Michael Baden will testify at Drew Peterson’s trial. Hearsay decision is challenged.

Pathologist, Michael Baden

At a pre-trial hearing this morning Judge Stephen White decided to allow pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, to testify about the Fox News arranged autopsy of Kathleen Savio‘s remains at Drew Peterson‘s trial for murder.

Preliminary reports indicate that Steph Watts, a former producer who assisted Dr. Baden during the third autopsy, testified to some graphic details of the undertaking. Under questioning by Joel Brodsky, he denied that he was working on an HBO special about the autopsy. Watts also described how at one point Joel Brodsky approached him with a deal for a video package of Peterson at home with his fiancee, Christina Raines.

It’s been reported that the videotape shot by Watts has been produced for review.

Court was closed for arguments about a recent hearsay ruling that could make some of the barred hearsay statements admissible to the trial.

Chicago Tribune Breaking News
Joe Hosey’s Twitter Feed
Daily Herald
PEOPLE v. HANSON ruling filed June 24, 2010

~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

106 thoughts on “Michael Baden will testify at Drew Peterson’s trial. Hearsay decision is challenged.

  1. FYI, here is the Hanson Hearsay ruling that got handed down last Thursday.

    http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inilco20100624326

    SHORT SNIPPET

    …BACKGROUND

    Defendant was convicted of killing his sister, Katherine Tsao, and Katherine’s husband, James. He was also convicted of killing his parents, Terrence and Mary Hanson. The bodies of the four victims were found in James and Katherine’s home (the Tsao home) on September 29, 2005. Katherine and James had been bludgeoned. Terrence and Mary had been shot in the head. Police later determined that Terrence and Mary had been shot in their own home (the Hanson home) and then had been wrapped in tarps and transported to the Tsao home.

    An investigation into the murders led police to the defendant after police spoke with defendant’s other sister, Jennifer Williams. Jennifer told police that Katherine telephoned her six weeks prior to the murders, to tell Jennifer that defendant had been engaged in a scheme to obtain credit in their parents’ names. Katherine also told Jennifer that defendant had threatened Katherine by saying that if she told their father what defendant had been doing, he would kill her. The investigation quickly centered on defendant, leading to his arrest…

    I added the bolding.

    …I. Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

    Defendant’s first argument is that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of Jennifer Williams relating to a conversation Jennifer had with her sister, Katherine. In that conversation, Katherine mentioned that defendant had threatened her. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to forfeit defendant’s right to cross-examine these statements made by Katherine. The State argued that defendant sought to prevent Katherine from serving as a witness against him and did so by killing her…

  2. Remember this?

    Drew and Joel’s Payola Radio Shakedown.
    March 19, 2009 facsmiley 336 comments

    Best chicken wings and best burgers in Chicago, but you didn’t hear it from me, Drew Peterson!
    I’m sure that many people were disappointed today when they tuned in to WGN radio to listen to the Drew Peterson interview scheduled with Randy Miller.

    It didn’t happen.

    During the one o’clock hour, Miller explained why. During a phone conversation with Drew everything seemed to be fine but Drew asked him to contact his attorney, Joel Brodsky, which Miller did. Brodsky surprised him by saying, “Yeah Drew will do it. It’s going to cost you some money.”

    Miller was not going to pay for the interview and said, “Goodbye.” but Joel assured him that all was not lost. The interview was still on and, “We’ll work something out.”

    Then Randy Miller received an e-mail which he read on the air verbatim:

    “To Randy Miller. This will confirm that you will be plugging the following establishment at least two times tomorrow and two times on Friday and that the plug will not be connected in any way to Drew Peterson or his attorney. The establishment is … Bar and Lounge which has the absolute best chicken wings in the city. A great place to drink, eat listen to music, and watch the game.”

    A personal affirmation that you went there and loved the wings would be good.

    Please confirm this agreement and I will confirm Drew’s cooperation on tomorrow’s show.”

    Now, we find out, he wanted 200k for video of DP and CR. Why hasn’t there been any sanctions filed?

  3. Judge: Pathologist can testify in Peterson trial
    July 2, 2010

    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter
    A celebrity pathologist who concluded Kathleen Savio was murdered in her bathtub can testify at Drew Peterson’s upcoming murder trial, a Will County judge ruled today.

    Defense attorneys had sought to block the testimony from Dr. Michael Baden, contending his work for Fox News called into question his medical opinion that Savio’s 2004 drowning death was a homicide.

    Judge Stephen White didn’t agree, telling prosecutors they can call Baden to describe the autopsy he performed on Savio — Peterson’s third wife — after her remains were exhumed in 2007.

    “There’s no reason to bar the testimony,” White said as he made his ruling.

    After the hearing, defense attorneys downplayed the significance of Baden’s testimony, contending his work was “not a scientific autopsy.”

    “It was for a TV show,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said.

    Peterson, who has been jailed since his arrest in May 2009, is in “good spirits” with his murder trial scheduled to start on Thursday.

    “He’s really looking forward to the start of this trial,” Brodsky said.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2458690,drew-peterson-savio-trial-070210.article

  4. Great news! I am glad they are allowing Dr. Baden to testify at the trial. As for Joel, I am glad his client is so chipper about starting the trial. IMO seems Drew has thought this whole thing was a joke right from the beginning. How pathetic that someone can have no remorse for taking lives, destroying his children for life, the family that have suffered the wrath, and loss at his expense! Ha Ha real hilarious isn’t Joel? NOT!

  5. Peterson’s attorneys had sought to block his testimony, contending in part that he had reached a conclusion before even conducting the autopsy and that his work for Fox TV left in question any medical opinion he offered.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/drew-peterson-trial-patho_0_n_466124.html

    In the clearest signal yet of the battle attorneys will engage in over the death of Kathleen Savio, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen said “it is my opinion that it was an accident.”

    Jentzen, a former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee who teaches at the University of Michigan, said he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio’s body but relied on previous autopsies, crime scene photographs, police reports and other information. Savio’s death was ruled accidental after her body was found in a dry bathtub in 2004.

    Since Dr. Brian Peterson didn’t agree with the defense’s thinking that Kathleen died accidentally and got stiffed on his fee, I guess it can be said Dr. Jentzen was paid to find a conclusion that was favorable to the defense. While not actually performing an autopsy isn’t unheard of, the fact that he relied on what is now known as some inconsistent, inaccurate information leaves something to be desired. He puts a lot of stock in the fact that the necklace Kathleen was wearing didn’t come off, which should have if she were being attacked. Okay. But, this same expert expects someone with an ounce of common sense to believe this:

    The pathologist said he believes Savio may have simply slipped or fainted in the tub. He also pointed to medical records that show she had a heart murmur, suggesting her heart may have stopped and caused her to slam the back of her head against a hard object and then fall into the tub and drown.

