Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12

[TKS2003]

Dear Mods,
I know, and I am putting myself in time out. Going to simmer down, I hope I can return.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Wudge if you want to post where a true lynch mob is try FSP..they are truly going in all directions but forward.

Also inorder to indite a person for murder one, which is a capitol offense..premeditated murder, don't you need that handed down by a grand jury? I could be mistaken but that is what I thought was going on here. That they have enough evidence, most of which we don't know about, to make an arrest. But if you want murder one to stick you need lots of evidence and an inditement from the GJ. I think that LE is going about this the correct way..no arrest until they have all the evidence in a neat orderly package, no inditement until they have had the GJ listen to every person and every bit of evidence they have. Anyway, that is why I think they are looking at the money trail, the death of Kathleen re-examined and the current evidence. The money trail alone looks like premeditation to me. Drew made a big mistake when he started transferring money to Steve so early in the investigation..he should have known better. Then his lack of concern with Stacy's disappearance, his rediculous behavior and his referring to her as "IT" isn't here, we did all these repairs on her..you only refer to objects as it, yu only make repairs on objects..not people. He has botched things up this time..those are obvious clues..so there has got to be evidence that he left behind somewhere.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Also inorder to indite a person for murder one, which is a capitol offense..premeditated murder, don't you need that handed down by a grand jury? I could be mistaken but that is what I thought was going on here. That they have enough evidence, most of which we don't know about, to make an arrest. But if you want murder one to stick you need lots of evidence and an inditement from the GJ. I think that LE is going about this the correct way..no arrest until they have all the evidence in a neat orderly package, no inditement until they have had the GJ listen to every person and every bit of evidence they have.

Correct in process. Wrong about the content of the recent discussion. GJ's "indict", juries adjudicate and "convict".

 

[SuziQ]

You said: "And YES, I would convict him" (of murder one).

I think that's (how should I say it) a bit early. Is it not?

And if you think I occasionally note due process or sufficient evidence to "antagonize", you are very mistaken. I treat all case discussions the same.

Right now, I am reminded, greatly, of the lynch mob discussions that occurred when Richard Ricci was an imprisoned suspect (suspected of rape and murder) in Elizabeth Smart's disappearance. The 900 unexplained (allegedly) miles on his car was sufficient evidence for everyone but two of us. Everyone else knew no one else had taken her.

Don't get me started on Richard Ricci. I know plenty about that case. It happened practically in my backyard. While Richard Ricci was in jail it was not because he was arrested for Elizabeth Smarts kidnapping. He was arrested for other crimes because he was a low life thief not deserving of any sympathy, IMO. Richard Ricci was named a POI by LE and that is all. He wasn't even investigated as much as Elizabeth's uncles were!!! Once again Wudge, you are grasping at straws to make a point and point that doesn even belong in this thread.

 

[DeltaDawn]

You know I am still puzzled as to why Tom M would assume he had just moved Stacy's body in the box/ container that was warm. There has got to be more to his explanation then just that. Drew gave him hints and clues to what was going on..or why would he suspect that? Did he also know about Kathleen's demise? As far as the memory lapses I don't buy that either..I think that is just an easy answer for LE to keep him underwraps along with the he is in treatment story. I think he told them alot more then we know. They are not calling him to the GJ because they don't need his testimony there to get the indictment. They want to keep what he knows quiet until trial. I think he told LE about talking to his friend and then they used that as a cover to have the friend go public with that part of the story..then follow up with the memory lapses and his being in treatment.

Do you think that is possible and do you think there are others out there that might be in the same boat as Tom?

 

[Leila]

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.

If DP was indeed at home and in bed, there wouldn't have been any calls to DP's cell phone. If there are calls to his cell phone, and those calls are so close to his home that it involves the same cell tower, that's all the more evidence to suggest that DP wasn't at home, but was in the neighborhood.

It's circumstancial, but what are the odds? A man's ex-wife, with whom he had a contentious relationship, is murdered within the same neighborhood. On the night she's murdered, the ex-husband, who should be at home and asleep, is not at home as evidenced by calls to his cell phone from his current wife's phone. But, while he's not home, he's not far away either, as the cell tower being used is the same tower, meaning the ex-husband is nearby.

 

[closeobserver]

If DP was indeed at home and in bed, there wouldn't have been any calls to DP's cell phone. If there are calls to his cell phone, and those calls are so close to his home that it involves the same cell tower, that's all the more evidence to suggest that DP wasn't at home, but was in the neighborhood.

It's circumstancial, but what are the odds? A man's ex-wife, with whom he had a contentious relationship, is murdered within the same neighborhood. On the night she's murdered, the ex-husband, who should be at home and asleep, is not at home as evidenced by calls to his cell phone from his current wife's phone. But, while he's not home, he's not far away either, as the cell tower being used is the same tower, meaning the ex-husband is nearby.

Yes, that would all be nice and neat, but we don't know about the phone calls yet. If we can assume that the pastor is correct and Stacy made calls, we don't know if Drew had his phone on to receive any pings.

