Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

[officer'swife 2010]

I'm sure it's same there but where we live if a cop is in trouble they call in ppl from other counties to do jury or whatever. However, I do not think Drew's cop status should in any way affect his trial. He killed both wives no doubt. The other wives are lucky they got out alive!

 

[Madeleine74]

Ultimately all the professional courtesies and not making notes in the world didn't manage to keep DP out of jail for the last 2 - 3 years and it didn't keep him from getting indicted or facing a murder charge, nor did it keep him from facing a murder trial and ultimately 12 jurors.

It's true he could get acquitted from this murder. It's up to the jury to decide. Even if DP never sat in the meeting with Stacey, chances are he was still going to kill her and her statements would still be fought by any defense attorney. Some outcomes were not going to be changed. I doubt if Stacey would have told the PD that she suspected Drew the morning after KS's body was found. She would have been too frightened to utter the words.

If anything, the less than thorough investigation into KS's death shows that no one targeted DP and he was given every opportunity, beyond what any civilian would be given in a case. And yet, here he is facing a murder one conviction.

The judge would still be biased, DP would still be smug, the defense team would still be reality show mafioso wannabees. None of that was going to change. It just took longer than it might have had Drew's colleagues not given him every benefit of the doubt.

 

[Cubby]

I agree I don't think Stacy would have said anything had Drew not sat in the interview. Though that is not the only part of the investigation which was inept. It's pretty clear by the evidence which has been presented to date, nothing was really investigated in this case. It appears it was mostly a visual, determined to be an accident.

I'm going to wait until all the evidence is presented....


and I am curious is anyone from the ISP is going to address how inept they presented themselves in this investigation.

 

[LambChop]

Stacy would have answered the questions the best she could but because she would have to lie she would not always know the answers that DP would have preferred. That is why he sat in on the interview to guide her through it. And when she did not know the answer to some of their questions I imagine she burst into tears. Somehow those police officers missed that slight detail. Stacy did not have all the correct answers because DP was lying about what they did on Sunday. I'll bet he was out all night and Stacy knew it and when he came back he had donuts. Now that is cold. She must have been terrified. jmo

 

[WindyCityGirl]

described didn't sound very loving either. MOO To each his own in that dept, but, to me, as a woman, it didn't sound right. It is hard to put words to it....but it didn't sound like they were engaging in a real intimate way, even though it was sexual. I can understand her calling to vent about marriage when he didn't come and spend the night with her after that intimacy too. Very sad.

What was his/their aversion to the bed? Sorry for asking but seems strange to me - has nothing to do with anything really other than I take it as a sign he didn't want real intimacy. Poor Kathleen.

 

[Leila]

BBM:

:seeya: And IF he walks, unfortunately, a lot of innocent people will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of the lives to make sure Drew P does NOT get to them ! JMO but he will go after everyone who testified against him IF he walks !

:banghead: JMO ... he is a serial killer and if he walks, he will kill again :banghead:

Sorry for the rant ... but this is one dangerous !

:moo:

I completely agree! I don't think Kathleen and Stacy are DP's only victims.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

makes her commentary about the trial. I completely understand and sympathize with Stacy's family wanting to be connected and present in this trial, but I question whether the whole discussion of Stacy might hurt the prosecution of Drew for the murder of Kathleen.
It has been my impression that the defense is goading the witnesses to see if they will open the door about Stacy so that too much will be said and then they can declare a mistrial for DP.

The two cases are intertwined but separate. It is such a delicate balancing act and bringing up Stacy isn't going to help us solve the mystery of her disappearance. I am not an attorney, but I am concerned that we may blow it with this trial if too much is said about Stacy.
The Sun Times has an interesting article on this issue today:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/144011...nce-looms-large-over-drew-peterson-trial.html

 

[AngelWings444]

What was his/their aversion to the bed? Sorry for asking but seems strange to me - has nothing to do with anything really other than I take it as a sign he didn't want real intimacy. Poor Kathleen.

I don't think it was an aversion to the bed, whatsoever. They each liked each other many years prior to getting together. Tons of people have sex all over their homes and in other places. It's not a sign there is no intimacy in their relationship. In fact, it could be the opposite. They may have had sex in the bedroom too, after their little romps in the house, maybe even in the same night. There is nothing wrong with that and more power to them!! In fact, many couples who have a terrific sex life stay together for eternity.

