Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 18: Michael Baden testifies


The last witness expected to testify today is Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by Kathleen Savio’s family to conduct an independent autopsy.  He is the State’s rebuttal witness in response to Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen’s testimony, in which he concluded Kathleen’s death was an accident.

After his testimony, both sides are to give closing arguments.

Updates will be posted throughout the day in the comments section.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~ Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

304 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 18: Michael Baden testifies

  1. Medical Examiner: Savio Death Was Not a Homicide

    February 19, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
    [snip]
    On Feb. 17, Jentzen concurred with the findings of three other forensic pathologists — including Baden — in figuring that Savio drowned. But Jentzen then unveiled a theory in which he said Savio might actually have suffered a heart attack and inhaled bathwater into her sinuses after she was already dead.

    He also speculated that she may have slipped, fallen, hit her head, passed out and drowned, or possibly fainted before falling and hitting her head.[/snip]

  2. January 5, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
    Barnum & Bailey want to shut down the circus.

    Less than three months ago, Brodsky and co-counsel Andrew Abood seemed eager for their chance to publicly cross-examine the state’s witnesses during the hearing. At that time, Brodsky said, “People’s assumptions are going to be turned on their head — it’s going to be 180 degrees.”

    Brodsky also said, “We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses” and boasted that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

    Laughable then, laughable now.

  3. Hearsay hearing for Peterson coming to end
    Updated at 08:42 AM today, WLS-TV

    February 19, 2010 (JOLIET, Ill.) (WLS) — A hearing for Drew Peterson is finally coming to an end after more than three weeks and nearly 70 witnesses.

    A Will County judge says the hearing for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant charged with first-degree murder in 2004 death of ex-wife Kathleen Savio will conclude Friday.

    The hearing is to determine what hearsay evidence — including statements prosecutors contend Savio made — Judge Stephen White will allow a jury to hear.

    Much of the testimony has been from witnesses called to bolster prosecutors’ contention that Savio’s death was a homicide and not an accident as it was originally ruled. The last witness expected to testify is a pathologist who conducted an autopsy after Savio’s body was exhumed in 2007.

    While the prosecution has called 68 witnesses so far, the defense has called only two.

    Most of Wednesday’s testimony came from a former medical examiner that handled the case against serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen does not believe Savio was killed. His testimony contradicts the conclusion from two pathologists who are prosecution witnesses.

    Will County state’s attorney James Glasgow was close to wrapping up the 16-day hearsay hearing before announcing he will call one more witness.

    Dr. Michael Baden is expected to be the last of 71 witnesses. The famed forensic pathologist was one of two doctors who conducted an autopsy on Savio after her body was exhumed in 2007.

    Baden concluded Savio’s death was a homicide. He is expected Friday to dispute Wednesday’s testimony from Jentzen.

    Hired by Peterson’s attorneys, Jenzen said, “it is in my opinion that it was an accident.”

    “They don’t have any evidence,” said Andrew Abood, Peterson attorney.

    Jentzen, who teaches at the University of Michigan, is the former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee. While he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio’s remains, he based his conclusions on photographs and investigative reports. Savio was found dead in a dry bathtub six years ago. Jentzen testified that he thinks Savio probably slipped or fainted in the tub. Besides a wound on the back of her head, prosecutors say Savio had bruises on the front of her body.

    “People in their normal life suffer bruises. Our bodies are not perfect. I think that’s the conclusion one can reach,” said Abood.

    Originally ruled an accident, Savio’s death was reclassified a homicide after a second autopsy was performed three years after her death. During the hearsay hearing, a crime scene investigator testified that he never took any evidence from the scene. Asst. Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jenzten if his opinion on Savio’s death would change if there was evidence of a flawed police investigation. Jentzen said, “It would invite me to review the case again.”

    After Baden’s testimony, White will hear closing arguments. Both sides believe the judge plans to seal his decision.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7286640

  4. Originally ruled an accident, Savio’s death was reclassified a homicide after a second autopsy was performed three years after her death. During the hearsay hearing, a crime scene investigator testified that he never took any evidence from the scene. Asst. Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jenzten if his opinion on Savio’s death would change if there was evidence of a flawed police investigation. Jentzen said, “It would invite me to review the case again.”

    This being said, okay, it doesn’t absolutely prove that the doctor would change his opinion, but since Dr. Jentzen is going to have to testify at the actual trial, and if he is shown that there are many problems with the original investigation, which he relied on to reach his accidental death conclusion, what would he do? I know he pointed out in his testimony that the original pathologist could have sent investigators back out in the field to clear up some questions he might have had when doing his autopsy, etc., so I wonder if he will stick with that theory–that Dr. Mitchell would have raised flags if he were concerned that Kathleen’s death may have been something other than an accident.

    Covers that problem.

  5. rescueapet :

    Originally ruled an accident, Savio’s death was reclassified a homicide after a second autopsy was performed three years after her death. During the hearsay hearing, a crime scene investigator testified that he never took any evidence from the scene. Asst. Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jenzten if his opinion on Savio’s death would change if there was evidence of a flawed police investigation. Jentzen said, “It would invite me to review the case again.”

    This being said, okay, it doesn’t absolutely prove that the doctor would change his opinion, but since Dr. Jentzen is going to have to testify at the actual trial, and if he is shown that there are many problems with the original investigation, which he relied on to reach his accidental death conclusion, what would he do? I know he pointed out in his testimony that the original pathologist could have sent investigators back out in the field to clear up some questions he might have had when doing his autopsy, etc., so I wonder if he will stick with that theory–that Dr. Mitchell would have raised flags if he were concerned that Kathleen’s death may have been something other than an accident.
    Covers that problem.

    Rescue, I don’t think he could have professionally answered any other way than he did. And you’re right, it doesn’t mean that he would change his opinion, but at least he left the door open that it wouldn’t be an impossibility to do so if presented with additional facts or evidence. My gripe has been that it was all there before his research and testimony, but were ignored, disregarded, overlooked, not relevant, or whatever label he wants to put on them, in order that he came to the conclusion that the defense needed him to.

  6. To me, this isn’t as complicated as it sometimes seems.

    Once this case goes to trial, the jury will have to conclude one of two things. Either Kathleen died by accident, or she was murdered.

    If she died by accident, there’s nothing more to consider.

    If she was murdered, then they will look for the evidence that DP was the killer. I don’t know what his jury will need to convict him. That remains to be seen.

    However, I think this is only the beginning of his problems. Stacy’s disappearance and presumed death is not going to go away, and I have no doubt the Grand Jury decided to conclude he should be indicted for that.

  7. rescueapet :
    However, I think this is only the beginning of his problems. Stacy’s disappearance and presumed death is not going to go away, and I have no doubt the Grand Jury decided to conclude he should be indicted for that.

    Agreed, Rescue. The gun charge has been resurrected and I suspect that he’s going to have a good bit of a mess with the civil lawsuit that’s been filed by Kathy’s family.

    When you said you have no doubt the GJ decided to conclude he should be indicted for Stacy, do you mean that the have ALREADY decided to indict him and they’ve just let it go all this time?

    I’m confused.

  8. Atl – Yes, I’m thinking the GJ handed down an indictment in the Stacy Peterson matter, and it’s been sealed. I never would have expected the State to combine both cases. Each stands on it’s own. Separate trial, separate jury.

    Here’s a past question asked of Attorney Karen Conti by us regarding this issue:

    Here’s a recap of the sealed indictment question we asked of Karen Conti:

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/tribute-to-stacy-peterson-stolen-in-the-night/

    KAREN CONTI RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY QUESTIONS

    The questions posed to Karen Conti were based on this paragraph, as reported by Joe Hosey, in May, 2009:

    The grand jury indicted Peterson two weeks ago on first-degree murder charges in connection with Savio’s death, but no indictments are on file relating to either Stacy Peterson or Stebic’s disappearance, although they may be under seal.

    Pelkie declined to comment on whether or not the grand jury has returned indictments in either Stacy or Stebic’s case.

    QUESTIONS: Generally, speaking, is this a possibility? Why would an indictment be sealed, and not acted upon with charges against a suspect? Isn’t an indictment what the SA expects the GJ to return after presenting the preliminary facts?

    RESPONSE: It is possible that the grand jury returned an indictment that the the judge placed under seal. There are many reasons why the State’s Attorney would want to do this. They may want to continue their investigation without the public knowing there is an indictment. Also, they may want to counter the potential and eventual defense argument that, “if the States Attorney’s Office took so long to bring charges, THEY must have had a reasonable doubt, so YOU, the jury, should too.” They may also want to see what happens in the Savio case. Finally, they may be hoping that they will find Stacy’s body, which would bolster their case immeasurably.

    Karen Conti

  9. I accidentally submitted my last post before finishing it. But again, I think you’re right that Dr. Jentzen has covered himself pretty well by deferring to Dr. Mitchell’s not pursuing additional information. Bottom line, he was hired as a defense witness, and his testimony had to reflect their position. Otherwise, they certainly wouldn’t have put him on the stand. At least he was benevolent enough to state what he did about reviewing the case again.

  10. I would hope to hear Dr. Baden asked if there’s past scientific evidence of a victim breathing in water after suddenly dying.

    Or, explain how the head wound Kathleen had could NOT have been substantial enough to contributed to her death.

  11. Fox News:

    Things were delayed this morning, because the defense tried to get the Judge to believe there just wasn’t enough evidence presented to let in any of the hearsay. “The Judge didn’t buy any of it.”

    (I should clarify that – the Judge didn’t accept the defense’s argument.)

    Brodsky contends no direct evidence has been presented to prove DP was involved in Kathleen’s death.

  12. Your spelling’s got itself a Southern accent? LOL, Atlantean. ( I was reading it as ALT…as in alternative, lol (I didn’t like to pry as to “alt” in what way) I’m an idiot.

  13. rescueapet :
    I would hope to hear Dr. Baden asked if there’s past scientific evidence of a victim breathing in water after suddenly dying.
    Or, explain how the head wound Kathleen had could NOT have been substantial enough to contributed to her death.

    I think it’s been indicated that the head wound was not even sufficient to knock her out.

  14. rescueapet :Fox News:
    Things were delayed this morning, because the defense tried to get the Judge to believe there just wasn’t enough evidence presented to let in any of the hearsay. “The Judge didn’t buy any of it.”
    (I should clarify that – the Judge didn’t accept the defense’s argument.)
    Brodsky contends no direct evidence has been presented to prove DP was involved in Kathleen’s death.

    Wasn’t that dumb on the defense’s part? The results would have been sealed so we wouldn’t know one way or the other, now because the judge did not accept the defense’s argument we can guess that somethings will be allowed.

  15. cfs7360 :I accidentally submitted my last post before finishing it. But again, I think you’re right that Dr. Jentzen has covered himself pretty well by deferring to Dr. Mitchell’s not pursuing additional information. Bottom line, he was hired as a defense witness, and his testimony had to reflect their position. Otherwise, they certainly wouldn’t have put him on the stand. At least he was benevolent enough to state what he did about reviewing the case again.

    IMO, Dr. Jentzen was not benevolent because he had to preserve at least a little of his own credibility after testifying as he did. It sounded to me like even he didn’t believe what he was saying.

    “rescueapet February 17, 2010 at 10:15 pm | #156
    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School, testified that he believed Savio’s death was an accident likely due to a fall.
    “I think she probably slipped,” he said.”

    I bet that Dr.Baden will say he is certain within 99+% accuracy that Kathleen Savio was beaten up and murdered.

  16. rescueapet :Fox News:
    Things were delayed this morning, because the defense tried to get the Judge to believe there just wasn’t enough evidence presented to let in any of the hearsay. “The Judge didn’t buy any of it.”
    (I should clarify that – the Judge didn’t accept the defense’s argument.)
    Brodsky contends no direct evidence has been presented to prove DP was involved in Kathleen’s death.

    That’s because it’s a hearsay hearing! Has Brodsky totally lost it?

  17. Judgin, I meant benevolent, as in showing he was human and his opinion was not written in stone….not that he had bestowed a gift of any kind. :)

  18. Rescue @ #10 — THANKS! That sure explains a LOT!

    Bucket @ #14 — ROFLOL! I never thought about it like that. People will often write “ALT” instead of ATL and I just thought it was a typo. To realize they were probably thinking “Alternative Granny” somehow makes me cringe! My grandbabies would most certainly say I’m as SQUARE as they come!

  19. rescueapet :Fox News:
    Things were delayed this morning, because the defense tried to get the Judge to believe there just wasn’t enough evidence presented to let in any of the hearsay. “The Judge didn’t buy any of it.”
    (I should clarify that – the Judge didn’t accept the defense’s argument.)
    Brodsky contends no direct evidence has been presented to prove DP was involved in Kathleen’s death.

    Confused Granny here again! Rescue, I’m not sure if you’re saying that the Fox News reporter said “The Judge didn’t buy any of it” or if that’s your words. (as well as the clarification)

  20. Gosh, what a circus it must be in that courtroom with that big clown. Hope Joe Hosey writes another one of his telling news stories. Joel doesn’t sound as though he’s endearing himself to the judge with his antics. One of the other attorneys needs to slap him and tell him to sit down and shut up….or take a nap.

  21. Oh boy, cltv just reported that six videotapes were playted in court of DP making conflicting statements on news shows how Stacy talked to him, how he told his kids Stacy would not be back, Stacy was on vacation, etc.

    IMO, DP convicted himself in his own voice,in his own words.

  22. @Judgin: Every attorney in the country tried to tell Brodsky that was going to happen when he paraded Drew in front of the cameras. The same thing is going to happen to Brodsky too, because he has been just as inconsistent. But he’s so smart, ya know.

  23. Marcella Raymond, cltv stated that Dr. Michael Baden was testifying on the stand and States Attorney James Glasgow would be giving his closing arguments this afternoon.

    Of course, JB wasn’t sounding too happy in his statement for the press.

    Glasgow appears to be saving his words for Judge White.

  24. JB is a living example of ‘what NOT to do’ if a lawyer wants to successfully defend his obviously attention-getting guilty client.

  25. atlgranny: Confused Granny here again! Rescue, I’m not sure if you’re saying that the Fox News reporter said “The Judge didn’t buy any of it” or if that’s your words. (as well as the clarification)

    The sentence I have in quotation marks is a direct quote from the reporter.

    He was reporting that the Judge didn’t buy any of the defense’s argument, and continued on with the proceedings.

  26. I just watched the Fox video. Is that Andrew standing next to Joel just standing there hanging his head? If it is, he looks kinda pitiful and defeated….. :)

  27. Thanks, Jeepers! :)

    I think it’s about time someone in authority took Joel to task about continuing to say the hearsay law was created to get him. Enough. It makes me so mad.

  28. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/peterson-hearsay-hearing-expected-to-end-today.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29

    Pathologist: Kathleen Savio ‘drowned and was beaten up’

    February 19, 2010 1:13 PM | No Comments

    A renowned forensic pathologist who performed an independent autopsy on Drew Peterson’s ex-wife testified today that “she drowned and was beaten up,” and that she was a homicide victim.

