CLOSING ARGUMENTS (Tues 09/04/2012)

[panthera]

Excellent Closing Argument by the State, especially driving home DP's behavior when he couldn't reach Kathleen. DP, a Sergeant and Watch Commander, who didn't follow protocol by calling for back-up, but rather chose to send a neighbor and her minor son to enter the house - a house he supposedly didn't know if an armed intruder was in, or what the unknown situation was. This, and this alone, indicates he knew exactly what was inside, and wanted them to find her.

Hopefully the jurors will use their common sense and see the same.......

MOO

 

[Cubby]

In Session That ends the closing arguments in the Peterson case. The judge calls “a brief recess so that the jurors can eat their lunch.” He leaves the bench, and the trial is in a recess of undetermined length.

I hope they had a big breakfast. Lunch after 3pm? I hope they were alert enough to pay attention and not be focusing on growling stomach's or getting dizzy from low blood sugar. Seriously, why was the lunch break so late?

I have nothing nice to say about the manner in which this judge runs his court room. None, so I'll be quiet.

back to catching up.

 

[Livingthedream]

Well, since Lopez likes to use sports analogies, here is one I will use based on the closing by Koch today.

A football team with a big offensive line might not dominate in the first three quarters, but they tend to wear you down (take over) in the fourth quarter.

This is how I felt this trial went. For the first half or three quarters, the state did not come out firing on all cylinders and made many mistakes. It allowed the defense team to stay in the game. However, at crunch time (4th quarter), they took over.

That closing today by Koch was dominant and it simply wore the defense down. If the Jury uses their common sense and logic, this will be a major win for the state team and justice for KS.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

You have an arrogant male that believes he can do anything he wants and gets away with it. This arrogant male is a police officer so he knows how investigations work. This arrogant male preys on young females that are more easily manipulated and/or controlled. When you have an arrogant male such as this, logic flies out the window. If a person believes that they are untouchable then the obvious worries of a normal person really do not apply. An untouchable arrogant male is not going to rationally think of possible issues like the rest of us would. They expect their word to be taken as the honest truth. They expect their actions to not be questioned. They screw up in ways that are unimaginable to the rest of us because they can not see that they actually are human and make mistakes like the rest of us. IMO this explains WHY D Petterson took Kathleen's clothes to his own home to wash. He simply does not think like the rest of us.

MOO

After I read that SP was awake and found DP doing laundry that consisted of women's clothing at around 3:00 a.m., I assumed he washed the clothes and returned them the next day to Kathleen's closet. I picture him returning to her house and making sure any damage he did the night before was cleaned up. Maybe that's when he staged the O.J. and cup in the microwave and may have raised the blind in the bedroom (so that peeps would think she got up on Monday). Wasn't there something about the blind in the bedroom being partially up when Kathy was found on Monday night? It had been down Saturday night according to the neighbors. Maybe they just hadn't noticed it was up on Monday morning because they weren't concerned about Kathy at that time. But iirc a detective stated it was up Monday night. DP raised it as had it remained down both Sunday and Monday morning, it may have drawn attention earlier than he wanted.

IMO DP is that brazen so I just assumed that he returned to the scene of the crime again prior to Monday night. As a matter of fact, he said he went there on Sunday to return the boys but Kathy didn't answer the door. So if anybody saw him around there on Sunday to Monday, he'd just say he was looking for Kathy so he could return the boys.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Updated: Case archive for KS murder:

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Murder%20Trial%20-%20The%20Kathleen%20Savio%20Case/

 

[katydid23]

Just some random thoughts if i was a Juror. I know i couldn't discuss this with fellow Jurors but i know my thoughts would wander to "who else would have done this" After going thru all the testimony/evidence I would arrive at yes this was a Murder. There was no rape,no robbery,somebody who could enter the home easily. Who wanted her dead? Who had something to gain? All of it points to DP :jail:

I agree with you. I think that's why Lopez tried to point the finger of blame at Kathleens boyfriend during his closing. If the jury does not think it is an accident, then they have to wonder who killed her. Is there anyone besides Drew that is an obvious choice?

A random stranger would not have staged a drowning accident. Maybe her bf would---but what motive did he have? All the DT could come up with was her 'anger' at him because he refused to marry her. Very weak motive, imo.

