SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

[Mama-cita]

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.

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.

 

[ChickenPants]

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:

I am so sorry for what happened to you and so many other women. I have not personally encountered that level of physical violence but have dealt with taunts and threats and having everything taken away but my children. I think a lot about what Kathleen must have gone through, and Stacey as well. Apparently he liked to charm women...but why marry them? Why put them through that and then manipulate and terrorize them? He truly is pathological. I pray also that the jury will see through the defense tricks and strategies and IMO the law DOES support a conviction, there is NOTHING in the law that says a jury cannot convict on circumstantial evidence, together with a defendant's history of preponderance toward anti-social and criminal behaviors. IMO one of the worst flaws in our "justice" system is disallowing evidence of prior bad acts at trials. The fact is a person is the measure of their actions. This man is dangerous. I mean, it is possible that he has killed two women!

The jury has the power to convict. I pray they will use that power and render him powerless, finally.

 

[Wishbone]

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.

To me, the witness doesn't sound like he knew if he should take DP serious or not. That makes his testimony weak as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mama-cita]

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.

Totally agree with you katydid! He was feeling him out. He wasn't going to lay his cards out with anything Pachter could have used against him. Can you imagine if he had given a photo, address,etc? Drew was much smarter than that. This was a very dirty cop. He knew exactly what to do as not to get caught or have anything traced back to him.

 

[ChickenPants]

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

I see what you are saying, but IMO he was just answering the questions asked. Prosecutors could have come back on re-direct and spun that in a different direction. I am frustrated with this because they have their hands tied and because of a few slip-ups, they have MISTRIAL hanging over their heads. We may note that the defense do not have to be so careful. No, indeed...they can blurt out whatever in their circus-like atmosphere, badgering the witnesses and posturing and dancing around. My heartfelt prayer is this will come back and bite them in the A$$. I understand why pros. may feel intimidated but I am hoping when defense case comes on they will bulldoze the truth out of every witness on cross examination.

 

[ChickenPants]

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.

I'd think if he tried to remove her clothes after killing her, such as pulling a shirt up over her head, he'd risk blood smearing all around. He would have had to lay her down somewhere to do it. It seems that when he finally killed her, he did it quickly and violently. I don't think he would have bothered to strip her clothes off. For some reason I just think he made her take them off before he killed her.

 

[katydid23]

To me, the witness doesn't sound like he knew if he should take DP serious or not. That makes his testimony weak as far as I'm concerned.

If a cop asks an acquaintance to come on a ride along so they can talk, and then brings up the issue of offering 25 grand for 'taking care of' his ex wife, why would someone assume it was just a joke?

Also, you have to take it in context with the other evidence. The letter which Stacy wrote to the DA, listing the threats and the violence, and the dead bolt on her bedroom door, when added to the testimony, strengthen the credibility, imo.

 

[Wishbone]

I see what you are saying, but IMO he was just answering the questions asked. Prosecutors could have come back on re-direct and spun that in a different direction. I am frustrated with this because they have their hands tied and because of a few slip-ups, they have MISTRIAL hanging over their heads. We may note that the defense do not have to be so careful. No, indeed...they can blurt out whatever in their circus-like atmosphere, badgering the witnesses and posturing and dancing around. My heartfelt prayer is this will come back and bite them in the A$$. I understand why pros. may feel intimidated but I am hoping when defense case comes on they will bulldoze the truth out of every witness on cross examination.

I'm just assessing how strong the testimony of the witnesses comes across to me for all the reasons cited. I'm trying to figure out how strong the PT case is.

 

[Wishbone]

If a cop asks an acquaintance to come on a ride along so they can talk, and then brings up the issue of offering 25 grand for 'taking care of' his ex wife, why would someone assume it was just a joke?

Not my words...have to ask the "hitman" why he said that.........

 

[katydid23]

Not my words...have to ask the "hitman" why he said that.........

I understand. He said he was not sure if it was a joke. But the jurors have to decide for themselves if it was a joke or not. And given the circumstances, the threats and the other attacks by him, and the fact that he had him come on a ride along, when he asked him that, and then never said it was a joke, would make me as a juror believe it was not a joke. JMO

 

[lonetraveler]

Technically I do agree with you from a purely legal standpoint. One thing we have seen is that the defense has pulled out all stops manipulating the system, getting away with "murder" as they say because the judge sustains their objections and makes pro-defense rulings. The jury is also told to disregard this or that ... I don't think that is possible in the larger context. They can't convict on something they are ordered to disregard, but it can percolate in their consciousness as part of the big picture.

The jury is charged to listen to the evidence and come to a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. I think the key word is "reasonable". IMO they can convict him on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence by common sense deductions, including the same "lack of evidence" that proves she drowned because of AN ACCIDENT. The crime scene (even if not processed by CSI) lacks evidence to prove she was planning on bathing or bathing (where were her discarded clothes?) and the so-called medical history is sketchy and unconvincing.

Put that together with the threats, the letters, the conversation with the pastor, those not being just random occurrences. The elephant in the room: The 4th wife who can't testify herself because either nobody can find her or she doesn't want to be found might not stand on it's own but it's like the pinch of yeast in the dough, without it the bread falls flat.