    Her heart stopped, caused her to slam her head, but still was able to breath in the water that was in the tub.

    Throw him out, if you want to throw anyone out. JMHO.

  6. Rescue @ #6 “Throw him (Dr. Jentzen) out?”

    If Dr. Jentzen doesn’t testify, the defense will have no witnesses on their side, right?

  7. “For the first time in my forensic pathology career, now over 21 years, I have been stiffed for the fee — a whole $4,000, by the way,” Dr. Peterson wrote in an e-mail.

    Dr. Peterson said he was approached by the “Brodsky team” to review the death of Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. Drew Peterson is charged with murdering Savio in March 2004 and making her death appear to be an accidental bathtub drowning.

    Dr. Peterson said Jentzen recommended him to Peterson’s attorneys.

    “They wanted an independent review of the Savio case,” Dr. Peterson wrote in an e-mail. “Joel (Brodsky) even, for the first time in my career, asked that I sign a confidentiality agreement regarding my work. I did. And being an honorable guy, I will not tell you what my opinions were — note, however, that I was not called to testify recently.”

    Dr. Peterson went on to elaborate on his findings, saying, “What I can tell you, which doesn’t violate confidentiality, is I disagree with Jeff (Jentzen).”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2220568,Peterson-Brodsky-ME-fee-JO043010.article

  8. judgin :

    Rescue @ #6 “Throw him (Dr. Jentzen) out?”

    If Dr. Jentzen doesn’t testify, the defense will have no witnesses on their side, right?

    Nope, Judgin, and, just remember, the head honcho, Brodsky, wasn’t impressed either, wink, wink. zzzzzz zzzzzzzz

  9. Oh, don’t you just love it.

    Dr. Baden is in and the Defense has Dr. Jentzen declaring Kathleen was breathing after death, may have had a heart attack although her heart was normal, fell on a bar of soap that left bruising on her chest.

  10. I hope the jury will get to see a demonstration, in the actual tub mock up, of how Kathleen bonked her head, fell, splashing into a tub of water, without leaving behind a watermark anywhere, or a tub full of water, for that matter. That should be a Kodak moment.

  11. Dr. Peterson went on to elaborate on his findings, saying, “What I can tell you, which doesn’t violate confidentiality, is I disagree with Jeff (Jentzen).”

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

    One certainly doesn’t need a Medical degree or violate confidentiality with anyone to disagree with Dr, Jentzen – LOL !

  12. Not surprising Drew is desperate for $ 200.000.00 to find someone crazy enough to back up Dr.Jentzen’s testimony.

    You need a lot of money finding someone back that up with a straight face !!

  13. I apologize for putting this on the thread again when I had it up so recently, but I think it might be useful to see in light of the closed hearsay arguments today.

    I’ve crossed out those statements 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. (barred according to the Tribune)

    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. (barred according to the Tribune)

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

  14. Here’s where we were (if we can rely on reports) as of the June 24th session.

    http://wp.me/p93nv-1t3

    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.

  15. Judge Allows Savio Autopsy in Drew Peterson Trial

    Updated: Friday, 02 Jul 2010, 8:33 PM CDT
    Published : Friday, 02 Jul 2010, 9:13 AM CDT

    By Craig Wall, FOX Chicago News

    Chicago –

    Drew Peterson’s defense team was dealt a setback in court Friday when a judge denied their request to prevent a key prosecution witness from testifying.

    Renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden was the first person to publicly declare that Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio did not die accidentally but was in fact murdered. He conducted a private autopsy for the family after her body was exhumed in November 2007.

    Defense attorneys questioned the credibility of Baden’s findings because he allowed a Fox News Channel producer to take notes for him and video tape him in the autopsy room.

    Savio’s death was originally ruled an accident after she was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004. Authorities reopened the case after Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy disappeared.

    “Dr. Baden goes there and he decides ahead of time what he thinks happens in this case and then he goes there and confirms his own findings. Now he’s not gonna look very good if he goes on TV and says I was wrong before and this was an accident, so it’s a self fulfilling prophecy,” said Steven Greenberg, one of Peterson’s lawyers.

    Stephen Watts, the producer who formerly worked for On the Record with Greta Van Susteren testified that he never video taped Savio’s remains and never touched them. Watts also made it clear that he only videotaped Baden during a break in the autopsy, and that Baden agreed to reveal his findings on Van Susteren’s show, regardless of what they showed.

    “As much as the defense would like to make something of it, because they allegedly have no case, my being in that room had absolutely no influence on the outcome, and as I’ve said before if the defense is hinging it’s case on the fact that I was in the autopsy room, they better suit up Drew Peterson for those orange jumpsuits he seems to fancy so much,” Watts said after the hearing was over.

    Baden’s conclusion that Savio’s death was murder was corroborated by another pathologist who performed the official autopsy for prosecutors a day before Baden.

    Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky said he will have three or four of his own experts testify that the original autopsy was correct in classifying Savio’s death as an accident.

    Peterson was arrested for Savio’s murder in 2009. His trial begins July 8th.

    He has denied any involvement in her death or in the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy Peterson.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/drew-peterson-hearing-hearsay-autopsy-baden-20100702

  16. Just watched Fox News. Was it the defense’s bring your kid to work day? LOL
    Brodsky had very carefully chosen words regarding the $200,000 video proposition, which makes me lean toward that being a true statement from Watts.

  17. I wondered that too, DD. Who was the kid in the not-dressed-for-court attire?

    I had to laugh at Joel’s description of the video proposal. It was SO much like what he said about there being “no book deal”.

  18. “Dr. Baden goes there and he decides ahead of time what he thinks happens in this case and then he goes there and confirms his own findings. Now he’s not gonna look very good if he goes on TV and says I was wrong before and this was an accident, so it’s a self fulfilling prophecy,” said Steven Greenberg, one of Peterson’s lawyers.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wow! Such deep thinking! That’s the best you could come up with when you had the microphone, Steven Greenberg?

  19. facsmiley :I wondered that too, DD. Who was the kid in the not-dressed-for-court attire?
    I had to laugh at Joel’s description of the video proposal. It was SO much like what he said about there being “no book deal”.

    Maybe he’s part of the teen summer work program. Not sure whose teen, or whose program though.

    I want to place thought bubble clouds above Brodsky’s head during that portion of the interview. He’s still trying to figure out how the Anthony’s got the $200,000 and he didn’t. LOL

  20. A public service announcement:

    Sue Savio
    Please all the media. Get it correct sue doman is my husbands sister in law also mine! I am the proud sister of Kathleen Savio Lord help me? oH i LOVE MY SISTER IN LAW THOU. she is very special in my heart So do not call her!!!!!!

