Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[borndem]

This one thing is not so big a deal, it's when you put it all together that you see ineptitude.

I'm not from anywhere around there, but seems to me, for this particular trial, wouldn't Will County (is it?)/the State of Illinois put their best prosecutors at that table? Are cases assigned on a random rotation, or what??? (Please know that I am not trying to be cranky, snarky or petty, etc., I am just as befuddled as everyone else, and more so since I am not familiar at all with Illinois jurisprudence...):waitasec:

 

[borndem]

This judge seems to really really dislike this particular attorney. Patton.

He is always bullying her and being aggressive and argumentative. He seems to be that way with some of the women witnesses as well. I think he is kind of a :snake:

ITA, katydid, and it may be, in addition, that this judge has seen her in action before and already has seen things he didn't like.

 

[borndem]

I don't think he is going to give them a mistrial with no retrial. The judge pretty much said o already, mo. At least I hope so.

Yes, katydid -- I don't think the judge liked the with-predudice-or-not-at-all ultimatum (and it was an ultimatum, IMO) that the DT gave the judge. Dayam, talk about cocky....

I think the judge will grab this one more error, which was more stupid than egregious, IMO, and use it to strike the entire testimony and possibly the (death knell, here) letter. And just take an arrow and shoot a hole in the PT's whole prosecutorial balloon. Fizz, sssssss, splat. And such smiles all around the shades brigade...

Pizzed???? Who me???

 

[21merc7]

ITA, katydid, and it may be, in addition, that this judge has seen her in action before and already has seen things he didn't like.

I was thinking the same thing. I think Patton gets nervous, perhaps b/c of this Judge, perhaps just gets nervous anyway, and things get blurted out. Never good in a murder trial, but fine for those dui's and traffic tickets.


Maybe today will be a better day, and Patton will find some *focus* pills.

 

[WhiteLilly]

Is there a lawyer on the forum here who can explain why information that is extremely relevant to the case is not allowed?

Such as the order of protection and the fact that peterson was set to get a lot of money and property in the divorce settlement with Kathleen out of the way.

I honestly don't understand. That all goes toward his guilt, which of course should be allowed in. I thought the whole point of a trial was to give ALL the evidence and information so the jury can make an informed decision.

It's driving me batty.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I went through the 3 years of the other case, only to be disappointed in the end. I won't allow myself to lose any sleep over this one. What will be, will be.

I read Burmila as a short-tempered judge who just blurts out things on the bench. When it comes to important decisions, hew knows better than to make a quick ruling. Instead, he goes home and reasseses the situation, perhaps talks to a close judge friend, does some serious research and then makes a more balanced decision.

This is what he seemed to do with the first call for a mistrial. I don't believe that he liked at all the defense ultamatum. You have to know that, if he decides it's time to rule for a mistrial, it will be without prejudice.

Personally, I just hope he sanctions the prosecution and the case lumbers on.

Meanwhile, my heart goes out to the jury. They have to spend so much down time NOT discussing the case. They must be

:maddening: x 16

 

[~n/t~]

Is there a lawyer on the forum here who can explain why information that is extremely relevant to the case is not allowed?

Such as the order of protection and the fact that peterson was set to get a lot of money and property in the divorce settlement with Kathleen out of the way.

I honestly don't understand. That all goes toward his guilt, which of course should be allowed in. I thought the whole point of a trial was to give ALL the evidence and information so the jury can make an informed decision.

It's driving me batty.

I'm not a lawyer or a chemist.......

The order of protection was not allowed in because the discussion surrounding this was the accused murderer's threat to Kathleen at knife point recounted by the Police Lieutenant (hearsay). Even though the Police Lieutenant suggested to Kathleen that she get an order of protection, Kathleen never went ahead with it. So the Judge ruled that it was prejudicial to the accused murderer and not allowed in.

As for the property settlement, I think the Judge made it clear with his <bleep> question when he said well what if the accused murderer died first. IMO, what he meant was there was no proof that it was in anyway a "motive" to kill Kathleen when the papers were drawn up. Makes no sense but then again, nothing this Judge has ruled against makes any sense to me.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and just follow what has been discussed in the media about all the hearsay stuff.

 

[ohiogirl]

I am very concerned about the mistrial with prejudice. IMO, the judge can be pissed about the defense's ultimatum, but he still has to research precedence and go with what is the true legal remedy.
I am of the mind that the questions wasn't overly prejudicial and the judge was just really mad that his ruling was, in his mind, blatantly ignored. But, I believe the prosecutor when she said she just neglected to take the protection order out of her notes. It shouldn't have been there in the first place, true, and they need to have enough presence of mind to know what they should ask and not ask. But, I think it has to have gone through the jury's minds after hearing that DP told KS that he could kill her and make it look like an accident, why didn't she get a restraining order. I know I would have wanted to know the answer to this.
This entire trial has become a minefield of what words can and can't be said. And, the defense has been goading the witnesses to say something that they shouldn't.
Trials need to be about the truth, not just legalese, imo. It is very frustrating and I think this judge is unhappy that he is on this case. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
And, good morning all.