The difference here, is that we have had to hear about it in a court of law, which is disgusting and degrading to Kathleen's memory. There was NO purpose for that particular testimony, none! :banghead:

EWWWW warning: DP was probably the worst person in the sack, I don't blame Kathleen for having a little fun with her boyfriend!

Another note, maybe her boyfriend was SO distraught over Kathleen's death, he could never be in another serious relationship. He held a torch for Kathleen for many years. I do not find it weird that he hasn't married, sounds like she was the love of his life. I admire him, and feel sorry for his guilt and pain. This must be horrible for him to relive.

JMO

 

[Leila]

I wonder if cops/friends that worked with or were close to DP have tried to think like DP and figure out where he put Stacy's body. I guess they wouldn't necessarily come forward and do an interview about it, but surely at the very least it's occurred to his fellow cops that they have what would be considered an advantage when it comes to ways to get away with murder and disposing of the body AND evidence. jtol.

Excellent point! I'm sure there's a few Bolingbrook police officers that have been on the job long enough to have gotten to know DP well enough and might have some idea what he did with Stacy.

My gut feeling is that Stacy isn't anywhere that could easily be found. I would bet her remains are a long way from Bolingbrook.

 

[Madeleine74]

BBM:

:seeya: And IF he walks, unfortunately, a lot of innocent people will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of the lives to make sure Drew P does NOT get to them ! JMO but he will go after everyone who testified against him IF he walks !

:banghead: JMO ... he is a serial killer and if he walks, he will kill again :banghead:

Sorry for the rant ... but this is one dangerous !

:moo:

I agree DP is dangerous, but I disagree he will "go after the people who testified." People said the exact same thing when OJ Simpson got acquitted in 1995. Did that happen? Did he murder anyone else? No. He was watched and shunned and as we all know eventually landed himself in a Nevada state prison. Who was at risk in OJ's path? Primarily the woman who entered a dysfunctional relationship with him. It ended badly a decade later, but at least she's alive and off drugs.

The person who is in danger from DP if he is acquitted is the next woman who decides to enter a relationship with him. If he tries to go after anyone from his prior life he'll be suspected and prosecuted. He'll be suspect #1, no doubt. Drew is a coward. He threatens women. He threatens weak women. And the only kind of woman he can get would be one who is weak and is ripe for his bullying tactics.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

where this couple was enjoying each other or in what particular fashion--it was raw, raunchy detail that made it very gross. Perhaps my reaction was precisely what the defense wanted--to make their relationship seem tawdry or cheap in a way. Yes indeed, more power to the two of them for enjoying each other...I am all for it. We just didn't need to hear about it like that.
I do feel sorry for Steve as I think that he did love Kathleen. As a woman though, I felt sorry for Kathleen feeling like it wasn't moving along towards marriage like she wanted it to. I think that it would have in good time and they very likely would have been happy. It is a tragedy.
No doubt this horrific loss has left scars on him.


I was sickened that their intimacy was discussed like that and felt sorry for both Steve, Kathleen's father and the dignity of the memory of Kathleen herself for that to be revealed. Some things are private. Brodsky is really sleazy. MOO.

The love letters that Drew sent to an old flame while he has been in the clinker were similarly gross and objectifying....asking her for her bra size, height, weight, dress size etc. Eww

I don't think it was an aversion to the bed, whatsoever. They each liked each other many years prior to getting together. Tons of people have sex all over their homes and in other places. It's not a sign there is no intimacy in their relationship. In fact, it could be the opposite. They may have had sex in the bedroom too, after their little romps in the house, maybe even in the same night. There is nothing wrong with that and more power to them!! In fact, many couples who have a terrific sex life stay together for eternity.

The difference here, is that we have had to hear about it in a court of law, which is disgusting and degrading to Kathleen's memory. There was NO purpose for that particular testimony, none! :banghead:

EWWWW warning: DP was probably the worst person in the sack, I don't blame Kathleen for having a little fun with!

