Drew Peterson pre-trial hearing: The videos

Recently, I spent an afternoon looking back at all the posts and threads from January 19-February 19th, 2010. You’ll remember that this is when Drew Peterson’s pre-trial hearings took place. The prosecution called over 60 witnesses to testify about not only the Kathleen Savio murder case, but Stacy Peterson‘s disappearance. Judge Stephen White used the evidence presented during these hearings to decide which if any hearsay evidence could be admitted in Peterson’s murder trial (the judge’s decision barring some testimony was overturned in April).

Specifically, I watched all the youtube video clips from the news during the hearings. One thing that struck me was that the formula for most clips is pretty much the same. A reporter gives a run-down of the day’s events and then Joel Brodsky gets some face time to refute the testimony and/or attack the witnesses’ credibility. Although Brodsky starts sounding like a broken record (especially after watching a few clips in succession) it certainly clears away any question of “media bias”. As far as the news goes, the coverage was undeniably fair.

A lot of the evidence presented had to do with the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. It’s highly likely that none of that testimony will be heard in the trial for Kathleen Savio’s murder. But it was presented at the pre-trial hearing in order to convince the judge that Drew made Stacy unavailable to testify, and so forfeited his right to confront, which cleared the way for her hearsay evidence (what she told her pastor, a friend and attorney Harry Smith about Drew killing Kathleen) to be admitted.

I don’t think any of us can predict exactly what will end up being presented in the upcoming trial–the defense is filing motions to bar as much as they can–but the videos are an excellent refresher on the State’s witnesses (at least those available in the Winter of 2010), and the evidence against Drew Peterson. I decided to embed all the videos in one post for easy viewing.  They are in chronological order.

There are a LOT of them so pace yourself!

Drew Peterson hearsay testimony begins

Stacy Peterson’s Uncle, former boss testify at hearsay hearing

Drew Peterson’s stepbrother testifies in hearsay hearing

Drew Peterson trial and hearsay evidence. What you need to know.

The public: Three years smirk and swagger free

It’s been almost three years since Drew Peterson was arrested and charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

From the moment that the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, was reported in the fall of 2007, Peterson alienated the public. Rather than using media coverage to help find his missing wife, he first insisted that he was a jilted husband and then assumed the persona of a bad-boy celebrity. He did the morning radio show circuit joking distastefully and disparaging his wives and their families. A year later, with his current wife still missing, Peterson was engaged to a 23-year-old and offered video packages to the media for a price. He shopped around for an opportunity to appear on a reality TV show and was about to audition for one based on a Las Vegas brothel, “Cathouse”. At the time of his arrest, Drew Peterson’s popularity was at an all-time low. The public couldn’t wait to see the smirk removed from his face at trial. But that was three years ago.

For the last three years, Peterson has remained in the medical unit of the Will County Adult Detention center. Unable to pay his $2 million bail or to win motions that would let him wait out his time to trial at home, he’s been housed away from the general population for his own safety in a solitary cell. During this time his defense team and the prosecutors for the state have prepared for his trial – a lengthy process of appeals, motions and hearings. The most contentious part of these preparations has been in regards to hearsay testimony, or rather statements made by Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio to other people or in writing that could point to Peterson being responsible for Savio’s death.

While the prosecution has battled in court to get these statements admitted, Peterson’s defense and PR people have peppered the gossip columns and news shows with misleading statements about “gossip, rumor and innuendo”. These statements coupled with the “poor me” letters from Peterson that are published along with pro-Peterson editorials in a certain less-than-respected paper (Chicago Sun-Times), plus the long wait to trial have led to a measure of turn-about in the public’s feelings about Drew Peterson. As the memory of Peterson’s smirk and swagger fade, the comments threads following news stories have begun to include a number of sympathetic sentiments about the father of six, locked away so long to await his trial. A common thread in these sympathetic comments is a total misunderstanding of the hearsay evidence to be admitted.

Let’s address some of the misconceptions:

“Hearsay sucks! It means that any Tom Dick or Harry can say that someone told them something bad about me and it will be admissible in court! That’s not constitutional!”

Under the hearsay rule, Tom, Dick or Harry’s second-hand statement would not be admissible. Why? Because it would be considered unreliable evidence as it was not stated under oath, cannot be observed by the jury and judge, and cannot be cross-examined and questioned for inaccuracy and ambiguity. However, first-hand testimony from the “someone” who talked to Tom, Dick or Harry would be far more reliable and the court might want them to testify and be cross-examined.

