Drew Peterson Trial Discussion

Justice4all wrote:Circumstantial case means it could be hard to convict Drew Peterson

BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter
July 27, 2012 4:40PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/14040193-418/circumstantial-case-means-it-could-be-hard-to-convict-drew-peterson.html

Here are some of the hurdles to getting a jury to convict Drew Peterson that were pointed out in the article.

• No eyewitnesses or confession.
• No DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair or tissue samples.
• The prosecution case depends largely on hearsay statements by Kathleen Savio and Stacey Peterson.
• Prosecutors may have a tough time convincing jurors that Kathleen Savio was murdered since her death was initially ruled an accident before being changed to a homicide after a new autopsy.
• If jurors buy that Savio was murdered, they still may not believe there is enough evidence to prove that Peterson was the one who killed her.

J4A, I too read a criminal defense analsyst said, "a problem is the change in the death certificate, that alone is reasonable doubt." I am concerned about the State getting a conviction, I pray they do, the evidence seems thin but imo, there is no doubt that DP is a murderer, I'd convict his sorry ass in a heartbeat.

Art, this is a tough case that may not go the way we hope. I think our main hope is getting Drew's confession to Kathleen's murder admitted via the hearsay statement from Stacy Peterson to her minister.

Hopefully we get a jury that knows how to draw logical conclusions and is willing to give weight to whatever hearsay statements are admitted.

The odds of one person having their third wife die in a bathtub and their fourth wife go missing and not being responsible in either case have got to be pretty slim.

art tart wrote:

Justice4all wrote:Circumstantial case means it could be hard to convict Drew Peterson

BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter
July 27, 2012 4:40PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/14040193-418/circumstantial-case-means-it-could-be-hard-to-convict-drew-peterson.html

Here are some of the hurdles to getting a jury to convict Drew Peterson that were pointed out in the article.

• No eyewitnesses or confession.
• No DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair or tissue samples.
• The prosecution case depends largely on hearsay statements by Kathleen Savio and Stacey Peterson.
• Prosecutors may have a tough time convincing jurors that Kathleen Savio was murdered since her death was initially ruled an accident before being changed to a homicide after a new autopsy.
• If jurors buy that Savio was murdered, they still may not believe there is enough evidence to prove that Peterson was the one who killed her.

J4A, I too read a criminal defense analsyst said, "a problem is the change in the death certificate, that alone is reasonable doubt." I am concerned about the State getting a conviction, I pray they do, the evidence seems thin but imo, there is no doubt that DP is a murderer, I'd convict his sorry ass in a heartbeat.

This is interesting story--in regard to hearsay, the death certificate, and autopsies:

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/will-late-medical-examiner-bryan-mitchell-speak-from-the-grave-at-peterson-trial/

Drew Peterson Murder Trial Could Hang on Words of Two Absent Women



By COLLEEN CURRY
July 29, 2012

The murder trial of former Illinois cop Drew Peterson could hinge on the statements of two women who won't be at that trial: his third wife he is accused of murdering and his fourth wife who has disappeared.

A jury of seven men and five women will hear opening arguments Monday on whether Peterson, 58, killed his then-wife Kathleen Savio in 2004 and made it look like an accident.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peterson-murder-trial-hinge-statements-wives-dead/story?id=16863562

The abcnews article ("Words of Two Absent Women") doesn't make things sound too good for the prosecution's case even discounting the say-so of Brodsky et al. Too bad we don't get to hear an outline of what State has until Tuesday, July 31.

I've read elsewhere that there will be no court in session for the entire trial on Mondays since Will County Court is dark. Can't find a corroborating link aside from InSession's Facebook page and you know how that goes. ;)

"Mondays" highlighted in green for results in the link below. Sorry about huge link ref--I do not know how to use "tiny url."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IKbjMAgH_MkJ:www.facebook.com/InSession/posts/488290377866254+%22drew+peterson%22+insession+%22mondays%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Drew Peterson testifying in his own defense? Unlikely, experts say

BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter drozek@suntimes.com July 29, 2012 8:34PM

Drew Peterson loves to talk about himself, but the Will County jury that will decide his fate probably won’t hear a word from him during his murder trial.