  21. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2460248,4_1_JO03_PETERSON_S1-100703.article

    Ghoulish allegations in Drew Peterson case
    Ex-producer defends TV autopsy of Peterson’s third wife as lawyers try to discredit doctor

    July 3, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — The celebrity medical examiner who prosecutors want to use as an expert witness chopped off Kathleen Savio’s head and propped it on a table to be photographed during an autopsy, defense attorneys said Friday.

    Joel Brodsky and Steven Greenberg — two of the half-dozen lawyers representing accused wife-killer Drew Peterson — presented pictures of Savio’s severed head to witnesses during a Friday pretrial hearing and accused Fox News Channel medical examiner Michael Baden of decapitating her corpse for a photo opportunity.

    A source familiar with the Savio case disputed this contention and explained that Savio’s head came off on its own.

    “Dr. Baden never removed the head during the autopsy,” the source said. “There was very little connective tissue. There was massive decomposition.”

    Peterson’s lawyers were trying without success to have Baden barred from testifying as an expert witness at Peterson’s murder trial. Baden had performed a private autopsy on Savio, who was Peterson’s third wife and one of two he is suspected of killing.

    While state police believe Peterson also snuffed his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, they have only charged him with murdering Savio.

    He is set to go to trial in six days, and Baden, whose autopsy expenses were covered by Fox News, is cleared to testify.

    Autopsy or show?
    State police had insisted for three and a half years that Savio’s March 2004 death resulted from a freak bathtub accident, only changing their tune after Stacy Peterson vanished in October 2007.

    Savio’s grave was dug up within weeks of Stacy’s disappearance and a second autopsy was conducted. Baden then performed his own postmortem, a third autopsy, at the behest of Savio’s family.

    Baden appeared on Fox News before and after the autopsy and said on both occasions that Savio was the victim of a homicide.

    “Was this an autopsy or a reality show?” said Joseph “Shark” Lopez, another of Peterson’s lawyers. “It looks like it’s completely staged for TV.”

    Ex-producer testifies
    Former Fox News producer Steph Watts testified at Friday’s hearing that he arranged the private autopsy but that Baden was not coerced to declare that Savio’s death was a homicide.

    “The agreement that we made was Dr. Baden would report on the findings whichever way they came down.” Watts said.

    Watts recalled Baden taking Savio’s head and placing it on a table to be photographed, but said he did not know why this was done.

    Watts also testified that he shot brief video footage of Baden during a break in the autopsy but at no time filmed Savio’s body. He also denied taking photographs or moving or touching her body.

    This contradicted Baden’s testimony from a prior pretrial hearing. Baden said Watts took pictures and helped him turn Savio’s body.

    These inconsistencies make Baden a less than ideal expert witness, Lopez said.

    “He’s got more baggage than Southwest, this guy,” Lopez said.

    Trading allegations
    Watts’ cross-examination by Brodsky at times turned testy and personal, with Brodsky repeatedly attempting to get Watts to admit he was fired from his last job for using a network credit card to pay for a nose job.

    Watts denied this, but did claim Brodsky tried to sell him a video of Peterson and his supposed fiancee, Christina Raines, a single mother more than 30 years younger than the 56-year-old Peterson. Watts said Brodsky wanted $200,000 for the video of Peterson and Raines living “their lives together.”

    Brodsky somewhat refuted Watts’ claim, saying, “We never entered into any formal discussions,” and “we have never been paid by any news media.”

    New hearsay ruling?
    Judge Stephen White closed the courtroom to the public for about half an hour during Friday’s hearing. The defense and prosecution argued in private whether the judge should reconsider his ruling on hearsay statements in light of a recent state Supreme Court decision.

    Lopez said White will render his decision via e-mail prior to Thursday, the start of Peterson’s trial.

  22. OMG, what bizarre stuff.

    I’ll tell you what, though. As crazy as this defense is trying to make this all out to be, blame, blame, blame, everyone else, they’re coming up empty. Because, no matter how they spin what they do, Kathleen was in her own home, minding her own business, when she suddenly stopped living. Her ex is the likely reason, not a convoluted slip and fall in a bath tub, and to deflect away from the truth, they’ve made jokes, laughed, and attempted insensitive, money-making schemes, in spite of the seriousness of the situation. Brodsky has the biggest kahoonas of all. As an attorney of a man who had a murder charge hanging over his head and being a suspect in his wife’s disappearance, he’s one of the poorest excuses of a respectable being I’ve ever watched. Selling his client to a radio show for a date, dragging him around like a puppy to laugh it up with Mancow and Pinkus, using him as a bargaining tool to promote his personal bar, pimping him out to a washed-up, unknown writer to script a self-serving book, trying to sell him and his supposed fiance’s life at home together for $200,000, and last, but not least, using Peterson’s motorcycle as murderabilia to make money, is as crazy as it gets. It’s hard to imagine Brodsky acting as a moral authority about anything. What decent, professional, dignified defense attorney would ever want to associate him or herself with the disgusting antics of this defense? There have been quite a few “celebrity” trials, and high-profile defense attorneys, but never, I believe, has anyone seen the bizarre and circus-like antics that this defense has generated.

    Oh, it’s so time for this trial to begin. It looks like it’s going to be a disgusting, dirty trial, maybe based on who the defense can muddy up the most. Certainly, the defense isn’t looking for intelligent, savvy people to be seated on the jury. They’re looking for lowlife, street rats that can think and relate to them and their accused client.

  23. Heh, too bad Brodsky didn’t remember to ask or have Watts sign one of his infamous confidentiality agreements, like he did most everyone else. Must have had a “stupid” moment.

  24. rescueapet :

    Heh, too bad Brodsky didn’t remember to ask or have Watts sign one of his infamous confidentiality agreements, like he did most everyone else. Must have had a “stupid” moment.

    I guess that’s what Joel means when he says, “formal discussions”. It’s only formal once he’s made you sign something covering his ass. 🙂

  25. Can you imagine where we’d be if every autopsy in which a head was photographed was tossed out?

    To me, it shows the inexperience of Joel when it comes to murder trials. What did he think happened at autopsies?

  26. 2-page story in the Tribune this morning. Too long to paste here:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/peterson-without-stacy-20100703,0,5699386.story

    [SNIPPET]

    Stacy’s story gets only minor role in Drew’s murder trial
    Rulings mean jury won’t hear most of what 4th wife allegedly said about 3rd wife’s death

    By Stacy St. Clair and Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporters
    July 4, 2010

    From the start, Stacy Peterson has hung like a specter over her husband’s murder case. Her disappearance made national headlines, turning him into the country’s most infamous cop and leading to his arrest in his third wife’s death.

    Still, Stacy Peterson will play a very minor role in the state vs. Drew Peterson.

