Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[LambChop]

I know it's water under the bridge....and I'm honestly not trying to demean the victim in any way...

but Stacy Peterson should have immediately gone to police after she saw Drew that morning of Savio's death. She kept quiet about it until she was ready to divorce Drew (more than 3 1/2 years later.)

And adding to that, pastor Neil Schori should have gone immediately to police after his meeting with Stacy....pastor or not.

jmho

I think they were aware that the last person who complained to the police ended up dead with the explanation that her death was a result of an accident. DP let everyone know that he had "perfect" control over them all. What Stacy should have done was gotten away from DP and then gone to the FBI and remained in hiding. Apparently he watched her every move. Makes you wonder how he could do that and work with the police department, too. Sounds as if DP may have been paid a lot of money to NOT do his job. How would he know Stacy was meeting the pastor on that particular day? Did he follow her all the time? jmo

 

[~n/t~]

BJ Lutz ‏@bjlutz
Good morning, tweeters! Day 3 of defense testimony / 19th of proceedings to bring #DrewPeterson son to stand. http://m.nbcchicago.com/nbcchicago/db_276069/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=11wvSiC0

 

[LaLaw2000]

We'll keep you posted with the trial. The important thing is you stay safe! :hug:

Thanks, ~n/t~. I think we will be fine because we are in northern Louisiana.

 

[LambChop]

Stay safe.

I must be in a minority of one here, because I don't think DiMaio's evidence was all that bad. Of course, he gave the defense theory that Kathleen could have drowned in the bathtub by accident, but he also gave the figures accurately enough. Accidental drownings in bathtubs are very rare - according to DiMaio - and only happen to approx. 1.6 in 1 million people. Of that already tiny proportion of the population, the vast majority are either small children left unattended, or adults who are intoxicated. He also testified that Kathleen wasn't intoxicated.

For those who are sneering at him on the grounds that this freak accident is unlikely in light of the other circumstantial evidence, remember its not DiMaio's job to testify about anything other than the forensic pathology. Its the juries job to put his evidence in context, and as long as the jury can do basic math, I don't think DiMaio's evidence will have done the defense much good.

I think most people feel that because of the fact that this is a rare occurrance that the ME probably should have looked into the surrounding evidence a little more closely than they did. I also think it is somewhat ironic that one of the first officer's on the scene was an Officer Sud and DP's bar that he is part owner in is called Sud's Pub. If they are connected outside the police department in a joint business operation Officer Sud should have never been permitted to be an officer on the scene making a determination it was an accidential death. jmo

 

[LaLaw2000]

Poor Tom. I wonder just how much pressure DP put on him all the way back to the beginning and even now.

The PT needs to tread softly where Tom is concerned, IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Poor Tom. I wonder just how much pressure DP put on him all the way back to the beginning and even now.

The PT needs to tread softly where Tom is concerned, IMO.

From all I have read about Tom he seems to be a very strong intelligent young man.

I really dont think Tom would testify in his father's behalf if this was not what he wanted to do. He is under no obligation to be a defense witness for his father.

While most of us are convinced DP is guilty it seems Tom really doesnt believe he is. Which is understandable.

IMO

 

[Cappuccino]

I think most people feel that because of the fact that this is a rare occurrance that the ME probably should have looked into the surrounding evidence a little more closely than they did. I also think it is somewhat ironic that one of the first officer's on the scene was an Officer Sud and DP's bar that he is part owner in is called Sud's Pub. If they are connected outside the police department in a joint business operation Officer Sud should have never been permitted to be an officer on the scene making a determination it was an accidential death. jmo

Agreed, but I was surprised by some of the hostile comments directed towards Vincent DiMaio in this thread. It seems some of you have seen him give evidence at previous trials and have a poor opinion of him based on that. However, as someone who has no experience of him at all, just reading his evidence objectively, I don't think the hostility is warranted.

Of course he gave the defense pov that the bruises, position of the body, etc, could be consistent with an accidental drowning, but he didn't lie about the science and he didn't misrepresent the probability of such an occurrence. So for all the comments that we've seeen about defense experts being paid liars to deny justice to victims, the reality is that DiMaio got paid a few thousand dollars to do DP not much good. He may even have harmed him, because when even a defense expert testifies that such an occurence is extremely rare, the jury should take note.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Agreed, but I was surprised by some of the hostile comments directed towards Vincent DiMaio in this thread. It seems some of you have seen him give evidence at previous trials and have a poor opinion of him based on that. However, as someone who has no experience of him at all, just reading his evidence objectively, I don't think the hostility is warranted.