While Peterson’s attorneys are publicly coy about whether he’ll testify, sources say the cocky, wise-cracking former cop likely will keep his mouth shut and let his lawyers do the talking.

That’s a smart, safe move, say legal experts not involved in the trial.

Read more:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/14034578-418/drew-peterson-testifying-in-his-own-defense-unlikely-experts-say.html

Featured Videos

Drew Peterson murder trial scheduled to begin

Jul 29, 2012
- 2:23 -

Victims families’ hopeful for closure

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1760514581001/

I don't recall the defendant testifying in any trial that we've followed on this site, so I'd be surprised if Drew testified.

Justice4all wrote:I don't recall the defendant testifying in any trial that we've followed on this site, so I'd be surprised if Drew testified.

I highly doubt that he will testify.

Alessandra_Deux wrote:Drew Peterson testifying in his own defense? Unlikely, experts say

BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter drozek@suntimes.com July 29, 2012 8:34PM

Drew Peterson loves to talk about himself, but the Will County jury that will decide his fate probably won’t hear a word from him during his murder trial.

While Peterson’s attorneys are publicly coy about whether he’ll testify, sources say the cocky, wise-cracking former cop likely will keep his mouth shut and let his lawyers do the talking.

That’s a smart, safe move, say legal experts not involved in the trial.

Read more:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/14034578-418/drew-peterson-testifying-in-his-own-defense-unlikely-experts-say.html

All three of Petersons lawyers come across like baffoons. I can't even visualize anyone of them passing the bar. Not one juror is going to like any of them. Drew Peterson is not a liked person, he has a personality that leaves a lot to be desired and he has picked lawyers with the same type of personality (the type that sounds like him when they open their mouth).

Combination calls for a "guilty verdict"

Plus those three idiots are going to let the main idiot help to pick his jury.

DP really does think he can get away with anything. He's in for a surprise.

When I see those three on the media all I can see is the "three stooges". They are an exact replica.

Good morning, all :)

Agree that Drew is unlikely to take the stand. I've seen a defendant take the stand (Cobbins in Christian/Newsom case) and realize how rare it is. Cobbins seemed to think he could bank on his pretty boy appeal and shine it on with his bs--after all is he not charming and a ladies' man? (heh) He thought he could handle SA Takisha Fitzgerald, but he was Quite Surprised several times throughout her cross-x. lol

While acknowledging that defendants rarely take the stand, I hope Drew's injured self love, sense of entitlement, and fantasies of superiority drive him to take the stand. Not going to make any bets though!

I am concerned even if the State did get a conviction, that it could be overturned or an appeal given due so litle evidence & the case based mostly on hearsay. I can't remember a case that has had so little evidence & hearsay being allowed in as this case but I am so glad he is being tried.

This has to be a long awaited day for both families, finally, Drew is being held accountable. If convicted, I hope it does bring the families some peace, but I don't think I could find closure if my loved one was never found. imo, Drew has made sure that may never happen.

I am just starting to get more involved in this trial, It gives me a sick feeling to know that another criminal just might walk.
I have to go back to page one and read everything, but do we know if her boyfriend was living with her or not? I heard there was a fight with him. I have to assume that the cops questioned him. I just don't understand why he allegedly knocked on the door to bring the boys back and no one answered...so he just went home? Went back the next day and that was the day of the neighbors. I know that if my ex brought my boys back when they were supposed to be home and I never answered or contacted him he would have thought that VERY strange. He wouldn't have left it alone til the next day for sure.

Ok, caught up, not too much new yet. I have another question, I heard that DP attys feel that this might not even make it to trial? I thought that if we had opening statements, that was the beginning of the trial. I'm confused.

tesstruhart wrote:I am just starting to get more involved in this trial, It gives me a sick feeling to know that another criminal just might walk.