    Dr. Michael Baden, who was asked in 2007 to perform the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by her family, testified that “it’s extremely rare” for healthy people who are not elderly or under the influence of drugs or alcohol to drown in a bathtub, as Savio did in 2004.

    “My opinion is this is a homicide in which she drowned and was beaten up,” Baden said.
    Baden, a FOX News consultant who went on the air for the network to discuss the findings in the autopsy, was not paid any fees for performing it.

    His testimony is expected to be the culmination of three weeks of testimony in a hearsay hearing in Peterson’s murder case. The hearing is to determine what hearsay evidence — including statements prosecutors contend Savio made — Judge Stephen White will allow a jury to hear.

    Much of the testimony has been from nearly 70 witnesses witnesses called to bolster prosecutors’ contention that Savio’s death was a homicide and not an accident as it was originally ruled.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is charged with first-degree murder in connection with Savio’s death. He is also a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    –Steve Schmadeke and Associated Press

  29. CFS – the psychic woman, who was a friend of Drew’s mother, testified that Stacy told her too that Drew would kill her. The state withdrew their request to allow her statement in.

    Good riddance.

  30. Marcella Raymond said in the WGN video that if the hearsay statements don’t get in (“judge throws it all out” is the way she put it) there would NOT be a trial, but it didn’t look like that wasn’t going to happen either, with her meaning that some hearsay would get in, and there would be a trial.

    I don’t think what she’s saying is correct, and I’ve never heard that before. There WILL still be a trial, regardless of whether or not the hearsay gets in, right? It will just be harder to convict without the hearsay. She must be confused, like a lot of other people are.

  31. rescueapet :CFS – the psychic woman, who was a friend of Drew’s mother, testified that Stacy told her too that Drew would kill her. The state withdrew their request to allow her statement in.
    Good riddance.

    I figured as much, but I wasn’t aware of that. Where did you all see it?

  32. wgntv news link: Joel Brodsky 1:40-1:55

    “Larger issue….SA decided they wanted to prosecute somebody…..got an unconstitutional law passed…gone out and found witnesses to fit the unconstitutional law….witnesses who have CHANGED THEIR STORY OVER THE YEARS.”

    So, there you have it! JB still thinks that Martineck’s testimony was that Morphey changed his story!

    If that’s all he could come up with out of 70 witnesses, I’d say that the Prosecution isn’t going to have a tough time convicting DP.

  33. Re: Brodsky. Wah, wah, wah. Enough already. He did nothing to show his client didn’t say or do the things the witnesses testified to. All he’s done is whine about the unconstitutional law and how all the witnesses are lying.

    So, he’ll prevail if he’s right. In that regard, he can STFU already, because no one is impressed with his whining.

  34. After looking at the video again, I really don’t think that’s Andrew next to Joel after all. Looks like a reporter trying to write down what Joel is saying, maybe. Besides, he seems to be better looking than Andrew.

  35. Joel sort of looks like someone has taken the air out of his tires. His comments just don’t have the punch they used to have. Or maybe he’s just too tired from his other big case to pull all the faces we are accustomed to.

  36. joehosey
    Dr. Baden says Kathleen Savio was the victim of a homicide. Prior to his testimony, prosecutors showed a video montage of Drew Peterson’s
    12 minutes ago from txt

    joehosey
    Television appearances. Closing arguments begin in a few minutes.
    12 minutes ago from txt

  37. @Facs: You know this has got to be draining him, but he wanted it, so I just can’t feel any sympathy for him. I’ve wondered many times if he really believes Drew is innocent, because his slip ups when he’s discussing the case are almost too telling. It’s as if he’s actually thinking one thing, yet trying to state something else convincingly, even to himself.

  38. bucketoftea :Wow I’d like to know which all 6 of the video clips are.

    I just watched the Larry King segment when he was tugging on his ear for Ashley at the beginning, but still saying he loved Stacy “very much so.” What a crock he is.

  39. I was just about to eat lunch, but decided to watch the video above first and realized that despite their ham-handed efforts, Blobsky & DP have missed their best opportunity for making fast money out of all this… the “I’m Too Disgusted Even to Think of Eating” diet.

  40. February 19, 2010 at 3:16 pm | #60 Quote

    When you find yourself in a ‘hole’, quit digging!..

    unless you’re digging a grave!

    Why does JB have white knuckles in those videos?

  41. From Soap to Rough Sex…what will they dream up next?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/drew-peterson-trial-a-fox_n_469468.html

    After a renowned pathologist testified that the 2004 death of Drew Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio was a homicide on Friday, Peterson’s defense attorneys tore into the doctor–who then admitted that a Fox News producer helped him perform the autopsy.

    Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner of New York City testified Friday that Kathleen Savio not only drowned in her bathtub, she was beaten, according to the Associated Press. But during cross-examination, Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky questioned Baden’s motives for coming to that conclusion, “contending he was determined to reach the conclusion to please his bosses at Fox News,” the Chicago Tribune reports.

    During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.
    “One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said.

    Savio’s family asked Baden to conduct an autopsy in 2007 after the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, AP reports. Savio’s death was originally classified as an accident, but was reclassified as a homicide.

    Despite the strange news of Fox News producers participating in an autopsy, Baden’s testimony did not bode well for Peterson, who has been charged with first-degree murder in connection with Savio’s death.

    Baden said he believes Savio was beaten up and placed in the bathtub where she was drowned, and evidence of blunt force trauma and hemorrhage of the diaphragm supported his theory, the Tribune reports.

    The defense tried to downplay the bruises by suggesting they were the result of rough sex or clumsiness.
    “You can get a lot of injuries from rough sex, but a hemorrhage of the diaphragm is not one of them,” Baden said.

  42. … rough sex….
    now I’m not just unable to eat new food, I’m losing breakfast.

    They are a disgusting crew.

  43. Ridiculous. What would Fox news have to gain from making Peterson look guilty? They don’t have a dog in the fight. Steph Watts mentions being present at the autopsy here:

  44. Not to be overly graphic here, but if we’re talking sex bruises you’d expect to see them on the upper arms, neck and/or inner thighs, wouldn’t you? I don’t remember reading that Kathleen had bruises in any of those places.

    What a disgusting, disgusting man.

  45. cfs7360 :
    You know this has got to be draining him, but he wanted it, so I just can’t feel any sympathy for him. I’ve wondered many times if he really believes Drew is innocent, because his slip ups when he’s discussing the case are almost too telling. It’s as if he’s actually thinking one thing, yet trying to state something else convincingly, even to himself.

    It’s a MOO point, but I don’t think Joel believed Drew innocent for a New York second. It’s the perfect vehicle for his aspirations. He could hardly be blamed down the road for failing to keep that p-i-g out of prison, but puh-lenty of exposure. As for all his jive talk (total lies), that’s what they all do, but he’s really a p-i-g himself.

  46. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/peterson-hearsay-hearing-expected-to-end-today.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29

    Pathologist: Fox News producer helped with Savio autopsy

    February 19, 2010 2:50 PM |

    Drew Peterson’s defense today tore into a prominent pathologist who declared that Peterson’s third wife was killed, contending he was determined to reach the conclusion to please his bosses at Fox News.

    During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.

    “One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said under questioning by Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.

    Baden had testified earlier that he believes Savio was beaten up and then placed in the bathtub, where her attacker drowned her. Bruises to her body support his theory, Baden said.

    The defense tried to downplay the bruises by suggesting they were the result of rough sex or clumsiness. While Baden conceded some could have been made that way, a few — particularly a hemorrhage of the diaphragm — was the result of blunt force trauma.

    “You can get a lot of injuries from rough sex, but a hemorrhage of the diaphragm is not one of them,” Baden said.

    Under questioning by prosecutors, Baden had said it was highly unlikely for a healthy adult to drown in the bathtub. But when pressed by the defense, he conceded that it was equally rare for healthy adults to be killed in a bathtub.

    “They’re neck and neck,” Baden said.

    Savio’s death was initially ruled an accident in 2004. After Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007, Savio’s body was exhumed. Baden was asked by her family to perform an autopsy.

    Closing arguments were set to begin at 2:30 p.m. today –the culmination of three weeks of testimony in a hearsay hearing in Peterson’s murder case. The hearing is to determine what hearsay evidence — including statements prosecutors contend Savio made — Judge Stephen White will allow a jury to hear.

    Much of the testimony has been from nearly 70 witnesses witnesses called to bolster prosecutors’ contention that Savio’s death was a homicide and not an accident as it was originally ruled.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is charged with first-degree murder in connection with Savio’s death. He is also a suspect in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

    –Steve Schmadeke, Stacy St. Clair

  47. rescueapet :

    joehosey

    Still in closing arguments.
    1 minutes ago from txt

    Dr. Jentzen was asked about that deep bruise to the diaphragm. That’s why he said that particular bruise could have been part of a three point fall. Head, then two more strikes after that.

    You believe in all of that, right? Sounds, sounds, oh, the hell with it.

  48. What a disgusting, disgusting man.

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

    Absolutely !

    They seem to grab every opportunity to publicly degrade, devalue and tarnish the reputation of the two victims (Kathleen and Stacy) and their families as if that is all these people ever stood for in their lifetime.

  49. Think I feel the same way you do, Bucket. Blobsky may be an attorney by profession, but I think he’s a Fame Whore by nature and neither DP nor his victims were ever the reason for his involvement. The fact that he took on a new and v. high profile case right in the middle of these hearsay hearings speaks volumes to me about his commitment to Drewpie. Nose-Picker, Esq. is only really committed to one client: himself.

  50. …the more controversial the better. A proper grown-up civilised human being attorney would not have allowed the exploitation of the children. I wonder if he has advised his religious-abuse client to make the most of/try again and again with a conciliation service for the sake of his child and dare I say, his own righteousness.

  51. I keep wondering when Drew is going to wake up to the fact that Joel isn’t as interested in getting him off the hook as he is with getting his own face on television.

  52. Bucket, I wasn’t going to bring up the Reyes/Brodsky case, but I have to gloat about this. Jeffrey Leving is the atty Peterson consulted about divorcing the missing Stacy. He is a high profile divorce atty in Chicago, working on behalf of fathers’ rights. This is what he said about the Reyes case. So, don’t think that Brodsky fellow attorneys have good things to say about him, as much as he thinks they do:

    Jeffery Leving, a divorce lawyer who specializes in fathers’ rights, said he would recommend that Joseph Reyes convert back to Catholicism if he wanted to expose his daughter to his faith without further incurring the judge’s wrath. He also questioned whether excluding his estranged wife from religious decisions and inviting the news media to watch him defy a judge’s order was truly “in the best interest of the child or is this a PR circus?”

    “This is parental war,” Leving said. “The parents are using the child as a tool of revenge.”

  53. I got to say it weirds me out that Baden claimed the Fox producer was his assistant. I’m sure they were only there for the scoop and the photography. It would definitely be illegal here. Only qualified technicians or students should handle the remains or touch anything at all. It shocks me because to say such a thing in court here would land him in big trouble. It’s not like changing a tire.

  54. I can see it now…

    JB arrives at home tonite after a long day in court,

    he closes the door behind him,…

    when, a sweet voice from the kitchen he hears…

    hi honey, how was your day?

    And thats when the fight started…

  55. “This is parental war,” Leving said. “The parents are using the child as a tool of revenge.”

    And JB is right there egging them on.

  56. Bucket, If I remember correctly, Baden was hired by Kathleen’s family. Dr. Blum I believe did the official one. I may have that wrong.

  57. bucketoftea :I got to say it weirds me out that Baden claimed the Fox producer was his assistant. I’m sure they were only there for the scoop and the photography. It would definitely be illegal here. Only qualified technicians or students should handle the remains or touch anything at all. It shocks me because to say such a thing in court here would land him in big trouble. It’s not like changing a tire.

    One article upscreen says ‘producer’ and another says ‘host’.

    How would the defense team know that anyone ‘helped’ Baden unless the entire autopsy procedure was videotaped and turned over to the defense in the one of the six evidence boxes during the ‘discovery’.

  58. charmed4sr :Bucket, If I remember correctly, Baden was hired by Kathleen’s family. Dr. Blum I believe did the official one. I may have that wrong.

    You’re right Charmed, and he didn’t collect a fee for it. Because her family was distrustful of the ISP after the way her death was handled, they wanted their own autopsy in addition to the one ordered by the state. However, I think it was wise of Dr. Baden to televise it.

  59. charmed4sr :
    Bucket, If I remember correctly, Baden was hired by Kathleen’s family. Dr. Blum I believe did the official one. I may have that wrong.

    It wouldn’t have mattered whether it was the official or private autopsy…what I’m on about is a sort of health and safety issue. To protect the producer and others near by. Hazardous substances, and so forth. Not that it would impact on the legitimacy of the examination. It would still be a big deal here for a pathologist to have an amateur assist.

  60. Old Story

    Greta Van Susteren: ‘On the Record’ Team Pushed for New Autopsy in Drew Peterson Case

    [snip]
    Q: How did you and your team get another autopsy for Drew Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio? Take us behind the scenes.

    A: We were in Bolingbrook a short time after Stacy disappeared. One day, the police showed up at Drew Peterson’s home with search warrants. While they were executing the search, Kathleen Savio’s sister showed up, and as we were talking to her, we learned that she had a briefcase full of documents — including Savio’s 2004 autopsy. Naturally, we asked to see all of them. “On the Record” Producer Steph Watts and others got the documents.

    Q: What clued you into the fact that her death was suspicious?

    A: Although I am not a doctor (and don’t pretend to be one), in reading the autopsy report from 2004, it seemed obvious this was not an accident. The bruises mentioned were a huge red flag and would have been (I think) to virtually anyone reading it.

    Q: Why weren’t the police and prosecutors investigating Savio’s death as a murder before you got involved (or were they)? Do you think they were protecting Peterson, since he was a cop?

    A: I think the police in 2004 and the then-prosecutor were lazy or overwhelmed with other investigations. There was a very sloppy coroner’s jury, which concluded — based on the sloppy work presented to them — that it was an accident. Once her death was determined by that jury to be an accident, no one bothered to look further or to try and help the family seek justice. I guess — and I hate to say this — no one cared.

    Q: What role did you play in the exhumation of the body?

    A: We pushed the investigation (not the exhumation) with lots of reports on our show and with our “OTR” producers and journalists seeking more and more and more information. The exhumation was done at the direction of the state (the prosecutor).

    Q: Were you there for the exhuming of the body?

    A: I was not there when the body was exhumed. I watched it on TV like everyone else.

    Q: Would you testify at the trial?

