Drew Peterson trial – day seven. Mary Parks, classmate of Kathleen Savio testifies

UPDATE 04:00:

That ends the arguments for today.
Judge Burmila leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 9:00 Friday morning.

UPDATE 03:37:

Conversation now about lock picking.
Prosecutor Marie Czech argues that the lock pick found at the defendant’s home at the time of his arrest in 2009 is relevant. “We have evidence that the defendant had a lock pick in 2003 that shows he had the ability to enter the home, and to commit the murder.”
Prosecution: “The second issue is whether locksmith Chris Wolzen, the partner of Robert Akin, should be called. We believe that he should be called. Our position is that the defendant’s behavior that night was highly unusual. We think that bypassing the normal procedures for getting a locksmith shows that the defendant was doing something to try to cover up his actions that night.””
Judge: Wolzen can testify, but prosecution can’t talk about lock-pick set unless they can prove that’s how Peterson entered Savio’s home.
Joel Brodsky is asking the judge to bar anything to do with the blue towel seen in evidence photos.
Judge (to prosecution): “I tell you right now, if the aim of the State is to ask every single person who could have moved that towel, I cannot allow that. You will not be able to call a series of witness, have them all say they did not do it, and then point a finger at the defendant and say he must have done it because we didn’t hear from him. It’s absolutely impermissible.”
Judge: “You absolutely cannot do that. That’s a direct comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent. You cannot do that. You CANNOT do that. That’s a direct reflection on his right to remain silent. I’m sorry, but you cannot do that.”

UPDATE 02:42:

Judge says that there are issues with next witness involving toxicology records.
No additional witnesses today
Attorneys continue to discuss issues of the marital assets, the divorce, and the will.
Judge: “How does Harry Smith’s testimony make any of those statements more believable?”
Koch: “What’s important to know is what the value of the marital state was.”
Judge: “There’s a big difference between A motive and THE motive.”
Attorney Koch wants Smith to testify about factors at the time of the divorce as well as the timeline and documents
Defense argues that putting the lawyer up to testify will result in a “trial within a trial” and they don’t need the law explained by a witness.
Judge: “I know Harry Smith has some other issues, and I’m not ruling about that but he will not be able to testify about the substance of the pre-divorce negotiations, or what Ms. Savio expected to get as a result of the divorce. But Harry Smith, for the other issues he may testify about, the State is allowed to call him.”

UPDATE 02:12:

Court is back in session. Parks is back on witness stand
Attorney Jim Glasgow begins re-direct.
Why did you call on the pay phone, and not your cell phone? “In nursing school, you’re penalized if you use your phone in the lab area.”
Why didn’t you attend Kathleen Savio’s funeral? “I didn’t know her family. I didn’t know her children. I just knew Kathy.”
Glasgow’s last questions dealt with alleged Peterson threat to Savio: grabbing her by the throat, “why don’t you just die”
Parks apparently began sobbing when Greenberg walked up to her. Jury and Parks both leave room.
Mary Parks re-enters the courtroom, jury follows, court is back in session
Parks on not going to Savio’s wake: “…I did not want to come face to face with her husband.”
Greenberg asks her if she talked to Henry Savio: “We were on the phone for a while. Most of the conversation was Henry talking to me.”
And Henry told you how they looked in all the closets for a briefcase, and couldn’t find it, and finally they found it in her car? “That’s what Henry told me.”
The witness is shown a photograph of Kathleen Savio: Did you know this is her sitting on the tub? “She’s on a tub.” Did you know that picture was taken by the 14-year-old boy who lived next door? Objection/Sustained.
Recross is done.

UPDATE 01:50:

Attorneys Greenberg and Joe Lopez are in the overflow room, joking with reporters.
According to Greenberg, there is delay due to a proposed stipulation.

UPDATE 01:15:

The redirect of Mary Parks will start soon. Everyone is assembling in court.
Savio’s son, Kristopher Peterson, is in court today. Defense intern is walking him in to say hello to his father.
(Kristopher turned 18 yesterday and is expected to attempt to withdraw from Savio’s civil suit against his father)
Peterson overheard telling Kris happy birthday and he would not want to see the photographs that were about to be shown of his mom.

