SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

[SoBeCzar]

people and manipulate situations. The defense team can try to laugh off the hitman as being opportunistic all they want, but c'mon, really? Did he really seek out the public spot light about this case? He really wanted to have his past history of gambling and a sex offender status made more public?
I hope that the PT drives home EVERY point in their closing arguments.
If you want to accept the happy go lucky gangstas or you want to accept the sad reality of the factual testimony....

Even the pastor......he may indeed feel some measure of guilt that he let Stacy go home to a murderer. He may very well feel that he didn't stand up enough......but really, he was taking Stacy's safety into consideration. She didn't want to tip off Drew that she was talking about him and was spilling the beans. It was a very bizarre crazy situation that I am sure that he has replayed in his mind over and over again. Did this case give him anything in return? NO. I imagine that it has been a source of mental anguish and deep regret for him.......it must have been terrifying to hear her tell him about her husband and then for her to go missing. He actually has a soul and a moral conscience.....
If they muddy him up it is only going to serve to make them look worse.
Even if Stacy was looking to seduce the Pastor (which I don't think was the case), it doesn't take away the veracity of her statements. IT just would further show her to be a desparate young woman looking for answers and comfort.

We are lucky that the judge allowed them both to say as much as they did, but some things were still struck that could have packed even more of a punch. I hope that the jury knows that they are receiving watered down testimony, but who knows what they are thinking.....
So many smoke screens in that room and loud, loud disruptive OBJECTIONS, sidebars, and poptarts that I wonder if they have been able to really, really process all of this information effectively. :maddening:


Drew is a major :butthead: and deserves to be in :jail: for the rest of his days here on earth.

The defense team are nothing but a bunch of cocky blowhards:cool2: who are
aggressive, flashy and trashy.
How do those people sleep at night?
Stacy who? in unison..........OHhhhhh that Stacy. .:curses:

:moo: toujours simply my opinion

QUOTE=SoBeCzar;8300816]The hit man testified that he had some problems getting a job and Drew found that he was getting a FBI hit coming back on his record. Drew was supposed to fix that for the "hitman". So I think Drew thought it was a little tit for tat situation with money to sweeten the deal.

[/QUOTE]

I believe the jury will be as repulsed as we were about the way the DF has belittled witnesses. Like when they asked the pastor if he always embarrasses people by meeting in public. Or continuously pushing the idea that drugs caused Kathleens to fall after it has been said she did not have drugs in her system and a fall would not have caused the head injury. The jury is said to be 50 to 60 yr olds. They know a pastor has to be careful about accusations of impropriety. They know a con artist. And when they read the Letter they will recognize a dangerous bully.

 

[AbbieNormal]

I believe the jury will be as repulsed as we were about the way the DF has belittled witnesses. Like when they asked the pastor if he always embarrasses people by meeting in public. Or continuously pushing the idea that drugs caused Kathleens to fall after it has been said she did not have drugs in her system and a fall would not have caused the head injury. The jury is said to be 50 to 60 yr olds. They know a pastor has to be careful about accusations of impropriety. They know a con artist. And when they read the Letter they will recognize a dangerous bully.[/QUOTE]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I so fervently hope you are right. I didn't know the average age of the jurors, so thank you for that. It gives me a little peace of mind. I am really dreading Monday. So much so that just thinking about it while eating fruit tonight has given me bad heartburn. Surprised I don't have an ulcer by now this trial has been weighing so heavily on my heart, sympathy for Kathleen and Stacy always in my heart and mind.

All JMO

abbie

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Tonight 9 PM Eastern I have the honor of being on the Levi Page Spree Cast.

http://www.spreecast.com/events/fridays-with-tricia-griffith-2

Drew Peterson is one of the topics of the show. Join us won't you? :woohoo:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bumping

 

[Tugela]

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.

I don't see how you can differentiate between an inanimate object hitting you and an animate one. They will both produce exactly the same injury if the hit has the same force (which would be expected if someone fell as opposed to being hit - both actions woudl generate approximately the same force).

Also, all the injuries to her left side are consistent with her falling heavily to the left.

 

[Tugela]

I believe he removed the clothes because of possible blood and DNA evidence. She had a scalp laceration and those bleed profusely because the scalp is full of capillaries. That blood didn't stay contained to her hair, I can guarantee. A few weeks ago my son pulled a chin up bar down on his head and only got about a half inch gash. It soaked two towels full of blood and the bathroom looked like a slaughterhouse. I am sure whatever clothes Kathleen was wearing when she was ambushed were taken from the scene. For all we know he took sheets,towels, who knows? Clearly the imbeciles who investigated weren't interested in any facts.

