Bruce Zidarich

WhiteLilly

New Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
112
Reaction score
3
Which statements in particular? I have followed this case from day one and have never seen anything from anyone that knew Stacy and believed she disappeared voluntarily.
 

Leila

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
12,378
Reaction score
17
I've followed this case from the beginning and Bruce Zidarich has always been solidly with Stacy's family regarding Stacy disappearance. He was the last person outside the Peterson household to speak with Stacy. He was on the phone with her until about 10:25am on Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007.

There was nothing in that phone call that indicated Stacy was going to be doing anything outside her normal activities. By noon, Drew was starting to cover up what happened that morning. Sharon Bychowski called and asked to speak with Stacy. Drew's son, Kris, answered the phone and was a bit flustered and Drew took the phone and said that Stacy had gone to visit her grandfather, who was in an assisted living facility at that time.

Later that night Bruce accompanied Stacy's sister, Cassandra, who had been looking for Stacy since early afternoon. They drove past the Peterson house about 11:30pm and there were no cars in the driveway. Cassandra went to the door and Kris answered the door, saying Drew was out looking for Stacy. Cassandra called Drew who said he was home......said Stacy had left him for another man. Cassandra could hear Drew fumbling with car keys during that call. At about 2:00pm both Drew's and Stacy's car was in the driveway. Bruce called Drew, who told Bruce that Stacy had left him for another man, and was going to Jamica.

It was at that point that Cassandra went to the state police and made a missing person report.

Bruce's testimony supports the testimony of Sharon Bychowski, Stacy's aunt, Candace Aikin, and others who've testified that Stacy wanted to leave Drew and that she was fearful that he'd kill her.
 

Peculiar Petunia

New Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
197
Reaction score
2
The way the testimony was presented online, it sounded to support DP's line that Stacy ran off. Sorry if I ruffled any petals.
 

Leila

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
12,378
Reaction score
17
The way the testimony was presented online, it sounded to support DP's line that Stacy ran off. Sorry if I ruffled any petals.

No ruffled petals.................:) I can see how the testimony would sound like it supported Drew's claims that she ran off.

I think what the prosecution is doing is showing the pattern between Kathleen Savio and Stacy. They've presented testimony from friends and family of Kathleen showing that she wanted to leave Drew. was fearful of him, that he made threats to her, abused her, and eventually killed her. Kathleen divorced Drew and was in the process of finalizing the divorce when she was killed.

The prosecution is showing that Drew threatened Stacy, she was fearful of him telling friends and family that she feared he would kill her. Like Kathleen, Stacy was trying to leave Drew. Stacy's sister, Cassandra has said in press interviews that she witnessed Drew physically abusing Stacy, and when she testifies in the hearsay hearing, I expect she'll elaborate on the abuse she witnessed.

I think the prosecution will tie it all together, showing that Drew treated both Kathleen and Stacy the same, treating them like his possessions to do with as he pleased, and getting rid of them when they became a liability.......him having to pay them through the division of property and child support. The prosecution is trying to show that both Kathleen and Stacy tried to leave Drew and he killed them both.

I like how the prosecution is presenting the evidence in the hearsay hearing...........starting out with a lot of direct evidence to provide the background and gradually introducing hearsay evidence. Like Sharon Bychowski's testimony..........that was a mixture of direct evidence and hearsay. She testified to things she witnessed - direct testimony, and hearsay evidence - things Stacy told her.
 

Leila

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
12,378
Reaction score
17
Leila--you're more of a legal eagle than I. Appreciate the patient explanation!

I'm not really that much of a legal eagle. :blushing: I've just watched a number of cases and their trials, and have seen some of the strategy the prosecution and defense use.

I have to say this...........Drew's attorney, Joel Brodsky, is an embarrassment to his profession! He's been giving press conferences outside the courthouse, and making terrible remarks about the prosecution's witnesses. He wants everyone to believe that each of the prosecution's witnesses are either alcoholics, drug addicts, liars, or have a personal vendetta against Drew.
 

mysteriew

A diamond in process
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
23,797
Reaction score
509
I'm not really that much of a legal eagle. :blushing: I've just watched a number of cases and their trials, and have seen some of the strategy the prosecution and defense use.

I have to say this...........Drew's attorney, Joel Brodsky, is an embarrassment to his profession! He's been giving press conferences outside the courthouse, and making terrible remarks about the prosecution's witnesses. He wants everyone to believe that each of the prosecution's witnesses are either alcoholics, drug addicts, liars, or have a personal vendetta against Drew.

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder something. If all of DrewP's friends, family and acquaintance's are so unstable, what does that make DrewP seeing that he cannot seem to find any stable people to hang with? (Being sarcastic here)

Actually it shows DrewP's instability. He is superior to everyone he knows. He only chose to hang with them so they could admire his class. (Ok, still being sarcastic)
 
Top