Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part two

[Jackson44]

In Session Greenberg responds. “They say it wasn’t an accident, so therefore he did it. Because who else would have done it? . . . even as I sit here now, after four or five weeks of trial, the fact is that they cannot tell you did he go to that house on Friday night? Did he go on Saturday night?” “Did he go on Sunday night? When did he commit this crime, if a crime was committed? Where did he commit the crime? Did he whack her over the head with a coffee can? Did he drag her up the stairs? We don’t know . . . it’s a scary day when someone can be on trial or be convicted or have a jury decide when the State cannot still today articulate for you what happened. I challenge them to tell us what happened. How was the crime committed, and what piece of evidence do you have to say Drew Peterson did it? I just don’t get it.”

 

[Jackson44]

In Session Judge: “A circumstantial case is built much like a house, brick by brick . . . the defense argues that this case comes down to the experts; there’s no disagreement about that . . . at the same time, the jurors are entitled to ignore all the experts and rely on their common sense . . . but a reasonable person could return such a verdict. So the defendant’s motion is denied.”

 

[Jackson44]

Judge Burmilla has denied the defense's motions for a directed verdict in this case.

Judge: “We’re done for today on the record. Everybody have a good weekend. We’ll now move to the chief judge’s conference room.” The judge leaves the bench, and the rest of the hearing is now off the record. The public portion of the trial is now in recess until Tuesday morning at 9:00

 

[-MD-]

IMO

 

[wishinuall]

Judge Burmila takes the bench, and the jury charge conference continues. The question of the proposed defense instruction regarding “impeachment by omission” is once again addressed. The defense has given the judge some case law on this issue. Prosecutor Griffin responds, argues that this issue is adequately covered by a standard impeachment instruction. Judge: “I tend to agree with the State . . . the parties can argue the inferences that can be drawn by the omission. So the defendant’s proposed instruction is denied.”

So is this for more of their smoke & mirrors by bringing up the fact Pastor Shori & Harry Smith had no reasons to give as to why they never 'followed up' or was ever retained? Which, btw, since HS was never hired by SP, how could it ever have been a breach or marital confidence for him to tell any & everything she told him? Also, I've been really pleased with the judge today until...I got really, really scared! :what: Is he possibly handing over more appealable rulings? If he told the jury he would re-read an instruction at the end of the trial, & now says he won't, is that OK? This is a real question, so if anyone can help ease my mind, PLEASE do!! Welp! I just jumped right in her & am still trying to catch up, again, many thanks for keeping us updated!

 

[fifteen89]

In Session
“Now you’ve have to consider the defense case . . . we are still at a point in this case where we have no evidence that Mr. Peterson went into that house this weekend. Harry Smith said Stacy Peterson wanted to know if she could use the fac
t that Drew killed Kathy as leverage in the divorce. There are no facts to back that statement up, so that statement by itself is no evidence in itself. It means nothing. Then you have very prominent experts from both sides. Dr. Case only believes something if she wrote it . . . how can you give any weight to her opinion? And then they recalled her yesterday, and you go to observe her demeanor on the stand, her combativeness. She was defensive, to say the least. We had Dr. Baden, a very nice man, very personable . . . but, again, he didn’t tell you how Ms. Savio died. I still sit here and go, ‘How did this person die?’ They have not shown any evidence that Mr. Peterson broke into the house, was let into the house, was in the house that night. They have not put him in the house . . . they have not had a witness who can tell you he went to that house that night, and there’s not evidence from which you can infer it . . . the State says that he staged a crime scene to make it look like an accident, something that no one ever said. They have to say that, because they don’t want to accept it’s an accident. If he had staged the scene, then how did he get the scene wrong? He’s such a mastermind that he’s sitting there indicted for murder? . . . they have not shown one piece of evidence that was missed . . . was she hit over the head with a candlestick? Hit over the head with a billy club? A gun? There’s no defensive wounds on her, nothing under her fingernails. Her best friend said if she was attacked, she would have fought back . . . there’s nothing on Mr. Peterson, no mark on Mr. Peterson at all. There’s no confession. There’s just no evidence at all. If there is not sufficient evidence, then our motion should be granted . . . they may want to believe this, but the fact is that nothing changed from 2004 until the time this indictment was brought in 2009 except that two doctors decided in their opinion it was a homicide instead of an accident. The only other thing that changed was that Stacy was gone.”

BBM

Ya'll know what I'm gonna say.........

Uh, Stacy who?

These guys are unbelievable.

 

[fifteen89]

In Session Judge: “A circumstantial case is built much like a house, brick by brick . . . the defense argues that this case comes down to the experts; there’s no disagreement about that . . . at the same time, the jurors are entitled to ignore all the experts and rely on their common sense . . . but a reasonable person could return such a verdict. So the defendant’s motion is denied.”

Thank you, Judge, for explaining this to the DT. Now MAYbe they'll be able to "get it".

