Drew Peterson trial – day nineteen. Savio’s lawyer and son Tom Peterson take the stand

UPDATE 04:54:

Judge just asked prosecutors if they have their rebuttal witnesses ready.
Drew Peterson tells judge he will not testify in his own defense.
Defense rests.
Judge reminds jury that they are not to pay attention to media coverage in the case. Says they must tell him if they do. They are sent home for the night.
Trial in recess until 9 a.m. CDT Thursday.

UPDATE 03:57:

Prosecution cross-examining Tom Peterson
Jury, Tom Peterson coming back into the courtroom.
Prosecutors now trying to show Tom Peterson has changed story about his mom’s bath time habits since he testified to grand jury-when he said Savio would bathe after he and his brother were in bed.
No further questions from prosecution for Tom Peterson. Brodsky back for re-direct.
Tom Peterson says he used to take baths with mom when he was younger. His knowledge of mom’s bath habits from those early years.
Tom Peterson off the stand. Smiles at his father as he leaves.
After testimony, Tom Peterson politely says he does not want to speak w/ media. “God, no,” he says softly. “I don’t want any part of that.”
Judge comes back on the bench and says “bring the witness back up.” Tom Peterson has already left the court-house.
Both sides have decided that they have no further questions for Tom Peterson. So his testimony has ended.
Attorneys discuss exhibits they hope to move to evidence.

UPDATE 03:21:

Defense calls defendant’s son, Tom Peterson, to the witness stand.
Attorney Brodsky is doing the examination.
Tom Peterson, 19, said he is a student at University of Pennsylvania. He plans to go to med school — studying neuroscience with an emphasis in computation.
Tom tells jury that he was valedictorian of his Bolingbrook HS class.
Tom Peterson tells jury that he has “never suspected” that his father Drew Peterson killed his mother.
Tom Peterson says that Drew Peterson is a good guy. “He’s a happy-go-lucky guy.
Tom Peterson tells jury that his father was “very happy” with his life around the time of his mother’s death.
Tom Peterson on visitations: “We all had a really good time. Stacy was very fun.”
On weekend Savio died, Tom says Drew Peterson picked him for visitation as usual. Tom says there was no change in dad’s general demeanor.
Tom Peterson recounting how upset his father was when he told him Savio had died. “I’ve never seen someone so sad,” Tom says. “He was very very shaken up about it. …”very troubling to see him so shaken up.”
Tom on his mom’s bath habits: “She definitely liked to have hot baths.”
Tom Peterson: “I believe that my dad is completely innocent,” Judge strikes the remark, but jury still heard it.

UPDATE 02:45:

Jurors out so attorneys & Burmila can argue over whether Smith is being inconsistent with grand jury testimony.
Brodsky is doing re-direct examination now.
“Isn’t it true that when Stacy Peterson asked you about threatening to tell the police that you told her to be careful because she could be arrested for extortion?” “During that call, I did tell her to be careful. But it wasn’t about extortion.” “What were you telling her to be careful for? She could be arrested for telling a falsehood?” “No, that’s not what I told her. I told her to be careful because she could be arrested for concealment of a homicide.” “She told you her cell phone had GPS?” “Yes.” “Isn’t it true all cell phones have GPS?” Objection/Sustained. There are no more questions for this witness, and he is excused.
(Attorney Joe Lopez says Smith testimony “was part good, part bad. You take the good with the bad.”)

UPDATE 02:12:

