Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

[borndem]

Yeah, cos' fat busters side-effect is falling in tubs and cutting your head.:what:
LOL j/k. Those fat buster pills, IF she even took them, is a non-issue I think.
More of Drew's BS out of his liar liar mouth.

He's like FCA, if his mouth is moving, he's lying. I'm surprised his kid who just turned 18 (one of KS's sons) is sticking by Drew, he's a very bright kid (Valedictorian) so I would think he would be able to use deductive reasoning and come to the very obvious conclusion that Drew killed Kathleen. Nobody else had motive. IMO.

abbie

My thoughts exactly, abbie. Maybe, maybe this trial will make them think about things a bit. Did any one of them ever see her crying or stressing when he was out of the house? Did they not notice when he would do or say little mean things or make snide or hurtful remarks to her? She was their mother, for heaven's sake.

And who else in the world would want her dead? They are old enuff to think about such things as property ownership, insurance, alimony, etc., etc. I'm sure she loved them very much & was a wonderful mom to them all those years. She was their mother.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I know what you mean about the investigation, borndem! HTH did LE know that Kathleen drowned? She could have been strangled and then placed in the tub. It is SOP to treat every scene as a potential crime scene until you know what you have. Were the LE at the scene so experienced they could play coroner and determine it was an accidental accident? Even we know better than to presume that. It should have been treated as a crime scene. You only have ONE chance to preserve a crime scene! I'm furious too, borndem!

 

[LaLaw2000]

See you all tomorrow! Have a great night!


:seeya:

 

[borndem]

had some OJ and then spiffed up the bathroom with the towel?
He was there shortly after the police left cleaning up according to Kathleen's sister because "he didn't want his sons to see that blood"

bbm

Oh, Windy, you always bring up good points...

After the police left....

Would that be "cleaning up," or "destroying evidence"? Depends on who's telling or who's asking, doesn't it? Grrrrrrr. I have never seen such as this. DP must have had (or still does have) a long reach.

And a lot of nerve.

 

[mysteriew]

In Session The next day, Tuesday, the witness did not go to school. He saw Drew, Stacy, and Stephen Peterson at Savio’s house. “Did you go over to Kathy’s house that day?” “No.” “Where did you see him?” “I saw him gong into the house, and taking stuff out.”

Boy he didn't wait long to get in there did he? Didn't take her family with him. How did he know that she hadn't changed the will and left the property to someone else? In which case he would have been trespassing.

BTW how did he get in the house?

 

[borndem]

Hello...kinda new here, finally joined anyway...I have been reading and following cases for 12 yrs between here and used to be court tv...I just wanted to say a big thank you for all the updates and info...still kinda nervous but i'm learning this, lol...yes, I do believe drew is not innocent by any means...the whole story is just so sad and i pray stacy will be found...thanks again

:wagon: caligma!!
​

Just jump on in, the water's fine!! Glad to have you with us!!

 

[katydid23]

There have been high profile cases which have had jurors coordinating, and most actually convicted (think tnose cases were mentioned upthread) But yep, if they admit to following bruising, may be just cause as is no daily admonishments by the judge in this case. And to note also, only defense can get verdict thrown out.... state cannot. Need input from a legaleagle on this one, but MOO.

You are right that only the defense can appeal a verdict. But either side can charge juror misconduct. If after the verdict, the state gets information that the jurors were patterning their clothing colors with the stages of bruising, and they did so in support of the defense theory of the injuries, then the verdict can be nullified. I am pretty sure that either side can charge jury misconduct after the fact.

 

[LambChop]

BBM

So who put it back on the counter for the investigators to find?

:waitasec:

(Let me guess.....)

MOO

Plus the fact if Kathy was the type to pour the juice, put the cap back on and then put the carton away in the refrigerator does it make sense she would leave the cap off the container and let it sit on the counter?????? It sounds as if it was either staged or she was interrupted right in the middle of what she was doing. She would not decide while she was making breakfast to just run upstairs and take a bath in the middle of making breakfast?????? So this was information the investigator's missed because the juice container was put away.

Another thing that makes no sense. How did the condom get into the upstairs bathroom when the bf stated he put it in the kitchen trash? If someone wanted it to look as if a certain person may have killed her if it were ruled a homocide what evidence was in that bathroom would have pointed to another person?????? Kathy certainly did not carry that upstairs to put in her bathroom trash can. jmo

 

[tsitra01]

The closing is going to be extremely important for the PT to pull everything together and present it clearly to the jury that DP murdered KS and was the only one who had motive to do so.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

I know that we have had STRONG testimony about the intent and motive to kill, the opportunity to kill, but not having any physical evidence at the scene and some highly paid "spin 'doctors'"lease: (in this case literally) making it their "business" to say that it was an accident, I am afraid that the jury may not convict.
If they do not convict, I hope that they are hung at least so that he will remain in the jug and we can re-try him. Hopefully that won't be necessary.

The closing is going to be extremely important for the PT to pull everything together and present it clearly to the jury that DP murdered KS and was the only one who had motive to do so.

 

[fifteen89]

Seriously, Greenberg? I can't even remember the words he used it was so ridiculous. Something like Pachter was desperate for money, you'd think he'd call up Drew and get the ball rolling to get the $25k.

Uh, except maybe he didn't want to be any part of a murder. Duh.

And why on GGE would he want the publicity when the 'hoopla' started knowing what was going to come out from his history? And HE didn't come forward - I'd say he was forced forward. Probably by a combination of his ex-wife and he couldn't not tell what he knew about DP.