UPDATE 11:42:

Parks: Savio was “anal” about keeping the house locked up. “She carried a telephone with her at all times.”
Greenberg: Do you think she told you things were bad at home to get sympathy? Parks: “Everything she told me, I had no reason to doubt”
Greenberg again points out time discrepancies in reports and Parks again says that she hasn’t seen the reports and didn’t write them. He asks about Savio’s statement about fighting over the Printing business that she had shared with Drew and points out that it was sold in 1999 (before she met Savio). He asks if she thinks Savio she was lying in order to get sympathy. She says, no. He asks her about walking Savio to her car on occasion out of fear or Drew. Did she ever see Drew? She says, no.
More discussion about Savio’s precautions and fears. Parks says that she was afraid Drew would do something to her when she was away from home, that he had someone keeping an eye on her and reporting back to him, that he would tamper with her car. Greenberg asks if she thinks Savio was just being dramatic or paranoid. She says, no.
Parks testifies to how the marks on Savio’s neck looked – three distinct marks.
Greenberg ends cross-examination and they break for lunch.

UPDATE 11:15:

Joel Brodsky mistakenly objects to question asked of Parks by another defense attorney. There’s lots of laughter.
Greenberg continues to look for discrepancies in Park’s timeline about her calls to authorities and Savio family members. Parks says she thinks that the State Police contacted her in 2007 because of a call she made to a tip line.
Greenberg shows Parks a transcript of her grades (4.0) which shows that she was not in the phlebotomy class at the time that she said she was. She admits that she was mistaken about which class she was in at the time that she met Savio. Greenberg says he’ll move on.
Parks: “I thought we were pretty close” but she didn’t go to the funeral or contact the family after Savio’s death.
Greenberg asks her about a prior abusive relationship she had been in and if it made her feel closer to Savio. Parks says yes. Greenberg asks her if she told Savio to get restraining order or to call the ISP. Parks says she told Savio to call the police.
Greenberg asks Parks if she ever told the ISP that Savio said Drew told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident. She says she believes she did. She was never told about a knife hidden between Savio’s mattresses.

UPDATE 10:40:

Jury out but Parks tells judge Peterson told Savio “he wants everything” in their divorce, including their kids and house.
Direct examination resumes.
“In October of 2003 . . . she told me that he said that he wants it all; he wants the children, he wants the house, he wants the businesses. He wants everything.”
Questioning of Parks about her discussions with ISP and Prosecutors
Parks: “I don’t know what the state police said that I said, I’ve never seen the reports.”
Parks says she called the State’s Attorney’s office in 2004 to find out if there was investigation into Savio’s death.
Parks did not meet with anyone at State’s Attorney’s office in 2004. Has met with current State’s Atty’s staff “maybe 3 times”
Attorney Greenberg begins cross-examination.
Greenberg on cross: I notice you keep looking over at the jury. Has anyone ever told you to do that? “No.”
Don’t you come from a family of lawyers? “I have some lawyers in my family.”
Judge warns Parks “Don’t fence with counsel.”
Greenberg: So you’re comfortable in testifying? “Yes, somewhat.” In fact, you’re smiling now, aren’t you? “It’s not about that.”
Greenberg questions her about the call she made to the ISP.
“I asked the person who answered the phone if I might speak with someone about Kathy Peterson.”
And what did they say to you? “I was transferred to another person, and it was a woman who told me, ‘That is not under investigation at this time.’ It was something along those lines. I thought about it for a second, and then I said good-bye.”
Greenberg: When you talked to the state police the first time, in August, you never told them you’d called the State’s Attorney’s office? “I have not seen the report, or given the opportunity to examine the veracity of the report. I’m not responsible for what they wrote. It was a female officer, and I believe I did tell her that.”
Greenberg: Are you suggesting the state police are doctoring their reports? “I talked to her, she wrote her report, and I don’t know what she wrote. She asked a question, and I answered it. It seems she made a few notes in a very small notebook.”

