SIDEBAR to the Drew Peterson trial

[Mama-cita]

We went over to the Belterra Casino in Indiana Friday and ate at Jeff Ruby's restaurant. Oh, so good! I never would have thought Jeff Ruby would get himself involved in this case. Amazing how paths cross in life.

The pictures of the steaks on his restaurant website made me nearly eat my iPad. I'm so jealous you got to eat there. I love a nice juicy steak!

 

[Mama-cita]

There is court today, right?

 

[Jackson44]

The pictures of the steaks on his restaurant website made me nearly eat my iPad. I'm so jealous you got to eat there. I love a nice juicy steak!

My husband went for the steak and I got the lobster. Ohhhh what a treat! They both were delicious!

 

[Shelby1]

New thread for this week here :

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183023"]Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Shelby1]

There is court today, right?

Yes

 

[Niner]

YIKES! I just did a very LONG post, and it said the Thread was closed - so I HAVE to post it here...

:denied: :denied:

Seems like the judge was pretty fair to both sides on the jury instruction requests as a whole. What do you guys think?

Wellllll... since you asked!!! :dance:

In Session Attorney Joel Brodsky addresses the Court regarding the first proposed instruction. The defense wants extra language in a standard instruction telling jurors not to let sympathy or prejudice influence their deliberations. Prosecutor Koch argues against the modified language. Brodsky: “The jury should be aware that [punishment] is not for them to worry about.” Judge: “The version submitted by the State is a correct statement of the law. The defendant’s modified [version] is denied.”...
he case law in Illinois is completely clear that these instructions should not be modified, unless there’s a significant reason to modify them . . . we did give the instruction before the trial started . . . over the defendant’s objection, the instruction will not be modified, and it will be given to the jury in writing.”

:denied:

In Session The defense has an objection to the next instruction, which Greenberg says is confusing. This apparently involves “statements” (but whether they’re media statements or hearsay statements is unclear, according to the defense). Brodsky proposes that the word “hearsay” be inserted in front of “statements,” . . . I think it’s a correct statement of the law, and the defendant’s objections are overruled.”

:denied:

The defense objects to the next proposed instruction, “the issues instruction.” Greenberg: “The indictment charges he intended to kill . . . it does not charge he intended to kill or do great bodily harm . . . this indictment is very specific in that he alleges that he caused her to inhale fluid . . . I think that the instruction is a correct statement of the law, and with no precedential support for the objection that Mr. Peterson is making, the modification is denied, and the instruction will be given as stated.”... Greenberg asks for a motion in limine, asking that the State be precluded from arguing any other theory except that Kathleen Savio was forced to inhale fluid. For the moment, the motion is denied, but may be brought up again later.

:denied:

The judge now moves to the concluding instructions. The defense objects to the verdict forms, but the judge overrules that objection. . . . so the defendant’s motion is denied; they will not be re-read to the jury. And if they are, any modifications will be up to the Court.” Greenberg: “Can we still argue these things?” Judge: Absolutely.”

:denied:

The next proposed defense instruction concerns a definition of “reasonable doubt,” ... “There is no better definition of ‘reasonable doubt’ than the words themselves. No definition of reasonable doubt will be given in this case.”

:denied:

The question of the proposed defense instruction regarding “impeachment by omission” is once again addressed. “I tend to agree with the State . . . the parties can argue the inferences that can be drawn by the omission. So the defendant’s proposed instruction is denied.”

:denied:

The next proposed defense instruction involves “failure to produce evidence or a witness.” . . . I think it would only be confusing, and the defendant’s proposed instruction is denied.”

:denied:

Greenberg offers the next proposed defense instruction, which concerns “the implication that Mr. Peterson might be a beneficiary of some kind . . . Judge: “The defendant’s instruction will not be given. The evidence in this case in regards to the issue of what the defendant’s posture would be post-divorce and in advance of the property distribution, I think, is irrelevant . . . this instruction is one that goes toward evidence, and not the law in this case . . . so I don’t see any need for this instruction at all; it’s not an accurate statement of the law, as it’s applicable in this case. So it will not be given.”

:denied:

The State objects to the next proposed defense instruction, saying it’s irrelevant. Brodsky responds: “This goes to correct a misstatement of the law that Mr. Smith gave from the stand.”...Judge: “You [the defense] called him . . . you called this witness . . . there’s nothing I can see that the State did to augment or embellish Mr. Smith’s testimony. The defendant’s proposed instruction is denied . . . there was no request for a sidebar, no request that the Court correct the information. So the relief the defendant seeks in the form of a jury instruction is denied.”