    A: I have no role in the trial. Like the “OTR” producers who get lots of credit for their investigative reporting, I am merely a journalist reporting on the story. What is extraordinary about the “OTR” work on the Drew Peterson story is this: Our producers — as well as former Los Angeles Det. Mark Fuhrman and Dr. Michael Baden, who did the third autopsy — never gave up. They are the ones who just kept pushing and pushing and pushing for more information. They are really the ones who should take a bow for good reporting.

    Q: Do you believe Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio? Do you believe he murdered Stacy Peterson?

    A: I don’t know who murdered Kathleen Savio. I am suspicious of Drew Peterson and have told him that face-to-face. I could be wrong, but until a murder is solved, one should be suspicious of him (and others). He understands my suspicion of him — an ex-husband would be someone people would focus on in this instance, and he is a former police officer who understands investigations. But he denies he murdered her.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331892,00.html

  61. facsmiley :
    Don’t get me started on Joel Brodsky and the psychological abuse of the children thing….

    I don’t mind getting you started on that. Especially as it looks like a Brodsky pattern may be developing.

  62. Pathologist: Death of Peterson’s ex was homicide
    By DON BABWIN
    The Associated Press
    Friday, February 19, 2010; 3:58 PM

    JOLIET, Ill. — A renowned pathologist testified Friday that former police officer Drew Peterson’s ex-wife drowned in her bathtub in 2004 after being beaten and intentionally held under water, not after an accidental fall.

    Dr. Michael Baden, the former chief medical examiner of New York City, said there were bruises on Kathleen Savio’s body consistent with a struggle but no physical signs that she’d slipped and fallen, such as marks or blood on her bathroom wall.

    “In my opinion, this is a homicide in which she drowned and was beaten up,” Baden said.

    Baden was the last of more than 70 witnesses called in a hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge will allow at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial.

    Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, usually isn’t admissible in court. But Illinois judges can allow it in murder trials if prosecutors prove a defendant may have killed a witness to prevent them from testifying. There’s little available forensic evidence in Savio’s case, so prosecutors are expected to rely on statements Savio allegedly made to others saying she feared Peterson could kill her.

    Attorneys said they expect a decision on the hearsay issue in the next few weeks.

    The former Bolingbrook police officer has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio’s death. She was found dead in a dry bathtub with a laceration to the back of her head.

    Savio’s family asked Baden to conduct an autopsy in 2007 after the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. Savio’s death was originally classified as an accident, but was reclassified a homicide after her body was exhumed. Peterson has not been charged in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance and denies wrongdoing.

    While Baden and another pathologist called by Will County prosecutors testified that Savio’s death was a homicide, a pathologist called by the defense said he believes it was an accident and that Savio drowned after falling.

    Baden said it’s “extremely rare” for a healthy adult such as Savio to drown accidentally in a bathtub, noting that most people who drown in tubs are babies or the elderly. Savio’s toes were pressed against the side of the bathtub, as if she was struggling, not relaxed as if she’d fallen and knocked herself out, Baden said.

    He also refuted claims by the defense pathologist that a heart murmur may have caused Savio’s heart to stop, saying her heart condition “did not cause or contribute in any way to her death.”

    Closing arguments in the hearing were also set for Friday.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021903436.html

  63. A: We were in Bolingbrook a short time after Stacy disappeared. One day, the police showed up at Drew Peterson’s home with search warrants. While they were executing the search, Kathleen Savio’s sister showed up, and as we were talking to her, we learned that she had a briefcase full of documents — including Savio’s 2004 autopsy. Naturally, we asked to see all of them. “On the Record” Producer Steph Watts and others got the documents.

    Q: What clued you into the fact that her death was suspicious?

    A: Although I am not a doctor (and don’t pretend to be one), in reading the autopsy report from 2004, it seemed obvious this was not an accident. The bruises mentioned were a huge red flag and would have been (I think) to virtually anyone reading it.

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

    Amazing isn’t it ……

    Kathleens sister had been carting a case full of documents for nearly four years to no avail and it takes Greta to read the autopsy report and a HUGE RED FLAG goes up re the bruising alone (!!)

    GO GRETA !!

  64. Savio’s toes were pressed against the side of the bathtub, as if she was struggling.

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

    And wasn’t her tongue clenched between her teeth ?

    Just imagine these two actions alone and you get a picture what went on that night !

  65. Here’s the press release Selig put out for Joel when he was accusing the State of psychologically torturing the children. Note that Joel gave this letter to Paul Huebl to post on his blog. I guess Joel is only interested in the welfare of the children if it’s good for his client’s case.

    Press release (with a little PR for Pauly): http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=50&a=725

    Letter posted on Pauly’s blog:
    http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/07/why-victimize-drew-petersons-innocent.html

  66. Closing arguments are still going on.

    They were divided into two parts, I think it was reported. Hearsay pertaining to Kathleen, and hearsay pertaining to Stacy.

    Assistant State’s Attorney O’Connor was one of the participants for the State.

  67. Hey everyone. Just got a call from a couple of my “court observer” friends. One has promised to try and post her observations from today.

    One thing that I think you might find amusing is that Brodsky and Dr. Baden were bantering back and forth over something. At one point, Dr. Baden said to Brodsky: “what are you doing, making this stuff up as you go along?”

    Hopefully, you’ll get to read some information that doesn’t always get conveyed by the reporters.

    Dr. Baden, they felt, was on the mark and they felt he was a very strong witness.

  68. One thing that I think you might find amusing is that Brodsky and Dr. Baden were bantering back and forth over something. At one point, Dr. Baden said to Brodsky: “what are you doing, making this stuff up as you go along?”

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

    So it isn’t just us that happen to notice that kind of thing – LOL !!

  69. Brodsky also questioned Dr. Baden about whether he was given and wore a Find Stacy Peterson T-Shirt when he had been here in the past. Dr. Baden replied that as far as he knows, he didn’t, and apparently asked Brodsky to find pictures or something that shows that, since he’d like to see it for himself.

  70. rescueapet :
    Brodsky also questioned Dr. Baden about whether he was given and wore a Find Stacy Peterson T-Shirt when he had been here in the past. Dr. Baden replied that as far as he knows, he didn’t, and apparently asked Brodsky to find pictures or something that shows that, since he’d like to see it for himself.

    Well, there was an ex coroner from another state that was very active in searching for Stacy….hummm think they got Dr Baden confused with him. BTW, this man I speak of was a very sincere man and very dedicated to finding Stacy and he probably did wear a Find Stacy Peterson shirt.

  71. “what are you doing, making this stuff up as you go along?”

    ROFL!!!
    That’s just perfect to send me off to bed with a smile.

    rescueapet :
    Brodsky also questioned Dr. Baden about whether he was given and wore a Find Stacy Peterson T-Shirt when he had been here in the past. Dr. Baden replied that as far as he knows, he didn’t, and apparently asked Brodsky to find pictures or something that shows that, since he’d like to see it for himself.

    White-haired, comfortable build, mustache? That will have been me.

  72. @Rescue: At one point, Dr. Baden said to Brodsky: “what are you doing, making this stuff up as you go along?”
    ============================
    That’s hilarious! I’m sure some people in the courtroom had to suppress their laughter.

  73. rescueapet :
    Brodsky also questioned Dr. Baden about whether he was given and wore a Find Stacy Peterson T-Shirt when he had been here in the past. Dr. Baden replied that as far as he knows, he didn’t, and apparently asked Brodsky to find pictures or something that shows that, since he’d like to see it for himself.

    Wow. I am just now catching up, so if you’ll bear with me, I’ll comment as I go.
    In this case, I’m seeing Henry David Thoreau questioning Ralph Waldo Emerson!
    Paraphrased, you mean Brodsky wasn’t???

  74. I’ve got a few more details but a small disclaimer, they are second-hand.

    They have surveillance from mcdonald’s. Remember when drew took the kids to mcdonald’s? check timeline. but went in at 5 and was out at 5:45

    They also have surveillance of a comparision of his denali at startbucks, condition of windshield to compare with other surveillance (maybe mcdonald’s). At startbuck’s, he got a coffee with a squirt of vanilla. drew doesn’t drink coffee, and he doesn’t even own a coffee machine

  75. When was the video above w/Steph Watts aired?
    I understand that this is not earth-shattering, and I do understand that Fox is not who hired Dr. Baden.
    But-after all the time that Greta spent on this story, I would still feel better if the producer’s assistance had been made clear at the beginning. Just in the interest of full disclosure. Then today, Dr. Baden could have said, “Yes, that is true, as I stated on xx-xx-xxxx and…” etc. Might have removed some more wind from Brodsky’s sails.
    Of course this is MOO, probably standing deep in…it. :)

  76. facsmiley :I’ve got a few more details but a small disclaimer, they are second-hand.

    They have surveillance from mcdonald’s. Remember when drew took the kids to mcdonald’s? check timeline. but went in at 5 and was out at 5:45

    They also have surveillance of a comparision of his denali at startbucks, condition of windshield to compare with other surveillance (maybe mcdonald’s). At startbuck’s, he got a coffee with a squirt of vanilla. drew doesn’t drink coffee, and he doesn’t even own a coffee machine

    Facs….those second-hand quotes make me think they are going after Drew for the death of Stacy. No?

    I have been confused about how much they are going into the disappearance of Stacy. I realize that it has to do with him getting rid of Stacy so she couldn’t testify about Kathy, but so much of the testimony seems to revolve around Stacy’s disappearance that I would think this could be confusing to the jurors. Who’s death are they trying? Kathy’s or Stacy’s?

  77. We will just have to watch the ‘pros’ in action.

    The Scheme Team will most likely study these transcripts and try to figure a way to discredit or impeach the witnesses who just testified and put DP in the electric chair.

    IMO, the witnesses will have a lot more to say to stump the Scheme Team when the time comes for them to testify in the Trial.

  78. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/prosecutor-hideous-peterson-used-choke-hold-on-wife.html

    Prosecutor: ‘Hideous’ Peterson used choke hold on wife
    February 19, 2010 8:42 PM

    Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant, likely killed his 23-year-old wife Stacy using a choke hold in their bedroom on the Sunday morning family and friends first noticed she disappeared, Will County’s top prosecutor said today.

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who referred to Peterson as a “knucklehead” and “hideous B-movie stalker,” laid out for the first time a theory of how Stacy, who disappeared in 2007, was killed.

    Glasgow’s comments came during closing arguments in a unique pretrial hearing on whether hearsay statements can be heard by a jury in Peterson’s upcoming trial for the 2004 drowning death of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Prosecutors also said that in 2007 they found a red “alibi folder” in Peterson’s home with unwrinkled receipts for cash purchases he made on the day before Savio’s body was found in a dry bathtub in her Bolingbrook home.

    The early morning hours of that Sunday are when prosecutors allege Savio was slain.

    “How does he know this was the operative time?” Glasgow said.

    Peterson acted strangely the night Savio’s body was discovered, sending four untrained neighbors into a home where an intruder could have been lurking instead of calling his fellow officers, Glasgow said. When Peterson heard a neighbor scream, he didn’t run in with his gun drawn as police are trained to do.

    Though he was a trained evidence technician, Peterson touched Savio’s body. And Glasgow alleged that after a neighbor wondered why there was no towel in the bathroom, Peterson planted one that later appeared in death scene photos.

    In his closing argument, defense attorney Andrew Abood said prosecutors had failed to show Savio’s death, which was initially ruled accidental, was a murder or link Peterson to her home at the time she died.

    Abood noted that even if Judge Stephen White believed witnesses whose hearsay statements prosecutors hope to used, Savio herself had a history of lying.

    He said a taped deposition she gave in June of 2003 for an insurance claim she filed alleging Peterson had stolen her wedding ring and jewelry contradicted her statements to several people that Peterson had threatened her the year before and told her he could kill her and make her death look accidental.

    Savio testified at the deposition that Peterson told her “I could never hurt you,” Abood said.

    At least two pieces of jewelry Savio reported stolen matched pieces of jewelry found in her possession after her death, said defense attorney Joel Brodsky, who said he believes she may have filed a false claim.

    She changed her story and attributed the missing items to a “rash of break-ins” after learning that Peterson, who was living at her home then, was also on the insurance policy, Brodsky said.

    A trial date will be set Tuesday, White said. White said he would issue a written ruling on the hearsay under seal, but it would be unsealed after jury selection.

    –Steve Schmadeke, Stacy St. Clair

  79. Alt, they are trying to prove both…that he killed Kathleen, and also killed Stacy to prevent him from testifyng against him in Kathleen’s murder. That’s why there is so much Stacy testimony.

  80. atlgranny :

    Facs….those second-hand quotes make me think they are going after Drew for the death of Stacy. No?

    I have been confused about how much they are going into the disappearance of Stacy. I realize that it has to do with him getting rid of Stacy so she couldn’t testify about Kathy, but so much of the testimony seems to revolve around Stacy’s disappearance that I would think this could be confusing to the jurors. Who’s death are they trying? Kathy’s or Stacy’s?

    ATL, these hearings were not about convincing a jury anything. These hearings were to convince the judge that Drew killed both Stacy and Kathleen in order to silence them. If the judge is convinced to a reasonable certaintly that Drew killed them, then their hearsay statements can be admitted at trial. Stacy told people about Drew killing Kathleen so her hearsay statememts would be very useful for the prosecution in Drew’s upcoming trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

  81. cfs7360 :Alt, they are trying to prove both…that he killed Kathleen, and also killed Stacy to prevent him from testifyng against him in Kathleen’s murder. That’s why there is so much Stacy testimony.

    Okay, but how does the jury handle that? I mean, really……they find him guilty of killing Kathy and then let all the evidence that’s been given to them about Stacy get repeated again to another jury after they arrest him for Stacy’s death?

  82. Alt, the actual trial though will be for Kathleen’s murder. Only hearing is for both. But he will more than likely be charged at some point fr Stacy’s murder too, with a separate trial and separate jury.

  83. Confused about the jewelry. Could Drew have taken the jewelry and then later returned it after Kathleen had already filed the insurance claim? Also…how does this show Drew didn’t kill her?

  84. IMHO Dr. Baden may face disiplinary action for having an unlicensed/untrained person assisting in an autopsy but maybe not, either. Recording the entire autopsy is what matters and his findings. just my 2 cents.

    Drew never imagined this is how it would end for him: a plague of litigation, murder charges, federal gun charges, mortgage and insurance fraud investigations and more. In the end he’s locked up, broke and where he belongs.

    Brodsky wants a career as some kind of reality TV ambulance chaser. He all but came right out and said just that. Won’t happen. Brodsky is just not marketable. He’s ignorant, cocky and unattractive.

  85. Prosecutors also said that in 2007 they found a red “alibi folder” in Peterson’s home with unwrinkled receipts for cash purchases he made on the day before Savio’s body was found in a dry bathtub in her Bolingbrook home.

    Well this is not hearsay at all!!
    Let me guess the reciepts are for donuts and the shedd aquarium….

