May 11 to

[texasgal]

***yawn** ***stretch***

Good morning!! Every day I wake up and remember that he is in jail ... IS A GREAT DAY!!

:thumbsup:

[bkwits]

Can we let the system do it's job before we send him in to his death? He is in solitary because he hasn't been convicted of anything YET.

The man is pond scum but I have HUGH issues with drafting a law like this strictly to allow him to be prosecuted and the amount of his bail is far beyond the constitutions "reasonable bail" (i had read 20 million is that correct?)

How does he get a fair trial? people here are already wishing the jail would let the prisoners take him out. How do you find 12 people who can honestly be objective? Same problem that occurred with the other Peterson- (who I believe was guilty but just don't think his trial was fair)

I think the defense can poke holes in any new theory of Kathleen's death simply because it was colored by Stacy's disappearance.

I hope they really have their ducks in a row and didn't just jump the gun to prevent him from doing the reality show.


,

First off, I don't think he should really have bail. I hope the 20 mil stands although I think it will be lowered.

I agree that this pond scum has to have a fair trial (as fair as possible). I don't think the death penalty should be sought in this case. I agree the system should be allowed to work.

I wonder if the "Drew's Law" will hold up to the challenges in the Supreme Court. The case may be weak without Kathleen's testimony from the grave.

As for the reality show --- No, I don't believe that had any bearing on his arrest. HBO had already nixed Drew P appearing on that show. HBO said it would cancel the show before allowing DrewP to appear.

I sincerely hope that DrewP is convicted, however, we
have to follow the law of our land.

IMO

[Myka]

what was Drew's next victim, oh my bad, his current girlfriend's name?

Has she came out with a statement since his arrest?

[bkwits]

BTW, the idea that Drew killed Kathleen is not just since Stacy's disappearance. It has been around since Kathleen's death. My DIL works with a woman who knew both Kathleen and Drew and this woman says that "everyone thought he did it" when Kathleen died. Even DrewP's step brother said that everyone thought Drew killed Kathleen, and this was before Stacy went missing.

IMO

[vonna]

***yawn** ***stretch***

Good morning!! Every day I wake up and remember that he is in jail ... IS A GREAT DAY!!

:thumbsup:

I know the feeling!

[coffee1950j]

Hopefully the Savio and Cales families will file an emergency injunction to prevent those children having to move back in with DrewP if he does make bail. :scared:

I would be terrified he would do something to the whole household in order to stay out of jail.

We can all assume he isn't above killing if things aren't going his way...

OMG, I never even thought of that. But, IMO, I wouldn't put it past him either.

Very scary thought! :scared:

Hope the judge keeps them in mind when the bail hearing comes up.

[Spyder88]

***yawn** ***stretch***

Good morning!! Every day I wake up and remember that he is in jail ... IS A GREAT DAY!!

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

The only thing greater will be when he's put away good and proper and forever.

Imagine what that former "cop's" life will be like in the slammer! He won't stand a snowball's chance in hades unless he's put in solitary confinement for his own safety. That would kind of bum me out...

[sunstar]

Hi everybody! :seeya:

Here's Nancy's preview for tonight ~

"The family of Drew Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, speaks out after the ex-cop is indicted on first degree murder charges in her death. How did Savio die and where is Peterson's missing fourth wife, Stacy? Nancy Grace has all the latest breaking developments from court and jail, 8 & 10 p.m. ET on HLN."

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace/




BBL ~ have to get back to work!

[Callie]

Let me be very clear here; I think Drew Peterson is a worm. I can't stand the guy, and I think his arrogance and smugness are a big part of the reason people are running around saying they think he killed Savio, and the last wife that's still missing.

However, I don't like the mentality behind those types of opinions. We live in a country that has a Judicial system in place. It's there for a reason. Is it perfect? No, it certainly isn't, but we do not allow "MOB RULE". That's what I getting out of some of these horrific posts.

IF the man did it, and there's evidence to prove it, and I hope there is, then he will be convicted. If not, he should walk free.

I absolutely believe that it's better to find 20 guilty men not-guilty in a court of law, than it is to find one innocent man guilty.

I hate the MOB RULE mentality. There is no place for it in a country like ours. I suggest we watch the judicial system go to work on Drew Peterson, and understand that unless one of us were in the house and saw Drew P. kill Savio, or his last wife, we really don't know what the real truth is. Just "thinking" he did it, really is unfair, and sort of ridiculous. Gut feelings have no place in our judicial system.

jmho

I don't know what constitutes a 'Mob Rule' mentality, but we are all entitled to our opinions. As we won't be on the jury I think we can voice our thoughts on the case. That's what a discussion board is all about.

[iluvmua]

Let me be very clear here; I think Drew Peterson is a worm. I can't stand the guy, and I think his arrogance and smugness are a big part of the reason people are running around saying they think he killed Savio, and the last wife that's still missing.

However, I don't like the mentality behind those types of opinions. We live in a country that has a Judicial system in place. It's there for a reason. Is it perfect? No, it certainly isn't, but we do not allow "MOB RULE". That's what I getting out of some of these horrific posts.

IF the man did it, and there's evidence to prove it, and I hope there is, then he will be convicted. If not, he should walk free.

I absolutely believe that it's better to find 20 guilty men not-guilty in a court of law, than it is to find one innocent man guilty.

I hate the MOB RULE mentality. There is no place for it in a country like ours. I suggest we watch the judicial system go to work on Drew Peterson, and understand that unless one of us were in the house and saw Drew P. kill Savio, or his last wife, we really don't know what the real truth is. Just "thinking" he did it, really is unfair, and sort of ridiculous. Gut feelings have no place in our judicial system.

jmho

imo, Drew's guilty

[Casecase]

I'm sorry I'm not up to speed on this case . . . is there any evidence that has come out yet besides his ex-wife's letter? I'm just wondering if a jury would convict if that's all there is and nothing to tie him to the crime scene.


IMO

[Anakerie]

I'm sorry I'm not up to speed on this case . . . is there any evidence that has come out yet besides his ex-wife's letter? I'm just wondering if a jury would convict if that's all there is and nothing to tie him to the crime scene.


IMO
We do not know yet what kind of evidence and testimony was presented to the Grand Jury. After all, it was the Grand Jury who issued the indictment so I am guessing they saw and heard more than just the letter from Kathleen.

I am sure we'll hear and see more evidence as the case progresses.

[bkwits]

Let me be very clear here; I think Drew Peterson is a worm. I can't stand the guy, and I think his arrogance and smugness are a big part of the reason people are running around saying they think he killed Savio, and the last wife that's still missing.

However, I don't like the mentality behind those types of opinions. We live in a country that has a Judicial system in place. It's there for a reason. Is it perfect? No, it certainly isn't, but we do not allow "MOB RULE". That's what I getting out of some of these horrific posts.

IF the man did it, and there's evidence to prove it, and I hope there is, then he will be convicted. If not, he should walk free.

I absolutely believe that it's better to find 20 guilty men not-guilty in a court of law, than it is to find one innocent man guilty.

I hate the MOB RULE mentality. There is no place for it in a country like ours. I suggest we watch the judicial system go to work on Drew Peterson, and understand that unless one of us were in the house and saw Drew P. kill Savio, or his last wife, we really don't know what the real truth is. Just "thinking" he did it, really is unfair, and sort of ridiculous. Gut feelings have no place in our judicial system.

jmho

Mob rule? Where is the mob? Just a bunch of fingers typing on a keyboard. Salem witch hunt? Isn't that a very far stretch? It seems that most posters here think he killed Kathleen and did something to Stacy. I live not that far from Bolingbrook, and from what I have heard, many (maybe most) people there think he killed Kathleen. We are allowed to have our opinions.

BTW, I think OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. The jury disagreed and found him not guilty. Another jury, in a civil matter, found OJ guilty of causing Ron G.'s death....difference of opinion. I've got mine and you are allowed to have yours.

IMO

[True2Blues]

I don't know what constitutes a 'Mob Rule' mentality, but we are all entitled to our opinions. As we won't be on the jury I think we can voice our thoughts on the case. That's what a discussion board is all about.

You're right, this isn't "Mob Rule", that's a ridiculous thing to say. This is a board where people come to talk about court cases and express their opinions. It shows that the opinion Drew Peterson is involved in his third wife's death and with his 4th wife's disappearance, is a wide spread one.

He's got only himself and his huge ego to blame for that. If he didn't keep putting himself in front of cameras, no one would know that much about him.

[kellabeck]

Let me be very clear here; I think Drew Peterson is a worm. I can't stand the guy, and I think his arrogance and smugness are a big part of the reason people are running around saying they think he killed Savio, and the last wife that's still missing.

However, I don't like the mentality behind those types of opinions. We live in a country that has a Judicial system in place. It's there for a reason. Is it perfect? No, it certainly isn't, but we do not allow "MOB RULE". That's what I getting out of some of these horrific posts.

SNIP

We aren't a mob. We are posters in cyberspace. :rolleyes:

[True2Blues]

We aren't a mob. We are posters in cyberspace. :rolleyes:

Yeah! I don't even know how to make a torch and I don't own a pitchfork. (I do have a flashlight and a garden trowel, though.) :laugh:

[AmndaRcknwth]

I'm sorry I'm not up to speed on this case . . . is there any evidence that has come out yet besides his ex-wife's letter? I'm just wondering if a jury would convict if that's all there is and nothing to tie him to the crime scene.


IMO

The second autopsy. It showed KS had been bruised, the natural conclusion is that she put up a fight or was beaten. Toxicology will likely be the "surprise" at trial if DP drugged her or used any sort of spray or breathing agent to subdue her.

The domestic calls. Some of them were just "he/she didn't return the boys on time" but some were because he allegedly broke into her (his former) home. In one call, Stacy and KS were going at it, Drew pinned KS to the ground and they arrested her in front of her kids.

Stacy's statements to Pastor Neil Schori. She told him she knew about DP killing Kitty. In other words, she knowingly provided an alibi to a murderer, according to Schori. Before she disappeared, Stacy spilled it to the pastor and he kept his mouth shut.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Perhaps you could supply your sources of all that information. I'd like to read up on this case. Thank you.

I agree with your opinion about a fair trial and I absolutely understand where you're coming from. That said, people have a lot of Drew-anger.

Most of what I know is what I've read from day one.

A Candy Rose is a great source for facts of this case.
http://acandyrose.com/

There are umpteen forums with sections devoted to it.

Here is a photo compilation:
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20-%20Drew/

[Bobaloo]

******SNIPPED************

Are we supposed to be discussing her here?

We're discussing her father so I don't see why not. Plenty of discussion about anyone Casey Anthony ever knew in her whole life so I didn't think it was not allowed. Sorry.

[Mayasmimi]

I'm not so sure about the mob rule. In my heart of hearts? There is evidence. Remember yall....we don't know what LE knows. I'm just sitting on my hands...waiting. GJ is still meeting with regard to Stacy. We'll soon see. Please? Why would LE or the DA say anything? Will all come out at trial. Yeah...I said it.

I firmly believe there is evidence that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio Peterson and Stacy Cales Peterson. LE is not playing.

BTW....Scott Peterson is on death row.....circumstancial evidence? Remember??????

For the life of me, I just don't understand why people don't get that (or don't want to). No worries. Drew is only a celebrity in his mind. THAT will never change. Betcha Scott thinks so, as did OJ.

Nope.

[Taybug]

Thank you so much! I'll do some reading.

Yes, there is a lot of Drew-anger, and I don't really understand it. Unless someone has a personal connection to even one of the parties involved, it seems a little strange to me. However, once he is tried, and, if convicted, then the anger is understandable. How can one be angry about something that hasn't been proven true yet?? I don't get it. That's why we have trials, I thought.

All that "gut feeling" and "I just know" stuff, makes no sense at all. I guess that's why we have a judicial system in place, otherwise, it's pretty clear what would happen, and it isn't good.

jmho

What you just said blew me away. I'm even a little upset by it. Why? Because when you honestly feel like someone was involved in another person's murder, I think it's natural to feel a bit of anger towards that person. I agree with a lot of what you said earlier about a fair trial and such, but I still stand by MY OPINION that Drew Peterson had something to do with (if not the sole reason/person) Kathleen Savio's death and Stacy Peterson's disappearance. I don't know how anyone who thinks he did could NOT feel anger towards that man. He's disgusting and arrogant.

How do you figure that someone has to have a connection to someone to feel certain emotions? I think if that were the case none of us would be here discussing missing and/or murdered children and adults we do not know. So, though you are entitled to your own opinion, I highly disagree with that statement.

