Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[Wishbone]

So now the trial is delayed once again due to major screw up by PT. I find it very ironic that the PT is trying to prove the original homicide investigation was incompetent. Their performance in this trial is a disgrace and I'm amazed they are pointing the finger anyone. If this case goes down the tubes, it is the PT's fault.

 

[fifteen89]

He said it twice. On direct and cross.

That's what I meant! They can't object when it's said during their direct exam. And then he says it again during cross? Is this what the DT calls "a good day"?

 

[AbbieNormal]

I'm way behind. Internet was out for more than 12 hours.... Sorry to be quoting from yesterdays info, but the above is so true. Everything is pure chance, there is no such thing as physics. :maddening:

IMO they could have substituted the phrase "dumb luck" for "pure chance" and it would not have changed what he was saying.

Jus sayin.

abbie:moo:

 

[lonetraveler]

IMO they could have substituted the phrase "dumb luck" for "pure chance" and it would not have changed what he was saying.

Jus sayin.

abbie:moo:

LOL, I totally agree.

 

[lonetraveler]

Is Thomas Peterson the son who wrote a letter to Santa basically asking that Daddy not hurt mommy anymore? I use to have that information but can't find it.

 

[fifteen89]

Whoever Vinnie's 13th juror is on IS that's been in the courtroom, she said she's not sure she'd vote guilty. She's hoping in their rebuttal the PT give her a theory of what caused the injury on the back of her head, etc.

So 'a theory' would convince her? Yeesh.

If they had evidence of what caused it, they'd have presented it. No offense, but I'm glad she's not on the jury.

 

[~n/t~]

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
#DrewPeterson former friend Paula Stark & husband, wore a wire to gather evidence for ISP on Drew, says "I learned he was a murderer" 2media

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Stark could not get into specifics as the Stacy Peterson case is still pending #DrewPeterson

Craig Wall ‏@craigrwall
Starks knew #DrewPeterson for 10 years b4 Stacy disappeared. Said he was verbally abusive. She watched kids while Drew did news interviews

Craig Wall ‏@craigrwall
Paula Stark who wore a wire for ISP investigating #DrewPeterson in 2007 says if Tom Peterson says anything good about his dad he is lying

 

[~n/t~]

Ruthie Augustein ‏@OhioRuthie
@JudgeJeanine The DA asking the question you would if you were trying this case?

Jeanine Pirro ‏@JudgeJeanine
@OhioRuthie would talk about stranglehold that all police know and which #drewpeterson could have used to subdue kathleen w/o a struggle

 

[passionflower]

Is Thomas Peterson the son who wrote a letter to Santa basically asking that Daddy not hurt mommy anymore? I use to have that information but can't find it.

Good memory! I had forgotten about that!!!
Tweet that to PT!!:what:

 

[Kimster]

I don't remember reading this before, but Drew wasn't on duty during the estimated time of the crime was he? I'm just wondering if he was dressed in uniform with all his weapons on him at the time. When I went on a ride along, I was surprised at all the weapons on a law enforcement officer!

 

[~n/t~]

Whoever Vinnie's 13th juror is on IS that's been in the courtroom, she said she's not sure she'd vote guilty. She's hoping in their rebuttal the PT give her a theory of what caused the injury on the back of her head, etc.

So 'a theory' would convince her? Yeesh.

If they had evidence of what caused it, they'd have presented it. No offense, but I'm glad she's not on the jury.

I'm not surprised. Most want the W5 answered and the How.

Who
What
Where
When
Why

How


If those questions are not answered, there is hole in the case. We shouldn't expect the jury to come up with the answers. :moo:

 

[AbbieNormal]

kara oko ‏@karaoko
#drewpeterson former friend paula stark & husband, wore a wire to gather evidence for isp on drew, says "i learned he was a murderer" 2media

kara oko ‏@karaoko
stark could not get into specifics as the stacy peterson case is still pending #drewpeterson

craig wall ‏@craigrwall
starks knew #drewpeterson for 10 years b4 stacy disappeared. Said he was verbally abusive. She watched kids while drew did news interviews

craig wall ‏@craigrwall
paula stark who wore a wire for isp investigating #drewpeterson in 2007 says if tom peterson says anything good about his dad he is lying

wow!!!

 

[passionflower]

I don't remember reading this before, but Drew wasn't on duty during the estimated time of the crime was he? I'm just wondering if he was dressed in uniform with all his weapons on him at the time. When I went on a ride along, I was surprised at all the weapons on a law enforcement officer!

Maybe we should tweet PT and refresh their minds so they have circumstantial evidence homework............JMOO

 

[LaLaw2000]

I don't remember reading this before, but Drew wasn't on duty during the estimated time of the crime was he? I'm just wondering if he was dressed in uniform with all his weapons on him at the time. When I went on a ride along, I was surprised at all the weapons on a law enforcement officer!

Yes, and they are all on what is called a duty belt. You unholster your weapon and take your handcuffs from the back and you are done when getting out of uniform. It is all very heavy. Then some patrol vehicles are equiped with a shotgun, and all sorts of goodies in the trunk.