 

[Fishee]

I'm not sure which is a bigger longshot; a verdict or a conviction.

And a conviction's got appeal written all over it.

 

[ohiogirl]

I am very concerned about the mistrial with prejudice. IMO, the judge can be pissed about the defense's ultimatum, but he still has to research precedence and go with what is the true legal remedy.
I am of the mind that the questions wasn't overly prejudicial and the judge was just really mad that his ruling was, in his mind, blatantly ignored. But, I believe the prosecutor when she said she just neglected to take the protection order out of her notes. It shouldn't have been there in the first place, true, and they need to have enough presence of mind to know what they should ask and not ask. But, I think it has to have gone through the jury's minds after hearing that DP told KS that he could kill her and make it look like an accident, why didn't she get a restraining order. I know I would have wanted to know the answer to this.
This entire trial has become a minefield of what words can and can't be said. And, the defense has been goading the witnesses to say something that they shouldn't.
Trials need to be about the truth, not just legalese, imo. It is very frustrating and I think this judge is unhappy that he is on this case. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
And, good morning all.:seeya:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Good Morning Y'all !

I just finished reading this thread from yesterday as I did not get to follow in "live time" and OMG :maddening:

While I understand the prosecutor "goofed" yesterday, this judge is too biased to be sitting on the bench :maddening:

JMO ... but this judge has GOT TO GO !

And THANKS to all for posting the trial updates ... I'll be checking in and out for updates ...

lease: Justice for Kathleen !

lease:

 

[21merc7]

I keep seeing people worried about appealing if there is a conviction. Stop worrying about it. It will happen if there is a conviction. Doesn't mean it will will reverse the conviction though, and it takes a couple of years to go through the Courts.

 

[~n/t~]

3m Jon Seidel&#8207;@SeidelContent

#DrewPeterson attorney Greenberg walks by, tells reporters he can't say anything. "Gag order?" he's asked. "Brodsky order" he says


Where's the puke icon?

 

[~n/t~]

Jackie Damico&#8207;@InSessionJackie
Wow the first spectator to get in line for #DrewPeterson trial tickets arrived at 3:45am.


3m Jackie Damico&#8207;@InSessionJackie
30 people are lined up outside of the Will County Courthouse trying to get a ticket for the #DrewPeterson trial today.

 

[SoBeCzar]

I keep seeing people worried about appealing if there is a conviction. Stop worrying about it. It will happen if there is a conviction. Doesn't mean it will will reverse the conviction though, and it takes a couple of years to go through the Courts.

I think we are worried about a mistrial with predjudice. This judge makes it seem like a very real possibility. It is almost as if he is on the side of the defense just jumping at the chance to legally toss the case.

 

[~n/t~]

24s In Session&#8207;@InSession

#drewpeterson spectors waiting outside courthouse are split whether Judge Burmila will grant a mistrial w/o prejudice or strike testimony.

 

[ohiogirl]

3m Jon Seidel&#8207;@SeidelContent

#DrewPeterson attorney Greenberg walks by, tells reporters he can't say anything. "Gag order?" he's asked. "Brodsky order" he says


Where's the puke icon?

Greenburg should have put a gag order on Brodsky yesterday when he insisted to the judge that it was all or nothing! :what:

 

[~n/t~]

OK I know this is no laughing matter but I had to laugh at this tweet. lol


3m Shirking Violet&#8207;@Shirking_Violet
#DrewPeterson files for a mistrial almost as often as he files for divorce.

 

[~n/t~]

1m Craig Wall&#8207;@craigrwall
Defense team in #DrewPeterson now in court. Prosecutors assembling now too. Not sure if the judge will rule immediately or hear motions 1st


1m Jon Seidel&#8207;@SeidelContent
Today's potential #DrewPeterson witnesses assuming no mistrial: Teresa Kernc, Larry Blum, Scott Rossetto, Vinod Motiani

 

[~n/t~]

Beth Karas InSession

24 minutes ago via Mobile.



Day 10 of Peterson's trial will be underway soon. Judge Burmila will rule on the defense's third motion for a mistrial. If he doesn't grant it, the State will continue presenting evidence. The forensic pathologist who performed the second autopsy is expected to testify today.