SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

[katydid23]

There shouldn't be anything new brought up if it wasn't disclosed during discovery. That's the whole purpose of discovery. No surprises.

Discovery covers the state's case and MOST of the Defense's case. But the defense is allowed to add new witnesses after they have seen the state's case in it's entirety. Because of the fluctuating way testimony is allowed in or out, sometimes each side is faced with new evidence to rebut. For example, the DT did not know exactly which hearsay was going to be admitted. IF they have someone come forward now, that can impeach one of those witnesses, they are allowed to add them on. And if that happens, the state would be allowed to add on someone 'new' to rebut that rebuttal. JMO

 

[ChickenPants]

Hopefully the PT has her or someone equally qualified ready to go in their rebuttal case, depending on what the DT puts on.

Just remembered something Fuhrman said that we all know but he said it soooo well. The killer ALWAYS knows the TOD and knows where and what they were doing during that time frame for their alibi. How many hours did DP coach Stacy about what to say for that time period??

I forgot all about prosecution rebuttal cases! More chances!

 

[Wishbone]

Discovery covers the state's case and MOST of the Defense's case. But the defense is allowed to add new witnesses after they have seen the state's case in it's entirety. Because of the fluctuating way testimony is allowed in or out, sometimes each side is faced with new evidence to rebut. For example, the DT did not know exactly which hearsay was going to be admitted. IF they have someone come forward now, that can impeach one of those witnesses, they are allowed to add them on. And if that happens, the state would be allowed to add on someone 'new' to rebut that rebuttal. JMO

Well, hopefully just a few more days of waiting and this thing will go to the jury. That's if the DT was honest about their timeframe.

 

[ChickenPants]

I am a medical professional and I can tell you for a fact that scalp lacerations, even small ones, bleed profusely because of the amount of capillaries in the scalp.

I'd like to comment on this because I find it a bit confusing. This is a question or hypothetical.

I'm from medical field, too. IMO a "laceration" is a bit different than "blunt force trauma". In other words, a long gash or cut which breaks the skin where the capillaries are differs from the type of injury caused by blunt force. A heavy blow as opposed to a slice, for example. With a blow, it would occur on a portion of the skull (or portions, depending on the number of blows.) Where the Blunt object met the skull there would be a smaller laceration than a gash. The wound would be more "contained". And the force of the blow would push the skin in toward the skull, thereby the bleeding would not be as gushy or profuse.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

 

[katydid23]

Well, hopefully just a few more days of waiting and this thing will go to the jury. That's if the DT was honest about their timeframe.

I think they will start their case on Monday and it will last until wed or thursday. But then the state can put on their rebuttal case, which may be one or two more days as well. If we add in the sidebars, I am thinking it will be another full week at least ...

 

[Mama-cita]

I think they will start their case on Monday and it will last until wed or thursday. But then the state can put on their rebuttal case, which may be one or two more days as well. If we add in the sidebars, I am thinking it will be another full week at least ...

Can you imagine the double time objections during rebuttal? Glasgow: "Please state your name for the record.". Defense :"Objection!". Judge : "Sustained! It's too prejudicial!"

 

[LambChop]

I'd like to comment on this because I find it a bit confusing. This is a question or hypothetical.

I'm from medical field, too. IMO a "laceration" is a bit different than "blunt force trauma". In other words, a long gash or cut which breaks the skin where the capillaries are differs from the type of injury caused by blunt force. A heavy blow as opposed to a slice, for example. With a blow, it would occur on a portion of the skull (or portions, depending on the number of blows.) Where the Blunt object met the skull there would be a smaller laceration than a gash. The wound would be more "contained". And the force of the blow would push the skin in toward the skull, thereby the bleeding would not be as gushy or profuse.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

And from what I got out of the ME's testimony I believe it was a blunt force hitting Kathy that caused her injury not Kathy hitting an object in the tub. By looking at the diagram the ME drew you can see the injury is too high on her head to have been caused by her hitting her head in the tub because of a fall. And that the injury is more consistent with being struck by an object rather than with her hitting head. At least that is what I understood. Hope this also got through to the jury. The jury needs to be left with this thought right before deliberations. Hope they got it the first time.

LOL. I don't think Drew has too many witnesses because his alibi is missing, so he has very little to go on. I don't think anyone from LE will be willing to speak on his behalf, nor do I think defense wants to bring any of them in to testify. So basically his defense is he has the worst luck with women. And his expert witnesses will be hard pressed to claim anything other than an accident because it was never properly investigated to begin with so what would they have to review????? jmo

 

[ChickenPants]

And from what I got out of the ME's testimony I believe it was a blunt force hitting Kathy that caused her injury not Kathy hitting an object in the tub. By looking at the diagram the ME drew you can see the injury is too high on her head to have been caused by her hitting her head in the tub because of a fall. And that the injury is more consistent with being struck by an object rather than with her hitting head. At least that is what I understood. Hope this also got through to the jury. The jury needs to be left with this thought right before deliberations. Hope they got it the first time.

