Drew Peterson trial – day seventeen

Posted by

164

UPDATE: 10:39 A branch took out my Internet last night and I won’t be up until tomorrow afternoon or so. Feel free to chat and share updates in the comment thread until then. Sorry!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. On Friday a telephone technician and a Bolingbrook police officer testified for the prosecution. Cassandra Cales and Ric Mims were slated to testify about the cell phones used by Stacy and Drew Peterson, instead documents were filed for the jurors to refer to. Attorney Harry Smith was also in the hallway waiting to testify but after arguments, the State decided not to call him on Friday (however he still might be called by both prosecution and defense). The prosecution is expected to rest their case this morning.

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.

We’re following:
Jon Seidel
Stacy St. Clair
In Session
Glenn Marshall
Diane Pathieu
Kara Oko
Dan Rozek
Diane Pathieu

~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

164 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day seventeen”

  1. From todays trib
    Peterson has three pathologists on retainer, but only two are expected to testify that Savio may have accidentally drowned. The third, Dr. Daniel Spitz, had told the National Enquirer that Savio’s death was most likely a homicide because “people don’t drown in bathtubs.” But then he was hired as a defense expert and changed his position.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-crew-peterson-defense-could-begin-today-20120827,0,6928078.story

  7. Its 10,30am…que pasa?

    Let me guess…the juries out, while one juror who failed to get the color code e-mail over the weekend returns home to put on the correctly colored clothing?

  8. Here is a question I thought of yesterday when I was reviewing some aspects of Stacy’s disappearance. Maybe someone can help me. I guess DP says that the last time he heard from Stacy, she called him to tell him that her car was parked at an airport. I read that there was a webcam on the parking lot, but that there was no actual surveillance tapes. Did anyone ever check to see if she took a flight from that airport? If not, why? I know she never got on any flight – I mean, I agree with most that DP did something to her and with her remains, but I was just wondering if anyone remembered that part of the story and had any answers. Thanks!

  9. In Session The jurors are now inside the courtroom. Judge: “We have a number of stipulations to present to you . . . each one has been agreed to by the State and the defense. The first is a November 14, 2002 letter to [prosecutor] Elizabeth Fragale . . . ‘On July 5, Mr. Peterson got into my house with a garage opener he programmed for himself . . . I was very afraid for my life . . . Drew was in uniform (SWAT uniform) . . . he was very angry that in our divorce the judge ruled he would have to pay child support; he told me he didn’t want to pay anything . . . he asked me several times if I was afraid; I started to panic. He brought out his knife and held it to my neck; I thought I’d never see my boys again. Sincerely, Kathleen Peterson.”

  10. In Session Following the reading of this letter, the defense asks for a sidebar. Once the sidebar ends, the jurors are excused from the courtroom. Attorney Brodsky asks for a special jury instruction, due to what he worries is the prejudicial effect of the letter. Judge: “It’s the local practice here that the Court reads all the stipulations to the jury, which makes them neutral.” Greenberg: “It’s not a stipulation . . . it’s a piece of evidence, and should have been read in by the State.” Judge: “We’ll clear that up when the jury comes back . . . [but] I said several times that I would be reading the stipulations.” Greenberg: “It’s their evidence. I think someone from their side should read that in . . . when it comes from you, Judge, jurors will look at it differently.” Judge; “I said repeated since Friday that I would be reading them all . . . tell me which ones you want me to read and which ones you don’t.”

  11. In Session Greenberg comes up with a total of four of the agreed-upon stipulations that he believes the State should actually read (rather than the judge). “It’s not your evidence; it’s their evidence . . . when it comes from you, it has a different intonation to it. Regardless of whatever the practice is, I do not believe that the judge should be reading these stipulations.” Judge: “It’s not something that I want to do; it’s something that I routinely do.” Connor responds, argues that the judge should simply read all of the stipulations. Judge: “The defendant has suggested that the State read the stipulations . . . I guess I can understand the point they’re making, Mr. Glasgow. Pick one of your assistants to read the stipulations . . . and we’ll go from there.” With that, the judge sends for the jury.

  12. Where they starting later today? I understand the prosecution was entering more documents in to evidence and is expected to rest its case this morning. I have seen tweets that the defense is objecting to several pieces of evidence, Stacy’s picture being one of them and the photo showing 2 holes in Kathleen’s door. Also Kathy’s medical records.

  14. In Session‏@InSession
    #drewpeterson State will rest today, then def. will ask Judge 4 directed verdict. If granted, trial is over. If not, trial continues.
    ***
    Didn’t Drew, in the beginning, specifically ask for a jury verdict? *Sigh* The way the judge has ruled on so much-I don’t blame them for wanting Burmila to decide this.
    Arrgh!

  15. In Session The jurors are now back in the courtroom. The judge informs them that the parties do not necessarily agree that the previous letter was accurate, only that it was sent. Prosecutor Koch then proceeds to read other stipulations: “It is stipulated that if Patrick O’Neil were called to testify, he is the Will County Coroner, and Dr. Mitchell was contracted to do autopsies, and was a licensed doctor in the State of Illinois . . . he was requested to perform an autopsy on Kathleen Savio on March 2, 2004, and prepared an autopsy report.”

  16. In Session Koch: “It was Dr. Mitchell’s opinion that the cause of death of Kathleen Savio was drowning.” The next stipulation is what Peterson said in an interview on the NBC Today Show, and Koch reads from the transcript. In the interview, Peterson says he went into Savio’s house because “the next door neighbor [Mary Pontarelli] was upset and wanted to go into the house . . . she was dead in the bathtub . . . I felt her pulse, and being a policeman, I didn’t want to touch or disturb anything.” Peterson also said that Savio was from “an abusive home life . . . we were always basically trying to outdo each other with different things.”

  18. Thanks Harley for the updates!

    @Dimitrithecat

    Here’s what was reported by CBS Chicago back in 2007 re flight checking

    Missing Wife’s Car Found At Suburban Airport

    BOLINGBROOK ,Ill. (WBBM) — Clow Airport in Bolingbrook is one focus of the investigation into the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

    WBBM’s Steve Miller reports.

    Bolingbrook police say Sergeant Drew Peterson told them he found his wife’s car at the airport Sunday night.

    A camera is aimed at the parking lot of the airport, and investigators have been trying to figure out if they can get images that will yield some clues.

    The problem, says Clow Airport Manager Joe DePaulo, is the the camera aimed at the parking lot is only a Web cam. Meaning, it does not record anything.

    DePaulo says investigators have been to the airport at least twice to try to get images from the Web cam.

    As far as flights out, DePaulo says the Bolingbrook airport has no tower and keeps no records of most planes that go in and out.

  19. In Session Koch now reads the second transcript, which is of the defendant’s appearance on CNN’s Larry King Show. “The children were with me for the weekend . . . the neighbors were also worried. I had neighbors go into the house, and they found her dead in the bathtub . . . for many years, my children and I were believing she died in a household accident.”

  20. In Session Koch reads another stipulation, stating that if Illinois State Police Sgt. James Poortinga testified, he would note specific telephone calls which would be reflected in phone records.

    In Session Day by day, Koch goes over the phone records, indicating the dates, times, and lengths of phone calls between Peterson and Savio.

