Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

[krkrjx]

Can you blame him? The must be relishing in the stupidity of the prosecution :maddening:

I blame him. He and he alone is responsible for there having to be a prosecution in the first place.

 

[Cappuccino]

This is not going to end good. The pros are acting like law-school rejects. I cannot believe this.

I was gonna be diplomatic and say first year law students, but your appraisal is more honest.

Btw, I'm surprised by the amount of people in this thread who are blaming the judge and/or the Constitution for this train wreck. This is the prosecution's fault, completely.

 

[Leila]

The hinky parts so far (to me):

1. Drew insisting on getting a locksmith. If you think there's something wrong/an emergency, you'd want to get in stat, which would mean breaking down the door.

2. Drew staying in the foyer and letting the 2 neighbors go upstairs to look for Kathleen. That just seems so obvious. He wanted/needed other people to find KS in the tub.

3. The state of the bathroom, the tub, no water, etc, etc.

4. Drew saying right away to someone that people would think he has something to do with KS's death. If you're innocent, why would your mind even go *there?* You'd be thinking drowning, not homicide!

I swear some of these guilty husbands are the ones who shine the red light of suspicion on themselves right from the get-go. They make comments and do things that normal innocent people just wouldn't!

I agree and would like to add that upon hearing Mary screaming, Drew, who was in uniform and had his gun, ran up the stairs and didn't draw his gun. In a normal situation a woman screaming would mean danger - like maybe she had confronted an intruder who was still in the house. Drew knew why Mary was screaming and didn't need to draw his gun.

Also, Kathy's feet were in an unusual position in the bathtub with her toes up against the side of the tub..........not consistent with drowning.

 

[Cappuccino]

I blame him. He and he alone is responsible for there having to be a prosecution in the first place.

Well, yeah that too.

 

[krkrjx]

I was gonna be diplomatic and say first year law students, but your appraisal is more honest.

Btw, I'm surprised by the amount of people in this thread who are blaming the judge and/or the Constitution for this train wreck. This is the prosecution's fault, completely.

IMO it's the defendant's fault. Completely.

 

[Cappuccino]

IMO it's the defendant's fault. Completely.

Of course, its his fault completely. But its the prosecution's job to make their case beyond reasonable doubt, and they are fluffing it with unforced errors, poorly framed questions and poorly prepared witnesses.

The prosecution are not doing a good job here. That's not the judge's fault, he can only apply the law.

 

[passionflower]

If pros make to many mistakes that cause a problem, can the judge have them replaced with more experienced pros?
How long have these pros been around?
What do we know about their experience in a murder trial like this one?
(circumstantial)
The law just can't let this guy walk the streets.
DP will remarry and reoffend.

 

[krkrjx]

Of course, its his fault completely. But its the prosecution's job to make their case beyond reasonable doubt, and they are fluffing it with unforced errors, poorly framed questions and poorly prepared witnesses.

The prosecution are not doing a good job here. That's not the judge's fault, he can only apply the law.

I understand that and I certainly agree with you that the prosecution is not doing a very good job. But to me some of that appears to be an indirect result of laws that are in place to protect. In trying so hard to protect, we can in fact suppress.

A trial is supposed to be about getting to the truth of the matter.

 

[Cappuccino]

If pros make to many mistakes that cause a problem, can the judge have them replaced with more experienced pros?
How long have these pros been around?
What do we know about their experience in a murder trial like this one?
(circumstantial)
The law just can't let this guy walk the streets.
DP will remarry and reoffend.

This is why I was hoping the judge would declare a mistrial without prejudice. It would have given time for the state to either get better prosecutors, or for the existing ones to get their act together.

And yes, I'm afraid I have to agree that if he gets away with this DP will almost certainly feel invincible enough to kill again.

 

[21merc7]

Want to thank everyone for keeping us posted. I'm selfishly happy I am at work and cannot follow minute to minute, just reading every now and again makes my blood boil. I know it is doing the same to all of you, sorry.

I have a question. Why is the prosecution throwing the case?! Are they buds with DP?

 

[Cappuccino]

I understand that and I certainly agree with you that the prosecution is not doing a very good job. But to me some of that appears to be an indirect result of laws that are in place to protect. In trying so hard to protect, we can in fact suppress.

A trial is supposed to be about getting to the truth of the matter.

Getting to the truth of the matter doesn't always mean giving the prosecution its own way on everything. There can be good reasons for a judge to rule evidence inadmissable. The rules of disclosure are an example - how is any defendant, no matter how innocent, supposed to defend himself against secret evidence which he is not allowed to view? America is not a police state.