  86. Hearsay hearing for Drew Peterson comes to an end
    By DON BABWIN

    The Associated Press

    JOLIET, Ill. — A hearing for Drew Peterson ended Friday night with the same question it began with a month ago: Is there enough evidence to convince a judge that the former police officer may have killed his third and fourth wives to keep them from testifying before a jury?

    In dramatic closing statements that came after the last of more than 70 witnesses testified, prosecutors portrayed Peterson as a cold-blooded killer who took the lives of Kathleen Savio in 2004 and Stacy Peterson three years later to keep them from getting his money.

    “They are killed so they can’t take the witness stand in a divorce proceeding,” said Will County Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor.

    But defense attorneys saidthe case against Peterson is built on lies.

    Savio’s death was a tragic accident, they said, and Stacy Peterson may have vanished in 2007, but she’s not dead.

    “For someone to say five, six, seven, eight, nine times that she’s dead doesn’t mean she’s dead,” defense attorney George Lenard said. “The reason she is not here with Mr. Peterson is that she left, and she left with another man.”

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant is charged with Savio’s death, but no charges have been filed in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. Friday’s closing statements marked the first time they said flat out that they believe he killed Stacy Peterson.

    The unprecedented hearing is easily the most extensive use of a state law allowing a judge to admit hearsay evidence in first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can prove a defendant killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying. The law was passed after authorities named Peterson a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, then exhumed Savio’s body and reopened her death investigation. Savio’s death originally was ruled an accident.

    The statements that prosecutors want Judge Stephen White to admit as testimony are those in which the women allegedly expressed to friends and family that they were afraid Peterson would kill them.

    Prosecutors want friends and relatives of Savio to be allowed to testify about a threat she described, in which Peterson reportedly held a knife to her throat and allegedly told her that he could kill her and make it look like an accident. They also want the judge to allow a friend of Stacy Peterson to testify not only about the fears she expressed, but also that Peterson had told her he killed Savio.

    Defense attorneys argued that many of the statements shouldn’t be admitted. For example, they pointed to statements Savio gave police after the alleged knife incident in which Savio never said Peterson had a knife.

    “She describes things the way she wants in order to make people feel sorry for her,” said Andrew Abood, saying Savio wasn’t a credible witness.

    Throughout the hearing, it became clear that the hearsay evidence is critical for prosecutors. They presented no physical evidence linking Drew Peterson to Savio’s death, and Stacy Peterson remains missing.

    Abood characterized the weakness of the case against Peterson this way: “They (prosecutors) want to come in here and say it’s a staged crime scene because they have no evidence.”

    But prosecutors said the only explanation for the deaths of both women is that Peterson killed them. Both, they said, posed a threat to Drew Peterson. They said he was worried that the property settlement with Savio would wipe him out financially, and that Stacy Peterson’s planned divorce from him would do the same.

    What happened, Connor said, is exactly what Savio and Stacy Peterson feared would happen, as friends and family described.

    “Mr. Peterson’s wives are two-for-two in predicting their own murders,” he said.

    White did not say when he would rule on the hearsay, but he did say he would order the ruling sealed until a jury is selected. He explained that he didn’t want his decision to influence potential jurors.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/hearsay-hearing-for-drew-314881.html

  87. facsmiley :Confused about the jewelry. Could Drew have taken the jewelry and then later returned it after Kathleen had already filed the insurance claim? Also…how does this show Drew didn’t kill her?

    That sounds very plausible. And it has nothing to do with whether or not Drew killed her. Defense’s case is so weak it’s just incredible.

  88. Writer, I really don’t think that Baden has anything to be concerned about. Steph Watts was not the only person in the room with Baden at the time.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312208,00.html

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And so then yours — your autopsy today was the third.

    BADEN: Yes.

    VAN SUSTEREN: How many people were in the room today?

    BADEN: There were five Illinois State Troopers who came down. One of them took photographs, took notes. We exchanged some information. There was a coroner, an administrative coroner, who was there, very helpful. We went over the X-rays. There was Steph Watts from your office who was there, who was very helpful.

    VAN SUSTEREN: He’s the one who videotaped you…

    (CROSSTALK)

    BADEN: He did the videotape, and he was very helpful in taking notes and helping out. And it was a big, very nice autopsy room. They do about 500 autopsies a year in that room, so it’s not a small operation. And when the autopsy was done two days ago, about 13 X-rays were taken, which I was able to review. They have an X-ray view box. They had the X-rays. No fractures. And when I did the examination, there were no fractures on the body.

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And so the viewers know that, Steph Watts, when he videotaped you, we were very careful not to videotape the remains and being…

    BADEN: That’s right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: … respectful of the seriousness of the situation…

    BADEN: Yes.

  89. facsmiley :It’s going to be quite the lull between now and the trial, isn’t it?

    Maybe I can finally get something done around here for a change. This has been riveting.

  90. facsmiley :
    Confused about the jewelry. Could Drew have taken the jewelry and then later returned it after Kathleen had already filed the insurance claim? Also…how does this show Drew didn’t kill her?

    BINGO.

  91. “Abood characterized the weakness of the case against Peterson this way: ‘They (prosecutors) want to come in here and say it’s a staged crime scene because they have no evidence.’”
    =====================================

    Let’s see……we have first-person accounts of the bathroom not having any towel in it and then photos showing a towel. I’d say that’s pretty good evidence of staging.

  92. facsmiley :It’s going to be quite the lull between now and the trial, isn’t it?

    Yes, but knowing DP is behind bars makes it easier to wait! If Judge White has announced his retirement in October, my guess is that he’d want to schedule it for sometime this summer. I would expect that it would take about two months to hear the trial…..no?

  93. Prosecutors also said that in 2007 they found a red “alibi folder” in Peterson’s home with unwrinkled receipts for cash purchases he made on the day before Savio’s body was found in a dry bathtub in her Bolingbrook home.

    The early morning hours of that Sunday are when prosecutors allege Savio was slain.

    “How does he know this was the operative time?” Glasgow said.

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

    What the States Attorney says here is very important !!

    Drew gathered receipts for the exact times to provide an alibi re Kathleens death, but how could Drew have known Kathleen would have died in that crucial time frame if it hadn’t even been established she was dead until a day or so later (!!)

    “Information only the killer would know”

  94. Doesn’t the Scheme Team have a few other active lawsuits ongoing in Will County Courts and one in Federal Court(DP v.JPMorganChase)?

    There is never a dull moment, is there!

  95. “For someone to say five, six, seven, eight, nine times that she’s dead doesn’t mean she’s dead,” defense attorney George Lenard said. “The reason she is not here with Mr. Peterson is that she left, and she left with another man.”

    Did the defense bother to tell us who this OTHER MAN IS? The other man who left no texts, no emails, no phone messages, no receipts, who also disappeared suddenly and completely, leaving behind no one who missed him or noticed his disappearance?

  96. cheryljones :

    facsmiley :
    Confused about the jewelry. Could Drew have taken the jewelry and then later returned it after Kathleen had already filed the insurance claim? Also…how does this show Drew didn’t kill her?

    BINGO.

    You know that is a really sneaky trick by the Defense, to accuse Kathleen of defrauding the Insurance Company re her stolen jewelery, as at one point Drew did come to the house with another Police Officer for Kathleen to sign some papers and he RETURNED some jewelery to her at that point.

    How was this poor woman to ever know what Drew stole from her house, what he said he didn’t take or what he was ever going to return at any point or steal it again at a later date.

    Kathleen was put through psychological torture by her cop husband who could do what ever he wanted and set her up to make her look like the villain time and time again !!

  97. facsmiley :
    ATL, these hearings were not about convincing a jury anything. These hearings were to convince the judge that Drew killed both Stacy and Kathleen in order to silence them. If the judge is convinced to a reasonable certaintly that Drew killed them, then their hearsay statements can be admitted at trial. Stacy told people about Drew killing Kathleen so her hearsay statememts would be very useful for the prosecution in Drew’s upcoming trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

    I know I probably come across as stupid, but I’m not. At least not usually!

    I know that these hearings were simply to convice Judge White that the hearsay testimony should be admitted in the trail that will be held in the future. That trial is to prove that Drew killed Kathy. I got that part.

    But even though they haven’t charged Drew for the death of Stacy, it sure seems as though they are trying him for the death of both ladies. It sounds as though they just about came out and said so in their closing argument.

    The ONLY thing I can think of that would make sense is if they have a sealed indictment from the GJ which is holding that charge in silence until the proper time. But when would that proper time be?

    It just seems as though so much information is being handed over about the case they have put together on Stacy that it might jeopardize an eventual trial on her death.

    Am I making sense?

  98. From Post # 126

    VAN SUSTEREN: How many people were in the room today?
    BADEN: There were five Illinois State Troopers who came down. One of them took photographs, took notes. We exchanged some information. There was a coroner, an administrative coroner, who was there, very helpful. We went over the X-rays. There was Steph Watts from your office who was there, who was very helpful…

    ***
    I’m still confused as to why Steph had to assist in ‘moving the body’ if there was a coroner and an administrative coroner, or perhaps just an administrative coroner, depending on whether that was in addition to or in place of the first one listed.
    I’m w/Bucket and Writer. Weird, not to mention a little unprofessional. I’m sure Steph was suited up properly, but still…he left Fox, I believe, in 2008. This may be why GMA looked so much better w/Chicago and politics.

  99. justanotherhen :

    cheryljones :

    facsmiley :Confused about the jewelry. Could Drew have taken the jewelry and then later returned it after Kathleen had already filed the insurance claim? Also…how does this show Drew didn’t kill her?

    BINGO.

    You know that is a really sneaky trick by the Defense, to accuse Kathleen of defrauding the Insurance Company re her stolen jewelery, as at one point Drew did come to the house with another Police Officer for Kathleen to sign some papers and he RETURNED some jewelery to her at that point.
    How was this poor woman to ever know what Drew stole from her house, what he said he didn’t take or what he was ever going to return at any point or steal it again at a later date.
    Kathleen was put through psychological torture by her cop husband who could do what ever he wanted and set her up to make her look like the villain time and time again !!

    No doubt that skunk took it and then returned it. The defense just has to cast doubt on her character to try to help their client any way they can, cause they darn sure don’t have much else. Such a shame they’re dragging the memory of these women through the mud for their children to hear about one day just to try to get their killer client exonerated. Makes me sick.

  100. facsmiley :

    cfs7360 :

    facsmiley :It’s going to be quite the lull between now and the trial, isn’t it?

    Maybe I can finally get something done around here for a change. This has been riveting.

    I might finally clean the microwave!

    You’ve been having Lean Cuisines for dinner too, have ya? :D

  101. I know I probably come across as stupid, but I’m not. At least not usually!

    I know that these hearings were simply to convice Judge White that the hearsay testimony should be admitted in the trail that will be held in the future. That trial is to prove that Drew killed Kathy. I got that part.

    But even though they haven’t charged Drew for the death of Stacy, it sure seems as though they are trying him for the death of both ladies. It sounds as though they just about came out and said so in their closing argument.

    The ONLY thing I can think of that would make sense is if they have a sealed indictment from the GJ which is holding that charge in silence until the proper time. But when would that proper time be?

    It just seems as though so much information is being handed over about the case they have put together on Stacy that it might jeopardize an eventual trial on her death.

    Am I making sense?

    Sorry, I don’t mean to sound patronizing and I don’t think you’re stupid. A lot of what you are mention is exactly what Joel said about the hearsay hearings and why he wanted them to be closed. He was afraid that the jury would not follow directions and would read/hear/see some of the testimony from them and become tainted.

    There may or may not be a sealed indictment for Stacy’s murder, but in either case, her hearsay statements would be valuable in the upcoming trial for Kathleen’s murder and the only way to get them admitted is to prove to the judge (to a degree of certainty) that Drew killed her. As long as the law exists, doesn’t it make sense for the State to make use of it? By the judge sealing his upcoming decision he’s taking a step to help make sure the jury is not tainted.

    I think some of what you are concerned about is what makes this case and the change in the law so interesting. We’re in uncharted waters…

  102. I would love to see when Kathleen filed a claim for her stolen jewelry and when that skunk husband of hers returned some of it in order to get her to sign some papers.

    The fact he returned some jewelry is evidence enough that he DID take some (!!)

  103. cfs7360 :

    facsmiley :

    cfs7360 :

    facsmiley :It’s going to be quite the lull between now and the trial, isn’t it?

    Maybe I can finally get something done around here for a change. This has been riveting.

    I might finally clean the microwave!

    You’ve been having Lean Cuisines for dinner too, have ya? :D

    Ha! More like the men in this household don’t know how to put a paper towel on top of a bowl of chili…

  104. Uncharterd waters is right. Maybe I’m the only one who sees this as potentially jeopardizing any trial that goes forward for Stacy’s death. I don’t think the jury will have a problem following directions. I just think that so much evidence will be given away in trying to convict for Kathy’s death that by the time another trial is heard for Stacy’s death, it will have given the Defense Team a year or two to refute it.

    (unless…..JUST THOUGHT OF THIS…..unless Drew is put away for life and the Prosecution decides not to try him for Stacy’s death since he’ll never get out anyway. This trial is not a death-penalty trial, is it?)

  105. atlgranny :

    Uncharterd waters is right. Maybe I’m the only one who sees this as potentially jeopardizing any trial that goes forward for Stacy’s death. I don’t think the jury will have a problem following directions. I just think that so much evidence will be given away in trying to convict for Kathy’s death that by the time another trial is heard for Stacy’s death, it will have given the Defense Team a year or two to refute it.

    Joel also gloated about this. He stated in a few sound bites that the hearsay hearing was only going to make the State show their hand which would be to the defense’s advantage. So is the state taking a gamble and assuming they will nail Drew on this charge and not have to pursue an indictment for Stacy?

  106. justanotherhen :I would love to see when Kathleen filed a claim for her stolen jewelry and when that skunk husband of hers returned some of it in order to get her to sign some papers.
    The fact he returned some jewelry is evidence enough that he DID take some (!!)

    JAH, and he probably felt like the jewelry was really his too, if he was the one who bought it. I think I read too that she thought he was taking it to give to Stacy, and wasn’t it reported that she actually saw Stacy wearing a pair of the earrings she was missing? I remember reading too though, that she thought “the thief” came through the sliding doors on the back. But yeah, he probably took the jewelry, just like he took the video camera and no telling what else that she went up to his house and starting beating him up about, so said Drew. That’s one of the times Drew pressed charges against her for assault, which were later dropped.

  107. Prosecutors: Drew Peterson’s wives ’2-for-2′

    February 19, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — For a month, Drew Peterson listened to family, former friends and ex-in-laws talk about him allegedly stalking and abusing three of his four wives. He heard stories about his supposed plots to kill two of the women he married and then cover up the crimes.

    Now it is all over, and Peterson can return to the peace of his jail cell for a while.

    The landmark hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Drew Peterson’s murder trial came to a close late Friday with State’s Attorney James Glasgow hurling such aspersions as “knucklehead Drew” and “greedy Drew” at the defendant.