Unless she was in the bath and not wearing any clothes. Then there would be no blood on the clothes. Or anything else for that matter. There was no evidence of blood anywhere other than where she fell.

Also, unless you shear an artery or significant blood vessel, there won't be much blood. It also wouldnt be on whatever she hit her head against, because again you would require penetration of a signifcant blood vessel for that to happen.

 

[Mama-cita]

Does anyone know why Baden did not testify? Anyone think they may be saving him for their rebuttal case since DT is planning on having 3 "doctors" testify

 

[Mama-cita]

Unless she was in the bath and not wearing any clothes. Then there would be no blood on the clothes. Or anything else for that matter. There was no evidence of blood anywhere other than where she fell.

Also, unless you shear an artery or significant blood vessel, there won't be much blood. It also wouldnt be on whatever she hit her head against, because again you would require penetration of a signifcant blood vessel for that to happen.

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.

 

[Wishbone]

Does anyone know why Baden did not testify? Anyone think they may be saving him for their rebuttal case since DT is planning on having 3 "doctors" testify

Sorry I don't know what is happening with him. But, as far as I'm concerned if I never hear from Baden, Lee or Spitz again it will be too soon.

 

[katydid23]

Unless she was in the bath and not wearing any clothes. Then there would be no blood on the clothes. Or anything else for that matter. There was no evidence of blood anywhere other than where she fell.

Also, unless you shear an artery or significant blood vessel, there won't be much blood. It also wouldnt be on whatever she hit her head against, because again you would require penetration of a signifcant blood vessel for that to happen.

Of course there was no evidence of blood---it was all cleaned up.

And, imo, one does not to 'penetrate a significant blood vessel' in order for there to be a lot of bleeding. My friend's son got hit in the head by a rock while the kids were throwing them into the lake, and it made a shallow one inch gash on the back of his head, no major blood vessels involved, and there was a lot of blood flowing. His shirt was nearly drenched.

eta: and that was just in the amount of time it took for the kids to run to the cabin for help and for an adult to hold it closed with pressure.

 

[Mama-cita]

I don't see how you can differentiate between an inanimate object hitting you and an animate one. They will both produce exactly the same injury if the hit has the same force (which would be expected if someone fell as opposed to being hit - both actions woudl generate approximately the same force).

Also, all the injuries to her left side are consistent with her falling heavily to the left.

Sorry but once again unless you have some proof of what you are saying (ie
that a fall and blunt force trauma would produce the SAME injury) I'm going to go with the opinion of the medical experts and my own training and over 15 years of being a nurse. A fall would result in a far worse injury because of
simple physics of it, especially if the person who fell made no attempts to "catch themselves." In a fall, force =
mass x acceleration. If she had fallen, unimpeded, and struck her head, the resulting injury would have resulted
in damage to her brain, which she didn't have.

ETA: I am referring to a "fall" which was not broken in anyway, the person didn't try to "brace themselves" on an object to slow the fall, and no objects stopped or softened the fall. If KS had fallen and tried to catch herself, you would have seen bottles knocked over etc.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

wasn't anything around in the bathroom that would have caused a wound like that. When my beloved father took a terrible fall in the bathroom there was COPIOUS amounts of blood all over even though the wound itself was very small. That is just the way it is with head injuries. There is simply NO WAY that she hit her head without leaving a blood bath in the bathroom.....it would have been all over the tile, the tub, even the walls. Not being a forensics expert, I can't speak to the difference between a wound that is brought about by an inanimate or an animate object but a forensics expert who is only one of 12 in the country who has her particular board certification said that Kathleen's injuries were like that of a car accident in severity, resulting in internal bleeding.
That wouldn't have happened from a little slip in the tub, nor would a gash to the head not produce massive amounts of blood on the scene.
That in itself speaks of a cover up IMO.