(Hostile witness means defense can ask more leading questions and have tighter control on the witness’ testimony.)
Direct examination continues.
“So Stacy wanted to say whatever she could in order to get more money out of Drew Peterson?’ “No, she wanted to say that he killed Kathy . . .that was absolutely one of the reasons that she gave.” “She said, ‘If I give information, give me money’?’ “No, she said, ‘If I threaten to do this, can we get more money.”
Smith: Stacy talked about taking the kids out-of-state. She did not go running to the police.
Brodsky asks Smith about DP’s visitation rights w/ the kids, including Mondays on a holiday weekend.
Smith talks about profits split from the sale of the printing co. ‘Fast & Accurate Printing.
Defense asks for a sidebar when Brodsky asks witness if Kathy would get angry during the divorce.
Jurors are out as attorneys, Burmila discuss.
Connor says questioning ‘way beyond financial motive’, Brodsky says he’ll withdraw the question. Jurors return.
Brodsky has no further questions for Smith.
ASA Connor on cross with Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith.
Harry Smith tells jury Stacy indicated Drew was mad at her because she told son Tom that he killed Savio.
Smith warned Stacy to be careful.. Smith: “She told me she had too much shit on him to ever do anything to her.”
Pros: Did (Stacy) also tell you that Drew Peterson was surveilling her or following her? Smith: Yes.
Smith: during phone call, heard Drew Peterson call to Stacy, asked her what she was doing and who she was talking to. After second interruption she hung up.
Smith: Stacy said she thought Drew Peterson was tracking her cell phone’s GPS, but added she had another cell he didn’t know about.

UPDATE 01:28:

Defense attorneys arguing in hallway about whether or not to all Harry Smith. The risks could outweigh the benefits.
Jurors entering courtroom as defense prepares to call their next witness.
Prosecutor: Cops who wrote report on interview with Tom Peterson will be available to defense team this afternoon.
Joel Brodsky calls Harry Smith to the stand.
Smith says Savio became a client of his in January 2002.
Prosecution makes first objection of Smith testimony when Brodsky asks if Savio divorce case was bifurcated.
Smith says he received phone call from Stacy Peterson. Police report shows that call was in Oct. 2007.
At that time, she wanted to retain Smith as a divorce attorney, he says.
Jury out of courtroom after Brodsky asks judge permission to treat Smith as a hostile witness.
State: First you have to establish some hostility.
Judge agrees with prosecution and strongly warns Brodsky not refer to Smith as an “adverse witness” in front of jury again.
Asked if Stacy Peterson ever retained Smith, Smith said no. Asked why, he stumbled for words.
Smith says he didn’t answer because he knows much testimony about Stacy has been barred.
Smith of phone call with Stacy Peterson: “She wanted to know if, in my opinion, the fact that he killed Kathy could be used against him.”
Jury’s out. Burmila: Smith keeps trying to make eye contact with prosecutors before answering each question.
Brodsky again said he would like to treat Smith as a hostile witness.
Defense attys argue Smith changed testimony from earlier hearings. Judge agrees, says Smith can be treated as a hostile witness.

UPDATE 11:23:

Defense calls ISP officer Eileen Payonk to the stand – in charge of re-investigation of Savio case.
Witness is asked about re-interviewing Mary Parks. Witness says she spoke with Parks 3 times.
Greenberg is asking Payonk to confirm people, records involved in re-investigation of Savio’s death.
Witness details everyone who was present for Savio’s 2nd autopsy.
The witness says the bedroom carpet was taken up and tested and that bathroom was inspected–even the grout was removed and sent in for testing. The prosecution then asks for a sidebar.
In a conversation w/ Savio’s sister Anna Doman, Payonk said she was given affidavit to open a safe deposit box.
Greenberg has no further questions for Payonk. State moves in for cross-examination.
(Dr. Michael Baden just arrived at the courthouse.)
On cross, Payonk says not all people she just said were present during Savio’s 2nd autopsy were in room. Some were just in the building.
Payonk confirmed that the state police removed the bathtub from Savio’s house, which is now occupied by a new family.
No further questions from state. Greenberg begins re-direct of cross.
Payonk confirms that carpeting in Savio home, from stairway to second floor, was removed and taken into evidence.
Payonk is done testifying and the jury is leaving for lunch.
Attorneys still at the bench arguing over Tom Peterson’s interview discovery. Brodsky says Tom was “interrogated” for five hours.
Defense wants prosecution to be barred from using info gathered during ISP interview with Tom Peterson during cross.
Prosecutor apologizes for error and says he thought he had shared it. State says mistake really doesn’t hurt defense case
Judge says “we definitely have a pattern here” and “we clearly have a discovery violation here.”
Judge says, however, the ordinary sanction for such a violation is a continuance and the defense has had time to talk to Tom.
Burmila: striking report of Tom Peterson is “too severe.” Since defense knew of interview, judge wants officers to come in and testify.
Burmila wants cops who prepared report to be at courthouse no later than 5 p.m. today
Trial in recess until 1:15 p.m. CDT.
(Brodsky outside court: Tom Peterson will be our final witness.)