  21. No Prob Facs! I’ll do what I can to cover today.

    You are all welcome!

    There was a tweet – Can’t find it now. Apparently all of the jurors are dressed in sports jerseys. The judge made a comment that they are an intelligent jury because nobody is wearing a Cubs jersey.

  22. In Session Another stipulation: “It is agree to that if Kevin Stevenson were called to testify, he would say he was a deputy coroner who attended the autopsy of Kathleen Savio . . . a photograph taken at that time would reflect a necklace around her neck . . . toxicology specimens were sent to St. Louis University . . . Michael VanOver took over the custody of the body following its exhumation.”

  23. In Session Another stipulation: “If called to testify, Cassandra Cales, Stacy Peterson’s sister, would testify” as to Stacy Peterson’s cell phone number [he reads the number}. Another stipulation is to the introduction of an aerial map, which shows both Kathleen Savio’s and Drew Peterson’s homes.

  24. Prosecutor Glasgow: “Your Honor, the People rest.” The judge asks to have the jurors removed from the room.

  25. In Session Attorney Greenberg begins the defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. “They have not offered any evidence as to how she died . . . certainly no evidence that her injuries were inflicted in a criminal manner . . . they have not provided any evidence as to the when, how, or who with respect to this particular incident, or disproved that it was an accident. All they have shown, if anything, is that there was a contentious divorce for a period of time. And that’s it. So we would ask that you grant our motion.”

  26. OMG…pic of Brodsky…who apparently thinks he can fly…meanwhile the judge is taking photos of the jury while cracking jokes…all following on from his imitation of John McCenroe’s “You can not be serious” last week.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-crew-peterson-defense-could-begin-today-20120827,0,6928078.story

    Welcome to justice Chicago style!

    10:30 a.m. Judge cracks joke about Cubs

    When the jury came in, clad in sports jerseys, Judge Edward Burmila snapped a quick photo of them, prompting laughter from the jury and gallery.

    “The only reason to take this picture is to demonstrate that no one is unintelligent enough to wear a cubs jersey,” the judge said, sparking more laughter and clapping.

  27. and big surprise the juries out already

    10:45 a.m. Defense objects to judge reading letter

    Immediately after the letter was read by the judge, the defense objected and the jury was led out of the courtroom.

    The defense then argued that even though they were stipulating that the evidence existed and was admissible, they did not want the judge reading them to the jury, saying it’s the state’s evidence.

    “If (Assistant State’s Attorney) Mr. (John) Connor gets up and reads it, the jury knows it’s coming from Mr. Connor,” defense attorney Steve Greenberg said. “If it’s coming from you, judge, the jury might look at it a little different…. I do not believe that the judge should be reading these stipulations.”

    Judge Edward Burmila said he would explain to the jury that he was not expressing an opinion in the case, and said that it is the common practice in Will County for judges to read stipulations. Nonetheless, he agreed to require the state to read the rest of the stipulated agreements.

    “I guess I can understand the point they’re (the defense) making,” Burmila said. “I’ll clear up the issue with (the Savio letter) and we’ll go from there.

    When the jury returned, Burmila told them not to take anything from his reading of the Savio letter.

    “The fact that a piece of evidence is a stipulation, does not mean the parties agree that it’s factually accurate,” he said. “The fact that I read the letter does not add or detract from it in any fashion
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-crew-peterson-defense-could-begin-today-20120827,0,6928078.story

  29. In Session Prosecutor Koch responds: “Evidence of the defendant’s motive, opportunity, and conduct before and after the death is relevant evidence . . . you have the evidence of what Stacy Peterson relayed to Neil Schori . . . there’s reasonable inference that he was in that home that night . . . he came back with a bag of clothes, women’s clothing that was not his wife’s . . . he told Stacy Peterson that the police would want to interview her, and he worked with her for hours. According to Neil Schori, she did lie to the police . . . the cause of death is drowning, which comports with the bill of indictment in this case . . . both doctors did opine that this was a homicide, Dr. Blum . . . [and] Dr. Case . . . this was a homicide . . . you have the defendant’s comments as to how she died . . . all those different statements made by him . . . we believe those circumstances show this defendant did, in fact, perform the acts of drowning her, with the intent to kill her. We ask that you deny the motion for a directed finding.”

  30. 10:55 a.m. Prosecution rests its case

    The prosecution rests, and jury has been led out.

    Defense attorney Steve Greenberg is not making a motion for directed verdict, asking the judge to rule the prosecution has not proven its case and Drew Peterson should be set free.

    “They have not conclusively established that there was a homicide, or that the manner of death was homicide. In fact the evidence is there are differing opinions at this point. They have not provided any evidence as to the when, how or who as related to this particular incident or shown any evidence that it was not an accident after calling witness after witness after witness.”

    The state is now responding

    Source Chicago Trib

  31. In Session Greenberg responds, charges that the State is trying to convict Peterson “based on the idiosyncrasies of his past life . . . the State claims they’ve made a circumstantial case . . . [but] they have to establish that Drew Peterson committed this offense. Their doctors say there was a laceration . . . I have no idea what caused the laceration. Do you, Judge? . . . whatever caused the laceration, how is that proving that Mr. Peterson had anything to do with the laceration . . . whatever caused that laceration didn’t cause her to die, didn’t cause her to pass out, that’s what they say. OK, when is the theory, then, Judge . . . we didn’t’ hear anyone say that there were marks on her from being held underwater . . . was she attacked in the bedroom, attacked downstairs? I don’t know . . . we have no theory as to what happened to this lady . . . we know she drowned, undisputed. If a laceration to the head did not make her pass out, then she would be fighting . . . not a single defense wound on her body, not a single scratch on Mr. Peterson . . . nothing about that at all. Her fingernails were tested for DNA; none of his DNA was found. There is absolutely nothing in this record to explain that somebody drowned her; not a single witness said that she was involuntarily drowned . . . where was a witness saying she was held underwater and drowned? No one said that, Judge . . . are we to assume she was held underwater and drowned? They say it wasn’t an accident; it was a staged scene made to look like an accident. They say that because they don’t want to accept that it was an accident.”

  32. I think the Prosecution’s response to the motion for a directed verdict does a great job of summing up the State’s case in a nutshell.

    1) There WAS a murder say our experts
    AND
    2) the Pastor’s testimony on behalf of Stacy puts Drew Peterson returning home with women’s clothing on the night of the murder.

    So if found guilty…it will indeed be Stacy that sinks her husband.

  33. wasn’t it stated once that Kathleen did not wear her fingernails short, and it was assumed that whoever killed her knew enough to trim her nails to remove any DNA? Couldn’t someone testify to that, like her boyfriend? Trimming of nails, orange juice on the counter, the blue towel, all part of the staging process?