MOO

[kellabeck]

IIRC (and this is from my memory and I can't link to my brain, so don't ask), the second autopsy contained everything that was in the first autopsy. The difference is that the ME made the conclusion in the second and in the first, a different system was in place. At the time of the first autopsy, the coroner made his examination and submitted his info to a coroner's jury and they are the one who made the determination. This was a group of laypeople including a friend/coworker of Drew's (!!) who assured the others that Drew would never hurt his ex.
One or more members of this jury has/have spoken out, saying that they believed the options they had did not include "undetermined" and that's how they would have found rather than "accidental."

And on another front, Stephen Peterson, the oldest son has issued a statement supposedly on behalf of all the children professing their total belief in DrewP's innocence. His victims. He has so many victims.

[kellabeck]

respectfully snipped for space

Morning, kellabeck. Could you point me in the direction of that statement? I'd love to read it. TIA

I just posted a link!

[bkwits]

I just posted a link!



Thank you Kellabeck. :thumbsup:

[bkwits]

Yes, we are guaranteed the right to express our opinions about this case. I suppose DrewP could sue for defaming his character....ROFLMAO. He did manage to get the FindStacy board shut down. But of course that was BEFORE he was charged with murder of Kathleen.

Many times the weight of public opinion can cause LE to act or react. The press is a valuable asset to American freedom. Such freedom is also guaranteed by our Constitution. The press and public opinion has worked to accused and convicted persons' advantage at times, to keep overzealous LE and DAs in line. We've had several wrongfully convicted men released from death row here in IL. One columnist Eric Zorn (Chicago Tribune) wrote repeatedly about the convictions of two young men, Cruz and Hernandez, both were sentenced to die (three trials for Cruz), even though another man had confessed and the evidence did not match Cruz and Hernandez. The real killer of the 10 year old girl, Brian Dugan, was found guilty by DNA and his confession.

I don't think we have to apologize for having opinions or dissection of the case and the evidence. Anyone is free to challenge our opinions. If anyone wants to defend the accused Drew P, then come on. But alas, there is always someone out there who wants to shame and point fingers. Let's remember there are victims in this case. They should have rights as well.

JMO.

[Toggie]

***********SNIPPED TO SAVE BANDWITH*********

Maybe there's evidence, and maybe there isn't. Time will tell. The thing is we really don't know, so until he is tried, he remains innocent untril proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

He's a worm, but a worm who is entitled to the same rights we all have.

jmho


Kathleen had rights to and someone, IMO, killed her.

Kathleen reached out for help against her ex LEO husband and was ignored. No one gave a flip about her right to safety and now she's 6 ft. under and her kids are without their mother. Stacy's kids too.

Screw Drew - I think he's guilty of Kathleen's death and Stacy's disappearance.

[AmndaRcknwth]

The Will County Sheriff was on a radio program and said he's known Drew for years and Drew was always like that, a joker.

I did not know Drew got the Stacy website taken down, is that true? How did he do that?

I organized more this morning and it isn't perfect, but makes a little more sense... the pics saved, that is... not the murders.
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20-%20Drew/

[bkwits]

The Will County Sheriff was on a radio program and said he's known Drew for years and Drew was always like that, a joker.

I did not know Drew got the Stacy website taken down, is that true? How did he do that?

I organized more this morning and it isn't perfect, but makes a little more sense... the pics saved, that is... not the murders.
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20-%20Drew/

The findstacypeterson was a message board that many local people (as well as others posted on). There was an ex-husband of a Stacy relative that posted interesting info. I went to look for the webiste and the posting part of it is gone. I believe the info about Drew's lawyers complaining about it defaming Drew was on Acandyrose, but am not sure. I will look for it.

[bkwits]

The findstacypeterson was a message board that many local people (as well as others posted on). There was an ex-husband of a Stacy relative that posted interesting info. I went to look for the webiste and the posting part of it is gone. I believe the info about Drew's lawyers complaining about it defaming Drew was on Acandyrose, but am not sure. I will look for it.


Here's the link.

http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=548&z=4

DrewP filed complaints with the FBI and local authorities. The site was invading his privacy. ROFL. Like he is not seeking to put his private life out there for everyone to see...tours of his house...putting his small children on TV...trying to get "A Date with Drew" on a radio show...telling reporters that he is engaged...on and on and on.

[Callie]

*****SNIPPED TO SAVE BANDWITH****

What people "think" has nothing to do with anything. That's why we have a judicial system in place., and everyone is entitled to a fair trial. That isn't a completely foreign concept, is it? I couldn't care less what anyone thinks. I care about the evidence in a case, and the trial being conducted in a fair manner.
jmho


He must remain innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt IN THE MINDS OF THE JURORS. He's already seen by the prosecution as being guilty that's why they're taking him to trial.

Here you have 2 women married to the same man, both in fear of their lives as was expressed to people they knew. One's dead, the other missing. Duh

Now, you have a new autopsy on the wife deceased that states that the manner of death is homicide.

What the jury will "think" after hearing the case DOES matter.

The right to express one's opinion and belief isn't a completely foreign concept either, is it?

[Stella Rose]

The Peterson Trifecta is complete. Peterson East: Guilty! Peterson West: Guilty! Peterson Central: (hope to be found) Guilty!

Just the thought of sitting through another Peterson trial. Wow. And a Kathleen as a victim. Strange.

Bye, Drewpy. You will not be missed. Glad your most recent (soon to be) victim escaped unharmed. :tonguewag:

[Callie]

What you just said blew me away. I'm even a little upset by it. Why? Because when you honestly feel like someone was involved in another person's murder, I think it's natural to feel a bit of anger towards that person. I agree with a lot of what you said earlier about a fair trial and such, but I still stand by MY OPINION that Drew Peterson had something to do with (if not the sole reason/person) Kathleen Savio's death and Stacy Peterson's disappearance. I don't know how anyone who thinks he did could NOT feel anger towards that man. He's disgusting and arrogant.

How do you figure that someone has to have a connection to someone to feel certain emotions? I think if that were the case none of us would be here discussing missing and/or murdered children and adults we do not know. So, though you are entitled to your own opinion, I highly disagree with that statement.

MOO

:thumbsup:

[bkwits]

He must remain innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt IN THE MINDS OF THE JURORS. He's already seen by the prosecution as being guilty that's why they're taking him to trial.

Here you have 2 women married to the same man, both in fear of their lives as was expressed to people they knew. One's dead, the other missing. Duh

Now, you have a new autopsy on the wife deceased that states that the manner of death is homicide.

What the jury will "think" after hearing the case DOES matter.

The right to express one's opinion and belief isn't a completely foreign concept either, is it?

Good points, but they are probably lost on those who like to get on their high horses and ride around criticizing others for "thinking" and having opinions. Ignore is a good feature on this board.

IMO

[Callie]

Good points, but they are probably lost on those who like to get on their high horses and ride around criticizing others for "thinking" and having opinions. Ignore is a good feature on this board.

IMO

Thank you, bkwits. I was just reading your post #40. Good one! Also, in some cases, it was the families and the public who complained to LE about someone guilty of a crime that LE wasn't doing anything about (didn't feel they had enough evidence for conviction is their usual excuse) until they finally got off their duffs and took the person to trial.

[bkwits]

So, if one does not agree with your opinion, and chooses to continue having great faith in the U.S. Constitution, and the Rights of others, they are on their high horse criticizing? Do I have that right?

I am neither on a horse, nor am I criticizing. I posted my opinion in reply to the posts of others; exactly what message boards are all about.

One is not required to agree with the masses. By the way, my posts have been simple; I don't know if DP killed anyone, or not. I wasn't there, and while I really can't stand the guy, I am always mindful of the U.S. Constitution, and the Rights afforded to everyone, including all of us.

Sorry, if that's a problem for anyone, but I'm not going to change the principles I believe in for anyone.

jmho

Oh, I didn't address my post to you, but if the horseshoe fits.......

[True2Blues]

He must remain innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt IN THE MINDS OF THE JURORS. He's already seen by the prosecution as being guilty that's why they're taking him to trial.

Here you have 2 women married to the same man, both in fear of their lives as was expressed to people they knew. One's dead, the other missing. Duh

Now, you have a new autopsy on the wife deceased that states that the manner of death is homicide.

What the jury will "think" after hearing the case DOES matter.

The right to express one's opinion and belief isn't a completely foreign concept either, is it?

Of course not. Drew Peterson's rights are in no way being affected by the discussion on this board. Most of us are in different states and none of us have any control over the judicial system in Illinois.

As you so rightly say, Innocent until proven Guilty is for the court, that's why all prospective jurors are questioned as to their knowledge of a crime and any preconceived notions about a defendant.

Peterson has all of his rights, we have all of our opinions.

[bkwits]

Of course not. Drew Peterson's rights are in no way being affected by the discussion on this board. Most of us are in different states and none of us have any control over the judicial system in Illinois.

As you so rightly say, Innocent until proven Guilty is for the court, that's why all prospective jurors are questioned as to their knowledge of a crime and any preconceived notions about a defendant.

Peterson has all of his rights, we have all of our opinions.

I agree. If no one should claim that someone is guilty of murder how can he or she be charged? The DA is saying this person is guilty when he is indicted. The GJ says this person is likely guilty if it indicts. The trial is held to prove or disprove one's guilt or innocence. The trial is not necessarily the end of the line. A guilty verdict can be appealed.

That whole point is totally ridiculous and it comes up in nearly crime every board that I've on. Now if someone wants to defend DrewP on this board. That might be an interesting discussion. But just to point the finger and cry shame, shame is really kind of childish. IMO

[True2Blues]

I agree. If no one should claim that someone is guilty of murder how can he or she be charged? The DA is saying this person is guilty when he is indicted. The GJ says this person is likely guilty if it indicts. The trial is held to prove or disprove one's guilt or innocence. The trial is not necessarily the end of the line. A guilty verdict can be appealed.

That whole point is totally ridiculous and it comes up in nearly crime every board that I've on. Now if someone wants to defend DrewP on this board. That might be an interesting discussion. But just to point the finger and cry shame, shame is really kind of childish. IMO

You're right, it always comes up. An accusation that people using their right to free speech are somehow impinging on the rights of the accused by voicing an opinion on a message board.

I will not be invited to be on the Peterson jury, as I live in another state, and even if I were, I'd let them know I already had an opinion in the matter. Since the Illinois Court System has never called and asked me to make any decisions for them, I don't expect any calls now. :rolleyes::laugh: I can guarantee that DP has no reason to fear for his rights because of me.

[koawally]

I thought I had a fly swatter around here somewhere.

In any event fellow DP watchers, I know he killed both woman.
Kathleen and Stacy...All we need is 12 honest hardworking jurors to come to a decision and we can kiss him bye bye...:tonguewag:

Love what Cassandra said of DP's arrest:
Cassandra Cales, Stacy Peterson's sister, in court for Drew Peterson's appearance, said, "It made me feel good to see him chained up like the dog that he is." :thumbsup:

[True2Blues]

AT no time have I ever said DP has lost his Rights. In fact, what I've been saying is, he does have Rights, and it's important we all remember that. Just a post on a message board with my opinion. Nothing more.

jmho

I've never forgotten it, nor has anyone else that I've seen. We all believe that he should be brought to trial and we are waiting for that to happen.

"Innocent until Proven Guilty" applies to the court, not the general public.

[True2Blues]

Love what Cassandra said of DP's arrest:
Cassandra Cales, Stacy Peterson's sister, in court for Drew Peterson's appearance, said, "It made me feel good to see him chained up like the dog that he is." :thumbsup:

That is an insult to dogs the world round! LOL But I know what she means. :wink: Seeing him like that must be a relief to her.

[Callie]

So, if one does not agree with your opinion, and chooses to continue having great faith in the U.S. Constitution, and the Rights of others, they are on their high horse criticizing? Do I have that right?

I am neither on a horse, nor am I criticizing. I posted my opinion in reply to the posts of others; exactly what message boards are all about.

One is not required to agree with the masses. By the way, my posts have been simple; I don't know if DP killed anyone, or not. I wasn't there, and while I really can't stand the guy, I am always mindful of the U.S. Constitution, and the Rights afforded to everyone, including all of us.

Sorry, if that's a problem for anyone, but I'm not going to change the principles I believe in for anyone.

jmho

I think most all of us has faith in our Constitution and the Rights of others.
Some of us have the opinion that DR is probably guilty. You don't have an opinion one way or the other.
But you have the opinion that we are wrong to voice ours because he hasn't gone to trial yet and refer to us as having a Mob mentality. Now, that's the problem.

[Callie]

Yes, only in courts. Did someone suggest otherwise? I didn't see any posts like that.

jmho

It might be a good idea to reread YOUR posts.

[bkwits]

That is an insult to dogs the world round! LOL But I know what she means. :wink: Seeing him like that must be a relief to her.