I have to go back to page one and read everything, but do we know if her boyfriend was living with her or not? I heard there was a fight with him. I have to assume that the cops questioned him. I just don't understand why he allegedly knocked on the door to bring the boys back and no one answered...so he just went home? Went back the next day and that was the day of the neighbors. I know that if my ex brought my boys back when they were supposed to be home and I never answered or contacted him he would have thought that VERY strange. He wouldn't have left it alone til the next day for sure.

tesstruhart, I haven't heard one legal analyst claim this is a strong case, or even that they think he may get a probable guilty verdict, most think it is an "uphill battle for the Prosecution." But! I have seen some interviews in some case in which the Prosecutor's rolled the dice, the evidence was weak but they "didn't think the evidence would improve in time." This happened in the case of Terry Marsh, he was tried after ten years for the murder of his wife Janet, the Prosecution got a conviction in his case, they succeeded due to unforeseen circumstances, Terry trying to hire someone to murder Janet's parent's while he awaited trial, then flipped the hitman that testified as well as Terry's dad that had knowledge of the murder.

It irks me to death that Drew thought he had it all figured out. He certainly had a strong motive: having to split all his assets INCLUDING his retirement, family home, & monies, & he got the kids & didn't have to pay child support.

art tart wrote:I am concerned even if the State did get a conviction, that it could be overturned or an appeal given due so litle evidence & the case based mostly on hearsay. I can't remember a case that has had so little evidence & hearsay being allowed in as this case but I am so glad he is being tried.

This has to be a long awaited day for both families, finally, Drew is being held accountable. If convicted, I hope it does bring the families some peace, but I don't think I could find closure if my loved one was never found. imo, Drew has made sure that may never happen.

The hearsay effect on the jury is hard to calculate. On the one hand, rightfully, we're conditioned to give little weight if any to hearsay. On the other hand, because of "Drew's Law," hearsay is admissible evidence and should be given the same weight as any other piece of evidence.

Whoa. Just ran across this item in Wikipedia when I was looking for the right wording about "Drew's Law." It seems to put Defense's decision to put Stacy on the wit list in a new light. :eek:

In April 2012, a ruling was made in the murder case of Kathleen Savio[36]. An Illinois appellate court ruled that prosecutors could use eight statements made by both the victim prior to her death and by Peterson's still-missing fourth wife Stacy prior her disappearance. The ruling reversed another judge's earlier decision that had prohibited the state from using the information at trial. Drew Peterson's defense had contended that introduction of these alleged hearsay comments would constitute a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to confront those witnesses testifying against him.

While several exceptions do exist to counteract such a defense, a new Illinois law coined "Drew's Law" allows prosecutors to stretch beyond these limitations. Passed while investigators were looking for Stacy Peterson, the legislation permits courts to consider statements from "unavailable witnesses," provided that prosecutors are able to prove the witness was killed to prevent his or her testimony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Peterson#2009_indictment_over_Savio_murder

And, of course, Judge Burmila has ruled that nobody can mention the latter in court during the trial. What a web of intricacy, to say the least.

tesstruhart wrote:Ok, caught up, not too much new yet. I have another question, I heard that DP attys feel that this might not even make it to trial? I thought that if we had opening statements, that was the beginning of the trial. I'm confused.

heh. Defense does this at least twice in every trial--once at the beginning and then once more when State has finished presenting its case in chief. I think Baez and team went one better and did it in the middle of the Anthony trial? :) No worries, jmo. Things will go forward. :)

art tart wrote: *snip* *I'm not Tess, of course but wanted to reply to this part of your post :) )
It irks me to death that Drew thought he had it all figured out. He certainly had a strong motive: having to split all his assets INCLUDING his retirement, family home, & monies, & he got the kids & didn't have to pay child support.

That is such an excellent point. Surely any juror can get that--even a Pinellard? Hopefully, State will hammer away at the motive theme. :)

Speaking of [very bad word] Drew, the Lifetime movie "Untouchable" is re-airing on Wednesday 10pm Eastern and 9pm Central. What a coincidence, with the trial and all. :rofl:

"Untouchable" movie trailer. *WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE*

Six of One wrote:
Speaking of [very bad word] Drew, the Lifetime movie "Untouchable" is re-airing on Wednesday 10pm Eastern and 9pm Central. What a coincidence, with the trial and all. :rofl:

(snipped for space)

They showed this the Sunday before jury selection started, too.

Openings, testimony Tuesday at Peterson trial

Posted on Mon, Jul. 30, 2012 04:45 PM

By MICHAEL TARM
Associated Press


FILE - In this undated file photo provided by the Stacy Peterson family, Stacy Peterson, 23, right, of Bolingbrook, Ill., is seen with her younger sister Cassandra Cales.

