Suspect Drew Peterson #4

[mysteriew]

I am thinking they will not have them there testifying together at the same time, that way if there are differences in their stories they can ask them to further explain. Of course Drew has a lawyer there and that individual reports to Drew if Drew hired them. I wish the state would have provided boys with an attorney since they gave them immunity. That way the GJ testimony really would not get back to Drew.

JMHO

It is my understanding that when a person goes into the GJ they don't take an attorney with them. That the only people allowed in the GJ is the prosecutor, the jury and the witness. Am I correct in my understanding?

The witness can obtain legal counsel prior to the GJ testimony and the attorney can instruct the witness to plead the 5th if they feel the testimony will incriminate them. But I think the attorney stays in the hall during the testimony.

Which is part of what makes the boys getting immunity so curious. Unless they felt that something they said would incriminate them, they couldn't plead the 5th. A witness cannot plead the 5th to protect someone else. And a witness isn't given immunity except when it is suspected or known that they have done something wrong.

So it looks like the boys are involved in this to some extent. Are they being given protection because they lied to police before? Or did he somehow directly involve those boys???

And how did DrewP and JAB postpone their testimony? What are acceptable excuses for postponing GJ testimony?

 

[DeltaDawn]

It is my understanding that when a person goes into the GJ they don't take an attorney with them. That the only people allowed in the GJ is the prosecutor, the jury and the witness. Am I correct in my understanding?

The witness can obtain legal counsel prior to the GJ testimony and the attorney can instruct the witness to plead the 5th if they feel the testimony will incriminate them. But I think the attorney stays in the hall during the testimony.

Which is part of what makes the boys getting immunity so curious. Unless they felt that something they said would incriminate them, they couldn't plead the 5th. A witness cannot plead the 5th to protect someone else. And a witness isn't given immunity except when it is suspected or known that they have done something wrong.

So it looks like the boys are involved in this to some extent. Are they being given protection because they lied to police before? Or did he somehow directly involve those boys???

And how did DrewP and JAB postpone their testimony? What are acceptable excuses for postponing GJ testimony?

Geez I didn't know all this about immunity, since a wife gets immunity if she requests it she cannot be compelled to testify against a husband, so I thought the same may be true of the children of a suspect. But I think I must be confused on what exactly immunity is and when it is given. I think I am thinking of something else entirely. Dahh

Mystery you have given me much food for thought here..thank you.
DD

 

[mysteriew]

Geez I didn't know all this about immunity, since a wife gets immunity if she requests it she cannot be compelled to testify against a husband, so I thought the same may be true of the children of a suspect. But I think I must be confused on what exactly immunity is and when it is given. I think I am thinking of something else entirely. Dahh

Mystery you have given me much food for thought here..thank you.
DD

That isn't immunity, that is something like marital privelege. A person cannot be compelled to tesify against their spouse. They can choose to testify against them, but cannot be compelled to. But that privelege doesn't extend to parent/child relationships. A child can be compelled to testify against a parent, and the parent cannot go into the GJ with the child.

 

[DeltaDawn]

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

snip/
Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?

• In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.
  
  
  What is a grant of immunity?
  • A grant of immunity to a grand jury witness overcomes the witness's privilege against self-incrimination, and the witness is then required to testify. The prosecutor is prohibited from using that testimony or leads from it to bring charges against the witness. If a subsequent prosecution is brought, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that all of its evidence was obtained independent of the immunized testimony. In practice, it is difficult to successfully prosecute someone for criminal activity they discussed in immunized testimony unless the prosecution had a fully prepared case before immunity was granted.

 

[DeltaDawn]

The above would lead me to believe either they think the boys may have perjuried themselves in previous testimony or they soemhow are part of this crime. I learnmore toward perjury then being part of Drew's crime. I think that they may have lied or refused to answer some questions before and the GJ wamts a second go round with them.

JMHO

 

[DeltaDawn]

http://www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/Jury/GrandJuror.asp
SNIP/
Witnesses may have legal counsel present in the grand jury room to advise them of their rights but counsel may not participate during the proceedings in any other way. If a witness requires an interpreter, the Court will authorize the presence of one in the grand jury room.


The Prosecutor may decide to ask the Court to grant the witness immunity from prosecution for any criminal conduct the witness may reveal by his or her testimony. If the Court grants such immunity, the witness is required to answer completely the questions asked by the Prosecutor or grand jurors, but the witness may not thereafter be prosecuted for any crimes that testimony reveals. /SNIP

So according to Illinois the boys can have a lawyer present.

