Drew Peterson trial – day twelve. Key hearsay witness barred.

UPDATE 04:21:

Jury has been sent home for the weekend.
Judge Burmila hearing arguments on whether jury will hear hitman allegation (witness Jeffrey Pachter).
Prosecutor Koch says that he believes the State has now complied with all requirements pertaining to this witness.
Judge: “What can I rely on other than your late notice? There has to be something more than that. To allow for this late filing.”
Judge: “I already made a finding that this is a bad act.”
Judge said law is clear that prosecution error is not enough to admit the hitman testimony now, but still hasn’t ruled.
Judge allows the possibility of the hitman testimony based on the prosecution’s misunderstanding of the law.
Attorneys and prosecutors now having a hearing on whether Jeffrey Pachter’s testimony can be admitted as a prior bad act.
No decision yet on hitman testimony motion.
Proceedings done for the weekend. Resume Tuesday.

UPDATE 03:53:

Court back in session.
State calls Jennifer Schoon.
She was Steve Peterson’s girlfriend and lived with family for nearly two years. She ID’s Drew Peterson in the courtroom.
Schoon says Drew told her that Savio had drowned in the bathtub, hit her head. Water had drained because of a leak in the tub.
Drew Peterson told her “there were anti-depressants on the counter” when Savio’s body was found.
Did he indicate she had possibly overdosed on anti-depressants? “Yes, that she had possibly taken them.”
Prosecution done with first round of questions for Schoon.
Brodsky does cross-examination.
He’s asking about living arrangements. Schoon says she lived in the Peterson home from about June 2003 to March of 2005.
She says that Drew tried to return the sons to Kathy on the evening of Feb. 29, but then brought them back. There were phone calls made to Savio but she doesn’t know how many.
Schoon says she can’t “recall” hearing washer/dryer. Brodsky pointing out her previous testimony from Feb. 3, 2010 that says otherwise.
She says she could sometimes hear people in the kitchen above.
Schoon says Drew told her that Savio had a drug overdose, agrees that it was only his personal opinion.
Brodsky done with cross. Schoon off the witness stand. Jury exiting

UPDATE 03:00:

Trial starts up again with Joseph Steadman, an insurance adjuster who handled a past Savio claim
Steadman would create memos soon after getting a phone call from client. He’s shown one, says it was first time he’d spoken to Drew.
Witness was handling claim and asked Drew Peterson what Savio had died from. He said her death was drug-related and she had been found dead in her bathtub. Call was 3/15/04.
advised me that he is a Bolingbrook IL police officer, and he was working the night of her death and was the first person on the scene.
“Drew Peterson advised me that he is a Bolingbrook IL police officer, and he was working the night of her death and was the first person on the scene.”
Steadman asked “Who was first to mention murder?” Defense objects. Sustained.
Drew Peterson said he was not allowed to investigate her death…he is her ex husband, and if she was murdered he would be one of the suspects.
Joel Brodsky’s cross-examination begins
Steadman says Anna Doman was 1st person to call to make claim on policy.
Brodsky: Did Drew Peterson say Savio drowned? Steadman: “I believe he said she drowned.”
Drew was helpful to Steadman and when he called him later on, he told him the case was under investigation and gave him the names of ISP officers, Collins and Falat.
End of cross-examination and no re-direct. Brief recess.

UPDATE 02:28:

Trial is back. Greenberg arguing Rossetto testimony is “unreliable.’
Prosecutor Koch trying to explain problem to judge. Burmila says “Stop. I’m not asking you to spin it.”
Glasgow says whole prosecution team has been sick, including one with a high fever.
Glasgow blames the date problem on “Scribner error”.
Judge is clearly irritated by prosecutors. Defense atty Greenberg “I don’t think the jury should hear that evidence at all”
Glasgow again points out Stacy’s pastor Schori backs up Rossetto story — even though they don’t know each other.
Judge finds state knew Rossetto gave false info during pre-trial hearing and did not tell previous judge.
Burmila: “Within a one-hour period today, the date changed twice.”
Judge bans Rossetto’s testimony because it’s unreliable, partly because of state’s mistakes.
Prosecution is asked to call next witness.

UPDATE 01:45:

State calls Scott Rossetto, a friend of Stacy Peterson’s.
Rossetto tells Glasgow that he is 40, currently resides in Germany as a Captain in the Army. Says he met Stacy Cales in 2001.
Rossetto met her through his identical twin brother, Keith, who was dating her at the time.
In October 2007 he received a phone call from Stacy. “Her last name had become Peterson.”
In October 2007 he had a meal with Stacy at a restaurant. Then about two weeks later on Oct. 25 they met again at his house.
There’s an issue with the date that Rossetto and Stacy met. Prosecution told defense Rossetto and Stacy Peterson met on the 22nd of October. But Rossetto says it was the 25th.
Pros John Conner apparently told Greenberg the talk happened on 10/22. Judge says they’ll have to call Conner as a witness to impeach.
Judge is clearly getting irritated again — even said Conner would be out of the case if he’s put on the stand.
Glasgow: “This all has to do with a date. Not the content.”
Greenberg: They told us before lunch that Rosetto met with SP the 22nd; all of a sudden, he’s on the stand and he’s saying it’s the 25th.
Greenberg asks if the prosecution can call a different witness at this time. Judge thinks that would be unfair.
Glasgow says they could call Jennifer Schoon. “Judge: “We’ll take a minute here, to see if we can sort this out.” The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in a brief recess.
Judge is unhappy with prosecutors. Left the bench shaking his head incredulously.

UPDATE 11:30:

Atty Greenberg on the upcoming testimony of Scott Rossetto: “This is so unreliable that I don’t think it can pass the due process analysis.”
Glasgow says Rossetto’s story is nearly identical to testimony from Stacy’s pastor, Neil Schori.
Greenberg warning about going into Rossetto text messages: “They’re quite graphic.”
Burmila is going to allow Stacy Peterson friend Scott Rossetto to testify. Says defense can vigorously cross-examine.
Greenberg asks how to handle Rossetto coming forward to police in 2007 — after Stacy disappears.
Burmila: “I’m assuming the state has admonished their witness not to testify to that in front of the jury.”
Brodsky argues against this testimony, claiming that it’s a violation of marital privilege.
Rosetto can say that Stacy Peterson claimed that Drew ordered her to be the alibi on weekend Kathleen died.
Trial in recess until 1:15.

UPDATE 11:05:

Re-direct by prosecutor Connor
“Absolutely no indication” Savio had multiple sclerosis, says Neri.
Neri never noted any intolerance for the drugs he prescribed Savio, “She just got better every time.”
Neri again describing progress Savio made while she was under his care. “She would not have changed significantly after leaving me.”
Dr. Neri: My feeling is she would not have changed suddenly after leaving me and become a different patient; people are true to themselves.
Savio had heart murmur, palpitations, says Neri upon questioning from defense. He’s not a cardiologist, but read previous docs’ reports.
Defense Attorney Greenberg begins his recross with Dr. Neri
Greenberg asks about MS and deaths in hot bathtubs.
Neri testimony ends.
Attorneys now argue about next witness Scott Rossetto.
Brodsky asking judge to warn people in the gallery not to react to testimony — no more laughing or gasping.
Judge says he will ask people who make a commotion to be removed.
Defense trying to prevent Stacy Peterson’s friend Scott Rosetto from testifying, saying he changed his story regarding what Stacy said about Drew Peterson’s sleeves – wet v. dry.

