Drew Peterson trial – day four. Sister of Kathleen Savio testifies. Judge won’t allow mention of Stacy Peterson.

UPDATE 11:58:

Doman angers judge when she repeats what he said in denying a prosecutor’s objection. “Ma’am, do not mock the court again.
Doman: “Oh, I’m sorry!”
Court is in recess until Tuesday morning due to ill juror.

UPDATE 11:36:

Under re-direct Anna Doman reiterates again that Peterson told her not to come to house when he called to tell her Kathleen was dead, that police never came to her house to interview her, that when she went to the Savio house the next day that she was looking for a will – not cash and jewels, that she followed Drew around the house that day to a certain extent and that she told the ISP that she saw him doing things.
“When I was leaving toward the end, I saw her car, her SUV. It just hit me. There was just so much stuff going on in my head. You’re thinking about all this other stuff. And when I looked at her car, the briefcase just hit me. And so when I walked out and saw the car, I just thought about it. I’d never had anybody that close to us die. It’s just horrible.”
Patton: Kathy said that Drew was going to kill her?
“Yes, she said that to me. She told me Drew told her he was going to kill her. She was not going to make it to the property settlement. She was not going to get his pension or his children. She made me say it over and over and over again, ‘Tell me you’ll take care of my kids’ She was very scared.”
Redirect is over.
Attorney Lopez begins re-cross.
Lopez asks her again about contact with her nephews. She acknowledges that she didn’t send them Christmas cards. Asks her about television appearances she has made.
Court takes a break due to coughing fit by an asthmatic juror.
Lopez asks if she is aware that FOX news paid $50,000 for Baden’s autopsy. Doman says she believed the second autopsy (Baden or Blum?) of Savio was done pro bono.
Objection. Sustained.

UPDATE 11:09:

Witness leaves while Attorneys and Judge discuss.
State: Doman said she went to Peterson’s neighborhood in 2007 because she had heard Stacy disappeared. Met Greta VanSusteren there. Peterson defense does not want jurors to hear about Stacy being missing. VanSusteren had offered to have new autopsy of Kathleen Savio by “world-class” pathologist.
Judge: Doman can talk about why she waited to talk about Kathleen’s fears of Drew and desire to have new autopsy by Dr. Baden, but can’t mention Stacy Peterson.
Redirect by prosecution Atty, Kathleen Patton. Jurors back in court.
Patton: You were going to the home of a woman named Sharon?
“Sharon Bychowski. I went over there to check on the welfare of Tommy and Kris.”
Patton: Why did you take along a death certificate?
“I wanted to use it as a form of identification, so she wouldn’t think I was a crazy lady. I had that and my driver’s license.”
“I did tell her [VanSusteren] I wasn’t happy with what was on the death certificate.”
Patton: Did you talk with her about getting another opinion from someone else?
“Yes. She said she could put me in contact with someone who might possibly help me, Dr. Michael Baden. He’s a world-renowned pathologist.”

UPDATE 10:41:

Doman said Savio said Peterson would make it look like an accident. “I tried to tell police. No one would listen. All they said was it was under investigation. No one listened. I tried.”
Objection. Sustained.
Doman says that Peterson paid for her sister’s wake.
Doman filed an adjunction to stop Peterson from taking things out of Savio’s home.
Doman said in Nov. ’07 that Savio would put her hair up in a towel when washing. She doesn’t remember saying it today though.
Doman says she didn’t tell Mary Pontarelli about alleged threats against Savio by Peterson.
Jurors removed while prosecutors make “offer of proof” as to Doman testimony. Topic: Why didn’t she press about Peterson threat until ’07? (Offer of proof= Prosecutors question, defense cross-examines witness w/o jury. Will repeat for jury if deemed admissible by judge.)
Doman says that she didn’t see Savio’s boys after Savio’s funeral in 2004 until 2007.

UPDATE 09:55:

Defense begins cross examination
Atty Joe Lopez: You turned over Savio papers to investigators 4 or 5 years later? Doman: “I’m not sure how much later, but it was much later”
Lopez: You gave documents to producer for Greta VanSustren before you gave them to state police? Doman: “I gave them some copies, yes”
Court takes a brief recess.
Court is back in session. Cross-examination continues.

Lopez “You didn’t provide any of those documents to anyone to be used at the coroner’s inquest?”
Objection/Overruled.
“I gave them some copies, yes.” “In fact, around December 16, 2008 you met with an agent from IL State Police, remember that?
And you gave her some stuff?” “Yes.” “Keys?’ “Yes. I remember the keys.”
Are those the 14 keys given to you by the IL State Police when they came to your house?” “Yes.”
Doman says she didn’t know Peterson had a right to be in Savio’s home.
Lopez asks her about her intentions in going through Savio’s home. Was she looking for money, jewelry, anything she could take? Doman: “Anything relevant.”
Lopez: What did you take out of the house?
Doman: “Cancelled checks. That was pretty much it.”
Doman says she didn’t tell a police officer a day after Savio’s death about Peterson’s alleged threat to kill her.
Doman says she didn’t see what Peterson was doing inside the house.
Doman says she didn’t tell police that Savio told her that Peterson was going to kill her until 2007.

UPDATE 09:42:

Defense objects – sustained
witness is shown a drawing of “Kitty’s house, the first floor.
With the use of the diagram, Doman points out various locations. At one point, they didn’t know where the defendant had gone.
Were you looking for the defendant? “Yeah, we were like, ‘Where is he?’ when we got there, the lights were out in here, and we heard Drew, but he wasn’t
in the laundry room…it sounded like it was coming from the garage.
Atty Greenberg objects. Sidebar.
Doman says she remembered to get the case out of Savio’s SUV before leaving her home
Peterson took Doman’s garage door opener. “I said give it back, he said no”
When you left the residence that day, how did you get out?
“As you’re standing in the garage, there’s a button right there. If you push the button, you can run out quick. As the door started coming down, I ran out quick.”
Doman says that Savio had bad reaction to cheap jewelry and would get a rash. She took off jewelry when bathing.
Defense Objects. Sustained.

UPDATE 09:36:

Peterson came to Savio’s home while Doman and family were there looking for life insurance
“Drew came to the front door . . . he was banging on the door, and yelling, ‘Open the door!’ really loud”
“He grabbed a clothes basket…the boys needed stuff for school”
Do you know where he got the clothes basket from? “Upstairs, in the second story
“Drew had said he’d already called Henry, my brother, so I knew I had to call Suzy, my sister” “I wanted someone there with her, and said, ‘Please go there.’ And then I called her, and told her what happened.”
“He [Peterson]went in the purse and there was a $100 bill and he took it…said this is for the kids”
“He was rubbing the tub” “I asked him what he was doing he said he was cleaning the blood” “I don’t want the kids to see the blood”
“I didn’t know there was blood in the tub”

UPDATE 09:23:

Prosecution calls Anna Doman, Savio’s older sister
Anna Doman questioned by Ass’t SA, Kathy Patton.
Kathleen Savio’s nickname was “Kitty.”
Doman IDs DP in court & photo of Savio. She lived a little over a mile from Petersons.
Doman says Savio came to see her 6 weeks before her death. “She was afraid and upset”
Doman: “Drew had told here was going to kill her. She wasn’t going to make it to the settlement.” “She made me promise over and over again to take care of her boys”
Doman says Savio told her about a briefcase that she kept in her SUV
Doman says Savio agree to divorce first, then would settle property later.
Peterson called Doman & told her that Savio had died after her body was discovered. “Don’t come over because she will be gone already”
Doman: “She was not going to get his pension or the kids. That’s why she was upset.”
Doman says Savio was told by Peterson “she was not going to make it to the divorce” or get his police pension or their 2 sons.
“she made promise over and over I would take care of her boys . . . over and over she said it, ‘Take care of my boys’”
“she brought in a briefcase, looked like a suitcase; she told me to get it. She had her important papers in there”
“she kept it in the back of her SUV, and I should look for it right there.”
“If anything happened, I should grab that; any important papers she had would be in there.”

