SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

[katydid23]

IMO he was a weak witness. What the jury does with that is something I can't call.

When you say he was a weak witness, does that mean you don't believe what he testified to? Or does it mean that you think DP WAS joking when he made that offer? Just wondering because I wonder what the jury will decide about it.

 

[TxLady2]

Technically I do agree with you from a purely legal standpoint. One thing we have seen is that the defense has pulled out all stops manipulating the system, getting away with "murder" as they say because the judge sustains their objections and makes pro-defense rulings. The jury is also told to disregard this or that ... I don't think that is possible in the larger context. They can't convict on something they are ordered to disregard, but it can percolate in their consciousness as part of the big picture.

The jury is charged to listen to the evidence and come to a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. I think the key word is "reasonable". IMO they can convict him on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence by common sense deductions, including the same "lack of evidence" that proves she drowned because of AN ACCIDENT. The crime scene (even if not processed by CSI) lacks evidence to prove she was planning on bathing or bathing (where were her discarded clothes?) and the so-called medical history is sketchy and unconvincing.

Put that together with the threats, the letters, the conversation with the pastor, those not being just random occurrences. The elephant in the room: The 4th wife who can't testify herself because either nobody can find her or she doesn't want to be found might not stand on it's own but it's like the pinch of yeast in the dough, without it the bread falls flat.

We have an idea of WHO did it, but the defense is fighting to keep out the WHY. This is the next piece jury might be struggling to fit into that puzzle, BUT by virtue of the fact that the defense CONSTANTLY objects to every potential witness or piece of evidence, I, as a juror am thinking: What's the problem? Let ME listen to this and decide. Otherwise you are trying to hide something you don't want me to hear. My next logical thought would be to figure this hidden information fits into all of the above.

The sticking point is proving where, how and when this happened. Surely the first autopsy revealed approximate time of death, etc. She drowned. Well it's difficult to drown in a dry bathtub and you can deduce approximate times by her hair being wet with blood that is still coagulating. Dried blood has had time to dry and wet blood indicating it would have been sooner.

I am hoping the prosecution will put their theory of the murder itself out in their closing argument. As a juror, I am convinced that DP did it, I just want to know how....but I don't need to know. Because I know that woman did not end up curled up in a round bathtub on her own and she was not taking a bath, and I think it's more than a coincidence that a fourth wife is not around to tell us why SHE was anxious to leave this monster, as well...

Great post, ChickenPants! There have been many convictions won based on circumstantial evidence. Jurors are not stupid, usually, and there has been enough evidence brought in so far that would prove to me that he is guilty
.
I was on a jury once, for a man charged with indecency with a child. There was no physical evidence, but we convicted him after deliberating for several hours. Why? Because it came down to who we believed... him and his granddaughter (a friend of the victim) who had obviously been coached... or the tearful victim and her sister. Sometimes we don't need to know the how or why, but the who is obvious.

 

[panthera]

Grand jury testimony....


I didn’t think he was really serious about it

He may or may not have been at the time, however, ironic that Kathleen later is found dead in what appeared to be a slip/fall/drowning and later ruled a homicide.

And even later on when Stacy disappeared, didn't he say she took $25K, the same amount of money he allegedly offered this 'hit man'?

:waitasec:

MOO

 

[Wishbone]

When you say he was a weak witness, does that mean you don't believe what he testified to? Or does it mean that you think DP WAS joking when he made that offer? Just wondering because I wonder what the jury will decide about it.

He didn't come across with alot of conviction about his testimony. He couldn't remember prior things he said. And I am really curious about why he even made the suppossed phone call to DP months after their talk. He said to ask how DP's wife and kids were? As to DP's motives, I could only guess and that would most likely be wrong. I do lean toward DP being guilty of doing away with both wives, but am waiting to get enough evidence to prove it to myself beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty if I can remain unbiased enough.

 

[Wishbone]

He may or may not have been at the time, however, ironic that Kathleen later is found dead in what appeared to be a slip/fall/drowning and later ruled a homicide.

And even later on when Stacy disappeared, didn't he say she took $25K, the same amount of money he allegedly offered this 'hit man'?

:waitasec:

MOO

I'm playing devil's advocate with myself. I followed this case for a short time in the beginning and decided immediately he was guilty. Left it alone for years and now that the trial is finally taking place I want to see if the evidence will convince me of his guilt. Not sure I can put aside my prejudice but I'm trying.......

 

[Niner]

respectfully snipped...

I just had a thought...