But what if for some reason that person couldn’t testify because the accused did something to make sure that “someone” wasn’t available to testify? Well, the court makes an exception for that and perhaps Tom, Dick or Harry will get to testify after all. It’s called “Forfeiture by Wrongdoing” and it means that the accused forfeits their right to confront a witness if they themselves have done something to keep that person from testifying.

In other words:

The Constitution does not guarantee an accused person against the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts. It grants him the privilege of being confronted with the witnesses against him; but if he voluntary keeps the witnesses away, he cannot insist on the privilege. If, therefore, when absent by his procurement, their evidence is supplied in some lawful way, he is in no condition to assert that his constitutional rights have been violated.

Kathleen and Stacy’s comments to others are being admitted because the judge believes to a sufficient degree of certainty that Drew Peterson made them unavailable to testify.

“But hearsay is always wrong! There’s a rule against it!”

One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court.

The Hearsay Rule prevents most out of court statements from being used as evidence in court. Hearsay can be written, spoken, or even gestures… There are numerous exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, including dying declarations, spontaneous statements, descriptions of medical history, official records, and reputation of a person’s character…

Despite what a Sun-Times editorial might say there is no “nearly universal prohibition against hearsay evidence”.

“The prosecution made up a new law to go after Drew Peterson and that’s the only reason this hearsay is getting in to his trial!”

In November 2008 Public Act 095-1004 was passed into Illinois Law. Dubbed “Drew’s Law” by the media, it addressed a certain kind of hearsay exception. In essence it made an exception for hearsay statements when it could be shown to a reasonable extent that the accused had killed a witness in order to keep them from testifying at a trial.

Glasgow relied heavily on this statute in trying to get evidence admitted to Peterson’s trial but when eight statements were deemed unreliable due to the higher standards of reliability that the statute required, he then asked the court to consider the evidence under the common law hearsay exceptions. Ultimately the eight statements were considered “on their own merits” by a panel of three appellate justices and were deemed reliable and admissible. The new statute was not the criteria for their decision. Ironically, “Drew’s law” almost kept a majority of the hearsay evidence out of the trial.

“They are trying to get all this hearsay evidence into the trial because they don’t have any concrete evidence!”

Sadly, Kathleen Savio’s death scene was not treated as a crime scene. Those first on the scene didn’t follow the protocol for the possibility of a homicide. Beyond that, Drew Peterson was given special consideration as a police officer. His body was never examined for bruises or scratches. He was interviewed in the lunch-room of the police station where he worked. At Kathleen’s inquest, the jurors were not given the option of “undecided” as manner of death, one member of the coroner’s jury knew Peterson and told the others that he was a great guy, the ISP officer who testified was never present at the scene of Kathleen’s death. He even took it upon himself to inform the jurors of the exact location where Savio had hit her head on the tub (when it’s never been proven that she did hit her head on the tub). Kathleen Savio’s death investigation was mishandled and bungled in every possible way.

As the State’s prosecutor in this case, James Glasgow has done what he can to get as much evidence admitted to this trial as he can. If this was your mother, your daughter or your friend wouldn’t you want to see a prosecutor fight for every shred of evidence that might convict her murderer?

Possibly the strangest thing to me in regard to the opposition against these 13 hearsay statements is that those who seem the most incensed over them, never make any specific references to them. Do the opponents know what they are railing against or are they just having a knee-jerk reaction against hearsay, in general?

I have printed this list before, but I think it’s really important that people realize these are not the typical statements that are made during contentious divorces, as Peterson’s attorneys would have you believe.

So, once more here are the hearsay statements that have been deemed reliable and admissible (to the best of our knowledge):

1. Kathleen Savio’s letter to then-Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale complaining of Drew Peterson’s abuse, including an alleged July 2002 attack when he put a knife to her throat.

2. Kristin Anderson’s testimony that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003.

3. A fellow student at Joliet Junior College, Mary Park’s testimony that she saw red marks on Kathleen’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

4. Savio’s co-worker, Issam Karam’s testimony that Savio told him Peterson came into her home and held a knife to her throat.

5. Kathleen’s sister, Susan Savio’s testimony about her sister’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

6. Kathleen’s sister, Anna Doman’s testimony that shortly before she died, Savio asked Doman to care for her children if she died, saying Peterson wanted to kill her.