UPDATE 08:59:

Savio’s sister, Anna Doman, is expected to be the first witness.
Prosecutors assure Judge Burmila that Anna Doman will not be asked about a statement made the day after Savio was found dead in which she said, “Why did you kill my sister?”
Burmila takes the bench. State informs they are calling Anna Doman, one of the “statement witnesses.”
Jurors just entered courtroom

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. Yesterday, the motion for a mistrial was denied and instead the jurors were instructed by Judge Burmila to forget they had ever heard anything about a bullet in a driveway.

We saw a group of first responders and a locksmith on the stand who testified as to Drew Peterson’s demeanor, the state of Kathleen Savio’s home and bathroom and particularly about a wayward blue towel which seemed to only have appeared on the scene of Savio’s death when it came time for the investigators to take photos.

Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, who is one of the controversial hearsay witnesses that could allow Savio to testify from the grave, was called to the stand but never took it. Instead a confusing argument about his testimony ensued between Judge and attorneys.

Evidence tech Robert Deel; investigator Pat Collins, and sister of Kathleen Savio, Anna Doman, are expected to take the stand today.

We’ve had some questions about whether or not the Jury is sequestered. Attorney Joe Lopez tells us that they are not sequestered at this point as the defendant has not requested it. That could change when it comes time for deliberations.

As always, we’ll have our eyes and ears open and will be posting updates. Check back throughout the day for the latest news and don’t forget to check the comment thread.

We appreciate the valiant and dogged efforts of those who tweet from the overflow media room and outside the courthouse. Without them, we would not be able to follow this case throughout the day.

We’re following:
Jon Seidel
Adam Grimm
In Session
Glenn Marshall
Diane Pathieu
Kara Oko
Beth Karas

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

About these ads

118 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day four. Sister of Kathleen Savio testifies. Judge won’t allow mention of Stacy Peterson.

  1. He took $100 out of her purse and put it in his pocket. He said it belonged to the kids.

    Really?

    He was cleaning the tub because he didn’t want the kids to see blood in the tub. It didn’t make sense that there was blood, if she drowned.

    Nope…. makes no sense at all!

    Oh, and good morning everyone! Thanks for keeping us updated on the trial!

  2. I wish they would on insession, put on the screen whom is doing the talking to witnesses, like pros or def, like they had in past done that when they were in court , hard to keep up when not seeing that

  3. Didn’t Brodsky mention Stacy missing in his opening statement…that should open the door to mentioning her in testimony.

  4. The judge has ruled that Anna Doman can explain how she came to speak to FOX News in 2007, and she can mention Dr. Baden, but she may not say anything about Stacy’s disappearance.

    How is that going to be possible?

  5. I guess she managed by saying that she went to Sharon’s house in order to check on Tom and Kris.

    If someone slips up and says “Stacy” will the defense be screaming for a mistrial yet again?

  6. Listening to InSession in the background. Testimony of Anna Doman’s testimony so far is going well. She was allowed to explain why it took her so long to turn over the contents of Kathleen’s small case she instructed her sister to get from her SUV should anything happen to her. Lopez went after Anna on that point, but Anna was allowed to explain later.

    InSession said it appeared that Anna didn’t realize she could mention Stacy during a break with the judge. The InSession reporter stated that the judge wouldn’t allow Stacy’s name because Anna didn’t say it right away as a reason. (Seriously???)

  7. “Doman angers judge when she repeats what he said in denying a prosecutor’s objection. “Ma’am, do not mock the court again.””

    My goodness, this judge is testy!

  8. Stillearning, I’ll have to watch back the In Session show I’ve got DVR’d. How strange that if she had just blurted out “Stacy” to begin with, it would have been OK?

  9. The InSession reporter was thinking the same thing, Facs.

    Judge White thinks Lopez most likely made a big error in stating “and he would make it look like an accident”. (White is trying to stay nuetral.) That particular statement was not allowed by the judge, but Lopez let it roll out of his mouth during cross examination. Can we see a “like” for Joe Lopez today?

  10. Everyone is so on edge to set the defense into mistrial motion or the judge into his tantrum. I think Ann was a strong witness.

  11. Seems like Anna did well. She had some very powerful testimony.

    I’d like to have heard her voice while defense was pushing her about not being assertive enough with her concerns and the breifcase full of documents. Was she convincing? How did the jury appear to receive that? Lopez suggesting that she was in the house to make off with cash and jewelry probably turned off some jurors. I certainly found it to be rude and a ridiculous question.

    For her sake I’m glad she didn’t pipe up with “No, that’s what Drew was doing” but I’ll bet she was thinking it.

  12. Pam Boscoe is speaking now outside courtroom. Pam is upset that the judge seemed to go after a witness, specifically Anna, who Pam felt was trying to respect the judge. Pam is questioning why Stacy cannot be mentioned, yet was mentioned in the beginning.

  13. Reporter from InSession read back the script from the judge concerning Anna D’s testimony. I can see why Pam B. is upset and I understand her statements now. Hopefully, Facs can post it later. Anna D. was trying to be VERY careful to follow the court’s directions and not mention Stacy. Anna repeated to Lopez something that the judge had said, “the document speaks for itself”. After a couple of times, it drew a chuckle from the court and the judge sternly addressed Anna D. as “mocking the court.”

  14. I think you described it pretty well, Stilllearning.

    I think it’s interesting that she gets reprimanded for revoicing his words, but the locksmith can say to Drew, “Nice tie!” and the courtroom erupts in laughter, but that doesn’t merit a warning from the judge not to address the defendant.

  15. ABC’s got a recap up:

    Doman testified that Savio told her about a briefcase with important documents. The day after the body was found, Doman said she went to the home and looked for a will and life insurance policy. She said while she was inside, Peterson arrived and started banging on the door. Doman said she yelled, “Don’t let him in!”

    She said Peterson was able to get in and ran into the master bedroom. Doman said she followed him then into the other rooms, where Peterson collected papers and clothing from around the house. Doman said Peterson also took $100 out of Savio’s purse saying, “this belongs to the boys,” referencing their two sons. Then went upstairs and started cleaning blood from the bathtub, Doman said. According to Doman, Peterson told her that he didn’t want the kids to see the blood.

