Pathologist: Kathleen Savio was a victim of murder

Pathologist: Savio was victim of homicide

February 5, 2010

By JOE HOSEY

JOLIET — The forensic pathologist who determined Kathleen Savio was slain spoke publicly for the first time aout the autopsy performed on her exhumed body.

Dr. Larry Blum testified Thursday that a laceration to Savio’s head and the bruises and scrapes on her body could not have been caused by an accidental fall in her bathtub, as state police concluded after investigating her March 2004 death.

Blum was on the witness stand for most of the 13th day of the pivotal hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Drew Peterson’s upcoming murder trial.

Peterson is charged with drowning Savio, who was his third wife, even though the police maintained for three and a half years that she died accidentally. State police changed their tune after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished.

Peterson faces no charges in connection with Stacy’s disappearance, but prosecutors are trying at the hearsay hearing to prove he killed her to keep her to keep her from testifying against him.

Proving that will allow some second-hand statements to be used in court during the Savio murder trial, per a relatively new Illinois law.

New autopsies

Soon after Stacy vanished in October 2007, Savio’s grave was dug up in Hillside’s Queen of Heaven Cemetery was dug up. At the request of police, Blum performed a new autopsy on her badly decomposed remains. for police

At the request of Savio’s family, celebrity medical examiner Michael Baden also conducted an autopsy, parts of which were broadcast on Fox News Channel without showing Savio’s body.

Both Blum and Baden determined Savio was the victim of a homicide.

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.

Cops not ‘on her side’

Before Blum took the stand, a friend and classmate of Savio’s from the Joliet Junior College nursing program testified about threats Peterson allegedly made to his third wife.

“More than once she told me he could kill her and no one would know and no one would find out,” said the friend, Mary Parks of Joliet.

Savio believed Peterson was stalking her, Parks said, and she showed her red marks on her neck she claimed Peterson put there when he pinned her down with his hands.

Parks said she urged Savio to call the police but Savio did not see the point.

“She felt that the police weren’t on her side or interested in hearing her side,” Parks said. “She thought it would just make it worse.”

Read More at the Herald-News

~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

131 thoughts on “Pathologist: Kathleen Savio was a victim of murder

  1. 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.

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

    Why would someone put forward a theory about slipping on a bar of soap if there was never a bar of soap found on the bottom of the tub ?

    Speculative theories are only relevant if they have supporting evidence.

    You need a bar of soap in order to slip on one (!!)

  2. facsmiley :I like him. He’s a cyclops!

    Hahahahaha, funny Facs….but how do you make the rolling eyes smiley? By the way, you can delete those last two posts if you want to. I was just trying to get him to work, but glad you like my cyclops. He was a ax cideeyent.

  3. justanotherhen :How many ways are there to fall over in a small round bath tub and die ??

    I don’t know, but I bet Brodsky really over taxed his brain trying to come up with a few. You know, he’s always get an explanation for everything, and I’m surprised we haven’t read that he said Dr. Blum was on drugs, an acoholic, has mental probems, was having an affair with Stacy or Kathleen, or both, or is just a liar because he hates Drew.

  4. IMO Drew and Joel will abandon the “falling-over-in-the-bath-tub” theory as they’ll have to come to the conclusion it was a bad idea from the start and switch to the more obvious murder theory so they can blame and vilify lot more people without a shred of evidence as long as they can get some mud to stick !!

  5. justanotherhen :IMO Drew and Joel will abandon the “falling-over-in-the-bath-tub” theory as they’ll have to come to the conclusion it was a bad idea from the start and switch to the more obvious murder theory so they can blame and vilify lot more people without a shred of evidence as long as they can get some mud to stick !!

    It certainly will be interesting to see what direction he takes in court. You may very well be correct JAH. Try as he might though, I don’t think he (they) will be able to come up with a more plausible/believable a suspect than Drew himself, regardless of whom he tries to incriminate or how. Whatever he does/tries, I just hope he’s a complete failure when it comes to creating reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury, and truthfully, I think he’s probably way outmatched by James Glasgow, but we’ll see…

  6. 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.”

    Peterson leaned in and squinted when autopsy photos of his third wife were shown on a computer monitor. He seemed to take copious notes.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0206-drew-peterson-hearing-20100205,0,3277960.story

  7. Peterson leaned in and squinted when autopsy photos of his third wife were shown on a computer monitor. He seemed to take copious notes.

    Will Mrs. Brodsky be selling the pen on eBay I wonder…?

  8. Doctor: Savio’s Death Was Murder
    Updated: Friday, 05 Feb 2010, 9:29 PM CST
    Published : Friday, 05 Feb 2010, 6:33 PM CST

    By Craig Wall, FOX Chicago News

    The doctor whose findings are the keystone of the murder case against Drew Peterson took the witness stand Friday to explain what he found. Dr. Larry Blum, a forensic pathologist who has performed over 9,000 autopsies in his career, says he’s convinced Savio’s death was a homicide.

    Drew Peterson is charged with murdering his third wife Kathleen Savio in 2004 during their bitter divorce and staging the scene to look like an accident. 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.”

    He testified about photos from the scene, on computer monitors pointed away from the courtroom gallery, and about injuries to her body that he said were fresh. He said the injuries were not consistent with a fall, and that Savio had no drugs or alcohol in her system.

    Blum also said Savio’s face was streaked with blood on the left side, blood from a wound to the back of her head, suggesting the injury was inflicted when she was in that face down position, not from falling backward. He also said that cut could have been inflicted after Savio was actually dead.

    The defense still contends Savio’s death was an accident.

    “I believe there’s overwhelming evidence of that,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.

    Blum also testified that Savio could have been rendered unconscious by a choke hold that cuts off blood to the brain but leaves no injuries to the neck. That builds on earlier testimony from a police training officer who said he taught Peterson a similar neck hold that could knock someone out and even kill them.