In any event, if I am a juror, right now I am thinking:
How many men have I heard of who have been married four times, have unlimited access to and carry weapons and know and consort with thugs, take out contracts on ex-wives, and two of their ex-wives have gone to extraordinary lengths to find tell people that their lives are in danger or they know that he has threatened/killed another wife? Could such a man as this kill his wife and make it look like an accident?

:thumb: Absolutely!!

why didn't the son that has nothing to do with DP since the divorse of KS and SP marriage be called as a witness?
IIRC he always thought DP killed KS.
IIRC he is the oldest adult child to 1st wife.
Why didn't 2nd wife testify to the abuse she took from DP?
JMOO

aahhh... probably TOO prejudical to DP... and this judge would just :denied: . :scream:

Also, I see we have some :newbie: s

-MD-, summer4mplz, shotgun09, and mattfz!!!

:welcome4:


:greetings:

 

[TxLady2]

I don’t feel good about the testimony of the hitman and the pastor. I thought the hitman’s testimony was very weak and vague when it could have much stronger if he really had anything of substance to say. As for the pastor, the whole scenario doesn’t set right with me. What pastor councils with someone but insists on it being in a public place. I’ve talked with many pastors in my lifetime and have never once had one suggest we meet in public let alone him bring a witness along to watch us. Something just isn’t right and it has nothing to do with DP.

Perhaps since this pastor was fairly young and attractive, and Stacy was young and attractive, he preferred to meet in a public place so that they could be seen by other people and no one could suggest any sort of impropriety on either's part. Just my guess, there could be other reasons.
Women have been known to develop crushes on young good-looking pastors. Some have taken advantage of that and maybe he was just taking precautions that nothing like that could possibly happen.

 

[Wishbone]

Perhaps since this pastor was fairly young and attractive, and Stacy was young and attractive, he preferred to meet in a public place so that they could be seen by other people and no one could suggest any sort of impropriety on either's part. Just my guess, there could be other reasons.
Women have been known to develop crushes on young good-looking pastors. Some have taken advantage of that and maybe he was just taking precautions that nothing like that could possibly happen.

Found out later that this pastor always meets in a public place to protect himself.........

 

[TxLady2]

In my view we DO have something that puts DP physically at the crime scene. If Kathleen slipped and fell (which is what the DT wants us to believe), imo the gash on the back of her head would have left a corresponding mark with blood/hair wherever her head landed. If she slipped and fell and drowned, we know she didn't go unconscious and come to later and clean up the bloody spot before she went unconscious again and drowned.......because there's no bloody towel at the scene.

Odd there's no bloody towel.
Then there's no towel.
Then there's a towel.

True, but the defense would say it puts someone at the crime scene, just not necessarily Drew.
Yes, it is odd about the towel.

 

[Niner]

DEFENSE TEAM


WEBSLEUTHERS


:doh::doh::doh: poor PROSECUTORS

:snake: DREW
:behind: ALSO DREW

nline:nline:nline: WEBSLEUTHERS

:silly: :clap: Excellent AbbieNormal!!

If they do what you say, and do it in their grandstanding, outrageous, circus manner, it is going to backfire on them. The jury is not going to like it. IMO the jury is probably already more than fed up with their constant objections, many of which are just for the sake of blabbering, showing off and interrupting the prosecution's momentum. How much do you think the jurors enjoy coming into court and being sent out every 5 minutes because of defense objections? If I were a juror I'd surmise these witnesses, testimony, content, etc., would have been worked out pre-trial and that this defense is just playing dirty, and that would make me distrust them, and I would conclude that they think he is guilty or they wouldn't go to so much trouble to block every single piece of testimony the prosecutors offer.

In other words, if Drew is such a good guy with nothing to hide, then why aren't we allowed to hear ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? That's how I see it. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Simple.

Technically I do agree with you from a purely legal standpoint. One thing we have seen is that the defense has pulled out all stops manipulating the system, getting away with "murder" as they say because the judge sustains their objections and makes pro-defense rulings. The jury is also told to disregard this or that ... I don't think that is possible in the larger context. They can't convict on something they are ordered to disregard, but it can percolate in their consciousness as part of the big picture.

The jury is charged to listen to the evidence and come to a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. I think the key word is "reasonable". IMO they can convict him on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence by common sense deductions, including the same "lack of evidence" that proves she drowned because of AN ACCIDENT. The crime scene (even if not processed by CSI) lacks evidence to prove she was planning on bathing or bathing (where were her discarded clothes?) and the so-called medical history is sketchy and unconvincing.

