Pastor Schori’s testimony will be heard at Drew Peterson’s trial

Drew Peterson‘s trial for the murder of his ex-wife Kathleen Savio is scheduled to begin in a little less than two weeks. As the days count down, motions continue to be filed and Judge White continues to issue his decisions on them and on the admission of testimony and evidence.

Yesterday’s court date was a mixture of open and closed sessions, but these are the rulings as we’ve been able to gather from various news sources (despite some rulings being sealed):

HEARSAY TESTIMONY

  • Pastor Neil Schori can testify about Stacy Peterson telling him during a public counseling session that Drew Peterson coaxed her into providing a false alibi for his whereabouts on the weekend when Kathleen Savio was killed. He can also testify to Stacy’s statements to him about waking up and noticing Drew was gone from the bed and his subsequent return to the house when she observed he was dressed in black and loading a bag of women’s clothing into the washing machine.
  • Schori is banned from testifying that Stacy told him Drew had confessed to murdering Kathleen.
  • Stacy’s statements to Scott Rossetto about the night Kathleen died have also been banned.
  • Some statements about the incident in which Drew broke into Kathleen Savio’s home, cornered and threatened her will not be heard in court, including a taped account from Savio herself made for an insurance company. At least seven witnesses gave testimony about the incident during the hearsay hearings.

MOTIONS

  • A motion to delay the start of the trial past July 8th was denied. The defense had argued that they needed more time to read and review forensics evidence.

PENDING

  • Judge White is reviewing ISP reports regarding the search for Stacy Peterson and will determine whether the information is relevant to the case and if it should be surrendered to the defense.
  • The defense still has not received from Fox News a videotape made during Dr. Baden’s autopsy of Kathleen’s remains. The judge may bar his testimony if the video is not produced. The recording was made by Steph Watts who says the video is less than 5 minutes long and that the camera was aimed at Dr. Baden solely.

Sources:
Chicago Breaking News
Suburban Chicago News
Chicago Tribune
Sun Times

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~ 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

65 thoughts on “Pastor Schori’s testimony will be heard at Drew Peterson’s trial

  1. As it has been pointed out, so much for the sealed rulings on the hearsay statements. At any rate, here they are again and I’ve crossed out those that look as if they have been barred:

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

    2. Kristin Anderson testified that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003. (possibly barred)

    3. Mary Parks, Savio’s Joliet Junior College classmate, testified she saw red marks on Savio’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

    4. Issam Karam, a Savio co-worker, testified Savio told him Peterson came into her home and held a knife to her throat. (possibly barred)

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

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

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

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

    9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company (possibly barred)

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

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

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

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

    The ones that haven’t been crossed out may or may not be admitted. I don’t know!

  2. Yeah, so much for this not coming out until the jury is seated, huh? And, what’s up with this:

    White banned the recordings in his sealed ruling, Brodsky said during Thursday’s hearing.

    The attorneys are precluded from discussing the contents of the judge’s decision, but Peterson defense attorney Joseph Lopez said he was happy with the overall ruling.

    So, it would seem, the attorneys can discuss which way the judge ruled when they are speaking in court (or out of court?), they just can’t discuss why he ruled the way he did. Is that it? Oh, that sure goes a long way in keeping the judge’s ruling out of the public until the jury is seated.

    Hmmm. Let’s see. Judge White ruled in favor of letting Pastor Schori testify because….. let me take a crack at it. Because, he found him to be credible? Ding, ding, ding, do I win?

    He is not allowing the knife-yielding incident in via the friend of Kathleen because…. let me see — the friend’s testimony was inconsistent and didn’t have substantial enough basis to allow in? Ding, ding, ding, do I win again?

    So, does Judge White believe that Drew killed Kathleen, and, thus, killed Stacy to silence her from exposing Peterson? Yup, that must be it. Why else would the defense ask that he be removed from the case?

    Geesh. What a circus.

  3. “White banned the recordings in his sealed ruling, Brodsky said during Thursday’s hearing.”

    This sentence from the Tribune’s exclusive reads to me like some sort of Zen riddle. It just goes round and round…

  4. facsmiley :At the risk of talking to myself, I came across this Joel Brodsky quote from may 2009 and just couldn’t help sharing it:

    Joel Brodsky: We haven’t had a televised trial in Illinois since I can remember. It has to be approved by the supreme court. I wouldn’t mind this case being televised. It’s a circumstantial case, it’s got a lot of witnesses with credibility issues. It’s going to be a very interesting case to try. I think it will be very educational, too. You’ll see a lot of forensic evidence, interesting forensic evidence. I would hope some larger media outlets would take a petition to the Illinois Supreme Court.

