Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[vickij222]

I wonder what the jury is up to by dressing in the same colors? I'm looking forward to Rossetto's testimony. It will be interesting to hear him - hope the pros are careful with their questioning.

 

[passionflower]

how many men had to run to the store to get a red shirt?
LOL, my husband does NOT own red anything............

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Good afternoon! Even *if* the jurors know little or nothing regarding Stacy's disappearance, it does stand to reason if what she said to others is brought up during the trial that they would be curious why she is not testifying to this personally.

:waitasec:

BBM:

:seeya: Exactly ! They would have to be curious why she is not there to testify IN PERSON.

:waitasec: And IF they are NOT curious, obviously, they were not paying enough attention during the testimony ...

:innocent: Of course, I do hope they are watching the news since they are not sequestered

Or reading here where they can get all the scoop !

:moo:

 

[Cubby]

In Session The witness is asked to leave the courtroom. Once he’s gone, the discussion continues. Connor says that he wants to tender the witness as an expert in neurology and psychiatry, which Goldberg insists is a surprise to the defense. “I think it’s completely improper for discovery purposes.” Judge Burmila then questions Connor about Dr. Neri’s general expertise. Connor: “He’s been treating patients since 1979, and been testifying twice a year . . . in the case that counsel brought up, the court had an issue with his report, and whether what he’d been asked to opine on had been adequately discussed.” Judge: “The issue of him testifying as a treating physician, there’s no question about that . . . but when you give somebody an opinion that just says, ‘I agree with everybody else,’ that’s inadequate.” Connor: “The only opinions he’ll be testifying about are what he said at the grand jury or the hearsay hearing. Counsel has had that for years now.” Judge: “I believe if you’re going to offer somebody as an expert, you have to advise the other side what his expert opinion is, different from a treating physician . . . there’s no question the doctor is qualified; he did treat Miss Savio . . . why he arrived at his diagnosis is certainly an area he can testify to . . . as to his expertise to testify about cervical vertigo in a general sense, and to say that because other people wouldn’t fall down, Ms. Savio wouldn’t fall down, I don’t think those two things necessarily follow one another . . . in this particular instance, I’m not going to allow him to testify as an expert in that area, but he can testify as to anything he did for Miss Savio.” The judge then sends for the witness and the jury.

I wonder how long he treated KS for this condition?
If for a given length of time, as her physician, could he say his patient never once stated she fell or almost fell?

Or does discussing his treatment of his patient fall too close in proximity with making a statement and physically demonstrating something that this judge about lost his temper over previously.

Seems like this judge makes up grey area's along the way.... and it is confusing when he lacks clarity with what he is ordering.

 

[Patty G]

Nope. IIRC, there was some kind of weird process where a bunch of them were 'put on hold' a couple of years ago, and asked not to read or watch anything to do with DP because they were going to be in the small pool of possible jurors. [I will try and find a link. ]

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/8-Jurors-Picked-in-Drew-Peterson-Trial-163532566.html

The jury pool has remained in a holding pattern since they were chosen two years ago and told by a judge to avoid watching or reading anything about the Peterson case. One potential juror Monday admitted to watching the Lifetime movie, "Drew Peterson: Untouchable."
"We're going to be very careful and deliberate to find a jury that's going to be as fair and impartial as possible," said Peterson's attorney Joel Brodsky, "and who's going to judge this case on the evidence, or better, the lack of any evidence."


Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/feature/d...w-Peterson-Trial-163532566.html#ixzz23pGbpU6K

Thank you for that information.

 

[Patty G]

I don't want this jury thinking they are in a club or taking this case not as serious as they should be.
Who is the most influential person on this jury?
Is the foreman a man or woman?

Do they chose the foreman before they go in for deliberating? The two jury trials I was on, they selected the foreman at deliberation.

