Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Madeleine74 said:
I'd like to hear a fact-based recitation of exactly what the state's team did at each point along the way during the lead-up to the trial that has created these issues with the judge. Something is going on with this judge. I don't trust him. Then again, I'm not informed and maybe the judge has legitimate issues.

But from just watching 1.3 days of testimony, or rather hearing about it, the judge has ruled against the state almost every time. That tells me something is up...something with the judge.
Click to expand...

ITA, Madeleine -- Thanks for having the gutz to say what I was thinking -- I just haven't liked or understood his attitude (can't think of a better word, but there probably is one) from way near the beginning of this thing. He must have been a defense lawyer in a past legal life -- which is okay as long as the Jurist is fair, but something is starting to nag at me, too. Does he have a problem with one or more of the PT? Or what? It just doesn't feel right to me...
icon9.gif
 
~n/t~ said:
In Session There are no more questions on cross-examination. So, after a pause, Kathy Patton begins her redirect. Prosecution: “It’s very nerve-racking to be here, isn’t it?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “That’s the reason you don’t want to be here?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “You have been willing to come and testify in this case, haven’t you?” Pontarelli: “Yes.”

In Session The witness repeats that he and Drew Peterson generally got along. Prosecution: “But there was a time, wasn’t there, when you were questioned by the defendant about changing the locks that you felt he was intimidating you?” Objection sustained. Defense: “Did there come a time when you felt intimidated by him?” Pontarelli: “Yes…we had a conversation; he accused me of changing the locks on the front door. I says I didn’t, but I got his message…I found a .38 bullet out on the driveway.” Attorney Greenberg objects, and the judge asks the jurors and witness to leave the courtroom.
Click to expand...


I think this was asked by the Pros. not the Defense, and they had to know that this was a taboo subject, imo. They needed to ask this very carefully so that the answer didn't include the .38, if this info had already been excluded by the judge, which it sounds like it has. Pros. bad.
 
1:15 is now, right? (Sorry, it is 11:15 here, so I'm not sure.)
 
borndem said:
ITA, Madeleine -- Thanks for having the gutz to say what I was thinking -- I just haven't like his attitude (can't think of a better word, but there probably is one) from way near the beginning of this thing. He must have been a defense lawyer in a past legal life -- which is okay as long as the Jurist is fair, but something is starting to nag at me, too. Does he have a problem with one or more of the PT? Or what? It just doesn't feel right to me...
icon9.gif
Click to expand...

Could this explain it?

A Chicago native, Burmila was the Will County State's Attorney from 1988 to 1992. He was defeated by current Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow, who is the lead prosecutor in the Peterson case. http://joliet.patch.com/local_facts/edward-burmila
Click to expand...
 
I was over reading the arrest DP thread and savoring it when the proverbial chit hit the fan. My mouth dropped open. WTH is with this prosecution team and this flipping judge? I do not normally curse, but come on!

If DP walks, I am going to have to call the rescue squad to take me to the hospital! I should never get as into these trials as I do, but I cannot help it. I want justice for the victims so badly and it seems the system leans more toward the rights of the accused than the victim.

What about Kathleen????

JMO
 
In Session The hallway outside Judge Burmila’s courtroom is a beehive of activity, as spectators and media folks gather to get into the courtroom. I can see through the courtroom door that several of the defense attorneys are already inside, and are assembled at their table. On the other hand, the entire prosecution team is huddled in an adjacent courtroom.

In Session Prosecutor Kathy Patton has now entered the courtroom.

In Session Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow has just entered the courtroom.
 
Kimster said:
This is one of the main reasons crime is rampant in this country, IMO!

:moo:
Click to expand...

I so agree! The War on Crime should be approached with putting criminals away rather than pampering them. A jury should be given all the facts, not just bits and pieces. A person's criminal history is relevant, IMO. If they don't want their history considered, then they should consider that before they HAVE a history. Our current system of deceiving the jury by omission is just not working. Dangerous people are walking free, largely because of the flaws in our judicial system. LE arrest, DAs prosecute, and often in the end the court sets them free.

We need to go back to the day when it was legal to give every jury all the facts and let them decide what is relevant based on the whole picture.

Yuk, how disgusting and scary to consider this perp might go free!!
 
In Session There are more people in the overflow courtroom than we had for opening statements. Even some members of the court’s media office have come in, so that they can hear Judge Burmila’s ruling firsthand.
 
I see guests down there! Is it our WS members who are at work, or do we have people who have not registered yet? Come on in and tell us what you think about this development!
 
In Session Judge Burmila has just taken the bench. “In reviewing the appropriate case law…there are a few things I think the Court has to take into account. One of them is the manner in which the complained of testimony came to be in this case. Having sat in the seat of prosecutors and defense counsel, I understand during the course of any prosecution the people have a habit of becoming single-minded…the State Attorney cannot be single-minded, because he also has the duty to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial. In this particular instance, there’s no doubt in my mind that the testimony they presented was a low blow, and should not have been presented to this jury. However, courts are also loathe to grand mistrials…in this particular instance, in the Court’s mind, there’s another sanction, which would be to strike in total the testimony of that witness [Tom Pontarelli]…so the momentary delay is of no importance to me; getting this right and making sure Mr. Peterson gets a fair trial is what’s important. So we’re going to take a little bit of a delay, and I want to hear from the defense of the sanction I’m proposing affects their case, given that they conducted cross-examination.” The defense is offered the use of another room to discuss this issue, after which they will presumably come back to the courtroom.
 
LaLaw2000 said:
I see guests down there! Is it our WS members who are at work, or do we have people who have not registered yet? Come on in and tell us what you think about this development!
Click to expand...

I'm a member that's at work. :-)
I'm visiting from the Lyric & Elizabeth board, where I pretty much live. And I am disgusted by Drew Peterson and this development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 1,358 (members: 89, guests: 1,269)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
1,269
Total visitors
1,358
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,792
Messages
18,192,309
Members
233,543
Latest member
Dutah82!!
Back
Top