    Earlier, a friend of Savio’s testified to a possible motive for murder. Mary Parks said Savio felt her divorce from Peterson, which was nearly finalized except for the finances, was all about the money and that Peterson didn’t want her to get a cent.

    Parks said Savio told her that “He wanted the money, he wanted the kids, he wanted the businesses; he wanted it all.”

    More than 50 of the 60 scheduled witnesses have now testified, and prosecutors are hoping to wrap their case up by next Wednesday. Defense attorneys will not say which, if any, witnesses they intend to call.

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

  9. “I believe there’s overwhelming evidence of that,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.

    I don’t know, Joel. I’m feeling a little UNDERwhelmed, myself.

  10. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=357143
    Pathologist testifies Peterson’s third wife was murdered
    Published: 2/5/2010 2:24 PM | Updated: 2/5/2010 9:55 PM

    Blum said authorities also didn’t use what’s commonly called a rape kit during the initial investigation to ensure Savio, found nude, wasn’t sexually assaulted. He did. The results came back negative.
    ~~~~~~

    IMO, This is indicative of murder by ex-husband waiting for property settlement! 👿

  11. Blum also testified that Savio could have been rendered unconscious by a choke hold that cuts off blood to the brain but leaves no injuries to the neck. That builds on earlier testimony from a police training officer who said he taught Peterson a similar neck hold that could knock someone out and even kill them.

    This information does not bode well for Peterson, if you factor in all of the people who heard, over and over, that Kathleen feared for her life, and that her ex-husband bragged he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

    Can it be true that the defense is really planning on presenting their own witnesses? That will be interesting.

  12. facsmiley :

    “I believe there’s overwhelming evidence of that,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.

    I don’t know, Joel. I’m feeling a little UNDERwhelmed, myself.

    Well, as long as Joel Brodsky believes it, I guess it works for him. Not for the rest of the free-thinking world.

  13. I don’t think that any of DP’s friends from his own ‘little mafia’ will be dumb enough to come to court and testify on DP’s behalf. LOL

  14. Peterson leaned in and squinted when autopsy photos of his third wife were shown on a computer monitor. He seemed to take copious notes.

    Can you just tell from this who’s running the show? Because, if it’s not him, then the guys that he’s paying need to take a cut in pay. Really.

  15. rescueapet :

    Peterson leaned in and squinted when autopsy photos of his third wife were shown on a computer monitor. He seemed to take copious notes.

    Can you just tell from this who’s running the show? Because, if it’s not him, then the guys that he’s paying need to take a cut in pay. Really.

    LOL and that is Chases fault as they won’t let him have access to “his” money so he can’t afford all these experts now !

  16. Thanks everyone for the good laugh tonite. You guys are on a roll. He’s supposed to be paying Brodsky Rescue. He allready took his pay cut lol.

  17. Although most of that pension money is probably going to Brodsky and company IMO. I’m sure all the SS go to the kids and Drew probably has to pay some of that pension to them also in a worse case scenario. Drew still has enough to keep his scheme team happy. This is my opinion that comes from the logic that he’s not broke yet. He’s also not spending it on bars and wild woman now obviously. 6000 dollars is a nice chunck of cash a month.

  18. “I believe there’s overwhelming evidence of that,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.

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

    We’ve already seen the “overwhelming evidence” from the 1st investigation.

    The investigators looked in the bathroom and decided it was an accidental death.

  19. His own Karma to want to hang on to his pension so bad he killed 2 people. Now hes spending it trying to save his sorry ass IMo.

  20. justanotherhen :
    “I believe there’s overwhelming evidence of that,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    We’ve already seen the “overwhelming evidence” from the 1st investigation.
    The investigators looked in the bathroom and decided it was an accidental death.

    I know JAH it’s sickening to me.

  21. You can’t possibly slip in a bathtub without hitting the wall first.I didn’t think about that one before. In Dr Blum’s press release even before the Grand jury adjourned says that he even climbed in the tub himself to see the possibility of such occiurence happening.

  22. rescueapet :

    Blum also testified that Savio could have been rendered unconscious by a choke hold that cuts off blood to the brain but leaves no injuries to the neck. That builds on earlier testimony from a police training officer who said he taught Peterson a similar neck hold that could knock someone out and even kill them.

    This information does not bode well for Peterson, if you factor in all of the people who heard, over and over, that Kathleen feared for her life, and that her ex-husband bragged he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

    Absolutely, this does not bode well for Peterson at all.

    The results of his police training evident at his wife’s death scene !!!

  23. I am trying to guess who the rest of the witnesses will be. They said there are just a few left. Paula and Lenny (with the records)?

  24. Gosh, I’d find it hard to guess who. The prosecution has already painted quite a picture, and we still don’t know altogether who all the other witnesses might be.
    Surprises are good. 🙂

  25. cyrhla :

    I am trying to guess who the rest of the witnesses will be. They said there are just a few left. Paula and Lenny (with the records)?

    I think Attorney Harry Smith, who was KS’s divorce attorney and who Stacy contacted shortly before she disappeared, may also be a witness. Maybe Peterson even tried soliciting another would-be murderer. I also think Alex Morelli might be one on the list. Time will tell.

  26. IMO, If Lenny and Paula are called to testify last, Glasgow will play some tapes recorded with DP’s own voice.

    DP would be hearing his own words convict himself.

    Hee hee, this what I call Justice! 😀

  27. Here I found some info on acandyrose:

    “In March 2002, both Peterson and Savio filed for divorce. On March 22, 2002, Savio agreed in court to waive any future ownership rights to the house that Drew Peterson wanted to buy for himself and Stacy in Bolingbrook.

    I wonder how reliable this information is (I mean, does it come from Drew?). I read the POA again and there is no word about waiving her rights to the house. It was used to get mortage on 25 April 2002. The POA was also to terminate after closing the purchase of the house at 6 Pheasant Chase Ct, so I cannot figure out how Peterson was able to get Quit Claim Deed in Sept. 2002, just before marrying Stacy. From what Kathleen said to her friend, she did not have idea how Drew could manage to buy it. It means she did not have any idea about the mortgage, nor that till Sept 2003 she had the right to the house, I guess.