    Doman said she asked Peterson, “Why is there blood if she drowned?” and says Peterson didn’t respond.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8760386

  16. I cannt believe how errogent brosky is and the rest of the defens at that news conferance ya know .. that not right what they are saying, like she the witness was a loon ..

  17. The guy on In Session is trying to make a big deal out of Anna not doing anything with the information she had until after Stacy went missing. Hmmm…. Drew was the police who said he would kill Kathleen and make it look like an accident.

    I really don’t blame her. For all she knew he would come after her or her family. Kathleen tried to alert the authorities and nothing was done. One would assume the same would happen to Anna.

    And SHEESH! with reprimanding her. No wonder Pam was upset about victim and witness bashing. Exactly Facs, nothing was said to the jokester locksmith yesterday! UGH!

    I’m still a little fuzzy on the Stacy issue. If Anna could say her name but didn’t know it. Can the judge make it any more confusing?

  18. I thought Beth Karas made a good point, but I’m not sure how you can introduce it without making your witness look unsure.

    It’s a huge thing to point the finger at someone and say that you think they murdered someone. Even if you aren’t scared of revenge, just the responsibility of making such an accusation is pretty scary. Especially, when Anna did not see the crime happen and had no proof. We know that she took some steps to draw attention to Drew as a suspect (her testimony at the coroner’s inquests shows that) but when the authorities are telling you that they have a handle on things and that they are doing an investigation, as a lay person I don’t think it’s so weird to take a back seat and hope that the system does its job.

    The defense is going to continue to try to discredit these witnesses by saying that they didn’t do enough at the time of the murder. They only got the idea that Drew might have killed Kathleen when news came out about Stacy being missing. Those of us who’ve been following this case from the beginning know that they’ve been using the same tactic with Stacy’s family/friends, but in reverse. “They’re only mouthing the words of the Savio family.”

  19. Right Facs! Whether she thought the system would work or if she was afraid – I don’t blame her! The fact of the matter is that she pressed it when Stacy went missing!

  20. The defense was really working hard to show that Drew had the right to be in that house (where he hadn’t lived in two years) but the BBPD brought Kathy’s keys to Anna – not to Drew. So the BBPD seemed to understand that Drew was merely a trespasser on the scene.

    Drew himself said that he stayed outside because he didn’t want to upset Kathleen. It’s obvious that he was not an occupant of the house and was not welcome and that he and Kathleen had an understanding about that.

  21. I have always found it very telling and eerie, that when he and Kathy split, and he married Stacy, that he bought a house just a few houses away, within short walking distance. His way of keeping control.

  22. Anna testified to this during the hearsay hearings:

    Once inside, Peterson said he needed to retrieve his son’s property from upstairs. He then went to the garage where Anna Doman said she could hear him say, “Alex Morelli, I got it.”

    …Sue Doman recounted earlier Tuesday that Peterson claimed he had found Savio’s will after she died, taunting her about it.

    “He said, ‘Ha, ha, ha. Tell Anna I found the will under the floorboards, and you guys aren’t going to get anything.”…

    Anyone know if that is barred? Anna also testified during the hearsay hearings that Kathleen had told her of the basement incident. I guess she won’t be talking about that this time around.

  23. Interesting courtroom observations:

    Jurors
    Beginning with the front row of jurors from left to right:

    · Youngest male on the jury; lives with his parents and takes notes
    · White female with shoulder-length grey hair
    · White male wearing a T-shirt. I noticed he looked over at the notes of the juror to his left
    · White female with glasses and medium-length hair. She tends to look at the defense table during testimony and takes a lot of notes
    · White male with large build and a shaven head. Looks frequently in the direction of the defense table where Peterson is sitting and takes notes
    · Oldest white female on the jury. Wears glasses, takes notes and is always nicely dressed

    The back row of the jury from left to right:

    · African-American male in his thirties. He does not take a lot of notes
    · White female in her fifties who rarely takes notes
    · White female with glasses. Very attentive and takes a lot of notes; a very classy looking lady
    · Oldest white male who brought cookies for the jurors today. He sits with his arms crossed but looks relaxed and pays close attention
    · African-American male with glasses and sharply dressed
    · White male who is always looking around the gallery in direction of the media. He is attentive during testimonies and will look at whoever is walking in or out of the courtroom. He also takes a lot of notes

    Five of the twelve jurors wear glasses. All the male jurors are clean shaven and all but one have very short, almost shaved hair. The one exception is a male juror with one-inch length hair. All the male jurors wore collared shirts except one who wore a dark blue T-shirt.

    Only two women have shoulder-length hair; the rest of the women have short hair. One of the female jurors is noticeably cold due to the low temperature in the courtroom.
    This morning, I observed the jury being escorted through security. One deputy was leading the jurors and another deputy followed behind the group. The jury then entered the elevator to go up to the fourth floor courtroom and shared a few laughs as the doors closed. I noticed the older male juror brought two plastic bags of chocolate chip cookies, enough to share with entire jury.

    In the courtroom each juror wears their I.D. card. Before each witness begins their testimony, eight jurors will write down the names of the witness as the witness spells their name. Five jurors continually take notes. I also observed two jurors exchange a few words during an objection.

    Observations of Drew Peterson:

    Before the jurors entered the room, a deputy removes Peterson’s shackles. Lead defense attorney Brodsky asked Peterson how he was feeling. Peterson responded by asking for fur-lined handcuffs. All three had a small laugh.

    Each day the defense team supplies Peterson with a suit for the court proceedings. On the second day of the trial the defense provided Peterson with a suit that was too small in the waist which delayed court momentarily. Today, one of the legal assistants asked Peterson how his suit felt and Peterson responded that it felt good.

    During breaks, Peterson will stand up and usually speak with the defense team’s assistant while one attorney is tweeting or taking care of other matters. He always turns around to look at the faces in the gallery. I’ve even received a few casual smiles from Peterson. He has not come across arrogant as he has demonstrated in the past. Rather, Peterson has been very quiet and acutely aware of what’s going on around him.

    Today, during the first five minute break a man in the public seating, stood up and walked toward Peterson with pen and paper. Two deputies stopped this man in his tracks. The man stated he wanted Peterson’s autograph to which the female deputy replied, “he’s not a celebrity,” and the man apologized.

    During witness testimony, Peterson will only take his attention off the witness to write a note or listen to a comment from a member of the defense team. I’ve also noticed Peterson focus on the jurors when potentially damming testimony is given.

    http://www.chathousenews.com/2012/08/exclusive-drew-peterson-trial-inside.html

  24. After today I’m a little confused about what exactly it is the defense wants the jury to believe about the statements that Kathleen feared Drew would kill her.

    Do they want us to believe that Kathleen’s family and friends are lying and Kathleen never told them anything and they just came up with this stuff when they learned that Stacy was missing in order to sell interviews and stick it to Drew Peterson?

    Or do they want us to believe that Kathleen Savio was a “madwman”, going through a contentious divorce and did actually say all these terrible things about Drew in order to come out better financially during the division of assets?

    Because it can’t be both.