    With jury selection set to begin this week, Will County Judge Stephen White has severely limited the amount of information jurors will hear about the young mother, according to sources and documents reviewed by the Tribune. The jury, for example, is not expected to hear detailed testimony about Stacy’s October 2007 disappearance or her tumultuous marriage to Drew Peterson, a retired Bolingbrook police sergeant 30 years her senior…

  27. Let’s get this show on the road. The false alibi will do for now, thank you. Just to remind Steve’n’Stacy DP is a *disgraced* ex-cop who quit just in time to avoid being sacked outright. A lot of the Stacy-related testimony heard previously doesn’t bear upon Kitty’s murder anyway. As pointed out upthread.

    Sources and documents cite, please, Steve’n’Stacy. Thanks.

  28. If Judge White’s rulings on what comes in and what doesn’t is based on his research and the law, and it’s going to avoid being overturned on appeal, then that is the way it is and the right thing to do. Who would want incorrect rulings, which could later affect the jury’s verdict, if they were to find him guilty.

    Both sides are precluded from discussing the contents of the sealed ruling, but Peterson attorney Steven Greenberg said White does not want the jurors in Savio’s case to punish Peterson for Stacy’s disappearance.

    Oh, I see now. The defense can’t discuss what Judge White said in the ruling, but they can discuss their interpretation of what he said. Ahh. Lucky for us.

  29. I think the judge is doing a good job of trying to ensure Drew’s right to a fair trial,” Greenberg said.

    Confusing statement. They filed a motion to have him removed from the case. Yet, he’s “doing a good job of trying to ensure Drew’s right to a fair trial”?

    Do any of these defense guys that mug for the camera ever get together as a defense team and agree on anything they say or do?

  30. Hey everyone, I have some information to share I think you will find interesting.

    Think what you will of Attorney Joe “Shark” Lopez, but it is very telling, I think, that he pretty much doesn’t want anything to do with his fellow defense counsel.

    A court observer related that, such as in yesterday’s case, the defendants are allowed to sit in the jury box during court proceedings when there’s not formal proceedings going on. Instead of Attorney Lopez sitting at the defense table with his teammates, he chose to sit in the jury box. As the day’s proceedings went on, Drew Peterson was the lone defendant left in the jury box, with Attorney Lopez sitting alongside him. Even though he was asked to join the rest of his defense team, he elected not to do so. In fact, he had no desire to.

    As to the information being reported regarding the hearsay statements, and what is being allowed in and not allowed in, Attorney Greenberg is the defense counsel that has been talking to and relating information to the reporters. While that may be well and fine, it appears that Attorney Greenberg is having a difficult time keeping his information straight, since one newspaper is reporting that Pastor Schori is not going to be able to testify to Stacy’s confession of giving a false alibi, and the other one related that he is, and it was a front-page exclusive.

    I’m beginning to see that it’s not the reporters that are getting the facts and the information wrong because of their doing, it is because of the inaccurate and convoluted sources they rely on. If you consider that they are reporting information as they have been, obviously, their sources are not confidential sources who have requested that what they’ve related is not to be repeated. In other words, the sources that have been cited, anonymously, speak because they want the information reported.

    As to the hearsay statements that are supposedly being barred from coming in, IMO, they are the ones that aren’t, certainly, the strongest and most important. They have to do with co-workers relating conversations with Kathleen about Drew’s actions, namely, the knife-wielding incident. Yet, there is a letter, written by Kathleen to then Asst. Will Co. State’s Attorney Fragale about this incident, which I have not seen mentioned or discussed. Could that be coming in? Seems important and solid, since it was written by Kathleen herself. Pastor Schori is a powerful witness to have coming in, although you have to pick which reporter’s story is the correct one. 🙂

    This defense team, it seems to me, is going to need a wing and a prayer, because if Peterson doesn’t get convicted on what is going to transpire in the trial, his defense team might have a hand in dragging him down with them. JMO.

  31. I think Lopez needed to sit apart from the rest of the defense team so he could work on his one-liners.

    I wonder if he’s contributed anything else to the team?

  32. Yeah, well, maybe he didn’t buy into the ghoulish idea that Brodsky and Greenberg conjured up that came up in court about the Savio autopsy. If that was meant to be a defense tactic that was supposed to win the day with the Judge, obviously, it was a bomb. Like everything else they do. What a bunch of misfits. Peterson can have them. And, Lopez and his tasteless one-liners and jabs is as pitiful as the rest of them.

  33. As for your post about bad reporting vs. bad sources, I did email Christy Gutowski shortly after Abood and Lenard left the defense team because I was told that her report about the situation contained some glaring innacuracies. It was suspected that the source for her information was the remaining members of the defense team, and that they had intentionally given her false information.

    Gutowski responded to my question but naturally she couldn’t reveal her source and I respect that.

    It must be awfully hard to find an objective source in a situation where everyone has an agenda and especially hard when your source is hungry for media exposure.

  34. When it comes to high profile, intense stories that deal with cases and trials such as this, we have to rely on the reporters to get information. But, in this particular “landmark” Illinois case, because the defense team is so miscombogulated, it’s getting increasingly frustrating to follow what is accurate and what isn’t anymore.

    Same thing applies to this recent Stacy Peterson/Peoria search. When Sgt. Burek speaks of the progress, or lack of progress, or pretend progress, or no progress, by the time he gets done with you, you didn’t see what you think you heard, or you didn’t hear what you thought he said.

  35. Was Reem Odeh at court yesterday? I don’t think shes been at any of the recent hearings. I was just wondering and hoping she has told a certain someone to jump in the lake {to put it mildly}. IMO

  36. grandam :

    Was Reem Odeh at court yesterday? I don’t think shes been at any of the recent hearings. I was just wondering and hoping she has told a certain someone to jump in the lake {to put it mildly}. IMO

    No, she wasn’t in court. She’s out of town. She’s still a part of the defense.

  37. rescueapet :
    OMG, what bizarre stuff.
    I’ll tell you what, though. As crazy as this defense is trying to make this all out to be, blame, blame, blame, everyone else, they’re coming up empty. Because, no matter how they spin what they do, Kathleen was in her own home, minding her own business, when she suddenly stopped living. Her ex is the likely reason, not a convoluted slip and fall in a bath tub, and to deflect away from the truth, they’ve made jokes, laughed, and attempted insensitive, money-making schemes, in spite of the seriousness of the situation…

    I couldn’t agree more! Although we didn’t witness what went on in the courtroom yesterday, we’ve got a glimpse of it through Joe Hosey’s article. It’s disgusting that Joel Brodsky is trying to portray a well-known and well-respected pathologist like Dr. Baden, as taking a “photo op” with the head of a corpse. How absolutely disgusting! The fact that Joel Brodsky would even suggest such a thing is about the lowest he could go.