    “I would hope some larger media outlets would take a petition to the Illinois Supreme Court.”

    Me too! But we all know that JB is just blowin gass & smoke! 🙂

  5. facsmiley :Wow, looks like Pauly has been away from the case for too long. This post of his about the autopsy taping is so chock-full of inaccuracies I don’t even know where to start.

    Don’t bother… he is loco!

  6. Oops, I wasn’t finished putting that comment together and then I trashed it. Originally I wanted to contrast JB’s statement about there being “a lot of forensic evidence” against all of his other statements that there is “absolutely no evidence”. I guess when Joel is looking for media exposure, he’s willing to admit that there is evidence. 🙂

  7. facsmiley :

    “White banned the recordings in his sealed ruling, Brodsky said during Thursday’s hearing.”

    This sentence from the Tribune’s exclusive reads to me like some sort of Zen riddle. It just goes round and round…

    LOL @ Facs oxymoronic? just moronic?

  8. …Steph Watts, the producer in question, says he never videotaped the body. Now a freelance journalist, Watts told AOL News today that he “never touched or moved the body,” and accused the defense of feeding the judge false information.

    “There is no videotape of the body,” he said. “I know what I shot.”

    Watts says he’s been subpoenaed to appear in Peterson’s trial, which begins July 8.

    Darryl Goldberg, Peterson’s attorney, told AOL News the tape is relevant to the trial because it may contain comments from Baden about the autopsy that have never been heard before. But he said he hadn’t seen the tape or obtained a copy of it from Fox News yet…

    http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/judge-in-drew-peterson-trial-demands-to-see-fox-news-autopsy-footage/19531309

  9. rescueapet :

    Yeah, so much for this not coming out until the jury is seated, huh? And, what’s up with this:

    White banned the recordings in his sealed ruling, Brodsky said during Thursday’s hearing.

    The attorneys are precluded from discussing the contents of the judge’s decision, but Peterson defense attorney Joseph Lopez said he was happy with the overall ruling.

    So, it would seem, the attorneys can discuss which way the judge ruled when they are speaking in court (or out of court?), they just can’t discuss why he ruled the way he did. Is that it? Oh, that sure goes a long way in keeping the judge’s ruling out of the public until the jury is seated.

    Rescue, to me it’s looking more like the Tribune talked to a source who was in the courtroom during the the closed sessions — someone who leaked info that should have been under seal.

    Brodsky is mentioned as saying something “during Thursday’s hearing” and the Trib also discusses the knife incident portion of the proceedings, which we KNOW was during a closed session:

    “…according to sources and comments made by defense attorney Joel Brodsky in court Thursday.”

    I’m really thinking that the source of the leak may not have been Brodsky at all, but someone else who was present.

    Someone who should have STFU.

  10. http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2010/06/false-alibi-confession.html|

    June 25, 2010
    The Chicago Tribune – The Seeker
    By: Manya Brachear

    Should all conversations with clergy be confidential?

    Should conversations with clergy always be classified? A Will County judge has ruled that a pastor can disclose to a jury his conversation at a coffee house in which the fourth wife of Drew Peterson allegedly told her pastor she had provided a false alibi to police for the weekend when Peterson’s third wife died.

    The testimony in open court won’t be the first time the Rev. Neal Schori disclosed his conversation with Stacey Peterson. In 2007, the pastor appeared on the Fox network and revealed that the missing fourth wife of ex-cop Drew Peterson told him that Peterson admitted killing his third wife. Schori told Greta Van Susteren that he was “reeling inside” after the conversation.

    Courts have ruled repeatedly that clergy-client conversations are confidential. In the past several years, as awareness about sexual abuse has grown, states have added clergy to the list of mandated reporters. But this case did not involve sexual abuse of a minor. It involved murder.

    Furthermore, the counseling session did not take place inside a church. It took place inside a Starbucks, where the roar of the espresso machine often gives the illusion of privacy. By sharing her deepest secret there, Stacy Peterson essentially waived her right to keep conversations with her religious adviser private, Will County Judge Stephen White said, according to a Tribune exclusive on Friday.

    What do you think? Do clergy have higher obligations to report such conversations? Or should the faithful have some expectation of privacy?

    Continued……

  11. http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2010/06/bishop-wayne-miller-stacy-petersons-pastor-also-needs-safe-place-to-tell-truth.html#more

    Bishop Wayne Miller: Stacy Peterson’s pastor also needs safe place to tell truth

    It is easy enough for us as pastors to learn the rules about the confidentiality of our pastoral conversations, but the actual boundary between confidentiality and “toxic secret keeping” is more subtle.

