Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[Cubby]

If that was the case, why was there so much blood? I think he hit her on the head first, and then staged the drowning to make it look like an accident.

I thought there had to be no blood in the tub as water would have washed it away if the gash came first. Water was in her lungs but the blood apparently did not mix with any water based on the stains in the tub. That's how I am trying to fit the pieces.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I am not fond of the judge, but I hesitate to call him names without a thorough knowledge of the laws that are coming into play here. He IS cantankerous and not mindful of what the jury is going through. I don't like the fact that he yelled at witnesses for innocent slips.

This entire hearsay testimony is new law in Illinois, and I'm betting dollars to donuts that the judge is aware that he is setting judicial precedence here. If Drew is by some odd chance convicted, every decision he made will be under fire by a very well-prepared defense.

This isn't the Sunshine State, so we have a definite lack of knowledge to discuss his decisions. I'd love to get my hands on some of the discovery. I have a feeling there is more to banning Scott Rossetto's testimony than we know. If the only discrepency was the date, I'd be surprised. If it was, it's just plain wrong to bar his testimony from the trial.

This trial has sent my anxiety levels to a new high. In a sense, I'm glad I'll be away most of the week. I will have IS DVR'd, mostly for the Hemy Neumann trial. Of course, I'll be able to catch up here on this debacle.

Let's hope the prosecution gets it's act together THIS long weekend!

 

[WindyCityGirl]

part of my lexicon. It wasn't meant to be "name calling" so much as a free expression of feelings. It is very frustrating to watch what should be strong testimony thrown away. My opinions on him and expressions thereof have been balanced. I have found at times his treatment of others to be lacking in appropriate respect. The impression is one that has been shared by many (including journalists covering the trial) who have noticed his belligerent treatment of Patton, one of the prosecuting attorneys, the palpable tension with Glasgow, as well as with other witnesses.
This is a tough case and I have been pleasantly surprised that Burmila allowed much of the testimony to be heard thus far given that there was so much controversy and squabbling over it.

I don't know why I can't edit my previous comment, nor delete it, but perhaps the mods can explain that to me. Maybe I shouldn't comment on here anymore at all as I cannot modify anything that has been written previously.

I am not fond of the judge, but I hesitate to call him names without a thorough knowledge of the laws that are coming into play here. He IS cantankerous and not mindful of what the jury is going through. I don't like the fact that he yelled at witnesses for innocent slips.

This entire hearsay testimony is new law in Illinois, and I'm betting dollars to donuts that the judge is aware that he is setting judicial precedence here. If Drew is by some odd chance convicted, every decision he made will be under fire by a very well-prepared defense.

This isn't the Sunshine State, so we have a definite lack of knowledge to discuss his decisions. I'd love to get my hands on some of the discovery. I have a feeling there is more to banning Scott Rossetto's testimony than we know. If the only discrepency was the date, I'd be surprised. If it was, it's just plain wrong to bar his testimony from the trial.

This trial has sent my anxiety levels to a new high. In a sense, I'm glad I'll be away most of the week. I will have IS DVR'd, mostly for the Hemy Neumann trial. Of course, I'll be able to catch up here on this debacle.

Let's hope the prosecution gets it's act together THIS long weekend!

 

[TxLady2]

Then what makes the most sense to me, is he sat on the side of the tub and held her under until he saw she stopped breathing. He then drained the tub. Closed the stopper after the tub was drained and hit her on the back of the head to make it appear she fell.

Not disputing you at all. I am just saying that the heart does not always stop as soon as a person stops breathing. In most deaths, it takes a few minutes.
I don't know how it happened, and we may never know, but there has to be a way to explain the blood matting her hair, the way her body was lying, and the fact that she drowned, yet no water in the tub and it being dry. Some stoppers are not airtight and will allow the water to leak out slowly over a period of several hours, but one would think that there would still be some moisture trapped under her body where it made contact with the surface of the tub. I'm not a ME, but I know that I've seen a bar of soap left in the tub when the water had drained out and the underside of the soap is still damp the next day, while the top is dry. Does blood dry out sooner than water? Why would her hair still be wet and matted with blood, yet no water in the tub? Maybe there was never any water in the tub to begin with. So how did she drown?
I can't believe they actually investigated this in the beginning and were not required to explain any of these questions.

 

[TxLady2]

Why would Glasgow agree to this judge? They obviously have bad blood between them. Maybe a mistrial will be called and there will be a chance for round two.
I'm having very serious doubts about our legal system.

The only way I see Kharma coming ,if Drew is acquited,would be if he married Casey Anthony. They deserve each other.

I don't think they have any choice in which judge is assigned to hear a case. There is some kind of system in most states and no one gets their "choice." Judges are assigned to these cases according to their availability.