  28. judgin :
    IMO, If Lenny and Paula are called to testify last, Glasgow will play some tapes recorded with DP’s own voice.
    DP would be hearing his own words convict himself.
    Hee hee, this what I call Justice!

    LOL, Judgin-and we’ll dine divine at the Justice Cafe.

  29. Glasgow has put on a good prosecution case presentation; a preview of what the ‘Jury Trial’ will be like.

    DP is gonna have to sit through these same 55+ witness testimonies again with 750 more witnesses on Glasgow’s list waiting to roast DP in front of the jury.

    DP’s lawyers now know exactly what they are really up against and I bet Glasgow has lots more surprises in store.

    It is almost ‘Decision Time’ in the DP Dream Defense Team camp. Will anyone desert the flaming DP Titanic?

  30. You know, when you really think about it, there hasn’t been much in the way of hearsay testimony. A few witnesses did recount how KS feared DP, but they were far and few.

    It seems there was more damaging testimony that had nothing to do with hearsay that we’ve been hearing, no?

  31. I wonder how much of the Lenny & Paula tapes the proesecution will actual play. Or will the testimony be mainly Drew’s odd behavior and comments made to the couple which were the deciding factor in wearing the wires? Didn’t Drew call Lenny up to pick him up on a street behind DP’s house, so he wouldn’t be seen? Another still big question is what did Drew try to get rid of over at Lenny and Paula’s house?
    We’ve only heard the tip of the iceberg. IMO

  32. Anyone think JB will put defense witnesses on the stand?

    Who would be so dumb to testify, under oath, to defend DP when they would also be incriminating themselves in his ‘activities’?

  33. If I were sitting on a jury and saw the defendant in a murder trial leaning in and squinting to get a better view of autopsy photos of the victim, I would wonder about the defendant’s innocence. Just that behavior alone would certainly make me seriously consider a guilty verdict.

    Even though Drew was a police officer for 30 years and probably saw some gruesome crime scenes over the years, Kathleen was still his wife at one time, and she was the mother of two of his children. How could he stomach looking so intently at the exhumed remains of someone with whom he had such a close and personal relationship?

    What a stone-cold heart he has.

  34. facsmiley :Joel might put one or both of Drew’s tenagers on the stand. IMO.

    That’s what I was thinking…but DP needs someone who can think for themselves, not a poor brainwashed child.

    After seeing all this, I wonder if any of his sons would even testify on his behalf. It was Kristopher who overheard the ‘fight’ then silence between DP and Stacy on the Sunday morning of October 28 when it is believed he killed her.

    Glasgow can also call Thomas and Kristopher to testify.

    Would DP and JB trust what Kristopher is going to say?

  35. myabelle516 :If I were sitting on a jury and saw the defendant in a murder trial leaning in and squinting to get a better view of autopsy photos of the victim, I would wonder about the defendant’s innocence. Just that behavior alone would certainly make me seriously consider a guilty verdict.
    Even though Drew was a police officer for 30 years and probably saw some gruesome crime scenes over the years, Kathleen was still his wife at one time, and she was the mother of two of his children. How could he stomach looking so intently at the exhumed remains of someone with whom he had such a close and personal relationship?
    What a stone-cold heart he has.

    In his own self-interest, DP was most likely looking for the bar of soap or another point to try to discredit the testimony of Dr. Blum.

  36. IMO Drew is arrogant enough to want to know what he could have possible done wrong in setting up “the perfect crime.”

  37. facsmiley :Judgin, these were the autopsy photos showing her partially decomposed remains. *shudder*

    It really hurts me to say this, but maybe he enjoyed it.

    I don’t believe that DP drowned Kathleen in the bathtub… Was she really taking a bath at that time of the night? I don’t believe he would take the time to fill the bathtub with water.

    I really believe that DP used the water already in the cammode, holding a very wounded semi-conscious Kathleen by the hair and that special ‘arm bar’ control hold. This is a very insulting/humiliating ‘swirlie’ (face in toilet) that kids in high school do. We all know what a jokester DP is. waterboarding? (military training?)

    Dr. Blum said that there was no evidence of water splashed on floor, walls, etc. However, he most likely cleaned it up and took the towels and Kathleen’s wet night clothes home with him.

  38. Another inconsistency in Drew’s story is that he tried to return the children on Sunday evening. If he murdered Kathleen on that Sunday/Monday night, she would have answered the door earlier (or she would call Drew herself to return the kids). I guess he killed her earlier but returned at night to clean the mess.
    No matter what the scenario was, I cannot understand how Kathleen’s hair could still be wet after so many hours.

  39. Dr. Blum said that there was no evidence of water splashed on floor, walls, etc. However, he most likely cleaned it up and took the towels and Kathleen’s wet night clothes home with him.
    —–
    I guess Brodsky is going to say Kathleen must have cleaned the bathroom before she died.

  40. Judgin- I would agree with you on that theory. Had they investigated the murder scene correctly, a lab might have been able to pick up a difference in water samples (toilet vs tub faucet) and how it compared to that in the hair.

  41. docsdaughter :
    Judgin- I would agree with you on that theory. Had they investigated the murder scene correctly, a lab might have been able to pick up a difference in water samples (toilet vs tub faucet) and how it compared to that in the hair.

    Sure. I agree with both of you. And I guess it will be developed during the real trial.

  42. Kathleen’s body also had to be discovered in just the right time frame, or it would have been quite expensive to have the house treated and cleaned because of the odor. How convenient that DP was able to pull up and haul things out of the home so quickly and not miss a beat getting it on the market and sold. So timed and staged. IMO

  43. Don’t forget that when he dropped by the next day while the Savios were there he also made sure to take $100 out of her purse. Hey, as long as I’m here…

  44. The extended toes mentioned about Kathleen’s body position does suggest she may have been forced down in the tub. Did he possible do both? I had to erase the rest of my post because the thought of this just turns my stomach. I hope Kathleen visits him in his dreams.