    Peterson, who Glasgow likened to “some sort of hideous B-movie stalker,” is charged with murdering his third wife Kathleen Savio. She and Peterson were nearing the end of a contentious divorce in which she was poised to claim hundred of thousands of dollars of his assets — until she mysteriously turned up drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004.

    Almost immediately, state police ruled that Savio died accidentally and closed her case. The case stayed that way until Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007 and intense media scrutiny forced the state cops to re-evaluate the job they did on the Savio death investigation.

    Besides slaying Savio, state police figure Peterson had a hand in killing Stacy, whose whereabouts remain unknown. Despite their suspicions, he has not been charged with harming her.

    Even with the lack of criminal charges, Prosecutors tried over the course of the month-long hearing to prove Peterson killed Stacy to keep her from testifying against him in the Savio case. If they succeed, relatively new state legislation will let them get as many as 14 hearsay statements made by Stacy and Savio admitted at Peterson’s murder trial.

    Discrediting statements

    Peterson’s attorney have questioned the constitutionality of the state law. In the closing arguments they made Friday, they also attacked the reliability of the witnesses who repeated the hearsay statements and, in Savio’s case, went after the original source.

    Peterson’s lawyer Andrew Abood, who split the closing arguments with defense attorney George Lenard, said Savio lied during a divorce deposition about income from a tenant and was dishonest to an insurance investigator regarding the theft of her wedding ring.

    “She describes things the way she wants, to make people feel sorry for her,” Abood said.

    More than 10 witnesses have testified that Savio told them Peterson broke into her house and threatened her life. Some said Savio claimed he menaced her with a knife. At least six said she accused him of cutting a hole in the wall of her house to get inside, and another six said Savio predicted Peterson would kill her and make her death appear to be an accident.

    Witnesses testified to Stacy expressed similar fears. As Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor put it, “Mr. Peterson’s wives are 2-for-2 in predicting their own murders.”

    ‘It was a homicide’

    Prior to the attorneys presenting their closing arguments Friday, celebrity medical examiner Michael Baden testified for the prosecution and said he believed Savio was attacked, beaten and drowned.

    Baden, who performed an autopsy on Savio’s exhumed remains that was later broadcast on the Fox News Channel in November 2007, said, “My opinion is that it was homicidal, that it was a homicide, and that she was drowned and beaten up.”

    Peterson’s attorneys have tried to convince Judge Stephen White, who is making the call on the hearsay statements, that Savio may have drowned accidentally, but Baden wasn’t buying it.

    Baden did say “elderly people” sometimes accidentally drown in bathtubs, as well as “babies or retarded kids,” and “of course kids who are drunk. But not healthy normal people.”

    As an alternate theory to Savio’s death being an accident, Abood suggested her boyfriend, Steve Maniaci, had greater access to her bathroom — and less of an alibi — than Peterson, and questioned why he was not the one under suspicion.

    Lawyer: Stacy left

    And as far as Stacy, Lenard said the evidence points to her running off with another man.

    “She doesn’t want to have sex with (Peterson) anymore because it makes her skin crawl. I don’t think that’s a compliment,” Lenard said.

    “No offense to Drew Peterson, but he’s not the young boy-toy anymore,” Lenard said. “He’s not the guy walking around with the gelled hair. He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.”

    Judge White is keeping his decision about the hearsay statements under seal until a jury is selected. He said he will set a date for Peterson’s trial Tuesday.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2059602,Peterson-prosecutor-hearing-JO021910.article

  108. facsmiley :

    Joel also gloated about this. He stated in a few sound bites that the hearsay hearing was only going to make the State show their hand which would be to the defense’s advantage. So is the state taking a gamble and assuming they will nail Drew on this charge and not have to pursue an indictment for Stacy?

    I sure hope you don’t think I’m gloating!!

  109. atlgranny :Uncharterd waters is right. Maybe I’m the only one who sees this as potentially jeopardizing any trial that goes forward for Stacy’s death. I don’t think the jury will have a problem following directions. I just think that so much evidence will be given away in trying to convict for Kathy’s death that by the time another trial is heard for Stacy’s death, it will have given the Defense Team a year or two to refute it.
    (unless…..JUST THOUGHT OF THIS…..unless Drew is put away for life and the Prosecution decides not to try him for Stacy’s death since he’ll never get out anyway. This trial is not a death-penalty trial, is it?)

    The defense has had over two years to refute this one, and look how they’re doing. And this is just a pretrial hearing. I’m not too worried about that crew.

  110. cfs7360 :

    The defense has had over two years to refute this one, and look how they’re doing. And this is just a pretrial hearing. I’m not too worried about that crew.

    Plus, what do you have to worry about if you’re the side telling the truth?

  111. ” No offense to Drew Peterson, but he’s not the young boy-toy anymore,” Lenard said. “He’s not the guy walking around with the gelled hair. He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.”

    +++++++++

    ROFLMAO!!! and then he was fired.

  112. Forgive me but whenever I think of Drew filing away the pristine receipt for donuts, all I can think of is the Mitch Hedberg bit:

    I bought a donut, and they gave me a receipt. When will I ever need to prove I bought a donut? Some skeptical friend: “Hey man! Don’t you even act like I didn’t buy this donut! I have the receipt… damn … I forgot it… at home… in the filing cabinet… under D… for donut.”

    http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=41939&title=mitch-hedberg-donut-receipts

  113. The defense has had over two years to refute this one, and look how they’re doing. And this is just a pretrial hearing. I’m not too worried about that crew.

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

    LOL, LOL,

    Joel is always crowing about the Prosecution “showing their hand” as if he just discovered something nobody’s supposed to know about.

    Maybe it’s just called moving a case forward which is what happens with the progress of time, but if Joel thinks it is “showing their hand” at least he thinks the Defense is ahead for what it’s worth anyway- LOL !!

  114. The landmark hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Drew Peterson’s murder trial came to a close late Friday with State’s Attorney James Glasgow hurling such aspersions as “knucklehead Drew” and “greedy Drew” at the defendant.
    =================================
    For some reason, it’s just comical to me to envision James Glasgow calling Drew a knucklehead. Couldn’t help but giggle when I read that.

  115. Was anyone surprised that the lead chair didn’t do the closing arguments? I sure wasn’t. They would have been there until midnight with Bridsky trying to get his mouth and brain in sync.

  116. charmed4sr :
    ” No offense to Drew Peterson, but he’s not the young boy-toy anymore,” Lenard said. “He’s not the guy walking around with the gelled hair. He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.”
    +++++++++
    ROFLMAO!!! and then he was fired.

    Hahahahahahaha,

    If your own Defense team calls you old and ugly (and they’re no oil painting themselves) does that mean it is a professional statement or a direct observation ???

  117. cfs7360 :The landmark hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Drew Peterson’s murder trial came to a close late Friday with State’s Attorney James Glasgow hurling such aspersions as “knucklehead Drew” and “greedy Drew” at the defendant. =================================For some reason, it’s just comical to me to envision James Glasgow calling Drew a knucklehead. Couldn’t help but giggle when I read that.

    “State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who referred to Peterson as a “knucklehead” and “hideous B-movie stalker,” laid out for the first time a theory of how Stacy, who disappeared in 2007, was killed.”

    I would think “hideous B-movie stalker” would be a more demeaning put-down to another man…
    except for DP, who is a “knucklehead” … LOL

    and what could be worse than his own attorney, George Lenard saying:

    ““She doesn’t want to have sex with (Peterson) anymore because it makes her skin crawl. I don’t think that’s a compliment,” Lenard said.

    “No offense to Drew Peterson, but he’s not the young boy-toy anymore,” Lenard said. “He’s not the guy walking around with the gelled hair.

    He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.””

    DP was an old man when Stacy was born!

  118. justanotherhen :

    charmed4sr :” No offense to Drew Peterson, but he’s not the young boy-toy anymore,” Lenard said. “He’s not the guy walking around with the gelled hair. He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.”+++++++++ROFLMAO!!! and then he was fired.

    Hahahahahahaha,
    If your own Defense team calls you old and ugly (and they’re no oil painting themselves) does that mean it is a professional statement or a direct observation ???

    And that’s exactly why he killed Stacy…he’s an old man that she didn’t want to be with anymore, so she was going to divorce him and take all of his money. Bad argument on the part of the defense, and who could blame Stacy for wanting to leave him. Eeeewwwww.

  119. “She doesn’t want to have sex with (Peterson) anymore because it makes her skin crawl. I don’t think that’s a compliment,” Lenard said. “He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.”

    And they don’t think that this might be part of Drew’s motive for wanting her dead?

  120. “And that’s exactly why he killed Stacy…he’s an old man that she didn’t want to be with anymore, so she was going to divorce him and take all of his money her half of the money.”

    Let’s not phrase it the way the knucklehead sees it! :)

  121. facsmiley :

    “She doesn’t want to have sex with (Peterson) anymore because it makes her skin crawl. I don’t think that’s a compliment,” Lenard said. “He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.”

    And they don’t think that this might be part of Drew’s motive for wanting her dead?

    That’s exactly what I said. We’re thinking alike again.

  122. It was hardly a news flash Stacy didn’t want to be with him anymore.

    It is just that Drew doesn’t take rejection very well, especially if that is going to cost him money and his pension !!

  123. facsmiley :“And that’s exactly why he killed Stacy…he’s an old man that she didn’t want to be with anymore, so she was going to divorce him and take all of his money her half of the money.”
    Let’s not phrase it the way the knucklehead sees it!

    No doubt she was going to try to get as much as she could, according to Smith. But yeah, you’re right. She was going to take his money, and you know he’s never paid alimony to his ex-wives, he just kills instead. Vicki was lucky she didn’t ask for any.

  124. cfs7360 :

    facsmiley :“And that’s exactly why he killed Stacy…he’s an old man that she didn’t want to be with anymore, so she was going to divorce him and take all of his money her half of the money.”
    Let’s not phrase it the way the knucklehead sees it!

    No doubt she was going to try to get as much as she could, according to Smith. But yeah, you’re right. She was going to take his money, and you know he’s never paid alimony to his ex-wives, he just kills instead. Vicki was lucky she didn’t ask for any.

    IMO Vicky got to see another day because she did not have any children with him and also did not claim any percentage of his Pension !

  125. cfs7360 :
    And I’ve wondered about Carol. Surely he paid her child support, but what about alimony?

    Carol did mention Drew was the one to organize a divorce lawyer for her, which was the SAME lawyer he used.

    No surprises then how that would have worked out for her.

    Drew started young conning and deceiving women !

  126. “She doesn’t want to have sex with (Peterson) anymore because it makes her skin crawl. I don’t think that’s a compliment ,” Lenard said. “He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.”
    ==============================================
    Wonder why he would throw that in. I mean, hell no it’s not a compliment, and any fool wouldn’t have to think about it being, or not being one. Their arguments didn’t seem to be very compelling, did they?

  127. justanotherhen :

    cfs7360 :And I’ve wondered about Carol. Surely he paid her child support, but what about alimony?

    Carol did mention Drew was the one to organize a divorce lawyer for her, which was the SAME lawyer he used.
    No surprises then how that would have worked out for her.
    Drew started young conning and deceiving women !

    I do remember that JAH, and thanks, but I’ve never seen anything about what her settlement was, not that it matters. Although, if she didn’t get anything but child support, that might have been an item of interest to Glasgow, especially if “their” lawyer worked it out for her, if for nothing else to show that his wives who didn’t ask for any of his money were “spared.”

  128. I am not so sure if any of these women even wanted HIS money.

    It appears they wanted what they were entitled to by way of the length of their marriages, the amount of children they had, their joint business ventures, their joint properties, THEIR entitlement to their share of his pension etc and Drew always made it very clear his women were entitled to NOTHING, he didn’t even want to pay for his childrens education (as in Thomas and Kris).

  129. justanotherhen :

    I am not so sure if any of these women even wanted HIS money.

    It appears they wanted what they were entitled to by way of the length of their marriages, the amount of children they had, their joint business ventures, their joint properties, THEIR entitlement to their share of his pension etc and Drew always made it very clear his women were entitled to NOTHING, he didn’t even want to pay for his childrens education (as in Thomas and Kris).

    Yes, Coffeecity has made me hypersensitive about this! Even the press tends to fall into that “his money” mindset. It doesn’t work that way in this country.

  130. And of course, you’re right. It’s just that Drew seems to have the mentality that what’s yours in mine, so even if they asked for what was rightfully theirs, he probably still considered it his, is what I meant. I’m just thankful he’s behind bars, and I hope he stays there the rest of his life.

  131. And I want to add that I use the term “his money” sarcastically, just because of the way he seems to consider it so.

  132. Pitfall in state’s case against Drew Peterson

    Judge airs concerns about absence of divorce filing, considered a major part of prosecution’s case

    By Stacy St. Clair and Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporters

    12:04 AM CST, February 20, 2010

    In the middle of the prosecution’s closing arguments in a landmark hearsay hearing last week, two of Drew Peterson’s attorneys glanced sideways at each other and tried to suppress small smiles.

    The judge had just signaled a potential problem with the state’s case, and everyone in the courtroom knew it.

    In order to have Stacy Peterson’s alleged statements about her husband’s involvement in his third wife’s death admitted at trial, the prosecution must show, among other things, that Drew Peterson killed Stacy to prevent her from testifying in a legal proceeding.

    Will County Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor accused Peterson of murdering Stacy in October 2007 to avoid a financially devastating divorce. However, Stacy had not actually filed for divorce — a fact critical enough to the prosecution’s burden of proof that Judge Stephen White interrupted closing arguments to point it out.

    “There was no (divorce) case,” White told Connor. “You must show that’s the intent to silence her.”

    Connor argued that Peterson wanted to kill Stacy, his fourth and much younger wife, before she could file for divorce and make his life difficult, like third wife Kathleen Savio had. Prosecutors have painted Peterson as a violent man who would have done anything to protect his police pension — a claim they supported with dozens of witnesses.

    “His life was going to get a lot more difficult if she filed for divorce,” Connor argued.

    White shook his head.

    The judge will not make his decision public until after Peterson’s jury is selected later this year. Outside the courtroom, however, the former Bolingbrook cop’s attorneys jubilantly predicted a ruling in their favor. “If this case goes to trial, it will be without this ridiculous hearsay,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said.

    Peterson, 56, is charged with killing Savio in March 2004 amid a bitter property and custody battle. Her death was declared accidental, but the case was reopened and ruled a homicide after Stacy vanished in 2007.

    He has not been charged in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, though prosecutors have publicly accused him of killing her. Peterson denies wrongdoing.

    In their largely circumstantial case, prosecutors are relying on a new Illinois statute, dubbed “Drew’s Law,” that allows them to build their case around comments made by Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio. They argue the hearsay statements would allow both women to speak from the grave.

