Drew Peterson Hearsay Proceedings to Conclude

Hearing: 68 down, 1 to go
February 16, 2010–By JOE HOSEY

JOLIET —  Drew Peterson seemed to love the limelight in the year and a half between his fourth wife’s disappearance in late 2007 and his arrest in May for allegedly murdering wife No. 3.

In custody, Peterson languished alone in a jail cell, effectively cut off from the public by a judicial order limiting his calls to an approved list of his friends, family and attorneys.

That abruptly changed Jan. 19, when a parade of witnesses took the stand to talk about Peterson. They recalled, among other sordid stories and accusations, how his last two wives lived in fear that he might kill them and make their deaths appear accidental, how he tried hiring a co-worker to do away with his third wife and of course, how he is considered by nearly everyone who knows him to be an inveterate “jokester.”

While “jokester” was about the best thing any of the 68 men and women called into court had to say about Peterson, the former Bolingbrook cop and serial marrier at least had the chance to grab the spotlight for himself once again.

This most recent star turn by Peterson is expected to end Wednesday with the conclusion of the 17-day hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial. Peterson’s attorneys will supposedly call a single witness to testify before facing off with prosecutors in closing arguments.

Peterson is charged with murdering Kathleen Savio, his third wife and the mother of two of his six children. Savio turned up drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004. State police investigators quickly decided her death was an accident and closed the case.

State police reopened their investigation when Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007. She remains missing and the state police believe Peterson may have had a hand in killing her, but have not charged him with harming her.

As part of the hearsay hearing, prosecutors are trying to prove Peterson killed Stacy to keep her from testifying against him at his murder trial.

Read story at Bolingbrook Sun

~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

105 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Proceedings to Conclude

  1. Actually I just want to state for the record that he’d be a better teacher than practitioner at this point. I talked to him before. I actually got to admit he knows his cases. I of all people would just like to invite him on here for some intelligent chat. Just to see how each side feels. I’m sure the temptation would be to criticize him here so he probably wouldn’t. But maybe if we refrain from insulting to actually just asking him good questions he may do it.Just my own Brodsky challenge.Since I know he reads here anyway.

  2. Intelligent chat? From Brodsky? Givarat, I’m ROF. Look, I’m not on here are much as the rest of you anymore, so whatever Facs and Rescue do with your suggestion is strictly their business. However, I used to belong to the “other” blog where he posted, and saw nothing beneficial in having him answer questions that were always slanted toward Drew and for the most part, were not even factual answers, as they were based on what Drew told him, and were usually so far off target as to what actually happened, in and out of court. As far as wanting to know what he thinks about the progression of all of Drew’s multitude of cases, I personally don’t care what he has to say, as it won’t change the outcome one way or another. But, if you guys think it’s something you want to do, I respect that. But like you said, I doubt he would come, even if everyone was on their best behavior. Besides that, how in the hell would he have time to post on a blog with all that he has on his plate right now?? Facs/Rescue, you can delete this post if you need to, and no offense Givarat.

  3. If it were true, that is.
    I don’t mean any offense to you, givarat. 🙂 I’m not interested in any of his opinions, be they of chicken wings, immigration (his previous metier), expecting victims to help them defraud an insurance company (the sodding amateurs!), how to turn murder into a media career, etc etc

  4. GAR @ #2. Never going to happen. First of all, I personally have no respect for Brodsky, I don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth, he has zero to negative zero credibility IMO, and for him to come here and blog would merely be a forum for him to further his bullshit. He’s a paid advocate for his client, and he’s going to spin the facts of the case to make it appear that all is right with his client, and all is wrong with the rest of us.

    If you feel that he actually knows his cases after talking to him, what’s there to say? The “temptation to criticize him” comes from watching him for two years use the media as his own, just like his client, and use his client for promoting his personal liquor/food establishment.

    Don’t you worry, GAR, Brodsky has plenty of opportunities to give his opinions, change people’s minds and run off with the mouth. It’d be a cold day in hell before he’d be doing it here.

    Brodsky has had two years and unlimited media exposure at his beck and call to get across his client’s position. I’m sorry, I can’t help but laugh that you think he should we welcomed here to continue his spin.

    I don’t have the actual link anymore of the blog Brodsky used to post comments on, but if someone wants to post it here for you, you can join it and go back to the early days and read his posts there.

    BTW, since you “know” he reads here: Brodsky, ask your client where Stacy is.

  5. LOL, I don’t doubt that Brodsky reads here. This blog has facts all over the place. Who’s who, videos, pictures, documents, newspaper articles, contributions from professionals, i.e., reporters, an attorney, an occasional call out from the victims’ families and friends, and bloggers who research and comment on controversial contradictions of facts vs. attorney/client mumblings.

  6. bucketoftea :

    Any more defense witness guesses? Would Drew do it?

    IMO, I think it’s Drew that will decide who the witness is, not his Scheme Team. I believe he is the one that came up with the vindictive prosecution theory that the defense used in the gun case. Pretty slick idea, expecting the State to turn over their months and months of investigations to the defense so they could pour over it all and select what they needed to prove their vindictive prosecution theory. Oh and get a look at what the State had up to that point relative to the death of Kathleen and disappearance of Stacy.

    If Peterson decides he wants to “con” the judge with his “silver tongue” (that’s Peterson’s quote, not mine), then he’ll be the one witness.