UPDATE 10:15:

They’re still at it. No jury or Neri in the courtroom.
Judge Burmila not allowing Neri to testify as “expert” witness in regards to cervical vertigo, only as Savio’s treating physician.
Jury back in courtroom.
Savio had elevated levels of adrenaline, causing muscles to tighten. Neri is describing diagram being shown to jurors.
Dr. Neri: “She made a lot of progress (with the Zoloft and sleeping aid). The muscles started to loosen..The neck tension was improved..Everything was improved”
Defense starts cross-examination.
Darryl Goldberg begins his cross-examination of Dr. Neri: When was the last time that you saw Miss Savio? Neri: “February 6 of 2002.”
Neri concedes he has no idea of Savio’s medical condition at the time of her death, two years after he last saw her.
Neri says “he’s not sure” when defense asks about a spill Savio took down the stairs in Oct. 1999.
Goldberg is asking about Savio changing doses w/o doctor’s guidance. Neri says it’s commonly done.
In Lorazepam, one of the side effects is drowsiness? “That’s the point.”
And dizziness? “If you take it in the daytime, yes.”
Savio was careful when taking medications. Sidebar
Goldberg: Would studying or a lover’s quarrel stress Savio out? Neri: “Yes.”
Defense asks Neri to confirm that when Savio sought him out (in 1999) that she had numbness, was dizzy and unsteady, family history of diabetes and high cholesterol, was slightly depressed, and sleeping horribly. Neri answers “yes” to all.
Atty Goldberg points out it wasn’t good for Savio to drink alcohol with Zoloft. “What is alcohol good to take with?” Neri asks.
Savio told another doctor she would “occasionally drop objects” and be clumsy.
Goldberg: Predisposition to fall is not a medical condition? “Correct.” And someone who’s in a bathtub without an anti-slip mechanism could just slip and fall? “Could.”

UPDATE 09:33:

Court is in session
Testimony underway with Dr. Gene Neri, Savio’s doctor from 1999-2002. He treated her for cervical vertigo.
Under direct examination by ASA Conner, Neri says that cervical vertigo is a reaction to stress. A tightening of the neck muscles.
Kathleen was very sleep deprived and under a lot of stress.
Neri prescribed Lorazepam to #Savio to help her sleep.
Neri says although Savio felt unsteady, her condition would not cause her to slip, fall. To the contrary, it would make her more careful.
Sidebar and brief recess.
The judge returns to the bench, jury is not present. Greenberg is questioning Dr. Neri’s qualification as an expert.

Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. Yesterday Forensic pathologist, Dr. Larry Blum was back on the stand. He testified that based on Dr. Mitchell’s autopsy report as well as his own done in 2007, and the investigative reports and photos as well as a visit to the Savio home, that Kathleen Savio’s death was the result of a homicide. He was cross-examined by a feisty Ralph Meczyk prompting objections and verbal exchanges between himself and James Glasgow.

After the jury left for the day attorneys argued about evidence. Judge Burmila decided that Stacy Peterson’s Uncle, Kyle Toutges would not be able to testify that Drew Peterson said “let them prove it” when confronted with suspicions about his involvement in Kathleen’s death. The judge also ruled that the prosecution would not be able to ask every witness if they placed the blue towel that is seen on Savio’s tub in evidence photos. He also decided that testimony regarding the man who alleges he was offered $25k in exchange for arranging a hit on Savio, might be admissible if the prosecution could prove its relevance.

As always, I’ll have my 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 comments thread.

We’re following:
Jon Seidel
Stacy St. Clair
In Session
BJ Lutz
Diane Pathieu
Dan Lopez
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.~


148 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day twelve. Key hearsay witness barred.

  1. Came across this, LOL:

    “Greenberg was reading Justice Cafe during the pathologists testimony!”

    LOL! 😆

    Good morning!

  2. They should all come in wearing exercise clothes and sneakers. Maybe the judge and attorneys should leave and let the jury rest.

  3. Sure, since they do like to all dress alike. 🙂

    Today the jurors are all dressed in black.

    Brodsky was telling the media this morning that the jury is happy and that happy jurors don’t convict.

    Yet, I’m told by court room observers that the jury rarely cracks a smile.

  4. I had also heard on In Session from someone who is in attendence that when the defense speaks a few of the jurors roll their eyes and cross their arms.

  5. Mr. Greenberg, 1.) no drugs in her system. 2.) I get that studying and fighting with someone can cause stress, but then riddle me this, who turned out the lights?

  6. This is not on topic with today’s testimoney, but I do wonder why Drew didn’t try harder to return the kids Sunday. Did he think there was a chance if found she could be saved?

  7. IMO, he wanted Maniaci to be the one to find her. Then Maniaci would be on the scene and possibly implicated. Drew probably had no idea that they fought and that Steve was giving her some alone time.

    Finally, he couldn’t wait anymore, so he came up with having the neighbors find her.

  8. Brodsky actually tried to invoke Marital privilege to keep out Stacy’s statements to Scott Rossetto!

    Spousal privilege (also called marital privilege or husband-wife privilege[1]) is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges: the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege. Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.

    So, Joel thinks he’s representing Stacy Peterson now and that she wouldn’t want to testify against Drew??

  9. Well…. then don’t give them a reason to laugh or gasp! 🙂

    Brodsky asking judge to warn people in the gallery not to react to testimony — no more laughing or gasping.

  10. I guess I see now where the defense was driving at by stressing that Savio went off the meds and it was confirmed by there being none in her system.

    If she did have a returning attack of the cervical vertigo brought on by the stress of her fight with Maniaci, she was not taking any medication to counter it.

    That explains why during pre-trial they were trying to introduce an expert who would say that she had nothing in her system.

    So, why did they keep pushing for traces of drugs in her body with Dr. Christopher Long?

    I think I am getting dizzy.

  11. Greensberg’s daughter was just on In Session. a journalism student. She can ask Drew questions and he is very nice to her. A future Mrs. Peterson in the making??

  12. I’ve got to ask-what was the courtroom laughing and gasping about? Does anyone know? I haven’t been able to find anything specific.
    And while we’re on hypotheses, Facs, (about Drewpy wanting Maniaci to find her) I believe the reason Kathleen’s hair was down was because Drew used it to drag and haul her. Ergo, no bruises on her arms, as was testified to yesterday.

  13. Vinnie P said “A different perspective on Drew Peterson from people who are actually spending time with him”.

    Yeah, and working for the defense. Does he honestly think they would say anything negative? 🙄

  14. Hi Cheryl. Re: laughter – this was from someone in the court room:

    Brodsky asking Burmila to remind court not to gasp. We didn’t hear gasp. Instead: laughter during alcohol comment.

    this is from In Session:

    Judge: “There are some occasions that take place during a trial where something is said that’s humorous . . . but yesterday, there was an audible gasp from the audience in front of the jury, in response to a question from Mr. Meczyk that they obviously disapproved of. The same thing happened to a lesser extent today . . . in the future, if there should be any such reactions, the Court will have to take what it believes is appropriate action to make sure the jury is free of that sort of influence. If that involves removing individuals from the courtroom, that’s a sanction that I’ll take into consideration . . I’ll be forced to take some remedies that everybody may not be happy with.”

    So my guess is that it was this answer that people laughed at today:

    Goldberg: “And you’re not supposed to drink alcohol with Zoloft?”

