Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part two

[~n/t~]

In Session The next instruction concerns the definition of murder. Brodsky offers some minor modifications to the instruction’s grammar. “Other than that, we have no objection to it.” Judge: “I think the defendant’s objection is well-taken.” He orders the grammatical changes to be made to this instruction.

 

[LambChop]

BBM. In complete agreement. Sadly for the pros, they had the burden of proof, and I do not believe they met it. They had a very weak case, they seemed ill prepared and sloppy more often than not.

Like WindyCityGirl, as sad as it makes me, I am inclined to believe this is going to walk.

Well the State did make it through the Grand Jury so I don't think they were ill prepared. I believe it is possible DT may have received all their discovery but by claiming they did not received some of the material they hoped the judge would rule to keep it out. (It's very difficult for the State to prove in open court that certain items were, indeed, sent to the defense team. The State may have later been able to prove the materials were sent to the judge and that may be why there were no sanctions handed out by the judge. Sounds like a lot of postering on defense's part. The public is left with the impression that the State is not doing there job when they, in fact, have fulfilled all their requirements to the defense.

The State had a difficult task to try and keep their witnesses from saying too much. The fact that the judge was at times rude to the State's witnesses did not help the State either. The task itself was made more difficult by the process the PT had to use to get some of this evidence admitted. When you consider what they had to do to get the information out to the jury I believe they did a good job.

As far as the State meeting their burden, I think you have to first consider do you believe Kathy was murdered. Given the fact she had some bruises you could believe she fell. Taking into consideration the amount of bruising and some of the areas where she had bruising it appears more likely that they were defensive injuries. Then when you consider that her head was facing what would have been water in the tub, if she were bathing and the reason for her drowning, and put that together with the fact that she had a stream of dried blood running from the wound across her face on the side where she was cut it makes no sense her face was covered with water. After that all the hearsay evidence leaves little doubt who would have had the motive and opportunity to kill her. jmo

 

[fifteen89]

Listening to Vinnie and Judge White on IS about the blue towel -
The problem is the neighbor pointed out to DP that there wasn't a towel and after that a towel appeared. So it's not something the DT can say "towel/no towel....who would remember a towel when there's a dead body in the tub?"

Or didn't the neighbor get to testify to that?

 

[Kimster]

It's not all gloom and doom. I was afraid there wasn't enough evidence in the Scott Peterson case and that jury handed down the death penalty.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The defense objects to the next proposed instruction, “the issues instruction.” Greenberg: “The indictment charges he intended to kill . . . it does not charge he intended to kill or do great bodily harm . . . this indictment is very specific in that he alleges that he caused her to inhale fluid . . . I believe because they have specifically alleged inhaling fluid, the instruction should require the jurors find that. So I believe the instruction should be modified to include that he intended to kill her by causing her to inhale fluid, or caused her to inhale fluid knowing that such an act created the possibility of death or great bodily harm.” Greenberg concedes, however, that he has no case law that supports the defense position. “Here, I still don’t know how they say she died. How did he cause her to inhale fluid? They still haven’t said that.” Prosecutor Griffin responds: “There’s nothing that would suggest this is a factual modifier that should be included . . . we would ask that [the standard instruction] be given.” Judge: “I’m not aware of any case that allows the issues instruction to include a factual modifier . . . I think that the instruction is a correct statement of the law, and with no precedential support for the objection that Mr. Peterson is making, the modification is denied, and the instruction will be given as stated.”

In Session Based on the judge’s ruling, Greenberg asks for a motion in limine, asking that the State be precluded from arguing any other theory except that Kathleen Savio was forced to inhale fluid. For the moment, the motion is denied, but may be brought up again later.

 

[LambChop]

Listening to Vinnie and Judge White on IS about the blue towel -
The problem is the neighbor pointed out to DP that there wasn't a towel and after that a towel appeared. So it's not something the DT can say "towel/no towel....who would remember a towel when there's a dead body in the tub?"

Or didn't the neighbor get to testify to that?

I think the EMT's would remember if there were a towel on the tub because they would have removed it so they could get to her safely. jmo

 

[Shelby1]

Listening to Vinnie and Judge White on IS about the blue towel -
The problem is the neighbor pointed out to DP that there wasn't a towel and after that a towel appeared. So it's not something the DT can say "towel/no towel....who would remember a towel when there's a dead body in the tub?"

Or didn't the neighbor get to testify to that?

I don't remember the neighbor saying that on the stand, but I will go back and look when I have a minute.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The judge now moves to the concluding instructions. The defense objects to the verdict forms, but the judge overrules that objection. “Now we need to address the defendant’s proposed instructions” (most of which he’s already denied). The State objects to the judge re-reading the various cautionary instructions that the jury has already heard. “The cure was during the course of the trial; there’s no need to do it again.” Greenberg insists that part of the sanctions against the State mandate that the cautionary instructions be read again. Judge: “You asked me to caution the jury, and I did . . . the Court did say at the time it cautioned the jury that I would re-read these cautions again at the end of the trial. [But] I don’t see the need at this point in time to re-read these cautionary instructions . . . so the defendant’s motion is denied; they will not be re-read to the jury. And if they are, any modifications will be up to the Court.” Greenberg: “Can we still argue these things?” Judge: Absolutely.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The next proposed defense instruction concerns a definition of “reasonable doubt,” which Brodsky is asking be read to the jury. “There is no direct evidence whatsoever . . . it’s a circumstantial case, based on hearsay. So they [the jurors] should be instructed on what reasonable doubt is.” The judge denies the request: “There is no better definition of ‘reasonable doubt’ than the words themselves. No definition of reasonable doubt will be given in this case.”