    My vote is on Peterson.

  7. “Peterson’s attorneys will supposedly call a single witness to testify before facing off with prosecutors in closing arguments.”

    If this turns out to be one of the Peterson family I pray it’s not Tom.
    My gut tells me it will be Steve Peterson though…time to tell the truth!

  8. Rescue, if he ends up on that stand tomorrow, then he and Brodsky both are even bigger fools than I thought. Sort of expected it to be Cyril Wecht myself, as Drew doesn’t seem to have many credible witnesses of his own, regardless of what Brodsky says about the prosecution’s. Whoever it is, it will certainly be interesting to find out.

  9. Jeepers, Steve is also someone else that I considered, but it looks like to me if they’re only possibly calling one, they would want the most credible person they can find. We’ll just have to wait and see, and I actually hope Rescue is right. Would guarantee some interesting news!

  10. CFS – Yeah, it would seem logical that they need a big witness, one that can contradict Kathleen’s death as a homicide. Being realistic, though, I can’t see how that will come out as credible, since the inconsistencies seem to be overwhelming that Peterson staged her death, and he overlooked details that are telling. I just can’t foresee what Cyril Wecht would say that explains away the damage on Kathleen’s body, the way she was found, the waterless, clean, soap-scum, ring-free bath tub, and the fact that Peterson, who was trained and worked as a crime scene investigator himself, didn’t handle his own ex-wife’s death scene as any experienced, seasoned officer would.

    But, hey, anything is possible with this Scheme Team. They might have Dr. Budenz say he has evidence that alien beings drop down into people’s bath rooms during the night and go unnoticed, leaving behind chaos and destruction. You can’t see them because they vaporize when human eyes look at them. 😉

  11. Exactly….you have to consider that it’s Brodsky, and what looks credible to him is not always the case for everyone else. They put a lot of stock in Wecht, and after all, how many repected/credible witnesses do they really have? You’re right….you never know what you’re going to get with that crew. Still hoping you’re on the money with Drew myself.

  12. This kind of sissy stuff makes me cringe when I see it. This is from Abood’s website. He lifts what he thinks is a hit for his side from a newspaper article about the Pontarellis’ testimony, along with a link to the article. Peterson was distraught, so I guess the leap is to assume he didn’t kill his ex-wife.

    Scott Peterson bawled like a baby on tv while his dismembered, pregnant wife was laying at the bottom of the water he dumped her in, but he was still convicted or murdering her.

    I know these guys have a difficult case to defend, but this kind of stuff just makes you wonder if this defense really has it together. They are oblivious to what people really think, I believe. They’re not in sync with reality. They claim to do mock trials at which they are successful, or at least Abood says so, but do they really put out the circumstances as they really are to their carefully selected test group? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

    Anyway, here is what’s on his website:

    Andrew Abood Cross Examination of Witnesses in Peterson Hearing
    Drew Peterson was distraught after discovering the death of Kathleen Savio. Follow this link to read more.
    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=355501&src=2

  13. jeepers4 :“Peterson’s attorneys will supposedly call a single witness to testify before facing off with prosecutors in closing arguments.”
    If this turns out to be one of the Peterson family I pray it’s not Tom.My gut tells me it will be Steve Peterson though…time to tell the truth!

    Jeeperes, I hope it’t not Tom either. Besides, he was only 10 when Kathleen died, and how would he know for sure that Drew didn’t slip out of the house in the middle of the night if he was sleeping most of it? I don’t see how he could testify with any certainty that his father was with them every minute of every day that weekend, and not have the prosecution shoot holes in his testimony. Better that he isn’t the one witness, for sure.

  14. Yeah, well, we all know what a good actor Drew thinks he is. We’ve seen him on TV enough, but to most of us, he’s not even close to being convincing. He even teared up on Larry King one night about Lacy and Stacy. Think of how many times he probably had to lie to his ex-wives that he wasn’t with another woman, and also while he was a narc and working undercover. Gees. Abood and Brodsky can buy into it all they want to, but I don’t think a jury will.

  15. Yeah, the distraught thing that Abood thinks is a winner is junk. Peterson likes people to know he’s good at the con, so his display for the poor souls he dragged into his elaborate scheme is useless.

  16. Rescue, if they are that oblivious to what people think, then obviously they don’t spend much time reading this blog. Even if they do, maybe they think it’s too small of a cross section. Guess they have to act like they have faith in their clients credibility, and in their abilities at attorneys, in order to defend that POS. Defense lawyers are a dime a dozen, and most all of them believe their clients are not guilty as charged. Else, why bother? Still doesn’t make them not guilty. That’s what juries are for, even if they are lay people, lol.

  17. Heh, they can’t be oblivious to the obvious. Now that they’ve even lost to the Appellate Court on the vindictive prosecution/discovery issue, they haven’t won a round in court yet. Lost re-opening of probate estate. Asked for and were denied bond reduction. Asked for and were denied allowing Peterson access to discovery documents while imprisoned, and use of a personal laptop. Lost change of venue motion. Lost on constitutionality of hearsay law. Default judgment was entered on the homeowners’ insurance being responsible for paying legal fees to defend civil lawsuit. I don’t know what the “ring the bell” motion was all about, but that seems to have fallen off the radar.