I agree about the insult to dogs. My sweet Brittany spaniel wouldn't hurt anyone or anything. Well...maybe that squirrel that taunts her all the time, if she could catch him. :wink:

BTW, you are a St. Louis Blues Hockey fan? I am orig from St. Louis. My son loves the Blues.

[True2Blues]

I agree about the insult to dogs. My sweet Brittany spaniel wouldn't hurt anyone or anything. Well...maybe that squirrel that taunts her all the time, if she could catch him. :wink:

BTW, you are a St. Louis Blues Hockey fan? I am orig from St. Louis. My son loves the Blues.

Dogs are kind enough to understand it's just a saying. :biggrin: He looks better in chains than any dog I know!

I am a BLUES fan, yes indeed! Good for your son, he has great taste.

[vonna]

AT no time have I ever said DP has lost his Rights. In fact, what I've been saying is, he does have Rights, and it's important we all remember that. Just a post on a message board with my opinion. Nothing more.

jmho

That would be a little difficult for any sane adult to forget!

[Callie]

I don't believe there is anaything that indicates I'm angry and irritated. I believe that would, indeed, make some happy, but it definitely isn't the case.

I'm not the one claiming DP is guilty for a murder or two without a trial.
[SNIP]

jmho

:huh: Now why would you think that would make some of us happy? That's ridiculous.

I'll tell you what would make me happy. To be able to believe that DR is guilty without being a member of THE MOB. OK?:biggrin:

[bkwits]

:huh: Now why would you think that would make some of us happy? That's ridiculous.

I'll tell you what would make me happy. To be able to believe that DR is guilty without being a member of THE MOB. OK?:biggrin:


And I'll tell you what would make me REALLY HAPPY. For Drew Peterson to confess to killing Kathleen and tell what happened to Stacy. :thumbsup:

[bkwits]

Does anyone else see a eerie resemblance between these two *men.* Could they be twins separated at birth?

:chicken:

[vonna]

And I'll tell you what would make me REALLY HAPPY. For Drew Peterson to confess to killing Kathleen and tell what happened to Stacy. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, a sociopath always sees himself as the injured party!

[Callie]

And I'll tell you what would make me REALLY HAPPY. For Drew Peterson to confess to killing Kathleen and tell what happened to Stacy. :thumbsup:

Yes, and that too.:thumbup:

[bkwits]

Unfortunately, a sociopath always sees himself as the injured party!

I don't expect it to happen, but it's just wishful thinking. :drool:

[kellabeck]

Of course not. Drew Peterson's rights are in no way being affected by the discussion on this board. Most of us are in different states and none of us have any control over the judicial system in Illinois.

As you so rightly say, Innocent until proven Guilty is for the court, that's why all prospective jurors are questioned as to their knowledge of a crime and any preconceived notions about a defendant.

Peterson has all of his rights, we have all of our opinions.

Awesome! Hear! Hear!

[kellabeck]

Love what Cassandra said of DP's arrest:
Cassandra Cales, Stacy Peterson's sister, in court for Drew Peterson's appearance, said, "It made me feel good to see him chained up like the dog that he is." :thumbsup:

Just a tiny peeve of mine-- people's maligning of dogs and all other animals by calling monsters like Drew a "dog" or an "animal."

I live with a dog. Trust me. He has never, nor would he EVER behave in the selfish, disgusting way that Drew has perfected to an artform.

[Callie]

Does anyone else see a eerie resemblance between these two *men.* Could they be twins separated at birth?

:chicken:

There's someone else as ugly as drew?:biggrin:

[True2Blues]

There's someone else as ugly as drew?:biggrin:

:laugh::lol:

[bkwits]

There's someone else as ugly as drew?:biggrin:


Joel Brodsky is close. His personality is almost as disgusting as DrewP's. :thumbdown:

[vonna]

Joel Brodsky is close. His personality is almost as disgusting as DrewP's. :thumbdown:

I realize it is a requirement of our judicial system - but I have never been able to understand how an attorney can attempt to prove his guilty client not guilty when he knows he/she is. This excludes protecting his client's rights

[bkwits]

I realize it is a requirement of our judicial system - but I have never been able to understand how an attorney can attempt to prove his guilty client not guilty when he knows he/she is. This excludes protecting his client's rights

I know what you're saying. Everyone is entitled to a defense, and I guess some of the lawyers either convince themselves of the client's innoence or just try to get the best deal they can for a client they know is guilty.

[aproudmom]

***yawn** ***stretch***

Good morning!! Every day I wake up and remember that he is in jail ... IS A GREAT DAY!!

:thumbsup:

OMG had to laugh at this one Tex..lol..:thumbsup: I must say I totally agree with you..:thumbsup:

[aproudmom]

Joel Brodsky is close. His personality is almost as disgusting as DrewP's. :thumbdown:

IMO They are perfect for each other..they are both umm jokes and I do mean that...he about make me wannabarf as much as DP and not because he is his lawyer either..but I think they are just perfect for each other two peas in a pod...

[aproudmom]

Just a question heard the families may try to get the kids at some point we know they are with his older son right now..how does anyone feel about who should be caring for them? I am kinda stuck on this one not sure if his son is anything like him sure he is not but the should not keep them from seeing the familys SP kids are younger so I am not sure about them but the older ones of KS they are alittle older and a judge may ask them who they want to live with or perhaps not..there has not been a trial yet and he does have a bond..but I have a feeling he will be charged with SP murder..call it a gut feeling..

[Callie]

Just a tiny peeve of mine-- people's maligning of dogs and all other animals by calling monsters like Drew a "dog" or an "animal."

I live with a dog. Trust me. He has never, nor would he EVER behave in the selfish, disgusting way that Drew has perfected to an artform.

Yeah, I know what ya mean. Dogs are better than that. In fact, I believe that most all dogs (except those ruined by humans) have more of a right to life than some so-called human beings. But that's just me.
:biggrin:

[Callie]

I realize it is a requirement of our judicial system - but I have never been able to understand how an attorney can attempt to prove his guilty client not guilty when he knows he/she is. This excludes protecting his client's rights

Nor can I.

[Toggie]

The mothers bio families should have custody of the children, so DP's continued brain washing of these kids will stop.
DP has procreated enough, he took these mothers from their children and took the children from the right to BE mothered.

DP will never recieve an ounce of mercy from me. I hope the Bio Mothers families, take custody. These children will have a much better future and chance.

No way a cops salary can provide for 4 kids. And If I were the grandparent I'd sue for custody. It will take years to undo the brainwashing they've experienced. And even then, they may never believe their father a murderer much like Julie Jensens children.
How sad, to think that. Stacy was robbed, Kathleen was robbed, of life, of motherhood, by a serial freak who thinks he has one up on LE.
Sorry, he is just another corrupt killing cop. That's all.
A wife beating controlling stalker of young girls, who couldnt get a woman to date him if he tried. A woman you see, would have seen right through his "charm". Of which, he has none. Most of the girls he abused and killed I think had daddy issues. Including his current. They needed an out, an escape from their lives, and he provided the cush.
It's that simple. The abusive things he said about Stacy in those interviews I will never forget. what did he say..."we had to fix her"
Something like that, fix her boobs fix her teeth, fix her. What a sick emotionally stunted individual DP is. May he one day know the terror of being stalked. Just like his victims did.

DP picks these young girls and singles them out like a predator. Because it's the only way he can play his game, and control a girl.
Now, question is where did DP learn this behavior? I wasn't ever impressed with his mothers interviews I will say that. DP is that kind of stalker, he loves the "chase" and without it, it's just not his game.
To control, seclude and belittle these young girls into thinking they needed to be fixed, they needed plastic surgery, they needed him, they couldn't make it without him, etc etc. Could you imagine trying to argue with this idiot? He wouldn't be able to carry the conversation, why?
Because he doesn't have the intelligence to do so. That is why he has to joke through life, because he is inadequate. Lacking in so many ways, and socially inept.

Ah but yes, DP has his rights as an American. Let the Trial Begin.
It was clear that the only reason KS's case was brushed off is because DP had friends in high places, men, who could not do their jobs and set aside personal alliances and actually do their jobs to determine COD and MOD. That's OK. KS will speak from the grave.

Her fingertips were bruised. Now, who here thinks she got those bruises on her fingertips from "drowning" in an accident? (please)


Great post bugout!

It's hard to read KS' fingertips were bruised because I can imagine her fighting for her life.:sad:

[bkwits]

An Attorney does not prove his client is Not Guilty. It's the job of the D.A./Prosecutor to prove the alleged perpetrator is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

jmho

I agree. The State must prove its case against the accused. The defense attorney is there to challenge the pros. and make them prove its case. IMO

[AmndaRcknwth]

Where does the "her fingertips were bruised" come from?

This is all I can find about her injuries, autopsy report...
http://i42.tinypic.com/2qtlm6b.jpg

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20-%20Drew/KSautopsy.jpg

[bkwits]

Just a question heard the families may try to get the kids at some point we know they are with his older son right now..how does anyone feel about who should be caring for them? I am kinda stuck on this one not sure if his son is anything like him sure he is not but the should not keep them from seeing the familys SP kids are younger so I am not sure about them but the older ones of KS they are alittle older and a judge may ask them who they want to live with or perhaps not..there has not been a trial yet and he does have a bond..but I have a feeling he will be charged with SP murder..call it a gut feeling..

It is my understanding that one of Kathleen's sons is staying with a neighbor. The neighbor said they are all welcome to stay with his family. He said the Peterson kids are like family to his family. Must be a nice man. Steve Peterson lives a few towns away from Drew, so the kids have to change schools. DrewP has ample resources right now (the may dwindle down to 0 because of costs of his defense), so whoever gets the kids will prob have finances to raise them. IMO

[AmndaRcknwth]

It is my understanding that one of Kathleen's sons is staying with a neighbor. The neighbor said they are all welcome to stay with his family. He said the Peterson kids are like family to his family. Must be a nice man. Steve Peterson lives a few towns away from Drew, so the kids have to change schools. DrewP has ample resources right now (the may dwindle down to 0 because of costs of his defense), so whoever gets the kids will prob have finances to raise them. IMO

Really? Tommy is with his friends' family? The Mitchums?

I think that if Steve and his wife are close and known to the kids and are willing to raise 5 kids, then it's a good fit. The Cales and Savios probably want the kids but the kids would have a real adjustment, might be harder on them.

[Leanne Weich]

Where does the "her fingertips were bruised" come from?

This is all I can find about her injuries, autopsy report...
http://i42.tinypic.com/2qtlm6b.jpg

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20-%20Drew/KSautopsy.jpg

Dr Baden stated this when interviewed by Greta the other day. Apparently it was noted in the initial autosy report but because of decomposition of her soft tissue, he was not able to see it for himself.

[koawally]

Just a tiny peeve of mine-- people's maligning of dogs and all other animals by calling monsters like Drew a "dog" or an "animal."

I live with a dog. Trust me. He has never, nor would he EVER behave in the selfish, disgusting way that Drew has perfected to an artform.

I'm certain Cassandra is a dog lover herself...no disrespect was intended to dog lovers anywhere. Goodness I have loving members of my family with four paws and a tail too. I'm am animal lover, but understood exactly what Cassadra meant.

Sometimes people are just soooooooo sensitive. Drews exactly where he belongs analogy fit him perfectly...he is like a rabid animal, on the prey looking for his next victim...glad he likes his bling

[bhardy1956]

He must remain innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt IN THE MINDS OF THE JURORS. He's already seen by the prosecution as being guilty that's why they're taking him to trial.

Here you have 2 women married to the same man, both in fear of their lives as was expressed to people they knew. One's dead, the other missing. Duh

Now, you have a new autopsy on the wife deceased that states that the manner of death is homicide.

What the jury will "think" after hearing the case DOES matter.

The right to express one's opinion and belief isn't a completely foreign concept either, is it?

I agree! Plus, this is a message board, not a court of law. Omega, you need to just chill for a second and just discuss.

[september]

Dr Baden stated this when interviewed by Greta the other day. Apparently it was noted in the initial autosy report but because of decomposition of her soft tissue, he was not able to see it for himself.

After the Spector trial I lost all respect for Dr. Baden and his opinion does mean a thing to me. Trust Leanne, if Drew were paying him Baden would be saying it was an accidental drowning....for sure.:sneaky:

[september]

Sorry for the typos in my first message. Meant to say Baden's opinion doesn't mean a thing to me. :blushing:

[True2Blues]

Sorry for the typos in my first message. Meant to say Baden's opinion doesn't mean a thing to me. :blushing:

Me either.

[Callie]

I agree. The State must prove its case against the accused. The defense attorney is there to challenge the pros. and make them prove its case. IMO

I'd call it more like 'muddying the waters'.

[True2Blues]

I'd call it more like 'muddying the waters'.

