We the Jury! Deliberations

[~n/t~]

Either they all agreed it was Murder. Or as it was just discussed on IS that the Jurors are working backwords.

IMO, I don't think they would be wasting time going backwards. I have a feeling the majority believes he's guilty but have to convince the 1 or 2 holdouts.:moo:

 

[Bravo]

http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_transcripts.htm

For quick reference if we need it.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

to her sexually....after she would please provide him with her dress size, bra size and describe herself more. uke:
Ewww

Worse was the jailhouse penpal to whom he wrote those creepy letters about LOYALTY and could he trust her with his "whole heart". uke:

 

[Cubby]

I think the Stacy evidence was huge. There was fear and vulnerability in what was testified, under oath, that she said. And I would wonder why she wasn't called to say it herself. I would ask my fellow jurors if they knew why she wasn't there, even if her testimony might have been limited by the judge. (Assuming they can discuss it.)

Playing catch up again. BBM. Can they do this? I mean, it's pretty evident the motive behind Stacy's disappearance was to keep a witness from reporting or testifying regarding what she knew about Kathleen's death.

That's the entire crux behind a no body murder case; not rewarding the perpetrator for hiding the body well enough....... BUT, Drew has not been charged with Stacy's murder. So, how is it in this case, disappearing a witness is rewarded as 'prior bad behavior'. Or at least it appears to be rewarded as prior bad behavior.

This has been on my mind since day one of this trial. (It's not really relevent, but I have found myself wondering what if Drew's trial for Kathleen's murder occured after Stacy was declared deceased?)

 

[Sailor Bug]

What do you guys think about the jurors not asking for pathology info yet?

It means JUSTICE for Kathleen Savio...before the end of the daylease:​

 

[Bravo]

IMO, I don't think they would be wasting time going backwards. I have a feeling the majority believes he's guilty but have to convince the 1 or 2 holdouts.:moo:

Agree. It would seem a waste of time to work backwards

 

[Mama-cita]

IMO, I don't think they would be wasting time going backwards. I have a feeling the majority believes he's guilty but have to convince the 1 or 2 holdouts.:moo:

Honorary co-foreperson, you are supposed to be sending them your "GUILTY" messages telepathically, vigorously, get this show on the road! We wanna see drew shackled to his "bling" since he loves it so much!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Isn't there a court reporter? They are saying that the attorneys are redacting the transcripts. :waitasec:

 

[rpgman]

The good news is that the jury is asking questions and asking for that specific information about the hearsay testimony by Kathleen and Stacy.

I'm wondering if, after selecting a foreman, they didn't go around the table and ask if anyone believed Kathleens's death was an accident and they all agreed it was murder. Now, they are trying to decide if Drew did it based on that testimony they asked for.

Speaker on IS said that perhaps they are working in reverse. I don't know if I agree, but it wouldn't make sense to me. If they decided it was an accident, they wouldn't have to go further.

agreed

 

[STEADFAST]

I have to leave for a dr's appointment in about 15 min. I can get HLN in the car, but if this verdict comes in while I'm on the way or in the waiting room, I may need the dr's aid to get through the 30-min waiting period and any possible BAD, HORRIBLE verdict that might happen. I was driving when the Anthony verdict came in but, luckily, I pulled over to hear it or I would have gone off into a ditch!

 

[Wishbone]

The good news is that the jury is asking questions and asking for that specific information about the hearsay testimony by Kathleen and Stacy.

I'm wondering if, after selecting a foreman, they didn't go around the table and ask if anyone believed Kathleens's death was an accident and they all agreed it was murder. Now, they are trying to decide if Drew did it based on that testimony they asked for.

Speaker on IS said that perhaps they are working in reverse. I don't know if I agree, but it wouldn't make sense to me. If they decided it was an accident, they wouldn't have to go further.

Speaker on IS just said that they don't have to decide on accident or not as the first step. They may be just trying to place DP at the scene by backing up what the pastor said with phone records. If they can't place him at the scene then he's not guilty. He continued saying that by doing it that way, they don't have to get into all the medical testimony.

 

[rpgman]

Isn't there a court reporter? They are saying that the attorneys are redacting the transcripts. :waitasec:

not sure, but whenever they asked for a re-back, it took a long time.

This court room isn't like the CA trial one, during that trial, they could quickly go back to anything.

 

[STEADFAST]

Isn't there a court reporter? They are saying that the attorneys are redacting the transcripts. :waitasec:

You'd have to redact anything that was said about which an objection was sustained, and things like that.

 

[Cappuccino]

Speaker on IS just said that they don't have to decide on accident or not as the first step. They may be just trying to place DP at the scene by backing up what the pastor said with phone records. If they can't place him at the scene then he's not guilty. He continued saying that by doing it that way, they don't have to get into all the medical testimony.

He could be right, unfortunately. If that was me, I'd dig into the medical testimony first and base everything else around that. Not everybody thinks that way though.

 

[-MD-]

Afternoon everyone.

Never thought I would be nervous like this.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

They do. I guess it could be they're questioning Stacey's version but still... even if she was after money, I don't think she'd go to two different people and basically have the exact same story. But I think the fact that they're asking for HS/NS is not a good sign. They wouldn't be asking if they believed DP's story. Of course they could be debating Stacy's credibility or what have you to but I don't think it's good.

I'll agree that they are questioning Stacy's veracity since she essentially told Smith she was trying to blackmail Drew. That doesn't go to good character. However, the Schori testimony shows her troubled mind. Also, there was lots of testimony about Drew not wanting to give Kathleen ANYTHING.

I posted about this yesterday. She was trying to find an escape route so she could escape with all four children. Too bad the jury doesn't know that.

 

[~n/t~]

Honorary co-foreperson, you are supposed to be sending them your "GUILTY" messages telepathically, vigorously, get this show on the road! We wanna see drew shackled to his "bling" since he loves it so much!

I'm trying. I'm trying.


Sending subliminal messages during their lunch break. "Guilty" message when they look in their coffee or tea cups.

:lol:

 

[Livingthedream]

Some obvious things that are going on.

1) The jury does not buy this was an accident as the defense claims. They know it was a murder.

2) They are now trying to place DP in the house. It is going to come down to SP and Schori's testiomy and whether or not they find it credible.

If number 2 is credible, it is a guilty verdict, IMO.

 

[tsitra01]

I get tired of hearing them discuss on IS how they must place
Drew in that house. He used to live there......even though she changed the locks, her son were back and forth ......Drew could have easily copied a key
From the boys.

 

[Dum-Dum Sucker]

Jeanine Pirro ‏@JudgeJeanine
Jury #drewpeterson asks for testimony of harry smith neil shore kathleens letter to states atty re fear. Prediction THIS WILL BE A GUILTY

I puffy heart judge Jeanine.