    The reason that the confidentiality boundary around the sacred confession is so essential is that we believe that healing, forgiveness, and new life are dependent upon exposing to the light that which is hidden in darkness.

    Yet we all know that enlightening the shameful secrets that reside in the shadow realm of our souls is difficult and even dangerous. Centuries of experience and collective wisdom have taught us that most people require a safe and firmly bounded space to give us the courage to bring out that which we most fear or dread. The confidentiality of the confessional, whether it is created in a small booth or a pastor’s study, is designed to be just such a space.

    The simple truth is that if people lose confidence in whether that boundary of confidentiality will hold, they will be unable to confess what longs for forgiveness and unable to expunge what seeks to be healed. The world will not be a stronger or healthier or more wholesome place if we are casual about clergy confidentiality.

    In my pastoral experience, however, there is frequently a judgment that must be made between confidentiality that exposes unwelcome truth to the light and confidentiality that enables unwelcome truth to stay buried and hidden from sight.

    When pastors become enablers of dysfunction or co-conspirators in protecting the guilty from accountability, then we are abusing the privilege of confidentiality.

    Marking the line between the use and the abuse of confidentiality is necessarily subjective to some degree. We can formulate certain guidelines, like asking, “Is the person dangerous to self or others?” and these guidelines help a little, but it is almost impossible to make a completely fair judgment from the outside as to whether Stacy Peterson’s pastor acted responsibly in sharing what he heard during her private confession.

    It is one of those situations, like so many we face in religious life, of recognizing the inescapable ambiguity of human existence. And when we must make judgments, we should do so figuratively on our knees asking God to bless the parts of our decision that deserve blessing and to redeem the parts of our decision that need redemption.

    Confessors also need a safe place to tell the truth.

    Posted at 04:22:29 PM

  12. Of all the hearsay evidence presented at the previous hearing I feel that Pastor Schori’s testimony, although limited, is probably the most damaging to Drew and the most helpful to the prosecution. I’m so glad to hear this ruling.

  13. Marking the line between the use and the abuse of confidentiality is necessarily subjective to some degree. We can formulate certain guidelines, like asking, “Is the person dangerous to self or others?” and these guidelines help a little, but it is almost impossible to make a completely fair judgment from the outside as to whether Stacy Peterson’s pastor acted responsibly in sharing what he heard during her private confession.

    Stacy Peterson was not catholic and she did not ‘confess’ to Pastor Schori. She and Drew were both seeing him for counseling about their relationship. During a counseling session in a public place, Stacy disclosed that “Drew did it” and that she served as his alibi.

    It’s really misleading to characterize their conversation as a ‘private confession’.

    Thank God Neil Schori came forward when Stacy ended up missing.

  14. What do you think? Do clergy have higher obligations to report such conversations? Or should the faithful have some expectation of privacy?

    IMO: Of course, one should feel that what they confide in a clergyman is private and confidential. But, as in this case, when that individual is no longer a breathing, live “faithful” follower that likely was murdered, I think you move from the confessional to the courtroom. Depending on how you view it, murdering someone is both a moral issue and a legal issue. Allowing someone to remain free merely because it’s the politically correct thing to do is hogwash. In this instance, if Pastor Schori could not, morally, live with what he knew and felt that he had to take action, then it was the right thing to do for him. I’m sure he knew he might have to face the consequences, but that is the decision he made and the one he could live with, both as a clergyman and a moral, decent human being.

    Maybe defense lawyers are capable of sucking it in and continue to represent a slime bucket because it’s their duty to uphold that individual’s constitutional rights, but no one has the supreme right to pass judgment on what someone divulges that is morally loathsome.

  15. rescueapet :

    What do you think? Do clergy have higher obligations to report such conversations? Or should the faithful have some expectation of privacy?

    IMO: Of course, one should feel that what they confide in a clergyman is private and confidential. But, as in this case, when that individual is no longer a breathing, live “faithful” follower that likely was murdered, I think you move from the confessional to the courtroom. Depending on how you view it, murdering someone is both a moral issue and a legal issue. Allowing someone to remain free merely because it’s the politically correct thing to do is hogwash. In this instance, if Pastor Schori could not, morally, live with what he knew and felt that he had to take action, then it was the right thing to do for him. I’m sure he knew he might have to face the consequences, but that is the decision he made and the one he could live with, both as a clergyman and a moral, decent human being.
    Maybe defense lawyers are capable of sucking it in and continue to represent a slime bucket because it’s their duty to uphold that individual’s constitutional rights, but no one has the supreme right to pass judgment on what someone divulges that is morally loathsome.