LOL. I don't think Drew has too many witnesses because his alibi is missing, so he has very little to go on. I don't think anyone from LE will be willing to speak on his behalf, nor do I think defense wants to bring any of them in to testify. So basically his defense is he has the worst luck with women. And his expert witnesses will be hard pressed to claim anything other than an accident because it was never properly investigated to begin with so what would they have to review????? jmo

"My Al was always such a good boy" - Al Capone's mother

LOL Drew doesn't even have his mommy there for him. Does he have anybody in the courtroom at all on his side? Jurors notice those kind of things, too.

 

[katydid23]

What has me worried is the recent interview with Lopez on Judge JP.

He said they would be starting with some police officers who have impeachment info on some of the previous testimony. Specifically that some of the witness testimony can be impeached by prior trial transcripts. If so, that is problematic.

 

[LambChop]

What has me worried is the recent interview with Lopez on Judge JP.

He said they would be starting with some police officers who have impeachment info on some of the previous testimony. Specifically that some of the witness testimony can be impeached by prior trial transcripts. If so, that is problematic.

LOL. Police officers testifying with impeachment information regarding a crime scene that was made to look like an accident. This should be interesting. jmo

 

[MissJames]

And from what I got out of the ME's testimony I believe it was a blunt force hitting Kathy that caused her injury not Kathy hitting an object in the tub. By looking at the diagram the ME drew you can see the injury is too high on her head to have been caused by her hitting her head in the tub because of a fall. And that the injury is more consistent with being struck by an object rather than with her hitting head. At least that is what I understood. Hope this also got through to the jury. The jury needs to be left with this thought right before deliberations. Hope they got it the first time.

LOL. I don't think Drew has too many witnesses because his alibi is missing, so he has very little to go on. I don't think anyone from LE will be willing to speak on his behalf, nor do I think defense wants to bring any of them in to testify. So basically his defense is he has the worst luck with women. And his expert witnesses will be hard pressed to claim anything other than an accident because it was never properly investigated to begin with so what would they have to review????? jmo

How do they even introduce that he has an alibi for that night without going into the fact that she's "unavailable" ?
The defense team likes to mis-state facts . I always find it intriguing that defense lawyers will stoop to such low behavior when their client is "innocent". If he was innocent why not stick with the truth?
I realize not all defense attorneys do it ,just seems to be a trend in these high profile cases.

 

[wishinuall]

Most people who commit crimes do not do so in front of a camera so that leaves us with circumstancial evidence. Defense is trying to prove it was an accident so there for he is innocent. <modsnip> believe, here, that there has been enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DP killed his third wife.<modsnip>have read all the reports released from the trial and believe he killed Kathy. DP had the means, motive and opportunity. You don't always need who, what, when, where and how to convict.

He could very well walk. Everyone is pro prosecution because this is a crime board and we support the victims of crime. Defendants in this forum convict themselves in most of the discussions on this board through the doumentation and information released by the State and sometimes even their own defense attorneys let damning information out. The weight we use is from that information that is released because we are not sent back into the jury room and excluded from what the judge decides is just TOO prejudicial for the jury to hear.

I believe we have seen enough evidence against DP to convict him. Everyone of us is could end up on a jury tomorrow. jmo

Thank you so much LambChop! I think you speak for most of us here & said so very well! I only want to point out one thing that I don't fully agree with. That is-the WHY! This judge has been adamant about keeping out the motives!!! Why???? If he determines tomorrow that the PT has not provided enough evidence for the trial to continue, we have only HIM to blame! By convincing the PT to allow the DT to have Harry Smith, the letter will not have been introduced yet!!! Not to mention, IF we get that far, once again having the motive redacted...Well, you see where I'm going with this! We all know Chicago does operate on this 'good ole boy's' way of life, politics, & evidently, LAW, for some time. My prayer now is that with case getting so much national attention to the way these proceedings have been, SOMEONE in higher authority is going to really shake things up!!! On the other hand, if he rules for the PT to proceed, I just MIGHT begin to think he's been so hard on them to minimize appeal issues. At any rate, thanks for your posts, I always appreciate what you have to say!!

 

[fifteen89]

LOL. Police officers testifying with impeachment information regarding a crime scene that was made to look like an accident. This should be interesting. jmo

Exactly. I liked Judge Pirro's response to Lopez saying that last nite - she said 'so you'll have someone come in and testify that they said it happened on a Tuesday but it was really Thursday, isn't that collateral?'

Lopez could only say it goes to credibility.....yada yada yada. [roll eyes here]

 

[Mama-cita]

How do they even introduce that he has an alibi for that night without going into the fact that she's "unavailable" ?
The defense team likes to mis-state facts . I always find it intriguing that defense lawyers will stoop to such low behavior when their client is "innocent". If he was innocent why not stick with the truth?
I realize not all defense attorneys do it ,just seems to be a trend in these high profile cases.