    I’m pleased that at this point there’s no indication that the trial will be delayed, with Judge White indicating he will give his decision on the hearsay evidence to be admitted via email prior to the trial.

    It’s time for this trial to begin, and hopefully when it’s over a conviction for Drew Peterson and life behind bars for him. And also, I hope there will soon be new charges against him for the death of Stacy.

  38. A question for all here. With the trial about to start in 5 days, do you think Greta Van Susteran will be doing any coverage of the trial?

    In the early days of this case, Greta went to Bolingbrook along with Dr. Baden, Steph Watts, Mark Fuhrman, and other members of the Fox News team, and reported on this case from that location. Recently, Greta has been devoting a small portion of her program to updates on high-profile cases she’s actively participated in – Joran Van der Sloot (Natalee Holloway) and Casey Anthony, if there’s news in the case. That makes me wonder if Greta will be having a Fox reporter attending the trial and giving updates on the day’s proceedings on her nightly program?

  39. Hmmm, Molly, don’t know about that one. I used to watch Greta’s show faithfully, but then it became more of a political news hour more than anything else, and I haven’t watched her show in the longest time.

    A few weeks ago, In Session was in town filming interviews to coincide with the upcoming trial. Geraldo Rivera has an interest in the Peterson case, so maybe he’ll be here, IDK.

  40. Rescue, great update. Isn’t it amazing how Brodsky can piss off every other attorney in town, yet he thinks he’s God’s greatest defense attorney? I hope he ends up standing at the table all alone on the last day of the trial.

    I also think it’s fabulous that Greenberg said “I think the judge is doing a good job of trying to ensure Drew’s right to a fair trial.” That way, after Drew is convicted and the Defense Team tries to say that White prevented Drew from getting a fair trial, they can pull out this quote. Gee whiz, Mr,

  41. I’ve finally caught up after caring for aging parents, and I can’t thank you all enough for the time and effort you put in on this blog.
    I would like to suggest, though, that with the trial as close as it (hopefully) is now, that we all take a deep breath and maybe say a prayer or two. Because no matter what we know, how we feel or what we can prove, there is still, IMO, a big chasm between a jury accepting as fact that yes, Kathleen was murdered, and being convinced that Drew murdered her.
    Having just served on jury duty, this is fresh in my mind-I think juries feel, (as did the panel I was on) that they’re smarter than the average bear. From entertainment media, right or wrong, they think they know what information can and should be obtained, and they want to feel it and see it.
    Who knows what will happen since this is not a hard evidence case?
    I certainly believe with all my heart that Kathleen did all she could possibly do to make sure even the scarecrow w/out his brain could see what was happening to her.
    But-I watched the entire OJ trial, and was not the least bit surprised at the outcome, because the case, IMO/IMO/IMO, just was not proven.
    Just a caveat, here, so that we don’t start feeling that this is a ‘done deal’.

  42. rescueapet :
    Hmmm, Molly, don’t know about that one. I used to watch Greta’s show faithfully, but then it became more of a political news hour more than anything else, and I haven’t watched her show in the longest time.
    A few weeks ago, In Session was in town filming interviews to coincide with the upcoming trial. Geraldo Rivera has an interest in the Peterson case, so maybe he’ll be here, IDK.

    I like Greta, and hope she will do some sort of daily summary. I know she did a brief update when the Peoria search happened, several on Joran Van der Sloot with the recent happenings in Peru, and whenever there’s significant news in other cases. I’ve got my fingers crossed she’ll update the trial.

  43. Hi Cheryl. You are so right that today’s entertainment shows like CSI and NCIS have brought attention to even minute details of a crime scene investigation. As you said, people want to see and feel the evidence. But, if you look back at some of the doubts that the original inquest panel had at the time, it does bring up some interesting observations. Just as a jury member may be looking for, say, blood evidence or splatter in a murder case, in the KS inquest, a member had a problem with the amount of blood left behind in a tub that was supposedly filled with water:

    Walter Lee James: …. “I was kind of apprehensive with one photograph showing her face down in an empty tub. And there was a lot of blood remaining in the tub, and I just — I didn’t — myself did not consider — it was inconsistent with drowning. I feel that the blood that was in the tub should have probably dissipated into the water and drained out with the water. But like I said, I’m not an expert forensic person, so as a layperson, that’s just how I felt.”

    A panel member asked, during the inquest, in relation to the gash on KS’s head, directed to Hardy:

    Regarding the laceration to the back of her head, you indicated it happened in the tub, where on the tub did she hit? Did she hit the faucet? Was there any hair left?” Witness: “No, it’s on the far side of the tub away from the faucet, you know, where normally you would set and rest your head when you take a bath.”

    Here, wouldn’t you expect the panel member to be surprised that her gash was not as he had pictured, and didn’t quite fit his idea of how it happened?

    Just as you’d expect to feel and see evidence, why was there no water splatter or spotting on the floor or surrounding areas? Why so gleaming clean, when she was supposed to have slipped and fell, splashing into a tub of water. Why no clothes, towels, rugs? No alcohol and/or drugs in her body that would have contributed to a slip and fall. No indication of a sudden, fatal heart attack in the autopsy results. Why was her body completely inside of the tub, when, if she slipped and fell, you’d think part of her would be protruding over the tub? I would not expect to see an adult woman, as I picture it, curled up completely that she fit entirely in a round tub such as she did.

    There’s just too many unanswered questions in Kathleen’s death that don’t fit, don’t make sense, and I hope the jury gets the logical, right answers finally.

  44. (Inquest Panel Member) Jim Pretto told ABC News back in February of 2008 that if they had known all the facts about the case in 2004, he would have called Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide.

    “There was no evidence at all to point toward it being a murder,” Pretto said. “There was nothing presented at all.” Pretto said that though the jurors on the coroner’s inquest were suspicious, they did not have enough evidence to call Savio’s death anything but an accident.

    “We had no other alternative,” he said. “I think more evidence should have been presented, more investigation should have been done at the time.”

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/jim-pretto-savio-inquest-juror-if-we-had-known/

  45. Thanks, Rescue. We can only hope the State is able to get these facts and statements heard at trial.

    I honestly don’t think anyone is fooling themselves that this is a guaranteed win for the prosecution. It is a hard case to argue and truly, it should be hard to convict a person of murder. It’s a heinous, awful crime and guilt needs to be proven before someone is convicted.

    I think Peterson’s position, his skills, and his personality created a smokescreen of sorts that hid this crime for a long, long time. But I do think that a skillful prosecution should be able to peel away the layers of BS and open the eyes of the jurors. There are people who have come forward who never spoke up before, like the guys who were approached about doing a possible “hit” on Kathleen. There has been extensive re-evalution of her original autopsy report and even new autopsies. Kathleen deserved more than a 40 minute evaluation by a coroner’s jury of lay people, and she’s finally gotten that.