 

[katydid23]

I had heard from the defense team that Lopez was supposed to be a great closer, Boy, they were wrong! The blue towel was not even brought up in the closing statement by the prosecution, therefore this train of discussion is like again...what the heck? Just like when Smith was on the stand I guess....oh, oh, oh, but I was surpised judge and jury. His entire closing was him looking....very very poor...

I agree. Especially hearing about his pictures/ Like he puts up a Cheshire cat and says it looks like Harry Smith? And he closes on that image and thought? I had a hard time believing that. LOL

 

[dog.gone.cute]

The defense team stated that there would be surprises in closing, YES, it was the total THUD that Lopez had on closing. What an embarrasing joke it was! Oh, the tub was framed out and solid....

OMG, I never thought of that! Yes, it was framed in well!

What does that habe to do with anything. Lopez is now the laughing stock of the threads and media, and I am betting the law community also!

What a public failure and humiliation he must be facing right now!

:seeya:

BBM: I agree ... this DT is a bunch of smart arses :maddening:

However, I thought the same thing about Jose Baez -- especially after that opening statement he gave ...

Baez was last year's "laughing stock" in the legal community -- and look what happened there :maddening: Oh :doh: I almost forgot : Baez said "Good Morning" to the jury ... :waitasec:

I guess ya never know WHAT goes on inside of a juror's mind ... :waitasec:


Back on topic now ... JMO ... but I do NOT trust this jury, especially because of the "color coordination" and "theme coordination" of their wardrobes ...

While I understand it may mean nothing and MAYBE it was because they were bored, there is still a "message" that was being sent with respect to having all the jurors -- including the bailiff :maddening: -- carry on with such shenanigans ...

And after their verdict, I sure hope we find out WHAT was behind the clothing coordination as I am really curious ...

:moo:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I'm thinking we may have a verdict by 1pm tomorrow

fingers crossed

Hey, I've been reading here tonight thinking a verdict could be in by 9:30 p.m.! Somebody thought that may happen.

I was so disappointed when I read the post that explained the Jurors had been sent home before the judge read the instructions.

:notgood::dunno:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Circumstantial evidence *is* evidence! And it is usually much more powerful than Direct evidence. Hearsay is also very powerful. Do you really think people are going to get up on the stand and make up stories about what they were told? For what reason would they lie and perjure themselves? Did they all get together to compare stories so what they said would corroborate each other? Really???

You know why there had to be hearsay in this case at all? Because Drew Peterson murdered his 4th wife--the very one who could have testified about what she heard, what she knew, and what DP told her.

Those who couldn't convict DP because it's "just a circumstantial case" are people who hopefully won't be in the position to ever make such a determination. If someone refuses to consider guilt in a circumstantial case then by default what they are saying is they need an eye witness to the murder, a confession, and/or a video of the murder occurring. Because everything else? Is, by legal definition, circumstantial, including all forensic evidence! Guess what? CSI is a crime show. It's not real life. There isn't always a blood trail leading right to the perp with a big bloody arrow.

:goodpost: Great points !

:cheers:

 

[borndem]

I hope and pray the jurors come back with a quick verdict of GUILTY tomorrow. :rose:

IMO, this case is a no brainer and anyone with a lick of common sense will render the right verdict.

Thanks to all posting updates today. :blowkiss:

First, ~n/t~, let me thank YOU for the hard work you have done for us here on this forum to relay all the pages and pages of IS broadcasts, etc., through all these many days. Yes, you had others doing the same thing, but you always seemed to surface, seemingly tirelessly through it all.

Certainly the jury should have time, if they start off not too "far apart" from each other tomorrow morning, to arrive at a verdict by late tomorrow afternoon. That is assuming that things get underway fairly early as they should. what And I do hope so very deeply that it will be Guilty, but I am not going to predict it. It's not that I necessarily think they will decide the alternative, it's just that I am too "gun-shy" to think it might happen the way it should.

Certainly the unbelievable injustice done to Caylee has made me that way -- I really didn't see that curve ball coming, not one whit of it. And now we see Baez here & there, Mr. Big Stuff. Like LaLaw, I think I will shut the door, shut the book, shut whatever I can to separate myself from the evilness and lack of fairness that a NG verdict here will do to so many, many people. Whew. I just cannot think it -- it literally takes my breath away.