    Since DP seems to have kept close tabs on his women, I hope LE found his notes in the house during one of their searches.

  45. facsmiley :Don’t forget that when he dropped by the next day while the Savios were there he also made sure to take $100 out of her purse. Hey, as long as I’m here…

    Scream!

  46. IMO I think the prosecution has enough witnesses to establish motive for murder. The difficult part is overcoming an obviously botched investigation. In the end, I think it will be Kathleen’s own letters and pleas for help that will be the deciding factor for the jury.

  47. facsmiley February 6, 2010 at 3:00 pm | #64 Quote Don’t forget that when he dropped by the next day while the Savios were there he also made sure to take $100 out of her purse.

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

    this says it all ! what a world class POS he is !

    I am hoping misfortune doesn’t befall the thing B4 the trial…IMHO there are individuals out there who are more than a little concerned about what might come out of the things piehole.

  48. docsdaughter :
    IMO Drew is arrogant enough to want to know what he could have possible done wrong in setting up “the perfect crime.”

    Well for one he forgot to fill the tub with water.Still scratching my head why he would neglect to do that.

  49. givarat :

    docsdaughter :
    IMO Drew is arrogant enough to want to know what he could have possible done wrong in setting up “the perfect crime.”

    Well for one he forgot to fill the tub with water.Still scratching my head why he would neglect to do that.

    Because he wanted to put a blame on an “ignorant”, I guess. Steve Maniaci?

  50. givarat :

    docsdaughter :
    IMO Drew is arrogant enough to want to know what he could have possible done wrong in setting up “the perfect crime.”

    Well for one he forgot to fill the tub with water.Still scratching my head why he would neglect to do that.

    He made plenty of mistakes, it’s just that everyone always looked or was made to look the other way.

  51. cyrhla :
    Dr. Blum said that there was no evidence of water splashed on floor, walls, etc. However, he most likely cleaned it up and took the towels and Kathleen’s wet night clothes home with him.
    —–
    I guess Brodsky is going to say Kathleen must have cleaned the bathroom before she died.

    Or maybe even after, just like she rearranged herself in the tub after death !!

  52. Maybe it’s just me but I think the botched investigation is going to be to the Defenses complete disadvantage as that supposed investigation determined it be to an accidental death and as we know now that investigation stood for absolutely nothing.

    The Defense can’t discredit the initial investigation or they shoot themselves in the foot and they can’t back it up either as there is nothing to back up so what is Joel going to do – he’s screwed either way (!!)

  53. hustanotherhen:
    He made plenty of mistakes, it’s just that everyone always looked or was made to look the other way.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    imagine that. ignoring a crime victim when you are paid to protect victims of crime, opting rather to protect and enable the criminal.
    Here is some news for all of you who didn’t do what you were hired and paid to do:
    your day of reckoning is here. you know who you are and soon so will the world. Did you think for one moment nothing would ever come of this and that somehow the perfect crime was commited and that you were just “helping” your fellow LE ?
    Do you sleep at night ? Drinking more ? Anxiety attacks ? Do you wish you never got involved in this ?
    You need to come clean.

  54. Since the defense already attemped to shoot down 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 (the “hearsay law”) but Judge White ruled that it stands, I imagine the next step once the hearings have finished is for him to decide which if any of the 15 statements will be admitted to Peterson’s trial. But does that decision need to be made public?

    Will the trial just eventually take place and some of this will or will not be a part of the evidence?

    I wonder…

  55. Will the trial just eventually take place and some of this will or will not be a part of the evidence?
    I wonder…

    Great questions Facs. Since this law is new to judges, attorneys, and the public, there aren’t many places to get answers. I would think if the hearing is public, there would probably be some type of generic public statement that may just say 8 statements have been approved, or no statements are approved, or even (and hopefully so) that ALL statements have been apprvoed to be used at trial.

    Karen Conti touched on it in a prior post from last week or the week before, which is pasted below. She said she really didn’t know everything about the process or what was going to happen either, further up in the article. Karen says:

    ———————————————————–

    This will give Peterson’s lawyers a real advantage at trial in that they will get to hear what the witnesses are going to say ahead of time. There will be a court reporter present and if the witness deviates from that testimony at trial, he can use the prior testimony to impeach.

    I am certain that the jury in the full trial will not get to hear that the judge made a ruling that there was a preponderance of evidence that Peterson killed Stacy or Kathleen. The jury will only get to hear the hearsay testimony and will probably know that there was a prior proceeding that caused some of the witnesses to have testified previously.

    This hearing will go a long way toward revealing whether the prosecution has good evidence to prove Peterson’s guilt in that they must put on all evidence that is persuasive. They cannot hold anything back because the admission of hearsay testimony at trial is crucial and will probably be the most compelling evidence.

  56. Every time I watch Brodsky waddle down the sidewalk in this video, then spew forth his ridiculous statement, while shaking his silly head, that “they did a very thorough investigation and the reason they didn’t find anything was because there was nothing to find. It was an accident.”

    Real piece of work, that one. Dream on Joel.

  57. I am just thinking too (ghee I’m doing a lot of thinking) if the Defense is going to bring on all sorts of experts/witnesses whatever to back up/defend the “falling over in the bathtub/accidental death” outcome, aren’t these witnesses/experts etc going to look very silly if the initial investigators themselves have already stated they didn’t investigate anything, didn’t look at anything, didn’t know and never asked (??)

  58. cfs7360 :


    Every time I watch Brodsky waddle down the sidewalk in this video, then spew forth his ridiculous statement, while shaking his silly head, that “they did a very thorough investigation and the reason they didn’t find anything was because there was nothing to find. It was an accident.”
    Real piece of work, that one. Dream on Joel.