  34. In Session Greenberg continues: “What is undisputed in this case? It’s undisputed Monday night that Mr. Peterson went over there and they got a locksmith . . . we know that Mr. Peterson didn’t want to go in that house; he didn’t want to be accused of anything . . . he was afraid there’d be problems. That’s undisputed . . . they go in there and they find a body in the tub, and they scream. And he goes running up the stairs to that bathroom, and he checks that body. And when he checks that body, he says, ‘She’s dead. And what am I going to tell my kids?’ Not a single witness said that he seemed anything less than genuinely upset by that . . . they go into this song and dance about this blue towel; no witness says that Mr. Peterson put that blue towel there . . . Peterson wasn’t there. How is it a staged scene; what’s staged in the scene? . . . don’t you think that if Ms. Savio had these habits to put her hair up and take her jewelry off that Mr. Peterson would know these things? . . . where is any evidence in this record from which someone could conclude that she did not die in the morning? Where is any evidence to contract that? Where is the evidence to conclude that it happened at night, as they want to say? They’ll say, ‘Well, there’s the statement from Neil Schori’ . . . when you evaluate that statement, it’s not specific as to date . . . and look at Rev. Schori; he brought a prover with him to that meeting. I’m Jewish . . . if I want to talk to the rabbi, he does not bring the cantor with him!”

  35. In Session Greenberg: “They say there are all these other incidents . . . this supposed July 5 knife incident . . . it’s two years almost before she dies, and the evidence of that is rather incredible . . . she doesn’t make any prompt report of the incident; she changes her story multiple times . . . we know that she lies; we know that Kathleen Savio lies about things that happened . . . these things could not have happened in the manner in which they say they happened. Because the events in this record aren’t consistent . . . we know that Kathleen Savio and Mary Pontarelli were together every day, or almost every day; they were best friends. Mary Pontarelli didn’t say anything about this supposed knife incident, because nobody said anything to her about it.”

  36. In Session Greenberg: “If he was going to kill her so they didn’t’ have to get to trial, why didn’t he kill her before the January trial date? Why didn’t he kill her before the February trial date? . . . what evidence can you point to in this case to say that Drew Peterson committed this crime? You can say they had a storm relationship, a stormy divorce . . . you can say pathologists differ on the conclusions to be drawn from her injuries . . . but none of that puts Drew Peterson in that house, committing a crime that weekend . . . they get up here, and they regurgitate the same stuff.”

  37. In Session Greenberg: “There’s nothing here! NOTHING here! . . . did they ever say to you, ‘This is the piece of evidence that puts Drew Peterson at the house this weekend’ . . . did they ever say that they had a theory about how it was done? No, because they don’t . . . they just hope that this jury dislikes Mr. Peterson . . . ‘we can’t tell you that it wasn’t an accident . . . but presume he did it; years later, we want you to presume he did it’ . . . they have said that he drowned her in the bathtub. They have said that he drowned her. That is what the indictment reads. And where is the evidence that he drowned her? Even their own doctors say she drowned . . . how did he drown her? Did he hold her down? How did she get the injury to the back of her head? I have never seen a murder case where they do not ask the pathology how that injury was inflicted? . . . how did it get there? . . . nobody said that; nobody said it because they have no theory as to how this happened. It’s as if they’re trying to nail a clump of Jell-O to a tree, and have it stick there.”

  38. In Session Greenberg: “Where is the evidence, Judge? Where can they say to you, ‘This is what happened in that house, this is how it was done, and this is how this individual did it?’ They didn’t do it. Because they can’t do it.”

  40. @StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson judge says state has demonstrated a death occurred and, if you believe their witness, a crime took place

    @StacyStClair

    #DrewPeterson judge says a finder of fact could return a guilty verdict here

  41. @StacyStClair

    #DrewPeterson judge says the jury could find that DP was guilty of charges. Denies motion.

  42. In Session Judge: “The law in the State of Illinois is the law . . . Mr. Greenberg says he doesn’t want to put the Court on the spot; when it comes to motions of this type, the Court is always on the spot . . . in this case, the State has met the corpus delecti, in the Court’s opinion; they demonstrated that a death occurred, and if you believe their pathologists a criminal agency caused it . . . the State is entitled to present a circumstantial case before a fact-finder. What is the role the Court has to play at this juncture at this point? Is there any rational finder of fact who could find the defendant guilty on these facts? There’s no question that much of what’s before this jury right now is in conflict . . . Dr. Mitchell says there’s no significant trauma on the body; the opposite conclusion comes from Dr. Blum, that the trauma on the body IS significant . . . looking in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could return a guilty verdict here . . . the State presented evidence of the defendant’s intent to kill Ms. Savio . . . the testimony of the State’s expert witnesses that Dr. Mitchell’s opinions were wrong, and that the wound to the back of the head would not render Kathleen Savio unconscious . . . some mechanical means would be required to have her inhale fluid . . . if we distill down the State’s case, the jury could find on these facts that the defendant was guilty of this offense . . . the defendant’s motion is denied.”

  43. In Session The defense asks for a moment. Judge Burmila grants a brief recess, and leaves the bench. The trial is in recess.

  47. 11:20 a.m. ‘It’s the Jerry Springer effect’

    Defense attorney Steve Greenberg gave his take on the witnesses who said Kathleen Savio told them of abuse and threats from Drew Peterson.

    “I like to think it’s the Jerry Springer effect, where people like to come forward and get their 15 minutes of fame. I don’t know…

    Talk about hypocrites…here we have a team of media-whores providing a defense solely for the purposing of promoting their law practices during the coverage from this high profile case, having the nerve to accuse the witnesses of being out to obtain 15 minutes of fame.

    And guess what….no rational juror will believe that the unassuming Pastor would be anything but embarrassed by having to make his conversations with one of his flock public. The Pastor is the antithesis of a Gerry Springer wannabe

    And as the judge says if the jury conclude there was indeed a murder, then it all may yet come down to whether of not the jury believed both The Pastor and indirectly Stacy. I certainly do.

  48. I’m guessing they will now be going to lunch. I have to go for a while, but will do updates this afternoon.

    See Y’all later! :)

  49. Thanks Harleyjoe.

    11:50 a.m. Little reaction from Peterson

    Drew Peterson sat at the defense table, tapping a pen on his left hand as the judge addressed the courtroom.

    Judge Edward Burmila said that any conflicts in the evidence are issues for the jury to decide. He said that the state had presented enough evidence that a reasonable person could convict Peterson.

    “If we distill down the state’s case, the jury could find on these facts that the defendant was guilty of this offense,” Burmila said. “The defendant’s motion for a directed verdict is denied.

    Source Chicago Trib

  51. VH, hope they got some “reasonable people” on the jury and not a bunch of people headed for Pinellas County FL.

  52. @ Pearlsgirl..