    I’m very pleased that Pastor Schori’s testimony, at least most of it, will be allowed.

    I remember when he came forward and was interviewed by Fox News – Greta Van Susteran. If I remember correctly, it was several months after Stacy’s disappearance. At the time I felt that Pastor Schori had given the situation due diligence, waiting to see if Stacy reappeared. I’m sure that Pastor Schori waited until he was sure in his own mind that Stacy was most likely deceased, and most likely at the hands of DP. I think it was both the morally correct and legally correct step for him to take.

    Joel Brodsky and DP have attacked witnesses ruthlessly, saying that a witness has had drug problems or other issues that make them not credible. In this case, it’s going to be very difficult to attack Pastor Schori and deem his testimony not credible.

  16. For the record, Schori stated during the hearsay hearings that he made numerous attempts to talk to LE right after Stacy disappeared:

    “I immediately made attempts to call the state police,” Neil Schori, a pastor who says Stacy Peterson confided in him about her husband killing Savio, said of his reaction to the news Stacy was missing.

    “I made multiple phone calls, left multiple voice mails,” said Schori, noting not one was returned. He said he also went to the District 5 state police headquarters in Lockport, but no one would meet with him.

    As luck would have it, Schori happened to be serving on a grand jury when Sgt. Collins was called as a witness. He stood up and said he needed to speak with the sergeant and was finally able to share his information, which may prove vital to the prosecution in Peterson’s murder trial.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2074488,police_bungle_peterson_jo022810.article

    The interview with Greta Van Sustern aired December 10, 2007.

  17. facsmiley :
    For the record, Schori stated during the hearsay hearings that he made numerous attempts to talk to LE right after Stacy disappeared:

    “I immediately made attempts to call the state police,” Neil Schori, a pastor who says Stacy Peterson confided in him about her husband killing Savio, said of his reaction to the news Stacy was missing.
    “I made multiple phone calls, left multiple voice mails,” said Schori, noting not one was returned. He said he also went to the District 5 state police headquarters in Lockport, but no one would meet with him.
    As luck would have it, Schori happened to be serving on a grand jury when Sgt. Collins was called as a witness. He stood up and said he needed to speak with the sergeant and was finally able to share his information, which may prove vital to the prosecution in Peterson’s murder trial.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2074488,police_bungle_peterson_jo022810.article
    The interview with Greta Van Sustern aired December 10, 2007.

    Facsmiley………Thanks for refreshing my memory on the time line. I didn’t remember all of the details of Pastor Schori’s testimony from the hearsay hearing. It sounds like he was convinced right away that Stacy hadn’t left with another man as DP stated, and was likely deceased. His information was very important to the police and will be vitally important to the prosecution.

  18. Thanks Rescue #22 You and Facs have worked extremely hard to keep this forum credible.

    Although everyone wants/needs to express their frustrations, it can get the forum cluttered with inaccurate regurgitations based on the defense spewed ‘white noise’ and faulty memories posted as fact.

    People tend to believe what they read and when the same inaccuracies repeatedly show up, many times those inaccuracies become fact and are stated as fact and incorporated in a question… Best example is the classic question/insinuation, “When did you stop beating your wife?”

    Thank you Rescue and Facsmiley for all your efforts and all the hours you put in to keep this forum credible.

    Please delete this message. I’m just venting and hope people will check their facts first.

  19. A gentle reminder folks, please think to check your facts before commenting.

    Joy, thanks for your encouragement.

  20. givarat :
    Pastor Schori should have advised Stacy to get out of that situation immediately and go to the authorities. He should of tried to follow up on options by going to authorities himself with an anonymous client who has this problem and how can she be kept safe if she did go to authorities and try to suggest those options to her. Maybe it’s hindsight, but she may have still been alive if he followed up with it.

    I remember that at the time Pastor Schori came forward with what he knew, he said he had advised Stacy to go to the authorities, but she was afraid of the local police, with good reason.

    Considering the situation at that time, Kathleen Savio’s death was listed as an accident. Local police or even state police, hearing Stacy’s claim that DP killed Kathleen and coerced her into giving him a false alibi, would have been skeptical. Drew would have claimed that he and Stacy were having marital problems and she was depressed and making false allegations, and the police would have been inclined to believe a fellow officer. Stacy was caught between a rock and a hard place.