CHICAGO -- Lawyers will begin Tuesday to pull together the disjointed story of Drew Peterson and his ill-fated wives to make a case for the ex-cop's guilt or innocence, all the while navigating a bevy of legal issues - from how much hearsay evidence to admit and to just how to describe Peterson's missing fourth wife.

The murder trial's opening statements and first witnesses are scheduled for Tuesday, nearly a decade after the 58-year-old former cop's third wife was found dead in a bathtub and five years after his young fourth wife vanished without a trace.

Read more:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/30/3732748/openings-testimony-tuesday-at.html#storylink=cpy

Six of One wrote:

art tart wrote: *snip* *I'm not Tess, of course but wanted to reply to this part of your post :) )
It irks me to death that Drew thought he had it all figured out. He certainly had a strong motive: having to split all his assets INCLUDING his retirement, family home, & monies, & he got the kids & didn't have to pay child support.

That is such an excellent point. Surely any juror can get that--even a Pinellard? Hopefully, State will hammer away at the motive theme. :)

Speaking of [very bad word] Drew, the Lifetime movie "Untouchable" is re-airing on Wednesday 10pm Eastern and 9pm Central. What a coincidence, with the trial and all. :rofl:

"Untouchable" movie trailer. *WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE*

And DP's lawyers keep saying there was "no" motive? He had pleanty of motives, more than the average murderer, he had every motive that is conceivable.

Then he had to kill Stacy to keep her quiet. Once he got the notion that she too was going to leave him, he had no other choice but to kill her and hide the body so well that it wont ever be found. He knew he couldn't make it look like an accident and get away with that twice. I do believe that any jury will see right thru him and convict.

Drew Peterson trial begins today with opening statements

snipped: More than eight years after his third wife's unusual death and three years after being charged with her murder, the trial of former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson is scheduled to begin this morning with opening arguments.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,7146895.story

art tart wrote: *snipped by Six* *I'm not Tess, of course but wanted to reply to this part of your post :) )
It irks me to death that Drew thought he had it all figured out. He certainly had a strong motive: having to split all his assets INCLUDING his retirement, family home, & monies, & he got the kids & didn't have to pay child support.

Six of One wrote:That is such an excellent point. Surely any juror can get that--even a Pinellard? Hopefully, State will hammer away at the motive theme. :)
Speaking of [very bad word] Drew, the Lifetime movie "Untouchable" is re-airing on Wednesday 10pm Eastern and 9pm Central. What a coincidence, with the trial and all. :rofl:

"Untouchable" movie trailer. *YouTube player*

Gizmo711 wrote:And DP's lawyers keep saying there was "no" motive? He had pleanty of motives, more than the average murderer, he had every motive that is conceivable.

Then he had to kill Stacy to keep her quiet. Once he got the notion that she too was going to leave him, he had no other choice but to kill her and hide the body so well that it wont ever be found. He knew he couldn't make it look like an accident and get away with that twice. I do believe that any jury will see right thru him and convict.

I watched the movie last night and was surprised that so much emphasis was placed on Drew's jealousy of Stacy. Over and over, it showed him keeping very close tabs on her, trying to get her to confess to adultery, and scary sudden appearances when least expected. Overall, not a bad movie :) Could have used an actor with more obvious leering or sinister expressions. Rob Lowe just can't help it that he's too good looking and gives off "ok kinda guy" vibes. The role is more in Jack Nicholson's line, jmo. :)

The movie does tie things together so it works even if the motivation is psychological (misogyny/sexual jealousy). It's 7:02am here, Pacific Time. I guess I'd better shut up and see if State has begun Opening Statements and started to draw the picture of what happened and why. :)

Weeziethm wrote:Drew Peterson trial begins today with opening statements

snipped: More than eight years after his third wife's unusual death and three years after being charged with her murder, the trial of former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson is scheduled to begin this morning with opening arguments.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,7146895.story

*bumped* :) Bring it on, State!

The following people are covering the trial on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/SeidelContent

https://twitter.com/InSession

https://twitter.com/agrimm34

https://twitter.com/ShorewdILPatch

You can follow all their tweets at the following link.

https://twitter.com/i/#!/RealityChatter/drew-peterson-trial

Please let me know if you come across anybody else tweeting from the courthouse.