UPDATE 10:08:

Court in session.
Jury is given instruction – State calls Mary Parks to the stand
Judge tells jurors that Parks testimony should only be considered as to his motive and intent.
Parks IDs photo of Kathleen Savio, tells how they met in nursing school and would study together.
Parks saw Savio in November 2003 wearing a shirt that covered her neck. “I saw marks on her neck…dark red color”
Savio showed marks on her neck, said Peterson entered house, grabbed by neck, pinned down, said “Why don’t you just die?”
Parks offered for Kathy Savio and her two sons to come live with her after seeing bruises on Kathy’s neck.
Objection. Parks removed from stand, jurors taken out of courtroom.
Defense wants statement that Savio would walk with Parks through parking lot because she was scared of Peterson struck.
Judge says no discovery violation and statements about alleged threats by Peterson to Savio can be heard.
Parks: “Kathy told me that her husband, Drew Peterson, said that he could ‘kill her, and maker her disappear.’
Jury and witness pulled out again.

UPDATE 09:39:

The defense wants emails between Dr. Baden and Mark Fuhrman but the Prosecution says they don’t have any.
State Prosecutor Colleen Griffin asks for the motion to be denied: “I don’t know of any case where somebody’s been barred from testifying because they might be subject to cross-examination. Additionally, just out of fairness, we believe two of the proposed experts that the defendant is going to have testify can be impeached by prior statements they have made.”
Judge seems in good mood, pushing for quick drafting of a legal instruction for jury, saying “we really need fingers of fury.”
Discussion over proposed jury instruction regarding Mary Park’s testimony.
Defendant’s motion is overruled. Brief recess while the instruction is typed up.

UPDATE 09:06:

People entering the courtroom. Should be underway soon.
Judge Burmila has taken the bench. “Good morning, everyone. I received a letter yesterday from an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections that he has information linking this case with Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and the Zimmerman case. I won’t be communicating with him.”
Attorney Greenberg challenges something about the upcoming testimony of Mary Parks, but the Judge allows it.
The disputed statement has something to do with “grabbing her throat” and Peterson wanting everything in the divorce.
The judge won’t allow the part about what Drew Peterson wanted from the divorce.
judge Burmilla says that anything to move the case along would be helpful.
Discussion about the motion regarding Dr. Baden and the allegation that he determined Savio’s death was a homicide before actually performing an autopsy.
Greenberg thinks that FOX paid Baden to come to a conclusion that they wanted and that Dr. Blum could have been influenced by his (then) uninformed opinion.
Defense asks for records from pathologist Baden.

Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. Yesterday Retired ISP Sergeant Patrick Collins and Savio classmate, Krsitin Anderson testified. There were plenty of courtroom fireworks with a fierce battle over the introduction of Anderson’s hearsay statements and a cross-examination by Joe Lopez that elicited an audible groan from the courtroom and a look of disgust on at least one juror.

As always, we’ll have our eyes and ears open and will be posting updates. Check back throughout the day for the latest news and don’t forget to check the comment thread.

We’re following:
Jon Seidel
Adam Grimm
In Session
Glenn Marshall
Diane Pathieu
Kara Oko
Dan Rozek

~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.~


59 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day seven. Mary Parks, classmate of Kathleen Savio testifies

  1. OMG that “donut” receipt bit in the last thread was hillarious! Definitely lightened the mood after reading all of the disturbing facts!

  2. According to testimony, I am assuming that the boys did not have a key to the house. Also somewhere it said that Drew didn’t get back from The Shedd until close to 8, but Officer Collins said that Drew said it was 4:30 or 5….not that it makes a difference, but it does show that Drew’s story changes depending on who he talking to.

  3. OMG! The judge got a letter yesterday from an inmate that said he has information that this case is associated with the death of Abraham Lincoln and the Zimmerman case. LOL! 😆

    The judge will not be communicating with this person.

    That is hilarious!

  4. I suppose I knew this already but WOW is Lopez a sleez ball! I just finished up with the end of court yesterday…He had the balls to ask her friend if her life was more important than her friends! How can you un-hear that remark? Wonder if the Jury reacted to that.

  5. Charmed. It’s weird isn’t it?

    I’ve heard that most of the residents on the court entered their houses through the garage and used the keypad to access. You would think the kids would have the code to the keypad and could just tell Drew in an emergency.

    Of course, if he wanted to prove that he couldn’t get into the house, he would never go that route.

    If he asked the kids for the code on Saturday, then one of them has an awful secret. 😦

  6. But the kids were never asked. It is Drew to the police officer that he attempted to drop the kids off, they knocked (or rang the bell, can’t remember) and no answer.

