Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok - following this for the past few days...but must say with this testimony from the doctor, I think they have planted reasonable doubt. Just like "that other" case... meds that can (and did) make the victim drowsy enough to slip down stairs.

While I know in my heart DP did it, just like CA....I dunno. Here we go again I am afraid.

But the ME said there was nothing in the tub for her to hit her head on to make that type of injury. Plus slip and fall you involuntarily put your arms out to break your fall. Nothing around that tub is disturbed. If it were someone put everything back including those plastic tubes along the side of her tub. They would have gone over if she fell and splashed water out of the tub. Jury has to look at the evidence they have...not shoulda, coulda, woulda. jmo
 
Greenberg asks how to handle Rossetto coming forward to police in 2007 — after Stacy disappears.

Burmila: "I'm assuming the state has admonished their witness not to testify to that in front of the jury."

RUH-ROH.....:rollercoaster:
 
I hope that the prosecution has learned their lesson and are going to be VERY VERY careful about what they say and that they have worked with this witness so that he is aware that he can't bring up anything about Stacy that will
throw this case to mistrial. It is a very delicate line to walk

In Session Attorney Greenberg now addresses the upcoming testimony of prosecution witness Scott Rossetto. “I think Judge White found the events [Rossetto relates] to be unreliable . . . we’ve got different statements being attributed to Stacy, and different places the statement allegedly took place at, at different times . . . I think the unreliability finding has to be given more respect, more weight than some of the other statements . . . this is so unreliable that I don’t think it can pass the due process analysis.”
 
They've always been allowed to talk about her, they just can't make any allegation that she's dead because there's no evidence for it. She can only be referred to as missing.

I know. I am just saying that we have not been able to focus on her much, not like this testimony will. DP asking her to lie for him to cover up a murder? That has to get their heads spinning, imo.
 
I know. I am just saying that we have not been able to focus on her much, not like this testimony will. DP asking her to lie for him to cover up a murder? That has to get their heads spinning, imo.

I think it will be Stacey who does for him. The defense can be as clever as they like in planting reasonable doubt about what happened with Kathleen, but unless they explain that missing fourth wife the jury should convict. I hope...:please:
 
Greenberg asks how to handle Rossetto coming forward to police in 2007 — after Stacy disappears.

Attorneys, judge still discussing what of Rossetto's testimony will be allowed...[ this is like a minefield for the state again...be very careful...]

Rossetto will be admonished not to mention anything about Stacy going missing in 2007 ... [ the huge pink elephant in the courtroom]
 
They've always been allowed to talk about her, they just can't make any allegation that she's dead because there's no evidence for it. She can only be referred to as missing.

Actually, I think they're not even allowed to say she is missing. Remember, the defense has her on their witness list.
 
In Session The judge says that Rossetto will be able to testify Stacy Peterson told him that Drew Peterson told her to lie. Judge Burmila: “I excluded the alibi itself. But I said they could have admitted before the jury that he asked her to lie.” Brodsky argues against this testimony, claiming that it’s a violation of marital privilege. Prosecutor Colleen Griffin responds, says that the State’s recollection of the judge’s previous rulings are very different from those of the defense. Judge: “My recollection mirrors that of Ms. Griffin’s . . . the statement is admissible.”

In Session It’s too late to start Rossetto’s testimony at this time. So the judge decides to call the lunch recess at this time. But before he leaves the bench, he calls the attorneys to a sidebar.
 
OMG...completley O/T here (in a way) but I can't believe what I just found..Has anyone seen this or heard about the judge allowing the defense to view KS past records in a closed benind doors meeting in an effort to further tarnish KS's reputation and she or no one else can defend her against what they say they will be bringing up in court...I am so mad at this judge and the defense team right now I could spit bullets to Bolingbrook from the east coast....grrr!!! go here to read the full article. Below is just an excerpt....jmo...sweets

http://romeoville.patch.com/article...t-look-at-savio-evidence-after-secret-hearing

Drew Peterson's lawyers convinced a Will County judge to let them look at expunged battery cases brought against the former Bolingbrook cop's slain wife.

Defense lawyers Joseph "Shark" Lopez, Lisa Lopez and Joel Brodsky got the go-ahead from Judge Edward Burmila during a closed-door meeting Monday.

Burmila granted the defense motion to "open two unrelated files," and is allowing the lawyers to copy and take notes from court transcripts as well.


Someone with more legal knowledge/expertise than I will have to explain how this is relevent. Because right now from where I sit, after reading the above, it appears Kathleen is a victim again. First Drew, now the joke of the justice system in Will county.

Sitting on my hands for a bit.
 