7. Savio’s handwritten statement attached to a Bolingbrook police report on the July 2002 incident.

8. Six audio excerpts from a June 13, 2003, taped conversation Savio had with an insurance company over a claim she put in for allegedly stolen jewelry.

9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company.

10. Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith’s testimony that Stacy contacted him about divorcing Peterson shortly before she vanished.

11. Stacy’s friend, Scott Rossetto’s testimony that she told him Peterson coached her as an alibi witness in Savio’s death.

12. The Rev. Neil Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him Peterson returned home dressed completely in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing in the early hours of Sunday morning. Stacy also told him Peterson coached her to provide his alibi.

13. Stacy’s Joliet Junior College classmate, Michael Miles’ testimony that Stacy told him before Savio’s 2004 death that Peterson wanted to kill his ex-wife but that Stacy talked him out of it.

So, if you want to support Drew Peterson, go nuts. But please don’t pretend that he’s not getting a fair deal legally. Hearsay evidence is evidence and there are no precedents being set here (scary or otherwise).  Peterson has the benefit of a six-man legal team all working hard to make sure that Peterson gets a fair shake–something most defendants can only dream about.

Sources:
Forfeiture By Wrongdoing: An Evidence Concept, by Leonard Birdsong
History of the Hearsay Rule
Hearsay in United States law

~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.~

Appellate court overturns hearsay decision. Drew Peterson finally going to trial

The appellate court has finally reconsidered the eight barred hearsay statements on their merits and have decided to reverse the earlier appellate decision to bar them. They have decided that the statements are reliable and admissable at trial which can now go forward. We could be seeing a trial as early as June!

However, this doesn’t mean that the earlier barred evidence will necessarily be heard at trial. In the decision Justice William Holdridge pointed out that,

…We do not mean to suggest, however, that the circuit court is required to admit those eight statements during the trial. Rather, we merely hold that the statements are admissible under Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and should be admitted under that rule unless the circuit court finds they are otherwise inadmissible.

In other words, the statements have been ruled admissible under the long-established common laws of forfeiture by wrongdoing, which is what James Glasgow had argued for back in February 2011, but they won’t all necessarily make it into the trial.

Although this decision is a huge win for the state, it did not come without some chastisement over the controversial hearsay statute (which has been referred to as Drew’s Law) that Glasgow first hung his case on but then ultimately begged the court to toss aside:

…one would expect the State either to enforce the statute as written or act to repeal the statute, not urge the courts to ignore it.

These are the hearsay statements that have been deemed reliable (based on our research. The original decision was sealed, but leaked). The statements in red are the ones that were originally barred but are now admissible.

1. Kathleen Savio’s letter to then-Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale complaining of Drew Peterson’s abuse, including an alleged July 2002 attack when he put a knife to her throat.

2. Kristin Anderson’s testimony that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003.

3. A fellow student at Joliet Junior College, Mary Park’s testimony that she saw red marks on Kathleen’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

4. Savio’s co-worker, Issam Karam’s testimony that Savio told him Peterson came into her home and held a knife to her throat.

5. Kathleen’s sister, Susan Savio’s testimony about her sister’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

6. Kathleen’s sister, Anna Doman’s testimony that shortly before she died, Savio asked Doman to care for her children if she died, saying Peterson wanted to kill her.

7. Savio’s handwritten statement attached to a Bolingbrook police report on the July 2002 incident.

8. Six audio excerpts from a June 13, 2003, taped conversation Savio had with an insurance company over a claim she put in for allegedly stolen jewelry.

9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company

10. Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith’s testimony that Stacy contacted him about divorcing Peterson shortly before she vanished.

11. Stacy’s friend, Scott Rossetto’s testimony that she told him Peterson coached her as an alibi witness in Savio’s death.

12. The Rev. Neil Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him Peterson returned home dressed completely in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing in the late morning on the day Savio’s body was found. Stacy also told him Peterson coached her to provide his alibi.

13. Stacy’s Joliet Junior College classmate, Michael Miles’ testimony that Stacy told him before Savio’s 2004 death that Peterson wanted to kill his ex-wife but that Stacy talked him out of it.

View this document on Scribd

~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.~

Kathleen Savio death scene photo

It recently came to our attention that a photo of the death scene of Drew Peterson‘s third wife, Kathleen Savio, has been leaked.