 

[Madeleine74]

I think the case was fairly straightforward if you take out all of the hand waving, sidebars, shenanigans and flotsam.

- Jurors first have to determine if Kathleen's death was an accident or not. Two or three highly regarded pathologists looked at the case, the autopsy, the pics, the scene, and determined the injuries KS sustained were not caused by (just) a fall in the tub and the injuries could not have been made by only one fall.

- Kathleen had no illegal drugs or alcohol in her blood. There was no medical reason determined for her to fall and land the way she did.

- The scene does not look like an accident (placement in the tub, lack of water, etc).

- The scene appears to have been altered (blue towel / no blue towel)

- Statements from Stacey Peterson that DP killed Kathleen, he was gone that night, had women's clothes, washer, etc., corroborated by a few people.

- DP's own statements at various times to various people.


It's actually pretty clear the pieces are there to convict. It doesn't mean a jury WILL convict, but they have enough to take them over the line of reasonable doubt to convict if they can work through it.

 

[seattlechiquita]

I think the case was fairly straightforward if you take out all of the hand waving, sidebars, shenanigans and flotsam.

- Jurors first have to determine if Kathleen's death was an accident or not. Two or three highly regarded pathologists looked at the case, the autopsy, the pics, the scene, and determined the injuries KS sustained were not caused by (just) a fall in the tub and the injuries could not have been made by only one fall.

- Kathleen had no illegal drugs or alcohol in her blood. There was no medical reason determined for her to fall and land the way she did.

- The scene does not look like an accident (placement in the tub, lack of water, etc).

- The scene appears to have been altered (blue towel / no blue towel)

- Statements from Stacey Peterson that DP killed Kathleen, he was gone that night, had women's clothes, washer, etc., corroborated by a few people.

- DP's own statements at various times to various people.


It's actually pretty clear the pieces are there to convict. It doesn't mean a jury WILL convict, but they have enough to take them over the line of reasonable doubt to convict if they can work through it.

Oh sister, I hope you are right. I don't want another Summer of WTFness like last year's with CA.

 

[Shelby1]

Oh sister, I hope you are right. I don't want another Summer of WTFness like last year's with CA.

:floorlaugh: Describes it perfectly!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila recesses court until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET. Judge to attorneys: “If we could be prompt, please!” He then leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:15/2:15.


The Judge tells the attorneys to be prompt! Priceless! :lol:


That's it for me folks.....I have to leave and can't post anymore updates. If anyone wants to take over here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/InSession

See you all later this evening! :seeya:

 

[fifteen89]

I don't remember the neighbor saying that on the stand, but I will go back and look when I have a minute.

Don't want to make you look it up when it's me asking!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8216257&postcount=144"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*[/ame]

Prosecution: “Did you see water in the tub?”

Pontarellli: “No…I made a comment, ‘Where was her clothes that she had on, that she was going to put on?’ There was no rug, there was no towel.”

Prosecution: “Where was the defendant at that time?”

Pontarelli: “Standing next to me.”

Prosecution: “What did the defendant do when he entered the bathroom?”

Pontarelli: “He checked her pulse, her wrist…he said, ‘What am I going to tell my children?’…Mary and Steve left, and I stayed up there with Drew. Then we walked out to the landing right outside the bedroom door …he made a phone call; I believe it was his cell phone…he says to the person that he just found his wife dead in the bathtub, and people are going to think he did it.”

On another topic - the last line BBM - well, he got one thing right.

 

[fifteen89]

In Session The next proposed defense instruction concerns a definition of “reasonable doubt,” which Brodsky is asking be read to the jury. “There is no direct evidence whatsoever . . . it’s a circumstantial case, based on hearsay. So they [the jurors] should be instructed on what reasonable doubt is.” The judge denies the request: “There is no better definition of ‘reasonable doubt’ than the words themselves. No definition of reasonable doubt will be given in this case.”

That's a pretty good line!

 

[Shelby1]

Don't want to make you look it up when it's me asking!

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*



On another topic - the last line BBM - well, he got one thing right.

Ah! Ok, so she did get it in.

I hope pros really brings this out in closing. If I can forget she said it, then the jurors can too.........

 

[Shelby1]

In Session ‏@InSession #drewpeterson def. atty Ralph Meczyk brought subs 4 the media today 4 lunch. Reporters have shared donuts & brownies throughout the trial.

 

[fifteen89]

I think the EMT's would remember if there were a towel on the tub because they would have removed it so they could get to her safely. jmo

I agree with you. Judge White was saying it could be said that the focus was the dead body so who's gonna remember if a blue towel was there or not there. I do get his point that the focus wouldn't be towel/no towel, except Pontarelli pointed out to DP that there wasn't a towel and then a towel magically appeared. I hope this isn't lost on the jury. It gets hard for us because by the end of this crap sometimes we can't remember what testimony was not allowed and what was without going back to look.

 

[travel8*]

The artist, Christine, on In Session said that Drew Peterson was visibly shaking when Harry Smith testified. She was immediately asked about something else so no time was spent discussing what she saw. I hope the jury saw it too.

 

[fifteen89]

Oh sister, I hope you are right. I don't want another Summer of WTFness like last year's with CA.

BBM
:laugh:

Ain't that the truth. I remember walking my dog long after that verdict and would find myself just walking along shaking my head.