    Yeah, LOL, is Joel going to praise the work of Sgt Collins when the man himself said he didn’t investigate anything, would have done things differently and hindsight is 20/20

  59. Exactly JAH! I forgot to add the last part to my last post, but it was meant to say that I couldn’t believe how totally ridiculous and unbelievable he is when he says that, after all of the admissions we’ve heard that it was a shoddy, incomplete, and by no means thorough, investigation. Who does Brodsky think he’s fooling? Other fools like himself? Let him hang himself and his client. I sure don’t mind.

  60. IMO with their recent statements, Sgt Collins, Bob Deel and even the locksmith, etc have already thrown Drew under the bus as where is Drew now with the much coveted “accidental death” of his ex wife ??

  61. Oh well JAH, you know if they can’t use the accidental death defense, they’ll turn to the “some other dude did it” defense, which, in my opinion, they’re going to have just as much difficulty in making it credible. Their egos are so much bigger than their brains, so I feel sure they’ll HAVE to come up with some other moronic scenario, but I don’t think it’s going make much difference what they do if the hearsay statements are allowed.

  62. “There was no blood, hair or tissue on the tub,” Blum said. “So the evidence doesn’t bear that out.”

    I’ve always wondered about the ridiculous assumption by ISP officer Hardy, I believe it was, when he answered a coroner panel member’s question about Kathleen hitting her head. He said something about it being the opposite end of the faucet that she hit her head on. But it was only a quick thought and answer on his part, rather than a logical assumption. Anyone would assume she left behind a strand or two of hair on that faucet if she did hit it, and a coroner’s panel member thought so too. Even Dr. Blum acknowledged there was no hair left behind on the faucet. So, the laceration, as it was, can’t be explained away by the defense now.

    I so want to hear what the defense’s explanation for this accident is. I know Brodsky says that the evidence is overwhelming that it was an accident, but he’s blowing out how air with this ridiculous kind of talk. What is overwhelming that we’re missing here?

  63. Rescue, JB doesn’t have a pot big enough to hold all his B.S.

    When he blabbbers after coming out of court, it appears to me that his body language tells he truth and he does not believe what he is saying…

    He blinks his eyes fast,
    he stutters while his eyes search for answers
    in his script archive in the windmills of his mind, and
    he shakes his head ‘No’ when he says there was no evidence because it was an accident!

    (His head should be shaking ‘yes’ to affirm and confirm the words coming out of his mouth.)

    IMO, JB’s body language gives him away… He does not believe what he is saying, but what else can he say? JB is DP’s mouthpiece.

  64. LOL, Judgin. Don’t know why we should believe what Brodsky says after following him all these months, but he does like to hear himself talk.

    Still, there’s been a whole lot of testimony that isn’t hearsay, and it’s not, IMO, even the tip of the iceberg.

    I wonder if the original inquest transcript will be allowed into the trial, as parts of that are “hearsay.” Kathleen’s sister testified that Kathleen was “terrified” of Drew, and he had been threatening her. She tied it into the fact that the financial part of the divorce was close to being settled. That transcript is a wealth of information, for sure!

  65. Judgin…love what you wrote:

    He blinks his eyes fast,
    he stutters while his eyes search for answers
    in his script archive in the windmills of his mind, and
    he shakes his head ‘No’ when he says there was no evidence because it was an accident!
    ———————————————

    And then, he seems to look so pleased with himself because he managed to pull it all together to his satisfaction. Yeah Reacue, I can’t wait to hear their explanation either, and then hear it get shot down by the prosecution.
    ______________________________________________

  66. givarat :Who thinks we will hear testimony on the Cadaver dogs? Just curious.

    Giv, hadn’t thought about the dogs, but since this hearing is also to try to prove Drew killed Stacy so she wouldn’t be available to testify against him regarding Kathleen’s murder, then I think you make an excellent point. Maybe we will, and I hope we do.

  67. givarat :Who thinks we will hear testimony on the Cadaver dogs? Just curious.

    Definitely!!! I just read about a case going to trial, that it’s the only evidence the state has, is the hit on the cadaver dogs. No body, no DNA, no witness. I’m trying to locate it again and will try to post later. The cadaver dogs hits were in the suspects living room of his and his spouses home. She’s the one missing.

  68. Cadaver dogs – Some dogs are trained in detecting the odor of decomposing bodies. Dogs’ noses are so sensitive that they are even capable of detecting bodies that are under running water[11] Pioneering work was done by Dr. Debra Komar (University of Alberta) in Association with the RCMP Civilian Search Dog Association in this area. The result was the development of training techniques that resulted in near 100% accuracy rates.[12] Her research has been published in the Journal of Forensic Anthropology.

  69. Because Mark Furhman questioned the nonexistence of phone records for Drew & Stacy Peterson, could it be he’ll be called to testify this week on Collin’s original investigation of the case?

    “Fuhrman on Drew Peterson: “He’s got personality disorders they don’t have a name for yet.”

    Have we come up with a name yet for Drew Disorder Syndrome?

  70. rescueapet :LOL, Judgin. Don’t know why we should believe what Brodsky says after following him all these months, but he does like to hear himself talk.
    Still, there’s been a whole lot of testimony that isn’t hearsay, and it’s not, IMO, even the tip of the iceberg.
    I wonder if the original inquest transcript will be allowed into the trial, as parts of that are “hearsay.” Kathleen’s sister testified that Kathleen was “terrified” of Drew, and he had been threatening her. She tied it into the fact that the financial part of the divorce was close to being settled. That transcript is a wealth of information, for sure!

    IMO, We all agree that we can’t believe JB cuz he has stink’n-think’n and is speaking words coming from the sewer of DP’s mind.

    Scheme Teamers are working so hard in the DP cesspool, and LOL, DP is holding the handle to the ‘Flush’!

    IMO, the original inquest transcript will be allowed into the trial because it was part of a prior court proceeding. The Hearsay part of it will then automatically be allowed into the Trial.

