Kathleen Savio's death #2

[Wudge]

Stacy gave a statement to LE. You bet that would be admisable, with or without her.

Admitting twice removed hearsay as evidence where the alleged witness is nowhere to be found, never in a million years. Moreover, Drew would have a Constitutional right to confront Stacy.

 

[SuziQ]

Without circumstances testified to, the calls could not be dispositive proof that Drew was off her premises.

That's true. I think the only point would be to disprove the alibi. The only alibi Drew has to prove that he wasn't at Kathleen's that night.

 

[SuziQ]

Admitting twice removed hearsay as evidence where the alleged witness is nowhere to be found, never in a million years. Moreover, Drew would have a Constitutional right to confront Stacy.

Either Drew attorney allows Stacy's statement that was his alibi, admited which will be disproved by phone records. Or it's not allowed and he doesn't have an alibi at all. Either way, he's screwed.

 

[thesleuther]

I believe that if there is a police report with Stacy's signature that states he was home in bed with her all night, and the prosecution is able to show that Stacy in fact called him numerous times throughout the night, then I believe all that could be put forth as evidence; let the jury decide what it means. It most likely would get past a grand jury, but a jury in a criminal trial.....don't know.

 

[Littledeer]

wudge:

I was going to keep disputing you. But after reflective thought, I am starting to agree with you a little bit.

What came to my mind was the fact that where DP and Stacy live was very close to where Kathy lived. So, IMO, any phone records would only proved that phone #a called phone #b, but NOT where a and b where at that time.

If both were cell phones, with the proximity of the houses, they would probably both bounce off the same "tower" for pings.

So it would go back to just circumstantial evidence, again, that has and can be brought forward in a court of law.

 

[thesleuther]

Since Stacy and Drew lived very close to Kathleen, most likely their cell phones would bounce off the same tower. However, there is a small chance that they could bounce off different towers. I remember in the Laci Peterson case, LE was able to show Scott going from home to his office by the different towers involved with the cell phone, and his office was pretty close to their home. There has to be a dividing line somewhere and it sure would be nice if it was beside the Stacy and Drew home.

 

[mysteriew]

Assuming there are such records and the cell towers are the same, one reason would be that he was simply in another part of the house. Stacy can't challenge what Drew would claim, no one can.

Stacy would only be needed if they wanted to make an issue of the content of those calls. They can still use it to break DrewP's alibi without Stacy. IIRC DrewP told police he and Stacy were at home asleep. Now maybe they won't be able to establish where DrewP was, but they can establish that they were not asleep and that Stacy was repeatedly trying to contact him- an indication that she did not know where he was. That is contrary to what DrewP told LE.

Now there is another possibility. If Stacy texted him, the content of those texts may be available. This probably wouldn't be allowed for direct evidence, but maybe in challenging any explanation the defense may give for the calls. For instance if an explanation/excuse is given, the prosecutors can ask how this particular text fit in with that excuse.

 

[Wudge]

Either Drew attorney allows Stacy's statement that was his alibi, admited which will be disproved by phone records. Or it's not allowed and he doesn't have an alibi at all. Either way, he's screwed.

Phone records could be admitted, but they would not be self explanatory. Moreover, Stacy's phone records could not change the fact that Stacy is Drew's alibi.

 

[Littledeer]

sleuther:

Since Stacy and Drew lived very close to Kathleen, most likely their cell phones would bounce off the same tower. However, there is a small chance that they could bounce off different towers. I remember in the Laci Peterson case, LE was able to show Scott going from home to his office by the different towers involved with the cell phone, and his office was pretty close to their home. There has to be a dividing line somewhere and it sure would be nice if it was beside the Stacy and Drew home.

You pretty much said what I had before your post. Thanks for the information on the SP case! We can only hope that there is a dividing line between DP's house and Kathy's house. That would certainly add more credibility to what the Nextel records reflect.

 

[Wudge]

Stacy would only be needed if they wanted to make an issue of the content of those calls.

SNIP

Exclusive of content, if records were to show the allegged calls were made and the records were admitted as evidence, consider it a given that the defense would make an issue(s) of the calls. Such as: Your Honor, the prosecutor is now claiming Stacy lied when she is not her to defend her good name.

 

[Wudge]

Since Stacy and Drew lived very close to Kathleen, most likely their cell phones would bounce off the same tower. However, there is a small chance that they could bounce off different towers. I remember in the Laci Peterson case, LE was able to show Scott going from home to his office by the different towers involved with the cell phone, and his office was pretty close to their home. There has to be a dividing line somewhere and it sure would be nice if it was beside the Stacy and Drew home.