 

[Cubby]

In Session
“Now you’ve have to consider the defense case . . . we are still at a point in this case where we have no evidence that Mr. Peterson went into that house this weekend. Harry Smith said Stacy Peterson wanted to know if she could use the fac
t that Drew killed Kathy as leverage in the divorce. There are no facts to back that statement up, so that statement by itself is no evidence in itself. It means nothing. Then you have very prominent experts from both sides. Dr. Case only believes something if she wrote it . . . how can you give any weight to her opinion? And then they recalled her yesterday, and you go to observe her demeanor on the stand, her combativeness. She was defensive, to say the least. We had Dr. Baden, a very nice man, very personable . . . but, again, he didn’t tell you how Ms. Savio died. I still sit here and go, ‘How did this person die?’ They have not shown any evidence that Mr. Peterson broke into the house, was let into the house, was in the house that night. They have not put him in the house . . . they have not had a witness who can tell you he went to that house that night, and there’s not evidence from which you can infer it . . . the State says that he staged a crime scene to make it look like an accident, something that no one ever said. They have to say that, because they don’t want to accept it’s an accident. If he had staged the scene, then how did he get the scene wrong? He’s such a mastermind that he’s sitting there indicted for murder? . . . they have not shown one piece of evidence that was missed . . . was she hit over the head with a candlestick? Hit over the head with a billy club? A gun? There’s no defensive wounds on her, nothing under her fingernails. Her best friend said if she was attacked, she would have fought back . . . there’s nothing on Mr. Peterson, no mark on Mr. Peterson at all. There’s no confession. There’s just no evidence at all. If there is not sufficient evidence, then our motion should be granted . . . they may want to believe this, but the fact is that nothing changed from 2004 until the time this indictment was brought in 2009 except that two doctors decided in their opinion it was a homicide instead of an accident. The only other thing that changed was that Stacy was gone.”

BCBM. Answer, she drowned. The testimony indicated she had fluid in her lungs.

For Attorney Greenberg:

http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/f...mpaignId=T9F&gclid=COHVz-rpkrICFYNrKgodomIAHg

 

[Livingthedream]

Did Greenberg really say that the state presented no evidence that DP was in the house? Is the testimony by Schori, who said SP told him DP came home in the middle of night, dressed in black, washing womens clothes that were not hers and telling SP: "This never happened" not presenting evidence?

:waitasec:

 

[ACandyRose]

No wonder why I was waiting:
In Session The State objects to the next proposed defense instruction, saying it’s irrelevant. Brodsky responds: “This goes to correct a misstatement of the law that Mr. Smith gave from the stand.” Judge: “I will say that when Mr. Smith made this statement in front of the jury about concealing a homicidal death . . . at the time, you did not cross-examine him any further when he made the statement. Is that correct?” Brodsky: “I only cross-examined him on his prior statements that it was extortion.” Judge; “So you had an opportunity to cross-examine him on whether the information he was giving the jury was incorrect?” Brodsky: “I was a bit taken by surprise.” Judge: “How does the fact that you were surprised and did not cross-examine him on this issue, how does a jury instruction cure that?” Brodsky: “Because it would advise the jurors that the law he told them was wrong. They could use that in evaluating the weight and credibility to give his testimony.” Greenberg: “The jury should be advised that it was an incorrect statement of the law. To do otherwise is to leave the jurors with an incorrect understanding of the law.” Griffin: “The correct understanding of the law they need to have is the law of this case.” Judge: “You’re not disputing that what he [Smith] said was wrong?” Griffin: “All Mr. Smith was doing was clarifying that he was not talking to her about extortion.” Judge: “But Mr. Smith says he was advising her about a crime that she could not have committed.” Griffin: “This is not something that should be included in a jury instruction; it should have been addressed at the time that Mr. Smith was testifying.” Judge: “I believe everybody will believe that what she told him did not constitute the crime of concealing a homicidal death . . . that’s a separate issue from whether or not a special instruction is curative. What Ms. Griffin said is correct; if you abandon that line of questioning, I don’t know if you can come back and ask for a jury instruction later.” Greenberg: “The fact is that he was wrong, and it is the Court’s obligation to advise the jury on the law, not a witness’ obligation . . . it would be unjust to have the jury have an incorrect understanding of the law simply because maybe something should have been said or done earlier.” Judge: “You [the defense] called him . . . you called this witness . . . there’s nothing I can see that the State did to augment or embellish Mr. Smith’s testimony. The defendant’s proposed instruction is denied . . . there was no request for a sidebar, no request that the Court correct the information. So the relief the defendant seeks in the form of a jury instruction is denied.”

Brodsky: “I was a bit taken by surprise.”

Many of us were surprised too Mr. Brodsky that you would call as your witness, a person who was told by your client's missing wife that he murdered his previous wife.

