Re-direct by Glasgow.
Anderson never asked to sign off on any reports before filed
Jury is out. Glasgow said he needed to approach judge before asking last question of Anderson.
Anderson is asked to step out if courtroom
Glasgow wants to ask why Anderson came forward in 2007 — says Peterson attys opened the door. Reason, of course, was Stacy.
Burmila to defense: “You can’t use a shield as a sword.”
Judge: In December 07 Anderson didn’t call the police. She said “they came to my house.”
Anderson and jury returning to Peterson courtroom.
Glasgow tenders the witness without asking another question.
State done with witness, defense has nothing further – witness steps down court dismissed for the day.
Lopez continues cross and asks Anderson about her first meeting with an ISP officer.
Lopez interrogating Anderson now over why she didn’t reach out to anyone in 2005 and 2006
Lopez to Anderson: “You know the word knife doesn’t appear in that (ISP) report?” Anderson: “I do.”
Lopez: “Are you accusing state police of suppressing evidence?” Anderson: “I’m accusing them of not writing everything down.”
Anderson: “Every single time I talked to someone I said what I said today.”
Anderson: I didn’t know it was my job to correct police. Lopez: I didn’t know you had a job in this case
Lopez is done with cross-examination
Judge: Anderson can repeat Savio statements, without mentioning Peterson to show Savio was “a security-conscious” person.
Anderson: Savio told her Peterson broke into her house, dressed in a SWAT uniform and held her at knife point and said “I could kill you and make it look like an accident.”
Savio showed her that she kept a knife between her mattresses. She’s questioned about her alcohol use and relationship with Steve Maniaci but there are objections.
Kristin Anderson says she heard about Savio’s death on the news.
After Savio’s death Anderson said she called Mary Pontarelli, Savio’s neighbor, and told her about what Savio said. Then she called Illinois State Police but “I heard nothing back.”
Anderson views phone records showing three calls to two state police numbers over two days in March 2003- calls were not responded to. (A lot of objections are happening – all overruled)
Anderson spoke to ISP in 2007. Told them about what Savio told her in 2004.
Lopez cross-examining Anderson.
Rehash of how she came to rent the basement for two months. Questions reiterating that she never saw Drew in Savio’s house.
Lopez to Anderson: “You didn’t move in, did you? You stayed in that house and put your family in harm’s way?”
Lopez: She told you Peterson had threatened her and you didn’t move out? Because you didn’t believe her? Didn’t call police?
Anderson: “No, sir, I don’t believe I did put my family in harm’s way. I stayed there and I was a good friend”
Lopez to Anderson: “You did nothing, right?” Anderson: “I was there for her.”
Anderson said she had a lot going on when she moved out. Lopez: “That was more important than your friend’s well-being?”
Lopez asks Anderson if she felt guilty for Savio’s death. She says no. Lopez: “Your life is more important than hers.”
There was an audible groan from the courtroom when Lopez asked that last question.
That comment has been struck.
Court back in session.
Attorney Glasgow begins direct examination of Kristin Anderson, classmate of Kathleen Savio.
In 2003, Anderson’s son was in 2nd grade, friends and classmates with Tom Peterson.
Anderson met Savio during a play date/birthday party for kids.
She lived in Savio’s basement for two months while waiting for a house to be built. She worked days and her husband worked nights. The whole family was there including pets. They shared the kitchen with Savio and sometimes ate together. Anderson only met Drew Peterson once after she had moved out.
She had never seen Savio stumble or fall.
Glasgow asks Anderson if Savio shared something with her. Anderson begins to weep on stand as she tries to describe encounter with Kathleen.
Jury leaves courtroom.
Anderson leaves the stand and courtroom and sobs in hallway.
Judge back on the bench. Anderson still outside hallway, collecting herself. Attorneys arguing.
Attorney Steve Greenberg now argues the defense position in this matter. “The appellate court was quite clear in saying the forfeiture by wrongdoing did not require this reliability factor. We’re not disputing that. The State keeps coming back to this. We keep coming back to this footnote. The State has never been able to give you a reason to ignore Judge White’s rulings, nor have they argued that they’re incorrect. Because they’re not incorrect! What more is left? The fact is, we have the law on our side on this issue. It’s unreliable, Judge. And that can’t be changed.”
Prosecutor Griffin briefly responds. But as before, every time she makes an argument, Judge Burmila jumps in and challenges her.
Judge: “While I recognize how unique this is. In this particular situation, I do not believe that I’m bound by Judge Whites’ rulings. It has not been demonstrated to me that the witness’ statements are unreliable, and the defense’s motion to deny them is denied.”
Burmila denies defense’s request to strike witness – Anderson will take the stand
Judge Burmila: “We’re in a completely unique situation here. How do I completely ignore the decision that Judge White made?