We have an idea of WHO did it, but the defense is fighting to keep out the WHY. This is the next piece jury might be struggling to fit into that puzzle, BUT by virtue of the fact that the defense CONSTANTLY objects to every potential witness or piece of evidence, I, as a juror am thinking: What's the problem? Let ME listen to this and decide. Otherwise you are trying to hide something you don't want me to hear. My next logical thought would be to figure this hidden information fits into all of the above.

The sticking point is proving where, how and when this happened. Surely the first autopsy revealed approximate time of death, etc. She drowned. Well it's difficult to drown in a dry bathtub and you can deduce approximate times by her hair being wet with blood that is still coagulating. Dried blood has had time to dry and wet blood indicating it would have been sooner.

I am hoping the prosecution will put their theory of the murder itself out in their closing argument. As a juror, I am convinced that DP did it, I just want to know how....but I don't need to know. Because I know that woman did not end up curled up in a round bathtub on her own and she was not taking a bath, and I think it's more than a coincidence that a fourth wife is not around to tell us why SHE was anxious to leave this monster, as well...

:clap::clap::clap::goodpost:

 

[AngelWings444]

Maybe Kathleen's clothes were on the floor in the bedroom or bathroom, when she was hit on the head. There would have been blood on the clothes whether or not she was wearing them.

I believe the testimony of the Pastor was huge. IMO - it's not one thing that points to DP's guilt, it's a combination of all the evidence. I'm hoping the jury sees it the same way. I don't believe the defense has helped DP with their antics, and the way they have treated the witnesses.

 

[Wishbone]

I understand. He said he was not sure if it was a joke. But the jurors have to decide for themselves if it was a joke or not. And given the circumstances, the threats and the other attacks by him, and the fact that he had him come on a ride along, when he asked him that, and then never said it was a joke, would make me as a juror believe it was not a joke. JMO

“You also told the grand jurors, ‘I didn’t think he was really serious about it’?” “No, I do not remember saying that.”This portion of the grand jury transcript is read back. “Do you remember giving that answer?” “I do remember the question... yes, that’s the answer I gave.”


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...estimony+transcript&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[Wishbone]

I understand. He said he was not sure if it was a joke. But the jurors have to decide for themselves if it was a joke or not. And given the circumstances, the threats and the other attacks by him, and the fact that he had him come on a ride along, when he asked him that, and then never said it was a joke, would make me as a juror believe it was not a joke. JMO

Grand jury testimony....


I didn’t think he was really serious about it

 

[MrsPC]

I was watching all the various interviews that Drew Peterson has given (found on youtube.com) and one interview in particular just really struck me on how pitiful this is for all the children involved.

Drew was asked about how the kids were all coping (with Kathleen's death, with Stacy's disappearance, etc)....and he said "it's become *commonplace* for the kids." He was so nonchalant about it.

It really saddens me thinking about these kids dealing with this and the fact that their own father is most likely responsible for their pain.

 

[TxLady2]

Thinking out of the box of what the Black and White meant by the jury? A stereotypical Priest wears black with a white collar. Did they show solidarity to the Priest that testified the day before?

Did they were other colors of witnesses? Has anyone inside the court room notated what color they were wearing? Just a thought.

Not Catholic, so not a priest. He was a pastor of the church Stacy and Drew attended.

 

[panthera]

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.

I believe her hair soaked up most of the blood, however, or he would have spent quite a lot of time thoroughly cleaning the house. That is why I also believe the head injury could have occurred in the bathroom where it would be much easier to clean than the bed or carpeted bedroom. Despite luminol likely not being used inside the residence, DP couldn't take any chances if he intended it to appear as if Kathleen hit her head in the tub and drowned. He couldn't guarantee in advance that the investigators would be so inept.

MOO

 

[TxLady2]

I'd like to know who planted this stupid idea to the jury. Most jurors in murder cases take their jobs very seriously. The fact that they're all participating in this silliness makes me wonder if someone planted the idea and told them it would be ok and they wouldn't get into trouble or it wouldn't effect the outcome of the trial, etc.

Why would they want to bring attention to themselves? Is it to distract the court proceedings? Intimidate the witnesses? I don't like this game at all!!!

I don't like it either, n/t... I think it's disrespectful of the court, and it could get them all thrown off the jury for misconduct and the whole trial would have to start over. I am very surprised that someone hasn't brought this up to the judge.

 

[katydid23]

Grand jury testimony....


I didn’t think he was really serious about it

But just because the listener did not know if the statement was for real, it does not mean it wasn't. Just because the guy said he was not sure if it was a joke, that doesn't mean it WAS a joke. It is up to the jury to decide if it was a real offer.

 

[Wishbone]

But just because the listener did not know if the statement was for real, it does not mean it wasn't. Just because the guy said he was not sure if it was a joke, that doesn't mean it WAS a joke. It is up to the jury to decide if it was a real offer.

IMO he was a weak witness. What the jury does with that is something I can't call.