    Meet the Drew Peterson murder trial jury
    1) Hispanic man (20s) studies broadcasting at Columbia College, attended Bolingbrook High School while Kathleen Savio’s oldest son, Tom was at the school. His brother in the Army, his parents both work at Will County high schools.
    2) Plainfield man formerly owned a construction company, now works as consultant, plans to retire Sept. 1. He’s married with two grown children and takes flying lessons.
    3) A divorced woman in her 50s who works as an office secretary, who once edited her college’s newspaper and describes writing poetry as “a passion.” She also reads mystery novels, true crime books and watches TV cooking programs.
    4) A woman emigrated from Poland when she was a child. Her favorite TV show is “Dancing with the Stars.”
    5) A divorced Bolingbrook man in his 40s who works for the U.S. Postal Service, but formerly served in the Army National Guard and attended law school and graduate school.
    6) A man (60s) works as plant manager for manufacturing company, rides a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.
    7) A married woman whose husband first read newspapers to remove articles relating to the Peterson case so she wouldn’t see them. She likes to watch crime-related TV programs.
    8) A married woman in her 50s who is one of eight children, four of whom are divorced.
    9) An African-American man from Plainfield who works as a research technician. He is married with two children, doesn’t watch TV news but likes watching “Criminal Minds.”
    10) A man in his 60s who graduated from Lockport High School and formerly worked for Texaco.
    11) An African-American man in his 20s who was laid off earlier this year and lives with his parents.
    12) A married woman (60s), White Sox fan whose boss cringed when she heard the woman had been called for jury duty in the Peterson trial. She watches CNN, reads fiction that includes “The Hunger Games” novels.
    1) Alternate juror A woman who is a semi-retired school crossing g uard and doesn’t watch TV.
    2) Alternate juror A divorced man with a graduate degree in education who runs, cycles and swims.
    3) Alternate juror A man who collects pistols, has an orchard and once was attacked by a bat-wielding robber.
    4) Alternate juror A divorced man, fan of Chicago Cubs & Green Bay Packers, son is an aspiring police officer

    Sources: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 (www.suntimes.com)
    Extracted from acandyrose.com

  53. From InSession Tweets:
    Judge says its a close call but “the defense wont be allowed to impeach Savio’s testimony by this avenue.”
    “So,defense will not be able to use Harry Smith’s testimony to impeach Kathleen Savio; judge takes lunch recess til 2:30ET”

  57. Bucketoftea: At least the True Crime stories have more reality and doen’t condition everyone to have DNA and other forensic information all the time (and getting instant results in a computer). Just finished reading about Jennifer Corbin and Dolly Hearn murders. Both were murdered by the same person who staged them to look like suicides. Both were initially declared suicides.

  58. Bucket, I had a chance to go see the leading forensic artist in the US on Thursday night. She was fascinating. Anyway-before it started, I asked the girl next to me if she read crime books, and the cnnversation was on. The elderly, the young, there were men, all getting into the conversation…naming favorite authors, books, plots, etc. And yes…I was very surprised!

  59. Interesting, too, is the fact that every Monday, the judge starts out level-headed. The closer it gets to Friday, the more he seems to veer away from steering the ship in a straight line.

  60. This guy on In Session bugs me the way he pronounces the word homicide. He keeps saying “Home – A – Side”.

    Cheryl, you are so right. It’s like he runs out of gas.

  61. You guys are fantastic! :) I appreciate these updates so much!

    I can jump online from time to time for a few minutes via a borrowed cell phone (I don’t even have TV today.)

  62. @oxymoran, Thanks for cluing me in on the airport thing. Is it just me, or in a post-9/11 world, doesn’t it seem very strange for any airport not to keep records of flight plans filed?

    I’m glad Burmilla denied the defense’s motion. It’s the fairest thing he’s done since Day 1. Thanks for the updates, folks! Fingers crossed for justice!

  63. Kara Oko‏@KaraOko

    Lopez says that #DrewPeterson wants to take the stand; they advised him not to. #riskybusiness

    Facs – Sorry you are having a bad day. You do so much for all of us! I’m glad to help you out for a change! :)

  65. Kara Oko‏@KaraOko

    #DrewPeterson trial is back on the record, Greenberg has more discussion before jury is brought in.

  66. In Session‏@InSession

    #drewpeterson Judge is back on the bench, Greenberg revisits argument to call witness Harry Smith to impeach Kathleen Savio.

  67. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson judge again bars defense from calling Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith to testify about alleged perjury

  68. In Session “She perjured herself under oath . . . I think that’s a different situation, not a specific act of misconduct in a vacuum . . . if, in fact, she perjured herself, we would have no way of knowing until Mr. Smith actually disclosed this to someone . . . I think this is not a specific act of misconduct in the traditional sense . . . it goes to the oath, and what the oath means to the individual.” Prosecutor Griffin responds: “I’m not really sure what counsel is talking about . . . we don’t know what was said, what was done . . . this is nothing different than a specific act of misconduct that the defendant is trying to bring in . . . I think Your Honor’s previous ruling should stand.”

    In Session Judge Burmila: “I understand the argument Mr. Peterson is making now . . . but my ruling is applicable to this additional argument as well. And the State’s motion in limine is granted.”

    In Session The attorneys approach the bench for a sidebar.

  70. Seems like there be may a lot of wisdom on the jury:

    4 in their sixties
    2 in their fifties
    1 in their forties
    2 in their twenties
    2 married but with no age indicated

    And for completeness the 12th juror is a Polish lady whose marital status and age are unknown…whose favorite.TV show is “Dancing with the Stars”

    As the judge said “a reasonable person could find Drew Peterson guilty’ of murder….which implies only an unreasonable person could find him innocent.

    OTOH, the Defense team and no doubt their jury consultants are completely enamored with this group of 12 to the point that they have withdrawn a motion for mistrial. So they must be confident based on observations that they have some hold-outs on the jury

  71. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson defense calls Mary Pontarelli as its first witness. She jokes she would wear a sox jersey if she could wear one to court.

  73. In Session The jurors have returned to the courtroom. The defense calls its first witness: Mary Pontarelli (questioned by Attorney Greenberg). The witness repeats that she lived next door to Drew and Kathleen Peterson. “Would you say you were her best friend?” “Yes . .. at least three or four times a week.” “Your son was extremely close with her?” “Yes.” “You’d go on vacations together?” “Yes.” “The kids would all play together?” “Yes.” “During that time, you got to know both Kathleen and Drew well?” “Yes, I did.” “Did you ever see Drew get mad at Kathleen?” “No.” “Did you ever see Drew strike her?” “No . . . he was very nice, very respectful, a good neighbor.” “Was he a happy guy?” “Yes . . . he joked a lot.” “He’d say things tongue in cheek a lot?” “Yes, he’s a funny guy. He’d make jokes a lot . . . not in a mean way, in a fun way.” “On the day that Kathleen was found in the tub, you went in there?” “Yes, I did . . I went in the first time, ran out into the bedroom, and then went back in.” “You never saw any blue towel there?” “No, I did not . . . I did kneel down by the bathtub.” “Onto the floor?” “Yes.”

  75. In Session The witness is shown a photograph. “Do you remember how high up that tub is?” “No.” “What did you do?” “I braced my arms on the rim of the tub and I touched Kathy. I touched her back and felt her hair was wet, and seen [sic] the cut she had on her head.” “Possible you moved her head a little one way or the other?” “No, I don’t believe I did.” According to Mrs. Pontarelli, Savio “usually” had her hair up in a clip when she was about to bathe. “Did Drew seem upset that night?” “He seemed worried . . . he seemed upset.” “Did it ever seem as if he was faking it?” Objection/Sustained. “Would you know if he was being sincere?” “I’m not sure.” The witness is then asked about her hearsay hearing testimony, which Greenberg starts to read. Objection. The judge calls the attorneys to a sidebar.