You raise an interesting discussion between blunt force trauma by an inaminate or an animate object, but I think that was determined by the doctor who spoke to the direction of the wound, its depth, etc....I don't know...I can't make that distinction myself but the lack of blood, the blood on her face, the direction that she was in the tub.....all add up to a crime scene, not the scene of an accident.
I really don't think that hitting your own head and being hit would necessarily produce the same amount of force by a long-shot. When you hit yourself you have reflexes and nerve endings that tell you to stop whereas being struck you have much less control....blunt force is different I think,

I could kill you and make it look like an accident" Drew Peterson

MOO

I don't see how you can differentiate between an inanimate object hitting you and an animate one. They will both produce exactly the same injury if the hit has the same force (which would be expected if someone fell as opposed to being hit - both actions woudl generate approximately the same force).

Also, all the injuries to her left side are consistent with her falling heavily to the left.

 

[Wishbone]

Sorry but once again unless you have some proof of what you are saying (ie
that a fall and blunt force trauma would produce the SAME injury) I'm going to go with the opinion of the medical experts and my own training and over 15 years of being a nurse. A fall would result in a far worse injury because of
simple physics of it, especially if the person who fell made no attempts to "catch themselves." In a fall, force =
mass x acceleration. If she had fallen, unimpeded, and struck her head, the resulting injury would have resulted
in damage to her brain, which she didn't have.

ETA: I am referring to a "fall" which was not broken in anyway, the person didn't try to "brace themselves" on an object to slow the fall, and no objects stopped or softened the fall. If KS had fallen and tried to catch herself, you would have seen bottles knocked over etc.

A fall is considered blunt force

 

[katydid23]

I don't see how you can differentiate between an inanimate object hitting you and an animate one. They will both produce exactly the same injury if the hit has the same force (which would be expected if someone fell as opposed to being hit - both actions woudl generate approximately the same force).

Also, all the injuries to her left side are consistent with her falling heavily to the left.

The experts testified that there was no evidence of ANYTHING on scene that could have created that gash in her head. They said that even if she had fallen, there was nothing that would have left that type of wound. It did not match the side of the tub and there were no sharp protruding objects in place.

 

[LambChop]

I don't see how you can differentiate between an inanimate object hitting you and an animate one. They will both produce exactly the same injury if the hit has the same force (which would be expected if someone fell as opposed to being hit - both actions woudl generate approximately the same force).

Also, all the injuries to her left side are consistent with her falling heavily to the left.

If she fell into a tub of water why would she have injuries on her left side?? It's water?????? A natural instinct would be to put your arms out to prevent your fall yet her arms are down inside the tub. She's in a position not consistent with a fall and all the items around the tub were not disturbed. Plus I guess an ME can tell the difference in the wound and my guess is how she ended up was not consistent with the injury on the back of her head.

What really surprises me is there DP was cleaning up and removing items from the home shortly after they removed her body and long before it was ruled an accidential death. How would he know it would be ruled an accident? And there he is cleaning out the tub, taking money from her purse, removing articles from the home, etc. Do you think one of his supervisors would have told him not to go back to the house until he had a police escort and/or the investigation was completed? Apparently they did not. jmo

 

[Wishbone]

The experts testified that there was no evidence of ANYTHING on scene that could have created that gash in her head. They said that even if she had fallen, there was nothing that would have left that type of wound. It did not match the side of the tub and there were no sharp protruding objects in place.

Get ready for three experts to say just the opposite.

 

[katydid23]

Get ready for three experts to say just the opposite.

I am sure they will. I am curious to hear what they have to say.

 

[Wishbone]

I am sure they will. I am curious to hear what they have to say.

After the last several trials I watched I have become disgusted by "experts". I seriously doubt any of them have an ounce of integrity. It will be interesting to see how the defense spins their views.......

 

[Mama-cita]

A fall is considered blunt force

Yes, but the quote I was posting was in
reference to blunt force being inflicted (but OP states animate versus inanimate force, which I took to mean inflicted as animate and fall or accident as inanimate as KS would have hit an inanimate object). A fall is not "inflicted", it's accidental (usually). Those are two VERY different things that would cause vastly different injuries.

 

[vickij222]

I just got done watching Jeanine Pirro's show about this case. She is very strong about the prosecution not being able to present some vital information.

Here's hoping that the jurors can piece it all together and see what really happened. Only then will Drew get what he deserves - a guilty verdict!

 

[Wishbone]

Yes, but the quote I was posting was in
reference to blunt force being inflicted. A fall is not "inflicted", it's accidental (usually). Those are two VERY different things that would cause vastly different injuries.

You may be able to tell the difference in many case but not all cases.....