Ah, but that is not what Defense Attorney's were created for. Their purpose is to see that their client gets a fair trial and all the advantages allowed by the court.

A defense attorney is there to see that his client gets all of the rights he is entitled too, that all exculpatory evidence is handed over to the defense and that their client is given the opportunity to tell their side of the story in court.

No where does it say that defense attorneys are to make up things and employ liars for hire to try and confuse the jury. Unfortunately, there are very, very few who go with an honest defense any more.

[september]

Ah, but that is not what Defense Attorney's were created for. Their purpose is to see that their client gets a fair trial and all the advantages allowed by the court.

A defense attorney is there to see that his client gets all of the rights he is entitled too, that all exculpatory evidence is handed over to the defense and that their client is given the opportunity to tell their side of the story in court.

No where does it say that defense attorneys are to make up things and employ liars for hire to try and confuse the jury. Unfortunately, there are very, very few who go with an honest defense any more.

And these liars for hire continue to be held up as experts whose opinion is highly respected. It is never mentioned that they have no integrity.

[True2Blues]

And these liars for hire continue to be held up as experts whose opinion is highly respected. It is never mentioned that they have no integrity.

True. They get their own TV shows and get touted on talk shows. The only way to find out what they're really made of is to watch them testify in a case. After seeing them testify, I no longer believe a thing that comes out of Henry Lee, Michael Baden, Werner Spitz or Vincent Di Maio. You still hear their names lauded though.

[Callie]

Ah, but that is not what Defense Attorney's were created for. Their purpose is to see that their client gets a fair trial and all the advantages allowed by the court.

A defense attorney is there to see that his client gets all of the rights he is entitled too, that all exculpatory evidence is handed over to the defense and that their client is given the opportunity to tell their side of the story in court.

No where does it say that defense attorneys are to make up things and employ liars for hire to try and confuse the jury. Unfortunately, there are very, very few who go with an honest defense any more.

Correct! And as you said, few go with an honest defense anymore. After all, they don't become rich and famous by losing all their cases to the truth.

[True2Blues]

Are you talking about a herd of cattle, here? It's impossible to say that all defense attorney's are liars, and have no integrity. It may interest you to know that there are many Prosecutors, and D.A.'s who are liars, and have no integrity, but in no way, can anyone make a blanket statement regardng the entire group.

It may also interest you to know that many people on trial are, indeed, innocent. Just because someone has been charged with a crime, it does NOT automatically mean they're guilty because they're on trial.

It's pretty clear to me why we have a judicial system in place. If we didn't, vigilante justice would be in place, and it's painfully clear it wouldn't be based on facts, or the truth. Frightening to say the least.

jmho

Liars for Hire is a reference to paid "expert" witnesses.

[Leanne Weich]

Sorry for the typos in my first message. Meant to say Baden's opinion doesn't mean a thing to me. :blushing:

I don't take what he says at face value generally but, in this case, but for his autopsy, Kathleen's death could well still be determined as accidental.

[Callie]

I am posting MY OPINIONS, and nothing more. If they differ from every other poster, then so be it. I don't play follow the leader. I have my own mind, and will draw my own conclusions in the manner I'm most comfortable with.

[SNIP]

jmho

That's what we are doing, omega. You don't have to agree with anyone if you so choose. No one is asking you to do that. We just don't care to be refer to as having a mob mentality just because we have already formed an opinion as to his guilt. You haven't got one one way or the other and that's ok too. We're not putting any labels on you, so how about showing us the same respect? Okie dokie?:smile:

[kellabeck]

Thank you for that explanation. However, not every expert that is hired, is a liar. That's just ridiculous. Henry Lee is hired often, and he's certainly no liar.

I prefer to judge people by their individual behavior, and actions, but that's just me.

jmho

On the contrary!! Henry Lee certainly IS a liar and has lied under oath!!

Point 1: In the first Spector trial he was shown in cross-examination, and with the testimony of witnesses to have lied about a missing piece of evidence, thought to be a piece of Lana Clarkson's chipped nail, which he photographed and collected and never turned over to LE and then LIED about it under oath. Judge Fidler all but called him a perjurer.

Point 2: In the Michael Peterson trial, on behalf of the defendant, Dr. Lee got on the witness stand to profess the utter piffle that there was "too much blood for a beating" an absolutely ludicrous notion which the jury completely rejected.

[kellabeck]

I agree. It's certainly a distinct possibility. Dr. Baden is still a highly respected Pathologist, and doesn't deserve to be bashed about.

Dr. Baden is respected by the Talking Heads which bring him on, but regular trial watchers (like me and other posters) are aware of his paid testimony at trials which confounds all truth and logic and credulity.

To wit--

Point 1-- In the Seymour Schuss trial in which one senior citizen was on trial for killing another senior after they argued in a movie line and Schuss punched the other senior (Irving Rosenberg), knocking him to the pavement where he struck his head. Taken to the ER, Rosenberg lapsed into a coma and died of a fractured skull and brain injury.
Baden testified on behalf of Schuss, claiming that at the very moment of the punch, Mr. Rosenberg coincidentally had an aneurysm, and so his death was natural.

Point 2-- In the first Spector trial, the husband of one of the defendant's lawyers, Dr Baden testified that Lana Clarkson's spinal cord was not completely transected at the impact of the bullet but remained connected by a thread which enabled her to continue to move after being shot, and then the transection occurred with the moving of the body hours later.

Both testimonies-- absolutely LUDICROUS!!! Both defenses rejected by most of the jurors.

[penguin01]

Thank you for that explanation. However, not every expert that is hired, is a liar. That's just ridiculous. Henry Lee is hired often, and he's certainly no liar.

I prefer to judge people by their individual behavior, and actions, but that's just me.

jmho Omega, I know you haven't been around all that long - but surely you are aware that you are talking to people who have been watching these individuals (ie: Lee and Baden) for quite some time and are making very fair and informed judgments about their particular behaviour and actions. Watch and learn - wax on wax off -LOL!

Excellent posts Kellabeck!

[True2Blues]

On the contrary!! Henry Lee certainly IS a liar and has lied under oath!!

Point 1: In the first Spector trial he was shown in cross-examination, and with the testimony of witnesses to have lied about a missing piece of evidence, thought to be a piece of Lana Clarkson's chipped nail, which he photographed and collected and never turned over to LE and then LIED about it under oath. Judge Fidler all but called him a perjurer.

Point 2: In the Michael Peterson trial, on behalf of the defendant, Dr. Lee got on the witness stand to profess the utter piffle that there was "too much blood for a beating" an absolutely ludicrous notion which the jury completely rejected.

Excellent points! Both are reasons why I no longer have any confidence in anything that comes out of his mouth.

[True2Blues]

Dr. Baden is respected by the Talking Heads which bring him on, but regular trial watchers (like me and other posters) are aware of his paid testimony at trials which confounds all truth and logic and credulity.

To wit--

Point 1-- In the Seymour Schuss trial in which one senior citizen was on trial for killing another senior after they argued in a movie line and Schuss punched the other senior (Irving Rosenberg), knocking him to the pavement where he struck his head. Taken to the ER, Rosenberg lapsed into a coma and died of a fractured skull and brain injury.
Baden testified on behalf of Schuss, claiming that at the very moment of the punch, Mr. Rosenberg coincidentally had an aneurysm, and so his death was natural.

Point 2-- In the first Spector trial, the husband of one of the defendant's lawyers, Dr Baden testified that Lana Clarkson's spinal cord was not completely transected at the impact of the bullet but remained connected by a thread which enabled her to continue to move after being shot, and then the transection occurred with the moving of the body hours later.

Both testimonies-- absolutely LUDICROUS!!! Both defenses rejected by most of the jurors.


The infamous AHA Moment. What a load of hooey that was.

Don't forget his testimony in Spector one in which he claimed that he didn't know what "Conflict of Interest" was, either. That was a real confidence booster.

[True2Blues]

:laugh: The 'conflict of interest' issue was a bigger laugh than the AHA moment for me. My 5 year-old could define that.

Baden (both of them actually) is so full of hot air he should be a float in the Macy's Tgiving Day parade.


:thumbsup:

[True2Blues]

Well I agree that not all experts are liars. It can happen on the pro and defense side..... I've seen it happen.

HOWEVER, with that said, Lee has lost all CREDIBILITY IMO. He was a liar for hire in PS1.

Oh, it can absolutely happen on both sides. Look at Vincent Di Mao, he left his job as Bexar ME when it was discovered that he had changed findings so the cases he testified in would be "wins". Now that he's out offering his services for hire, I'd say he hasn't changed a bit.

I think it's time for a new generation of "experts" to come on the scene. People who aren't so obsessed with TV time, who are still committed to their careers.

[not.another]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1574260,peterson-stepbrother-grand-jury_jO051409.article


:thumbsup:

[~Dramatica~]

Drew Peterson speaks out from prison
http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/14/1932852.aspx

[True2Blues]

Drew Peterson speaks out from prison
http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/14/1932852.aspx

What an arrogant creature he is.

[bkwits]

Drew Peterson speaks out from prison
http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/14/1932852.aspx

I can hardly wait to see this interview.....NOT.:cursing:

The DrewP interview that I want to see is with the judge.

[Spyder88]

Personally, I hope DP has to wear his "bling" and his "spiffy" orange jumpsuit for a very long time.

I wonder how that "killer" humor of his will fare once he's put away with all his fellow prisoners. Do you suppose he'll refer to them as his boyfriends??? :rolleyes:

[starling]

Drew's fiancee hires Gloria Allred
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-drew-petersons-fiancee-hires-gloria-allred

[Anakerie]

Drew's fiancee hires Gloria Allred
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-drew-petersons-fiancee-hires-gloria-allred
Uhm... Why on earth does the fiance think she needs a lawyer?

[Callie]

On the contrary!! Henry Lee certainly IS a liar and has lied under oath!!

Point 1: In the first Spector trial he was shown in cross-examination, and with the testimony of witnesses to have lied about a missing piece of evidence, thought to be a piece of Lana Clarkson's chipped nail, which he photographed and collected and never turned over to LE and then LIED about it under oath. Judge Fidler all but called him a perjurer.

Point 2: In the Michael Peterson trial, on behalf of the defendant, Dr. Lee got on the witness stand to profess the utter piffle that there was "too much blood for a beating" an absolutely ludicrous notion which the jury completely rejected.

Also, don't forget Dr. Sum Ting Wong's testimony in the oj trial.

He also said that there had been another footprint at the murder scene indicating more than one perp. He got this from crime scene pictures. As it turned out this was a print set in concrete at the time the walkway was poured.

[True2Blues]

Uhm... Why on earth does the fiance think she needs a lawyer?

To make her book deals for her?

[sunstar]

Uhm... Why on earth does the fiance think she needs a lawyer?

Good question and why Gloria? :confused:

[sunstar]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1574260,peterson-stepbrother-grand-jury_jO051409.article


:thumbsup:

I sure hope they will have enough to hand down an indictment. :smile:

[True2Blues]

Good question and why Gloria? :confused:

She's well known in the media, maybe this woman sees this as her 15 minutes and wants to make all she can of it.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Good question and why Gloria? :confused:

On another forum, it was explained to me.

The quote:

on Christine needing a lawyer...

I remember back when Christine went on the morning show after she had moved out of DP's the first time and said they weren't really engaged, that it was all a set up by Brodsky and DP. Lisa Bloom, Gloria's daughter was there with Christine sitting next to her and Ernie while she was interviewed. Now I see how Gloria got involved.

That makes sense to me. Connection.

[sunstar]

On another forum, it was explained to me.

The quote:

on Christine needing a lawyer...

I remember back when Christine went on the morning show after she had moved out of DP's the first time and said they weren't really engaged, that it was all a set up by Brodsky and DP. Lisa Bloom, Gloria's daughter was there with Christine sitting next to her and Ernie while she was interviewed. Now I see how Gloria got involved.

That makes sense to me. Connection.

Oh ~ I see!! :smile: thanks so much!

[sunstar]

She's well known in the media, maybe this woman sees this as her 15 minutes and wants to make all she can of it.

I really, really hope not. :sad:

[kellabeck]

Drew Peterson speaks out from prison
http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/14/1932852.aspx

Ha ha! Hey, Drew! Look at the shelf for HOW TO ACT DURING A PERP WALK. It's right next to HOW TO ACT LIKE YOU MISS YOUR MISSING WIFE

[Callie]

Good question and why Gloria? :confused:

Gloria is a victim's advocate. The girlfriend, in a sense, was also a victim of Drew's but in another way and, of course, not nearly as much as Kathleen, Stacy and also his own children. She was by Amber Frye's side before and all during the Scott Peterson trial.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Good morning from Nebraska...

