Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

[panthera]

The jury should not be displaying any form of solidarity. They are there to hear all the evidence and come to a verdict. I hope the judge read this and will take appropriate action to warn the jury of their responsibilities. jmo

Good evening all. :seeya:

During the InSession coverage of the trial yesterday, the subject of there being no daily admonition by the Judge to the jurors not to discuss the case, follow the media, etc. was brought up. Did he start admonishing them today? If not, it is doubtful he will say anything to the jury regarding their clothing choices.

MOO

 

[lonetraveler]

In Session Koch responds: “Intent goes to the state of mind of the defendant. His state of mind is clearly relevant in this case . . . I’d ask you to take that into consideration when you’re making your ruling.” Greenberg then jumps in, disputes the case law that the State has just cited. “It appears to be a consent defense, which is different from what we’re talking about here.” Judge Burmila: “Counsel was correct when he said that the precedent that the State provided to the Court was non-jurisdictional in its nature . . . however, that leaves us with the issue of intent. What is the purpose of this evidence? . . . the issue is, did the defendant intend to kill his wife?, and this testimony goes to that issue. So the jury will be able to consider that, and this evidence will be admissible.”

This news is a great birthday present to me............yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jabberwocky]

Why is the prosecution not objecting to the cardiovascular disease if Kathleen had no history of it?

Sounds like a "Baez" tactic to me by the defense. Just like in the CA case when GA and LA were accused of molesting her without proof whatsoever. What proof does the defense have that Kathleen suffered from heart disease?

I don't understand why the judge is allowing the defense to keep throwing out red herrings ,(fat blaster pills,rough sex,birth control pills,etc). All of these accusations are unproven and do not explain what and whom caused her beating and drowning! This trial has been a disgrace and a mockery of our justice system. MOO

 

[wishinuall]

This trial has been exhausting & very disturbing, to say the least! I'm so worried DP is gonna walk! Everyone who has testified, especially the most critical testimony, has been so outrageously interrupted and/or tossed out I can't see how this poor jury can possibly come to the conclusion of guilty beyond reasonable dout! Someone posted earlier today that the PT doesn't have to proveDrew Peterson was there & used two very good examples. However, unless the PT ties everything together in a perfect package with a tidy bow, I just don't see a good outcome. If the jury is allowed to believe all the hogwash the DT is feeding them, with the help of the judge, especiallythat they have to be able to put DP there, this will not only turn out badly, but I don't believe they'll ever bring charges for the disappearane/murder of Stacy. I find it absolutely dispicable their portrayal of this poor wife & mother, who was living in fear for her life, having been so very humiliated both in life and her death, may never get justice! It truly makes me ill. On another subject, I saw a short article earlier where Brodsky pointed out, in another matter, how badly poor DP has been victimized once again! Will try to post link, I'm not too 'puter savvy!! Shoot!! Can't seem to figure that out, but thats par for me! It's on chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/04/07/drew-peterson-offered-to-woman-stacy-petersons-clothes Sorry about that! Any advice, lol?! Hope everyone has a good night, & thanks again for keeping us up & all the in-put!

 

[~n/t~]

Good evening all. :seeya:

During the InSession coverage of the trial yesterday, the subject of there being no daily admonition by the Judge to the jurors not to discuss the case, follow the media, etc. was brought up. Did he start admonishing them today? If not, it is doubtful he will say anything to the jury regarding their clothing choices.

MOO

Oh my. I didn't know that. It's no wonder it's a free for all in that court room. :thud:

 

[katydid23]

This trial has been exhausting & very disturbing, to say the least! I'm so worried DP is gonna walk! Everyone who has testified, especially the most critical testimony, has been so outrageously interrupted and/or tossed out I can't see how this poor jury can possibly come to the conclusion of guilty beyond reasonable dout! Someone posted earlier today that the PT doesn't have to proveDrew Peterson was there & used two very good examples. However, unless the PT ties everything together in a perfect package with a tidy bow, I just don't see a good outcome. If the jury is allowed to believe all the hogwash the DT is feeding them, with the help of the judge, especiallythat they have to be able to put DP there, this will not only turn out badly, but I don't believe they'll ever bring charges for the disappearane/murder of Stacy. I find it absolutely dispicable their portrayal of this poor wife & mother, who was living in fear for her life, having been so very humiliated both in life and her death, may never get justice! It truly makes me ill. On another subject, I saw a short article earlier where Brodsky pointed out, in another matter, how badly poor DP has been victimized once again! Will try to post link, I'm not too 'puter savvy!! Shoot!! Can't seem to figure that out, but thats par for me! It's on chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/04/07/drew-peterson-offered-to-woman-stacy-petersons-clothes Sorry about that! Any advice, lol?! Hope everyone has a good night, & thanks again for keeping us up & all the in-put!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/04/07/drew-peterson-offered-to-woman-stacy-petersons-clothes/

 

[panthera]

Oh my. I didn't know that. It's no wonder it's a free for all in that court room. :thud:

Vinnie was interviewing a woman who has been attending the trial, the "13th Juror". She mentioned while talking with him that the Judge doesn't admonish the jury when recessing for lunch or at the end of the day.

Sorry there isn't a link since this was on TV, however, it does seem highly unusual that it isn't done. In all the trials I have watched, it seemed to be mandatory.

:waitasec:

MOO

 

[lonetraveler]

Is there any information out there on the makeup for the jury? Age, occupation, etc.?

 

[panthera]

Is there any information out there on the makeup for the jury? Age, occupation, etc.?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8191386&postcount=59"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8191386&postcount=59[/ame]

 

[lonetraveler]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8191386&postcount=59

Thank you! I was camping with grandkids when this part was done and missed it somehow.

