Your Thread – November 6

Have we all calmed down from the election yet?

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

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 6

  1. Good morning everyone!

    another day deeper into November……hearsay comin to get you, murderer who cleaned out Kathleen’s house before the funeral!

  2. derekarmstrong.com – November 06, 2008

    (PRNewsChannel) / Chicago, Ill. / Drew Peterson’s defense team’s strategy will focus on “vindictive prosecution” to keep their high-profile client out of prison, according to documents obtained by author and investigative journalist Derek Armstrong who covers the Peterson saga.

    Armstrong says a mock trial was held at Michigan State University in advance of the real trial to take place early next month in which Peterson could go to prison for up to 5 years if convicted of possessing an illegal weapon.

    Armstrong, author of the book Drew Peterson Exposed—Polygraphs Reveal the Shocking Truth About Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio, tracked down the juror source after interviews for the book indicated a mock trial was planned.

    Armstrong, who also obtained polygraphs and timelines from Drew Peterson for his book, said, “I continue to pursue the Drew Peterson case and I’m following up leads that I’ve obtained. I assumed a mock trial would be staged at a law school, which led me to Michigan State University.”

    Armstrong says he verified the information from copies of the eighteen juror questionnaires he legally obtained from one of the ‘jurors.’

    Peterson’s defense attorneys Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood acknowledged the mock trial took place but declined to comment on the leak of the documents, Armstrong says.

    The “Vindictive prosecution” defense is being pursued because no other police officer has ever been charged for this offense. The defense says these charges are being brought only because Peterson is a suspect in the homicide of third wife Kathleen Savio and disappearance of fourth wife Stacy Peterson.

    “The gun trial is more about charging Drew with something,” Armstrong quoted Brodsky as telling him.

    According to the documents Armstrong obtained, the defense will pursue three arguments, including:
    • “vindictive prosecution”
    • “prior knowledge of the Bolingbrook Police Department that Drew Peterson used the AR-15 as a secondary duty weapon”
    • “State and Federal exemptions” for law enforcers.

    Based on the juror questionnaires, Armstrong expects Drew Peterson to testify at the actual trial to take place Dec. 5. Jurors commented that his testimony was “convincing” or “compelling.”

    “In my private interviews with Drew Peterson for the book Drew Peterson Exposed, he boasts about his ability to testify convincingly,” Armstrong said. “It makes sense he’d testify.”

    Among those who voted “guilty,” the “vindictive prosecution” defense was rated as not convincing and the most common reason for the guilty verdict was “the defendant knowingly installed an illegal length barrel.”

    Mock jurors voting “guilty” considered the fact that the Bolingbrook Police Department knew the AR-15 was Peterson’s secondary duty weapon as “not important.” These jurors were more likely to regard the argument “that no other police officer has ever been charged for this offense” as not relevant.

  3. Wooo, that is an interesting piece to read! Thank you Ms. Bucket, and a good evening to you.

    Vindictive prosecution? I guess ya learn something new every day.

    I’d imagine one could assume that since Drew Peterson brought so much shame and publicity on fellow law enforcement officers, it would seem likely that they’d want to see his kahoonas toasted, heh?

  4. Hmmm, didn’t Joel himself already “leak” that info in his interview with Pretzer last Sunday and wasn’t it already discussed here?

    Pfffft.

    Investigative journalism, my Aunt Fanny.

  5. Are you serious? JB is so incompetent that he sets up a mock trial with college students? That’s pathetic. Vindictive prosecution…HA. How about prosecution for the blatant disregard for the law. How about withholding another gun during the warranted search? Nobody’s buying your crap DP!

  6. This was the part where Le Brodsque leaked the defense strategy to us.

    BRODSKY: Yeah, it is. We’ve asserted, one of the defenses we’ve asserted is that, it’s called “vindictive prosecution” or saying that the state police caused this charge to be brought because Drew went into court and got his weapons back – the guns that were his property. They were taken in the search warrant. After the police had the opportunity to process it as evidence and record it and do all the ballistics tests and everything that he went and got it back. And they didn’t want to give it back at first, then they went and they pulled his firearms owners license and then after that I forgot in order for the guns to go back to his kids, his son Steven, another police officer, that he was charged and I really think that this charge is simply brought by the state police to punish him for exercising his rights to get his property back – his weapons. I think we’ll be able to show that to the jury and if we do the jury will have to come back, they’ll be instructed to come back with finding him not guilty.

  7. Here’s the URL to the news release Bucket so posted (with susch speed!):

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=967&z=4

    and again to a transcript of the Pretzer interview where Brodsky mentions the defense:

  8. According to the documents Armstrong obtained, the defense will pursue three arguments, including:
    • “vindictive prosecution”
    • “prior knowledge of the Bolingbrook Police Department that Drew Peterson used the AR-15 as a secondary duty weapon”
    • “State and Federal exemptions” for law enforcers.

    Yawn, Derek. Old news.

  9. You know, I’ve never seen such a grandious trainwreck involving two undiagnosed narcissists before… eerily fascinating, that.

    I think I’m channeling Spock… weird.

    Wimbledon on acid, folks!

  10. Now, I don’t know a whole lot about the defense but I’ve googled a bit and to me it seems like as long as that original warrant to seize the firearm was legit, he’ll have a hard time trying to show vindictive prosecution once it was determined that the firearm was illegal.

    As law enforcement, how could they have knowingly released an illegal weapon back out onto the street? And how could they legally keep from doing that unless the gun owner was charged with the violation?

