drew peterson trial State screws upfor 5? state trying something new for mistrail!

[piasabird]

How about a judge recall?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Sounds like to me the prosecution has no case without testimony or information that has been deemed to be irrelevant. One has to wonder if their trying to get a mistrial in hopes that this same testimony and information would be allowed by the judge in another trial.

 

[waggy]

Sounds like to me the prosecution has no case without testimony or information that has been deemed to be irrelevant. One has to wonder if their trying to get a mistrial in hopes that this same testimony and information would be allowed by the judge in another trial.

That is the Defense's accusation on what is happening. They have claimed the prosecution is trying to get a mistrial so they get a "2nd bite at the apple" or something like that.

i gotta admit i believe it. Hell with 4 instances of introducing evidence barred to the jury is insane. no way in hell anyone can say he has had a fair trial.

 

[waggy]

LOl STate FUCKS UP YET AGAIN.

This time they claimed a conversation took place on a date. The witness came on (for the state) and said no it was a diffrent date (5 days earlier) and at a different location. The timeing threw off the states claim and goes to the believbility of the witness.

the state has to either go in front of the jury and tell them how they messed up and why they should ignore everything or allow the defense to cross examine the state attorney which would bar him from being on the case.

LOL FUCK

 

[chucky2]

I f*cking LOVE IL. I used to want to move, but now, I think I'll stay just for the entertainment. I just have to get out of Crook Co.

 

[waggy]

Interesting. So now instead of the STATE trying to introduce barred evidence and witness's they had a witness on the stand who said she recieved the information from barred evidence and witness's.

Soon as the witness said it. the judge stopped her. ordered the jury out. bitched out the state and recessed to figure out what they are going to do.

fucking amazing!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I wonder if this is a preview of the George Zimmerman case as it seems that the prosecution in this case doesn't have any evidence that proves Peterson killed his wife so they keep trying to poison the jury's mind with evidence that has been deemed inadmissible/barred.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Judge needs to slap the.prosecution by declaring a mistrial and setting it so that he can not be retried on these charges

 

[waggy]

Judge needs to slap the.prosecution by declaring a mistrial and setting it so that he can not be retried on these charges

yeah. it's well past the point thinking this guy is getting a fair trial. the fact it keeps happening really makes me believe the state is doing it to get a retrial. so they can perhaps get better rulings on some things.

I just don't think that's right.

 

[waggy]

Judge Edward Burmila is upset with the prosecution for allegedly misleading him about what the Rev. Neil Schori is expected to say on the witness stand.


bwhahah so now they lie to the judge?

sigh good god.

 

[unokitty]

Drew Peterson jury united on choice of clothing

"For a month, the jurors at the sensational murder trial of former suburban Chicago police officer Drew Peterson have been filing into court wearing matching clothes — all yellow one day; other days black, blue or green. They've even walked in wearing alternating red, white and blue."

There is strange. And then, there is strange.

Uno

 

[Robert Munch]

Guilty

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...f-jury-deliberations-20120906,0,3642366.story

 

[waggy]

Guilty

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...f-jury-deliberations-20120906,0,3642366.story

now the real fun begins.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Guilty

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...f-jury-deliberations-20120906,0,3642366.story

Good, I think, because despite the fact that the prosecution has bungled the case so badly and often, it seems fairly clear Peterson is in fact guilty.

 

[waggy]

Good, I think, because despite the fact that the prosecution has bungled the case so badly and often, it seems fairly clear Peterson is in fact guilty.

weird. we have diffrent deffinition of "clear".

the evidence introduced (both legal and not) didn't paint it to me as he did it without doubt.

while yes i do think its likely he killed her (and the missing one). i did not see enough proof of it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

weird. we have diffrent deffinition of "clear".

the evidence introduced (both legal and not) didn't paint it to me as he did it without doubt.

while yes i do think its likely he killed her (and the missing one). i did not see enough proof of it.

I did not closely follow the case, and I certainly wasn't on the jury, but everything I have ever read or seen about the case convinces me that he is very likely guilty.

 

[waggy]

I did not closely follow the case, and I certainly wasn't on the jury, but everything I have ever read or seen about the case convinces me that he is very likely guilty.

possible. but i ask where the proof of that is? so far all i have seen is family saying she claimed he want'ed her dead.

I have many issues with this trial. from the state continuing to introduce evidence that the judge barred, to passing a special law (that i question if its even constitutionalism. eventually the courts will decide that), and having no real evidence.

I did not see the evidence to say he was guilty. I also question of the guy received a fair trial. I do not believe at all that he did.