Kathleen Savio’s death inquest – a sister testifies

Susan Doman

Susan Doman

If you’ve been following this blog, you know that we’ve been trying to locate the full transcript of the coroner’s jury inquest into the death of Kathleen Savio from May 1, 2004.

To date we’ve been able to share with you the pages containing the testimony of Herbert Hardy (pages 7-15). We’ve now located the first six pages of the transcript, in which Susan Doman (then Savio) testifies, and we’re pleased to be able to share them with you.

EXCERPT:

Q. Is there anything else you’d like to add, ma’am?

A. Yes. I just — it’s very difficult for my family because of my sister telling us all the time, and I can figure, everyone, everything — one that she has seen that if she would die, it may look like an accident, but it wasn’t. She just told me last week, and she was terrified of him. He always threatened her. He had her in the basement one time. He did, many, many things to her. He only wished for her to go away.
And it’s just very hard for me to accept that, what happened. His reactions after this were a laughing matter. Cleaning everything out, ready to get rid of the house. It’s very hard.

Sue Doman’s testimony is especially interesting at this time, as this Friday is the date of Drew Peterson’s next hearing in which the defense will be arguing against the constitutionality of the “hearsay law”.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Advertisements

107 thoughts on “Kathleen Savio’s death inquest – a sister testifies

  1. Personally, I think this is the extent of the Inquest testimony. Sue and Hardy. There is no reference anywhere to anyone else giving testimony, including Peterson himself, the children, or any other person. There were a few responses from the “audience” when Sue was testifying, so that could account for what Walter Lee James meant by listening to testimony from a couple of the relatives.

    The autopsy report would, most likely, be a part of the transcript, as would, maybe, Kathleen’s letter(s) to the former SA asking for help. That would/could add-up to 28 pages of Inquest documents.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Lee, tell me — what was — tell me about your experience on this panel, this inquest for Kathleen Savio. What did you see? What instructions did you have?

    JAMES: Well, we were given evidence and photographs by the coroner at the time, and we were asked to review them and come to a conclusion as to the cause of death.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Now, were you just handed material, or did you actually hear from witnesses?

    JAMES: We heard from a couple of the relatives. They came in prior to our reviewing the evidence. But they left the room, and then we were left to review the evidence at hand. But we were not told…

    VAN SUSTEREN: Now…

    JAMES: Go ahead.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead. I didn’t want to interrupt you, sir. I’m sorry.

    JAMES: Well, we were not told to — we were only told to review the evidence at hand, and when we were through reviewing the evidence, come to a conclusion and then call the coroner in and tell him that we reached a conclusion.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311713,00.html

  2. BTW, we do know that the panel relied heavily on Hardy’s being dang bang sure there was no foul play. Even though he knew jack squat about the day’s events, including not getting records he said they were waiting for.

    Oh, and this, the fact that a buddy of Drew’s got to be part of the panel:

    JAMES: He — there was a police officer on the panel, and he indicated at the time he knew or knew of Peterson. And he indicated to the panel that he thought that Peterson was a good policeman. He was charitable and helped his neighbors, and so on and so forth. So I think that — I think that might have influenced some of the panel members, but I don’t know that for sure.

    Wonder what the explanation for that little problem is going to be — letting an active police officer, who “knew” the ex-husband, attend an inquest into a questionable death.

    Bah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Good point about the pages, Rescue. Plus – the whole inquest only lasted about 45 minutes. So it’s possible that Sue testified, Steve M. spoke up from the audience, then Hardy testified and after that they reviewed the written evidence and photos for the rest of that time. The testimony and evidence could very well make up the whole 28 pages.

  4. Hardy testified that they were waiting for the phone records. In fact, no one had ever checked them or even requested for them! You know the rest. No investigation at all. No interview with Mary Pontarelli.They said the file of Kathleen was very thin and there was no letter to Elisabeth Fragale.
    I think this is only the matter of time that all those who tried to cover Drew will be asked to leave the police. I would love Hardy to be the first one!

  5. Yeah, and there’s no doubt that Kathleen’s sister was adamant that Kathleen was afraid of Drew, and she told many people that if she wound up dead he did it. Contrary to any ideas the defense is putting out there that Kathleen was a scorned woman hell-bent on ruining Drew Peterson, she’s dead, and he manipulated the probate court into handing everything over to him.