  7. Right. The boys were never interviewed.

    They did testify at Grand Jury years later but I don’t know if anyone asked them then. I think they would have denied helping Drew get in the house though, don’t you?

  8. Harley, there was someone tweeting late night about how he knew absolutely, without a doubt where Stacy’s body was buried because of the dates and such. Yeah, when I figure out something really important to the case I’m not going to the ISP – no sir. Straight to Twitter!!!

  9. well, Facs, testimony has shown that the ISP doesn’t follow up or really care about evidence. Maybe Twitter was this guys last resort! (sarcasm) He needs to go straight to the FBI

  10. Right Facs! Always Straight to twitter! Why bother the police?

    I can’t help but think of Judge Perry! This jury is in and out like pop-tarts today! 🙂

  11. Knitted – No kidding. Funny isn’t it how the defense always badgers the witness about which law enforcement agency the contacted as if one is the “right” one. I wouldn’t have any idea who to contact about some information I had. I would just hope that whoever answered the phone would direct me to the right people.

  12. Mary Parks mentioned that Kathleen thought Drew was having people watch her. Heavens, they’ve admitted as much.

    JULIET: What would he do? What were some of the things that he did?

    MIMS: With Stacy he had gotten her a cell phone with GPS tracking so he could track her movements on it. With Kathleen he had tapped the phones in her house.

    MIKE: His third wife?

    MIMS: Yes, his third wife.

    JULIET: Who is dead, by the way, found in a bathtub.

    MIMS: Correct. And we did some surveillance on her. I helped with some surveillance on her.

    JULIET: You helped do some surveillance with Drew?

    MIKE: What do you mean—you just followed her around?

    MIMS: Yeah, when he was going through is divorce, it was right before the property settlement, the end of ’03, beginning of ’04. And he was worried that she was staying at her boyfriend’s house with the children. And he wanted to make sure, this is the story he told me, that she was leaving from her house in the morning to go to work.

    MIKE: What is this thing that you would surveil her though?

    MIMS: We monitored every move she made in the morning when she would go to work.

    MIKE: You had communication with each other?

    MIMS: We had a two-way radio.

    JULIET: You felt like, I mean, why were you doing that? You felt like he was being wronged?

    MIMS: Yes, I mean, it was a bitter divorce he was going through, he was a friend, and I was helping him gather evidence to help lower his alimony.

    MIKE: What did you ever catch her doing?

    MIMS: Nothing!


  13. Brodsky probably fell asleep, woke up, and yelled “objection.”

    Mary’s statement will have even more power when Mims backs it up, I am assuming he will be testifying.

  14. Wonder if Drew is happy to have him in court to hear all people have to say about him, not to mention the picture of his mother lying dead in a bathtub.

  15. That is allowed? To just go say “Hi” to the defendant? Hmmm… wish we knew more about what exactly happened.

  16. Beth Karas’ facebook:

    Court is delayed this afternoon; it hasn’t started yet. About a half hour ago, Peterson’s son, Kris, showed up. He’s Savio’s younger son. He sat in the front row behind his father, chatting for several minutes with him. Kris, who is on a witness list, has since left the courtroom. Had he stayed, he may have seen graphic autopsy photos of his mother–since Dr. Blum is the next witness! Blum performed the second autopsy.

  17. In Session facebook updates saved here:

  18. It’s funny because I kept thinking that with all the towel testimony that Peterson might actually take the stand, since he’d be the only person left and would have to say that he also did NOT place the towel on the tub, or that yeah, he placed the towel there to sit on while he waited for investigators or something.

    But I guess, legally speaking, they can’t force him to testify and by having everyone else testify about the towel, in essence that’s what they are doing.

    it’s a shame because I really would like to know what he would say about the towel.

  19. In that court artist picture, DP has a striking resemblance to the character Jack Nicholson played in The Shining

  20. Harley, Kris was in court to get his name off the civil suit that the Savios filed against Drew. He turned 18 yesterday so he was able to do that. He was escorted by Sheriff’s deputies to and from his short visit with Peterson. He didn’t see any court proceedings.

  21. It certainly was a short day today. How many minutes of testimony? I wonder how the jury can get into the flow of this case with the frequent sidebars, objections, interruptions, being walked in and out of the courtroom. Hope the proceedings will hit a lick next week, but I guess with that defense team objecting to everything, even each other (Lol), its going to continue to be a bumpy road

  22. Thanks Facs. I just found it odd that he could just walk up behind the defense table and chat with his dad. I didn’t think that was allowed.