These cases really do draw out the slimiest leeches of lawyers, IMO. I think it is because they recognize how high profile it is and even if the client is obviously guilty it will lead to them being able to cash in by selling their story (but let's ask MrBaez how that is working out for him!). Another theory is that like attracts like. Drew is a scuzzy bottom feeder and he has seemed to draw a DT that exudes the same aura! IMO

 

[fifteen89]

How do they even introduce that he has an alibi for that night without going into the fact that she's "unavailable" ?
The defense team likes to mis-state facts . I always find it intriguing that defense lawyers will stoop to such low behavior when their client is "innocent". If he was innocent why not stick with the truth?
I realize not all defense attorneys do it ,just seems to be a trend in these high profile cases.

BBM
Oh! Oh! Oh! [waving arm in air]
I know this one!!!

Because the truth won't set them free.



ETA: I hope they try to pass her unavailability off as her just being on vacation.

 

[fifteen89]

These cases really do draw out the slimiest leeches of lawyers, IMO. I think it is because they recognize how high profile it is and even if the client is obviously guilty it will lead to them being able to cash in by selling their story (but let's ask MrBaez how that is working out for him!). Another theory is that like attracts like. Drew is a scuzzy bottom feeder and he has seemed to draw a DT that exudes the same aura! IMO

It's in the back of my mind that I hope the jurors know about the typical client of Mr. Lopez. I wouldn't hire a mob lawyer just because of the association with my name/case.

 

[katydid23]

Exactly. I liked Judge Pirro's response to Lopez saying that last nite - she said 'so you'll have someone come in and testify that they said it happened on a Tuesday but it was really Thursday, isn't that collateral?'

Lopez could only say it goes to credibility.....yada yada yada. [roll eyes here]

Did it bother anyone else to see the "Lo-pi' on together last night and hear them going on and on about Drew? Judge J asked Ms. Lopez how it was to work together on this trial and then go home togrther at night. And that beautiful young woman said : Oh, it is ALL about Drew, even when we get home. It is all about Drew..." It made me sad. And I am thinking to myself, does she have any context, any idea, of what an abusive, controlling relationship is really like?

And then, ...ahem... her older, well respected husband explains that he and his wife dress alike because they want to show their personal solidarity. And I couldn't help but think that he had his own reasons to demand that his beautiful young wife dress just like him out in public. It bothers me...

 

[Niner]

Okay - please explain someone if you can... Stacy's name is not supposed to come up in this trial BUT!! here's what I found when reading another site (Justice Cafe) from Day One of the Defense's Opening Statement:

Brodsky: Stacy goes missing in Oct. 2007. “For some unknown reason” the media grabs on to this story. “They don’t just report the news, they make it.” Ridicules Dr. Baden’s 2nd autopsy on FOX Entertainment News. “Of course he’s going to say a homicide.” Ridicules Kathleen’s divorce atty Harry Smith. He came forward only after media circus began. Criticizes Savio’s sisters for not coming forward about statements earlier. Courtroom Sketch

So, WHAT is going on?? :waitasec: or am I reading that wrong??

found at the 11:48am Update section:
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/drew-peterson-trial-day-one-opening-statements/

 

[fifteen89]

Did it bother anyone else to see the "Lo-pi' on together last night and hear them going on and on about Drew? Judge J asked Ms. Lopez how it was to work together on this trial and then go home togrther at night. And that beautiful young woman said : Oh, it is ALL about Drew, even when we get home. It is all about Drew..." It made me sad. And I am thinking to myself, does she have any context, any idea, of what an abusive, controlling relationship is really like?

And then, ...ahem... her older, well respected husband explains that he and his wife dress alike because they want to show their personal solidarity. And I couldn't help but think that he had his own reasons to demand that his beautiful young wife dress just like him out in public. It bothers me...

Yeah, "it's all about Drew". Ugh.

Pick a lawyer, any lawyer. Any one of them make me want to puke. He didn't really have a good explanation of why they dress alike - I heard "we like the same kind of clothes" - uh, you mean suits? And didn't he say they like the same colors? Puhlease. That's the best he can come up with? BTW how much younger is she than him?

And he/they showed their true colors (lol! no pun intended!) when the "Stacy who" clip was played and he/they didn't take the opportunity to apologize profusely once again on such a far-reaching tv channel. Like I said :sick:

 

[pferrin]

Did it bother anyone else to see the "Lo-pi' on together last night and hear them going on and on about Drew? Judge J asked Ms. Lopez how it was to work together on this trial and then go home togrther at night. And that beautiful young woman said : Oh, it is ALL about Drew, even when we get home. It is all about Drew..." It made me sad. And I am thinking to myself, does she have any context, any idea, of what an abusive, controlling relationship is really like?

And then, ...ahem... her older, well respected husband explains that he and his wife dress alike because they want to show their personal solidarity. And I couldn't help but think that he had his own reasons to demand that his beautiful young wife dress just like him out in public. It bothers me...

I think they are a bit scary ..if everything is all about Drew ..they really need to get a life.

What are they gonna do when the trial is over???Wear Free Drew T-shirts?