You are not to wear your LE uniform unless you are on your way to or from work. You can stop in at the store quickly, but that is about it. DP would have had no business in that uniform with weapons unless he was on his way to or from work. He probably did have on his swat uniform when he went to Kathleens house and that would have been against policy, but why would he care anyway when being on a mission to commit murder?

MOO

 

[fifteen89]

I'm not surprised. Most want the W5 answered and the How.

Who
What
Where
When
Why

How


If those questions are not answered, there is hole in the case. We shouldn't expect the jury to come up with the answers. :moo:

I'm not surprised either. Nothing will surprise me anymore since Casey's verdict. But without a videotape of the crime, they won't get all those things, especially in a circumstantial case. Even with a video, you can't always understand the 'why' without the perp saying why and how often does that happen when they still say they're innocent after they're convicted.

imo the jurors can see there's a gash on the back of Kathleen's head.
Just like if there's rain puddles/snow on the ground in the morning, you can assume it rained/snowed during the night even though you didn't see either one falling. If they don't see anything in that bathtub that she could have hit, it's reasonable to believe someone hit her with some object and removed it from the scene. The PT can say what the injury is consistent with but that's about it unless they find the weapon/object with Kathleen's blood/hair on it.

 

[lonetraveler]

Whoever Vinnie's 13th juror is on IS that's been in the courtroom, she said she's not sure she'd vote guilty. She's hoping in their rebuttal the PT give her a theory of what caused the injury on the back of her head, etc.

So 'a theory' would convince her? Yeesh.

If they had evidence of what caused it, they'd have presented it. No offense, but I'm glad she's not on the jury.

Dang, she's not from Pinellas Co. Florida is she?:banghead:

 

[Cubby]

IMO they could have substituted the phrase "dumb luck" for "pure chance" and it would not have changed what he was saying.

Jus sayin.

abbie:moo:

Exactly!

 

[ohiogirl]

I was surprised by that too. I think maybe the defense don't want to maximise the damage by drawing attention to it. Or possibly they want the jury to get that this was already investigated as a homicide from the get go, and the initial investigation came to nought.

Or, maybe it just slipped by them, because they know deep down that it really is a homicide.:seeya:

 

[~n/t~]

I'm not surprised either. Nothing will surprise me anymore since Casey's verdict. But without a videotape of the crime, they won't get all those things, especially in a circumstantial case. Even with a video, you can't always understand the 'why' without the perp saying why and how often does that happen when they still say they're innocent after they're convicted.

imo the jurors can see there's a gash on the back of Kathleen's head.
Just like if there's rain puddles/snow on the ground in the morning, you can assume it rained/snowed during the night even though you didn't see either one falling. If they don't see anything in that bathtub that she could have hit, it's reasonable to believe someone hit her with some object and removed it from the scene. The PT can say what the injury is consistent with but that's about it unless they find the weapon/object with Kathleen's blood/hair on it.

The prosecution has to come up with a theory as to how it happened based on evidence. The problem is they have not succeeded in putting Drew at the crime scene. Yes, they can still convict based on testimony (pastor, hitman, etc) but they have to be able to tie it all up for the jury.

As examples: Scott Peterson's case. That was also a CE case. The fishing receipt (boat rental) put him at the crime scene.

Jason Young. Same. They were able to put the suspect at the crime scene.

They have not done that YET in this case. For all we know, the jury can say the hitman did it. KWIM?

 

[AbbieNormal]

I'm not surprised either. Nothing will surprise me anymore since Casey's verdict. But without a videotape of the crime, they won't get all those things, especially in a circumstantial case. Even with a video, you can't always understand the 'why' without the perp saying why and how often does that happen when they still say they're innocent after they're convicted.

imo the jurors can see there's a gash on the back of Kathleen's head.
Just like if there's rain puddles/snow on the ground in the morning, you can assume it rained/snowed during the night even though you didn't see either one falling. If they don't see anything in that bathtub that she could have hit, it's reasonable to believe someone hit her with some object and removed it from the scene. The PT can say what the injury is consistent with but that's about it unless they find the weapon/object with Kathleen's blood/hair on it.

I think there is plenty of examples "WHY" Drew wanted KS gone. Mainly, financial. He didn't want to share any of his pension with her. He didn't want to split marital assets. He wanted all of it for himself.
Drew purposely did things to KS and to the scene at KS's house, to make it look a certain way.
If Drew didn't kill KS, who did? Some random ("pure chance") intruder, who left a pristine scene (nothing broken or disturbed except that picture off the wall), some random person who breaks in and does not rape KS, but kills her and leaves her in a bathroom tub devoid of bathroom rug, towel, discarded clothes, WHY would a random stranger do that? Someone cleaned the scene.
A random intruder wouldn't take the time to do all that IMO. Who would break in, whack KS in the head but not hard enough to kill her and possibly not even hard enough to render her unconscious. Then he drowns her- how often do random killers break in and drown someone, then takes her clothing with him?
Did KS have enemies? You would think the DT would have a litany of people that Drew says could have killed KS and had a motive. But no, we didn't hear that from them.
I am sure the jury knows that SP is missing. You would have to be living in a cave in Illinois to not know. I could kill you and make it look like an accident. Maybe he said to Stacy I could make you disappear and nobody would ever find you. We will never know.

abbie:moo: