SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

[fifteen89]

head though experts have said that it was a blunt force trauma that was not the result of her hitting her head but someone else striking her....Reason would dictate that it certainly does suggest that it was Drew (and I think that it was to be sure) but we don't have proof that it was him. (such as DNA, fingerprints, etc).
The case of the disappearing and reappearing towel does suggest crime scene changes...but it was never treated as a crime scene. He was there cleaning (*cough cough* destroying evidence) shortly after the police departed.
It is a reasonable assumption....so I agree with you, but it isn't hard scientific fact or eye witness accounts.

Well, it proves the DT slipped and fell theory is wrong.

 

[katydid23]

Except there's nothing in either the bf or neighbor kids past to suggest they wouldn't have called 911. And nothing to suggest Kathleen was afraid of either of them. But what a coincidence......she was terrified of DP.

I agree with you. But I think it will all come down to the judge's 'jury instructions.' He can sway the verdict by defining the terms any which way he desires.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

The bagged hands were mentioned on day one of the trial to which the DT said a loud OBJECTION!.....I never heard if they tested them or not.
It would stand to reason that they would have been tested or should have been.....I can't imagine that the PT didn't run some tests on them.....
there must have been some trace of something except that I am sure that Drew was wearing gloves......Kathleen said that he was wearing black gloves when he held a knife to her, so I bet that he didn't leave any trace there.
I imagine that the defense objected to them mentioning the bagged hands because for all their protestations of this being a scene of an accident......someone on that team must have seen that it was a crime scene......you don't bag hands of someone who died from an accident do you?


I don't understand some of the info that has been omitted from being presented at this trial. If Stacy said to Rev Schori that he had just commited the perfect crime, then WHY wasn't he able to say so?
It is too prejudicial to say anything that proves that he is guilty?
I really would like to know what happened to her bagged hands. :maddening:

They bagged her hands at the scene and later the coroners office stated her nails had nothing underneath them. I can envision Drew scrubbing her nails with a little nail brush...... scrubby scrubby scrubby......:bath:

abbie

 

[WindyCityGirl]

already said that they didn't find anything under her fingernails...I think that my eyes grazed over that because I didn't understand then why the DT would have taken issue with them mentioning it at all. Now I realize (as I mentioned above) that it must have indicated that there was suspicion of possible foul play.

They bagged her hands at the scene and later the coroners office stated her nails had nothing underneath them. I can envision Drew scrubbing her nails with a little nail brush...... scrubby scrubby scrubby......:bath:

abbie

 

[Salem]

Hey EVERYBODY - there are too many posts here for me to modsnip right now, so PLEASE remember to speak only for YOURSELF and remember that ALL OPINIONS ARE WELCOME.

Do not chastise others for supporting the Defense or having a different opinion. If you do not want to have that conversation - that's okay, just move past the posts. If you choose to respond, do so respectfully and without attacking the poster or their opinion. Attack the evidence and the facts.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Wishbone]

already said that they didn't find anything under her fingernails...I think that my eyes grazed over that because I didn't understand then why the DT would have taken issue with them mentioning it at all. Now I realize (as I mentioned above) that it must have indicated that there was suspicion of possible foul play.

They bagged her hands at the scene and later the coroners office stated her nails had nothing underneath them. I can envision Drew scrubbing her nails with a little nail brush...... scrubby scrubby scrubby......:bath:

abbie

But he said he placed bags over Savio's hands to preserve evidence in case her death was later ruled a homicide.

"When we left there, we didn’t really know what happened to her," he said



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...07_1_robert-deel-drew-peterson-kathleen-savio

 

[AbbieNormal]

I was just thinking about this yesterday. How manipulative and arrogant is this? He's a police officer but he has his own wife arrested during what - an argument? I'm convinced he did that not only to terrorize her - prove that he, as part of the blue squad, had the upper hand - and to get it on the record just like he kept those receipts. To me, this is part of that beautiful word PREMEDITATION. There is apparently nothing he has done that has not been premeditated. It's beyond sad that TWO of his wives feared him because of violence and threats, and put that in writing, and told others, almost like they were making Last Will and Testaments. It would be like knowing the mafia had a hit on you being with him.

Thank you, ChickenPants. I could not agree more. As a person who lived in a very violent marriage for almost 8 years, its now going on almost 30 years since I escaped from that marriage with nothing but my children. Thank God I got them, though. The feelings of panic, isolation, and impending dread have never left me, and I have not been around a violent man since the day I left him. (With the exception of my own brother, who was friends w/ my first husband and uses the same intimidation himself, along with confrontation, yelling, and as recently as 6 years ago, physical violence at me. Actual punching) If my current husband of 17 years knew he had punched me (right in my belly- and I have had a liver transplant so that's not the best place to get punched. And he knew it) he would have freaked the you-know-what OUT. So I never told him, therefore I continue to carry the dirty cycle of secrecy that is domestic violence.

I think that's why I absolutely HATE Drew so much. I see the same in him in so many ways. I recognize the sociopaths when I see them and see how they act. I know how Kathleen and Stacy felt. I know living that kind of life, and it's terrifying. To put it mildly.

I pray the jury sees through this the way we do. Please God, let them be smart and NOTHING like those Pinella County jurors. I want to see Life or LWOP for him, and I want him to be found guilty of Stacy's disapperance and get another LWOP sentence. If I had the choice of LWOP plus torture, I would want that for him.

Has anyone wondered if perhaps Drew did some form of waterboarding to KS?
The only problem I see with that is how he could have restrained her and waterboarded her at the same time. Plus he would have had to take the wet towel with him along with that bag of clothes belonging to Kathleen. Wonder if any towels belonging to Kathleen are missing? Of course those "investigators" didn't "investigate" anything like that.

Sorry for the :rant:


abbie:moo:

 

[Noway]

FWIW Kathleen's family said she kept her nails long.

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/drew-peterson-trial-day-eleven/

.... Mitchell examined both Savio's fingers and toe nails as being “short and clean.” ...

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/drew-peterson-trial-day-ten/


Sounds like the killer clipped her nails. imo

 

[panthera]

I don’t feel good about the testimony of the hitman and the pastor. I thought the hitman’s testimony was very weak and vague when it could have much stronger if he really had anything of substance to say. As for the pastor, the whole scenario doesn’t set right with me. What pastor councils with someone but insists on it being in a public place. I’ve talked with many pastors in my lifetime and have never once had one suggest we meet in public let alone him bring a witness along to watch us. Something just isn’t right and it has nothing to do with DP.

It is totally understandable to me for the pastor to request meeting in a public place with someone else present, when he was counseling a young woman whose husband was a member of LE and had been known to be intimidating to say the least. It was for his own protection in more ways than one.

MOO

 

[LambChop]

According to local tweets on DP board:

Msg from #drewpeterson was: “I know you just met with my wife. How about meeting with me now? We could go for a ride in my airplane.”

Let's hope defense opens that door if they plan to mud sling with the pastor. I would love for him to tell the jury why he met with her in public because he obviously was having her followed. jmo

So was DP suppose to be on duty while this meeting took place. Nice the city can afford to pay him for his little private jobs.....bet he has been doing this with his girlfriends and ex-wives for years. jmo

 

[katydid23]

Let's hope defense opens that door if they plan to mud sling with the pastor. I would love for him to tell the jury why he met with her in public because he obviously was having her followed. jmo

They asked him, sneeringly, if he ever met with her again or called Drew to follow up. At that time, I wondered why the state would not have been allowe3d to introduce that phone message that Drew left for him. Because I think that pretty well answers why he never met with her again, nor 'followed up' with Drew.

 

[ChickenPants]

thinking more about the pastor's testimony, which I feel is the rock of Gibraltar in this case....

Stacy Peterson said she woke up in the middle of the night and Drew was gone and he didn't return til early morning....

which means Savio was most likely in bed & asleep when he sneaked into her home.

also thinking about the 3 oval shaped deep force bruises to the lower left abdomen...I'd bet Drew was likely wearing boots (possibly steel toed) and kicked her 3 times while he was drowning her.

Just doing a little re-reading of the thoughtful posts on here. I'd like to know how she ended up nude. Stacey stated she found women's clothing in the washer but we didn't hear what kind of clothing. Did DP yank her out of bed and force her to disrobe? I would not find that at all unusual, for him. Because he has enjoyed stalking and threatening people. Recalling what he did to her previously, taunting her with that knife for over an hour - I don't think he did this quickly. God only knows how long he might have held her at gun point and made her do whatever....and then made her kneel down and executed her.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

She clearly had a great deal of affection for Kathleen....and felt very upset about her passing. She was the one who other friends/classmates of Kathleen contacted to talk about the possibility of a homicide. I am just remembering that as she left the witness stand the first day of testimony, she nodded her head to Drew. That doesn't mean one way or the other, but I wouldn't even be looking his way if I thought that he was guilty.
She said about their "pasta Sundays" that Drew was "always welcome"....which was kind and friendly-like, but was of course before the investigation and all that followed. .....I would presume that she would think he was guilty but I really don't know. Any thoughts, WS fans:waitasec:?

I am just remembering Casey Anthony's brother giving Casey a little wave and a smile as he left the witness stand. Juries pick up on that kind of stuff

 

[ChickenPants]

I don’t feel good about the testimony of the hitman and the pastor. I thought the hitman’s testimony was very weak and vague when it could have much stronger if he really had anything of substance to say. As for the pastor, the whole scenario doesn’t set right with me. What pastor councils with someone but insists on it being in a public place. I’ve talked with many pastors in my lifetime and have never once had one suggest we meet in public let alone him bring a witness along to watch us. Something just isn’t right and it has nothing to do with DP.

BBM; from my understanding, he reported what DP had said to him. It's a small miracle he was able to even get that in with the defense kicking and screaming and then trying to discredit him. But wasn't he described as calm, cool and sticking to his story?

