Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12

[Trino]

Circumstantial evidence can certainly be sufficient evidence as regards satisfying the proof beyond a reasonable doubt requirement. However, strong circumstantial evidence (inculpatory evidence not collaborative evidence) would still have to satisfy the charges. For murder two, at a minimum, the State would need to prove malice aforethought. For murder one, the State would need to prove the added elements of willful, premeditated and deliberated.

Without a time of death, a place of death, a cause of death, a manner of death, an eyewitness, a crime scene, forensic evidence, a confession or a clear motive, I would not expect a GJ to indict Drew for murder. Nor would I expect the prosecutor to ask for such an indictment, for I can't see how the prosecutor could hope to prove a murder charge.

And, a change of venue would probably be in order. In no way am I indicating DP is innocent - just stating how difficult it would be to prosecute.

 

[Wudge]

And, a change of venue would probably be in order. In no way am I indicating DP is innocent - just stating how difficult it would be to prosecute.

Credited. Based on what we know, I totally agree.

 

[TGIRecovered]

I hope that by some miracle, a jury of reasonable, intelligent citizens is seated in this case. If that happens, it will be in spite of efforts of defense lawyers to get someone on that jury who will argue that evidence must be physical or eye-witness in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an incorrect assumption used by people who would rather argue and cause dissent than convict a murderer to his proper punishment. I am sure that the defense' dream jury would be composed of one very vocal juror with a chip on his/her shoulder and eleven less intelligent sheeple to blindly follow along.

I would guess that even you, Wudge, believe that DrewP is responsible for the demise of both Kathy and Stacy. I have yet to see one poster here at WS who truly believes that he had nothing to do with either crime.

I believe that we are reasonable, intelligent people.

Defense lawyers trash witnesses as a diversionary tactic. It is to be expected and IMO it is a tired old trick. Any one of us, I expect, could be trashed in some way. We need jurors intelligent enough to see past the smoke and mirrors and hear the truth. We need jurors who understand the meaning of reasonable doubt, and who will refuse to vote "not guilty" when they believe that they would be allowing a murderer to walk free.

Delta Dawn's post #190 on this thread deserves a second look. I think she summed it up well.

Susan

 

[Wudge]

I hope that by some miracle, a jury of reasonable, intelligent citizens is seated in this case. If that happens, it will be in spite of efforts of defense lawyers to get someone on that jury who will argue that evidence must be physical or eye-witness in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an incorrect assumption used by people who would rather argue and cause dissent than convict a murderer to his proper punishment. I am sure that the defense' dream jury would be composed of one very vocal juror with a chip on his/her shoulder and eleven less intelligent sheeple to blindly follow along.

I would guess that even you, Wudge, believe that DrewP is responsible for the demise of both Kathy and Stacy. I have yet to see one poster here at WS who truly believes that he had nothing to do with either crime.

I believe that we are reasonable, intelligent people.

Defense lawyers trash witnesses as a diversionary tactic. It is to be expected and IMO it is a tired old trick. Any one of us, I expect, could be trashed in some way. We need jurors intelligent enough to see past the smoke and mirrors and hear the truth. We need jurors who understand the meaning of reasonable doubt, and who will refuse to vote "not guilty" when they believe that they would be allowing a murderer to walk free.

Delta Dawn's post #190 on this thread deserves a second look. I think she summed it up well.

Susan

In a criminal trial, it's not supposed to matter what people (jurors who took an oath) think, feel, hope, believe, suspect or what their gut or tea leaves tells them. What is supposed to matter is whether prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Around the time of Dr. Sheppard's first trial, Perry Mason told me: "What you suspect matters not. What matters is what you can prove".

Notwithstanding that inherent wisdom, wrongful convictions do happen. Though they happen moreso in the court of public opinion than in a courtroom; unless the proof is sufficient, I don't think its right villify, demonize or persecute others at any time, anywhere.

I believe, strongly, in not bearing false witness, and I believe this falls under that commandment. I'll have to answer for some sins, but I hope to have a clean slate there.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Well, the thing we need to remember is that the GJ is still meeting. And the the GJ needs far less evidence to bring about a verdict to go to trial.

That being said I don't think the State will proceed with their case until they feel they have all their ducks in a row..because then the clock starts ticking and they have to be ready to proceed. If the defense decides at that point to waive their right to a speedy trial so be it. But the prosecution needs to be prepared once they make an arrest. They have a very short timeframe in which to gather more evidence.

However, One thing I like to keep in mind is that the family and the pastor have stated several times that someone out there knows more and they need to come forward. Hopefully that person will come forword to ISP.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

I hope that by some miracle, a jury of reasonable, intelligent citizens is seated in this case. If that happens, it will be in spite of efforts of defense lawyers to get someone on that jury who will argue that evidence must be physical or eye-witness in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an incorrect assumption used by people who would rather argue and cause dissent than convict a murderer to his proper punishment. I am sure that the defense' dream jury would be composed of one very vocal juror with a chip on his/her shoulder and eleven less intelligent sheeple to blindly follow along.

