Suspect Drew Peterson #3

[mysteriew]

A revised M.E. autopsy finding would be public record.

OJ's civil suit followed his criminal trial, which was based on a finding of probable cause.

But he was found not guilty of that probable cause. At least for criminal purposes, lol.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

The interesting thing about pleading the fifth is that it does not apply to depositions. Man oh man do I know how depos go down. First off, any question can be asked whether or not it relates to the case at hand. The only thing your attorney can do is to protest the question on record. But you still have to answer the question. If you don't, a judge will be brought in to compel you to answer them.

SNIP

It sounds like you may have received ineffective counsel. The Supreme Court has long ruled that the right to take the 5th applies to criminal and civil proceedings.

 

[Wudge]

But he was found not guilty of that probable cause. At least for criminal purposes, lol.

Probable cause existed. That's why OJ was tried in a criminal court. What the jury found did not exist is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a far higher standard than probable (the effective civil standard) cause.

 

[mysteriew]

You know Wudge, I am suprised that you haven't weighed in on the legal issue as to whether or not DrewP should be entitled to get his possessions back. That is an issue that I don't ever recall becoming an issue in a criminal case before.

 

[chicoliving]

It sounds like you may have received ineffective counsel. The Supreme Court has long ruled that the right to take the 5th applies to criminal and civil proceedings.

One of Kathy's relative's spoke on Greta last night and was explaining how this was a good first step because it was a civil suit and that Drew would not be able to plead the 5th.....That was about all of the segment I caught so I don't know if that became a topic for the "experts".

 

[Wudge]

You know Wudge, I am suprised that you haven't weighed in on the legal issue as to whether or not DrewP should be entitled to get his possessions back. That is an issue that I don't ever recall becoming an issue in a criminal case before.

In critical case assessment, that's called a non essential tangent, a/k/a a rat hole. Still, as to whether the withholding is proper or not, the answer is: it depends.

 

[DeltaDawn]

~snip~

At issue is a motion filed in December by Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky, asking that the court order police to return his client's two vehicles, 11 guns, computers and other items seized as part of a search warrant.

The witness, forensic scientist Ann Chamberlain of Speckin Forensic Laboratories in Okemos, Mich., formerly worked for the Michigan State Police and is a medical examiner for Eaton County, Mich. She was fired from her job with the state police in 2007 after she admitted in a divorce proceeding that she had used state equipment to test her husband's underwear to determine whether he was cheating on her.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_webfeb02,0,664906.story

Drew's "expert witness" had a thread of her own here at WS....

Scientists Test DNA On Hubby's Underwear For Signs OF Cheating

As soon as I started reading the this I remembered why she too was imfamous...could he put together a team that has not been indicted ..so far each member of his so'called team has..exception being the new attorney Carroll, but we haven't heard anything from him lately..he may have jumped ship. JMHO

 

[DeltaDawn]

The money came from a home that was paid for - Stacy's home - and half of that unencumbered asset was hers. Now, Drew essentially took the equity out - again, half of which was Stacy's - and gave it to his son. Therefore, since Drew still has the asset (the house) and it can be sold to satisfy the loan, half of the money is Stacy's.

So, why would Stacy's family want it? Drew still has the asset (the house) and can sell it to satisfy the loan obligation.

The reason Drew did that, was to assure the safety of that quarter-million dollars. If someone took the house (to satisfy a judgment), it would be all equity. If they take the house now, they have to first satisfy the loan obligation, what's left would be a pittance. Drew still has his money, let someone else worry about the loan payment. It was done to protect the equity and half of that equity is Stacy's.

As far as we know that equity loan was only for 200-250k I read somewhere that his home is worth in the neigborhood of 400-450 k..if that is the case once they give Kathleens's family her share ..Drew will be making payments to the bank and his son to keep his home. It is Kathleen's family with the wrongful death suit and if they win and can bring judgement against Drew the home is their's..if they pay off the equity loan..which the sale of the home would easliy do.

 

[SuziQ]

It sounds like you may have received ineffective counsel. The Supreme Court has long ruled that the right to take the 5th applies to criminal and civil proceedings.

It does not apply to the discovery phase at all and never will!!! And only applies to certain witnesses at a civil trial pertaining to incriminating one self that could result in criminal charges. Very very rarely does it apply to defendants.

 

[Wudge]

It does not apply to the discovery phase at all and never will!!! And only applies to certain witnesses at a civil trial pertaining to incriminating one self that could result in criminal charges. Very very rarely does it apply to defendants.

It applies to a persons right not to incriminate themself, which includes depositions as part of discovery in a civil case.

Moreover, if you were asked a delicate or directly incriminating question, your attorney could have said (and perhaps should have said): I am advising my client not to answer that question in accordance with their 5th Amendment right. Further, in doing so, the attorney would wall off any Judge who might wish to compel an answer.

HTH

 

[philamena]

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/5th_amendment.htm

Pleading the Fifth: The best known clause in the Fifth Amendment ("No person ... shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself") protects suspects from forced self-incrimination. When a suspect invokes his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, this is referred to in the vernacular as "pleading the Fifth." It should not by any means be taken as a sign of guilt, but it is generally portrayed as such in courtroom television dramas.