  25. There is a third option, facs – they said it because it really happened.

    As for why they voiced their concerns more forcefully after Stacy came up missing, as the defense is fond of saying, one must use common sense. We have all had the common experience of dealing with government employees at one time or another in our lives, and there are two things we learn about dealing with such persons right off the bat – a) they don’t like being told they are not dong their jobs right, and b) you don’t tell them how to do their jobs; of course, if you do b, it implies a, and that gets their backs up in the air..

    Initially, they let the police investigate the death, so they didn’t say anything. Now, it is my understanding that one or more of them spoke up after it was ruled an accident. At that point, accident was official,. and that’s what all the government employees stuck with, as they always do. If someone tried to convince them otherwise, or had gone to the media about it, that person would be labeled as a crazy person because they disagreed with the “official” determination.

    When his 4th wife came up missing under mysterious circumstances, and the media was looking hard at it, it gave the Savio family the confidence and the pull they needed to be taken seriously about Kathleen’s death, and that’s why they pushed harder when they did. Without that, the Savios would have been called nutjobs by anyone they spoke to about Peterson murdering Kathleen.

    The defense likes to implore people to use their common sense when they believe it favors their client, but don’t like it when people apply it to things that do not favor their client. Again, they still want it both ways.

  26. Believe me, I think it was the truth. I’m just saying that the defense is presenting a take on the evidence that is full of conflicting allegations.

    The problem is that they’ve been arguing out of both sides of their mouths and if they keep doing that, the jury is not going to believe in the “story” that they are trying to tell in court.

  27. Yes, I do know you know, and always have known, it’s the truth, facs. I just had to state the obvious to make my point.

    The way the defense tries to tell it, they never said anything to anyone until Stacy went missing. I know that’s false although I am not aware of every time they spoke up about it. I guess they’re hoping Pinellas County Syndrome is prevalent among their listeners.

  28. What’s the Defenses fascination with Birthday cards ?

    Did Kris & Tommy end up psychologically damaged because they did not get a birthday card from their Aunt between 2004 and 2007 ?

    Is this trial all about who received a birthday card and who didn’t ?

  29. Yeah – It’s weirdly as if the defense wants to put the Savios on trial rather than Drew. OK, so maybe they weren’t as tenacious as they could be in pursuing the authorities about the fact that Kathleen was afraid of Drew. And maybe they didn’t spend the next three years taking every opportunity to reach out to Kathleen’s boys. It might not have been a heroic effort but there were efforts made, especially in 2007 when Stacy’s disappearance finally got them attention from the media–attention that the authorities would not give them in 2004. All they were waiting for was someone who would listen and help them. Totally agree with you, Robert, about that.

    Drew Peterson is the one who may have killed someone. They can toss handfuls of pebbles at every single witness for the prosecution but unless they want to say that one of them might have killed Kathleen and show us how, none of it means much of anything.

  30. Well since this trial is all about Birthday- and Christmas cards.

    Did Drew send any Birthday/Christmas cards to the Savio nieces/nephews between 2004/2007 ??

  31. “JOEL BRODSKY in 2008
    Henry Savio, Kathy`s father, Nick Savio, Kathy`s brother, have only met that children once, one time since their birth. And that was at Kathleen`s funeral. Not a Christmas cards since the funeral, not a birthday card, not a Christmas present, nothing, not a phone call”.

    Didn’t realize Joel was already having this fascination with Christmas/Birthday cards as far back as 2008.

  32. It’s amazing how far back all of this goes, isn’t it?

    In case you haven’t heard every single detail from the trial coverage today, here is another story:

    Under questioning by the defense, Doman acknowledged that she never contacted authorities about Savio’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

    After her testimony, Doman told a Tribune reporter that it felt good to finally take the stand and tell her younger sister’s story.

    “I’ve been waiting for this for years,” she said. “I wish I could have said more. … But I just want justice. I just want all of this to be over.”

    She also acknowledged glaring at Peterson when she was asked to identify him in court.

    “I looked at him a little bit, yeah. He is where he should be. The man murdered my sister. He is where he should be.”

    Judge Edward Burmila did not allow Doman to mention Stacy Peterson’s name, or testify about statements she said she heard Drew Peterson make not long after Savio’s death.

    The rulings irritated Pamela Bosco, a spokeswoman for Stacy Peterson’s family who has attended each day of the trial.

    “It’s frustrating, it’s dumbfounding and obscene the way this trial appears to be one-sided right now,” Bosco said.

    “You see Stacy’s face in the beginning but you can’t mention her the rest of the trial?” said Bosco, referring to a picture of Stacy Peterson shown to jurors earlier in the week. “How can a jury realistically put a case together … if half the information is provided to them?”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-trial-0804-20120804,0,6920300.story

  33. The murder trial of suspected wife-killer Drew Peterson was delayed yet again on Friday due to a sick juror, but RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal that his family is simply relieved that the long-awaited case has finally made it to a courtroom.

    “It is a relief that the trial is finally here. Absolutely,” Stephen Peterson, Drew’s oldest son told RadarOnline.com in an exclusive interview…

    …”I speak to him a couple of times a week. He’s himself,” his son told Radar when asked how his dad is coping with the pressure after his lawyer’s requests for a mistrial have been rejected three times this week..

    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/08/drew-peterson-son-hoping-coming-home-suspected-wife-killer

  34. “Today, during the first five minute break a man in the public seating, stood up and walked toward Peterson with pen and paper. Two deputies stopped this man in his tracks. The man stated he wanted Peterson’s autograph to which the female deputy replied, “he’s not a celebrity,” and the man apologized.”

    Two thumbs up for the female deputy.

  35. The day after Savio’s body was found, her family gathered at her home to look for her will. Peterson began pounding on the door of her home, then rushed upstairs and began stuffing items into a clothes basket, Doman testified.

    Peterson snatched $100 from Savio’s purse and said “this belongs to the kids,” Doman testified. She also said she found Peterson cleaning up the tub where Savio died a day after police left, telling her, “I don’t want the kids to see the blood.”

    But Burmila stopped Doman before she could testify about a remark she said she heard Peterson make inside Savio’s garage.

    At a pretrial hearing, Doman testified that she heard Peterson say, “Morelli. I got it.”

    That’s the bit I was wondering about. Was she going to get to testify to that?

  36. Is Morelli on the witness list? Also, refresh my memory, is Morelli the one who avoided Drew and said he ruined his life?

  37. I don’t know who is on either witness list, since they are sealed, except for Stacy Peterson and Joseph Hosey, who are on the defense list. Hosey is listed as a “rebuttal witness”.

    You’re right. Morelli is Drew’s former partner who is one of the witnesses to the Will that Drew rummaged out of the floorboards the day after Kathleen was found:

    “Those friends turned out to be Peterson’s former partners in the Bolingbrook Police Department and according to the Savio family, Drew’s best man at their wedding. Alex Morelli, Drew’s former partner says he wants nothing more to do with Drew and has nothing positive to say about him. He said Drew has turned his world upside down.

    I think that Morelli’s phone records were obtained and show that a call was placed to him from Drew at the time he allegedly was heard on the phone saying, “Morelli, I have it”

  38. Thank you Facsmiley for posting the information on the jury! I’ve been anxious to hear some courtroom observations as to how the jury is reacting to the testimony they’re hearing. I would love to hear more specifics from some of the courtroom reporters as to how they reacted to Anna’s testimony about Kathleen telling her that Drew had threatened that she wouldn’t live to see the settlement hearing. How did Drew react to that testimony?