Gotta turn the channel.

 

[borndem]

:websleuther:Good Morning, Gang -:websleuther: Listening to IS, and they're touching base with the retired judge & one of the DT attys... The :liar: def. atty is already making me gag. Do they all think that EVERYBODY is stooopid? I mean, some of us are thinkers, right?

IMO, if the jury were hearing this slop, a Guilty verdict would be a slam-dunk. It's too early to get this mad this early in the morning. :furious: Even my intelligence is insulted. Arrrrgggggghhhhh.

Have a nice day!!!

 

[WindyCityGirl]

which could have a terrible effect on his future employment or future relationships. Having been delinquent on your taxes and having had a mutual relationship with a 16 year old when you are 18 is quite different than carrying on with a 16/17 year old when you are 47 like Drew.
What a crock.
I think that Jeffrey Pachter showed a lot of courage coming forward and testifying. Even acknowledging that he himself was in such a low life place that someone would consider that he would do something like that or know someone who would wasn't something that would/could help him in any way.
The only way that his testimony could have been of any advantage to him would be if he were a masochist. Simple as that. It was painful and embarrassing for him.

I heard Joe the Shark speaking about his testimony both on the radio and on the news last night. He was arguing that Pachter is a liar and was looking to make money and laughed him off. I thought I would share that I found his vocal quality to sound really weak. He is aggressive and sharp, but he doesn't have a resounding masculine voice--it sounds undeveloped and weak (almost cartoon-like), though his unrelenting and quick minded questioning are powerful.
The prosecution have a soft presentation style which I think can also be perceived as weak.

edited: I have typed sadist instead of masochist....I haven't had enough coffee yet!

Seriously, Greenberg? I can't even remember the words he used it was so ridiculous. Something like Pachter was desperate for money, you'd think he'd call up Drew and get the ball rolling to get the $25k.

Uh, except maybe he didn't want to be any part of a murder. Duh.

And why on GGE would he want the publicity when the 'hoopla' started knowing what was going to come out from his history? And HE didn't come forward - I'd say he was forced forward. Probably by a combination of his ex-wife and he couldn't not tell what he knew about DP.

Gotta turn the channel.

 

[borndem]

The closing is going to be extremely important for the PT to pull everything together and present it clearly to the jury that DP murdered KS and was the only one who had motive to do so.

Yes, tsitra -- It had better be good!!

Let me ask the IL folks about this.... Which side gets the final word, i.e., Closing Argument in a case like this? The People? TIA.

(This is the procedure in NC unless the DT presents no case, in which case the DT gets the last word...).

 

[lorann]

Many have remarked that DP seemed to have more assets than the average Sgt with mortgages, child support, etc. could afford. Not only was he unfaithful, controlling, not wanting to share any of his pension, Kathleen had threatened to share information on him. DP was not going to have any of that - and just maybe some of that information involved other LE - thus the cover up? Too bad we don't have any of this info and if we did, would the judge allow it? Make his motive to silence her even stronger.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Morning all. I asked a question about grand jury testimony being available to the defense team yesterday. I was under the impression that it was always sealed. My googling has turned up this info from a very informative site if anybody is interested. It clears things up for me.

Records of federal grand jury proceedings remain confidential “to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury,” according to Rule 6(e)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is left to the court to determine when to release such records.

Access to state grand jury transcripts varies. In California, transcripts of grand jury testimony become public record once an indictment is returned, unless a defendant can show a reasonable likelihood that release of part or all of the transcripts would prejudice his right to a fair trial.

Other states have no such law. A Massachusetts trial judge recently unsealed all court documents except the grand jury transcripts in Commonwealth v. Pitsas, a case involving a retired dentist charged with accidentally poisoning an infant.


more interesting reading here: http://www.rcfp.org/secret-justice-grand-juries/access-grand-jury-information-and-material

 

[ohiogirl]

Boy he didn't wait long to get in there did he? Didn't take her family with him. How did he know that she hadn't changed the will and left the property to someone else? In which case he would have been trespassing.

BTW how did he get in the house?[/QUOTE]

Good question!

 

[Shelby1]

Happy Thursday!

I have to be gone today *stomps foot* and I don't want to be.

I'll be back to read up.

Will it be yellow today for the jury? Or maybe white?

 

[rpgman]

who's first up on the stand today?

 

[fifteen89]

:websleuther:Good Morning, Gang -:websleuther: Listening to IS, and they're touching base with the retired judge & one of the DT attys... The :liar: def. atty is already making me gag. Do they all think that EVERYBODY is stooopid? I mean, some of us are thinkers, right?

IMO, if the jury were hearing this slop, a Guilty verdict would be a slam-dunk. It's too early to get this mad this early in the morning. :furious: Even my intelligence is insulted. Arrrrgggggghhhhh.

Have a nice day!!!

This is the kind of crap that burns me up. People who aren't following the case hear a snippet here and there and form opinions. If one of those people happens to get on the jury, they might fall for the crap the DT is putting out there.

Here's an excellent example - I remembered Brodsky saying this but had to go back and find it.

"I'm almost surprised Steph Watts didn't do some of the incisions in the autopsy," defense attorney Joel Brodsky said." - http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...nse-attorney-joel-brodsky-autopsy-joe-francis

By the time someone half-hears that and repeats it, it turns into the camera guy did the autopsy.

There was something else Greenberg said after the Pachter bs this morning on IS before I got to the remote - then I got a phone call and now I can't remember what it was. Whatever it was, Beth Karas should've had a follow up question to show how stupid he sounded.