    Neri: “What are you supposed to take alcohol with? You’re not supposed to take it with an aspirin. But people do it.”

  15. Found this on the Trib site…. Glad I am not in there. I would probably laugh or gasp at them too!

    11:40 a.m. Judge: No gasps from gallery please

    After Dr. Gene Neri’s testimony concluded, defense lawyer Joel Brodsky asked the judge to tell onlookers in the gallery not to react noticeably to testimony or questions by the attorneys.

    “We don’t want any demonstration or expression to influence the jury one way or the other,” he said.

    Brodsky’s request was prompted by repeated gasps of outrage by a few court watchers who apparently object to certain questions posed by Drew Peterson’s attorneys.

    The judge agreed, saying the he understands that there are times when something humorous is said, prompting laughter, but that the gallery must not appear to be taking sides.

    “Yesterday, there was an audible gasp from the audience in response to a question Mr. (Ralph) Meczyk asked that they obviously disapproved of,” Burmila said.

    He said if it happened again, he may have offending onlookers barred from the courtroom.

    “I understand people are emotional about this case, but you have to be able to keep your emotions in check,” Burmila said.


  16. Me, too, Harley! I’ve been a court room observer and I know that even though I tried not to gasp at some things, my eyes were probably popping out of my head.

    It’s just human nature to respond.

  17. I wonder if the courtroom observers can have a sidebar with Judge Burmila and ask him to tell Atty Meczyk to stop glaring at them and calling them “haters” aloud.

    Maybe he’d get a little more respect from the gallery.

  18. Thank you, Facs and harleyjoey. Got it now.
    And the more Meczyk glares and calls names, the more they’re going to hate him, and the more it will show. Goody!

  19. I think today could be a pivotal day with Scott Rossetto testifying!

    Even though he can’t state that Stacy went missing in Oct. 2007, I’m willing to bet that members of the jury are aware of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. The jury pool wasn’t admonished to avoid reading about or listening to news on this case until after Drew was arrested in 2009. There was ample time between Stacy’s disappearance and Drew’s arrest nearly 19 months later for the jury members to be exposed to newspaper and television reports on her disappearance.

    I’m also encouraged by the report of the jury appearing to be unified. I’m hopeful they’ve got a good grasp on the defense desperate antics.

  20. I think the def is definately playing dirty now. If Glasgow told Greenberg that Rossetto would be testifying about the 25th today, and Greenberg said nothing, then this is really slimy of Greenberg. Anything to keep this witness from testifying

  21. The defense never noticed this 10/22 – 10/25 date discrepancy until just now? EVERY report about the meeting at Denny’s says it was 10/25 and Rossetto says it was 10/25.

    They really never thought to get some clarification when they were shown the date as being 10/22?

  22. Makes ya wonder if this wasn’t what Brodsky was referring to rather than him saying about Stacy being missing

  23. They have to get him off on a technicality and they will do ANYTHING to make sure that happens. Pros should know that and tread carefully

  24. Lordy – this old Sun-Times story says the 19th:

    “Stacy Peterson had told her husband she planned to meet [Scott] Rossetto [35-year-old registered nurse from Shorewood] at the Denny’s, Rossetto said. Drew Peterson told her not to go, and when she defied him, Drew Peterson showed up at the restaurant in his Bolingbrook police sergeant’s uniform and sat down at their table. He didn’t rant or rave. He was “quiet mostly,” Rossetto said.” – “he [Scott] said they met at Denny’s at about 9:30 p.m. on Oct. 19. That’s when Drew Peterson arrived, staying for about 15 minutes. It was the first time Rossetto had met him, he said.” – “He asked me how I’d react if my wife was with another man,” Scott Rossetto said.”

    And so does this story from the Tribune:

    “He said that when Stacy Peterson met him and a group of friends at a local Denny’s restaurant for dinner Oct. 19, they were soon joined unexpectedly by Drew Peterson.

    “He just showed up,” Rossetto said. “He was actually driving around in a squad car. He drove around the building a couple of times.”

    He said Stacy Peterson had argued with her husband about her plans to meet Rossetto and the others at the restaurant.”

  25. Sheesh, why can’t they just ask if he is sure about the date. Certainly he can say it was somtime in the middle of October, but can’t remember the exact date. As Glasgow said – It is the content, not the date that is important.

  26. I guess it might be important because she disappeared October 28.

    But as you say, why can’t he just say that he isn’t certain and then we all move on…

  27. I bet another motion for mistrial is next. Then they will close shop for the weekend. Uuugh this is so frustrating

  28. The prosecution’s excuses and apologies are getting pretty old with me. I don’t want to say that, don’t even want to think it-but good grief. And I understand the defense is picking at everything they can-no offense, JAH, but they remind me of chickens pecking, pecking, pecking. Picking up each phrase and sentence and examining it after the fact.
    But for the defense to now be saying they’ve all been sick and one had fever, and that’s why? I say stick to your guns, shut up, and let the defense dig their own graves. Don’t volunteer anything!

  29. Greenberg is trying so hard to exacerbate this date problem and the judge is letting him! Good Grief! Say middle of October! She dissappeared at the end of October!

    Move on already!!!!!

  30. DAMMIT! Not fair, Judge…how did the defense get you in their hip pocket? Promise you free wings for life?
    Oh, this trial is SO unfair! I am just sick.

  31. Let’s buck up. We’ve got another witness here who says Drew was telling people that Kathleen died of a “drug interaction”.

    The jury already knows that isn’t true and they must be wondering why he felt the need to lie…and to more than one person.

  32. I agree Facs. May have lost a battle, but haven’t lost the war yet!


    I still don’t get why this insurance guy can say what Drew told him, yet Kyle Tougtes can’t say what Drew told him. Makes no sense to me. Is it because what he told Kyle is incriminating and what he told the insurance guy isn’t? How is one considered RANK HEARSAY and the other not?

    Just wondering out loud….

  33. It’s hard to fathom all the manipulations that are being done in this trial, all for the benefit of the defendant!

    Glasgow is right…………….it’s the content, not the date that’s relevant in this particular testimony. It would have been far better if the prosecution and witness had stipulated that the exact date is uncertain, but that it was definitely in October 2007. Scott could give his nursing class as a frame of reference, the meal at the restaurant, and then “approximately two weeks later”, meeting at his house.

  34. Brodsky just asked Jennifer Schoon if she could hear the washer/dryer from the basement apartment. She said she couldn’t hear it if she was asleep.

  35. Judge says Jeffrey Pachter’s testimony that Drew tried to hire him to find someone to kill Kathleen is a “prior bad act”?

    Not sure I can take much more today…

  36. We can only hope that the Jury pretty much have seen and heard all they need to by now, I mean they are only humans, and surely must have a hunch?

  37. The drama, the needs, the def feeling offended. Give me a break. Heck give them all a lollipop. What a friggen circus, and DP is sitting by it all and smirking

  38. Judge Bars Hearsay Testimony On Peterson Alibi
    Posted on: 4:17 pm, August 17, 2012, by Staff Writer

    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) – A judge at Drew Peterson’s trial has barred important hearsay evidence regarding the ex-police officer’s alibi for the death of his third wife
    The witness scheduled to discuss the issue Friday was Scott Rossetto _ a friend of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. Drew Peterson has pleaded not guilty to killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Rossetto would have told jurors he talked to Stacy Peterson days before she disappeared in 2007. She supposedly told him Drew Peterson instructed her that, if anyone asked, to say he was home with her the weekend of Savio’s death.