This instrucion DENIED made my day.. now lease: Drew stay in -->:jail:

ACR

 

[~n/t~]

I don't agree with the Judge's rulings on the sidebars and Smith looking at the prosecution table.

What does that have to do with the case? It's childish, nitpicking, immature antics by the defense.

In a way it shows how desperate they are. Hope the jury notices it too.

Thanks for taking over Jackson! :blowkiss:

 

[Bravo]

ACandyRose you do amazing work. Thank You. I just looked over all your work and I feel even better about the case. Interesting how it clearly flows without constant Objections,Sidebars and Poptarting.

 

[Tricia]

In about 40 minutes at 8 PM Eastern time I have the great pleasure of joining Levi Page for his Spree Cast.

It's all about Drew Peterson tonight.

It's going to be GOOOOD.

http://www.spreecast.com/events/drew-peterson-trial-update

 

[LambChop]

I don't agree with the Judge's rulings on the sidebars and Smith looking at the prosecution table.

What does that have to do with the case? It's childish, nitpicking, immature antics by the defense.

In a way it shows how desperate they are. Hope the jury notices it too.

Thanks for taking over Jackson! :blowkiss:

I would think it was clear to the jury that witnesses had to be careful what they could testify to and that is why there was that hesitation and why they were looking over at the State's table for some type of directon or objection. They were certainly sent out of the court room enough that it was clear defense did not want them to hear a good portion of what the witnesses had to say. jmo

 

[Bravo]

I would think it was clear to the jury that witnesses had to be careful what they could testify to and that is why there was that hesitation and why they were looking over at the State's table for some type of directon or objection. They were certainly sent out of the court room enough that it was clear defense did not want them to hear a good portion of what the witnesses had to say. jmo

The Jury had to sense the tension. I agree.

 

[Shelby1]

I feel pretty calm tonight. After reviewing everything without all of the interruptions, the case that the pros presented makes sense. I'm putting "the trial that we do not speak of" out of my head. When I do that I have confidence in this jury.

 

[Cubby]

I don't agree with the Judge's rulings on the sidebars and Smith looking at the prosecution table.

What does that have to do with the case? It's childish, nitpicking, immature antics by the defense.

In a way it shows how desperate they are. Hope the jury notices it too.

Thanks for taking over Jackson! :blowkiss:

I don't get it either. With all the admonishions (sp?) and a near mis-trial early on people were being cautious.

I am certain about one thing. 'Win or lose' Every attorney on the defense in this case will forever be the laughing stock of NE IL due to their tactics. They showed to the entire nation integrity means nothing to them. Not a thing.

 

[atthelake]

In about 40 minutes at 8 PM Eastern time I have the great pleasure of joining Levi Page for his Spree Cast.

It's all about Drew Peterson tonight.

It's going to be GOOOOD.

http://www.spreecast.com/events/drew-peterson-trial-update

Durn, second time I missed it!

 

[borndem]

Just a FYI - all the Witness and Sidebar stuff can be found here:

Total Sidebars for Trial - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:rocker:

Thanks for the link, Niner!

I just looked back at all those nut-days that you had documented, especially at the beginning and had to shake my head. Un.be.liev.able. Never seen anything like it. And you put it in such a neat document.

I have to laff when I see the counts -- altho it's not really funny, but often, Niner, your chart was the only thing that would make me smile -- and shake my head in wonder at the same time.

Yes, it was a lot of work, but you had a great idea, and you did it for all of us. :cheer:Be proud, Sleuth Niner.:takeabow: We thank you!! :tyou::loveyou:

 

[Niner]

LOL! And we sure do appreciate it too!!! :woohoo: (By the way, you crack me up!)

Thanks Niner for keeping all the stats!! We do appreciate it!

I want to thank everyone for keeping us up to date!! You guys/girls are amazing!

Praying for justice for Kathleen! lease:

You deserve the credit too. And we all appreciate your meticulous work in this delay filled frustrating trial.

:yourock:​

Niner, you did a terrific job! I love to do that sort of thing myself and am fully aware of the amount of dedication it took to pull those figures together. When all is said and done, your excellent statistics tell a tale of their own about this frustrating trial. You certainly have some terrific laurels to rest upon.

Don't you just hate it when someome steals posts from WS, posts elsewhere, and doesn't credit the author!

We know where the work originated, Niner. Your posts are date and time stamped long before that tweeter stole your work.

Thank you for all your hard work, Niner, and SHAME on Justice Cafe for not mentioning WS and the poster at WS where they found the info and giving you the credit for your work.

That was one of the reasons I posted that tweet! Niner you rock! :rocker:

I'm embrassed... my "more" emoticons aren't working, so let's see if this works... :embrass:

Thank you all!

Actually Cubby, I believe ACandyRose just said in her post they DID give me credit - I'll jump over there and check it out! LOL! I'm 5 pages behind here, so will continue readin!

Thanks again, appreciate YOUR "thank yous"!