  71. docsdaughter :Because Mark Furhman questioned the nonexistence of phone records for Drew & Stacy Peterson, could it be he’ll be called to testify this week on Collin’s original investigation of the case?
    “Fuhrman on Drew Peterson: “He’s got personality disorders they don’t have a name for yet.”
    Have we come up with a name yet for Drew Disorder Syndrome?

    ————————
    Was just thinking about your post DD, and how Hardy said at the coroner’s inquest for Kathleen that they were waiting on the phone records. Then come to find out from Furhman that they were never even requested. Ironically, at that time they were to verify that Drew had actually called Kathleen all the times he said he did to try to drop off the kids, among other things. Then after Stacy disasppeared, they became even more important to verify her calls to him and vice versa. Honestly don’t have a clue, but it will surprise me if Mark Furhman is called to this hearing, although he may very well be at the trial. I just hope the phone records will be another nail in Drew’s coffin, and I feel sure ISP has had them since right after Stacy disappeared, even though info has ever been released on them that I’ve seen. If they pan out as hoped, I would LOVE to watch them brought out in court and see how the defense tries to explain them away. Can almost hear them now trying to lay the blame on Stacy.

  72. Scheme Teamers are working so hard in the DP cesspool, and LOL, DP is holding the handle to the ‘Flush’!
    —————

    Judgin, that’s my favrotie quote of the day!

  73. IDK, I’ve convinced myself that even though the hearsay testimony is powerful, in that Kathleen told so many people that she would be dead, and it wouldn’t be an accident, and Stacy too, there is just as much powerful circumstantial testimony that is putting Peterson in a little bitty corner. We’ve only heard a fraction of it.

    Every case is circumstantial. Unless there’s a video of the actual crime, which almost never happens, but which is twisted and convoluted by the defense anyway. They work to make the jury think they don’t see what their eyes are watching.

    If there had been DNA collected and it turned out to be Drew’s, he made sure that would be explainable anyway. After all, he set up an elaborate discovery, he trampled through the scene and all through the house, and moved his ex-wife’s body. Still, he has to be tied-into the time of death timeline, motive, means and ways. He fits all of them, especially since his lies are being unraveled. And maybe those who stuck with him are fed-up and sick of lying for him.

    It can also be said that Peterson impeded a potential homicide investigation. Why would he do that if it weren’t him? If his children’s mother had been a homicide victim, it would have been crucial to let LE work it up and find the “real” killer, and he would have been shouting out orders on instinct about keeping the scene untainted. Instead, he shooed everyone out, probably, at an opportune time to possibly clear up something that caught his eye. Like missing towels that maybe magically appeared behind the door? Face it, Peterson should have been a raging man, if there was the slightest possibility that his children’s mother was killed by an intruder or otherwise. Instead, he was happy as a lark to start the accident story and run with it. Guess he knew he’d have a captive audience, either because of complacency, or otherwise. I’m not going to speculate on why he may have had help until proof positive is divulged, but it does make the mind wonder what he held over peoples’ heads to get them lined up like attentive soldiers.

  74. Yes Rescue, excellent post and questions. What does he have over others? (The million dollar question.)

    When Drew interviewed with Greta on Fox, Drew said he was only “informed” about Kathleen’s cause of death. Another interview that can come back to bite them in their behinds. IMO

  75. cfs:
    Was just thinking about your post DD, and how Hardy said at the coroner’s inquest for Kathleen that they were waiting on the phone records. Then come to find out from Furhman that they were never even requested.
    ~~~~
    that is also very interesting..

    rescue:I’m not going to speculate on why he may have had help until proof positive is divulged, but it does make the mind wonder what he held over peoples’ heads to get them lined up like attentive soldiers.

    ~~~~~
    IMHO people were afraid of him and I believe their reasons will come out in trial. Didn’t Kathleen tell her basement tenant that DP ran his own little Mafia ? That is a scarey thought. Lawless rent a cops prowling around wearing black ninja suits.
    A shadow force of enforcers. IMHO thats whats really going on in Will Co.

  76. Thought I’d share a bit of an email from a defense attorney friend of mine. I asked him how other defense attorneys view Joel Brodsky:

    In the caste I belong to, most of the attorneys are bad. Most attorneys are bad everywhere, in all components of the industry, but I’ll limit myself to what I know: the criminal defense bar has more than its fair share of hacks, dorks, dolts, and guys whose old chestnuts have kept a modest income coming in for 40 years with no real growth in skill, revenue, or reputation.

    Among the best criminal defense attorneys, yes, Peterson’s attorney is seen as a bad joke. He’s crazy, a media whore, says all kinds of stupid things that he thinks are clever but actually hurt his client.

    What I would do if I were Peterson’s attorney is…(Sorry, let’s not give Joel any help here — Facs)

    …I would not speak to the press, other than to make simple and inoffensive, generic remarks when necessary. I would not file frivolous motions; I would only file motions that would give me some kind of strategic advantage or, if there were any, give me a chance of winning the case before trial. I would not blow my credibility with the judge or the jury pool.

    Bad lawyers are impressed with bullshit, but jurors tend not to be…

  77. Facs: Among the best criminal defense attorneys, yes, Peterson’s attorney is seen as a bad joke. He’s crazy, a media whore, says all kinds of stupid things that he thinks are clever but actually hurt his client.
    ———————–
    No wonder Drew was drawn to him. Peas in a pod, those two.