    Pastor Schori didn’t have the authority to go to the police when he had the conversation with Stacy (August 2007) and no one would have believed him. I’m sure all of us could come up with a scenario in which Stacy remains alive and safe, but we can’t change history. It was Stacy’s disappearance and likely death that garnered national media attention, and put pressure on local authorities to exhume Kathleen Savio’s remains and do a second autopsy. And the result brought us to where we are today, with DP charged with murder and awaiting trial.

  21. I think that after her disappearance probably everyone who shared the confidences of Stacy Peterson went back over their last conversations with her and agonized, “what if…?”

    If I had told her this, if I had asked her that, if I had insisted, if I had gone to this person or that, told what I knew or guessed, if I had confronted Drew, given her money, taken her and the kids away by force, if the planets had aligned differently…she would somehow still be alive today.

    It’s very unfair and very cruel to presume to know what someone should have done in their very own, unique situation.

    If harm befell Stacy Peterson, as most think it did, it’s the fault of the individual who intended and then acted to harm her.

    IMO

  22. facsmiley :
    I think that after her disappearance probably everyone who shared the confidences of Stacy Peterson went back over their last conversations with her and agonized, “what if…?”
    If I had told her this, if I had asked her that, if I had insisted, if I had gone to this person or that, told what I knew or guessed, if I had confronted Drew, given her money, taken her and the kids away by force, if the planets had aligned differently…she would somehow still be alive today.
    It’s very unfair and very cruel to presume to know what someone should have done in their very own, unique situation.
    If harm befell Stacy Peterson, as most think it did, it’s the fault of the individual who intended and then acted to harm her.
    IMO

    Well stated! I’m sure it’s very difficult for Stacy’s friends and family, as well as Kathleen’s friends and family, to wonder if anything they could have said or done would have changed the outcome. It’s human nature to wonder, and wish for a different outcome.

  23. judgin :Thanks Rescue #22 You and Facs have worked extremely hard to keep this forum credible.
    Although everyone wants/needs to express their frustrations, it can get the forum cluttered with inaccurate regurgitations based on the defense spewed ‘white noise’ and faulty memories posted as fact.
    People tend to believe what they read and when the same inaccuracies repeatedly show up, many times those inaccuracies become fact and are stated as fact and incorporated in a question… Best example is the classic question/insinuation, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
    Thank you Rescue and Facsmiley for all your efforts and all the hours you put in to keep this forum credible.
    Please delete this message. I’m just venting and hope people will check their facts first.

    People need to remember the ole sayin of Don’t believe everything u read.

  24. Yeah, who’s probably loving every minute of this latest round of inaccurate press, and that’s the Baden autopsy fiasco. Oh, well, I guess the defense considers their job done when they can get attention focused on something that they think makes the good guys look like the bad guys, even if it is b.s. That’s how they uphold the murder defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, heh?

  25. Keep in mind that Joel Brodsky isn’t too concerned about justice for the innocent:

    Asked what makes him proud professionally, Brodsky said: “When I’m able to protect people who are innocent and charged with a crime.”

    He paused to reconsider his answer.

    “Innocence is a strange word,” he continued. “People who the government can’t prove did the crime, or did something bad or committed an offense, and they take them to trial anyway and I win. That’s my proudest accomplishment.”

    Ick.

  26. Lawyers know that Judges don’t know everything. Lawyers also take great enjoyment if they can argue animated, loudly, aggressively and vigorously to “convince the judge” of their point of view and win a favorable decision for their client… right or wrong. Maybe that’s how the Appellate Court came about and ‘the shark’ got his name.

  27. “Innocence is a strange word,” he continued. “People who the government can’t prove did the crime, or did something bad or committed an offense, and they take them to trial anyway and I win. That’s my proudest accomplishment.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Can someone please provide a list of all major and/or murder cases Joel Brodsky has defended and won !!

  28. justanotherhen :

    Can someone please provide a list of all major and/or murder cases Joel Brodsky has defended and won !!

    Of course not. We’ve only been made aware of what he can do in the media, outside of the courtroom. As far as the Peterson case is concerned, he hasn’t won much of anything. He’s made a name for himself, which, I guess, is what he set out to do, so he accomplished something. In reality, it doesn’t matter one way or the other what verdict he gets in the KS murder trial. He has name recognition, so the caliber of the clients he may attract will seek him out because of that, not because he’s a skillful, talented lawyer. JMO.

  29. rescueapet :

    justanotherhen :

    Can someone please provide a list of all major and/or murder cases Joel Brodsky has defended and won !!