Put that together with the threats, the letters, the conversation with the pastor, those not being just random occurrences. The elephant in the room: The 4th wife who can't testify herself because either nobody can find her or she doesn't want to be found might not stand on it's own but it's like the pinch of yeast in the dough, without it the bread falls flat.

We have an idea of WHO did it, but the defense is fighting to keep out the WHY. This is the next piece jury might be struggling to fit into that puzzle, BUT by virtue of the fact that the defense CONSTANTLY objects to every potential witness or piece of evidence, I, as a juror am thinking: What's the problem? Let ME listen to this and decide. Otherwise you are trying to hide something you don't want me to hear. My next logical thought would be to figure this hidden information fits into all of the above.

The sticking point is proving where, how and when this happened. Surely the first autopsy revealed approximate time of death, etc. She drowned. Well it's difficult to drown in a dry bathtub and you can deduce approximate times by her hair being wet with blood that is still coagulating. Dried blood has had time to dry and wet blood indicating it would have been sooner.

I am hoping the prosecution will put their theory of the murder itself out in their closing argument. As a juror, I am convinced that DP did it, I just want to know how....but I don't need to know. Because I know that woman did not end up curled up in a round bathtub on her own and she was not taking a bath, and I think it's more than a coincidence that a fourth wife is not around to tell us why SHE was anxious to leave this monster, as well...

:goodpost: Great posts ChickenPants!! Worth repeating again - and HOPEFULLY! the Jurors will be thinking this way! And by the way - could you explain your user name - ChickenPants - ??

If it is true that DP owned a bar I would think that a lot of his customers were LE who probably ran a tab at the bar. When a group of LE get together in a bar the stories fly. Or just on single officer who happens to be drinking too much at the bar may reveal too much information to a certain person who is also a police officer. The bar was a perfect place for DP to get information on his fellow officers that those officers might now want shared with the public or their superiors. They all do it so I imagine DP has a lot of dirt on a lot of people. jmo

another GREAT posts - good thinking everyone - that's why I LOVE to read here - everyone always has some "good" ideas! :dance: and make us all "think"!

In any trial, it's all about putting together a puzzle. The puzzle has to have certain pieces that "fit" so that in the end you have a picture.

Using an analogy of a baseball game, if you have 50 pieces that have scenes of that game, I'm sure you'd have a field, players, fans, etc.

Lets say you have 49 pieces of the puzzle that fit and the one you are missing (or lost) happens to be in the batters box waiting for the pitch. One could reasonably assume you are missing the batter. He would complete that puzzle even if you could not prove it because you did not have it.

The same thing applies in this case like any case. The puzzle has a broken marriage with a history of abuse and threats. These threats have been real or spoken.

All of the pieces are in place except for one. The jury has to come to a reasonable conclusion on who that missing piece is.

:goodpost: excellent Livingthedream - see what I mean!?! eace:

FWIW Kathleen's family said she kept her nails long.

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/drew-peterson-trial-day-eleven/

.... Mitchell examined both Savio's fingers and toe nails as being “short and clean.” ...

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/drew-peterson-trial-day-ten/


Sounds like the killer clipped her nails. imo

Good catch Noway! But as someone (sorry!) said maybe she had cut them shorter for her nursing thing... guess we'll never know...

 

[Niner]

transcripts from Rev. Schori's testimony yesterday.

Transcripts?? Where?? Link, please!! lease:

 

[AbbieNormal]

To me, the witness doesn't sound like he knew if he should take DP serious or not. That makes his testimony weak as far as I'm concerned.

No normal person asks such a question, most especially a cop in uniform riding around with a civilian in the back. A Joke???? Not to funny, IMO.

Drew thought he was a comedian, apparently, except his jokes and antics were NOT funny and we have plenty of video that I'm betting NONE of us want to see again. (The videotaping the cameramen & reporters in his yard and his accompanying attempt to be 'funny' with what he said, his joke about a pig and something else with the punchline being "some things, a pig will not do", his supposed 'joke' of a Win A Date With Drew radio contest, which thank God never took place,) and on and on and on.

Not only is his particular sick brand of humor NOT funny, he picks and chooses times when a stupid comment is brushed off by him as a "joke" when deep down inside most people think he meant what he said when he said it. He's such a smart-mouth and smart-a$$ that people don't know if he's serious of not.