    I don’t pray but I have hope.

  46. Hope is also good, Facs. Just keep those fingers crossed, too.
    Rescue, you have put out some excellent arguments, and like Facs, I hope the prosecution remembers all you have noted. You’ve got so many jury watchers, and are so wonderful to share insights with us-but I’m wondering now, is there a personality of sorts w/trials up there? I mean…down here in Texas, the joke used to be that if you want to murder someone, murder your spouse-you’ll walk out of court into the sunshine. (Keep in mind this was years ago, and I’m definitely not trying to make funny!)
    But is there some sort of history to go on in the courtrooms there? Easy? Hang ’em? How is Joliet when it comes to punishment? Any information or generalizations?

  47. Interesting question, CherylJ. I hadn’t thought about that angle.

    Did BJ actually say that about a photo op? He will want to be more careful during the trial. White’s about to retire and may be hankering for Joel’s stuffed head for a doorstop. I know I am…

    He has no respect and deserves none.

  48. Bucket, I love that:He has no respect and deserves none.
    Bears repeating. And remembering.
    ***
    Happy 4th of July to one and all! (You too, Bucket! After all, it’s the 4th of July there, too.)
    ***
    4 days and counting…

  49. Pizza?! Oh, no! ‘Gotta be hot dogs! (Not to be confused w/the defense team, although we’re all hoping the prosecution will eat their lunch).

  50. Just wanted to wish everyone here a Happy 4th of July! A quiet day here with family and friends. We’ll barbecue tonight – just the family, and later watch the fireworks with neighbors. Here in southern California it’s 66 degrees with the humidity at 71%…………cool and damp.

  51. facsmiley :
    In Northern Illinois we’ve got 88 degrees and due to the humidity, a heat index of 96. Well…perfect for the 4th of July, right?

    Facsmiley………..I’m originally from upstate New York, and remember the heat and humidity of the summer months. One of the things I miss (besides the fall color) is summer thunderstorms. We rarely get thunderstorms here, and never any summer rain. I remember the stillness just before the sky opened up with a downpour. 🙂

  52. Watts updated his blog with a report about testifying on Friday:

    It got heated inside the courtroom. The defense team took personal swipes at me — ripped from the tabloid headlines — but to no avail. I testified as to why I was in the autopsy of Kathleen Savio, the third wife of Bolingbrook Police Officer, Drew Peterson.

    The judge listened carefully, and ruled based on my testimony that Dr. Baden’s results can be entered into evidence, and that he CAN testify at trial. It was a draining day, but a small sacrifice on my part to ensure that justice will be served.

    http://stephww.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/the-drew-peterson-case-i-tesitified-and-the-judge-ruled-for-the-state/

  53. Don’t forget, Deputy Coroner Bob Brenzcewsi also testified. I wouldn’t be so sure that it was Watt’s testimony alone that convinced the judge.

  54. Aww, I think it’s more of the usual. A certain defense attorney roars and puffs up his chest, and then it all fizzles out when calmness prevails. Instead of finding something they could pick apart and discredit about the actual autopsy findings, as usual, they went after more of the witnesses, and made it personal. Guess it didn’t work for the Judge. Ho hum, it’s getting old already.

  55. What a shame that the courtroom the trial will be held in is so small and limited in seating. As I observed during the hearsay hearings, the press was a large contingent of the onlookers. Now, with the high interest in the trial, it will be even worse.

    Short of lining up hours ahead of time to get into the courthouse when it opens, I doubt there will be many seats left for the public. I certainly hope that family members and those close to the victims will be able to see the proceedings.

    I hope you don’t have to know a defense attorney to be able to get in before anyone else. 🙂

  56. Another LONG Tribune story. Looks like the story they approached Abood about last week:

    [SNIPPET]

    Key players in the Drew Peterson trial…

    …This is Brodsky’s first murder trial, but the Chicago lawyer recently surrounded himself with crack criminal defenders after half his legal team left the case this year, citing conflicts. Abood told the Tribune he left because he didn’t think the case was winnable with “Joel playing a significant role.”

    In response, Peterson sent a one-page, handwritten letter to the Tribune last week — his first comments to the press since 2009 — in which he praised his attorneys and downplayed any suggestion that his defense had been hampered by the recent shake-up.

    It “turned out to be a blessing in disguise with Joel Brodsky assembling the finest team I have ever seen in my thirty-two years in law enforcement,” Peterson wrote in a rare jailhouse letter. “I feel safe with my life in their hands.”…

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0706-drew-peterson-news-focus-20100706,0,2597323.story?page=2

  57. From the story above, here are some of the prosecution team members (in addition to Glasgow):

    Notre Dame graduate John Connor, a formidable prosecutor with a laid-back demeanor, has led the grand jury investigation into both Savio’s death and Stacy’s disappearance. Kathy Patton, who is chief of the office’s felony division, is a skilled questioner able to keep an audience focused just with her tone of voice.

    Nicole Moore, the fourth member of the team, joined the office in 2004, a year after graduating from Loyola University’s law school. She is already a top prosecutor, spending most of her time in one of the county’s busiest felony courtrooms.

    Other prosecutors who will assist on the case are Robert Lorz, a respected former judge of 22 years who now heads the criminal division after retiring from the bench in 2008. Dant Foulk is a financial specialist with a biology degree who delved into the fiscal motivations Peterson had for allegedly killing Savio.

    Dominica Osterberger, an appellate and post-conviction specialist, is charged with devising unassailable arguments on points of law. Ken Grey, Glasgow’s chief deputy, has decades of broad legal experience.

  58. First it was promote the chicken wings, now Joel has his client writing notes to the press that Drew has a good defense team. I wonder how many times Drew has to repeat that to himself each day?

  59. From the Tribune article:

    “In response, Peterson sent a one-page, handwritten letter to the Tribune last week — his first comments to the press since 2009 —”

    Anyone else feeling a another possible ebay auction in the future?

  60. Oh, for the love of God. I had no idea this was Brodsky’s first murder trial. No wonder he was such a media whore.

    Rheem Odeh has never played along with Brodksy’s antics. Abood was supposed to be the savior. He’s gone. Then “The Shark” Lopez was ticketed as being a cut-throat defense attorney with loads of experience. Now, Lopez is sitting away from the team.

    IMHO Joel will end up standing all alone the last day of the trial.

  61. As long as Peterson knows he’s in good hands, that’s all that counts. Why would he feel the need to send a letter to the Tribune to express his warm and fuzzy feeling about it being a blessing in disguise that the team he has is #1? Whose benefit was that for? Does anyone care what goes on between him and his defense team but those involved?