“She is one of the hearsay statement witnesses that Judge White made a finding to exclude. Her statement is, ‘I can kill you and make it look like an accident.’”
Greenberg then notes that Anderson “cannot lay any foundation as to when this statement might have been made by Mr. Peterson. This statement could have been made in 1995, 1996.”
As far as the foundational question goes, Judge Burmila finds for the prosecution. Greenberg then moves to the issue of reliability. “The ruling of Judge White is that these statements are unreliable as to time content and circumstances and the interests of justice.”
Assistant State’s Attorney Colleen Griffin replies: “In a question of forfeiture by wrongdoing, there is no hearsay problem. The defendant forfeits his right to object on that ground. This very issue has been discussed. Griffin then goes on to cite case law on this issue. “None of the statements that Judge White kept out are facially unreliable. That does not make the statements unreliable under due process.”
Judge: “Tell me what the State’s position is on whether Judge White’s rulings were right or wrong. Are you refusing to tell me that?” Griffin: “I’m saying that it doesn’t matter.”
Prosecutors: Previous judge’s rulings were based on wrong standard. Burmila: Judge made findings you asked him to mak
Glasgow: This is an incredibly critical ruling to this case. Burmila: They’re all critical
Burmila says “Mr. Glasgow, please have a seat, one at a time,” as another prosecutor argues.
Glasgow raising his voice to Burmila. “Judge White’s rulings are void for this proceeding.”
Glsgow: “The appellate court would be morons if they would send something back like this and not allowing hearsay after 2-year appea!”
Finally Glasgow concludes an impassioned arguemtn: “Thank you.” Judge: “You’re welcome.”
Collins says that Drew Peterson did not contact any of Savio’s family members nor her divorce attorney, Harry Smith. He says that Harry Smith contacted him at a later date.
Collins says that he didn’t need to verify Peterson’s assertion that Stacy Peterson was shaken and upset. He witnessed this for himself.
Defense begins re-cross.
Collins says he did check the windows for forced entry but didn’t find any evidence of that.
Collins steps down.
Attorneys in discussion with judge before Kristin Anderson is called.
(Anderson will most likely testify that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003.)
Defense arguing that previous judge ruled Anderson’s statements as unreliable. Prosecutors arguing over due process.
The judge is back on the bench. Connor makes an argument that the defense has opened the door to additional records that the judge had previously ruled inadmissible. Brodsky disagrees. Judge: “I think the State’s observation is an acute one. But I think those records are prejudicial, and so I’m not going to let them in. But you want to be careful in the future where you tread, counsel.” With that, Judge Burmila sends for the jury.
Prosecutor Connor begins redirect examination.
Collins says that during his interview with Drew, that he didn’t mention his pension, child support or maintenance. (lots of objections interrupting this)
Connor tries to show Collins some documents but is stopped by the judge. Jury leaves the room.
Prosecution withdraws a question about something Collins told an insurance investigator.
After looking at his report, Collins says that Stacy Peterson was interviewed no March 3, one day after Drew Peterson.
Report of Stacy Peterson interview by ISP Trooper Falat doesn’t mention Peterson was present.
Sidebar called when Brodsky attempts to show Peterson’s work schedule to Collins.
The sidebar ends. The witness is shown the defendant’s work records. “This was not attained during the Kathy Savio investigation.”
Did you ever learn that Mr. Peterson did not work on Sunday night, February 29, 2004? “No.”
Even though your report states that he does? “The report reflects what he told me.”
End of Cross-examination.
Defense is challenging testimony of Savio friend, Kristin Anderson, who is on witness list.
The courtroom doors have opened, and people are going in to the Peterson courtroom. The trial should be resuming before too long.
Attorney Greenberg reminds the Court that there may be some issues that need to be discussed prior to the next witness.
Joel Brodsky resumes cross of ISP investigator Collins.
Attorney Brodsky asks Collins about his other interviews of people like the Pontarelli’s and Steve Carerano which were also conducted at a private residence. He asks him about interviewing the EMTs. Collins can remember interviewing at least one but not where he was interviewed. He also recalls interviewing locksmith Robert Akin.
Collins again recalls Peterson’s mannerisms during police interviews as being significant – rubbing his cheecks, touching his face, etc. He is asked why that seemed significant to him.
“That mannerism was observed at another time, also. That’s what made me reflect on it.”
Collins is asked to recall that Drew Peterson told him that he spent the entire weekend with his children. That he went out at 10 a.m. to get donuts and then the family ate breakfast and went to the Shedd Aquarium.
Rehash of the events leading up to the discovery of Savio’s body.