    As to his rock solid alibi, now being in the hands of one of his sons, how is that going to work out? Was the kid driving around with him at all times? I wonder!

  6. I can see no other way that there will be a logical explanation for how the initial investigation was handled. I’m still not convinced it was intentional, that his buds meant to cover up a homicide, but it’s as though they were complacent, nonchalant, and didn’t want to believe he had anything to do with her death. I don’t know why, have no explanation for it, phone records were referred to but never requested, why an active police officer who “knew” Peterson was on an inquest panel that was to rule out a homicide, and I don’t know why Kathleen’s sister was brushed off when she, at the very least, questioned her death as anything other than an accident.

    I believe before they get to Drew Peterson, they have to clear a path, and it’s a messy one.

  7. It does not matter what the children said, say or will say unless Drew have influence on their phsychic. Testomonies of the closest persons of a defendant are rarely taken into account.

    That is why I asked at the end of the former thread if there is anything similar to the British Victim Personal Statement Scheme in the States. I mean that some testimonies are only restricted to a court and jury and are strictly confidential, particularly those of children.

  8. Joel Brodsky, an attorney for Drew Peterson — the ex- police sergeant from suburban Chicago, IL now charged with murdering his third wife — told the CBS Early Show Friday that one of the couple’s boys has “provided a lock-tight alibi” for the former lawman.

    Either he was driving around with him in the car at all times that he was away from his home, or something is not kosher here. Stacy provided one alibi, and now he has come up with another? Hmmmmm.

    Like that word “kosher?” I read that somewhere.

  9. I am more down-to-earth, rescue.;) I was brought up in a communist country and do not believe in miracles and good intentions when I can see 100 strange coincidences. However, I promise not to develope this issue. LOL.

  10. rescueapet :

    Joel Brodsky, an attorney for Drew Peterson — the ex- police sergeant from suburban Chicago, IL now charged with murdering his third wife — told the CBS Early Show Friday that one of the couple’s boys has “provided a lock-tight alibi” for the former lawman.

    Either he was driving around with him in the car at all times that he was away from his home, or something is not kosher here. Stacy provided one alibi, and now he has come up with another? Hmmmmm.
    Like that word “kosher?” I read that somewhere.

    Lock tight alibi yeah right!

    Ok from Kathleens sister testimony , and Steve’s we have them both saying Steve talked to her last around 12:30 am Saturday night which was actually Sunday morning. Then we have Stacy who gave Drew an alibi but according to her Drew left early Sunday morning to go get Donuts. So he did leave the house early Sunday morning. Also according to her statement to the Pastor he was gone in the middle of the night which could of been toward morning we don’t know what time it was she was calling him. So his alibi isn’t locked tight! He did leave the house!

    **Police interviewed Stacy Peterson for one hour March 3. She said she and her husband had spent the weekend with the children, backing up Peterson’s statements made to police a day earlier. She said they had spent Saturday hanging around the house and had gone to the Shedd Aquarium Sunday. The only time Peterson left was Sunday morning to get doughnuts. Savio was found later that night.

  11. PUCCINELLI: What about the fact that sources say that Stacy was repeatedly trying to call you on the day before Kathleen Savio was found dead in that bathtub?
    PETERSON: That never happened. That never happened.
    PUCCINELLI: They say there are cell phone records to reflect that she was trying to call you.
    PETERSON: Well, bring them forward. Let’s look at them. I don’t believe it. Not for a second.
    PUCCINELLI: Where were you on that day before?
    PETERSON: The day before what?
    PUCCINELLI: The day before Kathleen Savio was found dead.
    PETERSON: I was home with Stacy. Stacy had just had her wisdom teeth taken out and I had spent the weekend and the prior week with her basically babysitting her and taking care of her.

    Don’t forget the wisdom teeth! Good thing for him he went out to buy doughnuts and not bagels…

  12. facsmiley :
    Don’t forget the wisdom teeth! Good thing for him he went out to buy doughnuts and not bagels…

    Awesome catch! Yep he was out at Shedd aquariam , and buying donuts! But here he says:
    PETERSON: I was home with Stacy. Stacy had just had her wisdom teeth taken out and I had spent the weekend and the prior week with her basically babysitting her and taking care of her.

  13. MARK FUHRMAN, FMR LAPD HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, FOX ANALYST:

    Now, I was uncomfortable yesterday, I’m more comfortable today with this information. I believe it’s absolutely corroborated that Stacy told Pastor Schori that day that in that time when she finally found Drew in the house, she heard him, he was downstairs by the washing machine. She saw him. He was standing there in all black, stripping down, putting his clothes into the washing machine.

    He also had a bag in his hand that he emptied that was women’s clothes. And he looks at her and he starts telling her, explaining to her, In several hours, the police are going to be here, and they’re going to ask a lot of questions. I’m going to tell you what to say. It will be a perfect crime.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317115,00.html

    I always wonder if Fuhrman took some liberties with what the pastor told him, or if this will actually be Schori’s testimony. If it is true, it will be pretty impressive on the stand.

  14. Now I know what will be Brodsky’s line of defense:
    “Drew says he expected all of his wives to be like his mom, meticulous housekeepers. They weren’t though. If Drew gets up to take a leak in the morning he expects to have the bed made when he gets back.”

  15. Too tragic for words !

    In hindsight the inquest was marred by complacency and (deliberate ?)omission of vital information such as phone records etc.

    Also worth noting is the fact Drew already predicted the outcome of the inquest before it took place (“you’ll see it will come out to be an accident”)

    He had similar notions to Christina a few years later re an eventual arrest
    (“I will be in jail for a couple of days and will be bailed out”)

    His last prediction didn’t come to fruition as planned because no one was complacent anymore (!!)

  16. MARK FUHRMAN, FMR LAPD HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, FOX ANALYST –

    Yes, based on the information Stacy tried to ring Drew many times that night, Mark Fuhrman went searching for the phone records and to his amazement found they were never submitted (!!)

  17. PUCCINELLI: What about the fact that sources say that Stacy was repeatedly trying to call you on the day before Kathleen Savio was found dead in that bathtub?
    PETERSON: That never happened. That never happened.
    PUCCINELLI: They say there are cell phone records to reflect that she was trying to call you.
    PETERSON: Well, bring them forward. Let’s look at them. I don’t believe it. Not for a second.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    That’s also a very strange comment by Drew as if there are absolutely no phone records because he was in bed with his wife during the night as he says he was, why would he even say “I don’t believe it”

    That would not be a question of “believe”, it would be stating a fact !

  18. September 30, 2009 at 9:13 pm | #27
    Quote

    Right. Wouldn’t he just say, “There aren’t any phone records!” Wasn’t he the guy paying her cell phone bill?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Exactly and if you’re both in bed during a particular night (Drew even went as far to say he and Stacy were “making love” all night – UGH !), you’d know for sure there were no phone calls made, so what is there to believe or not believe !

  19. It was important for Drew to have the “investigation” and “inquest” steered towards “accidental death”, so HE could cash up on all fronts and it therefore appears unlikely many or any of his collegues, co-workers or Superiors would deliberately have taken part in his personal quest for riches.

    He most likely used and abused their friendship, collegiality or his usual “I would have taken a bullet for you” approach, while he orchestrated things to go his way.

    Remember how he is always testing everyones loyalty in order to manipulate them !

  20. justanotherhen :
    MARK FUHRMAN, FMR LAPD HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, FOX ANALYST –
    Yes, based on the information Stacy tried to ring Drew many times that night, Mark Fuhrman went searching for the phone records and to his amazement found they were never submitted (!!)

    Furthermore, there was not even search warrant issued for these records.

  21. Posted: Thursday, 01 October 2009 3:08PM

    Could Drew Peterson Go Free?

    Steve Miller Reporting
    CHICAGO (WBBM) — The attorney for Drew Peterson says Peterson could be a free man again as soon as next week – depending on what happens in court tomorrow.

    Drew Peterson will be in Will County court in connection with charges that he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    The judge is expected to rule on a defense motion for a change of venue, and the judge is expected to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the so-called “Drew’s Law,” hearsay testimony that would allow statements by the missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, into evidence.

    Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky says odds that the judge will rule in Peterson’s favor – and not allow the hearsay testimony – are better than even.

    And Brodsky says he expects prosecutors would appeal.

    “And if they do appeal, under Illinois State Supreme Court rules, Drew Peterson will get out of jail. And that could happen – if everything goes in our favor – it could happen as early as next week.”

    A spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow says Glasgow is confident the hearsay law will pass constitutional muster.

    Contents of this site are Copyright 2009 by WBBM.

    http://www.wbbm780.com/Could-Drew-Peterson-Go-Free-/5344656

  22. I don’t get the logic here. Why would Peterson go free because there is an appeal? I thought we looked into it and didn’t see anything definitive saying that people automatically go free because of an appeal.

    Anyway, Joel said a short while ago that he expects the prosecution to appeal if the judge rules against them tomorrow but expected a final decision before the end of October on the hearsay evidence. That doesn’t sound very lengthy…

  23. Good point, Facs. I thought oral arguments were to be presented tomorrow on the Hearsay issue, so wouldn’t there be some time gap between that and when Judge White renders his decision? Brodsky is already declaring a decision for tomorrow. I’m confused about that.

  24. A refresher of Joel’s latest statements on the Scared Monkeys radio show:

    Hearsay Law:
    We’re saying that there’s a law in Illinois, recently passed, kind of referred to as “The Drew Peterson Law”, and the State’s Attoreny admits that it was in response to the Drew Peterson case and the Stebic case, and that he drafted this law in response to these cases. What they are trying to say is if someone kills a spouse in order to prevent them testifying in a domestic violence case, then what the spouse said at any time to any body would come in as evidence at the murder trial.
    (He goes on to say that the law allows gossip and statements made during contentious divorces to come in to trial and that it’s wrong).

    Status of that arguement:
    There will probably be another appeal after the hearing, but w’ell probably see a decision before the end of october.

  25. BTW, the Hearsay Law that the defense is disputing only addresses a very particular kind of hearsay statement and it is NOT what Joel describes above:

    Synopsis As Introduced
    Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the short title.

    Senate Floor Amendment No. 1
    Deletes reference to:
    720 ILCS 5/1-1
    Adds reference to:
    725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 new

    Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Provides that a statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness. Provides that the admissibility of the statement shall be determined by the court at a hearing outside of the presence of a jury. At the hearing, the proponent of the statement bears the burden of proving the wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence.

    House Committee Amendment No. 1
    Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Provides that a statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of the first degree murder statute intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding. Provides that while intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness. Provides that the murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered. Provides that if the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not have ever been prosecuted. Provides that the admissibility of the statements shall be determined by the court at a pretrial hearing. Establishes criteria which such statement may be admitted into evidence.

    http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2718&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=37188&SessionID=51&SpecSess=

  26. If memory serves me correctly, the case that Joel cited to show that Drew could “go free” was that in which a young woman was accused of murder related to a drunk driving charge. She was already under house arrest, and when a lengthy appeal process began, her bail amount was reduced and her parents were allowed to put up the equity in their home in order to allow her freedom during that process. Someone correct me if I’m wrong and post more info about it if you have it.

    At any rate, I have a hard time drawing a correlation between the two cases.

  27. Facs – I was the one who mentioned that case. My sister-in-law’s nephew was killed in that horrific crash and they were all upset that during the prosecutor’s appeal that she was basically allowed to run free without any limitations during the appeals process. She still has never gone to trial and the crash was 2.5 years ago already.

    I don’t think Joel ever used it as an example though.

  28. facsmiley :
    OK – I see it was Noway that brought it up on our blog and linked to the Supreme Court ruling:

    Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his or her continued detention or being held to bail.

    http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_VI/ArtVI.htm#601

    We can sleep well. There are reasons.

    I am just a little bit suspicious about Joel’s statement.I still cannot forget the gun case. Does he have any leaks from the court or his brain has already evaporated?

  29. Maybe I’m wrong, but I expect to see Lisa Bloom spewing on tv tonight. We’ll see. She and Brodskers are chummo now.

    BTW: We’re working on getting a response from Karen Conti on Brodsky’s comments, and we’ll post it when available. She’s looking into it.

  30. Isn’t the change of venue supposed to be decided tomorrow? I think that will be of much more interest than the hearsay arguments…I mean, we already know what they are going to present.

  31. Okay, folks, here’s Karen Conti’s explanation regarding all of this:

    Karen Conti: “Here’s the analysis. If the Court strikes the hearsay law, the State will appeal. It is a permissive appeal and is at the State’s request. Joel then demands trial and the Speedy Trial Act kicks into play requiring trial within a certain time period. The State has to go to trial or release him from his bond. I’m guessing, but I can’t imagine that the State would give up the appellate issue just to keep Peterson in jail. Especially because the hearsay evidence is so very compelling—and may be the only real, good evidence of his guilt (to my knowledge, there is no physical evidence tying him to the scene, nor are there any eye witnesses.)”

    Rescue & Facs: Thank you. But, what does this mean:

    Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his or her continued detention or being held to bail.
    http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_VI/ArtVI.htm#601

    One more thing. Peterson waived his right to a speedy trial. could Joel still bring that into court?

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/drew-peterson-waives-right-to-speedy-trial-lawyer-charges-improper-conduct-with-regard-to-fiancee/

    Thanks!

    Karen Conti: “Sorry, but that is not a rule that I’ve ever used. It seems pretty clear as stated. But, Peterson would still have to deal with the “unless there are compelling reasons” language. If I were the prosecutor I would argue that the compelling reason to continue to hold him is that he killed Stacy—a potential witness. That’s likely the rule that Joel is going under—not the speedy trial act as I stated, but this rule probably is based upon the same idea. You cannot hold someone in jail unnecessarily without a trial and if the State chooses to appeal, the defendant does not bear the burden of that potentially lengthy time out period.

    Ya learn something new every day.”

  32. Ah, I think I’m getting this speedy trial thing now. Peterson had the right to a speedy trial, within 120 days. That period of time came and went. He waived that 120 days option. Now, with Brodsky saying they were 80% through the discovery, what with adding recent law school grads, etc., they’re ready to request a trial. The case will be delayed if the Judge rules in the defense’s favor, by the State appealing the decision. That cuts into the defendant’s right to proceed to trial in a reasonable time, thus, giving him a get-out-of-jail card.

    Of course, as Karen Conti said, and some others might think, there’s the issue of “compelling reasons” to keep him there. We shall see.

  33. Drew has certainly provided enough “compelling reasons” in his media stunts and behavior to “compell” the judge to keep his rear planted in a Will County Jail cell.

  34. Thank you, Karen, for your explanation of the law. Your input on the site is greatly appreciated!!! We’re lucky to have you!!!

  35. rescueapet :Maybe I’m wrong, but I expect to see Lisa Bloom spewing on tv tonight. We’ll see. She and Brodskers are chummo now.
    BTW: We’re working on getting a response from Karen Conti on Brodsky’s comments, and we’ll post it when available. She’s looking into it.

    She might be busy digging into the whole David Leterman scandal that just broke. David trumps Drew and Joel.

  36. cyrhla :

    facsmiley :OK – I see it was Noway that brought it up on our blog and linked to the Supreme Court ruling:

    Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his or her continued detention or being held to bail.

    http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_VI/ArtVI.htm#601

    We can sleep well. There are reasons.
    I am just a little bit suspicious about Joel’s statement.I still cannot forget the gun case. Does he have any leaks from the court or his brain has already evaporated?

    I vote “evaporation.’ We also just ended the month and a billing cycle. I don’t think six months in jail was quite what his client had in mind when he was arrested.

  37. The Murderer Has Been In Will County Jail Since
    Thursday, May 7, 2009 5:35 pm

    147 Days
    3536 hours
    212205 minutes
    12732370 seconds

  38. Is the fact that Drew was intimidating witnesses a good reason?

    1. Sharon Bychowsky
    2. Thomas Morphey
    3. Lenn & Paula ( I mean their son)
    4. Pastor Shori

    That’s all I can think of, but I guess that they are not the only ones.
    What about all the witnesses that stepped forward? The gun man, for instance?

  39. Now, when Drew knows who testified against him, I think it would be just stupid to let him out. Didn’t he plan to escape? This is on the tapes Paula and Lenny recorded, right? I strongly believe Glasgow is prepared for that.

  40. He is so not getting out. A pre-trial appeal can’t trump a (confirmed!) 20 million dollar bail, can it? $20 million = a lot of compelling.

    I wonder how they’re doing with their claim against his insurance for legal fees.

  41. bucketoftea :
    He is so not getting out. A pre-trial appeal can’t trump a (confirmed!) 20 million dollar bail, can it? $20 million = a lot of compelling.
    I wonder how they’re doing with their claim against his insurance for legal fees.

    The judge is probably going to reduce the bail to $19,999,999.99 and let Drew have Tarrot cards in his cell!

  42. Ha ha ha. The insurance claim…I was having a stab at mocking in a rhetorical way,
    but you’re right! drew innocent=never lol

  43. Should Peterson trial be moved out of Will County?
    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
    Published: 10/2/2009 9:09 AM

    A judge may rule today whether Drew Peterson’s high-profile murder trial should be moved out of Will County.

    His defense team argues the former Bolingbrook police sergeant cannot get a fair trial there due to all the media exposure and his 30-year local law enforcement career.

    A trial date has not been set, but Will Circuit Judge Stephen White made the usual move Aug. 13 of admonishing about 240 potential jurors to avoid all Peterson media coverage.

    White may choose to allow the case to remain in Will County until the potential jurors are individually questioned. If the majority cannot be impartial, prosecutors are expected to agree with the defense that the trial should be held elsewhere.

    Peterson, 55, is charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, 40, who mysteriously drowned in her bathtub in March 2004. He has remained in the Will County jail on a $20 million bond since his May 7 arrest. His lawyers said the trial could come in the next several months because Peterson is eager to win his freedom.

    They characterize the media attention as “inflammatory,” but prosecutors countered that its Peterson who has turned the criminal case into a media circus. For example, a jailed Peterson called a radio show over the summer and cracked jokes about jail showers and a “Win a Conjugal Visit with Drew” contest.

    Prosecutors said Peterson killed Savio because he faced financial devastation from the couple’s ongoing divorce as he tried to begin a new life with his fourth wife, Stacy – with whom he had an extramarital affair – and their baby. They said Peterson even offered a state witness $25,000 to kill Savio months before her mysterious death.

    The media fervor grew after Stacy vanished in October 2007 amid their marital troubles. Stacy has never been found. Peterson has not been charged with her disappearance, which sparked authorities to reinvestigate Savio’s death.

    Also today, lawyers will debate whether Illinois’ hearsay law is constitutional. His lawyers want to prevent prosecutors from using statements Savio made before her death. They argue the law is unconstitutional because it would allow in unreliable evidence and also because it was passed after the crime was committed.

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=325917

  44. Sort of off topic here, but Facs said

    September 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm | #32
    Quote

    I’m starting to gain a very new and different perspective on televised media after seeing Dr. Phil call Armstrong’s book “excellent” and folks turning to Joel as some sort of legal “expert”….

    * * * * * *

    It’s the producer of 48 Hours, the man responsible for the shameless programs about Amanda Knox full of “inaccuracies” and defense propaganda that’s been arrested for blackmailing David Letterman.

  45. Wow, bucket!

    And to stay on topic, we put up a poll at the top of the page so you can vote on whether or not you think Drew should get out of jail if there is an appeal on the hearsay decision.

    I can’t wait to see what happens today regarding the change of venue!

  46. justanotherhen :
    September 30, 2009 at 9:13 pm | #27
    Quote
    Right. Wouldn’t he just say, “There aren’t any phone records!” Wasn’t he the guy paying her cell phone bill?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Exactly and if you’re both in bed during a particular night (Drew even went as far to say he and Stacy were “making love” all night – UGH !), you’d know for sure there were no phone calls made, so what is there to believe or not believe !

    *making gagging sounds*

    Where does his son fit into this scenario as far as providing a lock-tight alibi?

  47. Oh yuck!!

    Now I have to admit stupid….I read the vote wrong and clicked No, thinking I was saying that I didn’t think he should be let out. I absolutely think he should remain in jail.

  48. Peterson denied change of venue
    Comments
    October 2, 2009
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s bid to move his trial to a different venue was denied Friday morning.

    Defense attorneys for Peterson had wanted the proceedings moved out of Will County, saying the former Bolingbrook police sergeant could not get a fair trial here.

    Will County Judge Stephen White rejected the request Friday.

    Peterson was arrested in May and charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He is being held at the Will County Jail.

    In March 2004, the 43-year-old mother of two was found dead in a dry bathtub at her Bolingbrook home.

    Savio and Peterson were in the middle of an acrimonious divorce.

    Her death initially was ruled accidental. When Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, 23, disappeared in late 2007, authorities took another look at the case and decided Savio’s death was actually a homicide.

    Defense attorney’s and prosecutors Friday also were expected to argue the constitutionality of the so-called Drew’s Law, which would allow some types of hearsay as evidence.

  49. The defense doesn’t have a good track record for rulings! What actually went in their favor so far?

    The gun charges were dropped for reasons we all know, the defense didn’t “win” with its outstanding lawyering. I don’t hold much stock in anything they present to this Judge. Because, any lawyers that can’t even control their own client, meaning his blabbermouthing, can’t be all that bright. And, if they were all for the blabbermouthing, they sure gambled on something that isn’t a sure thing.

  50. From Madigan’s Objection:

    The threshold question, then is whether the statements that the People seek to introduce in this case are testimonial, and at the very least statements two through nine are not. These statements were made to people indistinguishable from the “friends,” “neighbors,” and “physicians” mentioned in Giles: statement number two – Kathleen to a roommate; three and four – Katheen to a fellow student; five – Kathleen to a co-worker; six and seven – Kathleen to her sisters; eight – Stacy to a friend; and nine – Stacy to a pastor. Accordingly, these statements are all non-testimonial.

    So it seems like they are arguing not only the constitutionality of the law but whether or not the statements would be allowed. It’s confusing.

  51. And although it doesn’t change the story about change of venue being denied, Kathleen was not 43 at the time of her death. I think she was 40 as stated above in the transcript of the coroner’s jury. She was born in 1963 and would have been 41 that year (June 13, 2004).

  52. IMO, the breaking point was the change of the judge. It was a very smart move of Glasgow and he was absolutely right that Richard Schoenstedt was partial. Even the search warrant itself suggested that the time of seizure might be long, because performing specific DNA tests sometimes take months; and the judge (knowing that Stacy could have been transported by one of Drew’s cars) told the police to return all the vehicles, just after three months, basing his opinion on the “expert” called in by … Brodsky. Then he ordered to return the guns.
    Then the gun case: he could refuse Brodsky wanting to get the investigation documents, but he did not; he could have examined them by himself and make a decision. Some lawyer said so.

    So you are absolutely right, rescue, that it was not the matter of Brodsky’s outstanding lawyering.

  53. Hmm. So is Brodsky saying that the law is unconstitutional in regard to all hearsay evidence or just in regard to the specific hearsay evidence in the murder trial of Drew Peterson?

    Would the next lawyer who feels the law is unconstitutional need to argue the unconstitutionality of the law in regard to specific evidence in his client’s case?

  54. noway406 :
    And although it doesn’t change the story about change of venue being denied, Kathleen was not 43 at the time of her death. I think she was 40 as stated above in the transcript of the coroner’s jury. She was born in 1963 and would have been 41 that year (June 13, 2004).

    Yoy are right, noway. I have also noticed that.

  55. ~snipped from article~

    Defense attorney’s and prosecutors Friday also were expected to argue the constitutionality of the so-called Drew’s Law, which would allow some types of hearsay as evidence.

    I think it’s the law as a whole, not as it relates to specifics in a case.

    *Sending online kick in the shins to JH for even calling it the “so-called” Drew’s Law.*

  56. As to Blobsky saying DP could go free as early as next week, he also agreed w. DP’s contention that he would never spend more than a day or two in jail. (I just hope Blobbo continues his winning streak and his murdering client remains incarcerated.)

  57. Decision regarding Hearsay Law is being made at 1:30 Chicago time according to Chicago Breaking News. 3 minutes from now

  58. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/….rder-trial.html

    Drew Peterson lost his bid today to move his murder trial outside of Will County.

    Will County Judge Stephen White this morning denied the motion by attorneys for Peterson, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant accused of slaying his third wife Kathleen Savio.

    After the ruling, White heard arguments for more than an hour on the legality of Illinois’ new hearsay exception law. Prosecutors intend to use the law to admit into evidence statements Savio made to her family, friends and others.
    White called for a recess and said he would give his decision at 1:30 p.m.

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has argued that widespread publicity would make it difficult for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant to get a fair trial in Will County.

    The motion cited stories about Peterson that ran in the Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post and local television stations.

    Some of the stories detailed the order of protection Savio took out against Peterson and the letters she mailed out before her death. The motion argued that they exposed jurors to “highly significant information which may not be admissible at trial.”

    Peterson’s attorneys also objected to a 2008 press release from the Will County state’s attorney’s office that announced that results of an autopsy on Savio’s exhumed remains concluding her death was a homicide.

    The complete autopsy was not released, only the manner of death, which his attorneys said “prejudiced the jury pool in regards to the most contested fact of the entire case — namely the manner of death.”

  59. Brodsky accepts the fact that THREE pathologist agreed that the case of Kathleen’s death was drowning. But he wants to forget that (at least) two of them claim it was a homicide.
    Baden’s autopsy is not confidential.
    http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/23/2109.001.pdf

    How can the jury be “prejudiced” if two experts rule this death a homicide. Does he want to question the pathologists and arrange another autopsy to be run by the jurors or a pathologist from another country?

    The jurors are not pathologists and they want to know the manner of death, not the details.

  60. The Tribune is reporting that the Judge said he’d announce his decision regarding the hearsay argument at 1:30. Since we’ve not yet heard anything, I wonder if the attorneys are discussing the ramifications of his decision at this time. No word has gotten out yet.

  61. Judge upholds ‘Drew’s Law’ in Peterson case

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/foxva….100209.article#

    JOLIET – A Will County judge Friday upheld a hearsay law seen as critical in the Drew Peterson case.

    Judge Stephen White said the so-called Drew’s Law is constitutional and can be applied retroactively.

    Former Bolingbrook police Officer Drew Peterson (left), his missing fourth wife, Stacy, and his late third wife Kathleen Savio. Peterson is charged with killing Savio.

    Earlier Friday, White denied a request by Peterson’s defense attorneys that the trail be moved out of Will County. Lawyers claimed the former Bolingbrook police sergeant could not get a fair trial here.

    Peterson was arrested in May and charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He is being held at the Will County Jail.

    In March 2004, the 43-year-old mother of two was found dead in a dry bathtub at her Bolingbrook home.

    Savio and Peterson were in the middle of an acrimonious divorce.

    Her death initially was ruled accidental. When Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, 23, disappeared in late 2007, authorities took another look at the case and decided Savio’s death was actually a homicide.

    Defense attorney’s and prosecutors Friday argued the constitutionality of Drew’s Law, which allows some types of hearsay as evidence.

    In August, Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office sought to intervene in the case because the challenge of the law raised constitutional issues.

  62. Thanks, Lostacres. I could NOT get that story to load at the news sites!

    Judge Stephen White said the so-called Drew’s Law is constitutional and can be applied retroactively.

  63. All I have to say is, for a group of defense lawyers that strut around and bark bullshit the way they do, they sure have a lousy track record for getting rulings in favor of their client.

    I mean, in the end, isn’t that what it’s all about? Form intelligent defense theories, apply them, and hope that your educated remarks and responses win over the judge?

    Instead it’s been nothing more than Bozo’s Circus is on the air. It shows.
    In this case, these

  64. There never was an issue of whether or not he could post bail. He has always been able to do that -he just needs to come up with $2,000,000.00 in cash. “Just.”

  65. I’ll tell you how you can take your mind off today’s disasters, Joel. See if you can persuade him to tell you what he did with Stacy, and then we’ll all get off your back and go home. Suuuuuure you can trust us to keep our word….

  66. From Chicago Breaking News
    “Peterson’s attorneys said they would notify prosecutors whether they intend to introduce their own hearsay evidence by Oct. 29, their client’s next court date.”

    Their hearsay should be a right larf. You suppose JB’s relieved he doesn’t have to face the reporters today?

Comments are closed.