Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson judge accuses Smith of looking at prosecutors before answering. Jury out of room. Arguing ensues.


Unfreakingbelievable!

 

[Livingthedream]

How SP vanishing has nothing to do with this case is beyond me. The state should be able to use the current events of SP being gone to tie THIS CASE together.

Smith should have been able to say: "To my knowledge, SP vansihed two days after our talk/call".

 

[Mama-cita]

In Session The jurors are back in the courtroom, and Brodsky continues his direct examination. “When you spoke to Stacy Peterson, the purpose of her call was to do what?” “She contacted our office to retain me as an attorney in a divorce proceeding.” “Did she eventually retain you?” “No.” “Why not?” The witness is hesitant to answer. The judge then calls the attorneys to a sidebar.

Ruth Ravve ‏@RuthRavve
#DrewPeterson Defense asks Smith why Stacy didn't ever hire him, Smith stumbles because he's not allowed to say Stacy disappeared


The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Brodsky asks Smith why Stacy never retained him to represent her in her divorce. Smith: Uh... #DrewPeterson

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson atty asks Smith why Stacy didn't hire him after an Oct. 2007 call. Smith, clearly stunned, stammers and does not answer.

:what:

Are they trying to bait him into saying something he can't so they can call mistrial? What a bunch of freaks!

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson attys argue Smith changed testimony from earlier hearings. Judge agrees, says Smith can be treated as a hostile witness


Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Judge now allowing smith to be treated as an adverse witness; Brodsky can ask leading questions as if he were on cross.

WTF? :banghead:

 

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Greenberg points out Smith said Stacy told him Drew killed Savio, which differs from what he said at hearsay hearing #DrewPeterson

In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson Greenberg: “I have a problem with what the witness said . . . he either lied today, or he lied every previous time.”

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
At hearsay hearing, Smith said "if we threaten to tell police" that #DrewPeterson killed Savio, not that Drew did kill Savio.

 

[Livingthedream]

When someone has a robbery conviction and he is caught robbing again, are they going to sit here and say that it does not matter what happened before and it has nothing to do with the case that the robber is now being tried for?

People are put away all the time due to their past crimes/actions and it's allowed into evidence.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson Judge: “His testimony today was that Drew killed Kathy, which is different from what he’s given in the past."

In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson Judge "I’m reversing my opinion; Mr. Brodsky, you can now ask leading questions, as if the witness was under cross-exam.

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
Hostile witness means defense can ask more leading questions and have tighter control on the witness' testimony. #drewpeterson

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The witness and the jurors return to the courtroom. Brodsky continues: “Isn’t it true when you testified previously you were sworn under oath?” “Every time I’ve given a statement, I’ve been sworn.” “And never before have you ever said that Stacy said that Drew killed Kathy?” “I do not know if the words you just said to me are the way I said it to you.” The witness is confronted with some of her previous testimony. “I think you just intimated those were my words. I just want you to know that that is what she said to me. Those aren’t my words.” “Did I ask you that question, and did you give me that answer?” “I responded to that question.” “Did you give that answer?” “Yes.”

In Session “Stacy wanted to threaten Drew, in order to get more money out of him in a divorce?” “She asked me if we could use information to get more money.” “Not to prosecute him, but to get more money for herself?” “I don’ t know that.” “So Stacy wanted to say whatever she could in order to get more money out of Drew Peterson?’ “No, she wanted to say that he killed Kathy . . .that was absolutely one of the reasons that she gave.” “She said, ‘If I give information, give me money’?’ “No, she said, ‘If I threaten to do this, can we get more money.”

 

[Kimster]

This jury has GOT to be able to figure out Stacy is most likely deceased in order for this attorney to break privilege. lease:

 

[~n/t~]

BJ Lutz ‏@bjlutz
Brodsky asserting that #StacyPeterson wanted to extort #DrewPeterson.

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
Smith says Stacy never suggested she intended to go to police about Savio's death. #drewpeterson

In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson Brodsky & witness go back & forth over exact wording of earlier testimony.

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Smith: Stacy talked about taking the kids out of state. She did not go running to the police #DrewPeterson

 

[AbbieNormal]

When someone has a robbery conviction and he is caught robbing again, are they going to sit here and say that it does not matter what happened before and it has nothing to do with the case that the robber is now being tried for?

People are put away all the time due to their past crimes/actions and it's allowed into evidence.

Maybe they will bring up KS's murder when someday DP is charged with SP's disappearance. He has never been charged so they can't bring it up. After this trial maybe we will see the murder of KS ending up helping to find DP guilty of SP's disappearance. And how ironic that SP's disappearance is what got KS's murder investigation going.


Poetic justice.

abbie :moo:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Brodsky moves to the Savio/Peterson divorce. “Isn’t it true that if it was Drew Peterson’s visitation weekend, and that happened to be a three-day weekend, he got the kids for the additional day?” “I remember that being an issue . . . I think they fought over that.” The witness is asked about his October, 2008 grand jury testimony, in which he indicates that Drew could keep the boys until Monday night on a three-day weekend. “I would agree with that transcript.” “So Mondays, like Casimir Pulaski Day, would belong to Drew?” “No.” Once again, Brodsky reads from the transcript. “I again agree that was the question and the answer.”

 

[Livingthedream]

IMO, this witness is doing wonders for the state. Of all of the things SP could have used/made up to get more money in a divorce case, she goes with the one thing that absolutely makes sense.

She could have made up/said DP was an abuser or that he stole money from past drug busts. However, she goes with the one thing she KNOWS happened!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “Also in this case, there was a child support order?” “Yes.” “So Drew Peterson agreed to pay child support?’ “Yes.” “And he paid it on time?” “I do not recall a time when there was a child support order.”

 

[Kimster]

Maybe they will bring up KS's murder when someday DP is charged with SP's disappearance. He has never been charged so they can't bring it up. After this trial maybe we will see the murder of KS ending up helping to find DP guilty of SP's disappearance. And how ironic that SP's disappearance is what got KS's murder investigation going.


Poetic justice.

abbie :moo:

I'd do anything to find Stacy right now.

 

[~n/t~]

IMO, this witness is doing wonders for the state. Of all of the things SP could have used/made up to get more money in a divorce case, she goes with the one thing that absolutely makes sense.

She could have made up/said DP was an abuser or that he stole money from past drug busts. However, she goes with the one thing she KNOWS happened!

Let's hope the jury gets it!

 

[~n/t~]

This tweet cracked me up

Holly Tooker ‏@kellabeck
@JudgeJeanine I would like to declare Burmila a hostile judge. #DrewPeterson.


:floorlaugh:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “Remember some talk in the divorce about a company called Fast & Accurate Printing?” Objection/Overruled. “Isn’t it true this company was sold back in 1999?” “I do not recall.” The witness is shown a copy of a deposition taken in 2004. “Fast & Accurate Printing was, in fact, sold back in 1999?” “That’s what Ms. Peterson said in the deposition.” “And the profits were already split?” “I do not recall that, either.” Once again, the witness is directed to his deposition. “They divided the money; half went into Mrs. Peterson’s account, and half into Mr. Peterson’s account.” “If the property was sold before the divorce was filed, and they split the money . . .” I don’t remember whether there was an issue about some of the proceeds, honestly.”

In Session “This was a difficult divorce for Kathy?” “Yes.’ “Sometimes she would get angry?” “Yes.” The defense then asks for a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson jury out of the room for objection. Prosecutors say defense has opened door to financial tension between Drew, Savio

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
State: Brodsky asking Smith about money opens the door for state to argue a financial motive #DrewPeterson