 

[TKS2003]

Don't get me started on Richard Ricci. I know plenty about that case. It happened practically in my backyard. While Richard Ricci was in jail it was not because he was arrested for Elizabeth Smarts kidnapping. He was arrested for other crimes because he was a low life thief not deserving of any sympathy, IMO. Richard Ricci was named a POI by LE and that is all. He wasn't even investigated as much as Elizabeth's uncles were!!! Once again Wudge, you are grasping at straws to make a point and point that doesn even belong in this thread.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

You know I am still puzzled as to why Tom M would assume he had just moved Stacy's body in the box/ container that was warm. There has got to be more to his explanation then just that. Drew gave him hints and clues to what was going on..or why would he suspect that? Did he also know about Kathleen's demise? As far as the memory lapses I don't buy that either..I think that is just an easy answer for LE to keep him underwraps along with the he is in treatment story. I think he told them alot more then we know. They are not calling him to the GJ because they don't need his testimony there to get the indictment. They want to keep what he knows quiet until trial. I think he told LE about talking to his friend and then they used that as a cover to have the friend go public with that part of the story..then follow up with the memory lapses and his being in treatment.

Do you think that is possible and do you think there are others out there that might be in the same boat as Tom?

If I recall, DP and Brodsky were the ones who mentioned something about "memory lapses" and Tom. I think this is probably the "advice" given to TM when DP went to visit him in the hospital (not once, but twice as indicated by Brodsky). I do believe that TM knows a lot more and it came from DP at KK's on the evening before he moved the container. This is why I think that TM is being kept away from the media and public...to insure his safety until he can testify. Most rehabs are 30 day programs and it has been since Oct. 31 or so. Where is he? I bet LE knows.

Do I think there are more people with such knowledge? Absolutely! Look at his inner circle.

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

If I recall, DP and Brodsky were the ones who mentioned something about "memory lapses" and Tom. I think this is probably the "advice" given to TM when DP went to visit him in the hospital (not once, but twice as indicated by Brodsky). I do believe that TM knows a lot more and it came from DP at KK's on the evening before he moved the container. This is why I think that TM is being kept away from the media and public...to insure his safety until he can testify. Most rehabs are 30 day programs and it has been since Oct. 31 or so. Where is he? I bet LE knows.

Do I think there are more people with such knowledge? Absolutely! Look at his inner circle.

You are absolutely right! There is more to come. Do not be distracted. We are on the right track.....!

 

[chicoliving]

~snip~

The event Friday night is at On the Rockz, 1401 Independence Blvd., in Romeoville and will feature entertainment, a raffle and auction to help raise money for the search effort. The event is expected to continue until 2 a.m.

http://cbs2chicago.com/westsuburbanbureau/stacy.peterson.fundraiser.2.619735.html

 

[SeriouslySearching]

It seems like Ric Mims is the big spender tonight at the Fundraiser for Stacy! He purchased $250.00 worth of buttons ($5 each) and gave them out to the people who attended. Nice gesture, Ric!

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/

 

[TGIRecovered]

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.

Wudge, your first sentence is incorrect. Let me help you.

If a juror is to adhere to the oath they've taken, and if, after giving due consideration to all evidence presented at trial, said juror reasonably believes that the defendant is guilty; they must vote accordingly. If the juror were to succumb to pressure to vote "not guilty" in spite of their honestly held belief that the defendant did indeed commit the crime with which he or she is charged, then that juror would be bearing false witness by voting the opposite of what they believe to be true, all evidence considered.

Your above statement is a good example of what I mean when I refer to "smoke and mirrors". You read a statement I made and fashioned your reply to intentionaly imply that I advocate the use of some silly type of mumbo-jumbo to determine guilt or innocence, rather than due consideration of the evidence presented.

Here is the statement I made:

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.

Given that jurors vote only after hearing the entireity of the evidence presented by both sides; a fact which I am quite sure you already knew, your reply was misleading.
Very "defense lawyerly" indeed.

I do have to compliment you Wudge, you are good at what you do. It is a shame that your talent is wasted on trying to confuse people...umm, some people.

You know, I really did not want to have to correct you in front of everyone. I, along with others tried to encourage you to take your legal arguments to the proper thread, where others who enjoy that type of war of witts could banter with you. If you thought we'd be easy pickin's just because we don't enjoy bickering about legal minutia, please reconsider. I don't want to have to do this again, it is not pleasant.:blowkiss:

Susan

 

[Leila]

You know I am still puzzled as to why Tom M would assume he had just moved Stacy's body in the box/ container that was warm. There has got to be more to his explanation then just that. Drew gave him hints and clues to what was going on..or why would he suspect that? Did he also know about Kathleen's demise? As far as the memory lapses I don't buy that either..I think that is just an easy answer for LE to keep him underwraps along with the he is in treatment story. I think he told them alot more then we know. They are not calling him to the GJ because they don't need his testimony there to get the indictment. They want to keep what he knows quiet until trial. I think he told LE about talking to his friend and then they used that as a cover to have the friend go public with that part of the story..then follow up with the memory lapses and his being in treatment.