So let's think/hope that the jury will indeed be united in the right way for the right reasons for the right folks and for jurisprudence being restored just a little bit.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hey, I've been reading here tonight thinking a verdict could be in by 9:30 p.m.! Somebody thought that may happen.

I was so disappointed when I read the post that explained the Jurors had been sent home before the judge read the instructions.

:notgood::dunno:

:seeya: I was disappointed as well and was hoping for a verdict this evening ...

This is JMO and MOO, but I think we will have a verdict by tomorrow ... just my "gut feeling" :innocent:

:moo:

 

[Madeleine74]

Every murder one case I've followed has not returned a verdict in a mere few hours when the jury really does the job. The OJ Simpson jury didn't, thus they were packed and ready to go, with maybe 30 min discussion, if that. CA trial, a couple hours or so.

But all other cases (I've followed) the jury has been out a minimum of 2 court days deliberating, often with a verdict the 3rd day. Or, in the case of Scott Peterson, they were out a week.

Based on patterns seen before, I don't anticipate the jury coming back with a verdict tomorrow. I'm not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely. I think by Friday they will.

 

[borndem]

Yes, please, borndem! I get the bed by the window if it is double occupancy! Or maybe I'd better take the bed closest to the bathroom!

LOL!

*Sorry, folks, gotta relieve some of this tension.

We each get a window, LaLaw, but we do share a bath -- with a big, padded bathtub, plenty of towels at arm's reach, and a deadbolt on the bathroom door, too! Room service, good food, horseback riding, skeet shooting, swimming pools, movie stars. Lots of other rooms with a deep discount for Sleuthers. There are already several Sleuthers there! It's the Far Away Inn.

 

[Livingthedream]

My goodness but the mere thought of a ng verdict tomorrow and then watching DP walk out and go home is a sobering thought.

But I think the Jury will give it a day or two before they reach a verdict.

 

[borndem]

LOL That's how i deal too. Could whomever is reserving perhaps set aside a whole wing. I think there may be a few more of us LOL

I already did, Bravo, so you're covered. Find a roomie -- LaLaw is mine, so no dibs.

They give big discounts to Sleuthers; I think there are some there already from a case in Florida....

 

[Noway]

jmo
I think the judge let the jury go home so they could 'sleep off" Lopez's closing statement and be fresh for jury instruction.

 

[borndem]

Hi Shelby, It is a hard one to call because the personalities of the jurors will enter into the play somehow IMO

Reminds me of the Monk TV episode where he was on a jury panel, looked out the window of their deliberation room to spot something in the dumpster down below and that solved the case for him. He motioned to Natalee his assistant to check it out which she did, pulling it out of the garbage. The jury did their pre vote and he was the only one {I think} who voted guilty. One by one he had to win over each juror to see the truth and they ended up convicting the guy.

Not really stranger than life when personalities can enter into deliberations even in a very subtle way. IMO

The more trials I watch, the more I realize that the Jury Foreperson is key. In one case, the FP came in with an agenda and ramrodded the verdict. Some are very adept at keeping the jury on track and it ended with a verdict in a very short time -- without having an agenda at all.

Of course it was the WS'ers that analyzed this part of it, but we seemed to be of one mind in our evaluation of the phenomenon.

That's something that is very interesting to watch. I'm not sure that we would be able to do this very well, if we feel we want to do it, under these no-show-it conditions...

 

[katydid23]

The more trials I watch, the more I realize that the Jury Foreperson is key. In one case, the FP came in with an agenda and ramrodded the verdict. Some are very adept at keeping the jury on track and it ended with a verdict in a very short time -- without having an agenda at all.

Of course it was the WS'ers that analyzed this part of it, but we seemed to be of one mind in our evaluation of the phenomenon.

That's something that is very interesting to watch. I'm not sure that we would be able to do this very well, if we feel we want to do it, under these no-show-it conditions...

That is exactly what makes me nervous about this jury. Somebody had to get them all onboard for the costume changes every day. That person will hold a lot of weight. if they are pro-DT then this may end up a not guilty verdict.

 

[Kimster]

Kimster! Use your ray gun, zap all the work into oblivion then get back here with us! This is much more important than WORK...lol

I won't be quite as busy tomorrow, but still have a lot on my plate! Don't forget to alert when the jury starts to deliberate so y'all can do the same. :grouphug:

This is the thread that will be opened: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183412"]We the Jury! (Websleuths Jury Deliberations) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]