Anybody prosecuting a murder case should damn well know that, and these pros introduced evidence which hadn't been disclosed to the defense in their opening argument!!! Rookie error to the max.

Its the prosecution's fault if he gets acquitted.

 

[seattlechiquita]

I blame him. He and he alone is responsible for there having to be a prosecution in the first place.

No need to be snappy - and most certainly not at me. It is the prosecution's duty to show this a-hole killed his ex-wife beyond a reasonable doubt. They are doing the worst job possible.

 

[Cappuccino]

Want to thank everyone for keeping us posted. I'm selfishly happy I am at work and cannot follow minute to minute, just reading every now and again makes my blood boil. I know it is doing the same to all of you, sorry.

I have a question. Why is the prosecution throwing the case?! Are they buds with DP?

Good question. I would normally dismiss that as a conspiracy theory, but this guy is a former police officer...so maybe.

 

[21merc7]

Good question. I would normally dismiss that as a conspiracy theory, but this guy is a former police officer...so maybe.

That's why I thought of it. I don't mind bringing up huge conflict of interest issues, lol. If they know him, there should have been outside prosecution appointed, aka special prosecutors.

Are they rookies? I saw that post above.

 

[Cappuccino]

They are certainly acting like rookies. If the roles were reversed and the defense was this pathetic, the defendant would probably get a retrial on the grounds of ineffective counsel, (and quite rightly too).

However, double jeopardy prevents Kathleen Savio from the same chance at justice.

 

[JSR]

I don't think the judge is going to take it that far. I believe the defense will want the entire testimony thrown out, but the judge will have some of the testimony stricken from the record and tell the jury to disregard.

I believe some of the reports are saying that the Judge is leaning towards striking the ENTIRE testimony of this witness. But is letting the defense decide if they want to keep some testimony in because it might affect "their" case and/or he's still leaving a mistrial on the table.

 

[JSR]

Look at what STEADFAST posted upthread:


Quote:
A Chicago native, Burmila was the Will County State's Attorney from 1988 to 1992. He was defeated by current Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow, who is the lead prosecutor in the Peterson case. http://joliet.patch.com/local_facts/edward-burmila



So the prosecutor and the judge ran against each other in a heated campaign? And the judge lost?

So if that is the case then perhaps this might not be a Judge who can be impartial to the State Attorney. Fantastic.

It's a shame because this is the only body of DP's victim that was found. They will never find Stacy so the chances of him ever being charged in that murder is slim to none. This is their only true shot at putting this guy away and far away from any more potential murder victims.

 

[katydid23]

This is why I was hoping the judge would declare a mistrial without prejudice. It would have given time for the state to either get better prosecutors, or for the existing ones to get their act together.

And yes, I'm afraid I have to agree that if he gets away with this DP will almost certainly feel invincible enough to kill again.

If he walks away from this, I will not be at all surprised if some of the witnesses that testified against him, turn up dead or missing.

I would be so frightened if he gets out and walks free.

 

[Cappuccino]

If he walks away from this, I will not be at all surprised if some of the witnesses that testified against him, turn up dead or missing.

I would be so frightened if he gets out and walks free.

That would probably be a bit too obvious. I wouldn't fancy the chances of his next wife, (and we all know there would be a next wife), of living to an old age though.

Unless you're planning to marry him, you're probably safe enough...

 

[borndem]

ABC's reporting seems to be very sloppy. The Mistrial request hasn't been denied, it is on hold, and it wasn't Kathleen's driveway that the bullet was found in, it was the neighbor's. Sheesh.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its more nail biting tomorrow. ABC jumped the gun with the mistrial denied thing. The MSM frequently do, I find. They're all so desparate to scoop each other they don't wait to check their facts. Cappuccino
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<shaking my head>
Agreed, Capp & o-girl! Any adult who thinks that because it's reported by a major news source that it must be true, needs to come and watch a murder trial here on WS. That person will see what we're seeing here -- just what has been said -- "firstest with the mostest."

Being the first to report the press or on-air/online news story is the most important part -- getting the facts right is 2nd because you can always word the factual report that follows in a way that makes the 1st (and mistaken) one sound like it simply needed background and more details. We see it & see it and see it, don't we, folks? Journalistic and on-air reporting was not always thus, but it, like so much else these days, has lost its high ideals of a job well done. Pity, that.

Here my mini-rant ends. Have a nice day...