    Of course not. We’ve only been made aware of what he can do in the media, outside of the courtroom. As far as the Peterson case is concerned, he hasn’t won much of anything. He’s made a name for himself, which, I guess, is what he set out to do, so he accomplished something. In reality, I guess, it doesn’t matter one way or the other what verdict he gets in the KS murder trial. He has name recognition, so the caliber of the clients he may attract will seek him out because of that, not because he’s a skillful, talented lawyer. JMO.

    Also accounts for the big-name attorneys who hopped on board when Abood and Lenard jumped ship. Two years of constant media exposure has its benefits with or without success in court.

  30. I especially liked this paragraph of a piece that’s posted online today!

    Breaking the confessional seal?
    Posted by Mollie

    Excerpt

    I once knew a member of the clergy who warned parishioners that if they told him about anything illegal, he’d be compelled to report them. Now, usually when I confess my sins they’re of the variety where the state doesn’t have an interest. But it’s probably a good idea to clarify whether your confessor is bound to secrecy or not.

    http://www.getreligion.org/?p=37276

  31. Rescue @ #36… I really like that…

    Forewarned is forearmed.

    IMO tho, its a better idea to think before ya do something illegal, unethical, or immoral… thus relieving the clergy of the responsibility of reporting it.

    Shame on those people who do criminal/illegal acts, or acts of violence, then think they are forgiven because they ‘confessed’… then go and do it all over again.

    IMO We all make stupid human mistakes but “I’m sorry” only goes so far. Then others realize you don’t really mean it or ya’d quit the behavior.

  32. And I know I said I would post no more about this but it’s really too much.

    June 6, 2010
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/drew-peterson-trial-judge_n_624634.html

    The judge in the murder trial of Drew Peterson appeared shocked in court Thursday upon learning that Fox News had aired footage of Peterson’s wife’s autopsy…

    Hey, Judge White!

    November 19, 2007
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312208,00.html

    VAN SUSTEREN: How many people were in the room today?

    BADEN: There were five Illinois State Troopers who came down. One of them took photographs, took notes. We exchanged some information. There was a coroner, an administrative coroner, who was there, very helpful. We went over the X-rays. There was Steph Watts from your office who was there, who was very helpful.

    VAN SUSTEREN: He’s the one who videotaped you

    (CROSSTALK)

    BADEN: He did the videotape, and he was very helpful in taking notes and helping out. And it was a big, very nice autopsy room. They do about 500 autopsies a year in that room, so it’s not a small operation. And when the autopsy was done two days ago, about 13 X-rays were taken, which I was able to review. They have an X-ray view box. They had the X-rays. No fractures. And when I did the examination, there were no fractures on the body.

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And so the viewers know that, Steph Watts, when he videotaped you, we were very careful not to videotape the remains and being

    BADEN: That’s right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: … respectful of the seriousness of the situation

    BADEN: Yes.

    VAN SUSTEREN: … and for the family and the dignity of Kathleen Savio.

  33. Thanks for the memories, Facs.

    And, from all of this hullabaloo about video being taken, this is what it represents:

    Defense attorney Darryl Goldberg said the videotape was a vital piece of evidence.

    “This is something we have to have,” he said.

    I gather, from going over remarks made by Dr. Baden and Steph Watts, the defense is looking to contradict Baden and Watts. According to what has been reported, Dr. Baden was questioned by Brodsky:

    During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.

    “One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said. (By the way, Judge White was on the bench and listening when, if nothing else, mention was made of pictures being taken during the procedure, and, apparently, he wasn’t shocked at the time.)

    I imagine that the defense wants to hear, rather than see, what was spoken on that video, and are looking to hear Dr. Baden ask Watts to help him move or turn the body. Watts says that he took no video of the actual autopsy, and he did not touch the body. Unless I am mistaken, I do not see in the above statement that Dr. Baden actually said Watts moved the body. He was acknowledging a series of words presented to him by Brodsky. Since Dr. Baden wasn’t on the filming end, he wouldn’t really know what that camera was seeing. Dr. Baden may have seen portions of it being shown on Greta’s show, but, certainly, footage would have been edited to fit the time frame of what was allotted for the segment on the program.

    So, the defense, obviously, wants to discredit Dr. Baden as much as possible, and this seems to be one way of doing it. I’m not so sure it’s going to work, judging by the way I’m looking at this, but they appear to be very eager to get their hands on the video to find or hear something on it that is helpful to them.

  34. “You’re saying Fox videotaped the autopsy?” an incredulous White asked during a hearing today. “Somebody allowed a TV station to videotape an autopsy?”