    My DH loved the donut bit! He was cracking up. He told me not to worry, he doesn’t save any donut receipts! 😉

  23. I still cannot understand the prosecution’s plan to ask everybody about the blue towel, and to let the jury deduce what they will. Even I know the defendant does not have to testify, nor be reprimanded for not doing so. No wonder the judge was so upset with them at the end today.
    And OK, even if I could understand where the SA’s office was going with this, why would they say so? Are they playing at B’rer Rabbit, focusing everyone on one thing so something else is missed?

  24. 11:15 a.m. Defense objects to its own question

    Defense attorney Joel Brodsky raised an objection after Mary Parks was asked whether she had ever previously told anyone that she contacted the state police for the first time in 2007.

    Unfortunately, the question was asked by his co-counsel, Steve Greenberg, which caused a bit of confusion for a moment.

    “I don’t think they can object to their own question,” Glasgow interjected, drawing laughter from court watchers.

    “That’s a first,” Greenberg said.


  25. The chances of the members of Drew Peterson’s high-powered defense team snagging a table at one of Jeff Ruby’s steakhouses are slim to none.

    The fine-dining restaurateur, who made national headlines five years ago when he booted O.J. Simpson out of his posh Louisville, Ky., steakhouse, has fixed his sights on Peterson’s defense attorneys.

    Ruby didn’t like O.J.’s attitude, and he feels the same way about Joel Brodsky, Steve Greenberg and Joe Lopez.

    “I was disgusted when I saw those three goons hold that press conference. (They) find it just hilarious to make fun of the disappearance of Stacy Peterson,” Ruby said Wednesday, speaking by phone from Cincinnati. “With their sunglasses on and they’re trying to see which one could be funnier, making light of the obvious death of a person. Of a human being. The mother of children. The daughter of parents.”

    He was so upset by their televised antics that he bought ad space in Sun-Times Media newspapers to chew them out.

    “Shameless!” screamed Ruby’s ad that ran in the Tuesday issue of The Herald-News of Joliet. It accused the trio of staging a “Three Stooges With Sunglasses” routine, and said they disgrace their profession.

    “And you know who’s watching all this? The children and the loved ones of the person who was murdered,” Ruby said. “Regardless if the person was proven guilty or not, you don’t need the attorneys laughing about it.”…


  26. Why are the daily trial updates posted latest to earliest? I’m finding it hard to follow because I have to go down to the bottom and scroll upward and sometimes updates are bigger than my computer screen.

  27. Hi, Aussienat. Most people are checking throughout the day while I’m updating the page every few minutes. The newest updates are always at the top so people don’t have to scroll all the way down to see what just happened. It’s just standard updating style, though I admit it’s not the best way to access it if you want to read at the end of the day.

  28. Cheryl, I’ll admit it never occurred to me that the whole way the were approaching the blue towel could mean it getting tossed. I just kept thinking, “Oh great, this will make Drew take the stand”.

    It never occurred to me that though it’s kind of a chess game, you can’t maneuver someone into violating their constitutional right to remain silent.

    On the other hand, I thought that if Drew didn’t testify that it would be OK to ask the jury to use their powers of deduction to guess who laid the towel out. But That’s not OK either, I guess?

    So, I am pretty bummed about that. To me it really looks as if Peterson staged the scene. I just don’t know how you prove it.

  29. I agree with Jeff Ruby, I hope those three goons, whom I have nicknamed the Butterball, the Fratboy, and the Pinhead (and from the last pic I saw today, he is getting so large his head is looking even smaller) will have to experience once in their lives, the fear of being killed.

  30. I understand Facs, and it’s great that you are doing this. Actually, the way it is laid out makes me pay more attention when I am reading 🙂

    Facs and Rescue, this is such a great blog. The work you are doing is amazing. You should both be very proud.

  31. aussie I agree, of all the crimeblogs I have followed, this one has been one of the most informative and professional ones I have ever had the pleasure of following

  32. I have changed my mind on this judge. For the first couple of days I highly suspected he was very biased toward the Defense. I had read lots of stuff about how ‘fair’ he was. I am now starting to believe those reports are true. I think if an innocent person was on trial he would be a great judge to have.