    I like that the jury is attentive and many are taking notes.

  39. I can fully understand Anna Doman’s position.

    From all that I’ve read on this case, Kathleen Savio’s family were acutely aware of how brutal Drew Peterson was. They saw the results of Drew’s physical abuse of Kathleen.

    Upon learning of Kathleen’s death, I’m sure they were immediately suspicious of Drew. But after vocalizing their concerns to the authorities, trusted that the professional investigators would do a thorough investigation. When it was ruled that the cause of death was accidental, who could they turn to? They were laymen contradicting the opinion of professionals. The professionals would probably view them as grieving family and not take their concerns seriously.

    Stacy’s disappearance three and a half years later validated their concerns, and made Kathleen’s family confident that their original suspicions were correct. This confidence gave them the courage to come forward and urge that Kathleen’s death be re-investigated.

  40. You said it Molly. At the time of Kathleen’s death the only people who were paying attention were the authorities and sadly they didn’t take a hard enough look at Drew, for whatever reason. They bungled the case from the get-go.

    Look at it this way, if you know that your people didn’t treat the Savio’s house as the scene of a potential homicide, what’s the point of then pursuing the husband for murder? They hada very strong motivation to ignore information that could implicate Drew. There was no way to go back and do it right once the scene had been released.

    Sgt. Patrick Collins, the top man of a team of state police investigators, made up his mind within an hour of arriving at Savio’s home that the dead woman in the tub had died accidentally. And apparently no one could talk him out of it. Not even one of his own.

    State police Master Sgt. Bryan Falat worked the Savio death investigation when he was a trooper on loan to the agency’s investigation division. He testified on the 12th day of the hearsay hearing that he repeatedly urged Collins, the lead agent on the investigation, to approach the case as if something more sinister than a slip-and-fall accident had occurred in Savio’s bathtub.

    For example, Falat suggested re-interviewing the friends and neighbors who found Savio’s body. He advised that allowing Drew Peterson to be questioned in the lunchroom of the Bolingbrook police station, where Peterson had worked as an officer since 1977, might not be the most prudent course of action. And he spoke against allowing Peterson to be present for the interrogation of his much younger, new wife, Stacy Peterson, which was held in the basement of the couple’s house.

    Collins did not heed any of Falat’s objections or recommendations. He apparently was already under the sway of the third member of the investigative team, state police Crime Scene Investigator Robert Deel who — despite the first-degree murder charges now facing Peterson in connection with Savio’s death — still believes she was the victim of nothing more than an accident.

    Sorry I can’t supply a link – these are from Suburban Life news stories that are no longer onilne.

  41. Collins did not heed any of Falat’s objections or recommendations. He apparently was already under the sway of the third member of the investigative team, state police Crime Scene Investigator Robert Deel who — despite the first-degree murder charges now facing Peterson in connection with Savio’s death — still believes she was the victim of nothing more than an accident.

    ‘I don’t care why …’
    Collins testified at the hearsay hearing that he had never worked a homicide when he was sent to Savio’s home and that he deferred to the judgment of Deel, a 24-year veteran of the state police.

    Deel collected no evidence during his investigation of the Savio death scene. He overlooked a glass of orange juice on her kitchen counter, a mug of water in her microwave and a condom Falat says he told him was in a bathroom wastebasket. Deel denies Falat told him about the condom — which Savio’s boyfriend says he did not put there. Either way, Deel conceded that he did not look in the wastebasket, or any other trash receptacles, during his investigation.

    Deel also failed to check for the clothes Savio was wearing before she took her supposed death bath, or to document whether there were any towels in the bathroom. And he neglected to dust for fingerprints or conduct chemical blood testing.

    When she was found in the tub, Savio had an inch-long bloody gash on the back of her head, which she apparently sustained during the “accidental” fall before she drowned. But Deel did not find it strange that he could find no blood or hair on any of the surfaces around the tub.

    Savio’s body also bore the marks of scratches and extensive bruising, but it was not enough to raise Deel’s investigative radar. As he put it, “The bruises on the body are insignificant to me.”

    The fact that Peterson and Savio, who while legally divorced were still in the midst of a contentious property dispute that was due to wrap up in the coming weeks with Savio claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars in the couple’s assets, including a portion of her husband’s pension, was also lost on Deel. As was Peterson and Savio’s acrimonious and violent history, which was lowlighted by 19 calls to the police and allegations of assault, battery, theft and harassment. Motive, after all, does not come into play when Deel probes a potential murder.

  42. It was the ISP report put together by these guys that Officer Hardy referred to at the the coroner’s inquest. This is what the coroner’s jury had to go on. They were told not only that the ISP thought it was an accident but also exactly where Kathleen had hit her head on the tub (even though no evidence was collected that could possible show something like that), they were told that they had checked out Drew’s alibi and that “everything was fine” (even though Stacy had been interviewed with Drew at her side, coaching her as she shook and cried). A member of the jury was a police officer who knew Drew casually and assured them that Drew was a great guy. Hardy told the jury that the ISP had “canvassed the neighborhood” yet no one had contacted or questioned Kathleen’s family.

    Jury members were told that Kathleen had no life insurance, and one of her sisters had to call out that she did in fact have a $1 million dollar policy,

    At that time the jury could not deliver a verdict of “unknown” as to her cause of death – only suicide, homicide, or an accident; and since then jury members have come forward to say that they thought the death was suspicious but had no way to say that they weren’t sure of the cause.

  43. I’m so thankful you kept all of the articles. It’s so easy to forget things when it takes so long to finally get a case to trial. When Anna D. was asked the police question a couple of years ago, didn’t she respond in an interview, “Drew was the police.”
    If I were a juror, that would make sense to me.

  44. After rereading the chain of events at the coroner’s inquest, it’s no wonder Anna Doman felt helpless and defeated.

  45. “Deel conceded that he did not look in the wastebasket, or any other trash receptacles, during his investigation.”

    Can you even call it an “investigation” if you don’t even bother to look in the wastebaskets?

  46. BTW, Patrick Collins and Robert Deel are expected to testify on Monday. So if you’re the kind who likes to read up on the witnesses ahead of time, there is a lot online.

  47. Again, thank you Facsmiley for the summary of the State’s investigation and the coroner’s jury. This jogged my memory about several things.

    I remember one or two of the people who were on the coroner’s jury coming forward after Stacy’s disappearance with their concerns, and that they weren’t entirely satisfied that Kathleen’s death was an accident. But they were limited in their choices of the cause of death. I also remember it being stated that there was a police officer on the jury, and I think he should have been excused as it was a conflict of interest.

    The state police investigation into Kathleen’s death was clearly botched. I also feel that there were a lot of politics involved in this case.