    The state’s attorney’s office considers Stacy’s alleged statements about Peterson’s involvement in Savio’s case critical because she provided his alibi after Savio was found drowned in her bathtub. Several witnesses, including her pastor, testified that Stacy told them she covered for him with the police.

    In an effort to address the judge’s concerns about the nonexistent divorce proceeding, State’s Attorney James Glasgow told White if the troubled marriage wasn’t impetus enough for Peterson to kill Stacy, the fear she would tell police about his deadly secret was.

    “Let the divorce go,” Glasgow said during rebuttal. “This (case) is the one” with the intent to silence.

    If White decides the preponderance of evidence does not show Peterson killed Stacy to silence her in a legal proceeding, witnesses including the pastor, a classmate and a potential boyfriend could be barred from testifying.

    sstclair@tribune.com

    sschmadeke@tribune.com

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-case-0221-20100220,0,4074710,full.story

  133. Well, I was trying to stay up to catch Rescue to see if there were going to be anymore posts about the hearing today, since she said she would be on later, but it’s way past my bedtime.

  134. Hmmm, not sure how this is a pitfall when Harry Smith testified that Stacy visited him about divorcing Drew two days before she ‘disappears’…

    Legally, does there need to be some existant case pending in which she would have testitifed?

  135. In the middle of the prosecution’s closing arguments in a landmark hearsay hearing last week, two of Drew Peterson’s attorneys glanced sideways at each other and tried to suppress small smiles.

    Isn’t it hard to imagine that there’s something to “smile” about when it comes to this POS?

    At least Brodsky was awake for that moment. Or not, who knows.

  136. I cannot believe that Judge White won’t eventually take into consideration that Stacy was in the process of finding a divorce attorney, but disappeared before she could make it happen. Espescially after hearing other testimony about what she told people Drew said and did. Looks to me like Harry Smith’s testimony would account for something in that regard. Dang. Makes me sick that Brodsky is already celebrating a victory. Hope he’s just as wrong about this as he has been about everything else he thought he won. Nite everybody.

  137. Maybe Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General will submit something in reference to this ‘pitfall’. or… Judge White can take this issue under advisement and have his law clerks research what is done in the 19 other states that have had the ‘Hearsay Law’ in effect for many years.

    or maybe the judge was just making a joke for the ‘jokester’ before he writes his final Decision.

  138. Never mind. I see who wrote this article, so it may be a bit slanted. I have more faith in the judge making a wise decision than this reporter’s account of what appears to have transpired.

  139. cfs7360 :Never mind. I see who wrote this article, so it may be a bit slanted. I have more faith in the judge making a wise decision than this reporter’s account of what appears to have transpired.

    I agree with you… This law was written so the judge would be able to make his decision ‘in the interest of justice’.

    Some reporters like to write out of both sides of their faces… LOL

    so they will always be right either way the outcome is.

  140. Great that the Judge signaled his concern about the direction the State was going with the Stacy divorce issue, and allowing the State the opportunity to clarify it. Doesn’t sound like a Judge that is ready to rule in favor of the defense, snap, snap. I think they can wait until his ruling before gloating over their crystal ball predictions.

    The judge had just signaled a potential problem with the state’s case, and everyone in the courtroom knew it….

    In an effort to address the judge’s concerns about the nonexistent divorce proceeding, State’s Attorney James Glasgow told White if the troubled marriage wasn’t impetus enough for Peterson to kill Stacy, the fear she would tell police about his deadly secret was.

    “Let the divorce go,” Glasgow said during rebuttal. “This (case) is the one” with the intent to silence.

  141. facsmiley :

    That was in the Tribune story as well.

    Rescue, Didn’t you see Joel scurrying to the judge’s chambers with his calendar on Wednesday?

    Yes, I did, and he was in a huff and acted like he was having a hissy fit. In fact, he does a lot of strange things that make you want to go hmmmmm.

  142. rescueapet :Great that the Judge signaled his concern about the direction the State was going with the Stacy divorce issue, and allowing the State the opportunity to clarify it. Doesn’t sound like a Judge that is ready to rule in favor of the defense, snap, snap. I think they can wait until his ruling before gloating over their crystal ball predictions.

    The judge had just signaled a potential problem with the state’s case, and everyone in the courtroom knew it….
    In an effort to address the judge’s concerns about the nonexistent divorce proceeding, State’s Attorney James Glasgow told White if the troubled marriage wasn’t impetus enough for Peterson to kill Stacy, the fear she would tell police about his deadly secret was.
    “Let the divorce go,” Glasgow said during rebuttal. “This (case) is the one” with the intent to silence.

    Ah, the intent to silence. I did notice that Glasgow used two reasons for DP to have killed Stacy… the financial issue of divorce and the intent to silence her from testifying about DP killing Kathleen.

  143. or just to silence Stacy from telling everyone what she knew about what DP was doing that would lead to DP losing his job and his pension.

  144. But the “intent to silence” is what would admit the hearsay to the murder trial for Kathleen. It doesn’t matter which legal proceeding it might pertain to…but seems like there needs to be some legal proceeding. Legal expert?

  145. Yes, that is true. However, DP admitted on tv news that Stacy kept telling DP that she wanted a divorce and at the same time she was also telling everyone who testified that she wanted a divorce… then she contacted Harry Smith who confirmed that Stacy not only wanted a divorce, but wanted to know how to get what she was entitled to from the marriage with the children.

    IMO, there was enough evidence for the judge to rule that the hearsay evidence will be allowed at Trial… in the interest of justice.

  146. That could be… the law says there has to be a preponderance of evidence… it doesn’t say the evidence cannot be circumstantial…

    How is that for an answer? LOL

  147. AN ACT concerning criminal law.

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

    Section 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is amended by adding Section 115-10.6 as follows:
    (725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 new)

    Sec. 115-10.6. Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness.

    (a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of clauses (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.

    (b) While intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

    (c) The murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered.
    If the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not have ever been prosecuted.

    (d) The proponent of the statements shall give the adverse party reasonable written notice of its intention to offer the statements and the substance of the particulars of each statement of the declarant. For purposes of this Section, identifying the location of the statements in tendered discovery shall be sufficient to satisfy the substance of the particulars of the statement.

    (e) The admissibility of the statements shall be determined by the court at a pretrial hearing. At the hearing, the proponent of the statement bears the burden of establishing 3 criteria by a preponderance of the evidence:

    (1) first, that the adverse party murdered the declarant and that the murder was intended to cause the unavailability of the declarant as a witness;

    (2) second, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provide sufficient safeguards of reliability;

    (3) third, the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

    (f) The court shall make specific findings as to each of these criteria on the record before ruling on the admissibility of said statements.

    (g) This Section in no way precludes or changes the application of the existing common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing.

    SB2718 Re-Enrolled LRB095 05870 RLC 25961 b
    Public Act 095-1004
    Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

    SB2718 Re-Enrolled LRB095 05870 RLC 25961 b
    Public Act 095-1004

  148. Remember that guy standing next to Joel the other day, hanging his head?
    I don’t think he’s a reporter. Here he is again:

    I think it’s metaphysical. He’s looking like the embodiment of JBs true emotions.

  149. I might finally clean the microwave!

    You’ve been having Lean Cuisines for dinner too, have ya?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    FYI: to clean microwave quickly and safely..in ceramic bowl place 1/2C white vinegar..into microwave and on high for 3 minutes. Wipe down w/paper towels..EZ :)

  150. Outside the courtroom, however, the former Bolingbrook cop’s attorneys jubilantly predicted a ruling in their favor. “If this case goes to trial, it will be without this ridiculous hearsay,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said.
    =======================================
    IMO, this is just Brodsky to using his “white noise” theory to subliminally persuade the judge, should Judge White happen to read or hear this statement, that he should rule against allowing hearsay because it’s a ridiculous, unconstitutinal law.” Everytime Joel gets in front of the camera he has an ulterior motive, and it’s usually an effort to try to sway someone to believe the way he wants them to. Hasn’t worked so far, and I’m sure it won’t have any bearing on the judge’s decision either.

  151. OK. Can we recap? In explaining to hubby the goings-on in court from this week, he is asking how anything to do w/Stacy has merit in the case for Kathleen. Help me, here, to make it short and sweet..TIA

  152. Hearsay hearing for Drew Peterson comes to an end

    CHICAGO (WBBM) – The end has come to the month-long hearing to determine what hearsay evidence, if any, will be allowed when former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson stands trial for the murder of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Will County Judge Stephen White gave no hint as to how he would rule, saying only as he took it under advisement that the ruling would remain sealed until the jury is selected to hear the case.

    A trial date will be set during a brief status hearing before Judge White Tuesday. Prosecutors and Judge White want to schedule a date in May, but Peterson’s defense team indicated they intend to seek a date in June.

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow and assistant John Conner portrayed Peterson as a cold-blooded killer who took the life of Kathleen Savio in 2004 to save himself from financial ruin in a divorce settlement, and who killed his fourth wife Stacy 3-1/2 years later because she knew too much about Savio’s death.

    In turn, defense attorneys argued that the case against Peterson is built on a foundation of lies, that the witnesses and their testimony are at best unreliable and that someone other than Peterson had the motive and the opportunity to kill Savio Feb. 29, 2004.

    Defense attorney Andrew Abood said the real killer was Savio’s boyfriend Steve Maniaci, who had a tiff with her just before her death. But Glasgow said in his argument that the quarrel was minor, and that a lot of circumstantial evidence points to Peterson.

    Lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky said outside of court he believed the defense team had done a “fantastic, credible, really great job” in showing that Peterson played no role in Savio’s death or Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    Abood argued that Peterson had alibi evidence — receipts from a donut shop, Shedd Aquarium and a restaurant at the aquarium from a family outing at the approximate time of death.

    But Glasgow said death could have occurred as much as 12 hours earlier, which would fit the time frame given in hearsay statements from Stacy related by the Rev. Neil Schori. Glasgow even seized on the existence of the receipts “in pristine condition” as proof that Peterson was trying to cover his tracks.

    “You can’t rely on the government to protect the innocent,” Abood countered. “So he did it himself…Is that so sinister?”

    Glasgow portrayed Peterson as a “supercop” and long-time evidence technician who deliberately let others into Savio’s home to contaminate the scene on March 1, 2004, and purposefully did not attempt beforehand for a day to track down Savio, who had constantly reported Peterson to police if he was so much as several minutes late in returning their children from court-authorized visitation.

    Defense attorneys said they believe Savio’s death was a tragic accident, and although Stacy Peterson vanished without a trace in October 2007, she is not dead.

    While much of the evidence is testimony about what Savio and Stacy Peterson told others about threats and actions made by Drew Peterson, there are written and videotaped statements by Savio. In addition, Peterson’s stepbrother Thomas Morphey testified that Peterson allegedly approached him about killing Stacy, that they together removed a blue barrel from Peterson’s home that may have contained Stacy’s body, and that Peterson allegedly tried to frame a friend of Stacy in the case.

    http://www.wbbm780.com/Hearsay-Hearing-For-Drew-Peterson-Ends/6404027

  153. Defense attorney Andrew Abood said the real killer was Savio’s boyfriend Steve Maniaci, who had a tiff with her just before her death. But Glasgow said in his argument that the quarrel was minor, and that a lot of circumstantial evidence points to Peterson.
    ==============================
    Always knew that was coming if they thought their accident theory wouldn’t hold up. Yes, we believe without a doubt it was an accident, but just in case it wasn’t, her boyfriend is the killer, not Drew. Geez.

  154. “You can’t rely on the government to protect the innocent,” Abood countered. “So he did it himself…Is that so sinister?”
    So, did Drew keep ALL receipts? Did he document every move he made, just in case he was ever accused of anything? Were there files and files of receipts? If not, then Dear Mr Lawyer Abood,
    Why just these? Don’t you find it strange that Drew would have kept these receipts for the exact same time period that may be in question for Kathleen’s death? I await your reply.
    ***
    Who is this ‘government’ that is supposed to protect the innocent? If he’s referring to the court system, what a terrible thing for an attorney to say-that you can’t depend on the court system.

  155. cheryljones :OK. Can we recap? In explaining to hubby the goings-on in court from this week, he is asking how anything to do w/Stacy has merit in the case for Kathleen. Help me, here, to make it short and sweet..TIA

    Because Stacy is missing, is presumed murdered, and knew Drew killed Kathleen. Therefore, the prosecution wants to prove (by the preponderance of the evidencce at the hearing, which is what’s “probably more true than not true”) that Drew killed Stacy, as well as Kathleen, so she would not now or ever be able to testify against him about Kathleen’s murder. Since Stacy was in the process of trying to get a divorce attorney, her leaving him and telling what she knew was a real threat to Drew. This paragraph from the article Rescue posted pretty much explains it:

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow and assistant John Conner portrayed Peterson as a cold-blooded killer who took the life of Kathleen Savio in 2004 to save himself from financial ruin in a divorce settlement, and who killed his fourth wife Stacy 3-1/2 years later because she knew too much about Savio’s death.

  156. Cheryl, my opinion has always been that the moment Stacy knew about Kathleen’s death, it was a death sentence for her as well. She would never be able to get out of her marriage to Drew alive, regardless of her thinking, as she told Harry Smith, she had too much on him for him to kill/hurt her too.

  157. Cheryl, tell your hubby this:

    These hearings were held to decide which of 15 hearsay statements (some from Kathleen and some from Stacy) the prosecution could get introduced into the trial.

    Normally hearsay is not allowed in court because the constitution allows us the right to confront witness who testify against us. But there are certain exceptions. One new exception is the act that Judgin posted upthread. This exception says that if the judge can be convinced that the defendant killed a witness in order to keep them from testifying, that the defendant forfeits that right to confront and the hearsay can be admitted.

    So in these hearing the prosecution needed to convince the judge that Drew killed both Stacy and Kathleen in order to silence them, so that their hearsay statements can be admitted as evidence in the upcoming trial.

    Stacy’s comments to her pastor, to a friend, and to her lawyer that Drew killed Kathleen can’t be admitted to the murder trial unless the prosecution can convince the judge that Drew killed her. Thus, all the testimony in these hearings about Stacy.

  158. Defense attorney Andrew Abood said the real killer was Savio’s boyfriend Steve Maniaci, who had a tiff with her just before her death.

    OMG, how is the defense supposed to be believable and sound if they bring on a distinguished, highly educated experienced, forensic scientist to say Kathleen’s death was, in his opinion, an accident, and then sum up that it was her boyfriend that was the real killer. Why? Because he apparently didn’t keep an “alibi” folder but Peterson did?

    If all it takes for a jury to acquit Peterson is Abood’s words that Steve Maniaci was the real killer because he had an argument with Kathleen, while Peterson had hundreds of thousands of dollars to lose, along other things, we might as well all just get on with it and forget this circus ever happened. Heh?

  159. Thank you all. When he gets in from his shop where he’s ‘working’, lol, I will give him the info you have kindly shared.
    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”. Wonder if Drew’s meticulous mother ever happened to impart that to her son?