Another note, maybe her boyfriend was SO distraught over Kathleen's death, he could never be in another serious relationship. He held a torch for Kathleen for many years. I do not find it weird that he hasn't married, sounds like she was the love of his life. I admire him, and feel sorry for his guilt and pain. This must be horrible for him to relive.

JMO

 

[AngelWings444]

Thanks Windycitygirl! Agreed! DP had tons of affairs, even getting a minor pregnant while married. His "love" life and affairs aren't being put out there in court because it's too prejudicial, but Kathleen's is spewed in the courtroom for absolutely no reason. I wouldn't have a problem if the defense asked about who was there, if they had sex, but the questions they asked of Steve are truly, utterly ridiculous!!

I don't put much stock into the statement regarding marriage, and Kathleen not being happy with Steve not being ready, yet. I know SO many women who want to get married, WAY before the man does. In fact, I think that is incredibly common. JMO In addition, after only a day, Steve was very upset that Kathleen hadn't called him, doesn't sound like a huge, serious fight if the guy thinks she will be calling the next day. Again, JMO.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

makes her commentary about the trial. I completely understand and sympathize with Stacy's family wanting to be connected and present in this trial, but I question whether the whole discussion of Stacy might hurt the prosecution of Drew for the murder of Kathleen.
It has been my impression that the defense is goading the witnesses to see if they will open the door about Stacy so that too much will be said and then they can declare a mistrial for DP.

The two cases are intertwined but separate. It is such a delicate balancing act and bringing up Stacy isn't going to help us solve the mystery of her disappearance. I am not an attorney, but I am concerned that we may blow it with this trial if too much is said about Stacy.
The Sun Times has an interesting article on this issue today:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/144011...nce-looms-large-over-drew-peterson-trial.html

Thank you for that article. To me, it looks like both sides in this case are standing at the proverbial line in the sand with the prosecution working hard to get close, but not too close to cause a mistrial.

Meanwhile the cocky defense lawyers, wearing their "cool" sunglasses and constantly speaking smack to the press is nudging closer and closer to the line. When they hit it, they go running to Judge Burmila crying "no fair" and stomping like frusrated children when called on their touching the middle of the line, but not quite crossing over to the other side.

This may not be popular, but I think Judge Burmila is working hard to keep the two sides away from that line. We may not like his decisions, and I have to wonder if he likes them either. He doesn't want a mistrial.

That does not mean that I approve of his apparent treatment of the women in the case.

As for trashing the victim, this team is doing a terrific job! They are taking Kathleen and running into the ground while praising DP to the skies.

I can think of at least two notable trials where this tactic didn't work.

The first was the Phil Spector trial(s). They made the victim, Lana Clarkson, out to be a terribly depressed, aging actress who shot herself in the mouth in Phil's foyer. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the foreman refused to deliberate and another voted not guilty along with him. The second jury found him flat-out guilty. He lost his first appeal on every point.

I remember just as well the Mark Jensen trial. Mark was convicted of killing his wife with anti-freeze and suffocation. Again, Julie Jensen was described as depressed and plain crazy. To this day, Mark's family defends him and attacks Julie's family every chance they get. Mark's appeal also failed.

In this case, I hope the jury can see through the rough-shod cross examinations, especially of the women. I want them to focus on the facts, not the small inconsistencies due to the passage of time. If a friend showed me a series of marks around her friend's neck, I'd remember that. The exact situation, timing, etc. would be fuzzy.

Sorry that this is a long post, I just had to vent.

 

[TallCoolOne]

Thank you for that article. To me, it looks like both sides in this case are standing at the proverbial line in the sand with the prosecution working hard to get close, but not too close to cause a mistrial.

Meanwhile the cocky defense lawyers, wearing their "cool" sunglasses and constantly speaking smack to the press is nudging closer and closer to the line. When they hit it, they go running to Judge Burmila crying "no fair" and stomping like frusrated children when called on their touching the middle of the line, but not quite crossing over to the other side.

This may not be popular, but I think Judge Burmila is working hard to keep the two sides away from that line. We may not like his decisions, and I have to wonder if he likes them either. He doesn't want a mistrial.

That does not mean that I approve of his apparent treatment of the women in the case.