 

[MissJames]

I'm behind and reading this morning's testimony by the neurologist ,but my question is about all the defense questions....why are they allowed to question witnesses about things there is NO evidence for in this case ( MS ,Zoloft causing her to fall,etc..) when the Prosecution gets gagged and hog tied over stuff there is plenty of evidence for (Drew's prior bad acts). Why is it okay to bring in possible prior bad acts of Kathy but not Drew?
Makes no sense to me : (

 

[smokey]

the courtroom sketch of Kathleen in the bathtub looks nothing like the actual "crime s
scene photo"
can they not show the real pic on InSession?

 

[Patty G]

Nothing coming out of the courtroom. Hmmmmmm!

 

[smokey]

Defense Atty Brodsky not concerned about Rossetto testimony.

http://t.co/XZzJAaLR

 

[Patty G]

Out of respect for Kathleen, I would think InSession would only use a blurred out composite of Kathleen in the bathtub.

 

[Wishbone]

Out of respect for Kathleen, I would think InSession would only use a blurred out composite of Kathleen in the bathtub.

aren't we almost 30 min late getting started?

 

[MissJames]

We'll have to see what the judge's instructions are to the jury before they begin deliberations, but if they discuss something he's told them not to consider any guilty verdict won't stand up to appeal.

I don't like these antics of dressing in the same colour either, the jury has to be above reproach, otherwise an appeals court will look twice at their verdict.

Maybe it's a coincidence ? You know ,the same way it's a coincidence several people claim Kathy told them Drew said he could kill her and make it look like an accident ,then she dies and looks like an accident :what: oh,and it's just before a hearing that will decide if Drew has to give her part of his pension :waitasec:
Just a coincidence,right ? Is there a Pinellas Jury Playbook out there now,cuz this is sure looking familiar.......................

 

[Patty G]

Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

#drewpeterson prosecution will call Drew's oldest son's ex-girlfriend next if they get thru Rosetto quickly.

 

[Patty G]

OMG, Vinnie and Mike have motor mouths today! :crazy:

 

[panthera]

Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

#drewpeterson prosecution will call Drew's oldest son's ex-girlfriend next if they get thru Rosetto quickly.

That should be some time next week, if we're lucky!

Now over 30 minutes late from lunch.....

:maddening:

 

[Patty G]

In Session

2 minutes ago.

Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Brodsky has a question about some discovery regarding “Dr. Case,” who is apparently an upcoming prosecution witness. He complains that there is a “presentation” that Dr. Case was part of that the State has never turned over. The prosecution responds, and the issue appears to be resolved. The judge sends for the jury.

 

[Patty G]

In Session The State calls its next witness: Scott Rossetto (questioned by prosecutor Glasgow). He now lives in Germany, and is 40 years old. He has a bachelor’s degree in nursing, and is a captain in the U.S. Army. “In 2001, did you have occasion to meet Stacy Cales?” “I did.” He then identifies a photograph of Stacy Cales Peterson.

52 seconds ago

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I'm behind and reading this morning's testimony by the neurologist ,but my question is about all the defense questions....why are they allowed to question witnesses about things there is NO evidence for in this case ( MS ,Zoloft causing her to fall,etc..) when the Prosecution gets gagged and hog tied over stuff there is plenty of evidence for (Drew's prior bad acts). Why is it okay to bring in possible prior bad acts of Kathy but not Drew?
Makes no sense to me : (

BBM:

:seeya: Makes NO sense to me, either ... it is soooooooo obvious that the defense is getting preferential treatment :furious:

:seeya: And it's good to see you here, Miss James !

:cheers:

 

[Patty G]

In Session “How did you first meet her?” “My brother was seeing her.” “Keith is your twin brother?” “Yes . . . identical twins.” “How long did your brother date her?” “Just a few months.” “How many times did you have conversations with her?” Objection/Sustained. “How many times did you see her during the time your brother was dating her?” “Approximately seven or eight times.” His brother joined the military in 2001 (“two days before Sept. 11&#8221. In October, 2007, he received a phone call from Stacy. “Her last name had become Peterson.” “Do you know to whom she had become married?” “Drew Peterson.”

about a minute ago