    Earlier Friday, Judge Edward Burmila ruled Rossetto could testify. But minutes after he took the stand, he reversed his ruling because he found prosecutors had misled the defense about the testimony.


  39. In Session updates for the day are compiled here:

  40. No decision on the testimony about the hitman tonight. I am beginning to believe the judge is playing this courtroom. Please delete my post Facs, if I am going beyond the rules. I am just getting very irritated at these games that are being played

  41. “He (Judge Burmila) also decided that testimony regarding the man who alleges he was offered $25k in exchange for arranging a hit on Savio, might be admissible if the prosecution could prove its relevance.”

    Sorry I don’t get this – how do you prove a hitman is relevant – what other uses are there for a hitman than to murder someone…..

  42. After today, I’m not too optimistic about Neil Schori being allowed to testify. I’m sure the defense will find some reason to not allow his testimony.

    If the judge decides the hit man testimony is not relevant, and finds some reason to not allow Neil Schori to testify, the defense will have been successful in dismantling much of the prosecution’s case.

    I can only hope that despite all this, there will be a conviction.

  43. Molly I am hoping the same thing. I hope this jury has been paying attention. The defense are like Hyenas, I do not know how they sleep at night. only wanting to win what they consider a game. Two women lost their lives, and they want to WIN??? Shame on them.

  44. I will have a nasty taste in my mouth all weekend. Yes, possibly, if the prosecution dotted all their “i”s and crossed all their “t”s, if Jupiter’s aligned with Mars, if the judge gets in a good golf game over the long weekend, if the judge likes what he sees in the mirror Tuesday morning, Neil Schori may be able to testify. But NOTHING is going to hit the jury the same as hearing it twice-from two people who did not know each other.
    Sorry, but I’m beyond upset at all of them.
    I. am. angry!

  45. Just heard on a radio show (WJOL)that Burmilla’s comment to the gallery had to do with Defense atty saying that Blum’s answer to a question was “A lame excuse.” Apparently there were audible gasps and some “Ohhhs” when the attorney said this.

  46. Peterson wanting to hire a hit man shows that he wanted his ex-wife dead, which ultimately happened. What is it the judge doesn’t understand about this? It’s not a prior bad act; it shows intent

  47. Just had a long talk with my daughter who is a probation officer and spends her days in court. And I must say, I have found no answer to all that is happening. We are all humans with emotions, well, other then maybe DP and his defense team, but we can only hold up hope that the outcome is what each and everyone of us wants it to be, whether guilty or not. Its messed up, the justice system that is, as we see it as individuals, and I really do not see a solution. So all we can hope for is that justice is served, whatever we perceive that to be in this case. I am for one, hoping DP will be held to task and found guilty

  48. Watching this trial is like watching a rushing train that you know is going to wreck because you already saw the same thing happen little more than a year ago; even so, you can’t look away.

  49. Oh… Come on guys. I still have faith that the folks on this jury have some common sense. Yes, there are alot of shenanigans on the part of the defense. Yes there are mistakes by the prosecution.

    The facts still show – according to what has been shown in court – not my opinion – Kathleen Savio did not fall in that bathtub. She did NOT land in that position due to a fall. She did not have drugs or alcohol in her system. She did not commit suicide. There was no investigation. Everyone on the scene took Drew’s word that it was an accident.

    I could go on and on…..

    This was NO ACCIDENT. Now, if we want to continue and talk about Stacy…. Well… that is even more…..

    So… I will get off of my soapbox, and just leave it as… carry on Mr. Glasgow. It isn’t over yet.

    Don’t give up guys…. 🙂 I have faith.

  50. One good thing is that the jury went home this weekend thinking about the fact that Drew lied about how Kathleen died, once again.

    I don’t think they bought into any of that MS silliness that the defense was suggesting. They could be thinking about the stresses and the cervical vertigo, but they also have heard that the stressful part of the divorce ended about two years earlier, with the arrests and battery and DV incident all taking place in 2002. Kathleen may have been upset with Maniaci that night but of course a disagreement with a boyfriend hours earlier couldn’t possibly deprive her of sleep and bring about the issues she had suffered from in 2002. Dr. Neri testified that the cervical problem came about after long periods of stress-related sleeplessness, which couldn’t have happened in a couple of hours.

  51. I will continue to have faith in this jury. After all, its all up to them, no matter what goes on. And that is all I have to say about that! Until proven otherwise

  52. Exactly, Harley; that’s the pivotal point. The facts prove this was no accident; any simpleton can see that. The only question is whether or not the jury gets that and can see through the defense’s smoke and mirrors to be able to connect the dots. The judge excluding relevant evidence may preclude them from doing that. It’s happened before. Hope the jurors in this case are smarter than Pinellas County jurors.

  53. Isn’t true that Judge Boom Boom ; ) ran against Illinois Prosecutor Glasgow and lost. I can’t help but think that this judge might have a grudge against the prosecutor and therefore is leaning toward the defense in his rulings. I understand judges are supposed to be impartial but I don’t think it takes an idiot to see that he is certainly going toward the defense in his rulings. Does it matter about the date on Stacy’s friend? I mean the defense in cross-examination could try and impeach him on the date or make another “lame” comment. Isn’t that what impeachment is? I can’t believe this judge isn’t ticked about all the defense motions/mistrial threats. Again, I can’t help but think that the defense has been handed a gift with clearly partial judge.
    Wanted to know if anyone has heard about the jury wearing all the same colors? I heard Brodsky on TV saying the jury wears the color the next day after the defense does…meaning solidarity with the defense. Example…the defense attorney(s) wears blue shirts and the next day the jurors wear blue. Any truth to this? If so, I can’t believe the judge hasn’t noticed and made a comment on it.

  54. As for Rossetto, yes the loss of his testimony is a big blow.

    But also remember that he was going to be problematic under cross-examination.

    He had changed his story between the Grand Jury and the Hearsay Hearings. Even the news reports reflect him giving different dates for things. At times he said that the meal at Denny’s was with a group of friends and later he said it was just with his brother and Stacy, maybe even just he and Stacy.

    His relationship with Stacy was flirtatious. He admitted that they sent each other “perverted” texts (which the defense has) and testified that Stacy wanted a “deep kiss, probably with tongue” at his house the last time he saw her.

    The defense would have lit into him big time and even if the jury had heard his hearsay testimony they may have come away thinking that he was disingenuous and the Stacy was conniving and unfaithful.

    Kind of a weird silver lining, but I’ll take whatever comfort I can at this point! LOL

  55. Dottie, it’s true Burmila did lose an election to Glasgow but I think that was 20 years ago. Does he still dislike him? It’s possible but unless someone can prove that he is favoring the defense during this trial there’s nothing to be done.

    I think at this point he is more ticked at the prosecution for their many errors, omissions and introductions of barred testimony than with the defense’s motions for mistrial. I don’t hold that against him but I wish he would just make his decisions on those matters more quickly and without the theatrics.

    The jury does seem to be color-coordinating their outfits each day. I imagine it’s only Brodsky’s delusion that they are wearing the same as the Lopez’s the next day.

  56. I think Belvin Burmilla is motivated by the same thing that motivated Belvin Perry – not wanting a verdict overturned – and he’s being overly cautious about it to the point that the people of Illinois are not getting a fair trial. As I said about Perry, in any case where the defendant walks free, there can be no overturned verdicts or retrials on an appeal.