Do you think that is possible and do you think there are others out there that might be in the same boat as Tom?

Yes........I think Tom Morphey is being kept under wraps and he's told LE a lot more than what has been stated publicly. I strongly feel another person being kept under wraps is Mary, the best friend of Kathleen Savio, who along with DP and Steve Carcerano, entered Kathleen's house and was there when her body was discovered. Mary is one person who's never been interviewed by the media or quoted in stories about finding Kathleen's body. She's only referred to as "Kathleen's best friend, Mary." I feel that Mary may have information that refutes Steve Carcerano's description of the events of that night. Mary may also have witnessed DP's abuse of Kathleen or she might have some other solid evidence in regards to Kathleen's murder.

There's one other person who's never been interviewed publicly, and that's the neighbor who witnessed seeing DP and an unidentified man (who we now know is Tom Morphey) moving a blue barrel (or container) into DP's vehicle. I've thought it strange that the media hasn't interviewed that person, asking him questions about the time frame of when he witnessed this, what exactly did he see, etc.

I also note that in regards to Sharon receiving the letter in her mailbox and pictures scattered on her lawn a few days ago, it was stated that another neighbor also received a letter. Who is that neighbor? Why wasn't that neighbor interviewed? Is it the same neighbor who witnessed the blue barrel being moved?

 

[Taximom]

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.

Not arguing with you here, but Laci Peterson's case in 2002 brought a LOT of attention to cell phone tracking in crimes. Surely Drew had heard about that.

 

[DeltaDawn]

I agree that Tom is being well taken care of by LE, in a safe place. I am also thinking that Mary might be keeping things under wraps right now too..if they don't need that testimony at the GJ they will wait to the actual trial begins to spring these people on Drew and Brodsky. I don't think the pastor was called to the GJ to testify either? But his testimony could be crucial when the trial starts. Even in the Greta interview he stated there were certain things he could not and would not discuss at this point. So he has more info. Almost everyone who has been in front of the GJ that we know of has come out said a few words and then said they couldn't or wouldn't discuss this or that. Even Scott R and his brother said that. Could they have been privy to more info then we know.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

If a juror is to adhere to the oath they've taken, and if, after giving due consideration to all evidence presented at trial, said juror reasonably believes that the defendant is guilty; they must vote accordingly. If the juror were to succumb to pressure to vote "not guilty" in spite of their honestly held belief that the defendant did indeed commit the crime with which he or she is charged, then that juror would be bearing false witness by voting the opposite of what they believe to be true, all evidence considered.

Your above statement is a good example of what I mean when I refer to "smoke and mirrors". You read a statement I made and fashioned your reply to intentionaly imply that I advocate the use of some silly type of mumbo-jumbo to determine guilt or innocence, rather than due consideration of the evidence presented.

Incorrect.

Due consideration of the evidence presented at trial is not the legal standard for a juror to assess guilt. The legal standard for a juror to assess guilt is: after deliberation with the other jurors, a juror finds that proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists based on the evidence presented at trial meeting the evidentiary requirements (proof for each of the necessary elements) of the charge or charges against the defendant

In other words, a juror might believe, think, feel, suspect or even have an abiding conviction (prior to the mid 80's, this was usually said to be an abiding "moral" conviction) that the defendant committed a crime or crimes. However, a juror cannot render a guilty verdict unless upon close examination with the other jurors of the evidence presented at trial, a juror finds that the evidence meets the burden of proof for each of the necessary elements that must be proven to support rendering a guilty verdict against the defendant.

HTH

 

[Trino]

I agree that Tom is being well taken care of by LE, in a safe place. I am also thinking that Mary might be keeping things under wraps right now too..if they don't need that testimony at the GJ they will wait to the actual trial begins to spring these people on Drew and Brodsky. I don't think the pastor was called to the GJ to testify either? But his testimony could be crucial when the trial starts. Even in the Greta interview he stated there were certain things he could not and would not discuss at this point. So he has more info. Almost everyone who has been in front of the GJ that we know of has come out said a few words and then said they couldn't or wouldn't discuss this or that. Even Scott R and his brother said that. Could they have been privy to more info then we know.

Some people may have been asked to not reveal info, but if all these people have been asked, it sounds like a LE conspiracy against DP. I think some are just tired of the media and have used this as an excuse.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Some people may have been asked to not reveal info, but if all these people have been asked, it sounds like a LE conspiracy against DP. I think some are just tired of the media and have used this as an excuse.

I don't think there is any conspiracy against Drew. They are simply calling others to the GJ that may have info regarding these two cases. The GJ has no obligation to disclose who goes there or what is said to the defense..because there is no need to defend against something one is not charged with yet. If Drew and Brodsky want the info they will have to wait until this goes to trial then they have discovery motions to see what the prosecution has. But at this point the prosecution owes Drew nothing.

 

[SuziQ]

As Stacy Peterson's family this week released old home video of the missing Bolingbrook woman, her aunt said Friday there's also renewed police interest in finding Peterson's mother, who disappeared almost 10 years ago.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/718275,CST-NWS-boling29.article