It does concern me that Fri was supposedly the last day of the GJ and they have now heard from Len and his wife and from Tom, yet there is still no indictmment for Stacey. Did they issue one and the state just hasn't told the media yet, or did they decide not to issue. I would have thought there would be more evidence on Stacey, at least more recent evidence and fresher witnesses.
Still maybe the state is going to wait til Monday after the arraignment to make the arrest. LOL, can't you just see that? The judge lowering the bond, DrewP posting bail..... then LE coming to arrest him for Stacey? That would make all this wait worth it.
It seems to me that it would be more prudent to NOT indict Drew for Stacy's death at this particular time. First, don't forget that he has a right to a speedy trial. He's in jail, he probably won't be out on bail, and there is no hurry to indict unless they believe they have an iron-clad case for Stacy. Also, both of these cases are going to require tons of money and the best prosecutors.
In the death of Kathleen, this is not a slam dunk case. Further, these new hearsay exceptions will most likely be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. While I am certain from a common sense view that Drew is responsible for both Kathleen's and Stacy's demise, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is still the standard for a conviction. The prosecution also has to work around the first decision of cause of death. I think that's a biggie. There's a lot more of Drew talking to the media and making a fool of himself, etc., that would be helpful for Stacy's case than for Kathleen's.
With the indictment for Kathleen's death, there's a body, there's a lot of good hearsay evidence from Kathleen herself, and there's factual evidence that Drew would have benefited greatly from her death. The case will revolve around those three things - I believe - and I think they're substantial.
But with Stacy's disappearance, they first have to convince a jury that's she's dead. As time goes on, this becomes more and more likely. Then, they have to show a motive. I think it's a little more complicated in this case because there's a lot of hearsay evidence from people who loved Stacy - a motive to greatly enhance what Stacy said. Further, she hadn't filed for divorce, it was a short marriage, and she most likely wouldn't have been entitled to part of his pension. Also, inherited money isn't community property in most states, so the money inherited from Kathleen's death probably wouldn't have been included in the divorce settlement. I believe the main reason for Stacy's death is that she knew he killed Kathleen. Her testimony combined with the three things I cited would be extremely convincing. So, if he's indeed convicted for Kathleen's death, that would go a long way toward a motive IF that is, the hearsay evidence from the pastor can be admitted for evidence. Another motive is that Stacy would probably have gotten the children. That and having to pay child support is another reason Drew didn't want her around, but those two items are not extremely strong for motive. I think this is a much more difficult case to prove beyond that pesky standard of reasonable doubt.
If they wait to indict after the trial for Kathleen's death, they will be stronger in terms of mistakes made, etc. and that knowledge would be extremely helpful in a second trial. They also might hear testimony under oath that would help in a second trial.
Bottom line is that I think they have him where they want him and there are no statutes of limitation on murder. I would think they would wait until this case plays out before he's indicted. There's so much hearsay evidence in both cases that I think they need to see how this one goes. Stacy's case in particular revolves around what she said to other people. IF HOWEVER, his bail is greatly lowered and he can make bail, that's a game changer. A second murder indictment would probably mean revocation of any bail at all. A release from jail would be an incentive to run.
Just my opinion........
(hîr