    In fairness, can’t say they lost the HELOC suit yet. 😉

  18. If anyone is interested, I have all of the old Brodsky Q&A saved somewhere (although I maight have saved only his answers). At any rate, I’ll take a look at it and if it seems worthwhile, post it to our Scribd account. Maybe it would be interesting to add some up-to-date annotations.

    Similar to what’s been posted upthread, my impression of the “Blog with Brodsky” experience was that it ultimately was not informative and really served no one but Drew since naturally Joel was speaking on behalf of his client, not as a legal analyst. Over time, we’ve come to realize that some of his statements were outright lies and while there’s certainly no law against lying on a forum it does strengthen my opinion that any further Q&A with the man would not be fruitful. I remember as well, that he used the opportunity to try to get information about the Find Stacy Peterson forum as well as Drew’s neighbors, sometimes spamming his questions across a number of threads separate from the Q&A. Tacky.

    I appreciate your fair-mindedness, GAR. But IMO, just listen to what Joel Brodsky says on the steps of the courthouse and pretend he posted it here. I’m sure it would all be along those same lines.

  19. Although it is fun to dig up “Joel Gems” like this one:

    Wawczak says he can’t wait until I cross examine him at a trial. Well all I can say is too bad it will never happen because, now more than ever, I am sure Drew Peterson will never be charged.

    🙂

  20. I still think the one witness will be Steve Carcerano – as he was the one who went into the house with Drew the night Kathleen was found IMO. I can’t see them putting Tommy on the stand for this althought they did say in that one interview that he is Drew’s alibi and would testify to that IIRC.

    The only other insane guess I would have is that Drew would put himself on the stand because I can see him thinking that he needs to get his side of the story out – kind of like what he kept thinking he was doing by going on all of those shows, laughing about the dating game, planning to be on a reality show at a brothel, and telling jokes from jail, and pointing out all of his bling as he headed to his first court appearance…

  21. facsmiley :Although it is fun to dig up “Joel Gems” like this one:

    Wawczak says he can’t wait until I cross examine him at a trial. Well all I can say is too bad it will never happen because, now more than ever, I am sure Drew Peterson will never be charged.

    Don’t you just love it? That’s what I’m talking about!

  22. Do, it facs! Post all of the insane reading. Go for it.

    I know I have a few saved myself somewhere. The death of Kathleen, and disappearance/presumed death of Stacy are serious matters, but reading this nonsense from Joel puts it in a light that only he could do. Hell, his email to the radio people about promoting his chicken wings was classic!

  23. Some part of me wonders if the defense will put an expert witness on the stand. Joel has said for a long time that they are pursuing the “no evidence that puts Drew in that house” angle so that could mean either someone providing an alibi for Drew, or someone who’ll say Kathleen just keeled over and died all by herself.

    In the back of my mind I’m still expecting they might call up forensic pathologist, Dr. Glenn Larkin. This guy is part of a group calling themselves “The Other Victim’s Advocacy”. Joel would be familiar with the group because he hired another team member (and president), Tina Church, to do some PI work (She made a lot of calls to Stacy’s cell phone and logged the results).

    OVA describes themselves as assisting ‘the “other victim” which is the family members of those accused, or convicted of a crime.’
    http://www.theothervictimsadvocacy.com/team.htm

    I don’t have any actual reason to believe this could be who they might call, except that Drew has used their services before. They are a non-profit and maybe that equates to bargain-rate testimony? Who knows! I’m just fishing around.

  24. If the defense is going to continue to claim that Kathleen died by accident, they must hire, pay and put on a witness that can justify that conclusion. First with Judge White, I assume, since he’s the one that has to take in all of the testimony and render an important decision.

    It always amazes me how one “expert” can go against another one for a price. Usually, it’s said that the defense will pick apart and try and destroy the collection of evidence, testing, etc., as a means to plant doubt for the jury. They want the jury to think they can’t trust the evidence, so their client shouldn’t be convicted. But, in this case, since the defense isn’t even going there, they’re sticking with accident, I guess that point doesn’t matter. How would they maintain credibility by switching their defense in the midst of the trial by walking away from accident, but then badmouthing the evidence. If the evidence was good enough for them to stick with accident, they can’t very well turn around and look to destroy it then, or they look like idiots.

  25. Rescue, I agree, and don’t see how they can either. However, if Drew ever does take the stand, I can’t wait to hear what he says when Glasgow asks him how he knew Kathleen drowned before an autopsy was ever done, especially when her tongue was clinched between her teeth. Could have been a seizure, or any number of things that might have attributed to her death from first glance by someone, anyone who didn’t know already that she was drowned.

  26. Joel Brodsky:

    As to the fsp poster who came on this board to say that my career will be over because of this case, guess what. I get overwhelming approval and support from my peers (the criminal defense bar, the general bar, and judges), who really know what is going on and know me and my abilities.

    Top Defense Attorney:

    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…

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

  27. grandam :Question, if Drew takes the stand can he claim the 5th to all prosecutors cross? If he can, then I can see him testifying.

    What would be the purpose in that? Sure won’t help keep the hearsay out. Just saying. 😀

  28. facsmiley :Joel Brodsky:

    As to the fsp poster who came on this board to say that my career will be over because of this case, guess what. I get overwhelming approval and support from my peers (the criminal defense bar, the general bar, and judges), who really know what is going on and know me and my abilities.