  76. In Session The sidebar ends, and the witness is shown a copy of the transcript of her hearsay hearing testimony. “I guess I did say that.” “Would you have told the police if you thought he wasn’t being sincere?” “Yes.” “Kathy was a fighter, right?” “Yes.” “Do you know what she was like?” “Yes.” “Know what her temper was like?” “Yes.” “Did you ever see her with any red marks around her neck?” “No.” “IN the fall of 2003, did you ever notice her wearing clothing that appeared to be concealing an injury on her neck?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you ever notice any injury to her neck in the fall of 2003?” “No.” “Do you have any indication how she would react?” “She would defend herself. She’s tough. She wouldn’t let anyone hit her without fighting back.” That ends the direct examination of this witness. There is no cross, and so the witness is excused.

  77. During this break I am going to apologize for misspealling Mary Pontarelli’s name. Maybe I could get a job proofreading the defense motions. Sheesh!

  79. In Session The defense calls its second witness: Illinois State Police Master Sergeant Bryan Falat (questioned by attorney Brodsky). He repeats that he was assigned to the death investigation of Kathleen Savio Peterson. “One of the witnesses you interrogated was Stacy Peterson?” “Yes.” “You testified how she was questioned in the basement of her house that she shared with Drew Peterson?” “Yes.” “You were the one taking notes, and typing up the statements?” “I took notes on Stacy Peterson, and I typed that report.” The witness is shown a document. “It’s a report for the interview of Stacy Peterson.” “That’s your typed-up version of the report that you took from her on March 3, 2004?” “Yes.” “You took the notes for this interview?” “Yes, Sir.” “In the top line . . .” Objection. The parties approach the sidebar.

    In Session The sidebar ends. “It has your name and Sgt. Collins’ name on it?” “Yes, Sir.” Once again, the parties approach a sidebar.

    In Session The sidebar ends. The judge asks to have the jury removed from the courtroom.

  82. In Session The jurors and the witness are now gone. Prosecutor Koch argues that the defense should not be able to bring in additional statements of Stacy Peterson. Brodsky responds, says the purpose of this testimony is to rebut Rev. Schori’s testimony about what Stacy told him about the night in question. “When she gave her statement back in 2004, she did not provide an alibi or give any indication where…Drew Peterson was.” Judge: “Don’t we have two separate issues here: if he asked her to lie, and if she did lie? You’re trodding a path that has consequences, that might cause me to revisit rulings I’ve made with regards to this whole area . . . just so you understand that . . . you’re the captain of the ship, you just go right away.” Brodsky: “Let me take a moment to talk to my shipmates.” A moment later, Brodsky decides to continue his direct examination of Sgt. Fallat.

  83. In Session The witness and the jurors are returned to the courtroom. Brodsky resumes his direct examination of Sgt. Falat. “You not only interviewed Stacy, with Drew Peterson in the room, but Drew Peterson was also interviewed previously, in the police station?” “Yes.” “Did you see any marks on him, as if he’d been in a struggle?” “No.” “You didn’t see any scratches on his face?” “No.” “You didn’t see anything to indicate he’d been in a struggle?” Objection/Overruled. “No.” “Did anybody ever say anything to you about Kathy sleeping with a knife?” “No, Sir.” “Did anybody say anything to you about Drew Peterson breaking into Kathy Peterson’s house and holding her at knifepoint?” “No, Sir.” “And they knew you were investigating the death of Kathleen Savio?” “Yes.” That ends the direct examination of this witness.

  84. Interesting report from the Chicago Triibune – Aug 21

    1) I wonder when the Pros actually said he used a choke-hold and a police baton?

    2) looks like the State had to agree not to claim Peterson tried to put a hit on Savio in order to get the testimony included in this trial. (I still believe that a prosecution for solicitation would have been easier and at least guarantee Peterson a long stretch in prison while the State builds a case to hold him accountable for Stacy)

    “Prosecutors believe Peterson held Savio in a chokehold until she was unconscious and then drowned her in her bathtub. He then allegedly struck her on the back of her head, possibly with his police baton, to make it look like an accident.

    Also Tuesday, prosecutors succeeded in their fight to let jurors hear testimony from Jeff Pachter, a former cable contractor co-worker whom Peterson allegedly offered $25,000 to find someone to kill Savio in 2003.

    Judge Edward Burmila said he would allow the testimony about Peterson’s alleged attempt to have his wife murdered because it is possible evidence of intent in this trial.

    The prosecution, however, cannot argue later that Peterson tried to put a hit on Savio, only that Pachter’s testimony showed Peterson wanted her dead, Burmila said.

    Pachter previously testified during a pretrial hearing that Peterson told him he wanted Savio “taken care of” because she knew a secret that could cost him his job on the Bolingbrook police force.”

  86. In Session The sidebar ends. Prosecutor Koch begins his cross. “You talked to four individuals over at the Carceranos’?” “Correct.” “Your job was to gather basic information as to what had occurred that night?” “Yes.” That ends the cross-examination.

    In Session The witness can’t remember what the defendant was wearing at either his interview or Stacy’s. “You were there investigating a death?” “That’s correct.” “You were taught that the first 24 hours were the most important time in any investigation?” “Yes, I’ve heard that.” There is no more redirect and no recross, so the witness is excused.

  87. In Session Before the next witness can testify, the attorneys go to another sidebar.

    In Session The sidebar ends. The jury leaves the courtroom. Prosecutor Mary Patton is objecting to the next defense witness.

  88. In Session There is a pause, while the attorneys attempt to locate a transcript of the testimony of Susan Doman. There is an issue of some sort regarding exactly when Mrs. Doman was at the Savio house (and when exactly the defendant may have told her, “Ha, ha, I found the will”).

  89. In Session Judge: “You certainly wouldn’t be able to impeach Anna [Doman’s] testimony with something Susan said to the insurance agent. Or vice versa . . . I don’t see the support in my minutes or in the transcript that would identify this as testimony impeaching her so that it would be admissible . . . how would the fact that one person said that to the insurance agent indicate that the other person was being untruthful? . . . I don’t see how this impeaches that testimony . . . the witness is not going to be able to testify to either of those, because they don’t impeach anything.”

  90. In Session Based on the judge’s ruling, the defense will apparently not be calling Joseph Steadman. Judge Burmila calls a brief recess so that the defense team can plan its next move. The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess.

  92. Kind of a ticky-tac start to the Defense.

    Imo these witnesses probably served to remind the jury of incriminating details from the prosecution case .

    Surprised the defense is nic-picking …thought they would come out with guns blazing and create doubt about there was in fact a murder via their esteemed pathologists.

    Maybe the defense is not as confident as they appear

  97. Weird… I thought they decided not to call him?

    In Session The jurors are back in the courtroom, and the defense calls its next witness: Joseph Steadman (questioned by attorney Brodsky). He is a claims adjustor for Old Republic Life Insurance. “I received a telephone call from the sister of Kathleen Savio . . . I got her name and telephone number and some of the information from her. And I told her I would have to get the underwriting file, and I would get back to her.” Objection/Overruled. The witness is shown a copy of his records for this claim.