:denied:

Brodsky proposes the next defense special instruction (regarding accusations of witnesses of wrongdoing by the defendant). ... Judge: “I understand the argument that the defendant is making . . . I think the instructions as a whole address the issue that the defendant is concerned about . . . that objection is overruled, and will not be given.”

:denied:

Judge: “A circumstantial case is built much like a house, brick by brick . . . the defense argues that this case comes down to the experts; there’s no disagreement about that . . . at the same time, the jurors are entitled to ignore all the experts and rely on their common sense . . . but a reasonable person could return such a verdict. So the defendant’s motion is denied.”

:denied:

:bedtime:

fftobed:

 

[wishinuall]

:what: Hmmm, :waitasec: Where :notgood:did everyone go? :what: I'm SO confused! Does anybody have some directions from here :abduction: to where you are?! :uthere: (Great post Niner!)

YIKES! I just did a very LONG post, and it said the Thread was closed - so I HAVE to post it here...



Wellllll... since you asked!!! :dance:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:



:denied:

:bedtime:

fftobed:

 

[Madeleine74]

I see 2 hurdles to get to a guilty verdict:

1. The easier of the 2 - did KS die due to an accident or due to a homicide? Plenty of testimony to determine it was a death at the hands of someone else.

2. Did DP cause KS's death? This one is the tougher of the 2 hurdles, IMO. There's no forensic evidence to tie him to the murder and no physical evidence either. Like most murder cases there was no eye witness and no video of the murder, thus it's a "circumstantial case." That doesn't automatically mean a weak case, but it does mean that each piece needs to be put together to form what hopefully will be a full picture of "who done it."

If the jurors can get past the "CSI effect" of expecting a forensic trail ending with a big bloody fingerprint pointing right at the perp, and if they put together each of the witness' testimony about what they saw, or what they heard or what they were told, they can get past this hurdle.

However, it's also possible a jury may decline to convict, even believing that DP probably committed the murder but not convinced the state reached their burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And sadly, some people still think they have to have proof beyond "a shadow of a doubt," or "beyond all doubt whatsoever, no matter what." No matter how many times they hear the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt," they cling to the Hollywood/TV lore "shadow of a doubt," which was never a legal standard!

Stacey's words and actions will hopefully be believed since she herself became a victim of Drew Peterson. She's not there to corroborate her words, but she had 2 strong advocates who did talk to her directly and did listen and did convey what she said, verbatim. I hope the jury found those witnesses credible. They had no reason to lie. They may think Stacey could have lied, but then again, going to talk to a pastor is very different than talking to a lawyer to strategize a divorce. Clearly Stacey felt threatened and for good reason (the big pink elephant in the courtroom).

 

[SoBeCzar]

Madeleine, I agree the issues with this case are whether it was murder or an accident and if Drew did it. But I think if you find it to be murder, Drew is the only person it would be. Even considering a stranger or any kind of perp one might think of. And since it was testified even by the defense witnesses that he was killer the jury should not have any doubt.
I think making the decision it is murder would be the harder issue to surmount due to the opposing expert testimony. Personally I have gotten where I don't put much stock in these experts as they seem to testify for money and fame. Their opinions seem to discount or play up evidence to fit their stance. And the more famous they become the more jobs they get testifying, the more money they rake in. They are selling out. I feel that it should be a rule that they can get paid to re-autopsy a body but not get paid for their testimony. Or set a standard rate for them which is reasonable. I'm basing my opinion it is murder on my own doubts of an accident and common sense about the circumstance surrounding her death and the state and condition of her body in that tiny tub. It would be so much easier if we could trust the experts.
JMO

 

[ACandyRose]

Niner, just an FYI, I did find the reference where I first read regarding your STATS. During the trial I was following In Session along with about 4 Twitters. It was on the facsmiley Twitter page for the Justice Cafe Blog. I made a screen capture of it below. Now that I re-read it, I can see they didn't actually say the Stats were done by YOU, but were commenting on the Twitter that "someone" brought them to their Blog from Websleuths. I agree and understand that the "someone" should have given you credit as that was a LOT of work on your part. But WE all know where they came from. :woohoo:

ACR

 

[WindyCityGirl]

This one says:

"
KATHLEEN and STACY --(this was in big bold letters)

Didn't choose the way that they died

As Americans, however, we have the right to choose the way we live.
Unfortunately, the Defendant chose his way.