    Top Defense Attorney:

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

    Woot! Woot! Childish, I know.

  29. rescueapet :Grandam – If the defendant takes the stand in the defense phase of the trial, they waive the right to invoke the Fifth amendment during cross-examination.

    Thank you facs. But does that hold true, even in this pre-trial hearing? I can see them putting him on the stand, just for the publicity of a gutsy move.

  30. grandam :

    rescueapet :Grandam – If the defendant takes the stand in the defense phase of the trial, they waive the right to invoke the Fifth amendment during cross-examination.

    Thank you facs. But does that hold true, even in this pre-trial hearing? I can see them putting him on the stand, just for the publicity of a gutsy move.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either you stand down and lose the opportunity to “tell your side” or you go on the stand and open yourself up to cross-examination.

  31. http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=0&a=2246

    Seems Brodsky is up to his speckled bald head representing “crazy people”.

    This father had a court order in place against him taking this child to church….. he does it anyway. And LOL, he is taking donations on his website for his defense.

    Joel Brodsky, Reyes’ attorney, along with Reyes, head to court this morning. Reyes could get jail time for taking his daughter to church after defying court order prohibiting from doing so.

    Sorry about the off topic!

  32. Hosey said: “Peterson’s attorneys will supposedly call a single witness to testify before facing off with prosecutors in closing arguments.”

    I could swear that the statement on Friday was that Brodsky “may call as few as one witness.”

    Wonder if Hosey forgot that point or if he knows something more.

  33. atlgranny :Here is what Joe Hosey said last week: “When the proceedings continue Wednesday, prosecutors are expected to rest their case. The defense said it has 20 witnesses of their own, but may call as few as one.”
    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2040689,Peterson-hearing-break-JO021010.article

    Atl, sounded to me like it was just “defense talk” trying to impress the media with their “arsenal” of witnesses, when they probably only had one or two lined up anyway. You never know about them, and not much they say is believable anyway, but they’ve got a dirty, nasty job to do.

  34. Altgranny – I don’t understand your comments. Yes, Brodsky said at one point they had twenty witnesses, but may call as few as one. That’s the understanding right now. They’re going to call one witness.

    ????

  35. I put all of Joel Brodsky’s forum postings about the case up on Scrib’d for anyone who hasn’t seen them and cares to read:

  36. The operative word here is “may.” I took that to mean that Brodsky wants to keep everyone guessing. It may be one. It may be more. Hosey’s article this morning said “Peterson’s attorneys will supposedly call a single witness to testify before facing off with prosecutors in closing arguments.”

    That sure sounds like Hosey is saying that Brodsky WILL only call one witness rather than MAY only call witness.

    Maybe I’m just splitting hairs, but Hosey’s statement seemed odd to me. I actually tend to agree with cfs insofar as Brodsky is known or his blustering and nothing he says can be trusted.

  37. Facs @ #44. Yeah. It is worth taking a look at to get an idea what Brodsky’s way of thinking and planning a defense is. Straight from his fingers to our eyes.

    Ya just can’t make this stuff up.

  38. facsmiley :Joel Brodsky:

    As to the fsp poster who came on this board to say that my career will be over because of this case, guess what. I get overwhelming approval and support from my peers (the criminal defense bar, the general bar, and judges), who really know what is going on and know me and my abilities.

    [snipped]

    and the poo poo platter bar, the chicken wing bar and the (lay) judges who drink at your bar and think DP is not a killer and JB is a good lawyer. 😀

  39. BTW, what I put up are just Brodsky’s posts. You won’t see all the questions that were asked in every case — just what Joel replied.

    I don’t share that file so much as a resource, more like an oddity.

  40. My favorite still has to be when Brodsky went on the Mancow show while he was on his vacation (when Drew was arrested for Kathleen’s murder) and he said something to the effect of that it would just be a one-day continuance and that it was no big deal. How many days ago was that again?? I know someone out there is keeping count…

    I think the link has been taken down at WLS’s website or I’d link it here. I did find the link from before at this site where it was mentioned: http://tinyurl.com/qfpa4g.

  41. Prosecutors must show Peterson’s wife was killed
    AP News
    Tuesday, February 16, 2010
    By DON BABWIN

    JOLIET, Ill. — The crime scene technician didn’t think twice about the bottle of cleaning fluid near the bathroom where the body of Drew Peterson’s ex-wife lay slumped in her bathtub — or whether it might have been used to wipe away evidence of a crime.

    Six years later, as Peterson prepares to stand trial for murder in Kathleen Savio’s death, the bottle underscores the huge challenge facing prosecutors: Before they ask jurors to convict Peterson of murder, they first must prove a homicide occurred in the first place.

    Police were so sure Savio drowned accidentally that they didn’t look twice at the cleaning fluid, and collected no forensic evidence. Even the coroner who conducted the autopsy in 2004 ruled the death an accident.

    In most murder trials, the evidence of a slaying is as obvious as a bullet hole or a stab wound, and the only question is “whodunnit?” But in Peterson’s case, nothing is obvious.

    “This is a true circumstantial evidence case,'” said Vincent Bugliosi, who won a murder conviction of Charles Manson in the 1969 slayings of Sharon Tate and six others even though Manson was not at the scenes when the slayings occurred. “In circumstantial evidence cases you’re putting one speck of evidence upon each other… You’re putting on evidence showing the unlikelihood that this is an accidental death.”