Numerous investigators and experts have been given access to the official report of Savio’s death, and photographs of the scene were admitted as evidence in the hearsay hearing in February 2010, but only now has this photo been seen by the public. It shows the body of Kathleen Savio curled up in the bath tub of her home. She is in a semi-fetal position, on her left hip but with her upper torso rotated downwards, an ekg lead still attached to her right shoulder. A blue towel is folded on the tub nearby – a towel that was not present at the scene when neighbors first entered the bathroom, but which was photographed later after Drew Peterson had been left alone with Kathleen’s body.

GRAPHIC CONTENT: Click the photo below to view the unblurred version.

Kathleen Savio lies dead in her tub on March 1, 2004

If Kathleen had slipped and struck her head, might she have fallen in this position? Not according to Dr. Larry Blum’s testimony for the prosecution:

Blum said the position of Savio’s body in the tub — facedown with both feet pressed hard against the tub wall, her toes hyperextended — made it “highly, highly unlikely” she drowned accidentally.

Judging from the flow of blood, it appeared a 1-inch gash on the back of her head was inflicted after her body settled in the tub, Blum said.

The pathologist said he also reviewed 43 cases of bathtub fatalities in Illinois and that Savio’s death “falls so far out of the pattern for accidental.”

Documents: Kathleen Savio Murder Case: Death Inquest, Exhumation, and Autopsy Reports

~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.~

Hearsay decision going back to appellate court for reconsideration

Today The Illinois Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reconsider whether eight (out of fourteen) hearsay statements should be allowed in Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The prosecution had petitioned the Supreme Court to look at the decision handed down in July, which deemed the state had filed its appeal too late. The state’s position was that a recent decision in the case of People v. Hanson constituted a change in the law which allowed them to appeal beyond the deadline. The state is seeking a decision on the hearsay statements based on common law statutes rather than a more constrictive and recent hearsay statute.

State’s Attorney, James Glasgow says, “I am extraordinarily pleased by Wednesday’s Illinois Supreme Court order in the matter of People v. Peterson. I look forward to receiving an Appellate Court ruling on the merits of our appeal in light of the Illinois Supreme Court’s holdings in People v. Hanson. We anticipate a trial sometime in the spring.”

This will mean a few more months of waiting for the appeal to be reconsidered, and few more months for Drew Peterson to sit in jail.

Gossip columnist Michael Sneed reports that Drew’s teen sons, Kris and Tom, visited him in jail for the first time on Saturday. Tom was home from college for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Watch the video below to see the State’s Attorney’s press conference from July. We’re kind of back there again.

Read more at:
Shorewood Patch
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Hanson Ruling

~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.~

Illinois Supreme Court decides Drew Peterson is better off in jail

I apologize if everyone is tired of this graphic, but what can I say? Once more, it’s been decided that Drew Peterson is better off staying in jail while the prosecution appeals a decision about evidence in the case of Kathleen Savio’s murder.

Peterson’s defense team has tried repeatedly to spring his release during the appeals process because Illinois law states,”a defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the state–unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail.”

It’s most likely that the compelling reason is the evidence and testimony presented at the historic hearsay hearings that took place in the winter of 2009. One could suppose that Judge Stephen White, the appellate justices and now the Illinois supreme court justices have seen and heard enough to make them believe that Peterson killed one or more of his wives. Of course, the decisions have been sealed in order to protect Peterson’s right to a fair trial.

We still wait to see if the Illinois Supreme Court will hear the prosecution’s latest appeal. That decision should come by the end of the month.

Bolingbrook Patch Story
Chicago Tribune Story

Joel Brodsky’s motion that failed to convince the justices.

View this document on Scribd

~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.~

Prosecutors appeal to Illinois Supreme Court in Peterson murder case

UPDATE 8/30/11: Joel Brodsky has filed a motion asking for Drew Peterson to be released from jail pending the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision. News stories and comments start here. The motion is embedded below. As an exhibit it also contains a transcript of the proceedings from July 7, 2010, when the State filed the certificates of impairment.

From the State’s Attorney’s office:

SPRINGFIELD – The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office today filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Drew Peterson. The petition was filed under seal to prevent potential jurors from hearing material facts and evidence in the case, thereby protecting the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office strongly disagrees with the Third District Appellate Court’s decision in July not to rule on the merits of its 2010 appeal in People v. Drew Peterson. As a result, the State’s Attorney’s Office is respectfully asking the Illinois Supreme Court to accept this appeal and rule on its merits.

