Your Thread – November 5

Well…um…discuss away.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog.


28 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 5

  1. In this early interview with MLauer, am I correct in assuming that it was Mary that insisted they go into the house, thus, the reason for him calling a locksmith. Um, rather than calling in a well-being check like everyone else does by calling the POLICE DEPT?????

    Mr. PETERSON: “I was one of the first people there. And I was actually the watch commander of our town at the time that it happened. And I went ahead and met with her best friend because I haven’t seen her for a couple of days, which was very unlike her, to not be seen or heard from. So I was planning the next day to go into her home, you know, with her neighbor, and see if she was OK, but her neighbor was upset and her best friend was upset, same person. And she wanted to go in that night. So we called the locksmith, went into the house. I didn’t go in the house. I waited outside. Her friend…”

  2. Brodsky accused the Savio family of having an ulterior motive in filing the suit since they can’t benefit financially. Any money gained would go directly to Savio’s sons. Brodsky speculated the family may be trying to gain media attention to make a book deal more profitable.

    Anybody keeping a Brodsky book accusation count?

  3. Law School 101 – whenever anyone does something that is not helpful to your client, accuse them of wanting to profit by writing a book.

  4. Law School 102 – whenever anyone does something that is not helpful to your client, accuse them of pandering because they’re up for re-election, once being a stripper, being a woman scorned, losing a house, being a stalker, having an affair with the victim, media sensationalism, and more!

  5. noway406 // November 5, 2008 at 10:09 am

    Short thesis. Name, business and address? What else ya got? Any juicy testimony?

    There is No way ( hee hee ) I would confess if
    I did. It would make my testimony tainted.
    😉 😉 😉

  6. First time I, personally, read this, that the initial vote by the Savio death panel was 3-3:

    MICHAEL BAIDEN, FMR. NYC CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER: The evidence – and I read through that coroner’s inquest, was presented by a police officer, who had not been present at the autopsy and would not go into the scene of death. The jurors initially voted 3-3, three for homicide and three for accidents, and one of those jurors for accident was a local police officer who knew the husband and spoke highly of the husband. And one of the people for homicide then switched over to accident.

  7. Wow, Rescue. I never saw that before.

    Initally a 3-3 vote and Officer Pratl was one of the ‘accidental’ votes?

    Again, why was a local police offer allowed on the jury in the first place?

  8. Every once in a while, Facs, it’s possible to find little pieces of excerpts from the Savio Coroner’s Inquest, but that’s about it. Never had I seen that the first vote was 3-3. Now, after watching this early-investigation video, I see that Peterson denies knowing Pratl, yet, Pratl vouched for him on at the inquest. Hmmmm.

  9. Hi bucket!

    Good find Rescue. I think it’s telling that Pratl is the only member of the jury who declined to comment.

  10. Love Hardy, facs….just want to throttle his characters for all the misunderstandings…so uncomfortably like real life.

  11. I can’t bear to watch the latest tv adaptation of Tess…they’ve turned her into a sexpot. Like poor Emma Bovary. They so miss the point.

  12. “..everyone in Jude the Obscure”

    You’ve got that right! Did you hate how the movie version ended at about the halfway point of the book and how Sue Bridehead is painted as as a free-spirited early feminist instead of a loony?

    Do you get MadMen in the UK? I was thinking today that Peggy and Campbell are a lot like Tess and her seducer (was it Alec?).

    Well, this is all really off topic…


  13. Oke, if we’re not discussing the army of locksmiths and lockpickers standing outside of Kathleens house that night, how about addressing the greedy and money hungry relatives Brodsky is referring to instead.

    Didn’t Drew completely empty out the house when Kathleens family was at HER WAKE ??

    What was that called then ?

  14. Bucket & Facs – I know it was totally off topic, but I really enjoyed your bit of back-n-forth about Hardy. Who needs Oprah to talk books? Thanks, ladies! xox

  15. 2many – yes, you are correct. I just came across that today, as a matter of fact. Before she was even buried, the house was cleaned out.

  16. rescueapet // November 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    2many – yes, you are correct. I just came across that today, as a matter of fact. Before she was even buried, the house was cleaned out.


    Funny how a lawyer and his client can have such identical methods of operation in fleecing dead people !!

Comments are closed.