  99. In Session “After you got the underwriting file together, what’s the next thing you did?” “I called Anna Doman back. And I found out that her sister died on March 1, 2004, but the sister told me . . .” Objection/Sustained. “After you called Ms. Doman, did you discover who the beneficiaries were?” “Her sons.” “Thomas and Kristopher?” “Yes.” “And Mr. Drew Peterson was not a beneficiary?” “Not at that time . . . because they were minors, I advised her we wouldn’t be able to pay benefits directly to them. Someone would have to be appointed guardians of their estate.” He then sent a memo to his supervisor, asking him how he should handle the matter.

  100. Alrighty then. So it is ok for the defense to say that DP was not a beneficiary, but the state cannot say he would benefit from her death. What a load of crap!

  101. In Session The witness is next asked about another memo in the file, dated April 21, 2004. Objection. The prosecution asks for a sidebar.

  102. More friivolity in Judge Burmilla’s Flying Circus…see Chic Trib update below at 2.10 pm

    2:55 p.m. Judge restricts testimony from witness

    Judge Edward Burmila has restricted some of the testimony for witness Joseph Steadman, a retired insurance adjuster, who the defense plans to re-call to the stand.

    Burmila said the issues Brodsky wanted to raise with Steadman were “completely collateral” and said Steadman would be limited in what he could talk about.

    Before that, Brodksy withdrew his line of questioning of Illinois State Police Master Sgt. Bryan Falat after Burmila said, after a prosecution objection, that Brodsky was opening the door to allowing prosecutors to bring in evidence gleaned from the Stacy Peterson investigation.

    “You’re the captain of the ship, you want to travel in that direction, you go right ahead,” Burmila told Brodsky.

    Brodsky then withdrew his question asking Falat about notes he took while Stacy Peterson was interviewed after Kathleen Savio’s death.

    2:25 p.m. Peterson’s ‘a funny guy’

    Mary Pontarelli testified that Drew Peterson always seemed like a friendly person who loved to joke around.

    “He’s a funny guy, he makes jokes about things, not in a mean way, a fun way,” she testified.

    She said she never saw any injuries on Kathleen Savio, including on Savio’s neck in the fall of 2003.

    Pontarelli also told jurors that her close friend was a fighter.

    “She’s tough — she wouldn’t let someone hit her without hitting back,” she said.

    2:10 p.m. Another jersey joke in courtroom

    Defense attorneys have called their first witness — recalling Kathleen Savio’s best friend and next-door neighbor Mary Pontarelli.

    Defense attorney Steve Greenberg started out his questioning with a joke.

    “If you had to wear a jersey today, what jersey would you be wearing?” he asked

    “(White) Sox,” she responded.

    “Instant credibility!” Greenberg said to laughter, a joking reference to Judge Edward Burmila’s love of the South Side team.

  103. In Session The sidebar ends. The witness is asked to look at another document. “Sir, this looks like the same memo.” After a moment, Brodsky realizes the witness is correct. “Recall the next step you took in the investigation?” “I called Mrs. Doman back, and I advised her that Mr. Peterson would have to pursue the claim. I received a telephone call from Mr. Peterson.” “What did you do next?” “I set up a file, and I waited to hear from Mr. Peterson.” ‘Did you then receive a proof of loss?” “After I spoke to him, I basically told him what information we would need to process the claim . . . I received proof of loss from him.” “That would be the next step you took?” “Yes, Sir.’

  104. In Session Now, the witness is once again shown a copy of the April 21, 2004 memo in his claim file. “Were the proof of losses on Mr. Peterson’s behalf, or on behalf of the minors?” “On behalf of the minors . . . I called Mr. Peterson on the telephone; I had some questions for him.” “Did he give you information?” “Yes, he did . . . I followed up on part of the information he gave me. I asked him if he knew the name and phone number of the Illinois State Police officer handling the case.” Objection/Sustained. “Did you follow up with the police officers?” “Yes, I did, Sir.” “Did you receive documents which appointed Mr. Peterson as guardian for his two children?” “Yes, I did.” “Did you receive information regarding the cause of death?” “Yes . . . if Mr. Peterson murdered her, he would not be eligible to be the guardian.” ‘Did the insurance company eventually pay the claim?” “Yes.” “In full?” “Yes . . . one million dollars, plus interest.” That concludes the direct examination of this witness.

  105. I just logged in to Craig Wall, and he quoted this from Mary Pontarelli’s testimony:
    Craig Wall‏@craigrwall
    ‘Savio’s best friend May Pontarelli said “she (Savio) would protect herself…she was tough she wouldn’t let s/o hit her w/o hitting back” ‘
    ***
    Now that’s different, unless we just didn’t hear it during the prosecution’s case.
    This is why I HATE not being able to see for myself! OK, off the soapbox.

  106. In Session Connor begins his cross. He shows the witness an internal memo from March, 2004. But before the witness can be asked any questions, the attorneys approach for a sidebar.

  107. In Session The sidebar ends. The policy was originally taken out on “Sept. 17, 1997 . . . for one million dollars.” “Who was the beneficiary?” “Drew Peterson . . . April 10, 2002, the beneficiary changed to her two minor sons, Thomas and Kristopher.” That ends the cross.

    :)

  108. In Session The witness “believes” that Peterson knew he was no longer the beneficiary of the policy at the time that Savio died. That ends the redirect. On recross, Connor asks, “You don’t know when he found out he wasn’t the beneficiary, do you?” “I believe it was due to their divorce.” “But you don’t know when he found out?” “No.” With that, the witness is excused.

  109. 2:25 p.m. Peterson’s ‘a funny guy’

    Mary Pontarelli testified that Drew Peterson always seemed like a friendly person who loved to joke around.

    “He’s a funny guy, he makes jokes about things, not in a mean way, a fun way,” she testified.

    Wonder if this opens the door for the Pros to rebut this statement by introducing testimony from other people who have seen the non-funny side of Drew…eg the second wife and her daughter who claim Drew abused them.

  111. In Session The defense calls its next witness: Joseph Basile (questioned by attorney Joe Lopez). He is employed as an FBI special agent, assigned to the Chicago office. “Did you become involved in regard to a death investigation involving Mr. Peterson?” “It was actually the death of Kathleen Savio . . . I conducted several interviews, mostly of police officers of the Bolingbrook Police Department.” According to the witness, he is allowed to testify only with regard to “the 302” report that he has prepared in this case. “You can tell us that you were so assigned on April 10, 2008?” “I’d have to look at the 302.” The witness is then shown the 302 report. “The interview was conducted on April 10, 2008 . . . I was assigned by two others.” He names the two others who were with him at the time (both with the Illinois State Police). “Was your assignment to interview a certain Bolingbrook police officer?” “Yes.” “Did you interview that witness?” “Yes.” “Do you remember the name of the witness you testified that day?” “James Coughlin . . . [employed by] the Bolingbrook Police Department.”