I would guess that even you, Wudge, believe that DrewP is responsible for the demise of both Kathy and Stacy. I have yet to see one poster here at WS who truly believes that he had nothing to do with either crime.

I believe that we are reasonable, intelligent people.

Defense lawyers trash witnesses as a diversionary tactic. It is to be expected and IMO it is a tired old trick. Any one of us, I expect, could be trashed in some way. We need jurors intelligent enough to see past the smoke and mirrors and hear the truth. We need jurors who understand the meaning of reasonable doubt, and who will refuse to vote "not guilty" when they believe that they would be allowing a murderer to walk free.

Delta Dawn's post #190 on this thread deserves a second look. I think she summed it up well.

Susan

Hi Susan,

Isn't the essence of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' totally fact-based? I have read your post a couple of times before responding -- and it appears that you're saying you're hoping that jurors will see beyond facts and instead, go with what they feel (because we all feel that DP has played a role in the disappearance of SP and/or KS.)

The justice system dictates that jurors must rule on facts only, so if they let [who we deem to be] a murderer walk free, it's because the evidence to convict wasn't present.

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but it sounds like you're saying that you hope the only jurors who you would deem to be intelligent would look PAST the hard evidence and instead, go with their gut hunch.

If you feel I read you wrong, what do you feel I missed from your post?

~Maddy

 

[SeriouslySearching]

We don't know what has been given to the GJ during testimony. There could be testimony which ties DP to Kathleen's death already and has given them a reason to reopen her case independently from Stacy's disappearance. Mary P's testimony could contradict the accounts from DP and Steve C. perhaps. Being Kathleen's best friend, she probably knows much more about the situation than anyone not unlike Sharon B. with Stacy. Her husband and son were on the scene, too. The paths a case can go down during GJ testimony are many due to the fact they can ask whatever they desire of the people and aren't silenced by attorneys.

My guess about DP's cell phone the night Kathleen was killed will show he was in his home. I think he probably turned the ringer off and left it at his house for an additional alibi.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

We don't know what has been given to the GJ during testimony. There could be testimony which ties DP to Kathleen's death already and has given them a reason to reopen her case independently from Stacy's disappearance. Mary P's testimony could contradict the accounts from DP and Steve C. perhaps. Being Kathleen's best friend, she probably knows much more about the situation than anyone not unlike Sharon B. with Stacy. Her husband and son were on the scene, too. The paths a case can go down during GJ testimony are many due to the fact they can ask whatever they desire of the people and aren't silenced by attorneys.

My guess about DP's cell phone the night Kathleen was killed will show he was in his home. I think he probably turned the ringer off and left it at his house for an additional alibi.

Hi S.S.! I'd agree he likely left the cell phone at home that night. But then again, that was 4 years ago when our everyday knowledge regarding technology/tracking wasn't as prevalent as today. But then again, I would never pretend to guess what LE (which he was part of) knew 4 years ago vs. what we know/are privy to, today.

PS: It's good to have dialogue with you here, where we aren't judged for having an operating mind.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Hi S.S.! I'd agree he likely left the cell phone at home that night. But then again, that was 4 years ago when our everyday knowledge regarding technology/tracking wasn't as prevalent as today. But then again, I would never pretend to guess what LE (which he was part of) knew 4 years ago vs. what we know/are privy to, today.

PS: It's good to have dialogue with you here, where we aren't judged for having an operating mind.

I think LE was using this technology long before we were aware of it. It was much to their dismay when it became common knowledge with the public.

Yes, we can discuss this case and the elements a bit more openly here. Welcome to the real world of armchair sleuthing. LOL We try to see things from every angle and take into account what really could have happened...instead of only being able to discuss what is in favor of one person or another.

 

[Pharlap]

I think what LE is going to prove is Stacy's statement that Drew wasn't home and she didn't know where he was at the time. She SAID she made many calls to his cell that night. That's what I believe LE is going to look for to back-up what she told the pastor.

Sure all the extra info about where/when pings hit might be good, but he could have put the phone anywhere. There also might only be one tower handling the pings from KS's home and SP's home, so that might not prove anything.

Yes, yes, I know. Whether it's admissible in court or not, I don't know and could care less. You still have to find any information available in an investigation.

There's another thing that bothers me, since Kathleen and Drews place was so close I don't think the phone company can say is it that block or this one. Anyone know?
Could Stacy been calling to put him in another place? If indeed his phone was way somewhere else....Could she have been with him at kathleens that night?
Wish the le would tell us what location the pings were.
Thinking outside the box. Got to look at ALL angles.