Courtroom Updates: Peterson Trial

Will County Sheriff's Dept. van transporting Drew Peterson arrives at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet. Peterson's trial begins today. (Zbigniew Bzdak, Chicago Tribune / July 31, 2012)

By Andy Grimm, Steve Schmadeke and Matthew Walberg
Tribune reporters
9:15 a.m. CDT, July 31, 2012

Opening statements begin today in the trial of Drew Peterson, more than eight years after the unusual death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and three years after being charged with her murder. Check here for continual updates throughout the day.

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-courtroom-updates-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,4158433.story

@SeidelContent

#DrewPeterson attorney says prosecutors shouldn't be able to tell jurors "you may hear" hearsay evidence, because they might not.

10:01 AM - 31 Jul 12 via HootSuite

https://twitter.com/SeidelContent/status/230302121067679747

---------

@agrimm34

Defense team: State can't say in opening statement #DrewPeterson would benefit from Savio's death; bathtub scene staged; hearsay statements

10:09 AM - 31 Jul 12 via web

https://twitter.com/agrimm34/status/230304198099599362

---------

@InSession

#drewpeterson : State responding to motion, arguing no law that limits what can be said during openings.

10:10 AM - 31 Jul 12 via HootSuite

https://twitter.com/InSession/status/230304378475651072

---------

@InSession

#drewpeterson : State argues "if this was a murder, it was indeed a staged crime scene, b/c it was not an accident."

10:12 AM - 31 Jul 12 via HootSuite

---------

@InSession

#drewpeterson : judge questions State atty #johnconnor how prosecutors can prove #drewpeterson benefitted from #Savio's death.

10:18 AM - 31 Jul 12 via HootSuite

https://twitter.com/InSession/status/230306476743331840

---------

@InSession

#drewpeterson : Judge doesn't seem to be buying State's argument. Atty #JohnConnor cites more case law from previous rulings by Judge White.

10:19 AM - 31 Jul 12 via HootSuite

https://twitter.com/InSession/status/230306813768265729

Mods - I hope this is okay to post here. If not, my apologies and please delete.

On WS, ACandyRose just posted a "Who Testified" Chart. This is a very comprehensive listing of people who testified at the Grand Jury, Hearsay Hearing, etc. and gives some great background on many witnesses, etc. This reference should be very helpful as the trial unfolds.


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

I finally figured out how to embed live tweets from the trial in a post. Unfortunately it only seems to work in Firefox and Chrome, but not IE.

Defense asked for mistrail due to Pros. reference to 'hitman' in opening statements, Judge upheld the objection. But no mistrail granted even though jury heard the word hitman the statement was not completed - whew!

Based on the trail for Caylee's murder, I thought pros & def could say whatever they wanted in opening statements & didn't have to prove any of it - maybe the rules are different in Illinois? Can anyone explain?

I didn't know that Kathleen Savio was having an affair with Drew when he was married to someone else and ten years later he had an affair with Stacy. UGH...He is just an ugly old alley cat...that is the cleaned up version.

Weeziethm wrote:Mods - I hope this is okay to post here. If not, my apologies and please delete.

On WS, ACandyRose just posted a "Who Testified" Chart. This is a very comprehensive listing of people who testified at the Grand Jury, Hearsay Hearing, etc. and gives some great background on many witnesses, etc. This reference should be very helpful as the trial unfolds.


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

Oh, I love ACandyRose, they were so informative during the Casey debacle.

I remember hearing that Kathy split from him because he was cheating with a 17 yo Stacie... He's running and sick and demented game... Remember he got engaged again after Stacie left to some other young chick?

J4A That live tweet thing is very cool, thanks for figuring it out! I can only get it to work in FF, my Chrome won't run it, but its config is kinda wacky anyway.

Really?? His atty is tweeting?? Caught his handle in the live feed;

https://twitter.com/josharrk

Weeziethm wrote:Mods - I hope this is okay to post here. If not, my apologies and please delete.

On WS, ACandyRose just posted a "Who Testified" Chart. This is a very comprehensive listing of people who testified at the Grand Jury, Hearsay Hearing, etc. and gives some great background on many witnesses, etc. This reference should be very helpful as the trial unfolds.


