Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that you may find this one heartening because it mentions the reaction of the jurors:
'[Zellner (a defense attorney) said in her two days sitting in the courtroom, she became convinced prosecutors were winning the jury over. Jurors are intently taking notes when prosecutors question witnesses and “rolling their eyes” when Peterson’s attorneys object, she said.'[/B] :thumb:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120818/news/708189883/

bbm

Keep the faith my fellow WS Crew and I shall look forward to reconnecting with you on Tuesday.:wave:
 
I think that you may find this one heartening because it mentions the reaction of the jurors:
'[Zellner (a defense attorney) said in her two days sitting in the courtroom, she became convinced prosecutors were winning the jury over. Jurors are intently taking notes when prosecutors question witnesses and “rolling their eyes” when Peterson’s attorneys object, she said.'[/B] :woohoo:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120818/news/708189883/

bbm

Keep the faith my fellow WS Crew and I shall look forward to reconnecting with you on Tuesday. :please:

Hope that's all true. Makes me breathe a little easier knowing the jurors aren't idiots like those from Pinellas County.
 
If the DT is saying that, it makes me wonder what chitty tricks they have up their sleeve to deny/ discredit the testimony.

Hopefully they aren't making the statement because they are counting on the Judge granting the usual motion that the State hasn't proven it's case.....

:eek:
 
I just watched the repeat of Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Oh my Lord. Her 'opening statement' made me cry!!!!!

I am trying to find it on you-tube or on video on the Fox website, but it is not up yet.

It was BRILLIANT and very moving. And she called out Judge Burmilla like you could not believe. She said that this judge was trying to prevent the truth from being known.
 
While I hope & pray your take on these jurors minds is spot on, here's the flip side: Wow! This judge sure is angry with these prosecutor's, they must be some real screw ups; hmmm, apparently these witness' must be lying, to have the defense win every objection; oh my gosh!, so what's up here? the PT's must have been fabricating a whole bunch of false evidence for the judge to keep cutting everone off from testifying; how much money did they pay this doctor to disagree with four other, admittedly, highly respected professional opinions? Suffice it to say I would very skeptical about the whole case their trying to present because they're not being able to present it!!! Our poor 'pop tarts' have got to be exhausted & more frustrated than we are, I'm just not sure who they might be thinking is responsible! I am most certainly praying they can see through these ridiculous antics & shenanigans the DT are playing, & that they determine there IS plenty of evidence to convict, I just am running a bit short on hope though...

If I were on the jury I would first be livid that I kept getting sent out every 2 to 4 minutes and my time was being wasted where I wasn't hearing more than maybe 30 to 60 min of testimony per day. I would note who was objecting the most and causing the disruption (obviously it's the defense when the state is presenting). I would wonder why testimony kept getting stricken and I would pay attention to all of that.

Further, I would also note the behavior of the judge and pay attention to how he is conducting his courtroom. I wouldn't be able to help notice he was chastising the state all the time and how he treated certain witnesses. This would lead me to believe the judge isn't able to contain himself and yes, I would put the blame on him (not on the prosecution team...the judge).

I would not be thinking at this point "the state hasn't proved their case," because I wouldn't be at that point yet until everything was done and all testimony had been received. However I would wonder why the state wasn't allowed to do a standard direct exam without constant interruptions every 30 to 60 seconds.

My observations would lead me to distrust the defense, and the judge.
 
This is one jury who I really want to see interviewed after the trial!
 
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.

I haven't been posting a lot in this case, although I've been following it every day.

I have a theory about how Drew killed Kathleen based on all the testimony so far, but especially from Dr. Blum.

Looking at the facts.............Kathleen was found in a fetal position in a dry bathtub with her toes pressed up against the side at a 90 degree angle. Her hair was damp, there was a two-inch gash on the BACK of her head, a large bruise on her buttock, numerous bruises and abrasions on the front of her legs and arms and a bruise on her torso. Blood from the gash had trickled into the tub and pooled undiluted. Dr. Blum said the wound on the back of Kathleen's head was caused by an object with sharp edges as the wound had a clean edge. There was water in her lungs.

The bathroom was pristine, with bath items on the back side of the tub. There was no bath mat or towel. If she removed her clothing, there was no pile of clothing found in the bathroom or bedroom.

In the kitchen there was a glass of orange juice on the counter and a mug of water in the microwave. In the bedroom there was a can of Spotshot spot cleaner.

I believe there was a confrontation in the bedroom between Drew and Kathleen and there was a struggle. I believe he hit her on the back of the head with a heavy object rendering her either dazed or unconscious. He dragged her into the bathroom and put her head in the toilet and held her head under water. It's possible that if she were dazed she fought back and Drew may have hit her again.

Drew then placed her on the floor and removed her clothing. When a person dies their bowels and bladder often eliminate. So her clothing would be soiled in addition to any blood from the wound and perhaps torn. He placed the clothing and the object he used to hit her on the back of her head in a bag, which he took with him to be disposed of. Had he left Kathleen's clothing there, it would have been evident that she didn't die in the bathtub.

Then Drew dragged her body to the bathtub and place her in it. He then cleaned up any signs of a struggle. In the bedroom he cleaned up several spots with the carpet cleaner, Spotshot, that was found there. He cleaned the bathroom, leaving it spotless with nothing out of place.

If Pastor Neil Schori is allowed to testify, he will testify to what Stacy told him. She told him that she woke up one night to find Drew gone. He wasn't anywhere in the house. She called his cell phone numerous times, but he didn't answer. In the wee hours of the morning he came home and dumped woman's clothing in the washing machine. He told Stacy that if she was questioned, she was to say that he was there asleep beside her all night.