    In the weeks following Stacy’s disappearance, there were reports from local Bolingbrook residents who stated that local police covered for Drew Peterson, turning a blind eye to some of his activities. In addition, a new police chief was brought in from another nearby town (Naperville?) to clean up the Bolingbrook Police Dept. in the months prior to Stacy’s disappearance. It was during the weeks after Stacy’s disappearance that Drew elected to retire rather than go through an investigation by his peers.

    All this seems to point to local police corruption. Yet, there also seems to be some sort of “something” going on at the local state police level too. For investigators to so terribly botch the investigation into Kathleen’s death, it’s on the same level of turning a blind eye to a fellow law enforcement officer.

    This type of local police corruption exists and it’s not exclusive to any particular county or state. Fortunately, it’s not too widespread. But, I think it played a role in the original investigation into Kathleen Savio’s death, and later into Stacy’s disappearance.

  48. Facs, I like your line of questioning for Deel. No investigation done is right. I would think the defense would limit cross examination questions due to the “non-investigative” work completed at the death sceen.

  49. Is it known when exactly Stacy officially adopted Kris & Tommy ?

    Never mind Joels bleating about lack of contact and no Christmas/Birthday cards – the boys were whisked away and adopted by a ridiculously young woman with two babies of her own; whilst Kathleens wishes were all along for her family to look after the boys in case something happened to her…..

  50. I hate to say it but I’m thinking that it was Drew’s idea to have Stacy adopt the older boys for $ reasons. They each stood to inherit $500k.
    IMO!

    There was a guardianship case for both Kris opened March 24, 2004. “Guardianship Over $15,000″, but that may just mean Drew was seeking sole guardianship since Kathleen was dead. Stacy isn’t mentioned as one of the parties.

  51. OMG! Judge Jeanine just ended the Peterson piece with quite the speech. I don’t have it taped. It deserves to be posted. It would no doubt go viral on the Peterson sites. She’s calling the judge out to be fair and allow the truth to be heard in the courtroom. Standing ovation for Judge Jeanine!

    Steve Greenberg was on first. She brought up Drew winking at her in court. Greenberg denied that Lopez made an error in court. She also played the video of the defense team joking about Stacy. Greenberg said none of the “locals” ran the video, but someone nationally released it. (So that makes a difference, Steve?)
    Mark Fuhrman was on a panel. He tried to explain that the Savios were speaking up at the coroner’s inquest. The whole panel agreed that motive was present. Those present in the courtroom said the animosity between the judge and prosecution was evident. All parties present felt the judge was clearly blocking testimony and berated Anna Doman.

    Representatives for the Savio family are trying to remain positive and hopeful.

    Judge Jeanine brought up the issue that the judge was defeated in an election against Glasgow. Maybe if he gets called out on the carpet for his obvious behavior, he’ll run a cleaner courtroom. He can get voted off that position, as well.

    Maybe portions of the segment will be available on the Fox website later.

  52. Fox will air Judge Jeanine again at 11:00 p.m. (central time) Check it out. You won’t be disappointed.

  53. stillearning2…thanks for the headsup on the repeat of Judge Jeanine’s show…setting DVR right now! Sounds like a great show…and I do like the eye candy of Mark Fuhrmann. *smile*

  54. I did see some of the show and I agree that if the hit man testimony does not get in then in essence it’s not a fair trial. I understand why it did not but I’m glad that the State is filing a motion to get it admitted because it’s very compelling. It’s not hearsay, it’s not circumstantial. it’s some of the best evidence that the state has.

    That testimony shouldn’t be barred on a technicality. Even if the prosecution erred in not notifying the defense ahead of time, they sould be given a chance to correct the error. If they notify the defense now and put him on the stand in two weeks then they should have plenty of time to prepare.

  55. I’m so glad someone is recording. I can’t get mine to work correctly. We have to get a clip of her closing remarks directed at the judge.
    Mark won’t disappoint you. lol

  56. Anyone tuning into Fox should be warned that Mancow follows Judge Jeanine’s program tonight. Still trying to grasp Fox’s programming decision. Enough said.

  57. I think Judge Jeanine was just as puzzled as we were regarding Greenberg’s summary of the towel placement on the tub. He basically repeated Lopez’s earlier statement to the media. After several people testifying that the towel wasn’t there, it meant Drew could not have placed it on the tub. Huh? So who else would have been so concerned that the victim had a towel?

  58. How is the state going to get around not mentioning Stacy, when they bring the phone records, and Neil Schori’s testimony? She has to be brought up.. Doesn’t make sense why this judge will not allow Stacy to be mentioned.I have never seen a trial like this. It is totally odd to say the least. I could see them not being able to make it look like he is the reason she disappeared, but she should be able to be mentioned and included in events leading up to the point of when Kathleen was found.

  59. I just now saw the heads up on Judge Jeanine, and tuned in at the bottom of the hour, so I probably missed some of the program.

    What I’m seeing began with Kathleen’s father and step-mother speaking with the media outside the courthouse.

  60. Watching the show, to me it seemed as if Greenberg is trying to present it as if Drew left the house the same time as the EMTs did. Does he have an EMT to testify to that? AFAIK, the EMTs left and Drew was alone with Kathleen’s body before the technicians arrived. As for the towel magically migrating from the back of the door to the tub…it was folded. Look at the photo. That towel had not been hanging on the back of any door. It came fresh off of a shelf…and who knew where the clean towels were kept?

    Greenberg’s denial that Lopez made a mistake by introducing the “…and said it could make it look like an accident” would almost be funny , except it isn’t. Lopez misspoke, pure and simple.

    Sorry, I can’t agree that Furhmann is eye candy (unless you like wrinkles and gray hair) but I’m always impressed with the knowledge that he has held onto regarding this case. He knows that the Savios tried to speak out for Kathleen and that they were pushed off and ignored.

    The Judge herself makes me cringe a bit – we all know that Drew placed the majority of those 911 calls. Let’s keep it real. But at the same time, she brought out that the new hearsay statute had nothing to do with the majority of the hearsay statements being admitted in this case, which were admitted under common law hearsay exceptions. So I’ll give her points for that.

  61. I watched the Justice with Judge Jeannine show last evening. It was a good one and yes, she sure gave a passionate speech about a fair trial for the VICTIM. I like how she stated that DP was not the victim.
    I will add here that there are a few things presently that disturb me. One is the animous spoken of in the courtroom between judge and DA. Is it possible at this point for the judge to re cuse (sp) himself?
    Also, why is the judge allowing the defense team to keep talking to the media? Shouldn’t he be shutting them up? If I were the State, I would be complaining. It doesn’t matter to me that the judge admonishes jury to read nothing, watch nothing, etc. Does he know nothing of human nature? Gimme a break. They should have had them sequestered with dvd’s to view or perhaps videos of the shock of the nation when Casey Anthony was found not guilty.

  62. According to Attorney Joe Lopez, the jury isn’t sequestered because the defendant hasn’t requested it.

    Knowing that the State is being very tight-lipped in regards to the media and that the defense team is being the opposite, there very well could be a strategy to that choice.