The immunity part is still another wrench thrown into the mix. I feel they are concerned with the perjury issue here. Maybe previously the boys said they didn't know anything about anything, didn't hear or see anything and maybe the court just wants to double check that after what some other witnesses have said.

But I sure wish the court would provide them with an attorney instead of their Dad because then you know Drew's lawyer will repeat to Drew everything said. And it looks like in Illinois you can have an attorney present in the room with you as you testify.

That means those boys still have to go home and look Drew in the face and put up with his questions about their testimony when it occurs. I think they are asking alot of two tennage boys here when their seem to be plenty of adults who could come forward with info .
JMHO

Okay I am done reading law for today.

DD

 

[mysteriew]

I agree DD that that is one (strong) possibility.

But one thing I fear is that in order to ensure the boys keeping their mouths shut, that DrewP may have actually involved the boys in the coverup of the crime. Possibly cleaning up the scene, or even helping in the disposal in some way. Then he could tell the boys- hey if you tell on me, you will go to jail. But if you stick with me, our lives can go on, I will protect you and tell you what to do and how to stay out of trouble. He wouldn't be the first parent to have done so.

I keep thinking about the day after Stacy's disappearance when DrewP was out and about with the kids. Remember that they went to the airport for a while? What if all the goings on the day that Stacy disappeared was about the coverup and the actual disposal of her remains took place on the next day?

Though I also remember that sometime after Stacy was reported missing, both boys have allegedly talked about DrewP and Stacy fighting that day. One boy allegedly told Cass, and one boy allegedly told Sharon. Since then, no one has talked to the boys other than LE. So maybe they talked before they were involved in the coverup?

 

[i.b.nora]

Just confirmed by Greta:

UPDATE: 2:59pm - It was just confirmed to me the reason for the postponement of the boys’ grand jury testimony - it is so that they can get a lawyer to advise them or their rights and to explain the grand jury process to them. They will not get individual lawyers but rather the boys will share one.

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/02/28/updatedrew-peterson-story/

 

[mysteriew]

http://www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/Jury/GrandJuror.asp
SNIP/
Witnesses may have legal counsel present in the grand jury room to advise them of their rights but counsel may not participate during the proceedings in any other way. If a witness requires an interpreter, the Court will authorize the presence of one in the grand jury room.


The Prosecutor may decide to ask the Court to grant the witness immunity from prosecution for any criminal conduct the witness may reveal by his or her testimony. If the Court grants such immunity, the witness is required to answer completely the questions asked by the Prosecutor or grand jurors, but the witness may not thereafter be prosecuted for any crimes that testimony reveals. /SNIP

So according to Illinois the boys can have a lawyer present.

The immunity part is still another wrench thrown into the mix. I feel they are concerned with the perjury issue here. Maybe previously the boys said they didn't know anything about anything, didn't hear or see anything and maybe the court just wants to double check that after what some other witnesses have said.

But I sure wish the court would provide them with an attorney instead of their Dad because then you know Drew's lawyer will repeat to Drew everything said. And it looks like in Illinois you can have an attorney present in the room with you as you testify.

That means those boys still have to go home and look Drew in the face and put up with his questions about their testimony when it occurs. I think they are asking alot of two tennage boys here when their seem to be plenty of adults who could come forward with info .
JMHO

Okay I am done reading law for today.

DD

So you are thinking an attorney like maybe a guardian ad litum. An attorney appointed by the court and not paid by DrewP. Supposed to be independent of parents and serves only in the interest of the child.

I'm afraid I see the boys testimony as crucial here. No one else was in the home during the critical time period. No one else witnessed any arguing. No one else can say what happened, other than DrewP- and he took the 5th. I agree that it puts the kids in a no win position. Tell the truth and have to face their father afterwards, or lie during a proceeding they know is important. I wish that the pros. could somehow (and I don't know if they can) but if they could somehow reassure the kids that if they wanted out of the home, the prosecutor would petition the court for protective custody for them.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Thank you Mystery and IB Nora for the link to Gretawire.

Didn't the boys testify before without a lawyer?