As for trashing the victim, this team is doing a terrific job! They are taking Kathleen and running into the ground while praising DP to the skies.

I can think of at least two notable trials where this tactic didn't work.

The first was the Phil Spector trial(s). They made the victim, Lana Clarkson, out to be a terribly depressed, aging actress who shot herself in the mouth in Phil's foyer. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the foreman refused to deliberate and another voted not guilty along with him. The second jury found him flat-out guilty. He lost his first appeal on every point.

I remember just as well the Mark Jenkins trial. Mark was convicted of killing his wife with anti-freeze and suffocation. Again, Julie Jenkins was described as depressed and plain crazy. To this day, Mark's family defends him and attacks Julie's family every chance they get. Mark's appeal also failed.

In this case, I hope the jury can see through the rough-shod cross examinations, especially of the women. I want them to focus on the facts, not the small inconsistencies due to the passage of time. If a friend showed me a series of marks around her friend's neck, I'd remember that. The exact situation, timing, etc. would be fuzzy.

Sorry that this is a long post, I just had to vent.

Was it maybe Mark Jensen who killed his wife Julie that you are referring to, not Jenkins?

 

[ohiogirl]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5851835/Kathleen-Savio-Parial-Autopsy-Report

someone earlier this thread was asking about the wine glass. I hadn't heard about a wine glass before, but the toxicology test for alcohol was negative. fyi

 

[ohiogirl]

The judge is back on the bench. Connor makes an argument that the defense has opened the door to additional records that the judge had previously ruled inadmissible. Brodsky disagrees. Judge: “I think the State’s observation is an acute one... but I think those records are prejudicial, and so I’m not going to let them in. But you want to be careful in the future where you tread, counsel.” With that, Judge Burmila sends for the jury.

I was just looking over this week's testimony and was reminded of this exchange. So, even when the defense opens the door to some evidence, the judge will deem it prejudicial and still not allow it in. I am not a lawyer but is this proper?
Even if the defense sucks and brings in things they shouldn't, the judge will fix it?
Pssshhhhhhhffffftttttt! jmo

 

[LambChop]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5851835/Kathleen-Savio-Parial-Autopsy-Report

someone earlier this thread was asking about the wine glass. I hadn't heard about a wine glass before, but the toxicology test for alcohol was negative. fyi

Defense is saying there was a wine glass in the tub. But we have heard it from no one else so far. I think it is a poor attempt to make it sound as if she were drunk and just fell in the tub.

I'm surprised DP did not follow his own known procedures. Just because he is LE does not give him permission to break into a home he no longer resided in. He should have called LE which is what I would think is a normal procedure. I do think he had to cover up the fact that the lock had been picked previously. That to me stands out like a sore thumb.

Also the interview downstairs in the basement with Stacy and DP present. Could he have picked more uncomfortable chairs to sit on? Why didn't they sit on a couch where she would have been more comfortable. Why didn't DP just send the boys outside or downstairs?? DP seems to have set the scene for her that this was an interrogation of her and he was just being supportive. All that was missing was the spotlight over her head. jmo

 

[LambChop]

The judge is back on the bench. Connor makes an argument that the defense has opened the door to additional records that the judge had previously ruled inadmissible. Brodsky disagrees. Judge: “I think the State’s observation is an acute one... but I think those records are prejudicial, and so I’m not going to let them in. But you want to be careful in the future where you tread, counsel.” With that, Judge Burmila sends for the jury.

I was just looking over this week's testimony and was reminded of this exchange. So, even when the defense opens the door to some evidence, the judge will deem it prejudicial and still not allow it in. I am not a lawyer but is this proper?
Even if the defense sucks and brings in things they shouldn't, the judge will fix it?
Pssshhhhhhhffffftttttt! jmo

I believe the judge is protecting DP to insure he has a fair trial....even from his own defense attorneys. I think the judge was warning defense not to go there again. jmo

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Was it maybe Mark Jensen who killed his wife Julie that you are referring to, not Jenkins?

I fixed that one. :blushing: I watched and helped blog that trial! Yikes, my mind is really going lately.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Let's hope that the judge's rulings so far will encourage the defense to nudge closer to that line to the point the judge can't save them from themselves.