Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

[Shelby1]

:waiting:

 

[LaLaw2000]

childish or unprofessional, but I really don't think that this means that they are taking it any less seriously....I think that they were and perhaps are mocking the crazy matching outfits of the defense (like Mr. and Mrs. Shark)
On the plus side, I think that it could indicate that they are united. They have formed a cohesive unit and hopefully that will bode well for the prosecution side.

Well, it is making some sort of statement but none of us know what that is. I just don't like it at all and I can't see myself changing my mind on that point.

MOO

 

[TallCoolOne]

childish or unprofessional, but I really don't think that this means that they are taking it any less seriously....I think that they were and perhaps are mocking the crazy matching outfits of the defense (like Mr. and Mrs. Shark)
On the plus side, I think that it could indicate that they are united. They have formed a cohesive unit and hopefully that will bode well for the prosecution side.

Actually it scares me. Makes me think one of the jurors reads John Grisham.

 

[LaLaw2000]

:seeya: And we'll come get you OUT if you do ! LOL ! :rocker:

Seriously though ... I am NOT liking this "matching wardrobe" that this jury seems to have going on ...

It's just NOT good ... which tells me that "someone" is "influencing" this ...

:moo:

Thanks so much, dog.gone.cute! You are good people!

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The parties are heading back into the courtroom. We should be resuming shortly.

 

[Cubby]

By the way, I'm reading other comments on IS and the Chicago Tribune is reporting that all of the jurors wore green today. Various shades of it, but all green.

I'm finding this a little weird and distractive- the unity on the clothing, not you shelby . With the goofy rulings this judge is making, I'm finding myself worrying this demonstration of unity among the jurors by clothing choices would be just enough to cause a mistrial.

He77, the wind could blow the wrong way and the judge could rule a mistrial in this case.


I'm not liking this clothing thing, unless it means don't forget about us, the jury, while both sides and the judge are acting like this is a circus not a trial.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I think this judge needs an intervention! Someone who cares about this man please tell him there is a dead mother who deserves justice and he needs to let the truth come out. Also please tell him he is making himself look as if he is on the defense' side and all for DP.

I am daydreaming again. I must snap out of this! It's making me crazy!

 

[Cubby]

GBBM: WTH ? This is NO coincidence ... and NOT good, IMO ...

They should be paying attention to the trial and testimony ... NOT thinking about their wardrobe !

:moo:

Glad to see I am not the only one not liking this.....

 

[21merc7]

Is green anyone's fav color that is involved?

Or, is the jury saying it looks like someone is being paid off and it is not them?

Irish lunch today?

I have no idea what it is about, but it is never a good thing.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

a possible positive spin on it. Remember how the jury that convicted Amanda Knox in her first trial all dressed alike? They were united in their opinion that Amanda was guilty. (they wore the colors of the Italian flag in solidarity)
I really haven't thought a lot about the issue, but find it amusing more than anything else.......this court has been a (#&@ circus so they are joining in the show I suppose

Actually it scares me. Makes me think one of the jurors reads John Grisham.

 

[Shelby1]

Good grief, they might as well just take lunch right now.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

was feeling VERY positively. Her credentials and experience are VERY impressive. I am feeling that this is going to be strong.......and. then. something. happens........What is going on? This happens every time! Every time!!!!!!:banghead:

 

[rpgman]

I have NEVER in all my time following trials have I seen this.

A Pro that's limited in so much they can bring in and a Pro that bumbles along making mistake after mistake and a Judge who clearly isn't fair.

 

[LaLaw2000]

was feeling VERY positively. Her credentials and experience are VERY impressive. I am feeling that this is going to be strong.......and. then. something. happens........What is going on? This happens every time! Every time!!!!!!:banghead:

I feel the same way, WindyCityGirl! I was so 'up' when the judge ruled the hit man testimony in.

And now..........................

 

[rpgman]

I feel the same way, WindyCityGirl! I was so 'up' when the judge ruled the hit man testimony in.

And now..........................

me too and then all of a sudden he gets a date wrong or the Pro got the dates wrong and he's barred.

ridiculous

 

[Shelby1]

Half the day is gone already.......

No updates, by the way.

 

[Cubby]

Never.
Have.
Seen.
Anything.
Like.
This.
Judge.

I have, in duPage in family court room 2003 years ago. I called an advocacy group in who in turn faciliated a meeting with the judge, SA's and asa's to remind them to follow the law as it is written, not do what they damn well please because the person behind the bench makes the decision. While it did not help me, it helped those who followed me.

Judge Burmilla needs to be investigated.

 

[LaLaw2000]

me too and then all of a sudden he gets a date wrong or the Pro got the dates wrong and he's barred.

ridiculous

OMG! Did I miss something? You mean now the hit testimony is out?? I have been away from the computer a couple of times and may have missed it.

If the hit man testimony is out, then I give up.

 

[lorann]

Is green anyone's fav color that is involved?

Or, is the jury saying it looks like someone is being paid off and it is not them?

Irish lunch today?

I have no idea what it is about, but it is never a good thing.

The jury is probably so bored and confused that they had to come up with something to focus their minds on - so the color thing... They never get to hear testimony flowing - it is either interrupted by the DT or the judge. Maybe that is the plan - confuse and conquer. Even if they have good notes, it will be difficult to get their trains of thoughts organized - if they ever get to fulfill their job as a jury.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Judge Burmila returns to the bench. “During the break, I asked the parties to find for me the case … it’s an Illinois Supreme Court case from 1981. And in the decision, it was the first instance where the Illinois Supreme Court started to direct trial courts to leave behind the old methodology of proposing hypotheticals to expert witnesses . . . in this instance, when Mr. Glasgow told the doctor to go on [and give names], that was unnecessary . . . some of the people whose names she mentioned, their testimony was banned in this case, and that worries me . . . so when the jury comes back, I’m going to tell the jury to ignore the names of the people she said she relied on.” Attorney Goldberg: “We discussed Dr. Mitchell’s grand jury testimony . . . I want to make sure that the doctor [Case] is not going to rely upon uncross-examined testimony from Dr. Mitchell.” Judge: “She’s an expert, and if she says she saw something in his testimony, and she took it into account, she can do that. And you can cross-examine her about that.” Attorney Greenberg responds: “We have such a unique circumstance here, with what happened with Dr. Mitchell . . . they should not be able to have an expert testifying as to Dr. Mitchell; the jurors should never be allowed to hear that . . . there’s no reason for this witness to have to say what Dr. Mitchell said.” Prosecutor Kathy Patton then jumps in, and disputes Greenberg’s interpretation of the case law in question. Glasgow: “She is not going to say that she relied upon Dr. Mitchell’s grand jury testimony to form her opinion.” Judge: “We’re good to go, then.”

In Session The judge sends for the witness and the jury.