Was it ever mentioned in the media during Jury Selection, how many jurors are aware that Stacy is missing?

The jurors have to be aware that Stacy is missing. They're not sequestered, are they?
 
Someone please help me here. I do not have any doubt that this jury will find that KS was murdered. That said, does anyone here think that the state has proven that DP did it?

I'm not saying logically and obviously, but beyond a reasonable doubt.



I guess I got tainted from watching the CA trial. No way did I think she would have gotten off completely free, not even child neglect charges. So, that being said, I will wait and watch what happens with DP because you never know what you’re gonna get with a jury……..
 
Love all the transcripts you're all doing. Just wanted to comment about something a few pages back, regarding not bleeding after the heart stops beating. That is true. However, no one knows when her heart actually stopped beating because sometimes it continues to beat for several minutes after someone stops breathing. They can appear to be clinically dead for a full five minutes until the heart actually stops. I learned this from working in nursing homes and because I actually watched my mother die.
KS could have appeared to be dead, he might have watched her stop breathing, yet her heart could have still been beating for a few minutes causing the wound on her head to bleed.
It's something to think about, but I'm surprised that point hasn't been brought up in testimony of one of the ME's.
Keep up the good work, y'all! I'm in and out today. Hope to catch up this afternoon.
 
I guess I got tainted from watching the CA trial. No way did I think she would have gotten off completely free, not even child neglect charges. So, that being said, I will wait and watch what happens with DP because you never know what you’re gonna get with a jury……..

Hear, hear.....

Never say never. And never count your chickens with a jury.
 
Meet the jury that will hear Drew Peterson's case

The men and women chosen as the 12 main jurors for the Peterson trial include:
•A woman in her 50s who took college classes in business and child care. She is married to an auto body technician, and is one of eight children. She likes to read The National Enquirer, but says she doesn’t really believe the stories it prints.
•A 22-year-old man who was born in Puerto Rico, but moved to Bolingbrook, Illinois, in 2001 with his family. He is attending Columbia College in Chicago, and hopes to become a sports broadcaster.
•A man in his 50s who has lived in Joliet his entire life. He has worked at the same job for 30 years, and previously worked for Texaco. His wife is a retired school nurse.
•A woman in her 50s who was born in Poland and moved to Chicago when she was five. She is a high school graduate, who now watches her six-year-old granddaughter for her own daughter, a single mother.
•A man in his 40s or 50s who is a senior research technician. His first marriage ended in divorce, but there were no children and no property to settle. Now remarried, his hobby is photography.
•A man in his 60s who is married and works as a plant manager. He said that he hasn’t paid any attention to the Peterson case, because three years ago, the original trial judge, Stephen White, told prospective jurors not to follow the case. He uses the Internet primarily to purchase parts for his motorcycle.
•A woman in her 60s who works for a telecommunications company. Her husband is retired. She has two sons and five grandchildren.
•A man in his 40s who grew up in Hawaii and then lived in Virginia before moving to Bolingbrook. A former member of the Hawaiian Army National Guard, he works for the U.S. Postal Service as a mail carrier.
•A man in his 50s who has lived in Will County his entire life. He works as a homebuilder, developer and consultant, and he used to own his own construction company. He is married and has a cousin who’s a retired Joliet police officer. He’s also taking flying lessons to become a pilot.
•A woman in her 50s who lived in New Jersey and California before moving to Illinois 14 years ago. An inventory manger, she has a brother in California who’s an attorney. The mother of two grown children, a son and a daughter, she occasionally spends “a little time” on the Internet, “to see what my kids are doing on Facebook.”
•A woman in her 60s who writes poetry, likes to read biographies and books about old movies, and watches nonfiction television. She works as an administrative assistant and said she likes to hear both sides of a story. The two-time divorcee offered the opinion that “all divorces are unpleasant.”
•A man in his 20s or 30s who is single and lives with his parents. He was laid off a few months ago from a job as a cashier and bagger. He spends five to 10 hours a week on the Internet, reads science fiction novels and works out regularly. He said he doesn’t know anything about the Peterson case.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07/25/meet-drew-peterson-jury
 
The jurors have to be aware that Stacy is missing. They're not sequestered, are they?

They are not sequestered.

I just want to know if it was reported during the Jury Selection if anyone knew about Stacy.

Not sure if this jury has been told not to watch TV, read about the case, no social media etc., etc.
 
In Session The sidebar ends, and Judge Burmila leaves the bench. The trial is in recess until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
960
Total visitors
1,067

Forum statistics

Threads
626,036
Messages
18,519,446
Members
240,922
Latest member
sebsleuth
Back
Top