UPDATE 11:08:

Prosecutor Koch begins cross.
Collins says “that’s possible” when asked if a struggle could have happened with no evidence left behind.
Prosecutor points out photo showing a picture on Savio’s dresser knocked down. Collins hadn’t mentioned it.
Greenberg begins his redirect. “When there’s a struggle, sometimes there’s evidence and sometimes there’s not?” “Yes.” “And there were no signs that night that Ms. Savio had been in a
struggle?” “No.”
The State has no recross for this witness. He is excused, and leaves the stand.

UPDATE 10:03:

Illinois State Police interviewed Tom Peterson in May 2012 at UPenn, where he is a student.
Judge asking prosecutors why they didn’t disclose a report of interview to defense and how defense knew of interview.
Judge says let’s call other witnesses until they can sort out matter.
Defense calls Illinois State Police Sgt. Patrick Collins.(questioned by attorney Greenberg)
Atty asks Collins how long he has been the case investigator. “What case in particular are you talking about?” he asks.
Collins is questioned about Nick Pontarelli’s actions on the night that Savio’s body was discovered and a photo that Nick took of Savio when he was helping her around the house one day. He says that he never talked to Nick Pontarelli.
Atty Greenberg walking Collins thru death scene pics, having Sgt. agree over and over there was no sign of struggle in the house
(Tom is out in the courthouse hallway waiting to testify. Attorney Harry Smith also has just arrived at the courthouse. Sixth day spent here waiting to be called to testify.)
State asks for a sidebar when Greenberg asks witness how many people they interviewed in the neighborhood.
“The agents reported nothing unusual to me in this investigation,” Collins says of canvas of neighborhood after Savio found dead.
“Did you get any calls from anyone alerting you to problems between Ms. Savio and Mr. Peterson, during the course of your 2004 investigation?” “No.”

UPDATE 09:06:

Judge is on the bench.
He’ll hear some motions before witnesses are called
Prosecutors objecting to defense calling Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith.
Prosecutors tell judge that Drew overheard Stacy call w/ Harry Smith. She disappeared two days later.
Judge Burmila makes his ruling. He says if the defense uses this testimony for impeachment that makes the entire hearsay applicable. However, any reference to Stacy’s disappearance will be banned.
State did not turn over a complete May 2012 interview Tom Peterson had with investigators to defense. Judge not thrilled about it.
Defense attorney just said to the media “This is either going to go really well today or really south”
Defense moves to bar prosecution from using complete May 2012 statement from Tom Peterson, calling it a “disclosure violation.”

UPDATE 08:57:

What will the jurors wear today — clown suits?
Thomas Peterson, the eldest son of Kathleen Savio and Drew Peterson, may take the witness stand today.
Defense may rest today.
Rebuttal witnesses on deck for prosecution: Dr. Blum & Dr. Baden.
Jurors wearing blue and orange today.

Yesterday the defense called two forensic pathologists to state their opinions that Kathleen Savio’s death was accidental. At the end of the day they also called two ISP officers to try impeach the testimony of Kristin Anderson, Savio’s friend and one time tenant.

We’re following:
Jon Seidel
Stacy St. Clair
In Session
Glenn Marshall
Diane Pathieu
Kara Oko
Dan Rozek
Diane Pathieu

~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.~


240 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day nineteen. Savio’s lawyer and son Tom Peterson take the stand

  1. Good morning!

    Dan Rozek‏@DanRozek1

    #DrewPeterson jurors wearing orange and blue today, apparently in honor of the U of Illinois.

  2. Brodsky: Tom Peterson is going to testify that he is “1000% sure that his dad did not kill his mom”.

    How he can say that without saying that he spend the night tied to his father, and knows where he was every second because of that.

    Wouldn’t it be great if that is what Brodsky thinks he is going to testify, and the young man has a change of heart and decides to be honest, and say he has no clue if his father was home all night or not, since he was sleeping. Well, I guess one can dream.