So now they have immunity and a lawyer...I pray that Drew did not place those boys in the center of this by having them help him with the coverup..oh please for those boys sake let that not be true. I hope they just want to confirm some facts or info about the actions and demeanor of their Dad and not something as horrific as their having to help himget rid of Stacy's things.

JMHO

DD

 

[Taximom]

IIRC, they had a mediator when they gave their info prior to this. Something like that.... :waitasec:

 

[i.b.nora]

Taximom has a good memory and is correct. I had to look it up.

Defending Drew


Thursday, December 20, 2007

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN:, "ON THE RECORD" HOST: Do Drew Peterson's teenage sons know something, and will they be called before the grand jury? The grand jury is investigating the bathtub death of Kathleen's wife — of Peterson's wife number three, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance and potential homicide of Stacy Peterson, who is wife number four. Many wonder whether Drew Peterson's two teenage sons will be subpoenaed to testify in front of the grand jury. The two sons are Kathleen Savio's children, ages 13 and 14, and both adopted by Stacy.

partial

VAN SUSTEREN:: Do you — has anyone — have you heard anything about whether or not the two teenage sons, who were home on the 28th, the 13- year-old and 14-year-old — whether they're going to be subpoenaed from the grand jury? Have you heard anything about that?

CARCERANO: I actually talked to Drew about that, and I believe they already talked to a state mediator towards the beginning of the investigation. I believe the older one talked for about two-and-a-half hours, and the 13-year-old talked for about 35 minutes. But being subpoenaed to go in front of the grand jury, I don't believe that's going to happen.

VAN SUSTEREN:: Why do you say that?

CARCERANO: I — I talked to Drew about that today, and I guess they had a choice back then, and he thought it would be better to have them talk to a mediator that was appointed by the state.

VAN SUSTEREN:: But that — I mean, is that Drew's choice, or (INAUDIBLE) I mean, has the prosecutor said, I'm not going to ask the grand jury to issue the subpoena, or is that Drew's decision?

CARCERANO: I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[mysteriew]

So the immunity could possibly be in case they lied to the mediator, because that was probably sworn testimony.

 

[i.b.nora]

According to a poster at findstacypeterson.com:

Sharon B, will be appearing (before the grand jury) Thursday February 28, 2008.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Thanks IB Nora...maybe the boys testimony didn't ring true with other testimony and they may have felt the boys would be more comfortable if they saw Sharon also waiting to testify again.
JMHO

 

[Leila]

I think it's evident by DP's manipulations - getting the grand jury testimony of the two boys postponed, and getting an attorney for them - that DP feels threatened by what the boys might say.

These are the actions of a guilty person. An innocent person, with nothing to hide, wouldn't be concerned about what his or her children told a grand jury.

I'd like to see the court appoint a guardian ad litium, who would act in the capacity of protecting the children's interests and not answerable to DP.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

So you are thinking an attorney like maybe a guardian ad litum. An attorney appointed by the court and not paid by DrewP. Supposed to be independent of parents and serves only in the interest of the child.

I'm afraid I see the boys testimony as crucial here. No one else was in the home during the critical time period. No one else witnessed any arguing. No one else can say what happened, other than DrewP- and he took the 5th. I agree that it puts the kids in a no win position. Tell the truth and have to face their father afterwards, or lie during a proceeding they know is important. I wish that the pros. could somehow (and I don't know if they can) but if they could somehow reassure the kids that if they wanted out of the home, the prosecutor would petition the court for protective custody for them.

I could not agree more. I can't think of a more psychological deterrent than having to go home to their father after testifying. The boys are in a very precarious position and there is no doubt they have been coached to the hilt already.

If they deviate from the story...there is no telling what they have been told the ramifications will be. They might already know he is capable of two murders...who knows?! Even their own suspicions could have been quashed by DP and his gang...by that laughing, arrogant manner in which they put out there. I can see them telling the boys in a joking manner they would be next if things didn't go their way. Sad to actually say it...but in my honest opinion...I can see it happening just that way.

 

[Taximom]

Wow, i.b.nora, if you knew me and my memory you would faint that I got that right. Thanks for looking that up.

JAB confirmed that (about the mediator) tonight again with Greta, and said that they are looking for lawyers for the boys. A reporter said that the boys will probably make their appearance next Thursday, but had to wait to confirm that.

 

[Andrea1234]

how old are stacy's boys?

 

[Taximom]

Stacy had a boy and a girl, right? I think they are both under the age of 5.