Many years ago, I chose to help families whose lives had been torn apart by the senseless loss of loved ones.

Thank you for supporting these two families, for joining me in wanting to see that justice is done and for your kind words.

I Refuse To Waver From Who I Am.

Jeff Ruby

Isn't he wonderful?

 

[Wishbone]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-closing-0902-20120902,0,6989298.story


Prosecutor Chris Koch will give the state's closing argument, with State's Attorney James Glasgow providing the final words as he rebuts Lopez's remarks to jurors.

 

[ACandyRose]

This one says:

"
KATHLEEN and STACY --(this was in big bold letters)

Didn't choose the way that they died

As Americans, however, we have the right to choose the way we live.
Unfortunately, the Defendant chose his way.

Many years ago, I chose to help families whose lives had been torn apart by the senseless loss of loved ones.

Thank you for supporting these two families, for joining me in wanting to see that justice is done and for your kind words.

I Refuse To Waver From Who I Am.

Jeff Ruby

Isn't he wonderful?

Any chance of getting a scan of this ad? Please lease:

I'd love to put it on my web site and give Jeff Ruby a little free advertising

If you can scan it but can't post it here, can you send it to me at [email protected] ?

ACR

Never Mind, Thanks, I found it on Google

 

[WindyCityGirl]

didn't follow up on the information that was given to them.
The defense pressed them that it was because they "didn't believe it"

It was my understanding though, that Harry Smith was only told about Drew Peterson having murdered Kathleen just four days before Stacy went missing.
She had said to him that she (that is Stacy) had too much ***** on him for him to do anything to her.
Similarly, Rev. Schori said that Stacy asked him *not* to say or do anything.

The pastor (Rev.Schori) did come forward when Stacy went missing though. I don't know the sequence of events with Harry Smith though--when he revealed what Stacy had said to him and under what circumstances. That would be interesting to know. Does anyone have information on this issue, please?


I think that Stacy was scared but felt that things were under control enough that she could plot her course of action to leave Drew safely.
Rather than extorting Drew for more money about a fabricated story of murder, I think that she wanted to secure money for her family and wanted to make sure that if indeed he was charged and indicted that she would have some money to live on. It was a practical consideration, rather than a deviant one. She was probably afraid that any charge and conviction would drain his resources to the point where she wouldn't be able to provide for her family

I do feel sorry for Stacy. I don't think it is admirable that she had an affair with a married man, but he was an adult and she was an underage minor--it was for HIM to set appropriate boundaries and not cross the line with a child under the law that he was being paid to serve and protect. She came from a dysfunctional and/or abusive past herself and was seeking guidance to chart her course out of a the lair of the Cowardly Lion clone.
My heart bleeds for Kathleen and I hope that any info that Stacy provided will bring whatever justice there is in this world to Drew Peterson.

 

[Bravo]

If that is the case, he would seem an unlikely person for DP to approach with such a request. Thank you for the reply, I thought perhaps I had missed something with his testimony this week which revealed him as a potential 'third strike' criminal. However, I do still believe the man's testimony.

MOO

Perhaps DP had "dirt" on him the Courts never knew of. This guy seems like a perfect guy to me for DP to approach. Perhaps DP thought this guy would "understand" his circumstance :moo:

 

[coeurfragile]

I had a dream last night that when the jury went into deliberatons, they asked for internet access so they could review "all the facts of the case." They came back with a guilty verdict, and the judge asked them why. The foreman said "Your honor, after seeing all the evidence, we had no other option than to convict."

Obviously they won't have these resources IRL but hopefully it is a good omen! lease:

 

[WindyCityGirl]

I didn't see your post til now......he had another one the other day that was entitled "ROMEO IN JOLIET" (Clever, isn't it? haha)in reference to Drew' inappropriate leacherous behavior in the courtroom at the young females.
The day after the State rested he had a HUGE full page ad in the Sun Times where he said something to the effect that now that the State had rested he hoped that the jury would convict so that Kathleen and Stacy may rest in peace too. Very touching actually.

Thank you for your WONDERFUL website.....I think that you have done an amazing job and I appreciate your work. Chapeau!