I think pros. was limited as to what they could ask and how they could ask it, and he was limited to what he could say, no? Keeping in mind the numerous times the judge has scolded and yelled at prosecutors when a witness slipped up and told the truth. So can you define in your thoughts what "in substance" he might have said that would have made his testimony stronger? Thanks.

 

[ChickenPants]

With all the problems lately with priests being brought up on molestation and sexual abuse charges I think the precautions the minister took were appropriate. It's possible this man is attractive and has had some close encounters with some overly eager women who were willing to share their marital problems with him in the past and wanted him to "comfort" them. He has the right to protect himself. If Stacy was not okay with it she would have said so. Also he could have just happened to run into her at the coffee shop and sat down to talk with her and that is the way it would appear to many who were running in and out to get coffee. Who tries to hide in open public. Most people would not give it a second thought. It is not always the minister who wants to meet in a public place. Sometimes it is the person who wants advice because they feel more at ease in a public place. So it a mutual agreement, I'm sure. Certainly no one twisted Stacy's arm to meet him there. jmo

When you think about it, it's a shame that we even have to discuss this issue. And why is this? Nobody would have thought of it at all if the defense had not brought it up to try to smear Stacey Peterson and her pastor. Who cares where they met? The point is she MET WITH HIM TO TELL HIM ABOUT DREW! So defense puts up a smoke screen with every single witness and deflects the attention off of the murderer again. Muddy the waters so people (jury) will have their heads spinning over who did what and why when NOBODY but DP should be scrutinized.

 

[Wishbone]

BBM; from my understanding, he reported what DP had said to him. It's a small miracle he was able to even get that in with the defense kicking and screaming and then trying to discredit him. But wasn't he described as calm, cool and sticking to his story?

I think pros. was limited as to what they could ask and how they could ask it, and he was limited to what he could say, no? Keeping in mind the numerous times the judge has scolded and yelled at prosecutors when a witness slipped up and told the truth. So can you define in your thoughts what "in substance" he might have said that would have made his testimony stronger? Thanks.

Here for starter......
Pachter conceded he had a hard time telling if Peterson was serious about a hit man, agreeing that Peterson often joked around and was typically calm, no matter the situation.

Peterson never provided a picture of Savio, didn't tell Pachter her address or offer suggestions about how to kill her, Pachter said during cross-examination.



Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/drew-peterson-murder-trial-day-14-167168645.html#ixzz24aMcVfhI

 

[ChickenPants]

head though experts have said that it was a blunt force trauma that was not the result of her hitting her head but someone else striking her....Reason would dictate that it certainly does suggest that it was Drew (and I think that it was to be sure) but we don't have proof that it was him. (such as DNA, fingerprints, etc).
The case of the disappearing and reappearing towel does suggest crime scene changes...but it was never treated as a crime scene. He was there cleaning (*cough cough* destroying evidence) shortly after the police departed.
It is a reasonable assumption....so I agree with you, but it isn't hard scientific fact or eye witness accounts.

NOBODY BUT DP HAD A MOTIVE. Defense has tried to keep the money motive out. But it's been made crystal clear that DP had it in for her. So whether it was money, jealousy, ill-will, just plain meanness or even psychosis, DP is the only one.

I find it very interesting that defense is sticking with the theory of the accident. When her body was exhumed, they could have pulled an O.J. and claimed somebody else killed her. And THEY could have blamed LE for not investigating the death properly, causing a later rush to judgment on him. But they knew that all roads would lead to Drew. It's so obvious and simple.

 

[Mama-cita]

FWIW Kathleen's family said she kept her nails long.

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/drew-peterson-trial-day-eleven/

.... Mitchell examined both Savio's fingers and toe nails as being “short and clean.” ...

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/drew-peterson-trial-day-ten/


Sounds like the killer clipped her nails. imo

That's very possible, but she was also in nursing school and may have had to keep her nails groomed shorter. When I was in nursing school we were told to keep them short and nail polish was frowned upon, acrylic nails were banned as these were all things that could transmit nosocomial infections. But it is also very plausible that she scratched him during the struggle and he needed to get rid of the evidence.

 

[ChickenPants]

But he said he placed bags over Savio's hands to preserve evidence in case her death was later ruled a homicide.

"When we left there, we didn’t really know what happened to her," he said



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...07_1_robert-deel-drew-peterson-kathleen-savio[/QUOTE]

 

[katydid23]

Here for starter......
Pachter conceded he had a hard time telling if Peterson was serious about a hit man, agreeing that Peterson often joked around and was typically calm, no matter the situation.

Peterson never provided a picture of Savio, didn't tell Pachter her address or offer suggestions about how to kill her, Pachter said during cross-examination.



Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/drew-peterson-murder-trial-day-14-167168645.html#ixzz24aMcVfhI

BBM

They had not gotten that far yet. Pachter had not agreed to do it or to find someone to do it. If he had, then maybe a picture and an address would have been given to him.

As for the joking around, imo, if Drew was joking, he would have said so at some point. He was driving around in his patrol car in uniform. So that adds a bit of credibility to the request, imo.