  160. In turn, defense attorneys argued that the case against Peterson is built on a foundation of lies, that the witnesses and their testimony are at best unreliable and that someone other than Peterson had the motive and the opportunity to kill Savio Feb. 29, 2004.

    Defense attorney Andrew Abood said the real killer was Savio’s boyfriend Steve Maniaci, who had a tiff with her just before her death. But Glasgow said in his argument that the quarrel was minor, and that a lot of circumstantial evidence points to Peterson.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Yes, it is built on a foundation of lies, those lies are Drew’s.

    The next paragraph I have also thought was sort of his undoing….according to what I have read the agreement was he was to return the children by 6 on Sunday. By his own account he didn’t attempt to return the children until after 8. He was unsure if he was supposed to keep them until Monday….why didn’t he start calling around to locate her. Call the sister, call the boyfriend, call the neighbor. I feel like he wasn’t sure she was dead yet and didn’t want to take a chance of anyone being able to help her.

  161. oops, copied the wrong paragraph….I meant to include this one:

    Glasgow portrayed Peterson as a “supercop” and long-time evidence technician who deliberately let others into Savio’s home to contaminate the scene on March 1, 2004, and purposefully did not attempt beforehand for a day to track down Savio, who had constantly reported Peterson to police if he was so much as several minutes late in returning their children from court-authorized visitation.

  162. When I think back over the past two years of comments made by the defense and/or Peterson about Kathleen’s death, it was obvious from the get-go that they were going to use Steve Maniaci as Plan B, after the accident theory. When he went before the GJ, Brodsky said he would have advised him to lawyer up and plead the Fifth. Early on, Brodsky said there was no connection between the timeline of Kathleen’s death and Peterson being there. Peterson used Maniaci for his own means like he used Rossetto to place suspicion on.

    I would like someone to explain how Peterson and the Scheme Team knew Kathleen and Maniaci had an argument. Did Peterson and the defense learn that from Maniaci’s own statement, or did the cops investigating her death tell Peterson that? Did he have a way of overhearing Kathleen’s conversations in her own house? Just how did the defense happen upon this information?

    That is why, IMO, Peterson’s constant comment about Stacy is something that holds the key to where she is. “She is where she wants to be.” Everything that comes out of his mouth is for a reason, and I am so sure he means what he says about Stacy.

    Stacy’s remains must be in or around the area of where Rossetto was, and I won’t believe anything other.

  163. “There was no (divorce) case,” White told Connor. “You must show that’s the intent to silence her.”

    Thank you, Judgin’ for posting Section 5 above.

    (a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of clauses (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.

    I don’t see anything here to preclude a future case. Is it more definitive in clauses under Section 9-1?

  164. “…the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.”

    Right, Bucket. It doesn’t say anything about “concurrent” or “ongoing” or “exisitant” criminal or civil proceeding.

    I think Ms. St. Clair was looking too hard for a story here…

  165. The judge had just signaled a potential problem with the state’s case, and everyone in the courtroom knew it.

    Yeah, well, as a court observer, I can make the leap to say that I see potential problems with the defense’s explanations for Kathleen’s death, and now everyone here knows it.
    :-)

  166. rescueapet :

    That is why, IMO, Peterson’s constant comment about Stacy is something that holds the key to where she is. “She is where she wants to be.” Everything that comes out of his mouth is for a reason, and I am so sure he means what he says about Stacy.
    Stacy’s remains must be in or around the area of where Rossetto was, and I won’t believe anything other.

    I’ve always thought he meant “dead” was her choice over being with him, or just “gone”.

    That’s interesting, Rescue. I think I see what you mean about Rosetto…if Drew had gone to the trouble of trying to implicate by phone records, he may well have followed up, but having a grasp of crime scene science, I also think he’d be thinking it would be much better she was never ever found. It’s tricky. He was under pressure. If we knew the answer, we’d know where she was :(

    I just had a horrible thought, sorry. I wonder if his mate the landscaper has a wood chipper.

  167. “Prosecutors and Judge White want to schedule a date in May, but Peterson’s defense team indicated they intend to seek a date in June.”

    I guess that accounts for all the blustering and calendar waving.

  168. Anyone care to wager whether a few more weeks of prep or not will save the day for the defense? LObloodyL! Will there be a Michael Robinson and/or Steve Carcerano result by then, I wonder.

  169. Bucket – I recall some people have surmised that Drew actually meant for Kathleen to be found by her bf, Steve, and when that didn’t quite work out, he had to rethink his plan. He never expected the attention that Stacy’s disappearance created either, and he got stuck with a lot of potential problems for himself.

    For example, Morphey telling what really happened is probably not something he was planning on. So he concocts a story that he was going to take Morphey to Meijers Food Store for a job interview. Yet, a simple little statement by the manager of the store says no, there was no interview set up. Peterson knew beforehand that Morphey wasn’t going to be considered for a job, yet Peterson used that to explain away his reason for trotting Morphey around with him.

    He went to way too much trouble bringing out Stacy’s connection with Rossetto. Even though he says she ran away with a mysterious man he knew nothing about, he bothered to know a whole lot of stuff about Rossetto. Even mentioning it to Morphey. In my thinking, I assume that was, in the event Stacy’s remains were to be found, all the focus wouldn’t be on him. Just that he got to cocky about getting away with one murder and thinking he could with another.

    Also, the thought of him destroying the evidence that could have implicated him in Kathleen’s death is so obvious, there must be and should be a way to place him at that crime scene at the crucial moments. It would have been as much of a problem then and is it now. Because, he still had his alibi(s), and there still was a mess of a potential crime scene, either way you look at it. Still had his receipts then, still has them now. It will take something, or a conglomeration of circumstantial evidence, to do this, or this man walks, waiting for the next victim. Someone else’s daughter.

  170. Oh, Boo Hoo. Do you wonder if they wish they could see their mother sitting in stands, watching them?

    February 20, 2010

    BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist

    The Peterson case . . .

    An attorney for accused wife-murderer Drew Peterson — who has gotten quite a beating from dozens of witnesses in pretrial court hearings — claims his client is having a hard time not being able to see his sons.

    To wit: “Amazingly, his two teenage sons are doing well,” said attorney Walter Maksym, who works on the financial side of Peterson’s case. Peterson’s chief attorney is Joel Brodsky.

    Translation: “Both of his sons are in high school; one is a top wrestler, and the other is in the high school band,” Maksym said. “They are both excelling, and [Peterson] can’t see them. It’s been sort of hard on him that way.”

    Jail update: “He’s in isolation, and he can’t see anybody. He watches a little TV. I wanted to get him some books, but the only books he can have, have to come directly sealed from a publisher. You’d think the guy was in Stalag 17 or something. They’re treating him like he’s Hannibal Lecter.”

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2060483,michael-sneed-022110.article

  171. LOL, Maksym is such a phony baloney. What kind of attorney doesn’t realize you can’t bring food into a prisoner, like when he wanted to bring Drewpy a Christmas cookie?

    Drewpy admitted he doesn’t read, he doesn’t like to read.

    Get your boots on and your shovels out. Wah, wah, wah.

  172. That’s intriguing about expecting Steve to find Kitty, but he wouldn’t be there to control everything. Not likely to leave it to chance, is our Drew.

    It’s amazing how much more we know over a relatively short time. eg that police officers are supposed to draw their weapons when they hear a scream. (that could be useful for getting kids to pipe down) I hadn’t even considered what a grievous breach of duty it was not to call for backup and prevent the others going in in case there was an intruder present ….and Drew punching out a colleague in the locker room (just like in the movies) CCTV not only from Krispy Kreme and Starbucks, but from MacDonalds, as well All a bit mindblowing. I don’t think I can remember it all..

    Anyone up for designing and marketing a Red Alibi Wallet? :)

  173. Ha, has it occurred to Maksym, wanna smack-sym, that so uninterested in the sad sap’s woes are his children, that they are doing exceptionally well and moving on? Kind of makes you wonder about that, heh?

  174. CBS 2 also contacted one of Drew Peterson’s sons from his first marriage. He didn’t want to go on camera, in part he said, out of fear of his dad.

    That about says it all when you cross Drew Peterson and you happen to be his offspring. You get fearful of him.

    Didn’t make this stuff up. It’s out there to find.

  175. He’s in isolation, and he can’t see anybody.

    Not true. He has a visitor list. Chrissy is on it, but she says she doesn’t visit him much anymore. Maybe he could take her name off it and add one of the kids.

    I wanted to get him some books, but the only books he can have, have to come directly sealed from a publisher.

    That sounds great. Brand new books! But rememer Drew says he doesn’t like to read. Oh, well…

  176. Anyone up for designing and marketing a Red Alibi Wallet?

    HAHA! Good one Bucket! I really do need to organize my receipts better, you know, just in case ;)

  177. As for not seeing anyone, Drew just spent the last three weeks sitting in a room with lots of people, staring at them, turning red from time to time, whispering…

    Good times.

  178. facsmiley :As for not seeing anyone, Drew just spent the last three weeks sitting in a room with lots of people, staring at them, turning red from time to time, whispering…
    Good times.

    Yes, even one of his sons showed up to let him know how much he cares…..or doesn’t.

  179. …and so enthralled was his head attorney to see him, that he apparently spent the night tossing and turning in anticipation of seeing him, only to nod off during the testimony of a crucial defense witness.

  180. There must be more (that we don’t know yet) to make Eric fear DP than just the front lawn incident. Maybe the real goods will be revealed at the trial.

  181. Eric testified about Drew dragging Kathleen by her hair, the night the house got torn apart. I think this could be the same incident that she went to the ER for. The report says that Drew hit her head against a table.

  182. Heh, does anyone recall ever reading about Peterson performing a manly act that didn’t entail having his gun holstered to his hip? Because, the only thing that stands out for me is how he is proficient in abusing woman, and/or weaklings that he intimidates with his scare tactics.

    How sad that his son, who was not even a teen yet at the time, has to pretend to know every move his father made during the time his mother was dying.

  183. “State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who referred to Peterson as a “knucklehead” and “hideous B-movie stalker,” laid out for the first time a theory of how Stacy, who disappeared in 2007, was killed.”

    I would think “hideous B-movie stalker” would be a more demeaning put-down to another man…
    except for DP, who is a “knucklehead” … LOL

    and what could be worse than his own attorney, George Lenard saying:

    ““She doesn’t want to have sex with (Peterson) anymore because it makes her skin crawl. I don’t think that’s a compliment,” Lenard said.

    “No offense to Drew Peterson, but he’s not the young boy-toy anymore,” Lenard said. “He’s not the guy walking around with the gelled hair.

    He’s an old man she doesn’t want to be with anymore.””

    DP was an old man when Stacy was born!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    with friends like that, Drew, who needs enemas. Don’t worry, JimBob still loves ya!

  184. LOL, I have to admit that hearing of Drew’s own attorney calling him an old man, no young boy-toy, had to be a sobering moment for Peterson. What a valiant thing for Peterson to do, heh? Giving up his silver-tongued, charismatic image so that he could become the poor, pitiful, pathetic, washed-up has-been victim in the eyes of the Court, who’s wife dumped him for a hot stud.

    It doesn’t get much worse than that. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  185. I just had a horrible thought, sorry. I wonder if his mate the landscaper has a wood chipper.

    ~~~~~

    does anyone recall the burns on DP’s face, concealed by that scarf he wore after SP went “missing” ? That has always bothered me. Chemical, lime or chlorine ? Perhaps a pyre ?

  186. Writer – Those “burns” you refer to were mere speculation. Nowhere have I ever seen someone say they saw burns on his face. If you know where someone did say that or where it was in the media, then please post it. Otherwise, we’ll just have to assume that was a rumor.

  187. February 20, 2010 at 12:37 pm | #224
    Quote

    rescueapet :

    That is why, IMO, Peterson’s constant comment about Stacy is something that holds the key to where she is. “She is where she wants to be.” Everything that comes out of his mouth is for a reason, and I am so sure he means what he says about Stacy.
    Stacy’s remains must be in or around the area of where Rossetto was, and I won’t believe anything other.

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

    During the Lenny & Paula tape episode, Drew apparently also said something to the effect if Stacy were ever to be found “down the road”, he would already have been found “not guilty” on Savios murder.

    Of course he could have meant “down the road” to be a period of time, but in Drews double speak, it could also mean “close by”

  188. Defense attorney Andrew Abood said the real killer was Savio’s boyfriend Steve Maniaci, who had a tiff with her just before her death.

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

    So someone did Steve Maniaci a really big favor by wiping all his evidence from the scene.

    That was considerate – LOL !

  189. facsmiley :

    “Prosecutors and Judge White want to schedule a date in May, but Peterson’s defense team indicated they intend to seek a date in June.”

    I guess that accounts for all the blustering and calendar waving.

    Do I remember seeing on here that Judge White was scheduled to retire in the fall? Could be another reason to get things moving in May.

  190. Originally Abood was guessing the Trial would start in October. In the last few days, I thought I heard one of the reporters say that the Trial will be held before Judge White.

  191. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/photos/-1,gallery_JO05_peterson.photogallery?index=6

    Does anyone else find it unusual that the three male attorneys for Drew Peterson are walking out of the courthouse in this picture all with briefcases, and Reem has nothing? I also heard throught he grapevine that she’s planning a lengthy vacation. Can you still make vacation plans with a client going to trial for murder? Or does the defense still think this trial won’t really happen?

  192. I heard that there was some sort of tiff in the courtroom between Reem and Joel. No idea what it was about, however.

    Does it ever seem odd that she’s a partner in that firm but appears to be treated more like a paralegal?

  193. cfs7360 :

    January 5, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
    Barnum & Bailey want to shut down the circus.
    Less than three months ago, Brodsky and co-counsel Andrew Abood seemed eager for their chance to publicly cross-examine the state’s witnesses during the hearing. At that time, Brodsky said, “People’s assumptions are going to be turned on their head — it’s going to be 180 degrees.”
    Brodsky also said, “We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses” and boasted that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

    Laughable then, laughable now.

    I think this fact alone makes me smile. Brodsky seems to get his charisma from GeraGROSS. ALL talk, and yet, no real defense. Scott Peterson’s lawyer did the same thing. He came on telling the jurors that Scott was STONE COLD INNOCENT, but couldn’t prove it. Now with Drew Peterson, another lawyer is all talk, once again.

    Ever notice GeraGROSS wasn’t standing next to Scott when they read the verdict? I betcha Brodsky won’t want to associate himself with Drew when that day comes as well.

    I love following crime blogs, and always thought I would make a good juror, but after the past decade of scumbags and their defense lawyers, I know I would never make the cut. I couldn’t handle months of listening to people twisting the truth, just so he could harm another wife.

  194. facsmiley :I heard that there was some sort of tiff in the courtroom between Reem and Joel. No idea what it was about, however.
    Does it ever seem odd that she’s a partner in that firm but appears to be treated more like a paralegal?

