Brodsky argues that through this letter the State is putting Kathleen Savio’s credibility at issue. Should that happen, “Then I want Mr. Smith to take the stand and tell us about this privileged information he has, about how she took the stand and lied . . . they can’t have their case [sic] and eat it, too.”
Judge: “This exhibit is going to be admitted. This is a statement signed by Ms. Savio . . . if the defense wants to call Mr. Smith to impeach him, tell me the date and I will compel him to be here.”
Judge: “You know what, I’m going to take a break – you guys get your act together, and let me know when you’re ready.”
Judge allows as evidence transcripts of 2 interviews Drew gave to NBC and CNN about Savio’s death. No video comes in, though.
The attorneys have just disappeared into the back hallway. They are presumably on their way to Judge Burmila’s chambers.
Chuck Pelkie has just informed us that attorney Harry Smith will now NOT be testifying today. He MAY be back on Monday.
Jury has been excused for the day.
Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith may take the witness stand after all.
Prosecutors trying to stop defense from questioning Smith about alleged perjury Savio committed on case involving DP and Stacy
State wants Smith to testify on letter Savio wrote indicating fear that Peterson would kill her.
Prosecutor Koch: “The next witness the State intends to call will be Harry Smith. There are a couple of questions I’d like to bring to the Court’s attention . . . there’s a letter that was presented to Harry Smith, that Miss Savio presented to Mr. Smith . . . we believe Harry Smith can testify as to the foundational elements of that letter.”
Burmila just told attorneys to stop talking with each other, “for like the 50th time.”
Trial is back in session, but jury is not yet here. Judge and attorneys discussing.
Prosecutors tell judge there will be no more witnesses today, only stipulations.
Discussion of documents to be admitted or not.
Judge rules one can be admitted and the other not (The documents are phone-related.)
Court in recess until 1:15 p.m.
Prosecutors want to call Stacy’s sister Cassandra Cales to testify to Stacy’s cellphone number (to identify which cell phone her sister used).
Greenberg objects to this witness, insisting that it’s hearsay. Judge: “I don’t believe it is . . . how would that be hearsay?” Greenberg: “How come we got a list of people last night, and now we’re getting different people?” Judge: “That I can’t answer.
The jurors are now back in the courtroom, and prosecutor Connor calls the next witness: Brian Hafner.
“I am a lieutenant with the Bolingbrook Police Department.” He’s been with the Bolingbrook P.D. for about 21 years. The witness says he is familiar with the kinds of documents that are placed into Bolingbrook P.D. personnel files.
Hafner IDs a Jan. 6, 1984 memo indicating that Peterson has been appointed to a role of evidence technician. He IDs Peterson in court.
Hafner IDs July 9, 1981 “Certificate of Completion” for course in evidence handling, intro to forensic science techniques given to DP.
Hafner IDs April 11, 1988 “Certificate of Achievement” for crime scene training class completion.
State ends questioning Hafner. Greenberg begins cross.
Greenberg asks witness if they would be taught to stage a crime scene, an accident, or how to clean one up in those courses.
Upon Greenberg question, Hafner says there are no certificates post-1988.
Jury is leaving the courtroom.
State withdraws objection, jury brought back in.
Greenberg continues cross.
Hafner cannot say if DP ever processed a crime scene while an evidence technician or even as to how long DP was an evidence technician.
Hafner: I don’t know what was taught in the classes, or how long Drew Peterson was an evidence tech.
“I’m sure they taught something, but I would not know (what),” Hafner said.
Judge bars testimony that ex-cop once received training on how to subdue subjects.
Greenberg has no further questions for Hafner. Hafner steps down.
Jury is out while attorneys argue over next witness, who could testify to Drew’s training in holding techniques and restraints.
Judge may bar testimony that DP was trained in how to restrain people without sustaining personal injury. Arguments going now.
Judge says “you can’t be serious” to prosecutors request on restraint training, suggesting it is improper speculation.
Connor: “It’s to show that he obviously has more training than the average individual regarding restraint techniques.”
Greenberg: Certificate DP has from restraint training is 25 years old. Crime scene investigation has changed since then, he says.
Burmila says the injuries on Savio’s body are not consistent with police techniques, and the state cannot prove Drew Peterson used them on Savio.
Greenberg: “We’re going to need a continuance, to get the underlying documents . . . we don’t even have our files here on this stuff. I don’t know if we can even find out what he was taught. That’s like saying that when I graduated from law school I was qualified to be a criminal defense attorney. I was not. I may still not be.” Judge: “No comment.”
Burmila bars witness testimony that DP could injure someone w/o showing injury.
Info about DP’s training, however, “could be relevant,” and is admissible, says Burmila.
Trial in a brief recess.
Connor begins direct examination.
“I work for Sprint Nextel. I’m a custodian of records for them . . . I’m responsible for maintaining and retrieving various business documents.”
Pair of phone lines had “direct connect” capability. It’s commonly known as “chirp.”
Phone lines ended in x3149 and x2917.
Clark explains that bill shows summary of minutes used, rather than each chirp, because bill would get “unwieldy.”
Clark IDs a bill as belonging to Drew Peterson.
Clark: record of chirp wouldn’t be made if chirp made to a phone that was turned off.
State ends questioning Clark. Defense moves in for cross by Attorney Greenburg
Clark says he was notified that he would testify in case just yesterday.
Clark says he doesn’t know if Drew Peterson had more than one account. He was only asked to discuss this particular record.
Clark: Bill record doesn’t indicate which number was chirped or when it was chirped. Bill only shows minutes used during a particular time.
Clark: “it does not indicate with whom they’re speaking, between the two numbers, or any one else – based on the bill.”
Greenberg ends cross of Clark. Prosecution re-directs.
Clark leaves the stand after saying there is no way to prove — or disprove — Stacy’s claim that she tried to contact Drew several times during night when she woke up and he was missing.
The first witness of the day will be Ray Clark, a Sprint records custodian.
Second witness could be James Poortinga, a former ISP sergeant. A third could be Bolingbrook police officer Brian Hafner.
Jury colors today are black and white.
Witness list today does not include Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith.
Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. Yesterday only one witness took the stand. Pastor Neil Schori testified to what Stacy Peterson told him she saw on the night that Kathleen Savio was killed.
As always, I’ll have my 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 comments thread.