  3. In Session Prosecution PIO Chuck Pelkie has just informed the media that – should the defense rest today – experts Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Larry Blum are on board as prosecution rebuttal witnesses.

    Personally, I think it is sick and demented to put Tom on the stand. He can only say what he wants to believe and what his father wants him to believe. He has no idea what the truth is! Such a sad and desperate move by the defense.

  4. Tom and Kris are taking this trial and the possibility of testifying vrey seriously. (Tom in the sunglasses, Kris in the cap)

    FYI – the video has been removed from youtube.

  5. Agreed, Harley. No one can truthfully say that they were with Drew Peterson 24/7 during the time frame in which Kathleen died. What’s the point of trying to allege that they were?

  6. Looks like if Smith testifies, the jury might actually get to hear that Stacy is missing, if they do not already know

  7. Sadly that video reminds me of the video of dad whooping it up at Stardust in Downer’s Grove. Boys like to have fun, right? It just seems a little ill-advised given that Tom is home to possibly be called as a witness in Dad’s murder trial. Are he and Kris drinking alcohol? I can’t say. They aren’t doing it in the clip. But that’s a big bottle of booze being featured. *sigh*

  8. So, if the Pros cannot state that Stacy went missing three days after the overheard (by Drew) call to Smith, isn’t the Jury going to wonder why she is not being called to the stand?

  9. Sure Facs. Wasn’t sure if I was annoying you. 🙂

    In Session Judge Burmila makes his ruling. He says if the defense uses this testimony for impeachment that makes the entire hearsay applicable. However, any reference to Stacy’s disappearance will be banned.

  10. In Session Brodsky says the defense has just received some new material this morning from the State. He asks for a few minutes to study this new material. The judge grants this request, and so the trial is now in recess.

  11. BJ Lutz‏@bjlutz

    There’s apparently a May 2012 statement from #DrewPeterson’s son, Tom, that Glasgow thought was submitted to court but wasn’t.

  12. I must say… That “slip-n-fall” diagram still cracks me up. Now I see they also wanted to use a “Caution” sign! Hilarious!

    I always have to navigate around the caution sign while taking long walks in my bathtub. Doesn’t everyone? 😆

  13. Well, we dodged the Isaac bullet-so far! I don’t doubt that any statement Tom makes can be completely negated by cross-but the prosecution will have to not alienate the jury.
    Thanks again for all of your hard work-all of you!

  14. In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Attorney Brodsky addresses the Court about what he claims is a prosecution discovery violation relating to upcoming defense witness Thomas Peterson.

  15. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson judge now grilling state about why they didn’t turn over Tom Peterson interview to defense.

  16. In Session Prosecutor Connor responds, concedes that the report was indeed turned over belatedly to the defense. The report pertains to an interview of Thomas Peterson that was done in Pennsylvania at one point.

  17. In Session Judge Burmila is clearly not happy that this information was turned over late. Prosecution Connor is trying to answer all of the judge’s questions

  18. In Session The judge decides to call the next two witnesses at this time, because they have nothing to do with this report. He calls for the jury.

  19. The jurors enter the courtroom. The defense calls its first witness of the day: Illinois State Police Sgt. Patrick Collins (questioned by attorney Greenberg).

  20. In Session He previously testified as a prosecution witness. “I just want to tie up some things about your investigation . . . were you involved in the case after the original investigation in 2004?” “Yes.” “When did you stop being involved as an investigator?” “What case are we talking about? I was involved most of the time, yes, Sir.” “Did you go out and interview witnesses in 2007, 2008?” “I can’t recall, but I assume I did.”

  21. In Session
    The witness is shown a photo of Kathleen Savio (taken by Nick Pontarelli). “Did you get that photo in the course of your investigation, in 2004?” ‘I don’t remember it.” “You never had a chance to talk to Nick Pontarelli in 2004?” “Never
    spoke to the son.” “You knew he had been there that night?” “Right.” “You didn’t know he had taken a container of orange juice and put it back in the refrigerator that night?” “I never spoke to Nick Pontarelli.”