 

[LambChop]

part of my lexicon. It wasn't meant to be "name calling" so much as a free expression of feelings. It is very frustrating to watch what should be strong testimony thrown away. My opinions on him and expressions thereof have been balanced. I have found at times his treatment of others to be lacking in appropriate respect. The impression is one that has been shared by many (including journalists covering the trial) who have noticed his belligerent treatment of Patton, one of the prosecuting attorneys, the palpable tension with Glasgow, as well as with other witnesses.
This is a tough case and I have been pleasantly surprised that Burmila allowed much of the testimony to be heard thus far given that there was so much controversy and squabbling over it.

I don't know why I can't edit my previous comment, nor delete it, but perhaps the mods can explain that to me. Maybe I shouldn't comment on here anymore at all as I cannot modify anything that has been written previously.

I have to agree with you. I don't think this judge is acting appropriately, seems to fly off the handle easily and is just not that professional. He leaves the bench way too much. If he has to look up statutes can he not do so while he is sitting there on the bench or have his assistant look them up for him. If this jury gets in a good half hour without being sent away from the courtroom it's a major event of the day for them. There is just something that is not right.

Some times I think the state wants is mistrial so the judge does not go to the end of the trial and just throw the whole thing out and set DP free. It appears to me that the jury will never get to deliberate this case and that is not fair to the victim. jmo

 

[MissJames]

I don't think they have any choice in which judge is assigned to hear a case. There is some kind of system in most states and no one gets their "choice." Judges are assigned to these cases according to their availability.

They did have a choice in this one because Glasgow and the judge ran against each other in an election and Glasgow won. Sadly ,both Glasgow and the Judge agreed that would not interfere,but it's definitely a conflict of interest.

 

[MissJames]

I am not fond of the judge, but I hesitate to call him names without a thorough knowledge of the laws that are coming into play here. He IS cantankerous and not mindful of what the jury is going through. I don't like the fact that he yelled at witnesses for innocent slips.

This entire hearsay testimony is new law in Illinois, and I'm betting dollars to donuts that the judge is aware that he is setting judicial precedence here. If Drew is by some odd chance convicted, every decision he made will be under fire by a very well-prepared defense.

This isn't the Sunshine State, so we have a definite lack of knowledge to discuss his decisions. I'd love to get my hands on some of the discovery. I have a feeling there is more to banning Scott Rossetto's testimony than we know. If the only discrepency was the date, I'd be surprised. If it was, it's just plain wrong to bar his testimony from the trial.

This trial has sent my anxiety levels to a new high. In a sense, I'm glad I'll be away most of the week. I will have IS DVR'd, mostly for the Hemy Neumann trial. Of course, I'll be able to catch up here on this debacle.

Let's hope the prosecution gets it's act together THIS long weekend!

I don't think it's the Prosecution that needs to get it's act together. No matter what they do this judge is determined to make them the bad guys , IMO. They are constantly being tripped up with this back and forth on what can and what can not be said in this trial.
There is a very large conflict of interest ,since the judge LOST to the lead prosecutor in an election. JMO

 

[MissJames]

The Prosecution has to handle an old case that was originally ruled an accident,that was not investigated properly ,that involves a policeman AND deal with a trial judge who LOST an election to the lead prosecutor.
At least they had the guts to try this case and hold Drew Peterson responsible for what he did and will probably get away with.

At least they are doing something,which is a hell of a lot more than was done for Kathy Savio all the years she put up with DP's abuse and ultimately her murder.

At least they are trying to keep this guy from doing it again ,as he did with Stacy.

They could have thrown up their hands and said ,since they had so much stacked against them ,they'd let Drew walk,but they decided to at least TRY .

I applaud them for that.

If nothing else,DP has spent the last 3 years in jail . That may be all he gets,but it's something.

 

[Livingthedream]

Why was her hair still matted/wet with blood? Because she was, IMO, killed about an hour or two before she was found. The gash on her head was an inch long, which is a substansial cut. It's also entirely possible that her hair was already soaked from her drowning, so it stands to reason with the amount of hair she had that it would take a long time to dry.

IMO, Drew got to her early in the evening (9PM?). KS did not die in that tub. I now fully believe the blow to the head was delivered after she was placed in the tub. Some obvious clues as to why she did not drown in the tub? Well, If she had the water running to fill the tub, it would obviously still be running when she was found if she "fell" and cracked her head open . That would also have made the tub overflow. If she even had filled the tub halfway and turned the faucet off, she never would have slipped in at least a foot of water. You COULD slip on a puddle here or there, but not a foot deep.

That also leads me to believe the tub had no water in it when she was placed in it and was turned on after she was placed in it to stage the scene.

 

[vickij222]

Good morning. Are we ready for another day? I'm hoping we're able to present a strong case today. I don't know if I can handle another day like yesterday!

 

[Niner]

Absolutely possible. IMO, he was waiting for her and she never saw him coming. That's why the defense teams claim as to there was no DNA under her nails, etc. is nothing more than them trying to blow smoke up the jurys butt.

