Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or, maybe it just slipped by them, because they know deep down that it really is a homicide.:seeya:
So the DT has known for months that there was an interview of TP, they have known he is on the witness list, and they knew they never got a copy of the interview. So, they wait until now to cry foul. They suck!
I know the PT is supposed to share discovery, but it seems it was overlooked and the DT is crying. I agree with the judge. You have the interview now, go read it and come back and finish this thing!
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:
OMG, I can't believe they let him say this!In Session The sidebar ends. “Even though there was this conflict of interest, she did ask you questions about divorce?” “Yes.” “Did she tell you she had information about Drew Peterson?” “Those were not her specific words, but she did tell me she had information about Drew Peterson . . .she said she had information regarding Kathleen Peterson she wanted to us.” “She wanted to use that as leverage in the divorce case?” Objection/Overruled. “She wanted to know if it, in my opinion, the fact that he’d killed Kathy could be used against him.” “In the divorce proceeding?” “Yes . . . she didn’t use the word ‘leverage,; but that certainly was the intimation.” The State objects, and the parties approach the bench for a sidebar.
What a mess!! :thud: