Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearing – Day 13: Classmate and Pathologist on the stand

We’ll be updating throughout the day as we get information. Please make sure to check out the comments thread for the latest!

~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

108 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearing – Day 13: Classmate and Pathologist on the stand

  1. Falat said he told Collins and other superior officers that he thought both Peterson and his wife were less than truthful during their interviews and that both should be questioned again. That did not happen.

    Within days of Savio’s death, Falat’s assignment was changed and he was off the case.

  2. Defense attorney Andrew Abood asked Deel if the state’s attorney’s office was so critical about his handling of the Savio death scene that “they sent a letter” to state police.

    Deel said no letter was sent, but he admitted prosecutors told his bosses they do not want him working crime scenes in Will County anymore.

    That is the best decision they could make if he, the Chief of the Region in forensics, does not know what to do on the crime scene. Even a trooper knew the procedures better.

  3. Falat also said he relayed information about a used condom he found in a trash basket in Savio’s bathroom to state police Crime Scene Investigator Bob Deel, but apparently was again not listened to.

    “He did not tell me that,” Deel testified.

    Does it mean Falat took it with him and Deel found nothing in the trash basket?LOL

    Can you feel how it stinks from the distance?

  4. cyrhla:
    Falat said he told Collins and other superior officers that he thought both Peterson and his wife were less than truthful during their interviews and that both should be questioned again. That did not happen.

    Within days of Savio’s death, Falat’s assignment was changed and he was off the case.

    ..very interesting. Who made that decision ?

  5. writerofwrongs :
    cyrhla:
    Falat said he told Collins and other superior officers that he thought both Peterson and his wife were less than truthful during their interviews and that both should be questioned again. That did not happen.
    Within days of Savio’s death, Falat’s assignment was changed and he was off the case.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ..very interesting. Who made that decision ?

    I guess it was Drew Peterson.

  6. “Deel said no letter was sent, but he admitted prosecutors told his bosses they do not want him working crime scenes in Will County anymore”.

    IMO, since everyone seemed to be on the same erroneous page w/this investigation, i.e. ‘accident’, this demand could not have come from this case-or at least not this case only. What else did he screw up on?

  7. facsmiley :

    Defense attorneys will be able to present their own witnesses, but they haven’t said how many they’ll call.

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=357049&src=2
    This is the first I’ve heard of this.

    Saw basically the same thing in another article a few days ago, but that they (the defense) was not expected to call any witnesses. Will see if I can find it. If they do decide to call any, it should be interesting.

  8. Oh! Me, too, Facs. Interesting. I think it’s logical. (who the hell can they call? Steve Carcerano? Mike Robinson? the mind boggles)

  9. IMO, if the defense wants to continue to appear as if opposed to the admission of hearsay statements, they won’t present any of their own.

    “It allows rumor, backyard gossip and innuendo come into a court of law

  10. There were several articles out earlier about the defense not expected to present witnesses, and I agree Facs…excellent point. Here’s something else Brodsky said:

    http://312weekly.com/3653/witness-savio-said-peterson-had-threatened-her-at-knifepoint/

    “All it is, is rumor, innuendo and gossip,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said after a recent hearing concerning information contained in the 15 statements. “People had ulterior motives for saying what they said or are out-and-out unreliable people.”

    The defense is not expected to call any witnesses of its own during the hearing.

    “This is them (prosecutors) laying out their case,” Brodsky said. “People should not think this is going to be the trial.”

    But, he said, the hearing still will help Peterson.

    “We think that even in this questioning, a lot of beliefs that people have about what was said and who said them are going to be burst, dashed,” he said.

    Wonder if he’s still feeling like it’s going to help Drew….

  11. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/witness-savio-felt-moving-wouldnt-save-her.html

    Witness: Savio felt moving wouldn’t save her
    February 5, 2010 11:45 AM

    Though she feared for her life, Kathleen Savio refused to move out of Bolingbrook because she believed she could not escape Drew Peterson’s clutches, a former nursing classmate testified this morning.

    “He had friends everywhere,” said Mary Parks, who took classes with Savio in 2002 and 2003. “She would not be able to hide.”
    Parks’ testimony comes on the 13th day of a landmark hearsay hearing after which a Will County judge will decide which, if any, of 15 hearsay statements prosecutors may admit as evidence at any future murder trial for Peterson, accused in the death of his third wife. Prosecutors say the statements will allow Savio to speak from the grave if Peterson goes to trial.

    Parks testified that Savio showed her red marks on Savio’s neck in the fall of 2003 and told her Peterson had choked her. Savio said as Peterson pinned her down he asked, “Why don’t you just die?”

    A woman who lived with Savio during that same time period testified earlier this week that there were no altercations between Savio and Peterson that fall.

    Peterson and Savio had been engaged in a bitter post-divorce dispute over money and custody of their two children. Savio believed Peterson was hiding money from her, questioning among other things how he could afford to buy another house in their Bolingbrook neighborhood on a police officer’s salary, Parks said.

    “She wasn’t going to give up what was rightfully hers,” Parks testified.

    Parks, who said she had been in an abusive relationship in the past, testified she never called police to report Savio’s fears because she didn’t want to make a bad situation worse.

    By late 2003–just a few months before her death–Savio had grown thin and pale, Parks said, adding Savio had trouble sleeping and became obsessed with making sure her doors were locked. Savio was convinced that her ex-husband planned to kill her, Parks said.

    “It became very scary because he was a big ego with a gun,” she said.

  12. Savio believed Peterson was hiding money from her, questioning among other things how he could afford to buy another house in their Bolingbrook neighborhood on a police officer’s salary, Parks said.

    That’s the point. Power of attorney.

  13. A woman who lived with Savio during that same time period testified earlier this week that there were no altercations between Savio and Peterson that fall.

    That’s not what she testified to, but rather for the TWO months or so that she lived there, not the entire FALL. Could have happened before she moved in, or after she moved out. Good grief!

  14. A woman who lived with Savio during that same time period testified earlier this week that there were no altercations between Savio and Peterson that fall.

    Anderson said she lived with Kathleen in the late 2003 (for TWO months) so I do not understand what for such a suggestion has been made. When she moved out the fighting started again. That’s all.

  15. cyrhla :Sorry, cfs, you were first .

    No problem cyrhla. 😀 She also didn’t say there were no altercations, only that Drew stayed away. Wonder who wrote that article anyway??

  16. Witness suggests Savio killed over money

    Associated Press – February 5, 2010 1:04 PM ET

    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) – A witness in a pretrial hearing for Drew Peterson has suggested that money was a big part of why the former Bolingbrook police sergeant may have wanted his ex-wife dead.

    On the witness stand Friday, Mary Parks said Kathleen Savio told her Peterson didn’t want her to get any money, any share of businesses the two owned or child support. Parks studied nursing with Savio.

    Peterson has pleaded not guilty in Savio’s 2004 death. The hearing is to determine whether hearsay evidence will be allowed at his trial.

    Parks also testified that she, like 2 of Savio’s other friends, contacted authorities after Savio’s death to express concerns about Peterson. But Parks says prosecutors told her there was no investigation into Savio’s death.

    Parks also is the latest witness to testify that Savio feared Peterson would kill her.

    http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11940275

  17. cfs7360 :

    cyrhla :Sorry, cfs, you were first .

    No problem cyrhla. She also didn’t say there were no altercations, only that Drew stayed away. Wonder who wrote that article anyway??

    –Stacy St. Clair

    Her comments are sometimes a little bit upseting.

  18. The difference in these two articles is scary. So which is it? Did she call police/authorities or not?

    Parks, who said she had been in an abusive relationship in the past, testified she never called police to report Savio’s fears because she didn’t want to make a bad situation worse.
    ———————————————-
    Parks also testified that she, like 2 of Savio’s other friends, contacted authorities after Savio’s death to express concerns about Peterson. But Parks says prosecutors told her there was no investigation into Savio’s death.

  19. cfs7360 :
    The difference in these two articles is scary. So which is it? Did she call police/authorities or not?
    Parks, who said she had been in an abusive relationship in the past, testified she never called police to report Savio’s fears because she didn’t want to make a bad situation worse.
    ———————————————-
    Parks also testified that she, like 2 of Savio’s other friends, contacted authorities after Savio’s death to express concerns about Peterson. But Parks says prosecutors told her there was no investigation into Savio’s death.

    She probably meant she did not call the police before Kathleen’s death but after Drew killed Kathy.

  20. Peterson and Savio had been engaged in a bitter post-divorce dispute over money and custody of their two children. Savio believed Peterson was hiding money from her, questioning among other things how he could afford to buy another house in their Bolingbrook neighborhood on a police officer’s salary, Parks said.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    the thing also owned an airplane, as well as other assorted “toys” which means he had IMHO residual income from other sources..the bar perhaps ? Cash businesses are notorious for under-reporting or laundering income. Bars are probably # 1 for that.

    For the thing called Drew to buy another house while still legally married to Kathleen Savio and KS’s name not to be on title would have required KS to sign off on her homestead rights in person and in the presence of the title company closer who represents the lender in the transaction. My guess is that whatever affadavit was submitted was forged and KS had no idea. It is outside normal business practices for the title company to accept a pre-signed affadavit and IMHO there is at least one lawyer affiliated with this title company who also wishes he/she never laid eyes on the thing. Lender can sue title company, BTW and this is not my opinion.

  21. I think I may see the differences in reporting…maybe. One (Stacy St. Clair) may have been reporting on Parks’ statement prior to Kathleen’s death, and the other reporter was reporting on Parks’ statement after Kathleen’s death. Or am I totally confused?

  22. Writer, I’m not a hand writing expert, but even with my old eyes, I can tell that Kathleen’s signature on that POA definitely looks like a forgery, and then for Drew to actually notarize the document himself? I was a notary myself, and would never have done such a thing for a personal document. It’s still amazing to me how all of this fell through the cracks and got through the system.

  23. cyrhla :

    cfs7360 :The difference in these two articles is scary. So which is it? Did she call police/authorities or not?Parks, who said she had been in an abusive relationship in the past, testified she never called police to report Savio’s fears because she didn’t want to make a bad situation worse.———————————————-Parks also testified that she, like 2 of Savio’s other friends, contacted authorities after Savio’s death to express concerns about Peterson. But Parks says prosecutors told her there was no investigation into Savio’s death.

    She probably meant she did not call the police before Kathleen’s death but after Drew killed Kathy.

    Just figured that one out cyrhla, and then I saw your post. Thanks.

  24. It looked pretty simple.

    Instrument: R2002072860 Old Doc Ref No: Book/Page:
    Recorded: 4/30/2002 9:13:00 AM Consideration: $ Pages: 2
    Document Type: Appointment Comments:
    Document Date: 4/24/2002
    Grantor: PETERSON KATHLEEN
    Grantee: ORTINAU JEFFERY

    This happened on the day the Power of Attorney was forged:
    Instrument: R2002072859 Old Doc Ref No: Book/Page:
    Recorded: 4/30/2002 9:13:00 AM Consideration: $220,000.00 Pages: 2
    Document Type: Trustees Deed Comments:
    Document Date: 3/4/2002
    Grantor: LA SALLE BANK
    128436 LSB
    Grantee: PETERSON DREW W

    The next day he is granted a loan:

    Instrument: R2002072861 Old Doc Ref No: Book/Page:
    Recorded: 4/30/2002 9:13:00 AM Consideration: $226,600.00 Pages: 17
    Document Type: ge Comments:
    Document Date: 4/25/2002
    Grantor: PETERSON DREW W
    Grantee: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC

    Then:
    Instrument: R2003310253 Old Doc Ref No: Book/Page:
    Recorded: 12/29/2003 9:10:00 AM Consideration: $ Pages: 2
    Document Type:
    Quit Claim Deed Comments:
    Document Date: 10/9/2003
    Grantor: PETERSON DREW W
    Grantee: PETERSON DREW W
    CALES STACY A

    and in December he was already married to Stacy and the house was his.
    Instrument: R2003310254 Old Doc Ref No: Book/Page:
    Recorded: 12/29/2003 9:10:00 AM Consideration: $ Pages: 2
    Document Type: Quit Claim Deed Comments:
    Document Date: 11/17/2003
    Grantor: PETERSON DREW W
    PETERSON STACY A
    PETERSON STACY
    CALES STACY A
    Grantee: PETERSON DREW W
    PETERSON STACY A

    Then he started looking for a hitman.

  25. cfs7360 :
    Writer, I’m not a hand writing expert, but even with my old eyes, I can tell that Kathleen’s signature on that POA definitely looks like a forgery, and then for Drew to actually notarize the document himself? I was a notary myself, and would never have done such a thing for a personal document. It’s still amazing to me how all of this fell through the cracks and got through the system.

    Glad to hear it! (btw great to see you) What I don’t get is how this in itself didn’t throw all the pigeons in the air because doesn’t his auto-noto (don’t worry, it’s not legal term; I made it up)automatically nullify it?

  26. joehosey
    The forensic pathologist who conducted the second autopsy on Kathleen Savio said she was a victim of a homicide. Dr. Larry Blum said
    3 minutes ago from txt

    The injuries found on Savio’s body were inconsistent with falling in a bathtub. He also ruled out suicide. Blum revealed the first
    1 minute ago from txt

    Details of the autopsy performed after Savio’s body was exhumed in November 2007. Prior to Blum’s testimony, Joliet Junior College

    Classmate of Savio’s said Savio told her that her husband, Drew Peterson abused her and threatened to kill her. The classmate, Mary

    Parks, also said she encouraged Savio to go to the police, but Savio believed they would not protect her.

    http://twitter.com/joehosey

  27. cfs:\Writer, I’m not a hand writing expert, but even with my old eyes, I can tell that Kathleen’s signature on that POA definitely looks like a forgery, and then for Drew to actually notarize the document himself? I was a notary myself, and would never have done such a thing for a personal document. It’s still amazing to me how all of this fell through the cracks and got through the system.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    the waiver of homestead rights affadavit is not the same as the POA. In Illinois, spouses have homestead rights on property and if the property is being conveyed to one spouse only, then the other must sign off by law in the presense of the title company rep., provide identification and this to be notarized by the title company for the end lender as required by law.
    If this was done improperly and IMHO it was, there will be serious reprocussions.
    This is fraud and IMHO was done by another of the things waterboys; this one an attorney and an officer with the title company. Watch the heads roll….

  28. writerofwrongs :cfs:\Writer, I’m not a hand writing expert, but even with my old eyes, I can tell that Kathleen’s signature on that POA definitely looks like a forgery, and then for Drew to actually notarize the document himself? I was a notary myself, and would never have done such a thing for a personal document. It’s still amazing to me how all of this fell through the cracks and got through the system.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    the waiver of homestead rights affadavit is not the same as the POA. In Illinois, spouses have homestead rights on property and if the property is being conveyed to one spouse only, then the other must sign off by law in the presense of the title company rep., provide identification and this to be notarized by the title company for the end lender as required by law.If this was done improperly and IMHO it was, there will be serious reprocussions.This is fraud and IMHO was done by another of the things waterboys; this one an attorney and an officer with the title company. Watch the heads roll….

    It can’t happen fast enough to more deserving people. I looked through the DP recorded document paper trail. This is not the last. Hopefully, the ‘financial’ investigator hired by the SA will have discovered all the fraud involved with this bunch… IMO

  29. Writer, I was talking about the document called Specific Power of Attorney where Drew notorized Kathleen’s signature in April 2002. They weren’t even divorced until November 2003, and it’s against the law to notorize anything for a spouse or family member, or even a friend, if you have any financial interest in whatever the document concerns. And, it should have nullified the document, and possibly cost him his commission.

    I’ve been away from this for almost two years, so I’m sure my understanding of a many things is not nearly as clear as some of you, but are we talking about the same document here? Thanks! 😀

  30. I am sure by now the forensic investigators have subpoenaed the title company documents as well as the lenders file on DP’s purchase, including the waiver of homestead affadavit which KS never signed.
    Seems the thing did exactly as the thing pleased.

  31. Anyway, Drew killed Kathleen when everything was prepared in his favour. It means that formally he would not have gained anything (except alimonies) at the moment of her death but, in fact, had the will and all the suporters to get everything.

  32. I wonder what Kathleen knew about Drew’s dirty jobs. It will be interesting to learn what she meant writing to Walter Jacobs about the corruption in BB and Will County.

  33. cyrhla :

    Anyway, Drew killed Kathleen when everything was prepared in his favour. It means that formally he would not have gained anything (except alimonies) at the moment of her death but, in fact, had the will and all the suporters to get everything.

    Not sure about that. What about the pension and 1/2 the businesses? Also, he may have believe that her $1 million insurance policy still named him as beneficiary.

  34. craig_wall
    Dr. who did second autopsy says Kathy Savio’s injuries were from a homicide, not an accident and not from a fall in the tub
    19 minutes ago from API

    craig_wall
    friend of Savio’s earlier testified that she said Drew wanted everything in the divorce, didn’t want Kathy to have a cent (poss. motive?)
    4 minutes ago from API

    http://twitter.com/craig_wall

  35. facsmiley :

    cyrhla :
    Anyway, Drew killed Kathleen when everything was prepared in his favour. It means that formally he would not have gained anything (except alimonies) at the moment of her death but, in fact, had the will and all the suporters to get everything.

    Not sure about that. What about the pension and 1/2 the businesses? Also, he may have believe that her $1 million insurance policy still named him as beneficiary.

    In this meaning, you are right. I was rather thinking about what was Drew’s attitude and his plans for future. A little short-cut of mine. Sorry:)

  36. Facs, I really believe he thought he had that million coming, or rather two million, if it was double indemnity. By the way…whatever happened in his suit against JP Morgan Chase? I haven’t seen anything on it since last year. Is he still pursuing that? I hope it’s been thrown out and none of his attorneys ever get paid.

  37. The pathologist who conducted a second autopsy on Drew Peterson’s ex-wife three years after she died says her injuries didn’t come from a fall and the position her body was found in wasn’t consistent with a fall.

    Dr. Larry Blum (BLOOM) testified Friday at a hearing in Peterson’s case. Blum ruled Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide, and his testimony marked the first time he’s publicly explained his findings in detail.

    Blum reiterated that Savio did drown, but her 2004 death wasn’t accidental as originally determined.

    http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11940874

  38. cyrhla :Jugin, could Ortinau use the POA to make Quit Claim Deed?

    In all the real estate closings and property settlements I have been involved, I have never seen this kind of activity. This was not an ARMS LENGTH TRANSACTION. I would never trust any documents brought in by a party involved in the transaction unless I knew the signing person and situation personally.

    Usually an attorney or some OTHER trusted person would obtain and witness the signature. If the person is at an out-of-town location, they go to their OWN PERSONAL BANK or an associated title company for these services… signature, witness, FedEx documents to closing/settlement company.

    If Kathleen was going to sign these kind of documents, her attorney would have previewed it. Kathleen was trying to fax that 2001 letter when DP attacked her when Morelli was present andshe gave the letter to Mary Pontarelli. IMO, it was Kathleen’s pattern and practice to use an attorney for her legal work.

    However, from all that I have seen, I find few actors in this drama who practice high ethics and morals, keep their practice activity within the law, follow policies and procedures and have good intentions.

  39. cyrhla :Thanks, Judgin:)

    cyrhla, I was a Realtor for many years, and yes, people can and do use a POA to obtan a quit claim deed. However, there can be serious ramifications, and it’s generally not considered the best option.

  40. I’m beginning to see why Drew wants to get his hands on the $ 220.000.00 Chase Home Equity Loan money so badly.

  41. cyrhla, I was a Realtor for many years, and yes, people can and do use a POA to obtan a quit claim deed. However, there can be serious ramifications, and it’s generally not considered the best option.
    ~~~~~
    thats where title insurance comes into place…and sometimes bonds are required to be posted, except if you are the thing IMHO and all sorts of special considerations are granted.

  42. writerofwrongs :cyrhla, I was a Realtor for many years, and yes, people can and do use a POA to obtan a quit claim deed. However, there can be serious ramifications, and it’s generally not considered the best option.~~~~~thats where title insurance comes into place…and sometimes bonds are required to be posted, except if you are the thing IMHO and all sorts of special considerations are granted.

    Writer, you’re so right, and even so, I can’t see any of the things Drew got away with happening where I live, but I’m sure they probably have, and I’m just not aware of them. All of the attorneys and closing agents (and there were many) that I ever dealt with were always so thorough and above board. Too many blind eyes gave Drew too many passes that I hope one day will come back to haunt them all….in a huge way.

  43. I can imagine how confused Mayor Roger Claar must have been when picking up the Municipal Leader of the Year Award granted by the Illinois State Crime Commission in June 2004 in all these circumstances.

  44. IMO Drew seems to get involved in extra marital affairs with every wife he has had. That has become fact as it is going on but…. The woman who came forward about the affair while working at the pub, while he was married to Kathleen said, that he wouldn’t divorce her because he didn’t want her to get anything of his ok. So, the way I see it he was having this affair with Stacy. He most likely had no intention on divorcing Kathleen at first, or at all. Typically the man always tells the other woman he is going to leave the wife. But in the case before he told this other woman he would never divorce her. I think he had the same intention with Stacy, an affair. But then Kathleen found out about the affair from the anonymous letter. He knew Kathleen was going to get half, maybe even part of his pension. This is when he decided he needed to rid of her, because there was no way he was going to let her have anything of his. This is just IMO but it sure shows motive to me so far as these testimonies are coming forward. With Stacy, same thing didn’t want her to have anything, but at same time Stacy was more of a threat because she knew that he killed Kathleen, and made it look like an accident. It is all starting to make sense more and more the more the witnesses are taking the stand telling their side.

  45. Six days before Kathleen Savio’s lifeless body was found in an empty bathtub in her Bolingbrook home, Drew Peterson’s lawyer prepared papers telling his client he had been subpoenaed and was to be deposed in his ongoing divorce battle.

    Peterson stood to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the divorce from the sale of the couple’s home and Sud’s Pub, his Montgomery bar, according to court documents. Savio was also going after half of his police pension, which pays $6,000 a month.

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

    Just before this time his Police pension records had been subpoenaed from BB Police Department and that made him go nuts !

    IMO Vickie Connolly got to see another day because she did not lay claim to any part of his Police Pension during their divorce settlement.

  46. IMO, you are right, Q4Y. That was Kathleen who began the divorce procedures and that is probably why he hated her so much.

  47. JAH, have you got any idea where this settlement between Kathy and POS was ready? As far as I can remember it was to be initially finilized in January but for whatever reason it was postponed for March.

  48. Exactly Q4Y, but then Stacy also got pregnant. It all makes perfect sense to everyone who has any sense, but when people used to say that Drew was “so smart” he would never get caught or arrested for either of these murders, I always thought just the opposite. He was a dumb a**, always has been a dumb a**, and will always BE a dumb a**. Problem is, I think HE also thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and would never get caught. Now, look where he is. Dumb a**.

  49. I personally used the word “smart” many times but I should have rather say “cunny” 😉 No one intelligent and with a little respect to other people’s intelligency would think people buy this shit. He has always been a little (dangerous) boy, and his explanations are childish. Not mention fake letters and so on… I bet a 17-year-old girl would have better ideas! 😉

  50. questions4: (snip)The woman who came forward about the affair while working at the pub, while he was married to Kathleen said, that he wouldn’t divorce her because he didn’t want her to get anything of his ok.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    thats why there are pre nups. The fact is men like the thing view women as little more than substitutes for their right hand as well as beards so they appear stable and normal to the outside world, when in reality they have no respect for women and view them as disposable and replaceable. The only one who is married and must love honor and respect (or obey) are their wives
    good book: “Men Who Hate Women And The Women Who Love Them “

  51. cyrhla :
    JAH, have you got any idea where this settlement between Kathy and POS was ready? As far as I can remember it was to be initially finilized in January but for whatever reason it was postponed for March.

    The hearing I quoted from above was to be held early April, but I don’t know if that was going to be the final one, just that Harry Smith (Kathleens lawyer) had Drews Pension records subpoenaed in readiness for this April hearing.

  52. cyrhla :I personally used the word “smart” many times but I should have rather say “cunny” No one intelligent and with a little respect to other people’s intelligency would think people buy this shit. He has always been a little (dangerous) boy, and his explanations are childish. Not mention fake letters and so on… I bet a 17-year-old girl would have better ideas!

    cyrhla, I hope you don’t think I was referring to you. 🙂 This was a couple of years ago when lots of different ones were on different blogs standing up for that POS. Used to make my skin crawl to read some of the comments. None of them are on here anymore though.

  53. I think this case has already came back to haunt many of the blind eyes involved. IMO I can’t help but think as the prosecution investigated this case, that they knew the public was going to call for heads to roll on the shoddiness of the whole investigation. As we saw that Deel was one.

    Deel said no letter was sent, but he admitted prosecutors told his bosses they do not want him working crime scenes in Will County anymore.

    If Collins hadn’t retired I can’t help but think the prosecution would have asked Collins superiors to not let him be involved in Will County crime scenes again either IMO. Many of those who bumbled this have retired or been elected out of their position since.

    It’s going to be interesting to see if they will or can prove the will was fraudulent or any other dealings Drew may have had that wasn’t right.

    “This is them (prosecutors) laying out their case,” Brodsky said. “People should not think this is going to be the trial.”

    But, he said, the hearing still will help Peterson.

    “We think that even in this questioning, a lot of beliefs that people have about what was said and who said them are going to be burst, dashed,” he said.

    Brodsky’s job is to convince the judge not to allow the hearsay at this point. Why does he keep insisting that it will change our (the people’s) beliefs. I know it hasn’t burst mine so far lol.

  54. For me this is something strange that such a young and beautiful woman like Stacy was forced to have plastic surgery.

  55. Giv, I think it has too, but I’m hoping when this all goes to trial, that heads will REALLY start to roll. However, as you said, some are retired or relocated, but they can/may still be called to testify and hopefully will have to deal with the ramifications of their actions. As for Brodsky, I’m also really hoping he’s the one whose beliefs are bursting/dashed, as well as those of his disgusting client.

  56. Morphey said Peterson told him Stacy was demanding a divorce. She wanted Peterson out of the house in four days, was seeking custody of their two children along with the two born to Savio, who she adopted, and had her eyes on quite a bit of her old man’s assets. “She wanted half his pension, which meant he had to work for the rest of his life,” Morphey said.

