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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coldpizza said:
Well good night all. I'm going to watch this and allow all the many days and hours of research remind me of how grateful this monster is finally behind bars.
Click to expand...

I also am going to watch the rest of it away from the computer.

Good night all! :seeya:
 
Funny to hear DP referring to Stacy in past tense back then. .........and he is the one telling everyone she ran away and even called him to tell him.

Strange also to hear his attorney Greenberg say Drew is the most loyal man
He has ever met. I was hoping he would explain what he was loyal about
considering hes behind bars.
 
tsitra01 said:
Funny to hear DP referring to Stacy in past tense back then. .........and he is the one telling everyone she ran away and even called him to tell him.

Strange also to hear his attorney Greenberg say Drew is the most loyal man
He has ever met. I was hoping he would explain what he was loyal about
considering hes behind bars.
Click to expand...

He's a defense attorney and in his line of business I'm sure he does not meet many "loyals". After what happened in court I doubt if DP will stay "loyal" for long. lol jmo
 
Holy cow I just caught a Drew Peterson micro-expression! I'm watching the Dateline I recorded. At the point Hoda Kotbe asked him, "Did you kill your wife Stacy," he says "No" but there's a head nod (yes) in there!! WOW! 4 minutes into the show.

Also, the interview with Hoda is a couple weeks or so after Stacy's disappearance and he talks about Stacy in the past tense ("Stacy was spoiled, I gave her everything" If Stacy ran off with some guy wouldn't she still be "spoiled?")
 
I wonder if the fact that the jury is saying that they gave the info from Stacey a lot of weight is going to be a problem on appeal; I know it will be an issue-but did the courts make a good ruling in allowing her words in?
 
I have to pinch myself to make sure that he is indeed in the slammer!!!! Yay!!!!
 
cluciano63 said:
I wonder if the fact that the jury is saying that they gave the info from Stacey a lot of weight is going to be a problem on appeal; I know it will be an issue-but did the courts make a good ruling in allowing her words in?
Click to expand...

The law allowing the inclusion of this evidence is on the books and was upheld by the State Supreme Court. The judge barred a lot of hearsay, but he did allow some of it to come in. I personally don't believe this will be an issue on appeal. It's not like the judge made up the law--the law is there. An appellate court will eventually determine if the judge applied the law correctly. I have no doubt he did, he was very selective.
 
JoeFromLB said:
"Drew is absolutely fine. He said he's okay with whatever occurred."

I doubt he's going to be okay with 60 years in a prison cell.
Click to expand...

That seems as good as a confession to me. Very few innocent people would be absolutely fine and okay with being convicted for a murder they didn't commit except maybe if they committed another murder they haven't been convicted for and figure what the hell, it's only fair.
 
Donjeta said:
That seems as good as a confession to me. Very few innocent people would be absolutely fine and okay with being convicted for a murder they didn't commit except maybe if they committed another murder they haven't been convicted for and figure what the hell, it's only fair.
Click to expand...

That Drew statement alone says it all for me


Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
 
Just read about Allene Lamson's 1933 murder by her husband. She was found in a similar position in the bathtub as Kathy Savio. Look at the measures the pathologist was willing to go to to prove it was homicide and not an accident:
28-year-old Allene Lamson lay, naked, sprawled face-down in the blood-splattered bathtub. She had a deep gash in the back of her head that investigators said could not have been caused in an accidental fall. . . .

The pathologist aimed to disprove the accident theory by conducting an experiment, according to Time.

“He had undressed, got into the Lamson bathtub, deliberately permitted himself to slip and hit his head against the bathtub rim and faucets,” the magazine reported. “‘I was not even hurt,’ he testified.”
http://archive.stanforddaily.com/?p=1053
Click to expand...
 
Just a quick comment about the hearsay. In this particular law (the so-called "Drew's Law") hearsay is NOT just a he-said, she-said matter.

From what I understand (listening to Judge White's explanation), hearsay CAN be allowed when the witness is deceased BECAUSE the defendant is suspected to have killed the witness. In other words, the law gives weight to the probability that that in all likelihood the person WOULD testify but was silenced by the defendant.

It was determined then, that in all probability, Stacey Peterson would have willingly testified to her own conversations with Schori and Smith (as well as other testimony), but that right was denied her because Drew got rid of her.