Attorney Brodsky questions Collins about the interview with Stacy Peterson. He says that the term Peterson had used was “a little professionalism” when he asked to be present. Peterson explained that Stacy was nervous because of all the new responsibilities she would now need to take on. Baby anthony was present at the interview and held in either Drew or Stacy’s arms.
Collins is asked about his interview with Steve Maniaci and whether all his statements checked out. Collins says that they did. Discussion about the phone records pertaining to the dispatch calls.
Collins says that that needed to update his case file, and so he contacted the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office. “They told me it could be closed out. They said, ‘You can close it.’”
Jurors enter courtroom. Testimony resumes
Collins says he didn’t attend autopsy of Savio, but did follow-up interviews with medical technicians.
Collins is discussing Peterson phone records.
Peterson had a phone call from Savio at 6:17pm Friday. Drew said he last talked to her at 5pm Friday
State finished with witness; cross-examination begins
Defense cracking jokes with witness about retirement. Courtroom laughs.
Brodsky asks Collins if he ever developed a “sixth sense” as an investigator. “At times,” Collins said.
Remember being sworn before the grand jury in this case, on July 10, 2008? “Yes.”
You were sworn to tell the truth, and you did, in fact, tell the truth to the grand jury?
You’ve been interviewed by the State’s Attorney’s Office in this case? “I’ve talked to them.”
How many times since 2008? “Probably five to six times.”
When was the last time? “Yesterday.”
And you went over all your testimony? “No.”
Go over your reports with them? “Some.”
When was the last time before yesterday? “Monday.”
So twice in the same week? “Yes.”
Brodsky asks Collins about the crime scene and if he still had an open mind at the time that he and Deel were looking things over. Collins say, “I didn’t close the door completely. I was still conducting the investigation, with that sixth sense you said I should have.” There is laughter.
He noticed the laceration on Savio’s head. Deel made a statement about how it could have happened but that was just his opinion.
Collins: looking for forced entry was a main concern, didn’t notice anything out of ordinary – downstairs, outside of house.
Jury breaks for lunch – court resumes at 1:30
In 2004, the witness was appointed to be a grand jury investigator in this case. In that capacity, he requested some phone records.
He can’t recall if he received any records relating to Drew Peterson’s cell phone or land line.
There was discussion about interviewing Savio’s children but it never happened.
Collins is questioned about dispatch calls made during 2002 about visitation issues.
Stacy Peterson was not interviewed again.
State says it needs a moment, judge decides to take a break and asks jurors to leave courtroom.
Collins describes the circumstances of his interview with Stacy Peterson.
“Drew directed us down to the basement. On our way down, Drew asked me personally, said Stacy was real nervous, and asked me if he could sit in on the interview, as a professional courtesy.”
“He had set an area where four chairs were set up, to conduct the interview.” What type of chairs were they? “Card table chairs. Myself and Trooper Falat were facing [the Petersons]; Stacy and Drew Peterson’s chairs were very close. He sat very close to Stacy as we proceeded to ask her questions.”
“Drew was sitting very close to Stacy, as to be in a supportive mood. He had his hand on her leg, and his arm around her. I guessed that was to give her moral support.”
Did the defendant help answer any questions? “There was one particular question when he did, when he had to refresh her memory. I asked the question.”
Defense attorney Greenberg asks for a sidebar.
Collins: Peterson reminded Stacy she cooked “bacon and maybe sausage and that was it.”
“Drew had a mannerism, when you ask him a question he would kind of lean and kind of rub his eyes.”
Were there any other things you observed that the defendant did during the interview of Stacy Peterson? “No, not as much as leaning over to her, kind of supportive.”
Allowing one witness to sit in on the interview of another, was that something you’d ever done in an investigation before that? “No.”
Ever do it after that? “Initially, no.”
What happened at the end of that interview? “As it was being conducted, she became very upset, very shaken, and started to cry. After we got the information we wanted, we kind of shut the interview down.”
The more upset she got, the closer you got to finishing? “Right.”
Collins: “I asked Drew to describe the events of that particular weekend. Saturday was the day he hung out with the kids, and did normal family things. Just spent time around the house. Nothing in particular. Saturday night he was still with the kids. He just spent the day with the kids on Saturday.”
“On Sunday, Drew had told me they planned to go to the Shedd Aquarium. He went to Krispy Kreme; he returned home, and his wife made breakfast. At 11:00 they left, and headed to the Shedd Aquarium. Drew stated to me they returned at approximately 4:15 pm. He liked to be prepared for work by 5:00 pm. He didn’t have to go to work that day until 5:30. He arrived home, and attempted to take the kids back. He went to work at 5:30, and returned home around dinner time, at which time he attempted to return the kids. That led to negative results, because no one answered the bell or answered the phone. The kids rang the bell as he attempted to call on his phone. When he got no response, he returned home, returned the kids to his residence, and proceeded to go back to work.”