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

    Another wife, another divorce, another division of assets and another claim to his Holy Grail Police Pension

  57. Nearly six years after the mysterious drowning of Drew Peterson’s third wife, a noted forensic pathologist told a hushed Will County courtroom Friday that Kathleen Savio was murdered.

    Dr. Larry Blum, who said he has conducted 9,233 autopsies, testified Savio’s injuries, psychological history, the position in which her body was found and scene of her death led him to rule out an accidental drowning and suicide.

    “That is my opinion, that it was homicidal,” Blum said.

    From the daily herald story

  58. From the same story:

    As Blum detailed Savio’s injuries, Peterson focused intently on photos of her decomposed remains – which showed a gash on the back of her head, about one half dozen bruises and several cuts and scratches.

    Wonder what he was thinking as he was staring at those photos…….

  59. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020503123.html

    Blum, who said he laid down in Savio’s tub as part of his investigation, testified the injury to the back of Savio’s head may have been made shortly after her death and not as a result of a fall. He also pointed to a wound in the area of Savio’s diaphragm as one that wouldn’t have been caused in a fall.

    “The bruise was deep, down to the bone,” he said.

    He also agreed with Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s suggestion that the diaphragm injury might have been caused by what Glasgow called a “bear hug.”

    Blum also testified that Savio had no measurable drugs or alcohol in her system when she died – an effort to head off the argument defense attorneys have raised that perhaps Savio was in a condition that would have made a fall more likely.

  60. Facs, I hope at trial, if Dr. Baden is called to testify, that he has just as many incriminating things to say as Dr. Blum, or more. We all know Drew did it, and reading these terrible things about Kathleen hurt me to the core. It only makes you wonder what poor Stacy endured. I just pray these hearsay statements will be allowed, and a jury will put him away for the rest of his sorry life.

  61. It’s hard not to picture Kathleen’s terror when I read these descriptions. Imagine the fear she lived with every day and then the nightmare when that murderer finally came after her and brutalized her.

    Beaten, held down and drowned. She didn’t die quickly. She must have suffered horribly.

  62. And what reports is Joel Brodsky going to wave around ?

    The ones from the initial investigation that report an accidental fall ?

  63. Probably JAH, but if you all see him in front of the camera, please post the links. I live in another state and don’t get the “after hearing” TV coverage here.

  64. JAH, Brodsky has his own expert. I cannot remember his name.

    I guess that the one performing the initial autopsy could tell us about his impression.

  65. cyrhla :JAH, Brodsky has his own expert. I cannot remember his name.
    I guess that the one performing the initial autopsy could tell us about his impression.

    http://www.cyrilwecht.com/about.php
    Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., is a forensic pathologist, attorney and medical-legal consultant.

    IMO, Dr. Cyril Wecht stated on tv that he read the original Savio autopsy report and that this report reflects that the death was accidental drowning.

    JB has implied that Dr. Wecht is on the defense team and the defense team is sticking with the original Autopsy report of accidental death.

  66. I don’t think any of the medical experts, pathologists etc on either side disagreed on the cause of death, but they disagree on the manner of death (obviously or they wouldn’t be on opposing sides – LOL)

    IMO – it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the Defense would suddenly switch on that subject as well if they see the accidental death theory is a lost cause, considering they already started making noises a while ago who could have murdered Kathleen, pointing fingers in all directions, lining up suspects left, right and center.

  67. If you have posted an article or link and then notice your comment is missing, most likely is has been removed because the story has previously been posted on the blog.

    Thanks

  68. facsmiley :I’ll grab any video I find CFS. There’s usually some coverage every evening.

    Thanks Dear. I really do appreciate it, and I hope it won’t be too much trouble for you.

  69. Just love rereading “stuff” like this excerpt from an old Greta interview I just came across….now that Drew is behind bars:

    VAN SUSTEREN: … question, though. That’s a different question. Do you think he’s going to be charged? I mean, it’s — I know — I know — there may be no evidence or whatever, but do you think he’s going to get charged?

    BRODSKY: No, I don’t. And because that’s because Jim Glasgow, Mr. Glasgow, the state’s attorney in Will County, is a good lawyer. He’s a fine prosecutor. And he is not going to walk into a courtroom on a murder — on whatever type of charge he may choose to bring when he doesn’t have evidence to support it.

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right. One final question.

    BRODSKY: Period, end of story.

  70. The defense theory is that Savio slipped and fell in her tub, hit her head, then drowned. Dr. Blum, who performed the second autopsy on Savio’s body in 2007 strongly disagreed, saying, “The ugly facts of the injuries destroy that beautiful theory.”