JMO and :moo:

abbie

 

[panthera]

I'm playing devil's advocate with myself. I followed this case for a short time in the beginning and decided immediately he was guilty. Left it alone for years and now that the trial is finally taking place I want to see if the evidence will convince me of his guilt. Not sure I can put aside my prejudice but I'm trying.......

You aren't alone trying to think of alternate scenarios to him being responsible for Kathleen's death. I have also tried.....just can't accept that many coincidences. As for the jury, can only hope they know more than what they have heard in the courtroom, although they are not supposed to consider it during deliberations.

MOO

 

[Wishbone]

You aren't alone trying to think of alternate scenarios to him being responsible for Kathleen's death. I have also tried.....just can't accept that many coincidences. As for the jury, can only hope they know more than what they have heard in the courtroom, although they are not supposed to consider it during deliberations.

MOO

That's exactly it. If they do know some of these extra things then they are suppossed to put them aside and come to a verdict with just the evidence presented. Only really honest and dedicated jurors will be able to do that unless I underestimate my fellow man.........

 

[Niner]

I'm playing devil's advocate with myself. I followed this case for a short time in the beginning and decided immediately he was guilty. Left it alone for years and now that the trial is finally taking place I want to see if the evidence will convince me of his guilt. Not sure I can put aside my prejudice but I'm trying.......

Me, too Wishbone - I followed this when Stacy went missing, and then Kathleen's death came up - and then nothing happened for a while - so I got on to other cases, and now that the trial started, I too,want to see if my first "hunch" that he is guilty is correct and how much evidence they have. Actually, they have a TON of "inappropriate" actions from DP, but nothing is getting in, unfortunately... :maddening:

 

[AbbieNormal]

Not Catholic, so not a priest. He was a pastor of the church Stacy and Drew attended.

Bet that pew sizzled when Drew was in attendance.

JMO and:moo: too.

abbie

 

[TxLady2]

If a cop asks an acquaintance to come on a ride along so they can talk, and then brings up the issue of offering 25 grand for 'taking care of' his ex wife, why would someone assume it was just a joke?

Also, you have to take it in context with the other evidence. The letter which Stacy wrote to the DA, listing the threats and the violence, and the dead bolt on her bedroom door, when added to the testimony, strengthen the credibility, imo.

Why on earth would a cop who has been trained as an investigator and knows how to stage a murder to look like an accident, want to hire a hitman to kill his ex wife? Any cop with one eye and half sense would know that he couldn't trust a criminal and that it would come back to bite him in the butt. Drew is too smart for that, he'd been in LE a long time.
I seriously doubt this alleged hitman's story. It doesn't change my mind about his guilt, I just don't think it ever happened. He's shrewd and cunning, he is not stupid. This guy was either wanting his 15 minutes, or he was paid by the prosecution to make up this story, because they thought their case was weak.

 

[Wishbone]

Me, too Wishbone - I followed this when Stacy went missing, and then Kathleen's death came up - and then nothing happened for a while - so I got on to other cases, and now that the trial started, I too,want to see if my first "hunch" that he is guilty is correct and how much evidence they have. Actually, they have a TON of "inappropriate" actions from DP, but nothing is getting in, unfortunately... :maddening:

I'm like you, waiting for the evidence to weigh in and convince me he's guilty without adding all the other stuff I've read about him. He seems so guilty, but can they prove it. I look at Josh Powell and what eventually happened and can't believe that he was never charged. Just a shame, we all knew he was guilty.

 

[AbbieNormal]

I'd think if he tried to remove her clothes after killing her, such as pulling a shirt up over her head, he'd risk blood smearing all around. He would have had to lay her down somewhere to do it. It seems that when he finally killed her, he did it quickly and violently. I don't think he would have bothered to strip her clothes off. For some reason I just think he made her take them off before he killed her.

Quite possible he made her undress while he stood behind her with his arm around her neck and a knife at her throat. JMO

We already know that's how Drew rolled. He did it before. Kathleen was probably terrified.

abbie MOO

 

[Wishbone]

Why on earth would a cop who has been trained as an investigator and knows how to stage a murder to look like an accident, want to hire a hitman to kill his ex wife? Any cop with one eye and half sense would know that he couldn't trust a criminal and that it would come back to bite him in the butt. Drew is too smart for that, he'd been in LE a long time.
I seriously doubt this alleged hitman's story. It doesn't change my mind about his guilt, I just don't think it ever happened. He's shrewd and cunning, he is not stupid. This guy was either wanting his 15 minutes, or he was paid by the prosecution to make up this story, because they thought their case was weak.

You might have a point there......