    The jury may still be sequestered during deliberations. We shall see…

  63. Some people might.

    That was in response to judgin’s comment (If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…)

  64. I think Judge Jeanine made a good attempt to counter some of the mistruths in the media that are being repeated by quick study reporters. It has to start somewhere and perhaps others will follow suit. The defense has been using the media since the beginning to tell poor Drew’s story. You know, the “unluckiest man in the world.” The defense is trying to make Drew the victim, and when JJ held up the newspaper headline, it was a handslap to the papers covering the case. IMO I have to agree with you, Facs, I think it could be part of the defense strategy. A daily retelling of what we “should” be concluding from the testimony, as told by Steve Greenberg. Joe Lopez, and Joel Brodsky.

  65. I wish Anna Doman could answer the question regarding contact with the boys differently. Did you ever attemt to contact the boys? Yes. As soon as I heard the news about Stacy, I immediately went to Drew’s block to check on Tom and Kris. … we’ve been able to re-establish contact, etc. We’re not talking a lot of time between the death of Kathleen and the sudden disappearance of Stacy.

  66. Mark Furhman was also very confident that Neil Schori’s testimony would be very believable to the jury.

  67. The Savio’s family representative, Martin Glink, said that Anna Doman was not mocking the judge but only intoning him in answer to a question. He had reminded the defense numerous times in regards to the death certificate that “the document speaks for itself”. According to Glink, when pressed to answer a question about the death certificate, she just repeated what the judge had said to the attorneys.

    It’s reported that she was shaking and visibly upset when leaving the stand after the Judge’s reprimand.

    What kind of message does it send to the jury when the judge bullies the sister of the victim? This woman has been waiting for this moment for eight years! Will the jury now question her testimony because the judge reprimanded her?

  68. I don’t understand … they can talk about Stacy but not that she is missing? Or can they not mention Stacy at all?

  69. Hey Noway!

    I’m not entirely sure but I think that the prosecution is being very cautious about mentioning Stacy at all. Officially, I think that they are only barred from introducing that she went missing but they are still going to wait for the defense to bring her up first. It’s telling that the State first conferred with Judge Burmila before letting Anna Doman mention Stacy, and he told them to leave any mention of Stacy out of Doman’s testimony, which they then did.

    So, it seems as if the judge is taking an active part in how her name is introduced as well, in the interest of a fair trial, I’m assuming.

    Joel Brodsky did mention her in the opening statements, but those aren’t considered arguments.

    There’s a lot I’m learning as the trial gets underway, and still a lot I don’t understand.

  70. Noway, we’re all just as confused. It was addressed that she was missing in the beginning of the trial, but for the moment, that’s it.

  71. When you have so many people in the courtroom commenting on the judge’s treatment of Anna Doman, something is amiss. IMO

  72. Agreed, Facs. Shameful headline. A rambling article. There were three authors listed, and it was still poorly written. imo So what are the writers saying, if the person missing has a troubled past, stick that individual on the missing list and call it a day? What’s the lesson? If someone else goes missing in the family and is linked to an “Accidental drowning” of the previous wife, then maybe the police department will investigate?
    With the huge number of women and children on the missing list across the country, couldn’t the NYP come up with something better?

  73. It would seem that in this trial the prosecution not only has the “burden of proof”, but is now required to become athletes and jump through hurtles to prove their case. They’re running an obstacle course that’s filled with landmines, and if they step on one, they run the risk of a mistrial.

    I tuned into Judge Jeanine’s program just minutes before her passionate speech. I hope Judge Jeanine’s words somehow reach Judge Burmila’s ears, and he takes her words to heart.

  74. As for that story in the New York Post. I think we all know that the Cales kids had an awful upbringing. What is the point of detailing it for the insatiable curiosity of the public?

    How is that in any way pertinent to what happened to Stacy after she met and married Drew Peterson?

    Stacy’s married life was completely different from that of Christie Cales, and by all accounts, what attracted her to Drew was the idea of having a stable home with bills paid, food on the table, and an emphasis on the family. She loved to host family get-togethers at the house, she bought groceries for her relatives and visited her grandfather. She basked in the ‘normalcy’ of being a cop’s wife in a suburban town. She was by all accounts an excellent mother. I think that all changed as she grew older and began to realize that she didn’t like living under his control. She wanted out and she was researching ways to divorce Drew and get out of the marriage with enough of the assets to start over with her kids. She also happened to start sharing information about something very, very bad that Drew had done. Suddenly, she vanished!

    Anyone who thinks they can draw a parallel between the disappearance of Christie Cales and that of her daughter is jumping to a completely uniformed conclusion.

    It’s particularly annoying because that is exactly the simplistic line of thought that the defense attorneys have been feeding the media for the last five years. Sad to think that even the tabloids have glommed onto it. I thought they had more imagination.

  75. BTW, if Drew is ever charged with killing Stacy, nothing about Christie Cales will be admissible in court and certainly not the fact that she went missing.

    So Joel Brodsky can keep trying to make some connection out of the smoke he’s blowing out of his ass, but he’s wasting his time.

  76. Blllccchhhhh on the NYPost article.

    IMO it is quite a stretch to say that Christie and Stacy had parallel lives prior to disappearing.

    OT hi to all :)

  77. Ever since Stacy was mentioned BY THE DEFENSE at the beginning of the trial, no one can mention her since. Anna wasn’t allowed by the judge to even say Stacy’s name when she was trying to explain why she went to Sharon’s next door. Ridiculous, trying to keep Stacy’s name out of this.
    And Monday is still an off-day, is it not? Or will they still hold court since they left early Friday to stay on track?
    I’m with Judge Jeanine.
    Let’s pretend this is a fair trial and get on with it. (My quote, not hers).

  78. Is Lopez really so uninformed as not to realize that Bosco was Cassandra Cale’s guardian and was very close to Stacy? Leave it to a lawyer not to understand that some people speak up out of love.

  79. I was just coming back to post the Lopez tweet.
    Pam not only speaks from her heart, but is poised, believable, and sincere in front of a camera. Pam thinks before she speaks. Now there’s a lesson for the defense!

  80. PAMELA BOSCO, FRIEND OF STACY PETERSON: Hi, Greta.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Pamela, how long have you known Stacy?

    BOSCO: It’s been about eight years. I came to know her when I became legal guardian of Cassandra Cales.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And why did you become legal guardian of Cassandra, her sister?

    BOSCO: She was with another legal guardian, and she knew me through my business and she got along with me very well, and she thought we’d have a good relationship. And we just grew to really love each other at the time, so she said can she come live with me. And I assumed legal guardianship, so I did.

    VAN SUSTEREN: When was the last time you spoke to or saw Stacy?

    BOSCO: I spoke to Stacy on the Thursday before the weekend she disappeared. She had called me to talk to me about renting my rental property in Westman (ph). And at that time, I knew she was having difficulties, but I wanted to know more and I asked her what was going on. And she says, Well, I’m looking to move out with my children and find a place to live with them. And at that time, I said no to her because I already had people living on the property, and we then discussed other things that were happening in her life.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And what were the other things you discussed?

    BOSCO: She was — at that time, she told me she was fearful of her situation with Drew and that she was trying to find a way to live on her own and looking for reasonable housing and find a way to do it based on she really didn’t have a whole lot of money at hand because she said he had control of all the finances. So I had advised her actually to seek legal counsel at that point to do it legally so she, you know, didn’t lose a chance (INAUDIBLE) losing the children.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309617,00.html

  81. I feel bad for the Savio family and for Stacy’s family that they have to put up with the antics of unethical defense attorneys on top of the emotional stress of this trial.