I still do not get this with Gloria Allred and "Raines" hooking up.
If I understand this correctly, Drew Peterson and Brodsky schemed this up and Peterson was merely using Raines for a publicity stunt?
Why, I ask again would Gloria Allred be involved in that. That just shows good cause that DP is a manipulator for his own self serving acts and was using CR to get more attention and media.:unsure:
Will someone explain the connection.:confused:

No, it is real. It (the engagement) was said to be a publicity stunt when it first became meat for reporters around here.
My guess? To get them off Chrissy. She's been around since last summer/fall or so.

Drew has known Chrissy since she was a young teen, hooked up recently.

[kellabeck]

Matt Lauer asked DrewP if he had considered that he might never be free again, held until trial and then found guilty? Ole DrewP cheerfully said that he thinks he'll be freed on bond and found "innocent"!!

:laugh:

[Lrobert1]

Matt Lauer asked DrewP if he had considered that he might never be free again, held until trial and then found guilty? Ole DrewP cheerfully said that he thinks he'll be freed on bond and found "innocent"!!

:laugh:

:rolleyes:

In his warped dream state he would think that.

Oh, DP, when reality hits it won't be a picnic any longer.

[Lrobert1]

Anyone know whatever happened to Rick Mims? He's another one who enjoyed the spotlight somewhat after Stacy went missing. He put up a website, and got shut down temporarily for some comments and then never heard from again?

Surprised we haven't heard anything from him since DP got arrested.

I also see that Steve C. and Mike Robinson testified at the grand jury once again. I truly believe that they know a lot of info, especially Mike Robinson who was with DP quite a bit after Stacy went missing, even so far as to give him a cell phone to use.

As for DP's son Steve P., how can he stand up for his father? For crying out loud, shortly after Stacy goes missing, DP meets with him to give him money for keeping. Hello? Does that not prove that your father is hiding something?

[kellabeck]

Anyone know whatever happened to Rick Mims? He's another one who enjoyed the spotlight somewhat after Stacy went missing. He put up a website, and got shut down temporarily for some comments and then never heard from again?

Surprised we haven't heard anything from him since DP got arrested.

I also see that Steve C. and Mike Robinson testified at the grand jury once again. I truly believe that they know a lot of info, especially Mike Robinson who was with DP quite a bit after Stacy went missing, even so far as to give him a cell phone to use.

As for DP's son Steve P., how can he stand up for his father? For crying out loud, shortly after Stacy goes missing, DP meets with him to give him money for keeping. Hello? Does that not prove that your father is hiding something?

I'm guessing--- They've gone to ground (on the good advice of someone) and will be singing again only in court and after the conviction.

[VC2]

Anyone know whatever happened to Rick Mims? He's another one who enjoyed the spotlight somewhat after Stacy went missing. He put up a website, and got shut down temporarily for some comments and then never heard from again?

Surprised we haven't heard anything from him since DP got arrested.

I also see that Steve C. and Mike Robinson testified at the grand jury once again. I truly believe that they know a lot of info, especially Mike Robinson who was with DP quite a bit after Stacy went missing, even so far as to give him a cell phone to use.

As for DP's son Steve P., how can he stand up for his father? For crying out loud, shortly after Stacy goes missing, DP meets with him to give him money for keeping. Hello? Does that not prove that your father is hiding something?

well i would be surprised if he didn't stand up for his father. He is his dad...and of course he will believe that drew didn't murder anyone. Now as far as hiding something goes bc of givinghim money, i don't see why a son would equate it to murder.

I just don't understand why so many have difficulty with family believing in their parents or children until the proof is so strong that it is physically impossible for anyone else to have done it. Most of us wouldn't believe our parents murderers either, no matter how much evidence there seemed to be unless they confessed or were caught in the act.

I feel sorry for the kids, the teens must be so confused...they said they hadn't seen kathleens' family for years and don't want to. At their age i am not sure there is time to turn that around by forcing them to be with them.

imo

[vonna]

Drew's fiancee hires Gloria Allred
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-drew-petersons-fiancee-hires-gloria-allred

It figures. Gloria never met a camera she didn't like!!

[KatieLady]

It figures. Gloria never met a camera she didn't like!!

Does she go after these people? Seems if it is high profile....she shows up. I don't get it???

[AmndaRcknwth]

I answered this in a PM, but thought it might be good to post also.
As far as I can figure, this is complete, but let me know if anyone is left out.



Who’s Testified Before the GJ:
**********************

11/07
Drew Peterson
Alex Morelli
Paul Peterson
Keith Rossetto
Scott Rossetto
Steven Carcerano
Richard Mims
Stephen Peterson

12/07
Richard Mims, twice in Dec
Stephen Peterson

1/08
Sharon Bychowski
Thomas Pontarelli
Mary Pontarelli
Nick Pontarelli
Mike Robinson
Bruce Zidarich
Cassandra Cales
Mike Robinson, twice in Jan
The Savio-Peterson Will

2/08
Anthony Rock

3/08
Betty Morphey
Albert Morphey
Neil Schori
Dr. Larry Blum

4/08
Kyle Piry
Vicki Connolly
Walter Martineck
John Morphey
James Morphey

5/08
Anthony Cales
James Mitchum
Kevin Mitchum
Susan Doman
Lisa Ward
Steve Maniaci
Anna Doman
Richard Berg
Melissa Doman
Kim Matuska
Candace Aikin

6/08:
Harry Smith
Thomas Peterson

7/08:
Kristopher Peterson
Michael J. Robinson
Jennifer Schoon

8/08:
Kyle Toutges

1/09:
Alex Beck
Charlie Doman

2/09:
Christina Raines

5/09:
Steve Carcerano
Tom Morphey
Michael J. Robinson
Paula Stark
Leonard Wawczak

[penguin01]

Does she go after these people? Seems if it is high profile....she shows up. I don't get it???
I was thinking the same thing. I'll bet her office has a full-time marketing department that makes contacts to see if (the person in the news) would like Gloria's help with anything.

[kellabeck]

SNIP
Who’s Testified Before the GJ:
**********************

11/07
Drew Peterson
SNIP

And considering the GJ indicted him, Drew must have been soooo credible.
I'm praying that this trial is broadcast.
That Drew testifies.
That he is convicted and sentenced appropriately.

[AmndaRcknwth]

IIRC, he invoked his 5th amendment rights.
In IL cameras are not allowed in court.

I expect he will be silent and act respectably in the courtroom during the trial anyways... he knows the game.

As for conviction, I am of little faith I guess. Too many creeps get away with it.

[sunstar]

Gloria is a victim's advocate. The girlfriend, in a sense, was also a victim of Drew's but in another way and, of course, not nearly as much as Kathleen, Stacy and also his own children. She was by Amber Frye's side before and all during the Scott Peterson trial.

Thanks for your and the other replies :smile: I can understand now why she's representing her!

[Callie]

On msn.news

In a phone interview from the Will County Jail in Joliet, Ill., recorded Thursday and broadcast Friday, Drew Peterson told TODAY’s Matt Lauer that he’ll “probably be found innocent” of the 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. The 55-year-old former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant was also harshly critical of the grand jury system that indicted him.

EGOMANIAC!!

[Callie]

Thanks for your and the other replies :smile: I can understand now why she's representing her!

You're welcome, sunstar.:smile:

[ChocHollyK]

Just a question here......
At this point, I'm going to reserve my opinion (and I DO have one), but...
wondering....

Other than the fact of reversing the original cause of death to be 'accidental drowning', a NEGATIVE finding... did the autopsy of the exhumed body find anything POSITIVE to indicate a homicide??
or at least an 'accidental' killing?

I don't know, I'm just asking. I'm sorry if it's up there in other posts, I tried to read them all, but whewewww. what an order-I can't go through with it....

[Callie]

From msn news

"The Illinois law allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence in first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can prove the defendant killed a witness to prevent them from testifying. It passed last year amid attention to the October 2007 disappearance of Peterson's fourth wife, 23-year-old Stacy Peterson.
Peterson's attorneys have vowed to challenge the constitutionality of admitting such evidence. The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront his accusers, something they can't do with an absent witness."

This is the same as benefitting from one's crime.

"Ha, ha, ha, I killed her so now she can't talk and I don't have to confront her":flamemad:

[AmndaRcknwth]

Plus, she was going to get half his pension, child support, the house, half the proceeds from selling their shared businesses.

He got all of that.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Plus, she was going to get half his pension, child support, the house, half the proceeds from selling their shared businesses.

He got all of that.

Forgot to say...

And so did Stacy. At the time of KS' death, SP/DP owned a home down the street, and had baby Anthony.
Stacy went on to adopt Kitty's boys and give birth to another child.

[bkwits]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/savio-estate-opposes-peterson-bond-reduction.html

I don't think this has been previously posted.

[bkwits]

A DuPage county judge ruled that the murder victim's police complaint against the accused can be used as evidence.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=293711

[AmndaRcknwth]

IL is a community property state, no?

If you really need a link... I will look tomorrow.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Next time you will have to look for your own links.

Here it is:

Six days before Kathleen Savio's lifeless body was found in an empty bathtub in her Bolingbrook home, Drew Peterson's lawyer prepared papers telling his client he had been subpoenaed and was to be deposed in his ongoing divorce battle.

Peterson, indicted last week on murder charges in Savio's 2004 drowning, stood to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the divorce from the sale of the couple's home and Sud's Pub, his Montgomery bar, according to court documents reviewed by the Tribune. Savio was also going after half of his police pension, which pays $6,000 a month.

Instead of losing a bundle, Peterson got just about everything after Savio's death, including custody of their two children.

The Tribune has learned the Will County state's attorney's office is conducting a closer examination of the divorce and what was at stake as it prepares for the prosecution of Peterson, scheduled to be arraigned Monday.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-peterson-divorce-15may15,0,6241154.story

There is MUCH more at this link.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Everyone needs to read that entire article.

It is the motive that will be argued at trial.

[AmndaRcknwth]

bugout, I thnk it's just the grass. It's on the kids too.

[LILMANMAX]

On msn.news

In a phone interview from the Will County Jail in Joliet, Ill., recorded Thursday and broadcast Friday, Drew Peterson told TODAY’s Matt Lauer that he’ll “probably be found innocent” of the 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. The 55-year-old former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant was also harshly critical of the grand jury system that indicted him.

EGOMANIAC!!

What else would a narcissistic sociopath say? :rolleyes: He can run that on someone else. I know when its raining. :tonguewag:

[vonna]

Just a question here......
At this point, I'm going to reserve my opinion (and I DO have one), but...
wondering....

Other than the fact of reversing the original cause of death to be 'accidental drowning', a NEGATIVE finding... did the autopsy of the exhumed body find anything POSITIVE to indicate a homicide??
or at least an 'accidental' killing?

I don't know, I'm just asking. I'm sorry if it's up there in other posts, I tried to read them all, but whewewww. what an order-I can't go through with it....

DP has been arrested for the murder of KS - so why are you asking if there is any positive evidence of a homicide?

[penguin01]

Perhaps it is, I do't know, do you, positively? Also, DP was married before and Salvio, so Salvio would not be entitled to 1/2 of his pension. There is a formula to figure how pensions are allocated, and it's quite complicated with multiple marriages, duration of the marriage, amount in the pension at the time they are married, and again, at the time they're divorced, for starters.

Just pointing out that the FACTS are really important. We can all post opinions, and do, but MOST of us note they're our OPINIONS.

There is no reason to post things that are either not verified, or untrue, as facts.

jmho Here is a suggestion: keep a google window open while you post on this site so you can look up something you are wondering about.
Many of the facts of Drew and Kathleen's divorce has been discussed and printed often over the years - much has been made that he had so much to gain by her "accidental" death.
If you google "peterson savio divorce" you will get many more hits than you need.
My point being that there is no need to respond to a poster as though he has brought up some new, surprising and undocumented information when it, in fact, has been reported ad-nauseum for years. It was kind of the poster to look it up for you this time.
In other words try to catch up yourself before telling a poster to be responsible for educating you.

[sunstar]

A DuPage county judge ruled that the murder victim's police complaint against the accused can be used as evidence.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=293711

I'm glad to see the law being tested in this other case before DP goes to trial.

[bkwits]

Here is a suggestion: keep a google window open while you post on this site so you can look up something you are wondering about.
Many of the facts of Drew and Kathleen's divorce has been discussed and printed often over the years - much has been made that he had so much to gain by her "accidental" death.
If you google "peterson savio divorce" you will get many more hits than you need.
My point being that there is no need to respond to a poster as though he has brought up some new, surprising and undocumented information when it, in fact, has been reported ad-nauseum for years. It was kind of the poster to look it up for you this time.
In other words try to catch up yourself before telling a poster to be responsible for educating you.