  57. any talk of the prosecution getting an accident reconstructionist in there to testify? They do exist and could give crucial testimony about this not being an acident. It probably would make Peterson look too guilty though, and the judge wouldn’t allow it

  58. Scott Rossetto said it will bother him if he doesn’t get to testify against Drew Peterson in his trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

    Rossetto — a friend of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy — said it will bother him “a lot.”

    “A friend of mine is gone,” Rossetto said.

    But the U.S. Army captain didn’t seem to know why Judge Edward Burmila turned him away from the courtroom after he traveled all the way from Germany to take the witness stand in Joliet.

    Reporters explained he’d been barred because of confusion over the exact date of one of his conversations with Stacy. The one where Stacy told him Peterson wanted her to lie and give him an alibi for the weekend of Savio’s death.

    “Because of the dates?” Rossetto said, adding sarcastically, “That makes a lot of sense.”


  59. I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a re-constructionist to testify. Burmila wouldn’t even allow the bathtub to be brought in to court, or a pathologist to even testify that he laid down in it.

  60. Of course, anything that makes Peterson look too guilty is simply unacceptable.

    Now he’s not letting Rossetto testify because of the dates? That’s a matter for cross.

    The judge is ruining this trial; deja vu all over again

  61. you can bar all the testimony you want…. the thing is the jury is “human” and once it’s out there you can’t unhear it… so yes common sense will come in play i believe. i don’t want to count this jury out yet. Drew is an arrogant crewd man.. there is a reason ALL of his wives wanted out…I think that speaks for itself..he shows no remorse.. not even for his children’s mother. He is a sociopath who disgraced his badge and thought he could out wit the system…I hope that the jury looks past this circus and puts him with the men that he put away, abused and framed for crimes they didn’t commit..and the ones that were guilty that he just felt like kicking around.. and God speed…

  62. Well, the jury has to base their verdict on the evidence, and if the judge excludes crucial evidence, there is no amount of common sense that can compensate for a lack of evidence. All we’re going to hear are more lame excuses like, “The evidence just wasn’t there.” And there are no do-overs if he doesn’t get convicted.

    I don’t think this jury is as dumb as the Pinellas County jury, but it seems like Burmila is excluding more evidence in this case than was excluded in that one.

  63. Too bad he can’t wear his bandana in court, Facs. Or is that next?
    I’d like to rely on this jury, too, but with the way it’s going now, they have almost nothing to deliberate.

  64. This is pretty long, but it’s from our friend and Stacy’s, Joe Hosey:

    Bad Times For SA In Drew Peterson Murder Case
    The state’s attorney’s office, the state police and a key witness couldn’t keep their stories straight and prosecutors have lost vital evidence in their case against Drew Peterson.

    By Joseph Hosey
    August 17, 2012

    Prosecutors lost a critical witness in their case against accused wife-killer Drew Peterson due to mix-ups and conflicting accounts of when and where Stacy Peterson supposedly confided chilling details to him about the night Kathleen Savio was allegedly murdered.

    Compounding the problem, Illinois State Police investigators may have botched their version of the man’s story in reports, and prosecutors failed to alert the judge in a pretrial hearing after realizing records showed he was actually working at a hospital during his supposed rendezvous with Stacy in October 2007.

    The man, Scott Rossetto, was expected to testify about Stacy—who is Peterson’s fourth wife—visiting him at his Shorewood home just days she mysteriously vanished.

    While talking together on Rossetto’s couch, Stacy leaned over and tried to kiss him, but he demurred because he had a girlfriend, according to a police report read in court by defense attorney Steve Greenberg.

    During the same visit, Stacy supposedly told Rossetto startling details about the night Savio, who was Peterson’s third wife, drowned in her bathtub.

    That night, Stacy and Peterson went to sleep together in their home down the street from Savio, Rossetto said he was told.

    Stacy woke in the early morning to find Peterson dressed entirely in black and putting women’s clothes in their washing machine. The clothes were not hers, Stacy supposedly told Rossetto.

    The sleeves of Peterson’s black shirt were either wet or darker below the elbow than above, Rossetto might have testified, according to attorneys’ interpretations of the police reports.

    Peterson then told Stacy, “If anyone asked, he was there all night,” according to what Greenberg said was in a police report.

    Rossetto also reportedly said Stacy told him that Peterson boasted to her, “I’ve now created the perfect crime.”

    Rossetto has previously testified to meeting with Stacy at a Bolingbrook Denny’s shortly before she disappeared. While they were together inside the Denny’s, Peterson supposedly circled the restaurant about a half-dozen times in his squad car.

    Peterson then entered the restaurant—in his full Bolingbrook police uniform—and confronted Rossetto, demanding to see his identification, according to Rossetto’s previous testimony.

    Peterson then supposedly said to Stacy, “I wish you would just come home.”

    An email from prosecutors to Peterson’s attorneys claimed Rossetto’s testimony would be consistent with the state police report, which has Stacy telling about the black-clad Peterson’s allegedly creepy statements and actions while she was with Rossetto at the Denny’s.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said the email was sent in error, that it should have said the testimony would be consistent with a video-taped statement to the state police. He blamed goof on illness suffered by his staff and on long hours spent on the trial. He also said the state police messed up their report.

    “The police officer wrote the report wrong,” Glasgow said.

    Rossetto, a nurse and captain in the Army, had traveled from his post in Germany to Joliet so he could testify at Peterson’s murder trial. But his words, which were considered vital to the prosecution’s case, will not be heard by the jury.

    Pam Bosco, a long-time friend of Stacy’s family, was once again stunned by a ruling made by Judge Burmila.

    “It’s almost like he’s in cahoots” with Peterson’s attorneys, Bosco said.

    “That’s basically barring all hearsay testimony from Stacy,” she said, wondering aloud how justice was being served.

    “Where, from Day 1, has this ever been considered justice with this trial?” Bosco said.

    “I keep thinking we’re in an alternate universe with Mr. Burmila,” she said. “The normal rules of our universe, of our courts, don’t apply here.”

    Also Friday, Kathleen Savio’s neurologist, Gene Neri, testified that Savio suffered from cervical vertigo brought on by high stress.

    The condition made Savio feel unsteady on her feet, Neri said. But the increased sense of caution associated with the feeling made it less likely for Savio to actually fall down than a person without cervical vertigo, he said.

    The doctor said Savio’s condition was improving with treatment and drugs that helped her to sleep.

    Defense attorney Darryl Goldberg seemed to be trying to get Neri to admit it was possible Savio developed a case of multiple sclerosis and that the disease caused her to accidentally drown in her bathtub.

    “She did not have multiple sclerosis,” Neri insisted.

    Retired insurance adjuster Joseph Steadman was called to the stand and briefly detailed conversations he had with Peterson after Savio was found dead.

    “I asked Drew Peterson what she had died from and he said her death was drug-related and she had been found dead in her bathtub,” Steadman said.

    Steadman also said Peterson “advised me he is a Bolingbrook, Illinois, police officer and he was the first person on the scene of her death and he found the body.”

    Steadman also said Peterson told him he was not allowed to investigate his ex-wife’s death and if the police believed she had been murdered, that he would be a suspect in the investigation.

    The day wrapped up with testimony from a former girlfriend of Peterson’s son Stephen Peterson.