    Assistant state’s attorney John Connor said the video was made with “a surreptitious camera.” Kathy Patton, another assistant state’s attorney, said Baden’s autopsy, performed after a pathologist hired by Will County finished his work, was done on behalf of Savio’s family.

    The newspaper article that reported this story reports what the response to the judge’s shock and awe was, but leaves it at that. And so, it’s now all over the Internet that Judge White was beside himself in shock. Yet, the truth is, it was a private autopsy that was sanctioned by the Savio family, so, however you want to look at it, if they wanted the actual procedure videotaped for their own purpose (although Watts said no filming of the body was done), they were well within their rights to do so, regardless of whether the judge is shocked. The Savio family has a civil, wrongful death case filed.

    The issue isn’t whether it didn’t sit right with Judge White or not. The issue is he ruled on a motion by the defense to require Fox News to turn over the video to them, and that’s apparently what he did. He did not say the video would keep out Dr. Baden’s testimony on behalf of the prosecution. He said he may not allow his testimony if the video is not turned over.

    Boy, things sure get muddied up and twisted around, don’t they?

  35. judgin :Rescue @ #36… I really like that…
    Forewarned is forearmed.
    IMO tho, its a better idea to think before ya do something illegal, unethical, or immoral… thus relieving the clergy of the responsibility of reporting it.
    Shame on those people who do criminal/illegal acts, or acts of violence, then think they are forgiven because they ‘confessed’… then go and do it all over again.
    IMO We all make stupid human mistakes but “I’m sorry” only goes so far. Then others realize you don’t really mean it or ya’d quit the behavior.

    Stacy’s the one who talked to the pastor not Drew. Why would Stacy think telling the pastor would relive her from her wrongdoings, she did noting wrong.

  36. scumbag1 :

    judgin :Rescue @ #36… I really like that…Forewarned is forearmed.IMO tho, its a better idea to think before ya do something illegal, unethical, or immoral… thus relieving the clergy of the responsibility of reporting it.Shame on those people who do criminal/illegal acts, or acts of violence, then think they are forgiven because they ‘confessed’… then go and do it all over again.IMO We all make stupid human mistakes but “I’m sorry” only goes so far. Then others realize you don’t really mean it or ya’d quit the behavior.

    Stacy’s the one who talked to the pastor not Drew. Why would Stacy think telling the pastor would relive her from her wrongdoings, she did noting wrong.

    I AGREE! Absolutely NO reference to Stacy is intended or implied in my comment!

  37. rescueapet :
    Thanks for the memories, Facs.
    And, from all of this hullabaloo about video being taken, this is what it represents:

    Defense attorney Darryl Goldberg said the videotape was a vital piece of evidence.
    “This is something we have to have,” he said.

    I gather, from going over remarks made by Dr. Baden and Steph Watts, the defense is looking to contradict Baden and Watts. According to what has been reported, Dr. Baden was questioned by Brodsky:

    During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.
    “One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said. (By the way, Judge White was on the bench and listening when, if nothing else, mention was made of pictures being taken during the procedure, and, apparently, he wasn’t shocked at the time.)

    I imagine that the defense wants to hear, rather than see, what was spoken on that video, and are looking to hear Dr. Baden ask Watts to help him move or turn the body. Watts says that he took no video of the actual autopsy, and he did not touch the body. Unless I am mistaken, I do not see in the above statement that Dr. Baden actually said Watts moved the body. He was acknowledging a series of words presented to him by Brodsky. Since Dr. Baden wasn’t on the filming end, he wouldn’t really know what that camera was seeing. Dr. Baden may have seen portions of it being shown on Greta’s show, but, certainly, footage would have been edited to fit the time frame of what was allotted for the segment on the program.
    So, the defense, obviously, wants to discredit Dr. Baden as much as possible, and this seems to be one way of doing it. I’m not so sure it’s going to work, judging by the way I’m looking at this, but they appear to be very eager to get their hands on the video to find or hear something on it that is helpful to them.

    I would like to see Fox turn over a copy of the video, and have the defense see 5 minutes worth of uniformed LE, medical personnel, and Dr. Baden beginning the autopsy and then as he proceeds, narrating with medical terminology at each step. In other words, nothing other than what would be considered normal in an autopsy, and nothing that the defense could exploit. That would close that avenue that the defense wants to use to discredit a witness.

  38. Maybe the defense team shoud subpoena Fox for that video! ya think? I guess they haven’t figured that out yet.

  39. Ah, guess it was just Watts:

    Watts said he has been subpoenaed by Peterson’s attorneys but doesn’t have a copy of the tape. He said he shot “less than 5 minutes” of footage strictly of Dr. Baden.