    The defense still contends Savio’s death was an accident. “I believe there’s overwhelming evidence of that,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/doctor-savio-murdered
    —————-

    Most of us are probably prepared to be underwhelmed with his overhwhelming evidence. I am anyway…especially if it’s only the original autopsy report.

  71. I haven’t been overly impressed by what Brodsky has said or done, so I too will be prepared to be underwhelmed and probably laugh hysterically.

  72. Charmed, I don’t think many people HAVE been impressed with him, and sometimes I wonder how Drew has any faith in him, but I guess it’s one of those “birds of a feather” things with them. Stupid is as stupid does.

  73. cyrhla :
    JAH, Brodsky has his own expert. I cannot remember his name.
    I guess that the one performing the initial autopsy could tell us about his impression.

    Yes I know but he came way after the initial investigation.

    Drew and Joel based their Defense entirely on the outcome of the original investigation and we now know how thorough and professionally that investigation was conducted – LOL

  74. Hey Rescue!! Sure have missed you guys, but it’s been quite a ride the past years or so. Glad to be back with you all. Hope you’ve have had a wonderful, and probably much needed, vacation.

  75. VAN SUSTEREN: … question, though. That’s a different question. Do you think he’s going to be charged? I mean, it’s — I know — I know — there may be no evidence or whatever, but do you think he’s going to get charged?

    BRODSKY: No, I don’t. And because that’s because Jim Glasgow, Mr. Glasgow, the state’s attorney in Will County, is a good lawyer. He’s a fine prosecutor. And he is not going to walk into a courtroom on a murder — on whatever type of charge he may choose to bring when he doesn’t have evidence to support it.

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

    Hahahahaha another one of Joels statements has bit him in the rear end, just like the outcome of the initial investigation by ISP into Kathleens death.

    Is Drew now going to sue all the ISP investigators that screwed up the initial investigation or lack thereof ??

    LMAO !!!

  76. Excellent article by Joe Hosey! Best one of the day in my book.

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky tried for hours without success to get Blum to concede that Savio’s death might have been a suicide or an accident. He also pieced together various speculative scenarios, such as Savio slipping on a bar of soap, striking her head and drowning.

    “The ugly facts of the injuries destroy that beautiful theory,” Blum said.

    Blum also pointed out that there was no sign of blood or hair on the walls or tub, which led him to believe Savio’s head had been struck by something else.

    Blum’s findings did not differ greatly with those of the first autopsy, performed just after Savio’s death by forensic pathologist Bryan Mitchell, but Blum did say he gathered more samples and performed additional tests, including one to tell whether Savio was sexually assaulted.

    Mitchell did not perform this test because he was told “it wasn’t foul play,” Blum said.

    “The state didn’t want to do it,” he said. “I would have liked to have seen him do one.”

    It turned out Savio had not been sexually assaulted.

    Blum said he visited the death scene, which was something else Mitchell did not do, and even climbed into the bathtub.

    “I wanted to get a feel for the size of it and I wanted to put myself in her position,” he explained.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2031940,joliet-savio-victim-homicide-jo020510.article

  77. CFS, we’re so glad to see you back, and all you have to offer!!!

    I have to say, with regard to this Hosey article and how he says Brodsky tried for hours…..

    that is how it is at the hearings, I believe. The hearing I attended was a pefect example. They pound out the same question, over and over, five different ways, only to get the same answer. They did this to one of the Bolingbrook neighbors who saw the lying skunk slithering around the garage the day Stacy went missing. They had her so confused by the end of their badgering, she didn’t know what to say. I didn’t take from that that she was out to get Drew by getting on the stand to lie about him, or she was someone who was looking for attention. The woman was so flustered and confused by the tactic of the defense confusing her, she was unsure of herself.

    It’s quite annoying, and almost makes you want to jump up and say “move on.” I wonder how a jury will perceive it when the time comes. Unless you’re a diehard Peterson groupie that just worships the ground he walks on (far and few are those people), it’s hard to find a piece of anything that is helpful to the defense.

    Right now, I guess all the defense can do is offer their biased soundbites, but it’s kind of silly, since it’s Judge White that is driving this bus. I also think that the defense is underestimating how a real jury will come to it’s final conclusion. I don’t think the defense is anticipating what the jury will really do!

  78. Joel Brodsky tried for hours without success to get Blum to concede that Savio’s death might have been a suicide or an accident.

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

    The fact Joel needed to try for hours with all possible scenarios should be an indication in itself how improbable the likelyhood of accidental death was to begin with.

Comments are closed.