  22. In Session
    The witness identifies a photograph of the Savio home. “Have you and I had a chance to talk about your testimony today?” “No.” “Is that how the house appeared when you were there that night?” “Yes.” “Can you tell what lights are on in
    what room?” Objection/Overruled. “I see a light on, but I cannot testify as to what room that is.” The witness is then shown another photo of the Savio house, followed by a photo of Savio’s bedroom.. “That’s just another picture of what the house looked like?” “Yes.” “This is the photo of the Pontarelli home and the Savio home?” “I can’t recall whose [sic] house that is on the right . . . those pictures were taken by the crime scene tech . . . he had taken pictures prior to me getting there . . . in case we have to testify in court, to bring back our memories.” “Did you ever go back to that house?” “That night, yes.” “Ever go back any other time?” “That I can’t recall.” “But you did go back that night?” “Yes, to inform Drew Peterson’s supervisors that we would have to talk to him.”

  23. In Session “Recall anyone bringing anything unusual to your attention?” “No.” “That’s the entrance to the master bedroom?” “Yes, Sir.” “Do you recall the cat? See those beady little eyes there?” “No.” “The pictures are taken to preserve what’s there?” “Yes, Sir.”

    In Session “See this lamp? Nothing appears to be broken there?” “No.” “And there appears to be stacks of things on that dresser, like that mirror?” “Yes, I see the items you just mentioned.” “Remember the flowers close to the bed?” “I can’t remember, but evidently they were there.” “You didn’t see any broken flowers, anything that looked like it had been grabbed at, torn away?” “No.” “And the other stuff didn’t seem like it had been moved?” “It wasn’t scattered like it had been knocked over, anything like that.”

  24. Facs, I seem to remember something from somewhere that they were going to suggest that Young Nick was romantically involved with Kathleen. Not sure anyone else remembers that, but I do, just cannot remember when and where that was

  25. In Session Another picture of the bedroom is projected. “Nothing unusual there?” “No.” The witness says only he, Ofc. Deel and Ofc. Falat were with him when he was inside the house.” “Did you see anyone in there when you first arrived?” “No.” “Do you recall if there were things hanging on the wall in that bedroom?” “I looked for the obvious: things that might have been twisted, turned around . . . things on top of the dressers, pictures on the wall. Things like that.”

  26. In Session The next photograph shows Savio’s body in the bathtub. “The only people who took pictures were the state police that night?” “It was crime scene investigator Deel.” The next photograph shows “the things that are next to the tub. Did you look for signs of a struggle around the tub?” “Yes.”

    In Session “You didn’t see anything that appeared to be moved?” “I can’t say if it was put back. But at the time, it didn’t appear to be knocked over.” “Did you look for broken pieces of ceramic?” “Yes, Sir.” “You didn’t find any broken ceramics, or anything like that?” “No.” “Looked around for things that might show signs of a struggle?” “Yes.”

  27. In Session The witness is now shown a photograph of Savio’s kitchen. “Have you seen this picture before?” “No.” “When you were preparing for this case, they didn’t show you this picture?” “No.” The defense then asks for a sidebar.

  28. they may be shooting themselves in the foot here with above testimony. No signs of struggle because everything was perfectly in its place. How can you slip and fall in a tub and leave everything perfectly in its place around the tub? So it MUST have been staged, replaced, put back. hmmmmmmmmnot a smart move in my mind on part of the def

  29. In Session The sidebar ends. The witness is then shown a photograph of Savio’s body. “There appears to be white tape around her wrists, and then paper sacks, like lunch bags, over her hands?” “Yes . . . based on the fact that might have been a struggle, she might have something under her nails.” “So it’s following procedure to bag her hands?” “Yes.” “To preserve fingernail evidence?” “That was my first homicide. So it was a learning experience for me. I assume that’s what they do.” “So if anything comes off the hands, it’s saved in the bags?” “Yes.”

  30. In Session “You spoke to Mr. Peterson, right?” “Yes, I interviewed him.” “At the police station?” “Yes.” “He told you he’d been home all day Saturday?” “Yes.” The witness is handed a copy of his report, which he skims through. “Did he ever use the word ‘Sunday’ when he said he had gone to work that weekend?” Objection/Overruled. “I can’t recall that statement.”