    At a pretrial hearing to determine what hearsay — or secondhand — evidence a judge will allow a jury to hear at Peterson’s trial, prosecutors have been trying to turn a bathroom into a crime scene. Defense attorneys say they’ll call witnesses beginning Wednesday.

    In a preview of what is sure to be repeated at Peterson’s trial, prosecutors called witnesses to testify about Savio’s medical history, her personal habits, even details about her house. They also questioned a pathologist who conducted a second autopsy on Savio’s body, which was exhumed in 2007 after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished.

    Longtime pathologist Dr. Larry Blum, who ruled Savio’s death a homicide, testified there were fresh bruises on her body that would not have come in a fall. And a gash on her head, which led investigators to the original conclusion that Savio slipped and fell, could have been made immediately after she died, he said.

    Other witnesses talked about Peterson’s training in subduing suspects, knowledge of choke holds and his background in martial arts — likely signaling that prosecutors will suggest the former Bolingbrook police officer overpowered Savio and put her in the tub.

    Peterson’s attorneys will try to convince a jury that Savio’s medical problems could have caused her to fall.

    Savio had a heart murmur, periodontal disease and cervical vertigo. Although her neurologist testified that in his 30 years of practice, he’d never seen that kind of vertigo cause anyone to fall, he acknowledged Savio’s medical records show she complained of dizziness and numbness.

    “That opens the door for a defense attorney to bring in almost anything, drug use, drinking, whether she walked in her sleep or had dizzy spells,” said Terry Sullivan, a prominent Chicago attorney and former prosecutor.

    Which might explain why prosecutors asked so many questions about Savio’s bathroom.

    Witnesses said there were no towels, no robe and no other clothes near the tub, and toiletry items lining the tub’s edge were undisturbed. Prosecutors likely want jurors to believe if Savio was taking a bath, she’d at least have laid out a towel and if she did fall, she would have knocked something over.

    Then there was Savio’s hair. It was down when her body was found, but a woman who had lived with Savio said Savio always put her hair up in a clip before taking a bath.

    Some of those answers will resonate with jurors, said Marilyn Brenneman, a prosecutor in Seattle’s King County, who’s handling a similar case in which a man was charged with killing his 3 1/2-year-old stepdaughter after the death was originally ruled an accident.

    “Women on the jury will understand putting hair up because they don’t want to have to dry it again,” she said.

    To argue that Savio’s death was a homicide, prosecutors have to overcome something else: There is no evidence of a break-in, and no obvious explanation for how anyone could have gotten inside, killed Savio and gotten out without anyone noticing.

    Witnesses included a man who now lives in Savio’s house who recounted how was able to climb in a window after locking himself out. Peterson’s second wife told of seeing Peterson with locksmith tools. And Peterson friend Rick Mims testified he once followed Savio to work at the request of Peterson, who’d told him he was going to sneak into Savio’s house to retrieve “papers.” When Savio left work, Mims said he alerted Peterson.

    But nobody testified to actually seeing or hearing Peterson — or anyone else — sneak inside Savio’s house.

    That means the original challenge remains: overcoming a lack of physical evidence, like fingerprints or DNA, to prove she didn’t just drown.

    “You have to pile a lot of suspicious circumstances on top of each other,” Bugliosi said. “You have to get to the point where you can say (to a jury) ‘Come on folks.'”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbfkKdZZEPQinpLBXO6Df3-5s2SwD9DTFSPG0

  42. “Witnesses included a man who now lives in Savio’s house who recounted how was able to climb in a window after locking himself out.”

    That must be what Rodolfo Hernandez testified to…

  43. Wow, when it’s all pulled together like this, now that actual witnesses have testified to things, it sure clears a lot up.

    And, true, if the State spends even more time on other points that leave no doubt about Kathleen’s habits, vs. a haphazard fall in a waterless tub, no towels, hair down, no dirty or clean clothes, easy access in and out of the house, Drew dressed in all black, trained as and who once worked as a crime scene investigator, trained in force holds…….

    It’s just so compelling.

  44. rescueapet :

    FYI:

    Karen Conti will be on Fox tomorrow at 9:25 am to talk about this case. The gun charges reinstated and the hearing.

    I’ll be watching. Now Conti is one lawyer whose take on the case I AM interested in hearing!

  45. That’s what I said the other day when the legal pundits were saying that without the “hearsay” testimony the case was dead.

    I think there’s SO MUCH circumstantial evidence that if I were a juror, just based on what we’ve heard SO FAR, I’d be pretty darn convinced that Drew had the necessary ingredients: motive, training, familiarty with the decedent and her residence and lack of any true alibi. (With Stacy gone it’s just his word that he was home that night. Certainly there is no credibility given to a young son who would say that Dad was home the entire weekend. I sure hope Brodsky won’t try that one!)

  46. facsmiley :

    rescueapet :
    FYI:
    Karen Conti will be on Fox tomorrow at 9:25 am to talk about this case. The gun charges reinstated and the hearing.

    I’ll be watching. Now Conti is one lawyer whose take on the case I AM interested in hearing!

    Is Karen Conti on Fox News or a local Fox channel?