Of course he gave the defense pov that the bruises, position of the body, etc, could be consistent with an accidental drowning, but he didn't lie about the science and he didn't misrepresent the probability of such an occurrence. So for all the comments that we've seeen about defense experts being paid liars to deny justice to victims, the reality is that DiMaio got paid a few thousand dollars to do DP not much good. He may even have harmed him, because when even a defense expert testifies that such an occurence is extremely rare, the jury should take note.

I didnt have any problems with what DiMaio testified to and I honestly think he testified truthfully to his own opinion about the COD/MOD. I think you could probably put 10 MEs or pathologists in a room on the same case and 5 would probably have one opinion and 5 would have an opposite opinion. Doesnt mean that one side is right or wrong. They do not say these things as facts anyway. They are just their opinions based on years of training/knowledge and experience. There is no denying that DiMaio probably has the most experience of any medical expert who has testified thus far.

It up to the jury who they believe or they can believe none of the medical experts and go by the other evidence entered to determine their verdict.

I also dont have any problem with the amount these experts are paid. Lots of professions make big bucks an hour. Theirs is just one of them.

IMO

 

[Cappuccino]

Exactly, and I think people should bear in mind that prosecution experts don't work for free either.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Exactly, and I think people should bear in mind that prosecution experts don't work for free either.

They work for the state so they do not get as much as the ones who dont but often times when MEs retire they too will go into consulting work just like the defense medical experts. DiMaio worked as a ME in Texas until he retired in 2006. That job did not pay him nearly as much as being a medical expert in criminal cases.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Well, I was not impressed with DiMaio and do not mind saying so. I also know the experts are paid witnesses.

Sometimes the experts are looking at it only from the defense point of view (of course) and not wanting to admit that it could have been something else entirely.

MOO and my right to it!

 

[LadyL]

I hope there's some kind of investigation into the jurors clothing choices. They are mocking the system and showing disrespect for the victim IMO. Also, I really hope the defense can't use that as part of a mistrial/appeal request - that the jurors focus on clothing showed they did not take their duty seriously.

Disgusting really. They should be ashamed of themselves. The judge should've called a recess and made them go change out of sports jerseys.

 

[Cappuccino]

They work for the state so they do not get as much as the ones who dont but often times when MEs retire they too will go into consulting work just like the defense medical experts. DiMaio worked as a ME in Texas until he retired in 2006. That job did not pay him nearly as much as being a medical expert in criminal cases.

Didn't Dr Baden testify for the prosecution here? He doesn't work for the state, and his going rate would be in the same league as DiMaio's.

Besides, someone who works for the state can find themselves under pressure to spin the forensic pathology evidence whatever way suits the state, because the state is their employer. It shouldn't happen, but unfortunately it does in some cases. (Not saying it happened here).

 

[Mama-cita]

Poor Tom. I wonder just how much pressure DP put on him all the way back to the beginning and even now.

The PT needs to tread softly where Tom is concerned, IMO.

Reminds me of that tv movie Blind Faith with Robert Uhrich and Joanna Kerns where the guy had his wife killed. He had three sons, the young one testified on his behalf but the older boys did not. I am sure Drew did put pressure on Tom.

 

[~n/t~]

Hoping and praying for Justice!! :rose:

 

[LaLaw2000]

Reminds me of that tv movie Blind Faith with Robert Uhrich and Joanna Kerns where the guy had his wife killed. He had three sons, the young one testified on his behalf but the older boys did not. I am sure Drew did put pressure on Tom.

Agree, Mama-cita. I saw that movie and felt it was an accurate portrayal of the events.

*It is my opinion that DP more or less brainwashed those boys from the first day.

MOO

 

[LaLaw2000]

Weren't the lawyers supposed to be there at 8:30 this morning for the judge to hear a motion? It was mentioned yesterday but no details given, IIRC.

 

[~n/t~]

Weren't the lawyers supposed to be there at 8:30 this morning for the judge to hear a motion? It was mentioned yesterday but no details given, IIRC.

8:45 CT/9:45 Eastern

 

[Mama-cita]

Weren't the lawyers supposed to be there at 8:30 this morning for the judge to hear a motion? It was mentioned yesterday but no details given, IIRC.

They are probably there, but Burmila will stroll in about 45 minutes late! Lol! It starts when he decides to show up!

 

[tsitra01]

I hope there's some kind of investigation into the jurors clothing choices. They are mocking the system and showing disrespect for the victim IMO. Also, I really hope the defense can't use that as part of a mistrial/appeal request - that the jurors focus on clothing showed they did not take their duty seriously.

Disgusting really. They should be ashamed of themselves. The judge should've called a recess and made them go change out of sports jerseys.

When I served on the Jury here in my area, manner of dress was numbe one on the list. It can be difficult to be waiting so many hours during the day but dressing to bring attention to you as a group isn't what this is about. It's about a
beautiful young mother who may have been murdered by her abusive, controlling ex husband.