    Stephen Peterson was fired from the Oak Brook Police Department in February 2011. The Oak Brook fire and police board ruled that Stephen Peterson obstructed law enforcement officials by hiding three of his father’s guns before the state police could execute a search warrant at Drew Peterson’s house, and for neglecting to mention to state agents that he had accepted nearly a quarter million dollars from his father.

    But in March 2004, Schoon and Stephen Peterson were living together in the basement of Drew Peterson’s house.

    The night Savio was found dead, Schoon said Drew Peterson told her Savio “had drowned in a bathtub, had hit her head and there was no water in the bathtub because there was a leak.”

    Peterson also told her there were anti-depressants on a counter and that Savio may have overdosed on the pills.


  65. Oh, Facs, I didn’t realize the 6 options would be in there, too. Please feel free to edit/delete. Sorry. Wish there were a way for us to edit our own posts.
    Thank you again for this blog. I can’t stress that enough.

  66. jury should wear their running suits and gym shoes. think judge would get the point that he needs to take charge,and stop letting inmates run the prison

  67. It took me a while to get used to Robert’s avatar and realize he wasn’t always mad!

    Drew Peterson’s jury has a lot to forget about him and his ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    There’s the bullet found on the driveway of Savio’s neighbor that the neighbor believed to be a warning from Peterson. There’s also talk of the pathologist who hopped into the tub where Savio died, and the protection order Savio may or may not have considered against her ex-husband. And there’s also the suggestion that Peterson solicited a hit man to kill his third wife for $25,000.

    All four topics have been improperly introduced by prosecutors during the trial, prompting an annoyed judge to instruct jurors to disregard the statements.

    Whether they can do it, however, is impossible to know. In courtrooms across the country, lawyers often wonder whether judges’ orders to ignore testimony are in the best interest of justice or merely call more attention to a forbidden topic.


  68. Judge acts as if this is a bench trial. Some things should be left for jury to decide,as judge Perry always said in anthony case.

  69. Does anyone know how many witnesses the defense is planning to call? Seems like the thought was that the pros could wrap up next week, although I doubt that seeing how the def is playing things. Sure would like to have this over and the proper verdict in.

  70. I was thinking the same thing,grandam. He’s keeping out evidence that HE$ believes is unreliable and labeling it as “too prejudicial.”

    It’s not up to the judge to determine how reliable the evidence is; that’s the jury’s job. Just because the defense thinks evidence is unreliable doesn’t mean he has to exclude it because he agrees with them. It’s their jobs to think that all evidence against their client is unreliable, not the judge’s.

  71. You’re too right, Robert and grandam, and harleyjoey, I LOVE your ‘head’.
    Thanks for the “Tribune”article, Facs. It does give one a tiny little piece of hope.

  72. Since it is the weekend, and there is no court today, I guess I’ll comment a little on the media coverage. Mike Brooks is really starting to annoy me. It’s almost as if he is hoping this serial killer walks free. He says, “I believe Peterson is responsible for the death of Kathleen Savio, as well as the disappearance of Stacy, but there is not enough evidence there to convict him of Savio’s murder.” Ironically, this is the same ridiculous statement we heard from Jennifer Ford last summer; it wasn’t smart then, and it’s not smart now although Brooks seems to think it is.

    He has commented on this so-called “thin blue line” several times and says that’s not what this is about. I beg to differ. Brooks is showing a bias in Peterson’s favor that he did not show Casey Anthony last summer.

    No one likes it when a cop goes to the other side, but it does happen, and it has happened in this case; not just once, but twice. We tend to afford the police the benefit of the doubt nearly all of the time, and other police officers are more apt to do that than the rest of us. That appears to be what is happening here with Brooks. Call it the thin blue line or whatever you want, but it is a fact that we are conditioned to trust what police officers say, and other police officers feel threatened when it becomes known that one of their own cannot be trusted. Brooks is amongst the crowd who believes that if you’re going to accuse a police officer of a crime, you had better have a confession, an eyewitness, or a video of the crime before they will believe it.

    Brooks can harp on this “independent agencies” crapola all he wants, but the fact remains that, like Drew Peterson, the Illinois State Police are still police officers subjected to the same scrutiny that Peterson is. Peterson was on this case from day 1 and making sure that his fellow police officers were getting the story first hand from him. I don’t know how involved he was in the beginning, but if things turned out not going his way, I’m certain that he would have interjected himself even more because that’s what killers often do when they think an investigation is getting too close to the truth.

    The dominoes began falling with Deel, and the others just fell in line. Without overt signs of a struggle, Deel could accept Peterson’s/accident version of events with ease because of that, thinking that no one would question his call due to the fact that he was lead investigator on the case. I don’t think he did it to protect Peterson, but it was just easy to accept Peterson’s story without observing any evidence to the contrary; of course, Peterson was careful to either ensure that there was not much of a struggle and/or that he cleaned up what evidence there was of a struggle to make his story more believable. If Deel had seen overt evidence of a struggle, I’m sure he would have done a better investigation rather than just take Peterson’s word for it.

    In any case, Brooks appears to be on the verge of giddy that the defense is giving the prosecution a hard time by getting evidence that proves Peterson’s guilt thrown out of court. It’s almost as if he is hoping that this serial killer gets let loose among the general population to kill again.

    Sorry for this off topic rant, but this has been really bothering me, and I just had to get it off my chest.

  73. “I think what they are doing is very calculated,” said Gal Pissetzky, a Chicago defense lawyer with no link to the case. “They are not young prosecutors who just got out of law school.”

    The prosecution team includes Glasgow, a lawyer for more than 30 years, and Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Patton, a 19-year veteran of the office.

    Prosecutors have apologized profusely for what they have characterized as inadvertent errors — particularly the question Patton asked about the order of protection. And Erickson doesn’t buy Pissetsky’s theory that prosecutors are purposely putting inadmissible allegations in jurors’ heads.

    “I think the pressure’s gotten to them,” Erickson said, though he still predicts a conviction “unless this insanity goes on.”

    Zellner said in her two days sitting in the courtroom, she became convinced prosecutors were winning the jury over. Jurors are intently taking notes when prosecutors question witnesses and “rolling their eyes” when Peterson’s attorneys object, she said.

    Besides, she said, similar reports emerged about prosecutors in California during the trial of Scott Peterson before he was convicted in 2004 in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and the couple’s unborn son. Peterson, who is no relation to Drew Peterson, was sentenced to death.

    “It was all an illusion that they weren’t winning,” Zellner said.


  74. I haven’t been watching In Session very much so I couldn’t comment on Mike Brooks, but from what I’ve seen of the show they seem to like to get two people to argue from different viewpoints. Brooks may just be taking the pro-defense side as his role? I don’t know.

    I do agree that there was no conspiracy or cover-up per se, but that the investigation was not thorough and the inquest was a joke. Personally, I think that it was lazy and slipshod and I can’t help thinking that Drew’s personality and his position as a veteran cop helped influence the way the scene was investigated.

    Imagine how differently things would have gone had Peterson told investigators, “This is my ex-wife. This is strange. She was a healthy and strong, she’s never been known to mix drugs and alcohol. Could someone have staged this?”

    But he didn’t. He showed sadness and immediate acceptance of her “accidental” death. He told investigators “This is my ex-wife, treat the scene with respect.”

    It isn’t hard to imagine that investigators adopted the tone with which Drew was treating the situation.

  75. Well, I’ve never really seen Brooks take the defendant’s side in any case, facs. He says that he “calls them as I see them,” and he said that same thing just a couple of days ago about this case.