  47. facsmiley :BTW, what I put up are just Brodsky’s posts. You won’t see all the questions that were asked in every case — just what Joel replied.
    I don’t share that file so much as a resource, more like an oddity.

    Thanks for posting those Facs. The more I read, the more disguested I got, but I pretty much remembered them all. Amazing how much be believed every word Drew told him, and then some. Will be interesting to see how much of what he wrote back then comes back to bite him in the butt, even moreso than it already has. I was raised to believe everu human being has some good in them, but I swear, I just can’t see it in either Drew Peterson, or Joel Brodsky.

  48. Peterson’s attorneys will try to convince a jury that Savio’s medical problems could have caused her to fall.

    Savio had a heart murmur, periodontal disease and cervical vertigo. Although her neurologist testified that in his 30 years of practice, he’d never seen that kind of vertigo cause anyone to fall, he acknowledged Savio’s medical records show she complained of dizziness and numbness.

    See, that’s the thing. Right off the get-go, one of the death panel members questioned Hardy about a very important element. The gash on her head. He asked Hardy what she hit her head on. The faucet? Was there any hair left on it? Hardy said it wasn’t the faucet, it was the opposite end, where you would sit in the tub. If this member thought it out and thought it was important enough to question, then I think it’s important enough too to answer. How will that be explained away?

    As to vertigo, at some time or other, most everyone has had an episode of that. When you do have one, and you start to question others, it’s amazing what you’ll find out about that. Vertigo doesn’t make you want to pass out and/or fall. It makes the room spin, like a bad night of drinking. If the defense wants to make a medical fiasco out of that, I think they’re making a big mistake,. There just might be a few people on that jury that have been through a bout of vertigo, and they didn’t fall dead in a waterless bath tub. I have at least one friend and a relative or two that has been diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse, and they’ve never been dizzy, fell, or dropped dead into a bath tub either.

    I think the defense might be forgetting the simple matters and tend to blow things up into monumental ordeals, things a jury might have experience with, and I think they might be the ones to fall on their proverbial fat heads.

  49. I don’t want to sound like a broken record but my take on it is that the jury, although they will follow the guidelines of the judge, still has not been living in a vacuum. I agree that they will bring their own experiences and gut feelings to their decisions. They are going to wonder how a healthy, sober 40-year-old woman managed to gash her head, bruise herself and drown in a tub that one can’t even stretch out in and they will question why she was naked in the dry tub — no clothes, towels or rug within reach, with her hair down.

  50. OK All – I just want to give you guys a heads up so no one worries about me. Beginning tomorrow I’m taking a Lentan leave from blogging about DP. I don’t have many vices but this is one that would probably make my life better by removing it from my daily activities. I’m also giving up Coca Cola, sweets, meat and some free time to help others in need. Each year I add something new and I’m running out of vices (since I don’t drink, smoke, or do drugs.)

    I think this will be harder than giving up Coca Cola the first time I did that because I probably was drinking about 5-6 cans a day.

    Wish me luck and gently remind me if I fall off the wagon…

  51. I just feel that if Kathleen’s death was caused by the medical condition the defense is going with she would have thrown up had she hit her head as a result. I have no medical proof of that, just that vertigo makes you very nauseated and it takes a lot of will to keep from throwing up, remove the alert will I would think throwing up would be logical. I have Menier’s Disease so I have some experience with vertigo.

  52. Forty days is a long time Think, but I have faith in you. Sometimes, a break from all of this, even when it isn’t Lenten Season, helps us to focus more on the important things in our lives, and not stay so wrapped up in a case in which we really can’t individually change the events of the past, or the outcome of the future. But it’s wonderful to know there is a place we can share our opinions and gripes, and it will still be here when you return.

  53. From Speak your Mind/Joel Brodsky; Result #150 on May 15, 2008, 5:080pm
    (typos are his, not mine)

    ..what really matters in a homicide case is having putting the defendant and victim togeather at the time of death. If you can't put the victim and defendant at the same location when the victim dies, you can't get a conviction. Thats why I am confident Drew will never be charged, because with Stacy there is no proof of a criminal act and with Kathy, even if you only believe the 2nd pathologist and discount the first one, Drew can account for where he was during the window of time Kathy died.

    Will Tom be the defense witness tomorrow, based on this quote from Brodsky?

  54. See, that’s the thing Rescue. Drew canNOT account for where he was. That child has no idea what went on while he was sleeping, unless he’s going to testify he was up all night long at 10 years old, which is totally absurd. Plus, the groundwork has pretty much been laid that Stacy lied for Drew, and even though her statement is on record with the police, she’s not here to back it up in court. I hope they aren’t stupid enough to put Tom through that, I really do.

  55. Brodsky:

    If Drew was charged with the murder of Kathleen Savio, and you believed her death was a homicide, and a lot of the so called hearsay statements were allowed into evidence, but the State could not produce any evidence that would put Drew inside Kathleen’s home at or near the time of her death would you convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

  56. Yeah, doesn’t your heart just go out to those poor kids. Of course, they don’t want to cross their father. Expecting a child of 10, who’s now 16, to recall and account for his father’s every moment during the entire weekend is both illogical and unbelievable. I don’t think anyone, judge, jury or public, would buy into that.