  31. In Session “You had a canvas done of the neighborhood?” “Yes . . . to see if we can obtain any additional information that might assist in our investigation.” “By my count, 24 different people were spoken to in that neighborhood?” ‘I can’t recall that number . . . if that report reflects that number of people, I’ll defer to it.”

    In Session The prosecution objects, and asks for a sidebar.

  32. In Session The sidebar ends. Using his report, Sgt. Collins confirms that 24 people were canvassed at the time in question. “In that canvas, did you learn that anyone had observed anything unusual?” “The agents reported nothing unusual to me.” As part of his investigation, he obtained the phone records of Steve Maniaci, Drew Peterson, and Kathleen Savio for that day. “Mr. Maniaci suggested you talk to some other people, and you talked to those people?” “Not me personally, but other people maybe.” “The Bolingbrook police officers who arrived before you did prepared reports, and you reviewed those reports?” “Yes.” “Agents spoke to them?” “Yes.” “And you spoke to Steve Carcerano that night?” “Yes.” “Mary Pontarelli?” “Yes.” “Tom Pontarelli?” “Yes.” “Did you have agents go back and talk to them again?” “Eventually they were re-interviewed.” “And all those reports were eventually given to you?” “Yes.” “The locksmith and EMTs were interviewed?” “Yes.” “Any physical evidence collected by Deel was submitted for testing?” “He would have submitted it. But the only thing I can recall are the pictures.” “The autopsy was reviewed by you?” “Yes.” “You didn’t get any calls from anyone who was a friend of Miss Savio’s, did you?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you get any calls from anyone alerting you to problems between Ms. Savio and Mr. Peterson, during the course of your 2004 investigation?” “No.”

  33. In Session The defense asks for a sidebar.

    In Session The sidebar ends. The judge calls a brief recess, and leaves the bench. The trial is currently in recess.

  34. @ Lost Acres…yep i think they are going to imply that Nick had at the very least a huge crush on his second mother….presumably the photo is going to be of her naked in the bath to imply the obvious

  35. C’mon now, let’s not use a Lifetime movie as a reference. 😉

    We’ve got lots of documentation on this site and elsewhere to rely on if we want to discuss Drew Peterson’s character.

  36. No i did not see the movie, VH,…I was trying to keep an open mind for the trial…and while back in the day the thought of a 14 year old boy and a 40 year old woman being sexually involved seemed, to say the least, far-fetched…(Mrs Robinson not withstanding)…these days one seems to read about a Mary Kaye LeTourneau like relationship every few months.

    Trying to put myself in Nicks shoes, if he did in fact take a photo of Kathy naked in the tub on the night of her body being discovered it would at the least be unusual…but then again back in the day, we didn’t have smart phones with cameras ready to shoot at a moments notice.

  37. EVERYONE. There is NO naked photo of Kathleen Savio in the bathtub taken by Nick Pontarelli.

    There is a snapshot of Savio in the bathroom that Nick took when he was helping her around the house one day. Clothed.

  38. Talking of an open mind here’s my current thinking

    22 Indications of Drew Peterson’s Guilt

    There is no question that Kathy Savio is dead. Sadly, dueling pathologists have failed to show how a healthy 40 year-old woman died.

    In the absence of science, reasonable jurors can use their common sense to confirm not only was Kathy murdered but also that Drew Peterson killed her.

    Indications of Kathy’s Murder

    1) Kathy changed her normal grooming habits and took a bath with her long hair down

    2) Kathy changed her normal grooming habits and took a bath with wearing jewelry

    3) Kathy REMOVED the bath rug from the bathroom before she took a bath

    4) Someone with motive to stage the crime scene placed a blue towel on the side of the bath in the first 60 minutes after the first crime scene photo was taken.

    5) Kathy’s doctor reported that there were no medical reasons as to why Kathy should fall in the bath and healthy middle-aged women are rarely victims of bath drowning.

