Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[Livingthedream]

I would ask Greenberg this:

"What was DP doing in the middle of the night, wearing all black, washing womens clothes that were not SP'S the weekend of KS'S death?"

Do tell, Mr. Greenberg, do tell.

 

[~n/t~]

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Greenberg: "Any one can say they want something, to be something - but there's NOTHING here. THERE IS NOTHING HERE."

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Greenberg calls the state's case "hodge podge" saying their "just hoping the jury just dislikes #DrewPeterson" enough to convict

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson atty Greenberg says state "is trying to nail Jell-O to a tree" and hope it sticks there.

 

[LambChop]

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Greenberg: "Any one can say they want something, to be something - but there's NOTHING here. THERE IS NOTHING HERE."

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Greenberg calls the state's case "hodge podge" saying their "just hoping the jury just dislikes #DrewPeterson" enough to convict

BBM: That would include DP's fourth wife.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “There’s nothing here! NOTHING here! . . . did they ever say to you, ‘This is the piece of evidence that puts Drew Peterson at the house this weekend’ . . . did they ever say that they had a theory about how it was done? No, because they don’t . . . they just hope that this jury dislikes Mr. Peterson . . . ‘we can’t tell you that it wasn’t an accident . . . but presume he did it; years later, we want you to presume he did it’ . . . they have said that he drowned her in the bathtub. They have said that he drowned her. That is what the indictment reads. And where is the evidence that he drowned her? Even their own doctors say she drowned . . . how did he drown her? Did he hold her down? How did she get the injury to the back of her head? I have never seen a murder case where they do not ask the pathology how that injury was inflicted? . . . how did it get there? . . . nobody said that; nobody said it because they have no theory as to how this happened. It’s as if they’re trying to nail a clump of Jell-O to a tree, and have it stick there.”

In Session Greenberg: “Where is the evidence, Judge? Where can they say to you, ‘This is what happened in that house, this is how it was done, and this is how this individual did it?’ They didn’t do it. Because they can’t do it.”

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson judge says state has demonstrated a death occurred and, if you believe their witness, a crime took place

 

[Mama-cita]

In Session Greenberg: “There’s nothing here! NOTHING here! . . . did they ever say to you, ‘This is the piece of evidence that puts Drew Peterson at the house this weekend’ . . . did they ever say that they had a theory about how it was done? No, because they don’t . . . they just hope that this jury dislikes Mr. Peterson . . . ‘we can’t tell you that it wasn’t an accident . . . but presume he did it; years later, we want you to presume he did it’ . . . they have said that he drowned her in the bathtub. They have said that he drowned her. That is what the indictment reads. And where is the evidence that he drowned her? Even their own doctors say she drowned . . . how did he drown her? Did he hold her down? How did she get the injury to the back of her head? I have never seen a murder case where they do not ask the pathology how that injury was inflicted? . . . how did it get there? . . . nobody said that; nobody said it because they have no theory as to how this happened. It’s as if they’re trying to nail a clump of Jell-O to a tree, and have it stick there.”

In Session Greenberg: “Where is the evidence, Judge? Where can they say to you, ‘This is what happened in that house, this is how it was done, and this is how this individual did it?’ They didn’t do it. Because they can’t do it.”

Unfortunately they can't put DP definitively at the scene because his friends in blue botched the ever-loving crap out of the investigation. He gambled that he would be overlooked (as a professional "courtesy") and it paid off for him.

 

[Livingthedream]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson judge says state has demonstrated a death occurred and, if you believe their witness, a crime took place

Well, that's huge.

 

[LambChop]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson judge says state has demonstrated a death occurred and, if you believe their witness, a crime took place

:skip::skip::skip::skip:

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#DrewPeterson judge says there is no question what's "before the jury right now is in conflict."

 

[Mama-cita]

Get ready for a roller coaster ride of horror as the defense begins their smear campaign, er case in chief.

 

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Burmila: There is evidence ... that a finder of fact could return a guilty verdict here. #DrewPeterson

 

[Livingthedream]

The judge might have been frustrated by the proseuctions numerous blunders in this case, but when he says that there is enough here that a guilty verdict can be returned, he obviously knows that this is a VERY strong case.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge: “The law in the State of Illinois is the law . . . Mr. Greenberg says he doesn’t want to put the Court on the spot; when it comes to motions of this type, the Court is always on the spot . . . in this case, the State has met the corpus delecti, in the Court’s opinion; they demonstrated that a death occurred, and if you believe their pathologists a criminal agency caused it . . . the State is entitled to present a circumstantial case before a fact-finder. What is the role the Court has to play at this juncture at this point? Is there any rational finder of fact who could find the defendant guilty on these facts? There’s no question that much of what’s before this jury right now is in conflict . . . Dr. Mitchell says there’s no significant trauma on the body; the opposite conclusion comes from Dr. Blum, that the trauma on the body IS significant . . . looking in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could return a guilty verdict here . . . the State presented evidence of the defendant’s intent to kill Ms. Savio . . . the testimony of the State’s expert witnesses that Dr. Mitchell’s opinions were wrong, and that the wound to the back of the head would not render Kathleen Savio unconscious . . . some mechanical means would be required to have her inhale fluid . . . if we distill down the State’s case, the jury could find on these facts that the defendant was guilty of this offense . . . the defendant’s motion is denied.”




:rocker:

 

[LaLaw2000]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Burmila: There is evidence ... that a finder of fact could return a guilty verdict here. #DrewPeterson

WOW!!!!!

I can't believe the judge said that! Good.

 

[~n/t~]

Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
#DrewPeterson judge denies motion for acquittal after prosecutors rest their case.

Craig Wall ‏@craigrwall
Defense motion for directed verdict of not guilty in #DrewPeterson denied.



:jail:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The defense asks for a moment. Judge Burmila grants a brief recess, and leaves the bench. The trial is in recess.

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson clarification: when judge says a "reasonable finder of fact" could find DP guilty, he means anyone on jury could do that.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, DP!

 

[Cubby]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson atty Greenberg says state "is trying to nail Jell-O to a tree" and hope it sticks there.

Nice reference to a crucifixion. Jello on a tree, huh?

Is that to divert the Italian references they've made non stop, and to divert the spagetti against the wall to see what sticks defense?

The DT has really crossed the line with some of the racial and religious comments. Crooks just like their client.