2009.05.22 Hearing to request reduced bond for Peterson

[scandi]

Hi there Scandi :wave: I went back and looked at all of Sandra's EVP stuff. I didn't want to post it here cuz some people don't like that stuff and I don't want to muck up this thread But I have it up and ready for wherever

Don't know where to copy and paste it? But....she mentions a Dave as an accomplice, the crackhead, and a person was paid.

Her stuff on Stacy is eerie, IMO.

Hi again Breanna, Thanks for that. I saw last night there is a thread here already about Sandra's readings.

Is there a Dave that has ever been mentioned in the case as one of his friends? I haven't studied this case too long so haven't heard the name. It is interesting tho. I'm going to her site later tonight to read too. xox

 

[breanna]

Hi again Breanna, Thanks for that. I saw last night there is a thread here already about Sandra's readings.

Is there a Dave that has ever been mentioned in the case as one of his friends? I haven't studied this case too long so haven't heard the name. It is interesting tho. I'm going to her site later tonight to read too. xox

Dave is just not familiar to me. I'm going to call an old friend from back in the FSP days...she has all of this computerized in her brain and maybe she can help me remember.

 

[breanna]

Dave is just not familiar to me. I'm going to call an old friend from back in the FSP days...she has all of this computerized in her brain and maybe she can help me remember.

There is a Sandra thread here but it's for new info...and there isn't any. It's just old stuff. But it's interesting all the same.

I just talked with my very old good friend, I love her if she reads here :blowkiss: We simply cannot find a timeline for Drew the day AFTER Stacy went missing. We're all good on the day she went missing tho.

But we can't remember what was going on on October 29, and when Drew left on his 3 day "head clearing a.k.a disposing of evidence trip" that LE let him take with no problem at all and no surveillence. MAJOR mistake in this case, IMHO.

 

[breanna]

O.M.G. I quoted my own quote. Didn't mean to do that, sorry

 

[scandi]

There is a Sandra thread here but it's for new info...and there isn't any. It's just old stuff. But it's interesting all the same.

I just talked with my very old good friend, I love her if she reads here :blowkiss: We simply cannot find a timeline for Drew the day AFTER Stacy went missing. We're all good on the day she went missing tho.

But we can't remember what was going on on October 29, and when Drew left on his 3 day "head clearing a.k.a disposing of evidence trip" that LE let him take with no problem at all and no surveillence. MAJOR mistake in this case, IMHO.

Hi, No problemo

We need a little laugh now and then. ;}

So Drew left on his 3 day trip the day after Stacy went missing? Wow I guess he took advantage of the fact he was LE and thought his clout would override the fact he was the husband and natural suspect!

 

[breanna]

I know this is so yesterday's news, but I was reading back on some news articles regarding the hearing and I saw this. It just kills me :crazy: Sorry if this was already brought up and I missed it!

" At the start of Friday's hearing, Brodsky accused Policandriotes of ordering Peterson to pay child support to Savio during their divorce proceedings. Policandriotes said this was impossible, since she was never on the divorce call. Brodsky later said he thought he read this in a newspaper. "

LMAO. Really? Brodsky accuses the Judge of something he thought he read in a newspaper? Jaysus. At this point, we've only had to hear him speak periodically (well that's debateable LOL) but now we may see this all day, day after day, for months.

Why do I feel like I'll be slapping my forehead daily listening to this stuff :bang:

 

[Paintr]

I know this is so yesterday's news, but I was reading back on some news articles regarding the hearing and I saw this. It just kills me :crazy: Sorry if this was already brought up and I missed it!

" At the start of Friday's hearing, Brodsky accused Policandriotes of ordering Peterson to pay child support to Savio during their divorce proceedings. Policandriotes said this was impossible, since she was never on the divorce call. Brodsky later said he thought he read this in a newspaper. "

LMAO. Really? Brodsky accuses the Judge of something he thought he read in a newspaper? Jaysus. At this point, we've only had to hear him speak periodically (well that's debateable LOL) but now we may see this all day, day after day, for months.

Why do I feel like I'll be slapping my forehead daily listening to this stuff :bang:

I was amazed that JB made such a statement without being certain. And then to come up with such a feeble explanation as 'read it in a paper'. Scheeeech!

I have no problem with a vigorous defense, but why do certain defense attornies in the news lately seem to come off as so incompetent, arrogant, and unprepared? Didn't these people attend the same law schools as other lawyers?

 

[breanna]

I was amazed that JB made such a statement without being certain. And then to come up with such a feeble explanation as 'read it in a paper'. Scheeeech!

I have no problem with a vigorous defense, but why do certain defense attornies in the news lately seem to come off as so incompetent, arrogant, and unprepared? Didn't these people attend the same law schools as other lawyers?

I absolutely agree. This will be one interesting trial. No disrespect for Kathleen at all, but I'm thinking we'll be having these discussions daily :crazy:

 

[mysteriew]

LOL, we are going to have to post a new thread just for judge change requests.

1 The prosecution makes a motion for a new judge and it is granted.

2 Defense objects to the judge change and announces they are going to protest the change. Also announces they are going to request a new judge.

3 Defense then announces that the new judge is okay with them.

4 Per the article posted in media thread by Mitzi, now the defense says they want a new judge.

 

[breanna]

Maybe Joel finally figured out that this woman judge really isn't on Drew's side. He probably learned this from reading it in the paper

Or maybe Drew explained to Joel eh?....."No Joel, just because she removed the Protection Order at Kathleen's request doesn't mean she'll be a cool judge for us, we better get rid of her too".