You remember incorrectly. The State was not able to place Scott at a certain location when he made the 10:08 call to his voicemail.

 

[Littledeer]

Wudge:

Again, you bring up a very good point from the defense side.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we concede that Stacy did in fact lie and we have proof of that. No, she is not here to either dispute or confirm that that. But, we have enough circumstantial evidence to prove that she did in fact lie of DP's whereabouts that night, (meaning, DP was not with her), we feel that the evidence should be presented before the jurors and let them make the decison on it's validity of lack of validty.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge:

Again, you bring up a very good point from the defense side.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we concede that Stacy did in fact lie and we have proof of that. No, she is not here to either dispute or confirm that that. But, we have enough circumstantial evidence to prove that she did in fact lie of DP's whereabouts that night, (meaning, DP was not with her), we feel that the evidence should be presented before the jurors and let them make the decison on it's validity of lack of validty.

Judge to prosecutor: Since you admit you have no proof that Stacy lied based on her phone records, I am not going to let you try her as an alleged accessory after the fact. I will so instruct the jury that these records are not and cannot be considered proof that Drew was not with Stacy all night.

 

[mysteriew]

Wudge:

Again, you bring up a very good point from the defense side.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we concede that Stacy did in fact lie and we have proof of that. No, she is not here to either dispute or confirm that that. But, we have enough circumstantial evidence to prove that she did in fact lie of DP's whereabouts that night, (meaning, DP was not with her), we feel that the evidence should be presented before the jurors and let them make the decison on it's validity of lack of validty.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

The facts are the facts. If indeed this is all true and they are able to locate the records, then it should be and could be brought out in court. After all, for this purpose Stacy isn't being charged with a crime and cannot be charged posthumously

 

[mysteriew]

Judge to prosecutor: Since you admit you have no proof that Stacy lied based on her phone records, I am not going to let you try her as an alleged accessory after the fact. I will so instruct the jury that these records are not and cannot be considered proof that Drew was not with Stacy all night.

I would respectfully disagree.

The fact of the phone records occuring shows they were not asleep, as was indicated in the statements they gave LE. The fact that the calls were repeated shows attempts to make contact. Now I don't know if they can tell if a call was answered or not (I would guess they could, since it affects the billing cycle) but certainly 3-4 calls of a minute each would be something that prosecutors could submit to the court along with DrewP's statement that he was home in bed asleep with Stacy.

 

[robthomaseyes]

Exclusive of content, if records were to show the allegged calls were made and the records were admitted as evidence, consider it a given that the defense would make an issue(s) of the calls. Such as: Your Honor, the prosecutor is now claiming Stacy lied when she is not her to defend her good name.

Then the easiest thing to do is throw out stacy's testimony completely and ask drew where he was that night. Without her testimony he has no alibi. And he can't even use Stacy now, b/c she can't testify or verify since she's "missing".

 

[Wudge]

I would respectfully disagree.

The fact of the phone records occuring shows they were not asleep, as was indicated in the statements they gave LE. The fact that the calls were repeated shows attempts to make contact. Now I don't know if they can tell if a call was answered or not (I would guess they could, since it affects the billing cycle) but certainly 3-4 calls of a minute each would be something that prosecutors could submit to the court along with DrewP's statement that he was home in bed asleep with Stacy.

Stacy awoke to find Drew not in bed. She called his name, no answer. She phoned several times as she watched TV from her bed, no answer. She eventually got up and found Drew asleep on the living room couch.

 

[Littledeer]

wudge:

Judge to prosecutor: Since you admit you have no proof that Stacy lied based on her phone records, False: I admitted that I do have proof that SHE LIED BASED ON THE PHONE RECORDS) I am not going to let you try her as an alleged accessory after the fact. (Wasn't my intention to begin with) I will so instruct the jury that these records are not and cannot be considered proof that Drew was not with Stacy all night.

The phone record results should be provided to the jury to either prove or disprove one fact, and one fact only. Were there phone calls made on the night before Kathleen Savio's death from Stacy Peterson's phone to Drew Peterson's phone?? If so, what time were those calls made?

 

[robthomaseyes]

Stacy awoke to find Drew not in bed. She called his name, no answer. She phoned several times as she watched TV from her bed, no answer. She eventually got up and found Drew asleep on the living room couch.

Drew can try that, but since she's not here to verify that, it won't be admissible.

 

[Wudge]

Then the easiest thing to do is throw out stacy's testimony completely and ask drew where he was that night. Without her testimony he has no alibi. And he can't even use Stacy now, b/c she can't testify or verify since she's "missing".

At a minimum, multiple detectives would testify for the defense that Stacy said Drew was with her all night, and they believed her.