:spit: The "more" Emoticons not working for me!

I have no idea how the judge allowed this in. What law allows this type of testimony, from witnesses who have not been on the stand?

I'm so glad I did not go. It would be hard for me to not express my utter disgust and then I'd probably be hauled off for contempt. I am that disgusted. :steamed:

No problem, Cubby, we'll raise your bail!!! :rocker: Edited to add: If you or anyone else here goes to the trial - sure would like your impression on the expression of the Jurors when they have to leave the court room!! Especially the first one of the day!!!

Awwww Niner, I am sorry.
I didn't mean to burden you with it. I was just thinking out loud. SORRY. :angel:

No, problem! I'm going to go back and do a count!

Sidebars for Friday, August 17th

Defense - 4

Prosecutors - 2

Judge - 6

Total Sidebars: 12

Pop-Tart Jurors - 4 times; The first one happened 11 minutes into the morning session; and a Record - 2 minutes after coming back from lunch, they are "pop-tarted" again!!

Okay, off to count the times the jurors left after Sidebars...

 

[Niner]

Also wanted to

:welcome2:



:welcome4:


Livingthedream, wishinuall, sfnelson67, sweets, vickij222 and Phillygirltoo!!!!

 

[Noway]

I'm catching up on the events from yesterday, and while digging through archived material found vide/articles that might be of interest, especially to those who have not followed the case from the beginning.

Much of this was posted at Justice Cafe (thanks!).

How they got to Judge Stephen White
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009286680_apdrewpeterson.html

Judge Stephen White retired.
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/drew-peterson-judge-stephen-white-retires/

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/category/judge-stephen-white/


News video about Judge Burmila being assigned (May 4) to the case.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwmjhNrb4-Y"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwmjhNrb4-Y[/ame]

Case Fact Sheet
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30255719/...Justice-Cafe-http-petersonstory-wordpress-com

Timeline
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/timeline/

 

[katydid23]

Good morning. Are we ready for another day? I'm hoping we're able to present a strong case today. I don't know if I can handle another day like yesterday!

Thank Goodness it is Saturday. No more trial scheduled until Tuesday morning.
Hopefully, things will calm down a bit and we can hear some vital testimony, like the 'hitman incident.'

 

[iluvmua]

This judge might as well declare a mistrial and send Drew on his merry way.

I'll be shocked if the jury convicts him.

let's be real: The Prosecution has not proved their case and that's what i'd be thinking if I was a member of the jury.

JMO.


if I was Kathleen's family i'd be very PO'd at the State.

 

[katydid23]

:spit: The "more" Emoticons not working for me!
No problem, Cubby, we'll raise your bail!!! :rocker: Edited to add: If you or anyone else here goes to the trial - sure would like your impression on the expression of the Jurors when they have to leave the court room!! Especially the first one of the day!!!

No, problem! I'm going to go back and do a count!

Sidebars for Friday, August 17th

Defense - 4

Prosecutors - 2

Judge - 6

Total Sidebars: 12

Pop-Tart Jurors - 4 times; The first one happened 11 minutes into the morning session; and a Record - 2 minutes after coming back from lunch, they are "pop-tarted" again!!

Okay, off to count the times the jurors left after Sidebars...

THANK YOU.

This poor jury. I wonder what they are thinking about all of this? They heard about 4 sentences of Rosetto's testimony and then he was gone. They have to be curious what is being kept from them.

 

[atthelake]

I don't think it's the Prosecution that needs to get it's act together. No matter what they do this judge is determined to make them the bad guys , IMO. They are constantly being tripped up with this back and forth on what can and what can not be said in this trial.
There is a very large conflict of interest ,since the judge LOST to the lead prosecutor in an election. JMO

And another consideration. As Drews Law as they call it, is now in effect but hasn't a track record on it for case law, I think that this judge is not the excellent jurist who has understanding of law like HHJP did in the FCA case, so he is really really avoiding setting case law for this trial on Dres Law. :moo:

 

[LambChop]

THANK YOU.

This poor jury. I wonder what they are thinking about all of this? They heard about 4 sentences of Rosetto's testimony and then he was gone. They have to be curious what is being kept from them.

Well, they know his testimony was involving Stacy and unless they have been living on another planet, they know she is missing. And I would guess they know his testimony is harmful otherwise he would have been allowed to testify. Seems to be the way this judge rules.

As time goes on it appears it is getting more and more difficult to find someone guilty because evidence may make them look as if they are guilty. I alway thought the was the reason for the trial. I can see them keeping out what is unreliable but if this man had a conversation with Stacy and she is not available to speak herself it should be allowed. An incorrect date is just not that important. And if defense knew the date given them was incorrect they should have brought it to the attention of the judge under cross. Plus did the defense even depose this man????? jmo

 

[Noway]

I hope the jurors can keep their focus even if the Defense strategy seems to be to keep the jurors out of the courtroom as much as possible.