I agree, Penguin. This has to be one of the most documented cases in the public eye. Also, sometimes a poster shows his or her arrogance when challenging "the facts" when he or she has not even researched any facts, but rather just made them up. IMO

[bkwits]

I'm glad to see the law being tested in this other case before DP goes to trial.


"Here is a quote from the same article about the Illinois hearsay law.
The state's new hearsay law allows a judge at a pretrial hearing in a murder case to determine whether so-called hearsay evidence - testimony or documents that quote someone secondhand who is not in court - may be admitted at trial. Prosecutors must prove in the pretrial hearing those statements are reliable and that the defendant's wrongdoing made the witness unavailable to testify."


I hope the judge in the Savio murder case allows it. Of course, it will be challenged.

IMO

[True2Blues]

Maybe these women who fear being murdered by their husbands should take out an ad in a local paper, detailing their fear (their personal opinion) and listing any police calls for domestic violence. It would be public at that point.

Would that be allowed in, if something happened to them?

[bkwits]

Very interesting concept. Most of these type of men want everyone to love them. They are such cowards and sneaky. (Drew Peterson):sneaky: M ost woman may be afraid to death to make it so public for fear they would really get their self beat way before murder. Most beating are held as secrets for a very long time. No one usually knows til it's almost too late.
Filing police reports consistently may be a very good Idea, however.

Can we imagine a huge post on the daily tribune in ones town.
Attention all America...John Smith threatened to kill me last night. I believe he will kill me, too.
Sincerely, Jane Smith H.E.L.P, Oregon 00000

In the IL DuPage Co. case, the 17 y.o. woman did file a police report against her abusive 24 y.o. boyfriend. He had punched her in the face. It took 2 1/2 months for the police to arrest him. He allegedly murdered her to keep her from testifying against him in the assault case. Her police complaint is the evidence the judge is allowing.

I don't understand why it took them so long to arrest this man. DuPage Co. is a mostly middle-class, higher than average income and education level, and a low violent crime rate.
:confused:

[sunstar]

"Here is a quote from the same article about the Illinois hearsay law.
The state's new hearsay law allows a judge at a pretrial hearing in a murder case to determine whether so-called hearsay evidence - testimony or documents that quote someone secondhand who is not in court - may be admitted at trial. Prosecutors must prove in the pretrial hearing those statements are reliable and that the defendant's wrongdoing made the witness unavailable to testify."


I hope the judge in the Savio murder case allows it. Of course, it will be challenged.

IMO

Thanks for posting the additional information! I too hope the judge will allow it, and yes, I'm sure the defense will challenge the new law. That's why I feel it's good that DP's case won't be the first to "test the waters". MOO

[penguin01]

Drew Peterson nor Brodsky wasn't counting on this new law that was passed. Brodsky says it's ludicrous and he plans on fighting it.
Knock yourself out Brodsky, knock yourself out.
The Drew Peterson case was why this all came about in the first place.
Everyone is ignorant and a bunch of lay people, right?
Peterson is a bit nervous, now. Lock him up and throw away the key.

By the way, I was thinking about that lie detector test that Peterson took on his own. Ya know he was a cop for many years and they are trained what one can do or take prior to this type of an examination.
This is why it is not allowed in court. This may be why Peterson was so willing to take the test.:glare: And his attorney had edited the questions: certain things they could not ask and/or certain ways they could not phrase it. For axample - I think one was "did you have anything to do with anyone who had to do with her disapearance or murder? or "Do you know anyone who had anything to do iwth her disapearance or murder. I sure do think the attorney knows he had something to do with one or both murders and he has to work really hrd to structure the questions.

[sunstar]

Drew Peterson nor Brodsky wasn't counting on this new law that was passed. Brodsky says it's ludicrous and he plans on fighting it.
Knock yourself out Brodsky, knock yourself out.
The Drew Peterson case was why this all came about in the first place.
Everyone is ignorant and a bunch of lay people, right?
Peterson is a bit nervous, now. Lock him up and throw away the key.

By the way, I was thinking about that lie detector test that Peterson took on his own. Ya know he was a cop for many years and they are trained what one can do or take prior to this type of an examination.
This is why it is not allowed in court. This may be why Peterson was so willing to take the test.:glare:
Oh yes, I agree he wasn't counting on the new law getting in his way and good luck to him with his fight. I think the judge will allow Kathleen's "statements from the grave" in and let the jury decide. You also bring up a good point about the lie detector test. He sure would know how to work his way around it. :sneaky: MOO

[CeltikLyte]

Thank you so much! I'll do some reading.

Yes, there is a lot of Drew-anger, and I don't really understand it. Unless someone has a personal connection to even one of the parties involved, it seems a little strange to me. However, once he is tried, and, if convicted, then the anger is understandable. How can one be angry about something that hasn't been proven true yet?? I don't get it. That's why we have trials, I thought.

All that "gut feeling" and "I just know" stuff, makes no sense at all. I guess that's why we have a judicial system in place, otherwise, it's pretty clear what would happen, and it isn't good.

jmho



Its a very natural reaction for people to respond with disgust when they confront evil, such as Peterson. You might consider that when cops investigate a case, they sometimes get a feeling about a person before there is any real evidence. Once the question that person, that person often displays inconsistencies in his or her story. AS long as there is legitimate evidence against a person, its ok for them to rely in hunches. You also might consider that in real crime trials, its not like it is on tv. They don't always have a forensic smoking gun, and many murder cases are tried on circumstantial evidence.

I haven't heard of anyone threatening Peterson. He, however, has gone about the business of choosing another victim.

[CeltikLyte]

He's the latest Odius Creature. Maybe he and the original OC, Casey can correspond (sp) from behind bars for the next many years.

Maybe they'll get married. That might be interesting. If they did, it'd be a race to see who killed who first.

[CeltikLyte]

And considering the GJ indicted him, Drew must have been soooo credible.
I'm praying that this trial is broadcast.
That Drew testifies.
That he is convicted and sentenced appropriately.

I wonder what the appropriate sentence would be for a Bluebeard like DP?

[Callie]

"Here is a quote from the same article about the Illinois hearsay law.
The state's new hearsay law allows a judge at a pretrial hearing in a murder case to determine whether so-called hearsay evidence - testimony or documents that quote someone secondhand who is not in court - may be admitted at trial. Prosecutors must prove in the pretrial hearing those statements are reliable and that the defendant's wrongdoing made the witness unavailable to testify."


I hope the judge in the Savio murder case allows it. Of course, it will be challenged.

IMO

Thanks, bk! I guess I missed that part. Shouldn't be too hard to prove, hopefully.

[aproudmom]

Oh yes, I agree he wasn't counting on the new law getting in his way and good luck to him with his fight. I think the judge will allow Kathleen's "statements from the grave" in and let the jury decide. You also bring up a good point about the lie detector test. He sure would know how to work his way around it. :sneaky: MOO

gotta agree with you sun

[aproudmom]

Just a question here......
At this point, I'm going to reserve my opinion (and I DO have one), but...
wondering....

Other than the fact of reversing the original cause of death to be 'accidental drowning', a NEGATIVE finding... did the autopsy of the exhumed body find anything POSITIVE to indicate a homicide??
or at least an 'accidental' killing?

I don't know, I'm just asking. I'm sorry if it's up there in other posts, I tried to read them all, but whewewww. what an order-I can't go through with it....

I think they have more than we know..but for one I have to disagree that there is such a thing as a accidental killing..I call that murder..sorry can not tell you to much I do know she had bruises and the gash on her head was not from bumping her head from what the reports say..many felt it was not a accident the ME and several of the coroners jury also thought it was not a accident but they were told DP could not have done this he is a good guy and so on plus they did not have the option such as undetermined death..to me they did a major mess up when she was found dead heck she even wrote to the DA or someone not just to her sister and then all of a sudden she does die and they don't think he did it..he should have been charged with this along time ago and SP would be here

[aproudmom]

Thank you so much! I'll do some reading.

Yes, there is a lot of Drew-anger, and I don't really understand it. Unless someone has a personal connection to even one of the parties involved, it seems a little strange to me. However, once he is tried, and, if convicted, then the anger is understandable. How can one be angry about something that hasn't been proven true yet?? I don't get it. That's why we have trials, I thought.

All that "gut feeling" and "I just know" stuff, makes no sense at all. I guess that's why we have a judicial system in place, otherwise, it's pretty clear what would happen, and it isn't good.

jmho

I agree with your opinion about a fair trial and I absolutely understand but IMO he did this and it is just that my opinion just from what I have seen of him me and him would not get along even if he was not charged with his wife's murder plus this is just a forum for opinions we are not the judge and jury..and only he can make people hate him and he continues to do just that by his actions..

[RayStar]

And his attorney had edited the questions: certain things they could not ask and/or certain ways they could not phrase it. For axample - I think one was "did you have anything to do with anyone who had to do with her disapearance or murder? or "Do you know anyone who had anything to do iwth her disapearance or murder. I sure do think the attorney knows he had something to do with one or both murders and he has to work really hrd to structure the questions.
This attorney gives the impression that he knows his client is GUILTY. I have felt this from the time I saw them together being interviewed by Matt. Drew may just self destruct when he finds out he will be going away for a long time.
Is there still talk of lowering Drew's bail?

[Spyder88]

Here is a suggestion: keep a google window open while you post on this site so you can look up something you are wondering about.
Many of the facts of Drew and Kathleen's divorce has been discussed and printed often over the years - much has been made that he had so much to gain by her "accidental" death.
If you google "peterson savio divorce" you will get many more hits than you need.
My point being that there is no need to respond to a poster as though he has brought up some new, surprising and undocumented information when it, in fact, has been reported ad-nauseum for years. It was kind of the poster to look it up for you this time.
In other words try to catch up yourself before telling a poster to be responsible for educating you.

:beer:

Your last sentence says it all. :beer:

I swear, some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. :rolleyes: It gets kina old after awhile.

[Callie]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30759276/

This is the first time I've seen this particular photo of Stacy. Can you all take a look at her ankles, what is on her feet? She is clearly barefoot but has ink or marks or something on her ankles? It's not shadow it's on both feet.

What is up with that?

It looks like some kind of pressure marks. I see it on both ankles.

[penguin01]

:beer:

Your last sentence says it all. :beer:

I swear, some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. :rolleyes: It gets kina old after awhile. You're irght - and now having been caught playing at that we haven't heard from Omega since then. I guess the questions weren't coming from any real interest.

[Leanne Weich]

Drew interview with Matt via telephone on Friday and Drew said he was confident he was going to get his bond lowered and ultimately be found not guilty.:rolleyes:
He also said the Investigators on his case are nothing but a bunch of "lay" persons that don't know what their doing.
Sure is sure of himself, isn't he.:thumbdown:

IMO, Drew put himself on a par with the bunch of "lay" people he castigated when he said he would be found "innocent". Ridiculous for a man who thought those "lay" people didn't understand the law and then he makes a foolish statement like that. After all his years in LE, if he learned nothing else, he should know you are not found innocent, merely not guilty.

[sunstar]

Drew interview with Matt via telephone on Friday and Drew said he was confident he was going to get his bond lowered and ultimately be found not guilty.:rolleyes:
He also said the Investigators on his case are nothing but a bunch of "lay" persons that don't know what their doing.
Sure is sure of himself, isn't he.:thumbdown:

This little interview was repeated this morning on MSNBC. It was almost hilarious how confident he is. On MSNBC they were also comparing getting an indictment against DP for Stacy's death with the one handed down against Casey Anthony before Caylee's remains were found. It seems to me it would be a little more difficult to prove an adult is dead than an almost 3 y/o child who is totally dependant on adults for survival, but who knows. I just hope they can do it. MOO

[bkwits]

Am I the only one thinking that DrewP is a negative presence on TV and in the press to the general public? I mean do he and his attorney really think he is making a good impression on the potential jury pool? I just don't understand why they keep putting him out there. At least Scott Peterson was a good looking, appealing young man. My parents thought Scott Peterson was not guilty right up till the verdict. But DrewP, appears to be a lecherous predator, who will stop at nothing to get his own way.

Well, maybe all this is for the book deal, but I think this publicity will color the jury pool negatively toward him.

IMO

[sunstar]

Am I the only one thinking that DrewP is a negative presence on TV and in the press to the general public? I mean do he and his attorney really think he is making a good impression on the potential jury pool? I just don't understand why they keep putting him out there. At least Scott Peterson was a good looking, appealing young man. My parents thought Scott Peterson was not guilty right up till the verdict. But DrewP, appears to be a lecherous predator, who will stop at nothing to get his own way.

Well, maybe all this is for the book deal, but I think this publicity will color the jury pool negatively toward him.