  78. Rescue, your post gave me so much to think about. You my not remember it, but not long after Stacey went missing and we all started to be posting buddies on WP, I told you that I thought Drew set Kathleen’s death up to look like an accident, in the event her boyfriend at the time should happen NOT to be the first one to find her. But…that I felt his (Drew’s) initial plan was probably for Steve to be set up as a suspect/murderer to get the focus off of himself, since he (Drew) probably had no idea when or if Steve might be coming over that weekend. Since Steve didn’t come to see Kathleen that weekend, in spite of her pleading with him to do so, Drew was still of the hook, if her death was played up as an accidental fall/drowning, which it HAD to be for HIS benefit, since Steve never showed up to be Drew’s fall guy. I still believe this may have been his plan, so it would work out for him either way, even if Steven had found her and it was still deemed an accident and not murder. Doesn’t really matter now, and I’m just glad he’s finally facing murder charges, but I do look for them (JB & crew) to try to pin Kathleen’s murder on anyone and everyone if their “accident” defense starts to go south. IMO, Drew has gotten away with too much for too long, and I only hope his children are somehow going to be okay after all he’s put them through.

  79. What difference does it make how good or bad Brodsky and Abood are? They’re only there as officials of the Court. They may be putting their names on the frivolous motions and doing the cross-exams, but I believe Peterson is running the show, and that’s the deal he made from Day One. Otherwise, he would have taken sound advice and kept his mouth shut. Laid low. Either Brodsky couldn’t control his own client, or his client made it clear he’d be the one calling the shots. Peterson is a control freak, so why would he take a back seat to his defense? Doesn’t seem likely. In fact, I doubt that he could. If he’s not in control, he goes bonkers.

  80. Rescue, that’s why words coming from JB’s mouth sound like they are an echo coming from DP’s mouth.

    Yes, DP is remotely driving the bus that runs from ditch to ditch.

  81. No kidding, Rescue. The way he scans the courtroom every day, comments to people of his choosing, pores over the evidence and takes copious notes — if there’s a dog and pony show going on there, he’s holding the whip and his lawyers are the dogs and ponies.

  82. Rescue, you’re right, and it’s been fine for Drew (and apprently his crew) to be in control thus far. However, now he’s faced with basically having to defend himself by himself with puppet attorneys, or facing the reality that he needs an attorney or attorneys that can actually defend him in a court fo law. Maybe his need to be in control will outweigh his common sense….at least until the trial is over.

  83. CFS – It just strikes me as odd that Peterson, being the experienced law enforcement officer that his defense attorneys want people to believe, did not freak out at the sight of his sons’ mother’s body laying dead in the tub. He should have shouted orders for everyone to get out, including himself, and called the police immediately. He would have had no idea if she was killed by someone for any number of reasons, and he should have started the ball rolling to get the word out that a killer might be on the loose. Instead, he made the call from the very beginning that she fell dead into the tub, and it appears that Sgt. Collins was either stupid or a flunkie that bought into his farce. Peterson has no defense as to how he handled the death scene, the hours leading up to it, and the hours after it. None. He comes across as an inept, clueless idiot if we’re to believe he didn’t have enough sense to call in the troops to handle a sudden death such as this. People aren’t stupid, they can see he was setting up her death as anything but a suspicious death. The next logical step is why?

    He lied, and Hardy confirmed that garbage, about having no financial gains to be had by her death. Yet, he was involved in a contentious divorce settlement, and was going to lose, among other things, a substantial portion of his pension. We’ve all heard the testimony that he was given a pass and allowed to coach his young wife on how to answer questions. His young sons were never talked to by advocates that could have questioned them.

    Another thing I’d like to know is why Bindy Rock appeared before the Grand Jury. His name and connection to Peterson didn’t just drop out of the sky, so I’ll be looking for more about this guy.

    The question is, how did he know that KS’s death investigation would go so right for him? How could he have come close to knowing that it would be be so slanted to work out for him? Lenny & Paula recounted that he referred to the investigators as “idiots.” Is that it? How does a sergeant of a small suburban police force get so many passes?

  84. Oh Rescue…don’t you remember how he freaked out??? He said….”what am I going to tell my children?” I’m being facetious here, and I’m sure you know it, but even that statement probably would have been worded by anyone else in his position as HOW am I going to tell my children……not WHAT. That right there told me his subconscience was talking over, and he was literally planning his lie to tell them at that very moment. Sorry, it’s by psychology minor coming out a bit. Going to add more to your comment in just a bit. BRB.

  85. It’s too bad for Peterson that the media attention he so craved and loved is reporting the hearings in a way that shine the spotlight on the negatives associated with him. One of the reasons for that is the defense is not scoring any major points in their cross-exams. Most of the witnesses are probably telling the truth, and the truth is not hard to remember. Lies are.

    Peterson has so many lies out there in all of the transcripts and media stories, he’ll never be able to keep it all straight.

    Peterson’s own son recounted how he dragged his wife by her hair into the house. That is not a man, that is a coward. That is going to be powerful testimony at his trial, coming from his own son. His son, a man.

  86. Great catch, CFS. If Kathleen’s death was by accidental drowning then it should have been pretty obvious “what” Drew needed to tell his kids, and yet that was the question he blurted out?

  87. facsmiley :

    Great catch, CFS. If Kathleen’s death was by accidental drowning then it should have been pretty obvious “what” Drew needed to tell his kids, and yet that was the question he blurted out?

    See, that’s just it. He blurted out “what” am I going to tell the children, the kids. Mom is done, gone, out of your life, sorry? Or, mom flipped off the walls, after slipping on something, conked her head, and fell dead in the bath tub?

    What did he tell his kids? If Tom is so sure he can be an alibi for his father during the time his beloved mother was to have died, then surely he will recall what his father told them about her death. I’d say that’s a very important aspect of their testimony. Only because the old man is trying to use his own son, Tom, as he has his son, Steve. You know, the one he has burdened with four minor children, in addition to his own baby, and who’s wife has left him under the strain of it all. The son who’s life is not his own anymore.

    I believe I recall hearing that Stacy had difficult times with the younger teen, Kris, who had some resentment issues, or issues with the relationship his mother had to endure with his father. I wouldn’t be so sure he’s not finally going to feel relief that the lying and controlling is over, hopefully.