  11. Here are the last paragraphs of today’s release (found in toto on a kunati site):

    The documents show that jurors were asked to rate the arguments of both prosecution and defense, then to render a verdict. All eighteen of the mock jurors stated in questionnaires, that they “were able to set aside any bias” against Peterson in the homicide of Kathleen Savio and the disappearance of Stacy Peterson in reaching their verdict.

    This lack of bias likely led to a defense decision to pursue a jury trial over a bench trial, Armstrong says.

    In the mock trial, a few jurors objected to closing arguments from the prosecution to the prejudicial statement that Drew Peterson “is a suspect in his wife’s homicide.” Some jurors requested more information on why Drew Peterson gave his guns to his son Stephen and one asked for more testimony from the officers who initiated the warrant.

    Demographics and psychographics of the jury included more men than women, and an equal mix of republicans and democrats, but there was no obvious trend between political affiliation, age or sex in verdicts. Just under half of the jurors were gun owners or members of the National Rifle Association, but no jurors had ever worked in law enforcement or the military.

    Five of the eighteen jurors, who came down with “guilty” verdicts, indicated a very solid presentation from the defense team, in their comments. Those coming down with a “not guilty verdict” pointed to “vindictive prosecution” as a key factor and that the People didn’t prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecution statement “that just because it (the gun) was overlooked didn’t make it legal” was rated as the most effective argument for the People. The defense’s arguments and opening and closing statements were overall rated, varying from simple “okay” ratings to “solid and on point” to “very convincing.”

  12. “Vindictive Proscecution”

    Obviously sounds right to someone like Brodsky considering a Psychopaths defense is always “wrongly accused”, “case of mistaken identity” or “someone has it in for them”

  13. The “Vindictive prosecution” defense is being pursued because no other police officer has ever been charged for this offense.

    I’ll venture a guess that no other police officer has ever had a warrant served to gather weapons evidence after their fourth wife mysteriously disappeared and their third wife was found drowned in a dry bathtub, either.

  14. I’m a little frightened imagining the individuals who rated the Dress Rehearsal Defense Stylings of Mssr. Brodsky as “solid and on point” or “very convincing.”

  15. coffeeocity // November 6, 2008 at 4:35 pm

    I’m a little frightened imagining the individuals who rated the Dress Rehearsal Defense Stylings of Mssr. Brodsky as “solid and on point” or “very convincing.”

    ++++++++++++++

    Exactly and they’re supposed to be Law Students ?

  16. When my roommate was in law school I participated in a Moot Court thing for her. I was a defense witness, with students taking all other parts.
    My guess is they got a law school teacher to have students participate in something similar, but tweaked so as to be practice for Team Drew.
    The fact it’s such a high profile case might sway a professor to have their class participate…

  17. BTW.

    How do we even KNOW with certainty such a mock trial was even carried out.

    Just because Joel Brodsky says so doesn’t mean anything.

    Joel Brodsky says a lot of things ………

  18. AND if a mock trial did take place would Joel Brodsky come out and say Drew got his ass whipped ?

    No, Joel Brodsky would come out and say the defense was wonderful and victorious…..

  19. 2many – you make me laugh. 🙂
    Joel having dreamed the whole thing might make more sense than him finding 2 people who thought he was “solid and on point” & “very convincing!”

  20. Yo coffee!
    I’m still working on that time-zone pleat thing so I don’t miss all the fun….
    I’m going to bed now, I look forward to catching up in the morning. 😀 night, y’all.

  21. There was a multi-school mock trial competition at Michigan State the last weekend of October, so I’m assuming it was part of that.

    BTW, Armstrong did not indicate which way the jury decided.

    I sat in the audience for a mock trial for a friend while she was in law school. She was arguing for the defense, I think… It was pretty fun!

  22. I have a lot of trouble taking anything Joel Brodsky says serious, considering he hardly ever makes any sense and continually contradicts himself in a next sentence or make that the same sentence even ……

    As a result how can you believe ANYTHING he says to be of any consistency or value.

  23. 2many, In fairness, Joel didn’t make any statements about the mock trial except to confirm that it took place.

    He did say last Sunday though that one of the defenses they were looking at was ‘vindictive prosecution’. They may not even go that route if it didn’t go over well during the mock trial.

  24. I hope they go for the “vindictive prosecution” angle as that is a load of crock.

    Like Judge Schoenstadt would have let the case proceed this far if he thought it to be a frivolous charge to begin with ……….

    Never mind – GO JOEL !!

  25. Well, what may have played well in East Lansing,
    Michigan with the ‘mock trial’ may not play well
    in Peoria. LOL
    I must say, I am glad the trial will be in Joliet. I also think Mr. Smooth, will be as charming as ever on the stand. On the other hand, this won’t be students that are on the Jury. I am hoping he does get a slap in the face and is convicted. His arrogance is more than I can take.
    As to Abood, Brodsky’s other Law Partner. He comes from a well to do Law Family in East Lansing, Michigan. His Father has a big practice in the area and is well known. It could very well be, that his father has a tenured Professor position at Michigan St. I believe Abood, graduated from that school also. We will see how it all goes. I have a feeling Drew might not be so lucky this time. pj jmo

  26. Oh Yeah, I can see how Joel can be in a bit of a quandry in relation to his line of Defense as he can’t use his regular “Why Pick On Drew – Everybody Is Doing It” (!!)

    This time Joel is saying “Why pick on Drew – No one has ever been arrested for the same offence”

    LOL – LOL !!

Comments are closed.