    6) Why did a 24 year Police Veteran, Sgt Drew Peterson fail to draw his weapon when he entered her home after hearing screams coming from Mary Pontarelli after she discovered the body

    7) Why would Drew Peterson first words on discovering Kathy’s body be “They’re going to think I did it” if the crime scene in his view supported an accident

    Drew’s behavior on the night of her murder

    8) Drew disappeared out of bed without telling Stacy

    9) Drew did not respond to his phone despite several attempts by Stacy to reach him

    10) Drew returned home in the middle of a non-work night dressed in a black SWAT uniform that he had previously used to break into Kathy’s house and scare her with a knife

    11) Drew returned home in the middle of the night with a bag full of women’s clothing that did not belong to Stacy

    12) Drew spent a long time in his laundry room washing the bag of women’s clothes and his own clothing

    13) Drew sat down with Stacy and told her the police would soon be at their home to interview her

    14) Drew sat down with spent several hours with Stacy telling what to say to the police about Drew’s being home all night

    15) Drew insisted on sitting in on the police interview of Stacy, knowing this was breach of police protocol

    Drew Peterson’s means and motive to kill her on that night.

    16) Drew Peterson lived less than 5 minutes from her home. He had access to transport and having lived in the house knew how to park to avoid being seen

    17) Drew Peterson had previously broken into Kathy’s home and threatened to kill her

    18) Drew Peterson had motive to kill her to protect his financial interests in his pension on the couple’s ongoing divorce struggle

    19) Drew Peterson had solicited someone to hire a hitman to kill Kathy for $25000 around 8 months before her murder.

    20) Kathy told several people that Drew Peterson planned to kill her and make it look like an accident

    21) As a police sergeant with many of years experience, Peterson knew how prepare a crime scene to reduce risk of detection

    22) Drew had previousy been physically abusive towards Kathy according to Kathy’s tenant Mary Parks

  39. In Session The jurors are now back in the courtroom, and attorney Greenberg announces that he has completed his direct examination of ISP Sgt. Patrick Collins. Prosecutor Koch then begins his cross. “You don’t know how the house looked prior to your arrival?” “That’s correct.” “You did not take these photographs?” “That’s correct.” “Sgt. Deel uses a flash when he takes photograph?” “I would assume that.”

  40. In Session The witness repeats that Savio’s hands were bagged to collect any possible evidence. “You know that sometimes the hands are bagged and yet no evidence is collected? “Correct.”

    In Session Sgt. Collins repeats that he was looking for signs of a struggle at Savio’s house. He is shown a photograph. “There’s a can of carpet cleaner?” “Yes.” “You said you looked at this photo and didn’t notice any pictures knocked down?” “Yes.” “There is something knocked down on that dresser, like a picture that’s knocked down?” “It’s down in that picture.” “You were asked about regarding the people who went into the house and found Ms. Savio that night?” “Yes.” “And then you were asked if they were ever re-interviewed?” “Yes.” “It wasn’t until the case was reopened that they were interviewed again?” “Yes.” “That was several years later?” “Yes.” “Did you talk to them when this case was reopened?” “No.”

  41. In Session That concludes the cross-examination. Greenberg begins his redirect. “When there’s a struggle, sometimes there’s evidence an sometimes there’s not?” “Yes.” “And there were no signs that night that Ms. Savio had been in a struggle?” “No.” “Did you see signs of a struggle on Mr. Peterson?” Objection/Sustained. The defense asks for a sidebar.

  42. In Session The sidebar ends. “When you spoke to Sgt. Peterson, you looked at him?” “Yes.” “You didn’t see any signs of a struggle on him, either, right?” “As far as I can see, no.”

    In Session The witness is shown a photograph of Savio’s bedroom. “Did you see any broken glass there?” “No.” “Would you have noted that somewhere?” “Yes.”

    In Session “If there had been anything unusual about those items, would the crime scene investigator have taken a photograph?” “I assume he would.” That ends the redirect examination of Sgt. Collins.

  43. The next defense witness is Eileen Payona. She is an Illinois State Police officer (for the past 16 years). She is questioned by attorney Greenberg.

    In Session For the last 13 years, she has worked in the Investigations unit. As such, she was part of the reinvestigation into Kathleen Savio and Drew Peterson. “Did you have occasion to interview Mary Parks, in August of 2008?” “Yes, Sir.”