IMO

I'm not seeing how it could be helping him either. I agree, I don't see him as somebody who a jury would be sympathetic toward unless they jurors are all young women similar to his current g/f, who still fall for him even though he's suspected of killing two wives. MOO

[bkwits]

You're very wrong. I have posted my opinions, and that's all that's necessary. I have not contradicted anyone else's opinion, because that's impossible to do. Opinions are just opinions, NOT FACTS.

I'm waiting for the trial. I can't form any conclusions until that time. While I'm surprised other's can, that's their right, but that's not how I work.

jmho

Sometimes it is a fine distinction between "fact" and "opinion". After all the jury's decision is their "opinion" of the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Both opinions and facts can be challenged. IMO.

[bkwits]

I agree with your parents. There was virtually no evidence in that case, but instead Scott Peterson, another worm, was tried in the media. There was no way he could ever get a fair trial in this country. With the advancement into electronic technology, we have compromised the judicial system in this country. How do we fix it? I have no clue, but it does need to fixed.

jmho

I asked my mom why they continued to believe in him, faced with the evidence, she said she didn't believe he could be that cruel.

Well, someone was that cruel. They jury said it was him. I'm almost totally sure that she and my dad thought this because he was such a nice cleancut, good-looking young man.

IMO

[Poochie Pie]

I asked my mom why they continued to believe in him, faced with the evidence, she said she didn't believe he could be that cruel.

Well, someone was that cruel. They jury said it was him. I'm almost totally sure that she and my dad thought this because he was such a nice cleancut, good-looking young man.

IMO "such a nice cleancut, good-looking young man." they said the same thing about Ted Bundy... He was also very well educated.. He actually manned the phones for a suicide hotline at one time...!! Good post bkwits.. We just never know, do we..??

Poochie

[Callie]

Use your imagination...[SNIP]JMHO

I did.:wink:

[Callie]

You're very wrong. I have posted my opinions, and that's all that's necessary. I have not contradicted anyone else's opinion, because that's impossible to do. Opinions are just opinions, NOT FACTS.

I'm waiting for the trial. I can't form any conclusions until that time. While I'm surprised other's can, that's their right, but that's not how I work.

jmho

In other words, someone else( the jury) has to make up your mind for you?

[Callie]

I agree with your parents. There was virtually no evidence in that case, but instead Scott Peterson, another worm, was tried in the media. There was no way he could ever get a fair trial in this country. With the advancement into electronic technology, we have compromised the judicial system in this country. How do we fix it? I have no clue, but it does need to fixed.

jmho

There was evidence.

He tried himself.

[AmndaRcknwth]

This little interview was repeated this morning on MSNBC. It was almost hilarious how confident he is. On MSNBC they were also comparing getting an indictment against DP for Stacy's death with the one handed down against Casey Anthony before Caylee's remains were found. It seems to me it would be a little more difficult to prove an adult is dead than an almost 3 y/o child who is totally dependant on adults for survival, but who knows. I just hope they can do it. MOO

There is no evidence that Stacy is dead. We can believe it all we want, on Morphey (the accomplice) say-so. But evidence is what is most important and that is why they got him on Kitty first.

In the Caylee case, there was evidence of a death- left in the trunk.

[penguin01]

No, a Jury is supposed to arrive at their verdict within the limits of the law, which includes the case proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Opinions cannot be challenged because of the very defintion of the words, "opinion", and "fact":

FACT:

"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

OPINION:

"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opinion

jmho Take note Kellabeck: Omega can look up stuff herself. No need to check facts long in evidence for her at her request.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

snipped

I will listen to the evidence presented by both sides, and form my personal opinion at that time, however, since I'm such a huge believer in our Judicial System, I will respect the verdict of the jury.

jmho

If you're going to form your opinion "at that time," why are you posting here now?

[penguin01]

And we were just suggesting that you look something up for yourself if you are unsure of a fact a poster was reminding us about.

I don't know where you got the idea that you have a right to insist on a link if if a poster quotes a fact..... especially a fact that is well known and easy to check.
A link is simply not required for you. You might want to check with CW. Or - there is a thread for questions about the board... You might want to lay out your insistance of a link when a fact is posted and see what the feedback is.

[Leanne Weich]

At my request? If anyone posts statements of fact, they must provide a link to their source, otherwise they must note it's their opinion.

I have NEVER asked for a link when it was noted a post was an OPINION.

You seem to want to make an issue here with me. Save your time. I post my OPINIONS, and nothing more. I'm entitled to do that. I respect everyone else's right to post their opinions, why am I not afford the same "respect"??

As far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence "available" to convince me that DP is guilty of Salvio or Stacy's murder. However, the trial may present evidence which I will find compelling. I am waiting for such evidence before I can reach my own "PERSONAL" conclusion/opinion in this case.

DP is a creep, and a worm, but at this time, he is innocent. Frankly, I'm a little stumped why anyone cares what my opinion is. To my credit, I'm not part of a 'MOB RULE' mentality. I let the system work for me.

jmho

Did the system work for you when Phil Spector wasn't convicted the first time around?

BTW, just in case you ever want to Google anything to do with KS, her name was Savio and not Salvio.:biggrin:

[Leanne Weich]

Which victims are you referring to? I don't think there's been a trial yet, and we're still waiting to hear the evidence. Hope that's helps.

jmho

OMG, please give it a break. It seems your purpose here is to take issue with anyone who has a strong opinion which differs from yours. As the poster to whom you were responding did not provide a link in accordance with your instructions, it is clearly her opinion that there are victims in this case even if it is yet to be proven in a Court of law.

[Leanne Weich]

I know it's Savio, as you will see by my earlier posts. I made a type-o with my fingernail which needs to be trimmed. Thank you for your kindness in pointing it out. Is this a thead about spelling?

jmho

I was trying to be helpful and, quite honestly, I do know spelling mistakes when I see them. Refer to post 176 and 112 besides the one I was referring to under the abovementioned quote. Seems you make the same spelling "error" whenever you use Kathleen's surname which could cause problems if you want to google something to verify facts. I never put people on the spot about spelling errors as they happen to the best of us.

[Leanne Weich]

First, I did not request a link. You are referring to a situation that never happened. What's up with that? I suggest you read back.

Second, perhaps you'd like to read this post by CW:

Post #311

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=353240&page=8

Refer back to the following response by you to penguin01.


Originally Posted by penguin01
Take note Kellabeck: Omega can look up stuff herself. No need to check facts long in evidence for her at her request.

At my request? If anyone posts statements of fact, they must provide a link to their source, otherwise they must note it's their opinion.

I have NEVER asked for a link when it was noted a post was an OPINION.

You seem to want to make an issue here with me. Save your time. I post my OPINIONS, and nothing more. I'm entitled to do that. I respect everyone else's right to post their opinions, why am I not afford the same "respect"??

As far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence "available" to convince me that DP is guilty of Salvio or Stacy's murder. However, the trial may present evidence which I will find compelling. I am waiting for such evidence before I can reach my own "PERSONAL" conclusion/opinion in this case.

DP is a creep, and a worm, but at this time, he is innocent. Frankly, I'm a little stumped why anyone cares what my opinion is. To my credit, I'm not part of a 'MOB RULE' mentality. I let the system work for me.

jmho
05-18-2009 02:40 PM Your reply is bolded.


It has always been an accepted fact here that links are asked for and given when they are requested for genuine clarification purposes. However, you clearly ask for links to anything and everything that has been confirmed over and over again. In addition, it is my opinion, that it is encumbent on everyone to take personal responsibility for people who wish to debate these cases seriously to get themselves up to speed on the case/s if they expect to engage in constructive debate. If every time someone has to post a link if they post anything other than speculation, most of these posts will be redundant.

[*MoonRider*]

Drew Peterson Faces Judge Monday; Hopes to Get Bond Reduced
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/drew-peterson-faces-judge-monday-hopes-get-bond-reduced

[kellabeck]

You're very wrong. I have posted my opinions, and that's all that's necessary. I have not contradicted anyone else's opinion, because that's impossible to do. Opinions are just opinions, NOT FACTS.

I'm waiting for the trial. I can't form any conclusions until that time. While I'm surprised other's can, that's their right, but that's not how I work.


That's fine, omega. You are as entitled as anyone here.

The only time that stance can become um, shall we say problematic? is when the holder of said stance tries to assert its superiority. Just as those of us convinced of his guilt should not do. These are just opinions. And as the saying goes, like a part of the body, everyone's got one.

Good morning! It's arraignment day! Do the right thing, Judge!!

[kellabeck]

I agree with your parents. There was virtually no evidence in that case, but instead Scott Peterson, another worm, was tried in the media. There was no way he could ever get a fair trial in this country. With the advancement into electronic technology, we have compromised the judicial system in this country. How do we fix it? I have no clue, but it does need to fixed.


On the contrary. There was more than enough evidence to convict Scott Peterson who sits behind bars justly.

[Scampi]

Refer back to the following response by you to penguin01.


Originally Posted by penguin01
Take note Kellabeck: Omega can look up stuff herself. No need to check facts long in evidence for her at her request.

At my request? If anyone posts statements of fact, they must provide a link to their source, otherwise they must note it's their opinion.

I have NEVER asked for a link when it was noted a post was an OPINION.

You seem to want to make an issue here with me. Save your time. I post my OPINIONS, and nothing more. I'm entitled to do that. I respect everyone else's right to post their opinions, why am I not afford the same "respect"??

As far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence "available" to convince me that DP is guilty of Salvio or Stacy's murder. However, the trial may present evidence which I will find compelling. I am waiting for such evidence before I can reach my own "PERSONAL" conclusion/opinion in this case.

DP is a creep, and a worm, but at this time, he is innocent. Frankly, I'm a little stumped why anyone cares what my opinion is. To my credit, I'm not part of a 'MOB RULE' mentality. I let the system work for me.

jmho
05-18-2009 02:40 PM Your reply is bolded.


It has always been an accepted fact here that links are asked for and given when they are requested for genuine clarification purposes. However, you clearly ask for links to anything and everything that has been confirmed over and over again. In addition, it is my opinion, that it is encumbent on everyone to take personal responsibility for people who wish to debate these cases seriously to get themselves up to speed on the case/s if they expect to engage in constructive debate. If every time someone has to post a link if they post anything other than speculation, most of these posts will be redundant.


Thank you for saying this Leanne.

MSNBC is covering the arraignment live. On The Today Show this morning his attorneys were on, he has a very attractive female attorney in addition to the male. Her name is Odeh. Pretty slick strategy, imo.

Correction msnbc may not be covering, sorry.

[bkwits]

Is there a hearing today? if so, does anyone know if it's going to be streamed? TIA

Yes he will be arraigned today, and Brodsky is asking for a reduction in bail. Although arraignments are usually brief processes, this one is expected to be lengthy.


http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/drew-peterson-to-be-arraigned-today.html


Please don't feed the trolls.

[bkwits]

Brodsky said on a newscast that the "from the grave" testimony could not be given in this case because it would be applying the law retroactively.

What does everyone think about that? Would it be retroactive because Kathleen's letter was written before the law was passed?

I personally doubt that would be the reason the judge wouldn't allow it, but I am worried about the constitutionality of this law.

JMO

[bkwits]

Great, thank you. Do we know what time it's scheduled for? TIA

I checked several sources an couldn't find out. It is in Will County, IL, so we might check that website. I haven't done that yet.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Local radio said 9am, which is any minute, but I don't have a clue about live feed.
Anyone?

[bkwits]

Hello everyone, well mostly everyone. Long time no post. I have no desire to argue with someone who is here just to argue. Ignore is your friend my fellow posters.

I can't tell you how happy I am this creep is finally behind bars. :thumbsup: What are the odds his bail will be reduced? I hope not.



I totally agree with you about the Iggy feature. I think some of us responded just to keep the thread going, but it is getting old. :bored:

I hope his bail will not be reduced, but 20 mil is very high, but not unheard of. I saw a poll on the WGN website asking if DrewP's bail should be reduced. More than 90% answered NO. I don't believe that Brodsky will get what he says he will ask for $100k to 500K, but who knows? Glad you are back. :biggrin:

[Leanne Weich]

Thank you for saying this Leanne.

MSNBC is covering the arraignment live. On The Today Show this morning his attorneys were on, he has a very attractive female attorney in addition to the male. Her name is Odeh. Pretty slick strategy, imo.

Correction msnbc may not be covering, sorry.

Hi Scamp, LTNS. I honestly don't know how any woman, attractive or not, could bear to be around DP.

We only get Fox and CNN here (and I think a short portion of one other station in the early hours of the morning on free to air) and I've been jumping between the 2 hoping to hear something - no luck so far. Please update if you hear anything.

I hope his bond is not lowered. Do you think it will be?

[bkwits]

They are talking about it now on the local Fox News station. Fox news is at the Will Co courthouse in Joliet.

[AmndaRcknwth]

Jail van pulled him right up to the door, avoiding the cameras. The news conference by his attornies will be held immediately after this hearing.

