Good morning all! After a week away on a three-state journey with my BFF to give her a well-deserved time out from RL, I am back and have read everything I missed.
Niner, thank you so much for being the certified statistician on this case. Your last two posts were very useful. They are tucked away in my memory book of this trial!
I am so hoping and praying that the defense's shoddy presentation clinches the case in the jury's mind.
Joel Brodsky certainly put his pride and bluster on the line when calling Smith yesterday, despite the judge's and his own team's warnings. He really thought he could turn the testimony around against Stacy. He wanted so much to prove that she was "dirty" in attempting to manipulate Drew in her divorce. She was doing exactly that, but the jury now knows that she knew about the murder cover-up. Of course, it's been frequently mentioned during the trial that Drew didn't want Kathleen to get what she deserved from the divorce, and she realized she should use such tactics to get a fair settlement from Drew.
Also playing into the prosecution's hand was that Brodsky pushed Smith about when he last had contact with Stacy all the way to the deadly month of October didn't help. Again, while the jury can't consider (out loud or to the media) Stacy's disappearance, it is a link that just might affect some juror's thinking processes. It can't be helped.
In addition, by putting the focus again on Stacy by calling Smith, the jury could legitimately discuss WHY, if she was so important, she didn't appear to testify. Surely, those who don't know the situation will find that very, very hinky. Here is a man on trial for his life, why isn't his current wife there to support him, as was Tom Peterson. Poor Tom, a top student at a prestegious Ivy League school, had to sacrifice valuable study time to come in and tell the jury he doesn't BELIEVE his father killed his mother and botch up the whole bath routine. It was just another example of parental alienation by DP.
I remember the Super-Cool press conferences prior to the trial where the defense kept saying that they didn't have to present a case because there wasn't enough evidence to convict. The prosecution couldn't PROVE Drew was ever in the house. Well, we got various renditions of the "SWAT" attack as well as the contents of Kathleen's letter. He COULD get into the house.
IMHO, the defense would have been wiser not to put on a case and then argued they didn't need it because the opposition hadn't proven its case. Noooooooooo.... they had to do their flash and dash for the jury. They just might have sunk their case.
I won't predict a verdict here. I never predicted a verdict in the OTHER case, either. It all depends on the jury. We know all about juries by now.