if he does that, he may give the prosecution what they need. a lucky break. they need some kind of a mistake to be made by the defense, and the stupidest thing they can do is put back i understand. arthel: we will keep watching. donald and chip, thank you both so much. good to see both of you. jon: a fellow named isaac in the caribbean gaining strength. all eyes on tampa, florida. what can people expect? is again one? we will check in with the fox news extreme weather center. also, new information about the deadly shooting outside the empire state building. i walked across the street, and i heard the shots. and then i was halfway down by the empire state building and
but evidence is very powerful and very dangerous. that is why we have rules here. in many cases, this evidence comes in any completely interesting manner to render a verdict rated three dangerous as testimony against drew peterson. arthel: if it is dangerous, how does the defense poke a hole in that testimony? well, they didn t do it yesterday from the reports that i saw. as a matter of fact, it seemed to fail completely, other than taking a couple of potshots at the reverend, because of his ties and his concern that stacy peterson was a married woman and she didn t want to be seen as doing anything wrong. other than that, this is damaging testimony. probably preventing the defense from getting a directed verdict. i think they were hoping because there was no physical evidence, they had a chance to get a direct verdict. this is damaging testimony. arthel: no head, donald. i would agree with chip. the cross-examination of this
death is a drowning. joining me is checked merlin, criminal defense attorney, donald swygert, a police officer and prosecutor, pardon me for messing up your name. good to see both of you. i say why all, because yesterday in a court room, the jury they sort of had a large outburst. aghast to some of the testimony they heard. we are talking about the pastor testifying that basically, wife number four was told to cover up for the killing, the alleged killing of wife number three. donald, i will start with you. is this the linchpin in this case? it may or may not be. i think that what we have to understand is that the jury is going to be given instructions to take this testimony with a lot of caution. because the person who made this statement was not cross-examine.
then stacy peterson said that drew peterson for his own close in the machine. you know, some of the testimony that the jurors are not hearing because it is considered marital privilege, conversation between husband and wife. the jury hearing that testimony. chip, back to you. how do you think that the jurors will process that testimony? well, i don t think that they are going to process it very well in front of drew peterson and in his favor. all of a sudden, at the very end of the prosecution, they hammer this point with the reverend coming through and testimony from cece peterson, which is interesting. the jury is not being told that stacy peterson has disappeared. this is a very unusual case heard the prosecution is very strong. the question is whether or not drew peterson, because of the testimony, may take a stand on defense. arthel: donald, do you think that will happen? will he take the stand? would be crazy to do so. a razor thin case.