Think this should go under a different thread, sorry

 

[DeltaDawn]

I think the point to that is that if DP were at home why would Stacy be calling him? If
the cell phone pings in the same general area that means he was very close to home. That means also he was MIA when he should have been in bed with Stacy..not a stretch to envision this when other facts are known.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

There's another thing that bothers me, since Kathleen and Drews place was so close I don't think the phone company can say is it that block or this one. Anyone know?
Could Stacy been calling to put him in another place? If indeed his phone was way somewhere else....Could she have been with him at kathleens that night?
Wish the le would tell us what location the pings were.
Thinking outside the box. Got to look at ALL angles.

Think this should go under a different thread, sorry

I'm with you re: looking at all angles. Stacy may be gone, but that doesn't mean she didn't know about and/or participate in what happened the night of Kathleen's demise!

 

[Pharlap]

I think the point to that is that if DP were at home why would Stacy be calling him? If
the cell phone pings in the same general area that means he was very close to home. That means also he was MIA when he should have been in bed with Stacy..not a stretch to envision this when other facts are known.

To give both an alibi.
It just bothers me that a person will keep quiet for 4 years, that Drew killed his wife Kathleen. For me I can't get past that. Which is my problem.
Life is stranger then fiction.

And I have still gone out 14 times looking for the body....with my dogs.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Well the point is Stacy is gone and Drew is still here being Drew and even able to be on vacation with the kids...so something definitely is amiss in this situation.

I do not feel Stacy is a saint. I do feel from what the pastor and others have said that she felt her demise was eminent and also that she was trying to make a clean break of it so to speak. I think that if she did cooperate in Kathleen's murder, even as a person with second hand knowledge that was wrong. She should have gone to her pastor then. But I have to admit that Drew put her between a rock and a hard space and set this scene up very well so he would have her fearful cooperation. He made it known to her that no one would believe her story, in my opinion. So where was she to turn..not the police..he was one of them, her family..would that have put them in jeopardy...who then could she trust at that point?

I think she was not only making plans to leave Drew, but also using the murder of Kathleen as her ace in the hole. Unfortunately, you can't make deals with the devil..and Drew was not about to let her go with the knowledge she had. I don't think she particiated in Kathleen's murder, I think she found out unexpectantly..to both herself and Drew. And I do believe Drew would have said that if you ever try to leave me or let this murder be known I will kill you.

 

[Pharlap]

Well the point is Stacy is gone and Drew is still here being Drew and even able to be on vacation with the kids...so something definitely is amiss in this situation.

Kathleen and Stacy...

 

[ThoughtFox]

I think the point to that is that if DP were at home why would Stacy be calling him? If the cell phone pings in the same general area that means he was very close to home. That means also he was MIA when he should have been in bed with Stacy..not a stretch to envision this when other facts are known.

That's really the "aha" thing for me. If being at home with Stacy was the alibi, then why would the "ping" be somewhere else, and why would Stacy call him?

I think Stacy grew up in the four years after Kathleen's death, and she was raising Kathleen's children. I think she learned to feel remorse about another woman and another mother.

I don't think she was a saint, either. But now she is another victim of possibly a serial wife-killer, so I can understand her fear and her confusion. Drew made her an accomplice by burdening her with what he had done. She wasn't strong enough to break away from him at first, but before her disappearance she was trying, so I have to give her credit for that.

 

[Pharlap]

That's really the "aha" thing for me. If being at home with Stacy was the alibi, then why would the "ping" be somewhere else, and why would Stacy call him?


You know the locations of the pings in Kathleen's case?
And do you know for sure Stacy was at home or just in the area..
You have a site where I can see that please.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Kathleen and Stacy...

You are absolutely right about that! No question that two women are dead, both having been mistresses and then wives to this man. Neither of these woman are a saint in my opinion. I think if you know a man is married you do not insert yourself in a relationship with him. But those are my morals..and obviously Drew did not take his marriage vows too seriously.

But the bottom line is not the morals, or lack of morals, of these women but it is that the same man was their husband when both met their demise. And yes young ladies need to look before they leep..but in youth we all do things we regret and would not repeat later.

 

[SuziQ]

That's really the "aha" thing for me. If being at home with Stacy was the alibi, then why would the "ping" be somewhere else, and why would Stacy call him?


You know the locations of the pings in Kathleen's case?
And do you know for sure Stacy was at home or just in the area..
You have a site where I can see that please.

The point isn't where the phone(s) pinged it's to compare the time of the calls versus the alibi Stacy gave, that's all. If Stacy gave an alibi that Drew was in bed with her, then why would she need to call him?

 

[Pharlap]

The FACTS will come out in the future.
Le are still working on the case.