    What is that all about? It’s getting close. The pressure of the unknown must be getting to him, heh? Must’ve made him feel better to see it in writing.

  62. Facs,
    I wouldn’t doubt it one bit! Once Drew loses in court, he won’t be able to sue his attorneys for not giving him proper representation. Now they have it in his own writing that they are doing a good job, and he feels safe with his life in their hands. In the mean time Joel got all that free publicity trying to sell his chicken wings at his resturant,working on book deals before the trial even started,selling off property even though he insists Stacy is still alive, instead of getting on that supposed detectives butt to locate Stacy on that sunny beach somewhere if indeed he really did believe that! It has been one stunt after another and it looks more like to me IMO Joel trying to save his own butt, and look out for his own interests more than anything else! Which is a good thing because Drew needs to stay right where he is for a very, very, long time.

  63. facsmiley :
    Another LONG Tribune story. Looks like the story they approached Abood about last week:
    [SNIPPET]

    Key players in the Drew Peterson trial…
    …This is Brodsky’s first murder trial, but the Chicago lawyer recently surrounded himself with crack criminal defenders after half his legal team left the case this year, citing conflicts. Abood told the Tribune he left because he didn’t think the case was winnable with “Joel playing a significant role.”
    In response, Peterson sent a one-page, handwritten letter to the Tribune last week — his first comments to the press since 2009 — in which he praised his attorneys and downplayed any suggestion that his defense had been hampered by the recent shake-up.
    It “turned out to be a blessing in disguise with Joel Brodsky assembling the finest team I have ever seen in my thirty-two years in law enforcement,” Peterson wrote in a rare jailhouse letter. “I feel safe with my life in their hands.”…

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0706-drew-peterson-news-focus-20100706,0,2597323.story?page=2

    Thanks Facsmiley………….good summary article.

  64. Peterson wrote in a rare jailhouse letter. “I feel safe with my life in their hands.”
    ———————————–
    The irony of that statement sticks in my craw. When I think of the terrible fear for her own life that Kathleen endured, then to ultimately be murdered with HIS hands, plus Stacy’s subsequent demise, it’s absolutely nauseating to read.

  65. Hello All, haven’t been on here posting in awhile, but always been reading. I would like to thank Rescue and Fac’s, for their constant up-dates and dedication to this case.
    After,all this time, finally,he will stand trial,Kathleen will finally get the justice she so well deserves. And once that trial is over and done with,and he is convicted, I so pray, that the SA’s office will slap him for Stacy.
    2 days and counting, Love you all on here,for keeping it alive.

  66. Attorney Greenberg was just interviewed on Fox News Chicago, and I honestly think that the two anchors weren’t exactly overwhelmed with what he was spewing.

    They discussed the Dr. Baden issue. As we have heard before, Greenberg brought up the fact that Baden claimed Kathleen’s death was a homicide before he did his autopsy. It appears one attorney in particular on the defense has been delving into Dr. Baden’s “baggage” and is going to base their defense on that, not necessarily what his scientific findings were. He also criticized Steph Watts.

    He said the judge is doing a good job by limiting the hearsay testimony, although, he is “not allowed” to discuss the judge’s ruling.

    In the short time he was doing the interview and making his case for the camera, he was reminded that it’s the jury that will decide what happened. He pointed out that Peterson has some good lawyers, although he didn’t want to “toot” his own horn.

    What I did gather is that it’s more of the same defense–attacking personally the witnesses, not what they have to offer by way of testimony against Peterson. I can’t imagine how that will work out in Peterson’s favor witness after witness, but they think they’re great lawyers, so we’ll see, I guess.

  67. rescueapet :
    Here’s the link, for now, to the Fox interview with Greenberg.
    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/drew-peterson-trial-judge-hearsay-savio-greenberg-20100706

    Amazing how Greenberg was so quick to point out that Dr. Baden made his decision that Kathleen’s death was a homicide without reviewing “the evidence” when in fact, Dr. Baden has already reviewed the autopsy report….which, by the way, is all that their experts, such as Dr. Jentzen, Dr. Peterson, and others, also had the opportunity to do. Going to be an interesting trial, to say the least.

  68. Watch this video and listen closely. I think Attorney Greenberg just dropped down from another planet. If you listen to him, he makes a big, big issue about how not one person came forward after Kathleen’s death with their concerns. At about 3:10mins into the video. One (there were others) in particular did!

    Pelkie ….. could not comment on the Savio case or the Stacy Peterson investigation, which possibly could have been avoided if Collins had listened to Savio’s attorney, Harry Smith, her boyfriend Steve Maniaci, her friend Kristin Anderson, or Bolingbrook police Officer Richard Treece.

    I attempted to do what she told me to do (if she died),” Smith said. “I had to go to the authorities and tell them Drew did it.

    “I called,” Smith said. “I told him who I was and I told him essentially the complaint and the thing Kathleen had told me. At least I attempted to.”

    The state agent he spoke to “was not prepared for that kind of a conversation,” Smith said, and told him “someone would get back to me.”

    No one did.

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

    Is he really a part of this defense team, or is he just the new voice for giving out information and doing interviews? He said he just returned from New York this past weekend. Reem Odeh just returned from a short trip herself.

    Reem Odeh’s facebook page has a comment to Ms Odeh by Brodsky’s wife that Joel has been working from 10:00am to 10:00pm, and is on a short fuse. Told Ms. Odeh to be nice to him. Funny, she also had to point out to Ms. Odeh that “he has a lot on his shoulders! It’s amazing the amount of organization and detail and time that is involved in this type of trial! It’s nothing like any regular everyday criminal trial! This is like Star Wars 123456 all at once , compared to Star Trek tv series! Unreal!”

    Can you believe the wife of the head attorney is telling his own partner how stressed her husband is, how hard he’s been working, and how much organization and detail is involved in this type of trial? Are you laughing as you read this????

    Have fun here, folks, sizing up this defense team that Peterson is so warm and fuzzy with, according to his letter to the Tribune.

  69. cfs7360 :

    Amazing how Greenberg was so quick to point out that Dr. Baden made his decision that Kathleen’s death was a homicide without reviewing “the evidence” when in fact, Dr. Baden has already reviewed the autopsy report….which, by the way, is all that their experts, such as Dr. Jentzen, Dr. Peterson, and others, also had the opportunity to do. Going to be an interesting trial, to say the least.

    Exactly!!

  70. Looks like it’s going to be tough getting seats at the trial. Everyone from Reem’s fan club to Nurse Pauline are voicing their intentions of attending.