This is a most beautiful law when you look at it as showing the highest respect for these victims. The fact that they are literally able to testify from beyond the grave. I would think it would also give pause to criminals who want to kill prospective witnesses, at least in the State of Illinois. Once again, this defense has twisted it around and whined about how unfair it is, but I don't see how they would be able to appeal it. The judge would not have ruled on such a monumental "constitutional" issue as he did if he thought it could get appealed!
 
STEADFAST said:
Just read about Allene Lamson's 1933 murder by her husband. She was found in a similar position in the bathtub as Kathy Savio. Look at the measures the pathologist was willing to go to to prove it was homicide and not an accident:
Click to expand...

From your quote:
28-year-old Allene Lamson lay, naked, sprawled face-down in the blood-splattered bathtub. She had a deep gash in the back of her head that investigators said could not have been caused in an accidental fall. . . .
Click to expand...

BBM

There's a detail DP missed. It might have look a bit more convincing if there had been blood somewhere that could have caused the injury on the back of her head.

I'm still kinda surprised the PT weren't allowed to bring in the bathtub to show how small it was. But as it turns out, they didn't need it! They just needed Brodsky and Lopez!!!
 
Coldpizza said:
I had forgotten about this interview where he really puts Stacy down with the boob job. liposuction on and on....
I have no doubt she was his trophy at the time and he probably suggested it if not darn near demanded it.
Click to expand...

BBM

Yeah. And then referred to everything he paid for as "repairs" on her. Piece of cr...I mean work.
 
ChickenPants said:
Just a quick comment about the hearsay. In this particular law (the so-called "Drew's Law") hearsay is NOT just a he-said, she-said matter.

From what I understand (listening to Judge White's explanation), hearsay CAN be allowed when the witness is deceased BECAUSE the defendant is suspected to have killed the witness. In other words, the law gives weight to the probability that that in all likelihood the person WOULD testify but was silenced by the defendant.

It was determined then, that in all probability, Stacey Peterson would have willingly testified to her own conversations with Schori and Smith (as well as other testimony), but that right was denied her because Drew got rid of her.

This is a most beautiful law when you look at it as showing the highest respect for these victims. The fact that they are literally able to testify from beyond the grave. I would think it would also give pause to criminals who want to kill prospective witnesses, at least in the State of Illinois. Once again, this defense has twisted it around and whined about how unfair it is, but I don't see how they would be able to appeal it. The judge would not have ruled on such a monumental "constitutional" issue as he did if he thought it could get appealed!
Click to expand...

The DT sure didn't mind any hearsay that would tend to discredit Stacy or Kathy. In fact, they got defeated by hearsay that they'd hoped would make Stacy look bad.
 
Exactly! By them using a hearsay witness, (whom the judge even had reservations on using ) in their case...and to now cry foul makes no sense. This appeal will not go anywhere.
 
Donjeta said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104799216/Drew-Peterson-Trial-Divorce-Lawyer-Harry-Smith-Examination

I just now read this. It is pretty damning. He uses the words "the fact that he killed Kathy" and then they go into a sidebar after that and the jury is left to ponder upon the fact that he killed Kathy.

I can't understand what they were thinking in the DT.
Click to expand...

I think they had so bought into Drew's misogyny that they believed the jury would only be able to see a grasping, vindictive, lying woman. I don't think it even occurred to them that others wouldn't see Stacy through Drew's filter.

ETA I think they believed that all the sympathy for Stacy was caused by the media's vendetta against Drew.
 
As some of you know, they replayed the interview with DP from 5 years ago on Dateline last night. When Hoda Kotb asked him: "where do you think SP is?", he replied: "I would probably be looking on the beach"

There is meaning (IMO) behind that answer and not because DP was REALLY suggesting she ran away. It involves ocean/lake as where he dumped her (IMO).
 
Livingthedream said:
As some of you know, they replayed the interview with DP from 5 years ago on Dateline last night. When Hoda Kotb asked him: "where do you think SP is?", he replied: "I would probably be looking on the beach"

There is meaning (IMO) behind that answer and not because DP was REALLY suggesting she ran away. It involves water and an ocean as where he dumped her (IMO).
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I disagree. Drew was a cop, who had successfully (at that time) got away with the murder of Kathleen. IMOO he certainly would never hint, in a truthful way as to where Stacy might be. His words were leading away from the truth. The media, and everyone else in Drew's eyes at that time, were 'puppets' and he was the master.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 3,169 (members: 76, guests: 3,093)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
3,093
Total visitors
3,169
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,638
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top