This theory would explain why Kathleen's hair was still damp. If there had been water in the bathtub and her head wound had trickled blood into the water, it would have become diluted and drained away with the rest of the water. I don't think there was ever any water in the tub that night. The blood trickled from the wound and pooled undiluted in a dry tub.

Dr. Blum examined the crime scene photos and I believe he visited the house and viewed the tub. He couldn't find any object that would have caused the gash on the back of Kathleen's head.

It goes against logic that someone hits the back of their head and then falls into a fetal position. It's more likely that they would fall backwards, sprawling and in the process knock items like bubble bath, shampoo, etc. off the side of the tub in the process.

Also, if a person is planning on taking a bath they normally will place a bath mat down and have a towel nearby in preparation.

This all adds up to a murder staged to look like a bathtub drowning. A good investigator on this case initially would have been able to note all the discrepancies.
 
Strange how the injury to her head matches the complaint she filed against DP about him threatening to kill her. Maybe he thought he was doing her a favor. I think there is enough evidence against him. I wI also think his smug attitude would tell me something if ere a juror. To get rid of two wives, first one looks like an accident and the second just disappeared. Seems to me a very well thought out plan. jmo

Bold RED mine.

Trouble with that is, from everything I have read and heard about DP's behavior in the courtroom, he is behaving himself. Must take alot of self control for him not to be his normal crude, rude, despicable self.
 
My husband thought she was the woman found in the Bay (Lacy Peterson) :banghead:

Mine too! LOL!

But if you live anywhere in the northern half of Illinois, (and I am from Indiana, about 50 miles away), you have heard about Stacy Peterson being missing. There has to be at least one juror, and possible all of them, who know about Stacy. Also, you had to have been living under a rock, to have missed all Drew's TV appearances from the time Stacy went missing, to when he was arrested. The media camped outside his doors for weeks, and he loved all the attention. He never missed any attempt, any reporter made to stick a microphone in his face...then there's the famous one where DP came out with his own video camera, and filmed all the reporters. He's his own worst nightmare.
 
Also, two years ago each one of these jurors were told NOT to read about or watch anything concerning Drew Peterson. Hmmmmmm........ Do we think that everyone followed that rule? I know I would be very tempted to sneak in a few articles or news clips during those two years. Hopefully all of them at least know that Stacy is missing.
 
My husband thought she was the woman found in the Bay (Lacy Peterson) :banghead:

Stacy/Lacy, I think that would be a common mistake but does he live in Will County? I think you would be hard pressed not to know who she was if you actually live right there in town. jmo
 
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.

Ran for what? District Attorney? Then he must not have been a judge at the time. Most judges are appointed, not elected. So how could it be a conflict of interest just because they once ran against each other for DA? He has more power sitting up there on that bench than he ever would have had as DA.
I believe there are many, many judges and lawyers who do not get along, or have a personal dispute with, and not many of them get to pick which judge presides over any given trial. If he is biased and rules unfairly, then that may be an issue for appeal. They have to follow the law when they make any ruling. As long as he is doing that, it shouldn't be an issue. And quite possibly, the jury may be picking up on this and will make sure there is justice done. His bias may just the hammer that drives the nails home on Drew's casket.
 
Also, two years ago each one of these jurors were told NOT to read about or watch anything concerning Drew Peterson. Hmmmmmm........ Do we think that everyone followed that rule? I know I would be very tempted to sneak in a few articles or news clips during those two years. Hopefully all of them at least know that Stacy is missing.

What?????? They picked this jury two years before this trial began???? I've never heard of such a thing! Are you sure this is the same jury? I thought I remembered when they began jury selection for this trial, just prior to it beginning, it was like the middle of the week, and they started the trial the following Tues.
I don't see how they could possibly put 16 people on hold for 2 years like that.
 
same group


They’ve lived under a judge’s order since August 2009 not to follow news of what could be the most high-profile case in Will County’s history. Defense lawyers tried to convince the judge to pick from a new group, arguing no Illinois jury pool has ever been on hold for as long as Peterson’s.

source
 
What?????? They picked this jury two years before this trial began???? I've never heard of such a thing! Are you sure this is the same jury? I thought I remembered when they began jury selection for this trial, just prior to it beginning, it was like the middle of the week, and they started the trial the following Tues.
I don't see how they could possibly put 16 people on hold for 2 years like that.

They put a large pool of potential jurors 'on hold.' They were told they were in the potential jury pool, and so they should not read about or watch anything about Drew Peterson. But I am not sure that everyone heeded those warnings totally. Hopefully they absorbed some of the pertinent facts.
 
was absurd and an invitation for an appeal. I couldn't fathom why they would do that.....it goes against simple logic to think that someone wouldn't look further into the case on their own knowing that they may very well be chosen for the jury. However, I think it is far fetched that anyone in Will County wasn't familiar with the Drew Peterson case and if they really wanted to have a more unbiased or uninformed jury they should have moved the trial to another area. They did do careful screening for their jury picks, so I am hoping for the best. Everything in this trial seems to be out of whack in some way every step of the way

What?????? They picked this jury two years before this trial began???? I've never heard of such a thing! Are you sure this is the same jury? I thought I remembered when they began jury selection for this trial, just prior to it beginning, it was like the middle of the week, and they started the trial the following Tues.
I don't see how they could possibly put 16 people on hold for 2 years like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
858
Total visitors
992

Forum statistics

Threads
626,021
Messages
18,519,101
Members
240,919
Latest member
SleuthyBootsie
Back
Top