  88. Joel has a history of crying poor whenever the defense is questioned about their attemps to locate Stacy. The poor man can only afford a detective looking for Stacy electronically. (Joel googles her name once a day.) However we all know that before May 7, 2009, Drew Peterson had access to a $250,000 Chase loan. Please explain under oath why you didn’t use some of that when you had the chance to look for your wife.

  89. January 4, 2008

    I don’t remember seeing this clip of Reem Odeh, but maybe it’s because it comes from North Carolina where she spent part of her childhood.

    At least she mentions she hopes the searches for Stacy continue. Sopmeone on that defense team has some common sense.

  90. Docsdaughter @ #114. Excellent point! You’re right. He had access to that line of credit prior to his arrest, yet, as you reminded us, the resources available to locate Stacy were slim to none. Hmmm.

  91. We have a major snow storm heading into the midwest. 6-10 inches of snow expected between Monday night- Wednesday morning. I wonder if the snow will disrupt the hearsay hearings scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.

  92. To Rescue from comments @109: How does a sergeant of a small suburban police force get so many passes?
    ——————–
    Robert Lozano from Denton, TX is almost a carbon copy of Drew, Rescue, only he shot his wife and claimed it was suicide. But then, like Drew, he was finally arrested about six years later, and is serving time. There are so many other cases all around the country of police officers murdering their wives, that I could fill an entire page with the names and info. They do it because they can, when they want to move on to other things….mainly women, and because they all have a narcissistic/psychopathic/sociopathic personality disorder. We all know it’s not confined to policemen…it’s everywhere, in every profession. It’s just that policemen are supposed to be the good guys, and some of them aren’t, but they do have the thin blue line to help cover for them, and unfortunately, in some cases it actually does. That’s apparently what happened with Drew. He’s a controlling bully and after nearly 30 years on the force, he learned how to manipulate the system in his favor, probably down to even having the request eliminated for the phone records I mentioned upthread. Can’t you just hear him saying “You don’t really need to request those records. It’s a lot of trouble for nothing, since this was just a simple accident. Besides, Stacy might find out I’ve been calling other women.” Or, even saying something like, “I’ll request them for you and turn them in as soon as I get them. They’ll send them to me a lot quicker and easier, and you won’t have to get a subpoena.” Seriously, I wouldn’t put it past him. And the “friends” under his thumb just let him get away with it, either because of indifference, loyalty for whatever reason, or they owed him in some way. But Rescue, hopefully it’s about to be the end of the line for him, and he won’t ever be able to hurt anyone else again.

  93. I’m about to head to bed, but I have a comment about something that’s been on my mind a quite a bit since this hearing started. If anyone can elaborate on it for me, I would appreciate it. On the first day of the hearing, a Sprint Nextel was to testify about three phone calls made the night Drew met Tom Morphey. Haven’t seen anything written on his testimony, other than he testified. What did he say? Anyone know? What’s bothering me, is why weren’t the calls that Stacy supposedly made to Drew when Kathleen was killed addressed that day, or were they? According to Mark Furhman, they both had Nextel at that time as well, and it just seems to me that those calls, if they exist, are really critical to Neil Schori’s testimony. Could they be holding that info until trial? It just seems to me that it would really strengthen what Neil said Stacy told him. Maybe I’m putting more importance on them than I should, but I think Neil’s testimony is so critical to helping prove that Drew murdered Stacy because she know about Kathleen, and if she left him, she would tell everything she knew. I’ve always said that when Drew told Stacy that night what happened, he also gave her a death sentence if she ever tried to leave him. So what do you all think about the phone records and why only the three were discussed? Will the others come up later this week, or not until the trial, or do they even exist? I just pray they do.

  94. CFS – I think they did introduce some phone records information during the first days of the hearings, but they had to do with calls that Peterson made to Morphey in the weeks before Stacy went missing. I do not think the phone records dealing with the night of Kathleen’s death have been discussed yet.

  95. Yes, they did. The guy did testify, but I haven’t seen anything written about what he said, have you? Was mainly just curious why only the three were mentioned though, and not the others.

  96. Your right Rescue. The phone records dealing with the night of Kathleen’s death have not yet been discussed yet in the hearsay hearing.There’s not many more witnesses or days left to present them all. You have to wonder if the criteria for the hearsay statements to be admitted have been met yet. Will this go into extra time to bring in the evidence that Stacy is most likely dead? I think I remember that the state like had to bring in their top 60 witnesses. That doesn’t say they can’t add evidence for the judge to consider. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution will proceed.

  97. Rescue, I hope you know that my “Yes, they did” meant that I knew they brought up the three calls, but not the others, and that I was not being argumentatve about the ones not brought up. It was late.

    Givarat, maybe they’ll discuss the others later this week, if they have proof of them, or maybe they’re waiting until trial since they dealt with the night Kathleen was killed. There’s just so much to digest here.

  98. rescue:
    The question is, how did he know that KS’s death investigation would go so right for him? How could he have come close to knowing that it would be be so slanted to work out for him? Lenny & Paula recounted that he referred to the investigators as “idiots.” Is that it? How does a sergeant of a small suburban police force get so many passes?

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

    IMHO he orchestrated this entire event with help from his cop-pals. This reeks of corruption !

  99. cfs:
    On the first day of the hearing, a Sprint Nextel was to testify about three phone calls made the night Drew met Tom Morphey. Haven’t seen anything written on his testimony, other than he testified.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    I remember hearing or reading that there are records in the company archives to substantiate one way or another and that they keep records for 5 years. Thank God.

  100. That’s right Writer. Mark Fuhrman said just that in an interview with Greta. Because it has never been released that they substantiate Stacy’s claim, and the defense has never disputed that the calls exist (to my knowledge) it leads me to believe the prosecution has way more circumstantial evidence than the public can even imagine. My point was, I thought that maybe they would have also been discussed at the hearing when the Sprint Nextel representative testified to bolster Neil Schori’s testimony. But they weren’t, and I’m sure there was a good reason. Guess I just need to chill and let the prosecutors do their jobs without questioning what or why.

Comments are closed.