    This Defense team is making my stomach curdle. They are absolutely horrid to the witnesses. How these guys sleep at night is beyond me.

    I also think it’s interesting that Brodsky is worried about the blue towel testimony. Probably because he knows that scene was staged!

  33. With regard to Ric Mimms, does anybody know if he is on the witness list?

    I hope his selling his story to the enquirer doesn’t mean he can’t take the stand. His testimony would be crucial to the jury.

  34. Personally I don’t know if he’s on the prosecution’s witness list. I’m guessing he is because I think there are over 200 names on there.

    As a prosecutor do you weigh the evidence against the odds that your witness will be completely reamed because of some questionable decision?

    I would consider also that he has explained his surveillance for Drew in at least two different ways. He has said publicly that he was watching Kathleen in the mornings to see if her boyfriend was spending the night when the kids were there (by all accounts he was not) in order to come out better in the battle over spousal support. But I’ve also seen him saying that he watched Kathleen while Drew entered her house to do “whatever”. Maybe he did both?

    Whatever the facts are there, it’s clear that he was in a car, watching Kathleen, holding on to a 2-way radio and reporting back to Drew. For pure creep factor can you beat that?

  35. I’m not so sure that Burmila is back to being fair, myself. I am so sick of him not letting things in, or only letting parts of testimony in. How is this jury going to be able to follow the story and make a reasonable verdict, only being able to hear parts. It is really making some of the prosecution witnesses look like idiots. I hate how this is going…my blood pressure is elevated. I was so sure that Casey A. was going to be found guilty, and there was alot more evidence in her trial, and look what happened there.

    I really hope that if Drew walks on this charge, that they will get him for Stacy’s. If he gets arrested for Stacy’s murder, will all that has happened in this trial, be considered to be prior bad acts, and therefore, not be admissible? Gah! What a convoluted justice system we have…totally geared to give defendents EVERY chance..and the hell with victims!

  36. I agree, Aussienat! I’ll never understand why getting money for telling the (supposed) truth should mean someone could not testify. To me, it’s supply and demand and does not mean beans about what actually happened, I am with you, thinking no wonder Kathleen felt like someone was watching her. Someonee was!
    And Facs, thank you for your explanation. I guess juries are supposed to be tape recorders, just giving back what was given them, and not have brains. That’s about all I can come up with.

  37. I keep thinking about the towel discussion with the judge, and now it’s starting to bug me.

    I mean, it’s clear they want the jury to think about the fact that the only person who could possibly have put that towel there was Drew Peterson.

    What is so wrong with asking every one else on that scene if they placed the towel?

    Isn’t it the essence of a circumstantial case to present the evidence and then let the jury connect the dots?

    The prosecution isn’t forcing Drew to testify. That’s his choice.

  38. Neither Tom nor Kris show up on the civil suit any longer:

    Case Number: 2009L 000326 Case Status: Open Case Open Date: 04/21/2009
    Case Type: LAW File Type: Wrongful Death Closed Date: N/A

    Plaintiff SAVIO HENRY J

    Plaintiff DOMAN ANNA M


    Defendant PETERSON DREW

    Defendant CARROLL JAMES B

    However, the case is still open.

  39. Judge Burmila seems to me, IMO, not to be exactly “fair” so much as he is obsessed with case law and precedent.

    Is there a difference between loving the law and loving justice? Because, I think that Judge Burmila is more inclined towards the former.

    He keeps barring and blocking mentions of how much $ Peterson gained due to Kathleen Savio’s premature death as if it’s all hypothetical and not pertinent, when it seems really obvious that there was a HUGE financial motive. It comes up over and over in the testimony that Drew didn’t want Kathleen to get any of his pension, didn’t want to pay her spousal support and didn’t want to split their shared assets with her.

    Why doesn’t Judge Burmila think this relates to the murder charge?

  40. THE DEFENSE are arrogent people , what they said this morning , 1down 1to go … Fac, yes I agree with yuo on that he is bias and with the defense…and he should let some stuff in more than what he is doing … I wish they would put a muzzle on the defense…. they think they have it in the bag with this case , i think pros is doing great , just wish they would find stacy

Comments are closed.