~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.~

Drew Peterson hearsay decision: Prosecution filed appeal too late

Pastor Neil Schori will testify that Stacy Peterson told him a ninja-attired Drew returned to the house the night that Kathleen Savio died and put women's clothing in the washer.

A state appellate court has decided not to overturn Judge White’s decision to bar some hearsay evidence against accused wife murderer, Drew Peterson. According to the opinion, the 30-day deadline for filing the appeals was missed.

The court found the following six statements admissible:

1. portions of a letter that Kathleen wrote to the Will County State’s Attorney’s office which described a confrontation that Kathleen allegedly had with the defendant on July 5, 2002, while the divorce proceedings were pending;
2. a redacted version of a handwritten statement that Kathleen gave to the Bolingbrook police describing the alleged July 5, 2002, incident;
3. a statement that Kathleen allegedly made to her sister, Anna Doman;
4. a statement that Kathleen allegedly made in late 2003 to Mary Sue Parks, who attended nursing classes with Kathleen at Joliet Junior College;
5. another statement that Kathleen allegedly made to Parks; and
6. a statement that Stacy allegedly made to her pastor, Neil Schori, regarding an encounter that she allegedly had with her husband on the night Kathleen died.

The circuit court ruled that the remaining eight hearsay statements proffered by the State did not meet the statutory standard of reliability and that the interests of justice would not be served by the admission of those statements.

View this document on Scribd

Read and discuss today’s opinion in the comments section.

Hearsay appeal oral arguments
Read more at Fox Chicago

~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.~

Drew Peterson asks to get out of jail – again

Drew Peterson’s attorneys filed a motion today appealing the decision to keep Peterson detained while awaiting a decision on hearsay evidence. Peterson asked to be released last August as well, but was denied.

View this document on Scribd

Read more at the Shorewood Patch

~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.~

Strapped for news, media resorts to writing Drew Peterson letters in jail

Not really the letter sent from WGN news to Drew Peterson

Here at Justice Café it’s drought season when it comes to news about the Kathleen Savio murder case and the case of missing Stacy Peterson. Since the televised arguments over Judge Stephen White’s hearsay decision back in February Drew Peterson has remained jailed and awaiting an opinion from the appellate justices…and with Drew on hold, the news is on hold.

In place of any news related to the case, gossipy items have taken its place. From time to time we hear about what is going on with some member of Peterson’s family or an ex-girlfriend. More recently we’ve been treated to private letters made public by way of the tabloids, or the occasional letter written by Drew to the media, just to make sure no one has forgotten him. (You know how he loves the media!) Since he was barred from giving phone interviews while in jail, letters have become Drew’s only option for reaching out to the public.

So what is a news outlet to do if they can’t talk to Drew? Why, join the ranks of the “wacky” and “sincere” ladies (to quote Joel Brodsky) who have become Drew Peterson’s pen pals, of course!

Today, WGN ran a story about a letter that their producer, Aline Wessel, wrote to Peterson in jail, and his reply. Foregoing the customary introductory questions that a first time correspondent might ask such as, “What is your favorite color?”, “Who is your favorite group?” or even “Do you like me?”, Ms. Wessel eased into things by establishing a connection between herself and Drew Peterson by letting him know that she had attended the sister high school of his high school. Small world!

Then she got down and dirty with questions like, “How is the food in jail?”, “How are you treated in jail?” and “Do you ever watch the WGN morning news?” I think my favorite question though was, “Are you dating anyone?” Could she really be oblivious to the fact that people detained in solitary confinement are not allowed visit people face-to-face much less go out for dinner and a movie?

OK, not all the questions were quite so insipid although a good 90% of them have been answered before in Drew’s own letters to the media and in his lawyers’ frequent press releases and sound bites. She did ask him if he felt responsible for his cop son, Stephen, losing his job (after accepting guns from his father after the disappearance of Stacy Peterson). Peterson replied that he did not feel responsible.

Peterson as usual, took the opportunity to criticize the State’s Attorneys office, the Illinois State Police and the former head of the Oak Brook police force, while bemoaning the sad state of affairs that keeps him behind bars awaiting trial (not his own actions, of course – he’s being railroaded!). One can’t help but wonder how a Q & A by letter is any different than an interview by phone and is in any way more permissible.

If I were to write a letter to Drew, I’d tell him to thank his lucky stars that he has a six-person defense team of experienced lawyers making sure that he benefits from the full measure of the law. How many other accused murderers could say the same?