Doesn't say a thing about a civil trial.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Here's the clincher..if Drew does have to give a deposition for the civil suit..and for the life of me I can't imagine that he wouldn't have to..then certain info would come to light through that depo that could be used for the State's criminal investigation. Which would be wonderful..however I do believe Drew would lie under oath without batting and eye..but that still will place Drew between a rock and a hard place for now. And if he does lie..and their are witnesses that can prove that any of his lies are lies..he is cooked..as in goose and pass the plum pudding.

Drew best have his lies straight and who he told what to before he goes up against this civil suit..because it seems to me that there are alot of plyers involved with Drew at the time of Kathleen's death/murder.

The civil suit may just make the case for the criminal suit.

For everyone's..except Drew's, well being...I hope that is the way the cookie crumbles.

Now that I think about it the civil suit should come before the criminal suit because they are more easily able to get Drew to talk and get the answers that the State can use to persue their criminal suit...this should happen more often. Of course that is if Drew tells the truth..but I am sure their will be people there on the defense side who can say he is wrong...this is what he said/did..especailly if they think their heads will roll too. And someone other then Stacy knows about this...Drew needed Tom's help with Stacy..he needed and relied on someone else's help with Kathleen. And I think we already know who those two people were..one was Stacy..since she caught him in the dark clothes. etc. the other is Steve...his story is very close to unravelling..there is a reason that Mary has not been called yet, but her husband has...that's for us to wait and find out.
JMHO.

 

[Wudge]

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/5th_amendment.htm



Doesn't say a thing about a civil trial.

The Supreme Court's ruling in McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) is controlling. The Court ruled that the privilege against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment “applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it.”

 

[Wudge]

Here's the clincher..if Drew does have to give a deposition for the civil suit..and for the life of me I can't imagine that he wouldn't have to..then certain info would come to light through that depo that could be used for the State's criminal investigation. Which would be wonderful..however I do believe Drew would lie under oath without batting and eye..but that still will place Drew between a rock and a hard place for now. And if he does lie..and their are witnesses that can prove that any of his lies are lies..he is cooked..as in goose and pass the plum pudding.

SNIP

JMHO.

Drew's attorney would almost assuredly advise him not to answer any question that might tend, in any way, to incriminate him.

 

[christine2448]

Not sure where to post this peeps...but just got this.....

I was there..they didn't drain the pond..OMG Aol got it wrong..they had divers in there and shoulder to shoulder searches...and radar..but they did not drain that pond

 

[SuziQ]

I wasn't sure where to post it, because it's so weird. At the below link click on the blue icon to hear todays conversation between Ric Mims and Greta. It won't play for me. Commenters there are talking about Ric getting an email supposedly from Stacy. He did put it on his site, but gave all the info and ISP address to ISP. The next thing he knows someone claiming to be LE is threatening to arrest him in 30 minutes for tampering with evidence or something along those lines. More of Drew and Brodsky's games perhaps? Odd.

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/0...ms-is-he-going-to-jail/all-comments/#comments

 

[DeltaDawn]

Thanks Christine..glad someone could verify that..because the video said one thing and showed another as our fellow sleuther Tom'sGirl said.

So pon d never drained..maybe it should be now. Maybe a missing laptop, journal or notebook found it's way there, as well as sheets, towels, clthing,etc,

This actually is good news..because we know Drew hasn't drained the pond in the meantime and the pond is still there..waiting to be drained and giving up anything it might have.

 

[DeltaDawn]

I wasn't sure where to post it, because it's so weird. At the below link click on the blue icon to hear todays conversation between Ric Mims and Greta. It won't play for me. Commenters there are talking about Ric getting an email supposedly from Stacy. He did put it on his site, but gave all the info and ISP address to ISP. The next thing he knows someone claiming to be LE is threatening to arrest him in 30 minutes for tampering with evidence or something along those lines. More of Drew and Brodsky's games perhaps? Odd.

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/0...ms-is-he-going-to-jail/all-comments/#comments

I did read Ric's blog much earlier today and someone wrote in as a comment on the blog, not email, claiming to be Stacy and wanting to be left alone... you can read that entry for yourself.

His reply to her blog entry was that if this was Stacy to please contact her sister because she was causing her a slow death. (Paraphrased there but you get the gist.)
I thought that it was a prankster.

Go to his new blog and you can read the entries and comments. JMHO

 

[SuziQ]

Ahh, thank you DD. That makes more sense. What do you make of LE saying they are going to arrest Ric over it? Wouldn't it be the person who made the post?

 

[Tom'sGirl]

I received the following alert today of the post, glad I didn't delete it! Now supposedly his webmaster has been arrested, and the LE on the way to also arrest him, whatever

Here is what it said, however when you click on the link it only takes you to his Blog site, not the post.

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]

Is This From Stacy? I reported it to ISP.​

[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]By Ric [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[SIZE=-1][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Stacy | @yahoo.com | Yourwebsiteorblog | IP:. I’m sorry to my children, I’m sorry to my family and I am sorry to my husband for putting you all through this. Know that I am in a safe place and am happy with my new life. I Love You ...[/FONT][/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Richard Mims Blog - http://www.richardmims.com [/FONT][/SIZE]​

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Here is the direct link to listen to Ric Mims & Greta VS on the phone.[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]http://gretawire.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ric-mims-feb1.mp3[/FONT]