    I have a friend who was 4-years-old when her father shot and killed her mother. Her mother was dead, her father whisked off to jail and later, prison. She went to live with her widowed maternal grandmother. No one ever discussed her parents. She was in her 50s when she decided she wanted to know what happened and spent days at a state library reading newspaper accounts of her mother’s murder and her father’s trial. It was emotionally painful.

    Someday, Stacy’s two children are going to grow up and as adults may want to know the truth about their mother. If they research this case, they’re going to be exposed to some pretty ugly statements made by the defense team.

    Kathleen’s two boys are already in their late teens and it won’t be too many years before they might choose to find out what happened with their mother. If Drew is convicted, they’ll want to know what evidence was presented that convicted him.

    Both Kathleen’s and Stacy’s children will someday want to know the truth about their parents. It will be a difficult truth to learn.

  82. “I expect the trial will move forward. I don’t think you’ll see either side making any type of mistake that would warrant the judge getting involved and pulling the plug on the trial,” said defense attorney Joe Lopez.

    “Well we’ve got the first week under our belt. And we literally have dozens of witnesses to go. So at least getting the thing started is going to get things rolling, but it’s not going to be over for a few weeks,” said Jim Glasgow, Will County State’s Attorney.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/19206329/investigators-to-take-stand-when-drew-peterson-trial-resumes-tuesday

  83. I just noticed that the coroner’s jury member, Walter James, mentions that one of the jury members backin 2004 was a woman who refused to look at the autopsy reports or the photos of Kathleen in the tub.

    She should have been kicked off the jury.

  84. EXCLUSIVE: A Deeper Look Into The Drew Peterson Jury
    Posted by Kats
    Monday, August 6, 2012 at 8:00 AM
    Reported by: Mandy McGlothlin

    The following are specific details provided by the jurors while being interviewed by the defense and prosecution.

    · Hispanic male in his mid-20’s, never been married and not engaged. He was born in Puerto Rico and moved with his family to Bolingbrook, IL in 2001. His father is the dean at Bolingbrook High School. He lives with his parents during school breaks. Otherwise he attends Columbia College in Chicago, studying sports broadcasting.

    · Older white female who attended four different colleges and took classes in business and child care. She doesn’t have a degree. She and her husband, an auto body technician, have twins. She has seven siblings; half of her siblings are divorced. She likes to read the National Enquirer but doesn’t believe its stories.

    · White male in his late 60’s. He’s a graduate of Lockport, IL High School. He has been with his current employer for 30 years and was an employee of Texaco for eight and a half years. His wife of 15 years is a retired school nurse and stays at home with their grandchildren.

    · White female in her 50’s who is Polish-born and immigrated to the United States with her family when she was five. She complained that serving on a jury would be a hardship for her because she is a single mother and sole supporter. She watches Dancing with the Stars and Channel 7.

    · African-American male in his 50’s and is a research tech. Divorced once and is now remarried. He has a daughter in medical school. He enjoys photography and watching the TV show Criminal Minds.

    · White male in his 60’s. Said he has seen nothing on the Peterson case since he was told not to by judge White three years ago. He uses the Internet to buy parts for his motorcycle and watches local Fox station.

    · Older white female who works for a telecommunications company. She has two sons and her husband is retired. She enjoys watching Dancing with the Stars, What Not to Wear, Survivor and NCIS.

    · Male in his 40’s, born in Hawaii. He said he has never seen or read anything on Drew Peterson. He attended but did not graduate from law school. He was a member of the Hawaiian Army National Guard but was discharged early. He has lived in Bolingbrook, IL for 28 years. He does not have any children and was married a little over a year then divorced in 1991.

    · White male in his 70’s who is about to retire. His cousin is a retired policeman in Joliet. He has lived his entire life in Will County. Listens to XM radio and enjoys 80’s music. Watches Modern Family. He gets his news from the Internet. He is working on his pilot’s license and has 90 hours flight time so far. He is married and has two kids. Enjoys watching all sports and is a Cubs fan. Owned his own company. Former college baseball player. Wife is a retired nurse.

    · White female in her 50’s. Is a White Sox fan. She gets her news from the radio and CNN. Her husband hopes she doesn’t get picked for the jury. She is from New Jersey and has been in Illinois for 14 years. Her husband is from California. Her brother is an unemployed attorney. She is not a fan of Nancy Grace.

    · White female in her 60’s. She reads the Chicago Sun Times. She works in an office and manages eight other co-workers. Her mom has been divorced two times. She writes poetry, enjoys Scrabble and watches true crime shows. She believes there are two sides to every story. She divorced in 1992 and is now friends with her ex-husband. When she was asked how she feels about divorces she said, “divorces are never happy.”

    · African-American male in his 30’s. He listens to 107.5 and sports channels. He grew up on the south side of Chicago. His mother is a 3rd grade teacher. He is currently unemployed and likes to work-out. He reads sci-fi novels and lives with his parents. He spends 5-10 hours a week on the Internet. He’s single and has never been married.

    http://www.chathousenews.com/2012/08/exclusive-deeper-look-into-drew.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  85. “Male in his 40’s, born in Hawaii. He said he has never seen or read anything on Drew Peterson….He has lived in Bolingbrook, IL for 28 years”

    Really? Lived in Bolingbrook for 28 years and has never seen or read anything about the case?

  86. I agree that woman should have been kicked off the jury. I also think that if there was a police officer who knew Drew Peterson and who told the other members of the jury that Drew was a nice guy, that officer should have been kicked off the jury. That was a conflict of interest, having someone on the jury who would steer the other members of the jury away from being suspicious of Drew.

    I remember an article from late 2007 when it was first reported that Kathleen’s remains were to be exhumed. That article stated that Drew paced back and forth outside the building waiting for the results of the coroner’s jury. I had the impression then that having a fellow police officer on the coroner’s jury was Drew’s insurance that the jury would be swayed toward an accidental ruling.

  87. Stacy Peterson disappeared on October 28, 2007. Within a couple of days of her disappearance, her disappearance hit the national media.

    News media trucks were camped out in front of the Peterson home for many weeks as the details of Stacy’s disappearance surfaced. Greta Van Susteran and her team of reporters were among the media there in Bolingbrook, along with Geraldo, and many other national news celebrities. Tim Miller and his Texas EquuSearch team came to Bolingbrooke to search for Stacy, using helicopters, horses, and searchers on foot.

    On top of the media, Drew Peterson did everything he could to get his ugly mug on camera.

    I don’t see how anyone who lived in Bolingbrook could escape not hearing about Drew Peterson!!! It would be impossible to not hear anything about this case as the local media covered it right along with the national media. And Bolingbrook doesn’t look like it’s that big a place that one could escape the local gossip.

    People who’ve never stepped foot in Bolingbrook and haven’t followed this case know who you’re talking about when you say Drew Peterson – “oh yeah, that cop that killed his wife.”

Comments are closed.