 

[mysteriew]

HLN is doing some coverage but not like the CA trial. Imagine if they did? OMG it would be more of a circus than it already is.

I'm not sure why the jurors are pulling this stunt. Could be boredom. They have a 20 year old on the jury and he may be bored out of his skull and came up with this silliness. Who knows. It needs to stop.

Do we have any observers going to the trial?

I wonder if this would help.....

The prosecuting attorney always chooses a pic of the victim. What color was KS wearing in the picture the prosecuting team used for KS?
KS family and friends and any observers should start wearing that color to court every day. And make sure to point out to media that they are doing it and doing it in support of KS and in response to the jury.

So when the jury sees that pic, they will remember seeing that color in the trial observers. And maybe that will remind them why they are there.

If they carry pictures,buttons or posters of Kathleen the defense will likely make an objection that it is prejudical to the jury. But wearing KS's color, the defense can't hardly make an objection to it because it could cause an investigation into the jury.

 

[katydid23]

Vinnie was interviewing a woman who has been attending the trial, the "13th Juror". She mentioned while talking with him that the Judge doesn't admonish the jury when recessing for lunch or at the end of the day.

Sorry there isn't a link since this was on TV, however, it does seem highly unusual that it isn't done. In all the trials I have watched, it seemed to be mandatory.

:waitasec:

MOO

I am glad he is not reminding them nor admonishing them to keep away from the news. Hopefully several of them are keeping updated about what they are missing from the testimony.

You have to imagine that they were very curious about what Rosetto had come to testify to. It may have been a stroke of luck that he never said it in trial and was never crossed by the defense. I am hoping a few of the jurors 'accidentally' saw a headline or two, and now they know what was kept from them. :angel:

 

[LambChop]

Do we have any observers going to the trial?

I wonder if this would help.....

The prosecuting attorney always chooses a pic of the victim. What color was KS wearing in the picture the prosecuting team used for KS?
KS family and friends and any observers should start wearing that color to court every day. And make sure to point out to media that they are doing it and doing it in support of KS and in response to the jury.

So when the jury sees that pic, they will remember seeing that color in the trial observers. And maybe that will remind them why they are there.

If they carry pictures,buttons or posters of Kathleen the defense will likely make an objection that it is prejudical to the jury. But wearing KS's color, the defense can't hardly make an objection to it because it could cause an investigation into the jury.

I don't think people sitting in the gallery are permitted to make any displays of emotion or do anything that brings attention to them or they will be removed. I'm sure her family and supporters do not want to take a chance an be removed from the courtroom. jmo

 

[mysteriew]

I don't think people sitting in the gallery are permitted to make any displays of emotion or do anything that brings attention to them or they will be removed. I'm sure her family and supporters do not want to take a chance an be removed from the courtroom. jmo

That is why they can't carry pictures, posters or wear buttons. Wearing her color is a fashion choice. And one that is apparently allowed as no one is objecting to the jurors wearing the defense's colors.

 

[lorann]

I am glad he is not reminding them nor admonishing them to keep away from the news. Hopefully several of them are keeping updated about what they are missing from the testimony.

You have to imagine that they were very curious about what Rosetto had come to testify to. It may have been a stroke of luck that he never said it in trial and was never crossed by the defense. I am hoping a few of the jurors 'accidentally' saw a headline or two, and now they know what was kept from them. :angel:

I have wanted to say this very same thing but shied away from posting it. They were asked a very long time ago to stay away from reading or listening to anything pertaining to the case, I never heard of potential jurors picked and admonished that far ahead of a trial anyway. But they cannot use anything that was not admitted in court in their deliberations.

 

[katydid23]

I have wanted to say this very same thing but shied away from posting it. They were asked a very long time ago to stay away from reading or listening to anything pertaining to the case, I never heard of potential jurors picked and admonished that far ahead of a trial anyway. But they cannot use anything that was not admitted in court in their deliberations.

Yes, they cannot use any of what they hear off the record. But if a few of the jurors KNOW that Stacy is missing and that she told people his alibi was phony and she was forced to lie for him and he was not really home at 3 am---then even if they did not say that to anyone else, they could still be persuasive just using the facts already set out for them, imo.

 

[panthera]

I have wanted to say this very same thing but shied away from posting it. They were asked a very long time ago to stay away from reading or listening to anything pertaining to the case, I never heard of potential jurors picked and admonished that far ahead of a trial anyway. But they cannot use anything that was not admitted in court in their deliberations.

I recall that also, just found it unusual they aren't being admonished daily - 'on the record'.

MOO

 

[WindyCityGirl]

was it reported that the jury, gallery or some of the attorneys were laughing about the sexual piece of the defense? I hope not as I completely agree with you....that indicates the mentality of a 12 year old. Pathetic.

JMHO but mature men and women do not need to snicker when sex is discussed.

 

[katydid23]

was it reported that the jury, gallery or some of the attorneys were laughing about the sexual piece of the defense? I hope not as I completely agree with you....that indicates the mentality of a 12 year old. Pathetic.

I think she was posting that when we were discussing Greenbergs little rude joke he said to the woman doctor. She said the injuries did not seem consistent with consensual relations, and that there was probably sex everyday, but the injuries were more serious.

And he replied " Maybe everyday in your house but not in mine.."

So we didnt know if he was being rude or trying to be funny or what.And we wondered if the judge admonished him because he had complained about 'joking around' already once.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

I am so happy that the hitman is going to be able to testify, but I am quite apprehensive that there may be another blunder by the prosecution to ruin it.
I hope and pray that they work all of it....have their witnessed prepared and don't step over any lines, but deliver a BIG PUNCH to DP!