  40. You can’t subpoena something from somebody that they don’t have. IMO which is pretty obvious it is all just stall tactics to delay the trial, and get more media coverage.

  41. Tomorrow Judge White should be giving his decision about the search reports for Stacy Peterson and perhaps rule on the Baden testimony based on whether or not the defense has received the Fox footage.

  42. It will be interesting to hear the judges ruling tomorrow. However, I feel another defeat coming on 🙂

  43. judgin :
    Maybe the defense team shoud subpoena Fox for that video! ya think? I guess they haven’t figured that out yet.

    From what Steph Watts states on his blog, he doesn’t have the video requested by the defense. At the time Steph Watts did the brief video, he was working for Fox News, and I would think that Fox News owns the footage he took, not Steph Watts.

    I think the defense is just throwing out last minute requests for material in an effort to delay the trial. They’ve had about 13 months since DP’s arrest for the murder of Kathleen, and that’s more than enough time to prepare for trial. Technically, Joel Brodsky has had more than two and a half years to prepare for this eventuality.

  44. Who was the person who had said some thing like ‘A first year out of law school person could try this case’? You get the jist of what I mean and you know who I am talking about. The glorious bumblin fumblin chicken wing promotin Joel Un-Proudsky. For a case that was so easy what is Joelie afraid of. Just stop the side shows and get to the main event already.

  45. In all fairness, Scumbag, that was someone quoting what Joel Brodsky had said. What was more interesting about that statement (if he made it) was that it was made to excuse the fact that he didn’t fly back from his vacation upon Drew’s arrest, but waited until the following Monday, and sent someone else to file their motion to delay his arrraignment.

    BRAGIEL: No, he was there — just there for a few moments. His attorneys weren’t there. I spoke to Joel Brodsky about an hour ago, his attorney, who told me that it wasn’t necessary for him to be there because any first-year law student could handle that today, faxing in this motion to have the arraignment moved until next week.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519647,00.html

  46. http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2443368,CST-NWS-SNEED29.article

    Consider. Sneed has learned an unproductive six-hour search for murder suspect Drew Peterson’s wife, Stacy, was conducted Saturday on a private farm near Peoria.

    • The kicker: A source providing “new additional information” (who also prompted the first big unproductive farm search) refused to “physically go out on the property to help,” said a top police source.

    • To wit: “We asked the source to come out and help, but he didn’t want to and didn’t specify as to why,” said Sneed’s source, who also stated the search was conducted with cadaver dogs over two sites comprising several acres.

    • Background: “Over the course of the last couple years we’ve searched over 100 sites [for Stacy Peterson],” the source added.

  47. Hmmm. Why would I refuse if I were he? Afraid of his identity being revealed? It could happen inadvertently through the press if they’re seen.

  48. Yeah, Bucket, that would be my guess – afraid of being identified. Obviously, the defense is anxious to know who it is by filing a motion to get law enforcement’s notes, etc., regarding the investigation.

  49. This hearing date showed up this a.m. on the Will County Circuit Court Schedule

    MECZYK RALPH EUGENE 6 29 10 935 402 PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW W 6 29 10 402 935 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 6 29 10 402 935 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Status

    MECZYK RALPH EUGENE 7 8 10 1000 402 PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW W 7 8 10 402 1000 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Jury Trial
    PETERSON DREW W 7 8 10 402 1000 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Jury Trial

  50. It would appear that the Peoria lead checked out, if ISP is again searching that location.

    Much better weather now and it’s expected to continue over the next two days. I hope they are still out there!

  51. IMO it seems awfully premature for the defense to be demanding ISP reports about the searches for Stacy Peterson. As Joel loves to point out, Drew hasn’t been indicted for anything related to Stacy.

    It just looks so much as if they are anticipating ISP finding something and then charges, doesn’t it?

    I’ll admit it’s just a hunch, but I’m not the only person to observe that the defense has never been this agitated by a search before.

  52. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7527307

    Peterson attorneys want search info releasedUpdated at 10:30 AM today

    June 29, 2010 (WLS) — Drew Peterson’s attorneys were back in court Tuesday morning trying to get a judge to release information about a recent search for Stacy Peterson near Peoria.

    The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting there was another search for Stacy on a farm near Peoria recently that turned up nothing.

    The first search by state police also did not find anything, but Drew Peterson’s attorneys want to know more about what led to the search.

    Peterson is charged with killing his third wife Kathleen Savio. His trial begins next week.

Comments are closed.