    Unless the child can remember specifically being with his father, waiting out in the car, while his father went into the house to talk to his mom about something, then came back out. I guess, then, Tom can say he was “with” his father. But, still, there’d be the slight problem of what went on in the house while his father was in there.

    This isn’t a good theory, though, because Brodsky claims the State cannot put Peterson in Kathleen’s house during the hours she was to have died. So, we’re back to a 10 year old recounting every moment of the weekend’s time.

  57. The problem with using either Tom or Stephen is that not the information he provided initially, Stacy was. If either of those 2 (or anyone else for that matter)could have given him an aliby in addition to Stacy why was it not said then? IMO, very conveinent that Drew would have a back up to his story in the event his aliby would go missing.

  58. The tapes allegedly also recorded Peterson insulting the investigating officers, saying, “She was in a dry bathtub. What a bunch of f****** idiots.”

    According to Wawczak, Peterson predicted that he would have already been tried and acquitted in Stacy’s disappearance last year by the time police find her remains.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5440864&page=1&page=1

    Peterson, who is a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, maintained his innocence in both cases.

    “If I said anything close to that, it was taken out of context,” Peterson told the Associated Press.

    *** You know he did say this, because when he gets caught in a lie, he back peddles, like he did with Morphey and renting the storage locker***

  59. Murder plot?

    Morphey said the day before the blue barrel incident, Peterson showed up at his home, ostensibly to take him to a nearby Meijer store, where Peterson, the overnight sergeant for the Bolingbrook Police Department, had supposedly lined up a job interview for Morphey.

    But Peterson and Morphey never made it to Meijer. Instead, Morphey said, Peterson drove him to a park off Remington Boulevard.

    “We went to that park to discuss Stacy cheating on him, and he had to take care of the problem,” Morphey said.

    Nicholas Gatto — Manager Meijer Supermarket testified on Jan. 25. I was in court the day Mr. Gatto testified. Peterson talked to him weeks earlier, I believe, about hiring Morphey. Gatto informed Peterson they would not be hiring Morphey. He testified there was no appointment for either one of them, as Peterson claims.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/tom-morphey-talks/

  60. harleyjoey :

    Looks like old Joel is a busy guy. Check out the front page of the trib.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/

    Oh, we heard all about this. The parents fight is theirs, but, once again, the attorney media whore and Glenn Selig use the participants to garner attention. If there was no controversial ruling by the judge, and if the father hadn’t done this openly to purposely piss off his soon-to-be ex-wife, we wouldn’t be reading Selig’s nonsense and Joel Brodsky wouldn’t be on the front page, now, would he?

    They can all go ……

  61. TIA — Good for you! Hope you have a spiritually-renewing Lent! I’ve committed to getting up an hour earlier than normal to do a devotional that a friend sent me. Then off to morning Mass!

  62. BTW, I am in the Eastern Time Zone. My actual username was ATLgranny (same as on FSP) but after I signed up the forum made it all small letters. ATL = Atlanta

  63. Drew Peterson hearsay ruling might be kept secret
    February 16, 2010 7:02 PM

    More than 80 hours of testimony from 68 witnesses along with at least 155 pieces of evidence have given the public a fascinating preview of the murder case against Drew Peterson, but the actual results of the hearing might be kept secret.

    Attorneys for both sides say the public likely won’t hear which, if any, of the 15 hearsay statements will be allowed at trial in the 2004 drowning death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    As part of his ruling on the monthlong hearing, Will County Judge Stephen White must essentially find Peterson guilty or not of killing his third or fourth wife before deciding to allow any of the submitted hearsay to be used at trial. Attorneys on both sides expect White will issue his ruling under seal to avoid influencing the jury pool.

    Colin Miller, an associate professor at John Marshall Law School, said it could create a “significant problem” if White releases his rulings publicly.

    “It’s weird because you’re saying in the defendant’s trial for murder the statements can come in because he’s guilty of murder,” Miller said.

    White has asked both sides to make closing arguments Wednesday, but prosecutors late Tuesday were still working to determine whether other witnesses needed to be called. Attorneys for Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, still plan to call one of their expert pathologists to testify.

    The hearing, a first of its kind in Illinois, was required under a new state law allowing judges to admit certain hearsay statements.

    Prosecutors were required to show by a “preponderance of the evidence” that Peterson killed Savio or his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who disappeared in 2007, to prevent them from testifying against him.

    Peterson is the sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance but has not been charged.

    Many legal experts believe that any decision under the new law to admit the submitted hearsay statements likely will be overturned.

    But former federal prosecutor Steven Miller said he thought prosecutors would get much of their submitted hearsay into evidence.

    “It’s the sheer volume of evidence, the multiple dead women connected with (Peterson),” he said. “The dozens of witnesses is a witch’s brew of problems for a defendant.”

    White already has found that perhaps the most damning statement — from Pastor Neil Schori, who told the media that Stacy told him Peterson had killed Savio — won’t be allowed.

    Lacking any physical evidence that ties Peterson to Savio’s death, prosecutors have argued Peterson had a financial motive to kill Savio.

    Defense attorneys will argue Savio’s death was an accident — as a coroner’s jury found in 2004. State police have testified that they gathered no evidence from Savio’s home when she was found dead in a dry bathtub.

    “That’s one of the points that will be brought out — there is no evidence,” said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky.