  112. In Session “Did you have occasion to ask him what he observed in the Will County Courthouse, in regard to Mr. Drew Peterson?” ‘Yes.” The witness is shown his report, to refresh his recollection. “Did Ofc. Coughlin tell you who he was with that day?” “Yes, Ofc. Trece (?).” “Did he tell you he saw Drew Peterson there?’ “Yes.” “Did he tell you Drew Peterson was attending a hearing regarding his divorce from Ms. Savio?” “I don’t recall.” Once again, the witness is shown his report. “I was told by Mr. Coughlin that he saw and talked to Mr. Peterson, who was attending a hearing regarding his divorce from Ms. Savio . . . he originally saw him in a courtroom, where the matter was being heard.” “Did he tell you he peeked into a courtroom where the matter was being heard?” “Yes.” “Did he tell you the attorneys were laughing hysterically?” “Yes.” “Was he able to give you a time frame when that occurred? . . . in Feb. of 2004?” “Yes.” “And Mr. Coughlin looked into the courtroom and made an observation?” “Yes.” “You didn’t get it wrong in your statement, did you?” “No.” Objection/Overruled.” “Did he eve mention he saw Mr. Peterson by an elevator?” “I’d have to review the report again . . .not within this paragraph, although this report is six pages long.” There is a pause, as the witness reads the entire report to himself. “Did you use the word ‘elevator’ anywhere in there?” “No.” That concludes the direct examination of this witness.

    In Session Prosecutor Patton asks for a sidebar.

  113. In Session The sidebar ends. Patton: “Didn’t he also tell you that the defendants said the laughter was the result of Savio getting all his money?” “Yes.” “Didn’t he also tell you that the defendant said, ‘My life would be much easier if she were dead?” “Yes.”

    :)

  114. In Session The cross is now finished, and Lopez begins his redirect. The witness concedes that the report might not reflect the exact words that Peterson told Ofc. Coughlin. “These are words that were conveyed to me by Mr. Coughlin.” “They may not be verbatim of Mr. Coughlin?” “Correct.”

  115. ‘@Cheryl

    Savio’s best friend Mary Pontarelli said “she (Savio) would protect herself…she was tough she wouldn’t let s/o hit her w/o hitting back”

    Of course this assumes that Ksthy would have had chance to protect herself.

    Its far more probable that Peterson snook in using his lock picking set (existence barred by judge) and put her in an immobilising chokehold (knowledge barred by judge) after waking her up from her sleep and carrying her into the bathroom where he drowned her in the tolilet, placed her in the bathtub and then hit her on the head with his night-stick.

    BTW does anyone think that it was Drew’s initial plan to make the crime look like it had been perpetrated by her boyfriend…and only after watching the ireaction of the initial responders did he realize he could possiiblly get away with the accident scenario. This led him to adding the towel etc.

    This would explain a lot of lose ends such as the moving condom, the excessive clean-up, the breakin at her boyfriends house…(planting evidence?)

  116. In Session On recross, the witness acknowledges that his report has quotation marks in it. He says that, to the best of his ability, he wrote verbatim what Couglin told him. The parties then go to a sidebar.

  117. In Session The sidebar ends, and after one quick question the witness is excused.

    In Session The defense asks for a sidebar.

  118. In Session The sidebar ends. The next witness is Rob Sud (questioned by attorney Greenberg). He is a Bolingbrook police officers. He goes over his professional background, and describes the training that he has received (including 1998 training as an evidence technician). He worked as an evidence technician in his previous police position in the village of Lisle, Illinois (but not in Bolingbrook). In March, 2004, he was a Bolingbrook patrol officer. The evening of March 1, around 10:44, he received a radio call instructing him to telephone the dispatch center. “I was told to respond to Pheasant Chase . . . Sgt. Peterson was there, and his ex-wife was found deceased.” He arrived a couple of minutes later. “One officer responded with me as well.” When he arrived, the paramedics were already in the upstairs bathroom. “Did you see Sgt. Peterson?” “By the front door . . . he indicated that the deceased person in the bathroom upstairs was his ex-wife.” The witness says he prepared a report on his actions that night. “I proceeded to go to the upstairs, to investigate what was going on. First, I went up to the main bedroom, and met with two individuals who were in the bedroom at the time.” “Tom Pontarelli and Steve Carcerano?” “Yes . . . [then] I went into the bathroom . . . I observed the paramedics checking vital signs on the female in the bathtub. . . . they indicated there were no vital signs, at which case I asked everybody to leave . . . and then I secured the area for the time being.” “Do you recall seeing a blue towel on the side of the bathtub?’ “I do not recall seeing one.” “Did you have a chance to observe Sgt. Peterson?” “Yes . . . he appeared visibly upset . . . I had no other conversation with him.” After speaking to Tom Pontarelli, he also spoke to Mary Pontarelli. “I was just gathering basic information.” “You didn’t learn anything suspicious, did you?” “No, I did not.”

  119. In Session Eventually, the witness walked around the house with one of his commanders (but saw nothing suspicious). Just before 1:00, the Illinois State Police arrived to take over. “Had anyone gone upstairs” “No one went upstairs.” He remained until 3:56, when the house was secured.” “When the state police left, were you given any items?” “Keys to the house, and a garage door opener.”

    In Session The witness identifies the defendant inside the courtroom. That concludes the direct examination.

  120. In Session Prosecutor Connor begins his cross. “At some point, you did have to leave the residence for a brief time frame?” “I did . . . I ascertained the details of why they entered the home. Mr. Pontarelli, his wife, and his son were no longer at the residence, so I went to their home to speak to them.” In all, he was gone for about 15 minutes. “During the time you were gone, do you know what occurred at the residence during that time frame?” “I do not.” That ends the cross

  122. In Session The witness says his report reflects that he left briefly to speak to the Pontarellis. “But it doesn’t say that you specifically left the residence?” “It may not.” The witness is shown his report. “It doesn’t exactly say that.” “It does say that you were not the only officers there?” “Correct.” He names some of the other officers who had arrived at the scene. “They came out because it was another officer?’ “Correct.” “There were at least four other officers there?” “Right.” “There was no grand meeting between you to cover something up?” Objection/Sustained. “It didn’t appear to you that there had been a struggle anywhere?” “I don’t remember anything like that.” “And you noted in your report that no struggle had occurred?” “Yes.” That concludes the redirect; there is no recross, and so the witness is excused.

  123. In Session The judge asks to have the jurors removed from the courtroom. Once they’re gone, he asks the State is it’s filing a motion in limine regarding a conversation between Harry Smith and Stacy Peterson. Prosecutor Griffin says that she doesn’t have that motion written up, but that she’s prepared to argue it orally. “It’s my understanding the defense is seeking to call Harry Smith regarding a telephone conversation in which Stacy asked Mr. Smith if she could get more money out of Drew if she threatened to tell the police he killed Kathleen Savio . . . that still leaves the question of the cases that we cited earlier . . . this doesn’t go to impeachment of the statements that she made to Rev. Schori. It doesn’t even say that she was going to extort money, just that she asked about it . . . this does not directly impeach what Harry Smith said that she told him . . . it’s intrinsic evidence that would not be allowed for impeachment . . . and, again, she cannot be rehabilitated except by her coming in and telling what she meant by any of these statement . . . there are specific rules for impeachment in Illinois; this simply does not fall under one of them . . . I believe there’s no rule in Illinois that would allow for the impeachment of Stacy’s statements to Neil Schori with this intrinsic evidence.”

  124. In Session Attorney Greenberg responds. “I don’t understand the argument.” Judge: “I understand the argument the State is making . . .[but] I don’t have any case law at my fingertips here . . . it sure raises into question what the person wanted to do with that information. Do you have any case law, other than that one case you already submitted?” Prosecutor Griffin offers some additional cites to back up her position. “We can’t just impeach her credibility with an attempt to talk about ‘maybe’ doing a bad act.”