    I was thinking the same thing about Peterson not pushing for some kind of investigation since the scene appeared a bit suspicious. What if the boyfriend or an intruder had killed her? Wouldn’t he want to be sure that’s not what happened if he really didn’t know how she died? Wouldn’t he do this for his kid’s sake so they had the truth about how she died? Did he just thank his lucky stars that she was dead and that she would not be getting his money? That’s awfully strange for a police officer, notwithstanding the fact that she was already dead and his money was free and clear.

    I also think that the ISP didn’t push an investigation because they were aware that this was a cop’s wife and may have believed that, without any outward signs that something was amiss, it would have been an insult to another officer had they even conducted an investigation; if they discovered that it truly was an accident after an investigation, there may have been bad blood between Bollingbrook PD and the ISP. That may have been a risk they did not want to take without clear evidence that this was a murder.

  76. A brief excerpt from the article Facsmiley posted………………..

    “Zellner said in her two days sitting in the courtroom, she became convinced prosecutors were winning the jury over. Jurors are intently taking notes when prosecutors question witnesses and “rolling their eyes” when Peterson’s attorneys object, she said.”

    My comment………………….

    This is very encouraging! The jurors taking notes shows they’re engaged in the testimony and writing down what impresses them and what they want to remember.

    Rolling their eyes when the defense objects, goes right along with what I’ve imagined the jurors reactions might be after several weeks of countless interruption in the flow of testimony.

    As I’ve said before, if I was a juror on this trial I’d be frustrated with all the interruptions and wonder what it is that the defense doesn’t want me to hear.

    Thanks Facsmiley for the articles – all are very interesting!

  77. Lostacres I don’t know how many witnesses defense plans to call but seem to recall that one of Drew’s sons was allegedly going to show Drew was at home all night.

  78. I think the jury will just roll their eyes at that too. He was a kid and was likely in bed at 3 AM or whatever time Peterson did his deed. He would certainly be cautious enough not to let his kids know he was sneaking out of the house at an ungodly hour of the morning.

  79. I also have some great concerns with Mike Brooks from HLN-TruTV. I normally like him. I beg to differ with anything he’s saying in regards to this case. I know for a fact, small town cops cover for other cops. Especially as those cops move up the food-chain of law enforcement. They all know each others private business. I’m sorry, but men are the worse gossipers and in the “thin blue line” they know enough about each, and to ruin a man or woman’s life, and livelihood at any given moment. BELIEVE IT! With that being said, Mike Brooks doesn’t pass the sniff test on his “Holier than thou” thin blue line comments, with me. Personally, I dislike Mike because he is trying to make people believe that no cop would ever violate this code of ethics, especially within the IL. State Police & law enforcement family. Mike Brooks is foolish. Not all of the TruTV audience has been hiding under a rock all of their lives. I’ve seen a lot in my days of observing, what is “truth & facts” when it comes to law enforcement types. I’ve known 6 good cops out of 6,000. When I say good, I mean ETHICAL and trustworthy. Would never do a thing wrong to harm another human being or abuse their powers. Drew Peterson knew too much on the others to ‘rock the boat”. To call Savios death what it was. MURDER! They all pulled together and took one for the team. End of story! I hope the people of Chicago will get this judge off the BENCH once & for all. This case is nothing but a circus. It is more about Savio, I believe. It’s a Police Officer’s darkest hour knowing a sociopath was one of their own. Many officers are taking this case personal. If he is convicted, it will mean the way all officers are handled from here on out and they don’t like it. It keeps the goods ones clean and the bad ones dirtier than ever before. The “really dirty cops” might have to clean their acts up. Is Mike Brooks telling us he’s turned the other cheek because of the thin blue line code of silence? I think so. I know that code all to well. 🙂 Justice for Kathleen & Stacy.

  80. I agree with Roberts observations. I have had a feeling from the shaky beginning of this trial right through the blunders of the state, and the defense team jumping on them, that the jury has already seen what the def is up to/or has to do, and what is truly going on. Its just a feeling of course, but nevertheless, I think/hope this jury is on the ball. I would assume that the jury is also looking for reactions from DP, the picture of his xwife dead in the tub etc. I believe that will speak volumes to them

  81. Thanks to all of you for the observations, the opinions and the article, but I’m still dumfounded on why the prosecution is taking themselves down to the level of the defense. I honestly, truly, hope Pissetsky is right. But even Joe Hosey sounds worried, using the words ‘botched’ and ‘goof’.

  82. I think the defense is trying to place Kathleen’s time of death more towards 8-9 am on Sunday.

    The orange juice on the counter and water in the microwave (for tea?) are part of that scenario.

    Betcha they’ve got an expert witness or two who will testify that she died in the morning rather than at night. (They’ll say that’s why there were no lights on in the house)

    Other pathologists have estimated her time of dead as occurring between 2-6 a.m.

  83. If I were Drewpy’s defense attorney, I wouldn’t put that kid on the stand, and I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that at least one of his attorneys have told him that. It’s a bad move that will backfire on them Why? It reeks of desperation and makes it look like he’s trying to put one over on the jury; they will pick up on that. It makes it appear as though he’s trying to create an alibi with someone who cannot supply a credible alibi for him. I think this is something Peterson himself thinks is a good idea, and he may be going against his attorneys’ advice on this.
    My feelings exactly, Robyn. Brooks is swallowing too much of the defense’s shenanigans, and he doesn’t usually do that. If this were someone else, he would be criticizing the judge for keeping credible evidence out of the trial or the attorneys for making such silly arguments as to why certain testimony should not be allowed.

  84. I don’t know how they can set the time of her death at this juncture other than through the “magic” of “Dr.” Spitz. They could have done that very easily on 3/2/04 very easily by taking the temperature of the body, which I believe is how they usually determine how long someone has been deceased. Unless Mitchell established a TOD during his autopsy, I don’t think they can do it within a reasonable degree of medical certainty after she was buried for 3 years.

  85. I do not think the def is into such details, because those details are going to proof the crime. They are going to object, sidebar, discredit witnesses, do whatever they can to throw the train of the tracks enough to create reasonable doubt, while screaming “No evidence” That is their game. they do not care if someone is guilty of something. They just want to win this game

  86. I hope his attorneys are not concerned about such details and do something stupid like putting his son on the stand to try to create a fake alibi for him because the jury will certainly see right through a cheesy move like that.

  87. Dr. Mitchell did establish a time of death for Kathleen: 11:17 pm on March 1, 2004

    As we all know Kathleen’s body wasn’t even discovered until about 9 p.m. the night of March 1st. Maybe 11:17 is when the EMTs officially declared her to be dead.

    It gets even more confusing because he indicates in the report that he performed that autopsy on March 1 at 2:20 in the afternoon. He was probably confused by it being a leap year, or else he just had a brain-fart and wrote the same date. Dr. Baden’s report corrects this and says the Mitchell performed the first autopsy on Tuesday, March 2.

    Baden’s report says that by autopsy time on Tuesday, rigor mortis had passed, there were “areas of purple lividity and no food in the stomach. These findings, plus the scene findings and the circumstances, indicate that Ms. Savio’s death had occurred during the early morning hours of Sunday and many hours after her last meal.”(She was found at about 10:45 p.m. on Monday night.

