Kathleen Savio's death #2

[robthomaseyes]

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

Well, again, the cell phone records indicate that he was NOT with her. At this point, it will up up to a jury to decide what it meant that she felt it necessary to call his phone several times.

 

[Wudge]

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

A defendant can testify as he wishes. Moreover, the fact that the State cannot find Stacy is the State's problem.

 

[Wudge]

Well, again, the cell phone records indicate that he was NOT with her. At this point, it will up up to a jury to decide what it meant that she felt it necessary to call his phone several times.

Just so you know, the alleged calls are mythology right now.

 

[robthomaseyes]

Wrong. He can't start testifying as to what stacy saw or heard or did unless she is there to corroborate.

 

[Wudge]

Wrong. He can't start testifying as to what stacy saw or heard or did unless she is there to corroborate.

He could testify that Stacy woke him up from his sleep on the couch.

 

[robthomaseyes]

Sure, he could. But without her to corroborate, it isn't going to hold much weight. Those phone calls might, though.

Let's wait and see. LE obviously thinks they are crucial to the case. there must be a reason.

 

[Littledeer]

Well if any of those "police detectives" are found to have not done their jobs in Kathy's case (i.e. gathering evidence, covering up, etc.). I, as a juror would most likely discount anything they had to say now.

And I am sure the Prosecutor's side would bring that up.

 

[Wudge]

Well if any of those "police detectives" are found to have not done their jobs in Kathy's case (i.e. gathering evidence, covering up, etc.). I, as a juror would most likely discount anything they had to say now.

And I am sure the Prosecutor's side would bring that up.

Yeah, prosecutors love to impeach their own detectives.

(chuckle....maybe in another galaxy)

 

[mysteriew]

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

It is my understanding of the system that it is the state's responsibility to present the known facts and evidence, the defense's responsibility to present any plausible or possible explanations for those facts and evidence, and the jury's responsibility to interpet them and deterimine whether they are believable or not.

So all the state would do is present the 1) alibi given by DrewP at the time of Kathleen's death 2) the alleged phone records from Stacy's phone to DrewP's phone, the defense would offer up their explanation and the jury would then use those in determining what they believed happened on that day. Correct?

There would be no state explanation of the facts, it would be DrewP's statement they used to explain where he was at that time and it would be DrewP's problem that Stacy was not there to defend/collaborate the original alibi. It would be factual phone records that would put that alibi in question, and leave it up to the defense to pose a reason for why the phone records exist. But ultimately it would be up to the jury to say whether they would believe that Stacy called DrewP repeatedly then found him sleeping on the couch.

 

[Littledeer]

wudge:

Good point! Actually, both the DEFENSE and the PROSECUTOR's side can use the Police Detectives for or against their point of view.

I was only thinking on the defense side because I want justices for Stacy.

So let's scratch ANY police detectives testifying to "phone records" at the moment.

We are still back to how IMPORTANT are the Nextel phone records to this case if it should go to trial?

I wish I knew how to make a thread of this on it's own, but I don't!

 

[Wudge]

It is my understanding of the system that it is the state's responsibility to present the known facts and evidence, the defense's responsibility to present any plausible or possible explanations for those facts and evidence, and the jury's responsibility to interpet them and deterimine whether they are believable or not.

So all the state would do is present the 1) alibi given by DrewP at the time of Kathleen's death 2) the alleged phone records from Stacy's phone to DrewP's phone, the defense would offer up their explanation and the jury would then use those in determining what they believed happened on that day. Correct?

There would be no state explanation of the facts, it would be DrewP's statement they used to explain where he was at that time and it would be DrewP's problem that Stacy was not there to defend/collaborate the original alibi.

The State argues. Then the defense argues. The State offers a rebuttal argument. Case goes to the jury.

 

[panthera]

wudge:

Good point! Actually, both the DEFENSE and the PROSECUTOR's side can use the Police Detectives for or against their point of view.

I was only thinking on the defense side because I want justices for Stacy.

So let's scratch ANY police detectives testifying to "phone records" at the moment.

We are still back to how IMPORTANT are the Nextel phone records to this case if it should go to trial?

I wish I knew how to make a thread of this on it's own, but I don't!

Couldn't the state could introduce the cell phone records through a Nextel employee to verify them as authentic, without anyone from LE? LE could testify as to what DP & Stacy told them at the time and the jury could then figure out what the truth is.

 

[Littledeer]

Why not the defense arguing first, then the State, and the defense offering a rebuttal agreement??

 

[Wudge]

wudge:

Good point! Actually, both the DEFENSE and the PROSECUTOR's side can use the Police Detectives for or against their point of view.

I was only thinking on the defense side because I want justices for Stacy.

So let's scratch ANY police detectives testifying to "phone records" at the moment.

We are still back to how IMPORTANT are the Nextel phone records to this case if it should go to trial?

I wish I knew how to make a thread of this on it's own, but I don't!

Assuming the alleged phone calls were made, the State could "argue" that Drew was not there all night; thereby, imputing Stacy lied -- given the "other woman" motive, Stacy would be an alternative suspect.

Drew is not likable, and this is a high-profile case. Those are the two best things the State would have going for it.

 

[mysteriew]

Why not the defense arguing first, then the State, and the defense offering a rebuttal agreement??

LOL, that isn't court procedure.

 

[Wudge]

Why not the defense arguing first, then the State, and the defense offering a rebuttal agreement??

Defense attorneys would love your approach, but the State has the burden of proof. That's why the State is afforded the final argument to the jury, which is a huge advantage.

 

[Littledeer]

duh! knock me along side of the head!!

Sorry for being so dumb! After watching Court TV, etc, guess I should know that!

knock knock, who's there? Littledeer. Littledeer who? Littledeer don't know courtroom rules over here. (Sorry, BAD ONE, just couldn't think of something that rhymed!)

 

[Wudge]

Couldn't the state could introduce the cell phone records through a Nextel employee to verify them as authentic, without anyone from LE? LE could testify as to what DP & Stacy told them at the time and the jury could then figure out what the truth is.

Correct.

 

[Littledeer]

panthera:

HATS OFF TO YOU!!!

You got a yes from Wudge! And not only that, but how the Nextel records can be used in court of law sucessfully!

Congrats!!

 

[panthera]

panthera:

HATS OFF TO YOU!!!

You got a yes from Wudge! And not only that, but how the Nextel records can be used in court of law sucessfully!

Congrats!!

I guess I've been paying too much attention to everything Mark says!!