  71. I don’t know which version of the “facts” are true because two papers have two conflicting stories, insofar as what Pastor Schori is going to be allowed to testify to. But, as pointed out here, this is one of the things that was reported about what Stacy said to him:

    Stacy may have lied to the state police to make her husband’s alibi, but she was still critical of the cops who bought her story for the way they conducted their investigation of Savio’s death.

    “It never went very far,” Schori said Stacy told him of the police probe. “The police didn’t go very far looking at him.”

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

    Isn’t that what those persons who tried to go to the police about Kathleen’s death pointed out? No one would listen to them or take it at least a step further? Yet, Greenberg said on Fox News that “not one” person came forward.

  72. Greenberg did JB proud to get a coupla lies out there before Thursday…don’t know really if the repeated suggestion that the judge has thrown out substantial Stacy hearsay is accurate, but we know what they’re trying to suggest and it’s most likely sham, of course.

    Mrs Bratsky should know better than to write on Reem’s wall. That’s what PMs are for!

  73. bucketoftea :

    Mrs Bratsky should know better than to write on Reem’s wall. That’s what PMs are for!

    Exactly. How unprofessional, childish, crazy, nuts and “goofy” (a term Greenberg used this morning to describe a witness).

    Seats in the courtroom came up as a topic of conversation on that f.b. wall.

    But, for all of the public that would hope to be able to see a trial of this magnitude but for the small courtroom and volume of attorneys and reporters, we will all be watching to see who gets in and how. Count on it!

  74. I just watched the video and yup, Greenberg outright LIED on camera twice during the interview.

    Lie #1. Dr. Baden was “giving opinions without seeing any of the evidence”.

    Debunked: Dr. Baden did see evidence before giving an opinion. He saw the same autopsy reports that their experts saw before giving his opinion. He then went on to perform an actual autopsy — something NONE of the defense experts have done.

    Lie #2. “Not one person came forward after she (Kathleen Savio) died. Not one of them”

    Debunked: Harry Smith testified that he contacted authorities right after Kathleen died and told them what Kathleen had told him. He’s a person who came forward. He is one. Her boyfriend Steve Maniaci also testified that he spoke to police immediately after Kathleen’s death and told that he suspected Drew was involved. So, that’s two.

    Rescue, it certainly does look as if Greenberg is the new public face of the defense team but I disagree that one of his responsibilities is to give out “information”. I think it’s to give out “mis-information”.

    And, call me catty, but if they are opting for a new public face…maybe they should choose one that isn’t festooned with that perma-sneer Greenberg sports. It’s really off-putting.

  75. Facs, I think Greenberg’s lies may have also been noted by the people interviewing him, hence their remark, “that’s for a jury to decide.” They may think they’re fooling people, but most folks who have followed this case know better than to believe their BS.

  76. Aww, this defense thinks the rest of the public is as stupid and senseless as they are. So, days before beginning the trial with jury selection, there’s a revelation that Peterson is happy as a lark with his defense team. I’ve never seen nor heard of that being done before, but there’s a first time for everything.

    Then, you have the wife of the head attorney asking Reem Odeh on her f.b. page if she’s going to be selling tickets to the trial. Nice, heh. Wow, funny. I’m sure the victim’s family and friends find that just hysterical.

    Of course, you have the banter between two courtoom friends of Ms. Odeh discussing calling each other about meeting up at the trial. Hopefully, they’ll be packing their breakfast before leaving the house to stand in line like everyone else to get in. That is how it works, isn’t it?

  77. cfs7360 :

    Facs, I think Greenberg’s lies may have also been noted by the people interviewing him, hence their remark, “that’s for a jury to decide.” They may think they’re fooling people, but most folks who have followed this case know better than to believe their BS.

    CFS – you are so right! Exactly. It was as though the anchor couldn’t wait out the last sentence before point out what the jury will decide, not what Greenberg says. Which was totally unconvincing, I might add. Just more of the same. New face, same bs.

  78. Mr. Greenberg, if you’d like to issue a correction, may I help you?

    Savio was found dead in her bathtub exactly six years ago March 1. At least one woman and three men, including an attorney and a Bolingbrook police officer, went to the state police soon after her body was discovered and tried to report the suspicions they harbored about her ex-husband, Drew Peterson.

    Those suspicions fell on deaf ears.

    “I told them Kathy was afraid of Drew,” Savio’s boyfriend, Steve Maniaci, testified during the hearsay hearing. “I told them Drew broke into her house. I told them the fact that he had cut a hole in the wall to gain entry and it should be looked at. I told them Kathy was very scared of Drew and it should be looked at closely.”

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

  79. Just to be clear, this was Maniaci’s testimony…under oath.

    Savio’s boyfriend of two years, Steve Maniaci, said he approached Drew Peterson outside Savio’s house on the night her body was found and asked if he had killed her. Peterson denied any involvement, Maniaci testified.

    “It sure worked out well for you, Drew,” Maniaci said.

    “She wouldn’t have won anyway,” Peterson replied, according to Maniaci.

    Maniaci said he told police about Peterson and Savio’s tumultuous relationship and the knife incident shortly after her body was found.

    None of that, however, made it into the official police report.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/witness-peterson-denied-killing-savio.html

  80. facsmiley :
    Mr. Greenberg, if you’d like to issue a correction, may I help you?

    Savio was found dead in her bathtub exactly six years ago March 1. At least one woman and three men, including an attorney and a Bolingbrook police officer, went to the state police soon after her body was discovered and tried to report the suspicions they harbored about her ex-husband, Drew Peterson.
    Those suspicions fell on deaf ears.
    “I told them Kathy was afraid of Drew,” Savio’s boyfriend, Steve Maniaci, testified during the hearsay hearing. “I told them Drew broke into her house. I told them the fact that he had cut a hole in the wall to gain entry and it should be looked at. I told them Kathy was very scared of Drew and it should be looked at closely.”

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

    And all of that is precisely why Kathleen’s family allowed Dr. Baden to perform a private autopsy. They stated they didn’t trust the state police, and who can blame them?

  81. I wish that it would be televised , i do hope that tru tv will be there and beth also be there in the court room . and hope one ya you here goes and lets us know what going on in court. the boobie team are abunch of nuts. also do not believe what ya read in paper, they are under obama and they write not some truths . just like the news are getting payed what to say . just wanted ya to know that .like the oil spill , they were told to stop talking about it . they will not tel truth. but anyways . will his kids testify at trial, and what about paul and his wife of the tapes they did of drew. I do wish i could find more of the fox news tape of baden. great jobs guys 🙂

  82. OH I FORGOT TO ASK , DOES DREW trial start today july 6 or what day is it supposed to start anyone thanks

  83. Does anyone remember reading, that one of the potential jurors winked at DP the day they filled out questionnaires. I know I read it someplace. Sure hope someone in court noticed and that juror gets disqualified.

Comments are closed.