    What is more interesting is the fact that when Drew saw Kathleen’s body, he went through the motions of feeling for a pulse. Steven Carcerano described that he first thought Kathleen’s body was an “exercise ball” in the tub which would indicate some bloating and discoloration, and the EMT’s have described her body as being cool to the touch. She was still in a light state of rigor so she was somewhat stiff. Everything about that scenario would tell you immediately that she was dead, but he still took her pulse? It’s no proof of guilt, but it’s strange.

  88. If one of his young sons is going to testify his father was with them all weekend then that child is telling the truth for what he knows it to be – that his father was with them during waking hours, but unless he was tied to his dad like a siamese twin, he cannot possibly know what his father was doing when he was asleep.

    According to Drews alibi he was making “passionate love” (!!) to Stacy all night, so his son would have to testify to witnessing that and good luck to him if he does ……..

  89. So it doesn’t say how Mitchell established the TOD?

    She was certainly dead before dawn of March 1, way before 11:17 PM of that day because he tried to take the kids back to her the day before, and there was no answer to the door or the phone.

  90. From what little we’ve heard about the jury and their note-taking, reactions to testimony, and their rolling of eyes at defense objections, I have confidence in their ability to see through the manipulations and come to the right decision. Although a great deal of the prosecution’s case has been omitted by the judge ruling some testimony out, there’s been some compelling testimony given.

    I too think it would be folly to put one of Drew’s sons on the witness stand. It smacks of desperation.

    In thinking about the week to come, it looks like the prosecution will be wrapping up their case late next week or early the week of the 27th. I’ve wondered who the defense witnesses will be other than a few expert witnesses.

    There’s one witness we haven’t heard from, and I’m wondering why. The night Kathleen’s body was found in the bathtub, there were three neighbors who entered the house – Tom and Mary Pontarelli, and Steve Carcerano. In fact it was Steve Carcerano who was the first to see Kathleen in the tub, yet the prosecution didn’t have Carcerano as a witness.

    I remember Steve Carcerano in the weeks after Stacy disappeared. He was a strange person, always being interviewed by the media and what I’d call a Drew Peterson apologist. He was Drews best buddy and according to Steve Carcerano, Drew could do no wrong. He saw nothing suspicious in the events surrounding Stacy’s disappearance.

    I remember something that happened when Geraldo went to Bolingbrook, although I can’t remember all the details now. Geraldo had members of Kathleen’s family – Sue Doman and Kathleen’s nephew, Charley, and other family members, along with Steve Carcerano in a large room interviewing them. Steve said something that surprised members of Kathleen’s family. As I said, I can’t remember all the details now.

    Since the prosecution didn’t put Steve Carcerano on the witness stand, is the defense going to use him?

  91. I was going to gretawire a lot when stacy came up missing because Greta was doing a lot on this case back then before going to the dark side. I also remember people saying that Carcerano was someone who had been in Drewpy’s camp early on but then realized that Drew’s story just didn’t add up. I heard on IS that he was on the prosecution’s witness list; maybe they decided to hold him back for rebuttal.

  92. Carcerano would probably be classified as a “hostile witness” for the prosecution. Maybe they save those for the end.

    Or maybe they just don’t need his testimony since it was about the same as that of the other witnesses.

  93. Steve said something that surprised members of Kathleen’s family. As I said, I can’t remember all the details now.

    I think it was that was the first time they ever heard or seen Steve Carcerano, they didn’t know who he was and didn’t know he had anything to do with going into the house when Kathleen was found.

  94. Was it this, JAH?

    Found on Websleuths:

    Then he brought on Melissa and Charley Doman, niece and nephew of Kathleen Savio – children of Anna M. Doman. They explained about the briefcase Kathleen left with their mother saying if anything ever happened to her to open the briefcase as there was documents in it. They both feel their aunt was murdered.

    Geraldo then brought in Steve Carcerano, the neighbor who went into the house with DP and Kathleen’s best friend (Mary) and who found Kathleen in the bathtub. Charley Doman was a bit upset, saying he’s never heard of Steve Carcerano before. That DP told the family that Kathleen’s body was found by her best friend, Mary, and Mary’s son, Nick.

    They were surprised because they hadn’t heard of Steve Carcerano? For some reason, Peterson didn’t mention Carcerano being on the scene (according to Charley Doman).

  95. Robert, Carcerano is still firmly in the Peterson camp and was going out with him to bars up until Drew’s arrest.

    You might be thinking of Ric Mims, who was close to Drew but then had second thoughts after a week or so of Stacy’s disappearance.

    He told the N. Enquirer that he saw Drew and friend, Mike Robinson exchanging written notes and feeding them into a paper shredder the night after Stacy disappeared. Robinson also gave Drew a cell phone.

  96. Yes, that’s the one…..

    After the song and dance routine about Steve Carcerano being asked to go to the house whilst Drew was going to call the locksmith and Steve finding ” a rubber ball/exercise type ball” (kathleens body) in the bathtub; Kathleens family didn’t even know Steve was part of the initial discovery party (!!)

    So was he there or wasn’t he there – that is the question ??

  97. He was there, alright.

    He was with the Nick, Tom and Mary Pontarelli when they found Kathleen and Tom testified that he stayed with Drew to wait for paramedics while everyone else went downstairs after finding Kathleen.

    The Pontarelli’s and Steve were all interviewed by the ISP in Carcerano’s basement.

    it’s just weird that Drew never mentioned Steve when he made the phone calls to Kathleen’s family. Again, not proof of anything but a little weird.

  98. Yes, you’re probably right, facs. I remember that name now, Mims. It was so long ago that I forgot since that time whom all the players are. Also, since the trial isn’t televised, I don’t get into it as much as I do a televised trial.

  99. And then there was the forever changing story who actually called the locksmith – was it Steve, was it Drew, according to Drew did Mary insist Drew call the locksmith.

    You’d think that would be straight forward – but no – not here ……

  100. “Drew Peterson said he was not allowed to investigate her death…he is her ex husband, and if she was murdered he would be one of the suspects”

    And if he knew he didn’t murder her, wouldn’t he like to know who did ?

  101. Thanks everyone for jogging my memory on Steve Carcerano and what happened when Geraldo brought him together with Kathleen’s family. What I remembered was a sudden exclamation of “who are you!” or “Who is this guy.” Steve acted strangely, sort of reciting the events of the night Kathleen’s body was found. It was like he was reading from a script, and whenever he was interviewed, always seemed as if he had rehearsed what he was going to say.

    I remember Ric Mims. He was always just a little bit scared of the local police. I remember him saying that Drew had him spying on Kathleen. I wonder if the prosecution has him on their witness list?

  102. Is this creepy or genuine? Are the jurors going to have their computers and iphones confiscated and searched to see if they visited JC?

  103. Would that be legal??? Can a court seize private property without proof that the jurors have accessed media on this case?

  104. I don’t know. I remember Joel was blathering about some such crap…

    As WBBM Newsradio’s Bernie Tafoya reports, Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, is mainly worried about jurors using the Internet to look up information Peterson that is not admitted during the trial, and then use that to form an opinion on a verdict.

    He is also worried about jurors posting comments on Twitter and Facebook during the trial.

    For that reason, the Peterson defense team is trying to come up with ways to prevent or monitor Internet and social media use by jurors.

    Brodsky said possible ways include “asking jurors who are picked for their IP addresses, what their Internet provider is, what their Facebook page is, what their Twitter handle is.”

    One information technology professional told Brodsky that cookies could be put on the jurors’ computers and smart phones to squeal on them electronically if they break the rules. But Brodsky admits such a measure would be extreme.


Comments are closed.