    Reem didn’t think Drew’s mouth going in front of the media was the smartest thing to be doing in the very beginning. Thankfully, Brodsky continued to parade him around, appearing on continuous media outlets, while the prosecution worked on the case behind closed doors. Roll those tapes, please!

  195. bucketoftea :I thought they were just going to roll her in to question the boys on the stand.

    Bucket- That’s what the defense said. Would we be surprised if the defense changed their minds? …again. But questioning by Reem is only going to be half of the boys’ appearance during trial, if called. The prosecution will be questioning them, as well, and it’s difficult to say what statements the boys made during their questioning with the Grand Jury.

  196. Just caught a promo for Geraldo’s show tonight on Fox. New evidence in the case. A Drew Peterson stunner.
    I take it Fox might have the trial transcripts to quote from. Probably nothing new that JC hasn’t posted, but still worth watching.

  197. On Fox News site:

    http://www.foxnews.com/

    “Will evidence uncovered in his wife’s death blow the case wide open?”

    “A Drew Peterson stunner! New evidence is uncovered in hisa wife’s death. Could it blow the case wide open?”

  198. Brodsky also said, “We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses” and boasted that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

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

    Is Joel going to show the State has managed to find 800 + pathological liars with secrets of their own to testify against Drew or can’t Joel tell the difference ?

  199. I bettcha Geraldo is going to bring up the red alibi folder. It’s “new” because no one heard it publicly before. I hope that’s not it, but teasers like that usually are nothing more than fluff.

  200. Does it ever seem odd that she’s a partner in that firm but appears to be treated more like a paralegal?

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

    It sure is an odd partnership and one wonders how these two got together in the first place.

    It appears that even their most basic ambitions are as different as day and night

  201. rescueapet :I bettcha Geraldo is going to bring up the red alibi folder. It’s “new” because no one heard it publicly before. I hope that’s not it, but teasers like that usually are nothing more than fluff.

    You’re probably right, Rescue. We might possibly get a couple of quotes from official court transcripts, as well.

    Facs- From the Fox promo piece, it appears to be Geraldo on tonight. Wonder what names Geraldo will call Drew tonight? LOL

  202. joehosey Geraldo cancelled tonigt.

    This was just posted on Twitter 7 minutes ago. I wonder if the whole Peterson segment has been cancelled.

  203. You got me, Bucket. It’s a mystery. They’re still airing the promos on Fox for the show. Maybe it’s just Joe’s portion which has been cut.

  204. You know what I don’t understand in this whole strategy by the Defense is the blackening of Kathleens character every which way they can considering she supposedly died of an accident.

    Why would they even need to go down that road of trying to show Kathleen was a liar, a fraud, a sex maniac, whatever, if she fell over and died of a heart attack or slipped on the soap.

    Their defense seems to fly in all different directions, Kathleen had an accident, she fell over and had a heart attack, she fell over and slipped on the soap, she was murdered by someone other than Drew.

    Now surely Kathleen couldn’t have died four different ways, so is the Defense ever going to make up their mind which way it is going to be ??

  205. It is absurd.They did that from the beginning which of course just made him look worse. I think the nasty stuff he says about her is also to discredit her statements about him. It hasn’t been convincing up to now, so I don’t think a jury will be buying it either. He’s done for. :)

  206. bucketoftea :
    It is absurd.They did that from the beginning which of course just made him look worse. I think the nasty stuff he says about her is also to discredit her statements about him. It hasn’t been convincing up to now, so I don’t think a jury will be buying it either. He’s done for.

    Yeah that’s right bucket, but if you slip on the soap and die in your bath tub, it is pretty irrelevant what ever you’ve said about your ex husband – LOL !

  207. Abood’s comment about Kathleen’s insurance report fraud regarding a stolen ring could also come back in the defense’s face. Not only is there written evidence about Drew returning stolen jewelry to her, but Drew could have placed that ring back with her things at anytime. He was in her house and going through her things immediately. If the guy had unwrinkled receipts for doughnuts, then surely he thought about what it might look like if Kathleen’s rings turned up in his possession. How can Abood even make such a statement when Drew took everything?

  208. HI LONG TIME since i have talked with all of ya , but anyways joel will not get away with this new doc that is trying to say she died of a heart attack. they all look at the heart to determain if there was damage so joel is wrong again. also GEROldo will have update on drew peterson tonght on show it is on at 8pm mountian time :)

  209. docsdaughter :
    Abood’s comment about Kathleen’s insurance report fraud regarding a stolen ring could also come back in the defense’s face. Not only is there written evidence about Drew returning stolen jewelry to her, but Drew could have placed that ring back with her things at anytime. He was in her house and going through her things immediately. If the guy had unwrinkled receipts for doughnuts, then surely he thought about what it might look like if Kathleen’s rings turned up in his possession. How can Abood even make such a statement when Drew took everything?

    Yes – such as filming Kathleen with the same camera taken from her home (!!)

    A nice way to torment Kathleen, which may also come and bite him in the butt.

  210. Looks like the rare night Space Shuttle landing had to be covered tonight on Fox. Most likely the reason Geraldo had to make adjustments to the show.

  211. when is the trial going to start? does anyone know if it will air on tru TV or anything like that . I wish stacy was found.

  212. Hey, Lugnut. Judge White was pushing for a May trial, but looks like Brodsky can’t swing it before June. There are no cameras allowed in Illinois courtrooms.

  213. the thing’s lawyers are trying this in the court of public opinion, IMHO, and since they cannot talk about the trial etc, they’ll drop these little bombs in court with the hopes that the media will run with it. Sensational news sells.

    ” ..kathy commits insurance fraud, has rough sex and lives a reckless existence, including leaving bars of soap laying around..” yadda yadda.

    It’s hard for your average law abiding person to digest the fact that there are dangerous crooked cops; after all, aren’t these candidates screened and trained to uphold the law? It’s a scarey notion that no one is policing the police.

    Team buffoonsky would love nothing more than all of this to appear on page one of the New York Times. Many people assume that if it’s in the news, it must be true.

    I am looking forward to the trial and the evidence I believe Glasgow has on thid hideous monster.

  214. I HELPED “PERFORM” AUTOPSY??? — WATTS UP WITH THIS???
    By Steph

    It’s been interesting watching the media report the story of my alleged participation in the autopsy of former Bollingbrook police officer Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    For all of you who preferred to regurgitate inaccuracies, and didn’t take the time to simply call to check the facts, here they are:

    It was through my work on Greta’s show, that we uncovered documents leading us to facts that questioned the original classification of Kathleen Savio’s death as an accident, and exposed egregious errors by the Bollingbrook Police Department, the original coroner and the coroner’s jury. Dr. Michael Baden agreed that the findings indicated Savio’s death was a homicide. After reviewing the same documents, the State Attorney’s office decided to exhume the body of Kathleen Savio and perform a second autopsy. The family of Kathleen Savio, weary of the State Attorney’s office, discussed with me having an additional private autopsy done, but knew they could never afford such an expensive endeavor. I took their interest to Dr. Michael Baden, and he volunteered his time. I was already in Chicago covering the case, and accompanied Dr. Baden on every endeavor while he was in town. I asked permission of the family to be in the room with Dr. Baden while the autopsy was performed, and they agreed. I agreed with the Savio family that I would only film Dr. Baden, and no images of the body would ever be filmed or aired. The family knew Dr. Baden would be reporting his findings, whichever way they concluded. During the autopsy, which lasted approximately 3 hours, I took extensive notes and shot video. I never had any physical contact with the body of Kathleen Savio, nor participated in “performing” the autopsy in any way. There were a least 6 Illinois State Police troopers in the room at any given time, and the entire experience was handled with the utmost respect to the Savio family, and most importantly to Kathleen.

    There is no magic wizard behind the FOX News curtain, pulling strings to influence the findings by one of the country’s finest Forensic Pathologists. In conclusion, if Drew Peterson’s defense attorney is basing his case on the fact that I was in the autopsy room of a woman his client likely murdered, I would suggest he size Peterson up for a few more of those fancy orange jumpsuits he seems to like so much.

    http://stephww.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/i-helped-perform-autopsy-watts-up-with-this/

  215. It was through my work on Greta’s show, that we uncovered documents leading us to facts that questioned the original classification of Kathleen Savio’s death as an accident, and exposed egregious errors by the Bollingbrook Police Department, the original coroner and the coroner’s jury.

    That statement, “egregious errors by the Bollingbrook[sic] Police Department” is erroneous. The Illinois State Police is the agency that was in charge of the investigation. Just to keep this straight!

  216. I’m just glad they’ve got Blum’s autopsy to present at trial.

    I won’t say too much about Baden except that I was not impressed with his powers of recollection during his November 15 interview with Watts on Steph’s blogtalk radio show.

    It would also appear that Baden stated during the hearsay hearing that Watts moved the body. There’s no direct quote but the Schmadeke/St. Clair story cited below indicates that he did (anyone want to chip in for a transcript of that day?)

    During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.
    “One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/peterson-hearsay-hearing-expected-to-end-today.html

  217. During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.
    “One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said.

    Looks like a direct quote to me. (what an obnoxious way she has with )punctuation!!!????

  218. Well, I guess, technically, Dr. Baden didn’t say Steph Watts moved the body. It was Brodsky who said he helped him by “taking photos and moving the body.” Dr. Baden could only have been referring to Steph Watts taking photos, not necessarily moving the body. If there were, in fact, six other people in the room at any given time, that can easily be verified if it’s going to be a big deal with the defense.

  219. rescueapet :

    It was through my work on Greta’s show, that we uncovered documents leading us to facts that questioned the original classification of Kathleen Savio’s death as an accident, and exposed egregious errors by the Bollingbrook Police Department, the original coroner and the coroner’s jury.

    That statement, “egregious errors by the Bollingbrook[sic] Police Department” is erroneous. The Illinois State Police is the agency that was in charge of the investigation. Just to keep this straight!

    Rescue — I got the impression during the testimony (and I could be wrong) that Kathy had told her sister that she had a briefcase full of documents and had hidden them in the garage. If anything happened to her, she wanted her sister to hurry and get them. In my mind, when Greta said that she and her producer were shown a briefcase by Kathy’s sister, this is the briefcase I thought Greta was talking about.

    If so, then it would very likely have had information about alleged altercations between Kathy and Drew where Bolingbrook Police Department had been called. (Among other things.)

  220. I’ve known 2 Stephan/Stefans, and I’ve never heard a fellow addressed by that shortened form, only Stephanies. Innocent mistake :oops:

  221. FYI:
    We asked Karen Conti about whether the witnesses that testified at the hearsay portion of the Peterson trial will have to testify at the actual trial.

    Q. Now that the State has put on a number of witnesses for the hearsay portion of the Peterson trial, will these witnesses have to testify yet again during the trial portion, or will their testimony stand as is and be included in the court record for the jury to consider at deliberations?

    A. No. They will have to testify all over again. And this will be to the defense’s advantage because they will have the transcript of this pretrial hearing, so if the witnesses deviate even slightly, the defense can impeach making the witness look dishonest, unsure, or forgetful.

  222. bucketoftea :During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.“One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said.
    Looks like a direct quote to me. (what an obnoxious way she has with )punctuation!!!????

    Didn’t you mean Stacey St. Claire, who wrote the article, and not Stpeh Watts the Fox producer, when you referred to “she?”

  223. rescueapet :FYI:We asked Karen Conti about whether the witnesses that testified at the hearsay portion of the Peterson trial will have to testify at the actual trial.

    Q. Now that the State has put on a number of witnesses for the hearsay portion of the Peterson trial, will these witnesses have to testify yet again during the trial portion, or will their testimony stand as is and be included in the court record for the jury to consider at deliberations?
    A. No. They will have to testify all over again. And this will be to the defense’s advantage because they will have the transcript of this pretrial hearing, so if the witnesses deviate even slightly, the defense can impeach making the witness look dishonest, unsure, or forgetful.

    That could be possibly one reason the defense didn’t use all of their “twenty.” Maybe they didn’t want to have to worry about them not repeating the exact same testimony at trial, or else they really didn’t have 20 to begin with, which may be more the case, IMO.

  224. rescueapet :

    It was through my work on Greta’s show, that we uncovered documents leading us to facts that questioned the original classification of Kathleen Savio’s death as an accident, and exposed egregious errors by the Bollingbrook Police Department, the original coroner and the coroner’s jury.

    That statement, “egregious errors by the Bollingbrook[sic] Police Department” is erroneous. The Illinois State Police is the agency that was in charge of the investigation. Just to keep this straight!

    The Bolingbrook Police Department is not exactly out of the woods either.

    They’ve overlooked serious breaches of Departmental policies at the time, such as Drew involving friends and neighbors in a Police well being check (the craziest thing I’ve ever heard), Drew using a Police vehicle for his personal use and stalking his wives whilst on duty is not anywhere in his job description either.

  225. Will Drew Peterson Be Condemned From the Grave?
    Judge to Decide if Hearsay Evidence About Peterson’s Two Wives Can Be Used in Trial
    By MARTIN BASHIR
    Feb. 22, 2010

    Drew Peterson is facing words from the grave that could send him to jail for the rest of his life.

    Suspect in disappearance of last wife talks to Martin Bashir about his fiancee.Peterson, the 56-year-old ex-cop who loved to talk, has been silent for the last year — locked up — charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in a bathtub in 2004.

    The prosecution’s case against Peterson is being constructed around Savio — in an unprecedented attempt to use hearsay evidence from the dead.

    “It is being built on the words, the alleged words, the unproven words of a dead person being conveyed through her friends, relatives and acquaintances,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky…

    Watch the full story on “Nightline” tonight at 11:35 p.m. ET
    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Law/drew-peterson-murder-trial-hearsay-evidence-determine-guilt/story?id=9908667

  226. Savio allegedly wrote to former Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale, expressing fears that her estranged husband might kill her. She also appears to have written a letter to a friend, Pam Bosco, saying, “I love you, if anything happens to me, he killed me. It wasn’t an accident.”

    I am really getting tired of the erroneous reporting…

  227. The hearsay hearing of Drew Peterson for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues. This morning Anna Doman wrapped up her testimony and a friend of Kathleen’s, Kristin Anderson took the stand.

    Anderson testified that the two became friends after she rented Kathleen’s basement for a few months while some work was being done on her house. She testified that Kathleen told her about the time that Drew held a knife to her throat and also showed her a briefcase where she kept police reports and letters. Anderson said that these documents were kept as a paper trail in case Drew killed Kathleen, there would be something to point at who did it.

    Anderson stated that Kathleen seemed “almost resigned” to the thought that Drew Peterson would kill her and make her death appear accidental.

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings-day-11/

    I found it. It wasn’t Susan Doman who testified that Kathy showed her a briefcase she had hidden — it was Kristin Anderson. I would imagine that Kristin would have either told Susan it was there or given it to Susan….no?

Comments are closed.