    –Steve Schmadeke

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/drew-peterson-hearsay-ruling-might-be-kept-secret.html

  64. “That’s one of the points that will be brought out — there is no evidence,” said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky.

    Yeah, true. No evidence that there was an accident, because of the many facts that were brought out in testimony. No clothes, towels…..

    Just because the defense says it’s so, doesn’t make it so.

  65. “Attorneys for Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, still plan to call one of their expert pathologists to testify.”
    ++++
    guess that clears up who they plan to call and what direction they are taking it.

  66. Attorneys for Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, still plan to call one of their expert pathologists to testify.
    —————–
    Well Facs, looks like we were right about a pathologist testifying tomorrow, but I wonder if it’s going to be Larkin or Wecht? I didn’t even know about Larkin until you mentioned him, so I need to do some research. Neither one will be as interesting as having Drew testify though. Dang.

  67. rescueapet :

    “That’s one of the points that will be brought out — there is no evidence,” said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky.

    Yeah, true. No evidence that there was an accident, because of the many facts that were brought out in testimony. No clothes, towels…..
    Just because the defense says it’s so, doesn’t make it so.

    also can’t say where the gash in her head came from, unless they plan to say Kathleen jumped up cleaned the bathroom then laid back down.

  68. My post was a joke. I just wanted to see what kind of reaction I would get from posting something insane like that. LMAO.

  69. givarat :My post was a joke. I just wanted to see what kind of reaction I would get from posting something insane like that. LMAO.

    As dear Basherette would have said….Bwahahahahahahahaha.

  70. It didn’t take much to charge and convict a former police officer, Sam Parker, of his wife’s murder. Let’s hope we even have more here in the Peterson case. They always think they can get a way with it as there’s no body. He never expected he would be arrested for Savio’s death. I think he will eventually be charged with Stacy’s murder, as well.

    For interesting reading on the Parker case you can follow this link to an old archive. http://www.jurorthirteen.com/GeneralCategories/UpcomingTrials/TheresaParker/tabid/1276/Default.aspx

  71. rescueapet February 16, 2010 at 7:19 pm | #85 Quote (UPSCREEN)
    Drew Peterson hearsay ruling might be kept secret

    [snipped]

    White has asked both sides to make closing arguments Wednesday, but

    “prosecutors late Tuesday were still working to determine whether other witnesses needed to be called.”

  72. charmed4sr :

    rescueapet :

    “That’s one of the points that will be brought out — there is no evidence,” said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky.

    Yeah, true. No evidence that there was an accident, because of the many facts that were brought out in testimony. No clothes, towels…..Just because the defense says it’s so, doesn’t make it so.

    also can’t say where the gash in her head came from, unless they plan to say Kathleen jumped up cleaned the bathroom then laid back down.

    Speaking of the gash…neither of the autopsy reports state whether it was a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal gash, and only that it was one inch long in a certain area of the back of her head. I’ve always felt that the angle of it was important, especially since Hardy said she didn’t hit it on the faucet, but the end where you sit in the tub. Obviously, it wasn’t important enough to be noted in the autopsy reports by Baden and Mitchell, but I just wonder which it was and if it even matched up with how her head would be been gashed had she fallen backwards, or even sidways, which would have made the same type mark. Further, it looks to me like it would have caused a lateral (horizontal) gash. If anyone knows more about it, please post it.

  73. givarat :My post was a joke. I just wanted to see what kind of reaction I would get from posting something insane like that. LMAO.

    Giv, since you read and post here, I would think you would be aware of how most of us all feel about Brodsky, and not deliberately put yourself in a position to be criticized. My response to your post was an effort to be nice, but believe me, it did take effort. All jokes aside, Brodsky is the butt of most of them, and I guess you know now that most of us have no desire to converse with Brodsky here or anywhere else, much less be interested in asking him any questions or reading his asinine answers. Not funny, and I was using Bash’s sarcastic laugh, just so you know. Facs/Rescue: If this need to be deleted, please do so.

  74. cfs7360 :

    charmed4sr :

    rescueapet :

    “That’s one of the points that will be brought out — there is no evidence,” said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky.

    Yeah, true. No evidence that there was an accident, because of the many facts that were brought out in testimony. No clothes, towels…..Just because the defense says it’s so, doesn’t make it so.

    also can’t say where the gash in her head came from, unless they plan to say Kathleen jumped up cleaned the bathroom then laid back down.

    Speaking of the gash…neither of the autopsy reports state whether it was a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal gash, and only that it was one inch long in a certain area of the back of her head. I’ve always felt that the angle of it was important, especially since Hardy said she didn’t hit it on the faucet, but the end where you sit in the tub. Obviously, it wasn’t important enough to be noted in the autopsy reports by Baden and Mitchell, but I just wonder which it was and if it even matched up with how her head would be been gashed had she fallen backwards, or even sidways, which would have made the same type mark. Further, it looks to me like it would have caused a lateral (horizontal) gash. If anyone knows more about it, please post it.

    My point, which I forgot to add in my previous post, about this was…did Drew hit her with something at the same angle as the back of the edge of the tub? Or did he just randomly hit her head, not thinking that the injury needed to tie into the angle of the tub…does this make sense? Afraid I’m not coming across very well with my thoughts, but there is a method to my madness.

Comments are closed.