60 years. Both sides will hold a mini-trial before him, using sentencing guidelines based on information about Peterson. the prosecution will present aggravating circumstances in a plea for the longest possible sentence (although the maximum the ask for is up to them, I'm imagining they will go for all 60) and the defense will present mitigating circumstances. Peterson will have a chance to speak, if he so desires.

Then, the final sentence will be decided by the judge.

Thanks for your answer! So, if the judge is corrupt, could he give him a light sentence such as time served?

 

[luvhockey]

Lord knows he certainly asked EVERY witness the questions whose inadmissable answers would have accomplished that.

Can someone please explain why the lawyer is allowed to ask (bait IMO) a witness a question that is not supposed to be answered. If a lawyer is allowed to ask the question then the witness should then get free rein to answer.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From the Chicago Tribune: Peterson Fires Lawyer
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ce-lawyer-as-witness-20120911,0,5205957.story

... not the one you would expect.

:seeya: Just saw this news ... LOL ...

JMO ... but I would have fired the whole motley crew !

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

LOL, this made my day.........maybe we will hear MORE from the slimy DT..........and crazy drew.
After all they need the spot light.
Can Greenberg tell some stuff now???
Is he still under the client privlege?
Can he write a tell all book?
LOL

RBBM: Unfortunately, he is still under "attorney client privilege" ...

LOL ... I just had this in the legal class I am taking ...

Hmmm ... maybe he'll "slip" ... wishful thinking !

:seeya:

 

[concernedmother]

For some reason The "Three Stooges" comes to mind.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Thanks for your answer! So, if the judge is corrupt, could he give him a light sentence such as time served?

While this judge is not the most popular person here for a number of reasons, he cannot just hand out sentences willy-nilly. I hope an attorney will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think both sides can appeal a sentence.

I have to say, I didn't like Burmila at the beginning of the trial because of the way he was treating certain female witnesses. I also didn't like all the objections the defense succeeded in getting. Now, with the trial over, I have more respect for him. He was extremely tough on the prosecution, which will result in having the verdict upheld on appeal.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

For some reason The "Three Stooges" comes to mind.

:floorlaugh:




:floorlaugh:

 

[atthelake]

LOL, this made my day.........maybe we will hear MORE from the slimy DT..........and crazy drew.
After all they need the spot light.
Can Greenberg tell some stuff now???
Is he still under the client privlege?
Can he write a tell all book?
LOL

Do you mean tongue in cheek EXACTLY what Jose Baez did? I would think his book sale would be better than Joses book on the Casey Anthony trial?