  125. In Session Greenberg responds: “Frankly, I don’t follow the argument.” Judge: “None of the case law submitted to this point says what the State is arguing. I don’t see how we can make a resolution to this without looking at the applicable law . . . so I guess I’ll have to see that case law before I can make a decision.” Greenberg: “So we should tell Mr. Smith to come back another day?” Judge: “I don’t want to do that . . . but I’m going to have to see this case law, if it’s out there, to support what they’re arguing . . . so will everybody be ready to go with this argument first thing tomorrow morning? . . . we will convene with regard to this argument at 8:30 tomorrow morning.”

  126. In Session The defense apparently has one more witness available this afternoon. The judge leaves the bench, pending the procurement of that witness. The trial is in a brief recess.

  127. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    Savio divorce atty Harry Smith has spent five days in courthouse hallway waiting to be called. He is a patient man.

  129. In Session It appears that the defense is hoping to call Thomas Peterson – the elder of the defendant’s two sons with Kathleen Savio – as its next witness. The prosecution, however, has objected to this testimony, and so both sets of attorneys are back in chambers with the judge.

  130. Judge Burmila is back on the bench. He sends for the jury. The jurors are now back in the courtroom. The defense calls its next witness: Darrin Devine. He is a special agent for the Illinois State Police. He is questioned by Joe Lopez. On June 6, 2008, he interviewed Kristin Anderson. “Did she ever indicate anything about Ms. Savio keeping a knife under her mattress?” “No.” That ends the direct examination of this witness.

  131. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson defense does not call Tom Peterson after huddle. Calls Illinois state police investigator Darren Devine instead

  132. In Session After a long pause, prosecutor Connor begins his cross. “Miss Anderson didn’t mention anything about a knife under her mattress? Is there anything that might reflect your recollection?” “Yeah . . . it’s been four years.” The witness is shown a copy of his report, which he reads silently to himself. “”When you took that report, what did she tell you about observing a knife?” “That she did keep a knife under the mattress.” “And by ‘she’ you mean Kathleen Savio?” “Yes.” That ends the cross-examination; there is no redirect, and so the witness is excused.

    In Session The attorneys approach the bench for a sidebar.

  133. Strange day today. Someone tell me if these Witnesses called by the Def are actually helping them? Its been a little hard to follow today. Hope the Jury is still able to pay attention at this stage

  134. In Session The sidebar ends. Judge Burmila: “We’ll be in recess until tomorrow morning.”

    LA – I don’t see how any of these witnesses helped the defense today. Very hard to follow…..

  140. I am glad Tom didn’t testify. I really don’t see any point to putting him through it. He doesn’t have anything to add. He wasn’t there, he didn’t see anything – only knows what his father told him. So I just think it would be unnecessary to put the kid through it.

  142. Sounds like this will go to the jury this week, unless we consider a rambling multi-hour closure by the def team, I guess Lopez with his MickyMouse voice will be proving that service

  143. Calling Tom Wednesday. Wonder if he is going to be honest, and state that he only knows what he was told by his father of that night, as he was asleep. I doubt it though

  144. Harleyjoey, you did a marvelous job, today! Thank you!
    Oxy (3:53 post) I totally agree with what you said. It was just the fact that it was left out of the I/S quote, and it tok me by surprise. I thought we’d heard all of her testimony. This sounded rather fractious, coming from her.
    Fantastic day today for the prosecution! I bet the defense is crawling out the back door tonight. They certainly did more today for the prosecution than they did for themselves. If Drewpy’s not rethinking his choice, he should be!

  147. Thanks Everyone! Appreciate it! :)
    :lol: LA with Lopez and his Mickey Mouse voice. Everytime I hear him talk, he reminds me of a cartoon!

  148. Harley, to me, he doesn’t only sound like a cartoon character, but he does resemble one also. LOL. I think he as the wrong career

  150. I don’t understand that either Harley. I can’t wait till they arrest him for Stacy, and they ask the boys on the stand what they heard and saw and they say they heard Stacy and Drew arguing, and it went quiet and they never seen her again after that! Yeah I bet they don’t use the boys then!

  151. Correct me if i’m wrong, but did’nt the defense fight against testimony of the alibi receipts? Brodsky said, they weren’t presenting a alibi because it was an accident, and the judge barred that testimony. Now they want Thomas to be DP’s
    alibi. Brodsky must have forgot, they said DP doesn’t need an alibi. Thats the reason no testimony from Thomas.

  153. My guess is that Drew wants his son on the stand – that was also the purpose of the “do the math” video clip at the time.

  154. McCoughlin
    “I’d have to review the report again . . .not within this paragraph, although this report is six pages long.”

    Does this mean one has to remember word for word what is in a six page document and have to still exactly remember that eight years later, or the lawyers get in your face about it ??

  157. Tom was raised by Drew and by all accounts turned out well.

    (Sympathy is not the right word …I think Tom ‘s purpose is to show Drew in a positive light.)

  158. Hi all, I’m making a new post that will go up automatically early tomorrow. Harley, and everyone else who posted updates and news stories–You are wonderful!

    I am hoping to be back online by noonish tomorrow, but for now thank you so much for filling this thread with info. It’s all I needed to catch up on what happened today. :)

  159. Noway,
    Could it be that the defense experts, will testify, that Kathleen died later that morning. Say between 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 a.m? At that time, Thomas was probably up, and can testify that Drew was at home, with them. Using Thomas as his alibi, instead of Stacy, or his “red folder alibi, receipts”? If that is the way they spin it, Thomas would not be lying on the stand, as Drew was home at that time in the morning. Using Thomas doesn’t look as “contrived” as using the receipts. Saving those receipts in a folder, looks like starting a fight someplace, to show he was there, and not at home.
    This is just twisting things around to fit what they need. Just more of Drew’s staging, and covering his bases.

  160. http://www.wgntv.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-drew-peterson-trial-0828-20120828,0,2093557.story?track=rss
    Drew Peterson’s defense team plans to put forensic experts, his son with Savio on stand
    Thomas Peterson expected to testify that Stacy lied about husband during talk with pastor
    By Steve Schmadeke, Matthew Walberg and Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune reporters

    “The Peterson family drama may crescendo in court Wednesday, when Thomas Peterson, Drew’s son with Savio, is expected to give testimony alleging that his adoptive mother, Stacy, was lying when she told a pastor that Drew Peterson killed Savio and coached her to lie about it.”

  161. If they call thomas peterson does that open the door for the hole drew put in wall to enter savios house?prosecution only has to ask him 2 questions. was your mother afraid of your father? and why did she have locks on bedroom door.

  163. Ha ha ha , Dmitri! It makes me think of “Little Green Bag”.
    I’m sorry the Little Red Alibi Wallet didn’t make the cut. It could have been a small bonanza for someone to produce and sell LRAWs.

    Poot Tom doesn’t need to go through this. I agree with Noway that the only purpose would be to make DP look better.

    The defense doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere, but, hey, he’s guilty!!!

Comments are closed.