MSNBC says they will carry it.

[Leanne Weich]

Jail van pulled him right up to the door, avoiding the cameras. The news conference by his attornies will be held immediately after this hearing.

MSNBC says they will carry it.

Do you know if MSNBC will have the news conference live online at all?

[AmndaRcknwth]

They said they will Leanne.

[Leanne Weich]

They said they will Leanne.

Thanks a million. I'll try to find a link even though it is 121.13 a.m. already here but I know I wont sleep until I hear what is going on.

[aproudmom]

waiting for a new judge

[aproudmom]

any one have a twitter link to see what is going on in the courtroom..I know on In Session Beth just got a message they are waiting on another judge..if I heard it right..TIA if anyone has a twitter link from inside the courtroom..I HATE NOT HAVING darn cameras in there:thumbdown:

[juliekan]

waiting for a new judge

:confused: they're changing judges right now? or things will be put on hold until another hearing with another judge?

Why was this judge to be excused from the case...was it a conflict of interest with one of the pros. attorneys? That's what I remember, but I'm afraid I may be confusing it with another trial.

my apologies, brain has not woken up yet :sleep:

[juliekan]

:confused: they're changing judges right now? or things will be put on hold until another hearing with another judge?

Why was this judge to be excused from the case...was it a conflict of interest with one of the pros. attorneys? That's what I remember, but I'm afraid I may be confusing it with another trial.

my apologies, brain has not woken up yet :sleep:

Drew's attornies on Fox just said the DA felt the judge had "prejudice"

THs are saying that DA office feels this is a "pro-defense judge"

[aproudmom]

Just reported on MSNBC:

New Judge has come in and no one knows why.

Drew will be in jail for the next 3 days. Bond hearing on Thursday.

His media obsessed lawyer is giving yet another interview in about 5 minutes or so.

thank you so much

[aproudmom]

Why is everyone so convinced Drew is guilty of the death of his 3rd wife? I agree the guy is arrogant, etc.

I have not formed an opinion yet on wife #3... I do have an opinion on wife #4.

I am not trying to start anything.... I am just curious.

and what is that opinion on wife 4? if I may ask...just curious

[penguin01]

Why is everyone so convinced Drew is guilty of the death of his 3rd wife? I agree the guy is arrogant, etc.

I have not formed an opinion yet on wife #3... I do have an opinion on wife #4.

I am not trying to start anything.... I am just curious.
For me its that 1. she said he said he would do it. 2. She had bruises that should have been looked into. 3. She had no other enemies
4. She did not want to die. She wanted to live: without him! 5. He was the only one who benefited from her death and 6. His next wife also wanted to live and raise her children in peace and safety: without him!
Anybody believe that c**p that she suddenly found some guy more interesting and simply dumped her kids and her whole loving family for him? Nonsense!

[Scampi]

Hi Scamp, LTNS. I honestly don't know how any woman, attractive or not, could bear to be around DP.

We only get Fox and CNN here (and I think a short portion of one other station in the early hours of the morning on free to air) and I've been jumping between the 2 hoping to hear something - no luck so far. Please update if you hear anything.

I hope his bond is not lowered. Do you think it will be?


Hiya Lea, we go back a looooong way, always great to see you posting.

Thanks everyone for updating. I'm glad the DA is on top of those who may be prejudicial against the State in favor of this awful man. I guess peterson's connections run deep and wide. Very wise to weed them out now.

[aproudmom]

I agree with your parents. There was virtually no evidence in that case, but instead Scott Peterson, another worm, was tried in the media. There was no way he could ever get a fair trial in this country. With the advancement into electronic technology, we have compromised the judicial system in this country. How do we fix it? I have no clue, but it does need to fixed.

jmho

Don't know what to tell you..have you ever thought of of running for office and making changes? I always say don't whine and boo whoo unless you are trying to change something you disagree with..just my honest opinion..

[penguin01]

Drew's attornies on Fox just said the DA felt the judge had "prejudice"

THs are saying that DA office feels this is a "pro-defense judge" Interesting - Drew and his attorney need to decide if they want a jury trial or a bench trial. I guess they might have been leaning toward a bench trial if they thought this might have been a defense-friendly judge. Back to the drawing board.

[aproudmom]

For me its that 1. she said he said he would do it. 2. She had bruises that should have been looked into. 3. She had no other enemies
4. She did not want to die. She wanted to live: without him! 5. He was the only one who benefited from her death and 6. His next wife also wanted to live and raise her children in peace and safety: without him!
Anybody believe that c**p that she suddenly found some guy more interesting and simply dumped her kids and her whole loving family for him? Nonsense!

you pretty much summed it up thanks ITA :thumbup:

[penguin01]

you pretty much summed it up thanks ITA :thumbup: Thanks.
I just realized that I needed the word CONTROL in there. Drew insists on control: he just can't give it up and his controlling actions have been documented. He now has full control of his family - the children from both of the wives we are discussing here. I imagine there will be a lot of witnesses on this particular subject.

[bkwits]

Typical of Drew Peterson. He taunted Salvio's mother in court by waving and smiling to her. He is a true coward, he pulled this act while the Judge was not on the bench.

A true psychopath. Too bad the death penalty is not on the table.

:cursing:

Is the death penalty off the table?

If so, I personally think that is a good idea. The jury might find it more difficult to convict him if the DP was requested.

Although, IL does have a moratorium on executions, we still have the DP.

IMO

[doctor_J]

This is beginning to be quite trite. Don't put words in my mouth, please. I'll tell you what I think and feel.

For the last time:

I will listen to the evidence presented by both sides, and form my personal opinion at that time, however, since I'm such a huge believer in our Judicial System, I will respect the verdict of the jury.

jmho

Why don't you respect the verdict of the S. Peterson jury??

Please note: This is not a courtroom and we are not jurors. We're not required to hold ourselves to the same standard of proof. We can form opinions at any time and change them if we wish.

[penguin01]

Is the death penalty off the table?

If so, I personally think that is a good idea. The jury might find it more difficult to convict him if the DP was requested.

Although, IL does have a moratorium on executions, we still have the DP.

IMO
I think you are right. Anyway I think the DP is overused - needs to be reserved for cases like Brian Nichols where his crimes were seen and documented. He didn't actually end up with the DP due to (IMO) a corrupt and lying juror. Now we have to worry about him escaping and murdering a few more people. He will never give up. OOp sorry: O/T.
I think people like DP and Scott P would be waaaaay more unhappy with LWOP in the general popluation. Much more miserable and uncomfortable life than the privacy and relative comfort and quiet provided in the DP section of prisons. That is what I would like to see for dirty ol' Drew.

[aubrey04]

Typical of Drew Peterson. He taunted Salvio's mother in court by waving and smiling to her. He is a true coward, he pulled this act while the Judge was not on the bench.

A true psychopath. Too bad the death penalty is not on the table.

:cursing:

Not surprising - what a sicko.

I can not wait until this man is thrown in prison for the rest of his life so we don't have to watch his obnoxious behavior anymore. He will become a footnote in history - no longer worth anything, besides random comparisons to other killers, much like OJ, Spector and Peterson have become.. Just rotting away within the confines of a prison.

I wonder how Peterson will exist after he's sent to prison and no longer the center of attention. He is going to LOVE his trial when all the attention is on him. I just hope the jury gets this right because I believe this man is a double murderer and extremely dangerous.

imo

[♫Rock*Star♫]

Because I can, and why not?

snipped

jmho

Because you can.

That explains it.

I look forward to the guilty verdict in this case. Get this killer off the streets once and for all.

[bkwits]

I think you are right. Anyway I think the DP is overused - needs to be reserved for cases like Brian Nichols where his crimes were seen and documented. He didn't actually end up with the DP due to (IMO) a corrupt and lying juror. Now we have to worry about him escaping and murdering a few more people. He will never give up. OOp sorry: O/T.
I think people like DP and Scott P would be waaaaay more unhappy with LWOP in the general popluation. Much more miserable and uncomfortable life than the privacy and relative comfort and quiet provided in the DP section of prisons. That is what I would like to see for dirty ol' Drew.


In Illinois, we have had more death row inmates exonerated (proved to be innocent, mostly by DNA technology) than have been executed since the death penalty was brought back in 1978 (I think it was 78). That is why the 3 IL Govs have declared an upheld the moratorium. A death penalty case here better be a slam-dunk. Even so, who knows when if ever we will again execute people in Illinois. :confused:

[bkwits]

I read that the present Judge appointed himself to the Peterson case. I wonder how that works. :confused:


The DA is asking for a new judge because of favorable rulings for DrewP on the weapons charges.

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-peterson-arraigned-today-may18,0,6690768.story

[penguin01]

I read that the present Judge appointed himself to the Peterson case. I wonder how that works. :confused:


The DA is asking for a new judge because of favorable rulings for DrewP on the weapons charges.

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-peterson-arraigned-today-may18,0,6690768.story Maybe this judge had been offered some of Kathleen Savio's "substantial assets" that Drew now controls.

[Carol25]

DP doesn't look like his smiling confident self here...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/US?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

[mrsmcgoo]

Glad to read that the police transporting Drew deprived him of the thrill he obviously gets of parading in front of the cameras. Bravo to them for dropping him off RIGHT at the door!

As for the media trying him, lets not forget he was set to host or star in some reality show, he wanted and craved every bit of attention he got. He thought nothing of having his children appear on a morning show, promoting his parenting skills. As if they would appear and say anything else. lol


JMO

[kellabeck]

What's the deal with the fiance? She is way too young to handle this situation she has gotten herself in. Hopefully she will run as far as way as she can from this creep.

Unfortunately there are always women willing to yoke themselves to perps like DrewP. How about the woman who married Bundy while he was on trial-- and most horribly, she had child by him! Poor daughter! Can you imagine being TED BUNDY'S CHILD? There's Tex Watson and John Wayne Gacy and Richard Ramirez and the Menendez Bros and Scooter, too.

I don't get it but I recognize it exists.

[Anakerie]

JohnnyRocket has spelled it Salvio as well. I'm confused now, and I wonder why I was corrected, but no one else is???

jmho
Google is very useful for removing confusion.

[Leanne Weich]

I think you are right. Anyway I think the DP is overused - needs to be reserved for cases like Brian Nichols where his crimes were seen and documented. He didn't actually end up with the DP due to (IMO) a corrupt and lying juror. Now we have to worry about him escaping and murdering a few more people. He will never give up. OOp sorry: O/T.
I think people like DP and Scott P would be waaaaay more unhappy with LWOP in the general popluation. Much more miserable and uncomfortable life than the privacy and relative comfort and quiet provided in the DP section of prisons. That is what I would like to see for dirty ol' Drew.

Is it not true though that prisoners who kill children and/or cops and/or pedophiles are never truly put in general pop. but are kept segregated with people who've committed like crimes? BTW, I don't mean people who kill pedophiles but that pedophiles are also kept with like minded prisoners.

[Leanne Weich]

JohnnyRocket has spelled it Salvio as well. I'm confused now, and I wonder why I was corrected, but no one else is???

jmho

You repeatedly had a nail accidentally hitting a key which does not even come into play when typing the name Savio and, knowing your penchant for facts, I was trying to help you out. Had Johnny continued to make the same error, I'd have helped him out too because if, as his name implies, he's a male, I'd doubt he'd have a problem with too long fingernails which could snag the "l" when he would be using his left hand to type a "v".:lol:

[Leanne Weich]

add trial bride Rachelle Spector, 41 years younger than PS. I will never understand these murderer groupies.

I don't either although I don't think you can compare Rachelle and DP's fiance to those women who marry murderers they've met as penpals. At least the aforetwo mentioned women spent time with these sickos who probably talk a good game and showered them with material things and stroked what must be pretty low self esteems. The women who marry penpals are a different breed, imho.

[sunstar]

There is no evidence that Stacy is dead. We can believe it all we want, on Morphey (the accomplice) say-so. But evidence is what is most important and that is why they got him on Kitty first.

In the Caylee case, there was evidence of a death- left in the trunk.

I agree. Even though it's unlikely, it is still possible that Stacy is alive. MOO

[Leanne Weich]

That is too funny! You actually think you know how I type on a keyboard? :lol: Thanks for your help. :lol:

jmho

Admittedly, I was assuming you type in a conventional manner although given you unconventional method of utilizing a message board, I should have known that was a stretch. Just like it was immediately apparent that Salvio was not a spelling error.

Anyway, I'm not going to engage further with you on this topic as it is futile. People can make up their own minds. :tonguewag:

[AmndaRcknwth]

Just to let you know,

The link to the Stacy/Kathleen photo archive album wasn't working, so here is a new one:
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio/?start=0

So, if you have subscribed for updates, that is the correct link.