What's with Mary Pontarelli? She testified at the hearsay hearing that she pulled up to see Peterson pinning Kathleen face down on her lawn, and even commented to him about it at the time, but testifies under defense direct examination she never saw Peterson get angry at her or strike her? That's an absolute contradiction. How did the defense get her to do that? Why did she testify like that? Mary Pontarelli is a strange bird. WTH?

Didn't Drew place Kathy under arrest after she punched Stacy in the face. That wasn't a domestic , but a take down as the result of an arrest?

That's why hearsay is unreliable. Mary Pontarelli proves that!

Look John M, your last comment makes no sense. What are you talking about? What has hearsay got to do with the fact I pointed out two different statements made by Mary Pontarelli?

My comment about Pontarelli is clear-cut. She TESTIFIED at the hearsay hearing that she saw Peterson pinning down Kathleen on her lawn, and he told her, in so many words, to back off, it was police business. Today, for the defense, she testified she never saw Peterson angry at Kathleen, or see him strike her.

So, which is it? Do you know? Were you there? I wasn't, I'm just pointing out her testimony, in which one statement contradicts the other. Is she not a very smart person, or does she blow with the wind?

What has that got to do with hearsay?

On second thought, forget it. I don't care what your response is. I

AMEN volpe d'argento an wow watchfuleyes are u sure u didnt try an set drew up? ur awfuly interested in his guilt an they "the state" dont have nothing on the man ...id be worried about the law aresting u next u seem quite concerned .what do u have in ur closet lol hes innocent till proven guilty not the other way around ....illinois already blew this case open an shut,i hope they trully dont mess stacy's trial up like this one ,to eager to convict get the evidence u need MURDER has no statue of limitation duhhhh

Everyone knows Drew is guilty! But the truth is, there is no evidence. If he is found gulty, it just goes to show that our system is not based on evidence. How many people do ui know or that u have heard of, have spent their entire life in prison just because the jury thought they were guilty with no evidence! I am not sying its right but where do u draw the line??

He's nothing but a domestic violence abuser who kicks and punches around women. He needs to have some nice young, big and strong man get in his face one of these days and show him what a real man is. As far as I'm concerned, he's a lowlife, piece of garbage that flexes his beer muscles by beating up women.

Volpe - It's in the prior hearsay testimony, it's all over the records, it's on the Internet for anyone who cares to do research; but, you knew that already. You're just here to start a s**tstorm, as usual.

See ya.

Just curious, but does anyone know how Peterson is paying for his defense team because I would think he'd be broke by now if he were paying for them out of his pocket?

Burmila lost some of my support that he might be a fair person by making a wise crack about the Jury being smart because no Cubs jerseys were present, but Packers jerseys were. I'm starting to wonder if he is just a petty man.

Michelle & Martin - would you, if you were on the jury, vote to acquit Peterson because of the State's case? I ask that because in my mind, Peterson is the reason for the doubt. He knew how to muck up the death scene by sending in a whole bunch of people before him, then he came into the room and touch about everything he could. A reasonable person might, in fact, realize that he did all of that on purpose, to taint and poison any evidence that might be collected, although none ever was. Even if it had been collected, as a juror, I wouldn't expect it to help me deliberate his guilt or innocence.

Circumstantial evidence is abundant in this case, IMO. Circumstantial evidence is legal, and it is allowed in trials. It can be used to convict a defendant. I'm not so sure this guy is going to get off. Being in the courtroom and seeing the witnesses testify is a lot different than reading bits and pieces the media puts out. I do not believe there is gong to be a unanimous decision to acquit him. Either guilty or hung jury, IMO.

Martin - never mind.

I can just hear the jurors now. I'm so confused!

I know I wasn't asked, but if I were on the jury, I'd vote guilty. I see a narcissitic cop who thought he was above reproach and assumed he could use his knowledge of criminology to commit the perfect crime. And actually, DP did an oustanding job at covering his tracks; but the lack of any type of hard evidence or witnesses is suspicious in itself. It's just too convenient that they only person who might be able to shed some light on what really happenedto KS that night has been missing for several years now. Also, his legal team presents themselves as a bunch of people who are trying to deflect the attention away from the real matter at hand; don't need to do that if there's nothing to hide! I know everyone gets their panties in a bunch over the use of heresay evidence to gain a conviction, but since this was almost the perfect crime, that's all anyone was left to work with; but it's still a crime! KS is no less dead because there is only heresay and circumstantial evidence and I hope the jury will see it from that same perspective. If they find him not guilty, I hope those jurors continue to avoid all of the media attention DP and his circus has been given over the years. Imagine how it would feel to find him not guilty, then read all the stuff we've all been privledged to read....it all screams guilty.