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

Weeziethm, thanks for sharing, great link, I need a flow chart, LOL.

serenaz1 wrote:Really?? His atty is tweeting?? Caught his handle in the live feed;

https://twitter.com/josharrk

serenaz1, I can't believe Baez didn't think of this, I guess he'll do it until the judge catches him, is he really tweeting?

art tart wrote:

serenaz1 wrote:Really?? His atty is tweeting?? Caught his handle in the live feed;

https://twitter.com/josharrk

serenaz1, I can't believe Baez didn't think of this, I guess he'll do it until the judge catches him, is he really tweeting?

Yeah, Bozo's probably making note of it! I don't know for sure that it's a real account and they haven't posted for about an hour. You don't have to have a Twitter acct to read them, anyone can watch the fun. :)

Inside Drew Peterson's tangled love life

It's not easy to keep track of the women in Drew Peterson's life. He has been married four times, allegedly cheated on three of his four wives, and was briefly engaged after the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

As the number of his marriages grew, so did the age difference between Peterson and his wives. His fourth wife was 17 when their affair began and Peterson was 47.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07/30/drew-petersons-complicated-love-life?hpt=hp_t3

I would usually date men older than myself but that's just gross...

Drew Peterson Trial: Opening Arguments Set to Begin

A former Chicago police sergeant is accused of killing his third wife.
01:57 | 07/31/2012



http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/drew-peterson-trial-opening-arguments-set-begin-16893392?tab=9482930§ion=1206852&playlist=16893841


Drew Peterson Trial: An Easy Case for the Prosecution?

Dan Abrams discusses the case against the man charged with murdering his third wife.

01:34 | 07/31/2012



http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/drew-peterson-trial-easy-case-prosecution-16893420?tab=9482930§ion=1206852&playlist=16893841

@InSession

#drewpeterson : picture of a hole DP allegedly cut through a wall Savio's home; def. says prior bad acts had been excluded by Judge White.

2:38 PM - 31 Jul 12

https://twitter.com/InSession/status/230371974872961024

---------

@dianepathieu

They were ready to bring in 1st witness when judge realized jury was not there!!
#funnymoment

2:39 PM - 31 Jul 12

https://twitter.com/dianepathieu/status/230372095618584576

---------

@InSession

#drewpeterson : State wants picture admitted b/c it shows "what the defendant will do to get into that house."

2:39 PM - 31 Jul 12

https://twitter.com/InSession/status/230372170956681218

---------

@InSession

#drewpeterson : Judge rules in favor of the defense. #Stevegreenberg says this is 2nd time State has tried to sneak something in.

2:40 PM - 31 Jul 12

https://twitter.com/InSession/status/230372458224578560

I set up a page where you can see all the latest news and the latest tweets.

http://www.realitychatter.com/?pid=1

Justice4all wrote:I set up a page where you can see all the latest news and the latest tweets.

http://www.realitychatter.com/?pid=1

That is seriously the best page I've seen for info, J4A, nice work!

Thank you serenaz.

serenaz1 wrote:

Justice4all wrote:I set up a page where you can see all the latest news and the latest tweets.

http://www.realitychatter.com/?pid=1

That is seriously the best page I've seen for info, J4A, nice work!

serenaz, I second that emotion, J4A has done a fantastic job, I have some catching up to do w/some of the articles.

T H A N K S J4A!

You are welcome Art. There shouldn't be any news from the trial that doesn't flow through that page at some point.

Justice4all wrote:You are welcome Art. There shouldn't be any news from the trial that doesn't flow through that page at some point.

J4A, this case is disturbing on so many levels & so many victim' of both Kathleen & Stacy are probably going though hell & praying w/all their might. I am all for defendants having a zealous defense, but in the case of DP, DP being LE for many years gave him the tools of understanding crime scene investigation most murdering husbands don't have. It seems in this case, DP is at the advantage of probably using that background to cover his tracks well.

Even scarier, if DP walks in this case, in no time he will have another naive young woman living in his home, he will go on endless talk shows boasting, smirking, laughing, & making money off murder, imo, gosh I hope this doesn't happen.