Any chance of getting a scan of this ad? Please lease:

I'd love to put it on my web site and give Jeff Ruby a little free advertising

If you can scan it but can't post it here, can you send it to me at [email protected] ?

ACR

Never Mind, Thanks, I found it on Google

 

[Niner]

Niner, just an FYI, I did find the reference where I first read regarding your STATS. During the trial I was following In Session along with about 4 Twitters. It was on the facsmiley Twitter page for the Justice Cafe Blog. I made a screen capture of it below. Now that I re-read it, I can see they didn't actually say the Stats were done by YOU, but were commenting on the Twitter that "someone" brought them to their Blog from Websleuths. I agree and understand that the "someone" should have given you credit as that was a LOT of work on your part. But WE all know where they came from. :woohoo:

ACR

Thanks ACandyRose! I don't "tweet" - No wonder I couldn't find it on their site! :seeya:

 

[WindyCityGirl]

More people take valium than take aspirin....It is so common place. So many people are on antidepressants....for him to imply that her SSRI's and or anxiety meds caused her to drown, then why isn't this happening more often?
It would be happening all the time!
I am tired of the defense attacking Kathleen as if she was defective in some way. Who wouldn't be depressed, anxious and have gastrointestinal issues living under those circumstances? The neurological complaints are also a component frequently of anxiety. She was on overload and he made her SICK.

Jury rises and Joel Brodsky begins his opening. Brodsky introduces the defense team to the jury...

Brodsky: Drew Peterson “wanted to be a cop, wanted a job where he could help people.” He got “his particular sense of humor” as army MP where he helped bust soldiers selling drugs on base. “He felt those that enforced the law should not break it.”

Judge Burmila stops Brodsky and sends jury out. He tells Brodsky that his opening is “completely inappropriate”. It seems like you are telling Drew Peterson’s life story. Brodsky is “perverting the purpose of the opening statement. He began again, State objected three times. All sustained. Attys at sidebar.

Brodsky: Savio a “very spirited, hot-tempered woman.” She was “bossy” when she and Drew owned and ran printing business and Suds Pub. antidepressants did not help. Even Drew’s partners heard her yell at him. Drew Peterson was “living separately” in the home he shared with Kathleen during his “affair” with Stacy. Savio “felt she was being abandoned for a much younger woman.” Stacy Cales pursued Drew.

Brodsky: March 2002, Savio finds out Peterson took Stacy to Mexico. Order of protection full of “Stupid ridiculous statements that have no basis” filed to get Drew thrown out of their house. Savio “always has to have the last word”. She lies and makes up stories to fit her purpose or she’s mad. She tried to build case against Peterson that would benefit her financially.

Brodsky tells jury about altercation between Savio and Stacy, and describes Savio as a “mad woman.” Fast forward to 2003. Couple getting along moving along with divorce. Stacy is pregnant. Describes Kathleen’s last day–”she had sex with her boyfriend”. Savio has “lover’s quarrel” with her boyfriend on phone. They discuss marriage but Maniaci says he isn’t ready. “That’s the last time that anyone hears from Kathy Savio.”

Brodsky: It wasn’t Drew’s idea to go into Savio’s house the weekend she died. Drew didn’t call cops and instead sent neighbors into Kathleen’s home because “Why call police? Drew was the police.” First words after finding Savio’s body: “What am I going to tell my kids?” Initial investigators determine no sign of foul play. The bathtub took 8 hours to drain due to wonky plug.

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.

Brodsky: “Accidentally drowning in a bathtub is rare. What’s rarer? A homicide in a bathtub.” Savio suffered from mental illnesses and medications. He trying to convey that Savio was not healthy. “You have a man’s life in your hands”. Court breaks for lunch.

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/drew-peterson-trial-day-one-opening-statements/

 

[Mama-cita]

If common sense prevails (which didn't happen in Orlando last July but I digress...) the jury only needs to look and see that several people provided testimony that DPs life would be better off of Kathy was dead. Then, coincidentally, she DROWNS in an empty bathtub? Anyone with half a brain can see the police did NOT investigate the death at all. Couple that with the fact that the one person who could have placed Drew at the scene of the murder has "disappeared" but she did pass on to 3 witnesses (one of whom the judge barred) that information. So this guy either is the luckiest guy EVER (hey I just wanted her dead, I didn't kill her, and coincidentally the one person who could prove I killed her ran OFF, leaving her babies behind!) or he has gotten away with murder, up to this point...