Drew told him that he realized it was a three-day weekend, and he thought perhaps Kathy and her boyfriend had gone off for an extra day.
“On Monday, he woke up, and made several attempts to contact Kathy, with negative results.”
“He went to a neighbor, Mary Pontarelli, and he asked Mary when was the last time she saw Kathy.”
“He had mentioned to Mary that if he had not heard from Kathy by Tuesday, he would contact a locksmith. Then, at approximately 9:45 pm, Mary’s son had contacted Kathy’s boyfriend”
“When it was known that an individual had spoken to Kathy’s boyfriend, then Mary told Drew to call the locksmith. He contacted a locksmith, who arrived, gained entrance to the house, at which time the neighbors went into the house.”
“Drew indicated to me that he remained outside. Mary Pontarelli, Thomas Pontarelli, and Steve Carcerano entered the house. Several moments later, Drew said he heard a scream. He proceeded in the house, upstairs to the bathroom. He saw the body of his ex-wife, lifeless.”
Collins: Deel said no sign of a break-in or struggle. He asked Deel to walk him through house. It was a “learning experience”.
“I went back in the bathroom to look at he body one more time. At which time I observed a gash on the back of her head. I asked Deel how did Kathleen Savio receive that gash, and he said possibly it was from a slip in the tub. That was a concern of mine.”
“I assisted in taking the body out of the building.”
Collins went to Steve Carcerano’s home to conduct witness interviews between 1:00 and 1:15 in the morning.
He interviewed Drew at about 6 a.m. at the BBPD
Collins said he asked Peterson how he would benefit from Savio’s death. Peterson mentioned their paid-off $300,000 house, saying ‘Oh, I guess now I’ll get the whole value of the house.’
“He stated he would not benefit from any insurance policy, because she had changed the paperwork and left that as a trust to the kids.”
Collins says Drew told him he last saw Kathleen “at 5:00, when he picked up the kids. He said she appeared to be fine physically, and also mentally.”
Did you ask him if Kathy might have contemplated suicide?
“He said no way. He could never see her living without the kids.”
Did you ask about any medications? “He informed me that she was on some kind of antidepressant because of the stress of the divorce, because she had a feeling of being abandoned, and in her childhood she had incidents in which she was molested and physically abused.”
Drew Peterson has asked to talk to his attorneys before retired Sgt. Patrick Collins takes the stand.
Attorney Joel Brodsky: “He has something about this witness he wants to tell us.”
Judge Burmila is back.
Retired ISP Sergeant, Patrick Collins, takes the stand.
Prosecutor Kathleen Collins begins her direct examination.
He briefly goes over his history with the ISP.
Collins tells jury he had investigated “zero” homicides not traffic or highway related before March 1, 2004.
Collins: “I received a call from my supervisor, who told me that it appeared that a police officer from Bolingbrook’s wife had been found in a bathtub. It appeared to be accidental.”
“I entered the house, and was greeted by two Bolingbrook commanders. They told me all the other state police personnel were up in the bathroom. It was crime scene investigator Bob Deel, and Trooper Falat.”
Did you have command authority over Robert Deel? “I had the ability to give him orders, but he was not under my command.”
Peterson just came into the courtroom. He’s putting on his tie and belt in court, as he does every day.
Court is in session.
Judge: “We have one matter that we have to address from yesterday, the defense request to strike the testimony of Ofc. James Coughlin.”
Discussion takes place about striking Coughlin’s testimony for discovery violation (defense wasn’t made aware that Coughlin had said FBI’s report was incorrect back in ’07)
This is the 2nd time Peterson lawyers are asking to toss testimony, so they want a “stronger” jury instruction.
Prosecutor Koch says the “only, only difference” between FBI report and testimony is “one sentence” indicating where the overheard comment occurred.
Judge interrupts and asks Koch about divorce court order that suggests Peterson wasn’t in court when Coughlin claimed to see him.
Attorney Koch: Peterson lawyers had FBI report, and they had two years to investigate.
Defense attorney Lisa Lopez: “Surprise! The FBI agent was lying. That was a surprise.”
Prosecution Attorney Koch says they didn’t withhold any info. Peterson’s statement in question has never changed “I’d be better off if she was dead.”
Judge says striking the testimony is not the right sanction to take. If the defense wants to call this FBI agent to testify and they need continuance while the find him, that could take place.
Motion to strike Coughlin’s testimony denied.
Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. Yesterday a crime scene technician and the Deputy Coroner of Will County testified about the way the scene of Kathleen Savio’s death was investigated, while a Bolingbrook police officer testified about an ominous remark he heard Drew Peterson say (although he admitted he thought Peterson was joking at the time.)
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.