  44. Just got home from work and am liberally able to contribute.

    #1 – The video of the “children” having fun at a party is disgusting. Yeah, I know kids like to party, but the immaturity of it on youtube speaks to the way they were raised, and NOT by their mothers. Sorry to sound so conservative, but there is no doubt in my mind this video was staged to show that it’s just boys who want to have fun. Cf. Prince Harry’s recent SNAFU in the press and what he’ll have to explain to his Grandma when he gets home from vacation.

    #2 – The Tom Alibi – I thought the Brodsky said DP didn’t NEED an alibi because this was” just a freak home accident.”

    #3 – The Lifetime Movie – Well, yes, facs, we shouldn’t refer to that particular made for TV movie in our discussions, BUT his two previous wives plus a step-daughter and the engagement to the future Mrs. Peterson #5 have given interviews in which they describe the kind of behavior that would a) make them want to go home with this guy and b) make them eventually regret they ever did. It’s classic abuser behavior, which in two cases, ended in the most heinous ways i) dying in a situation in which it looks like a freak household accident (convenient when the perpetrator has a military background and is a police officer with X number of years in service) and ii) total disappearance, no sign of life for 5 years after the fact.

  45. In Session The witness says that Parks told her that she and Drew were fighting over Suds Pub. However, she later learned that Suds Pub had been sold prior to that time. In all, she spoke to Parks three times. “Did she ever tell you she had called the State’s Attorneys?” “No.” “Not during any of your conversations with her?” “No.” She also arranged for another canvas of Savio’s neighborhood. “As a result of that canvas, did you learn anything suspicious?” “Not that I recall.”

  46. Well that’s a relief about the photo….but if there is nothing salacious about it…wonder why the defense has raised it 3 times without (to the best of my knowledge) introducing it into evidence.’

    At Grandam…what do you think the defense would GAIN from calling Carcerano?

  47. Steve Carcerano has been a steadfast friend to Drew all this time. I think he would testify to anything that might be helpful to him.

    I’m getting so tired of hearing it implied that Kathleen Savio was lying when she told people that she and Drew were fighting over Suds Pub. The defense loves to point out that it had already been sold.

    Yes, it had. and Drew had pocketed ALL of the money. The divorce settlement was going to make him pony up half of that to her.

  48. In Session Nick Pontarelli told her that he had pictures of Kathleen Savio. “He had not given those pictures previously to the state police?” “No.” “You were aware there was a second autopsy done?” “Yes, Sir.” “At that autopsy, there were numerous people from the state police?” “Yes.” “You were there?” “I believe so.” “Mr. Glasgow was there?” “I don’t recall.” The witness is handed a copy of her report. “Dr. Blum was there?” “Yes.” “Dr. Mitchell?” “Yes.” She names several more persons who were present at this second autopsy. “They took fingernail clippings, for testing for DNA?” “Yes.” “There was also a religious father?” “Yes.” “And the autopsy on that day, it lasted almost three hours?’ “I believe so.” “At some point, you went back to the house on 392 Pheasant Chase Drive?” “Yes.” “Know how many times you went back?” “No.” “All of the original witnesses were interviewed again?” “I believe so.” “There were dozens and dozens of interviews?” “I believe so.” “Additional phone records, work records were collected?” “Yes.” “Mr. Peterson’s work records?” “Yes.” “Were you allowed to inspect the house?” “Yes.” “Was the carpeting from the master bedroom removed?” “Yes.” “And before it was removed, it was tested with ultra-scientific techniques?” ‘I don’t know.” “But you’re aware the carpet was taken and inspected?” “Yes.”

  49. In Session The witness says the bathroom was inspected, and even the grout was removed and sent in for testing. The prosecution then asks for a sidebar.

  50. btw, for the record, this is now the fourth witness to whom they have mentioned Nick’s photos…two witnesses already this morning.

  51. I believe they would love to lead the jury to believe that poor Nick Pontarelli might be in the frame. Ridiculous. Show the picture or STFU.

  52. In Session The sidebar ends. “In fact, there were some stains recovered from the carpet in the bedroom, and they were submitted for DNA testing?” “Yes.” The witness agrees that the carpet samples were negative for anything connected to this case. Hair samples were also submitted, but nothing of evidentiary value was learned from that. “You reviewed the photos that were originally taken?” “Yes.” “And you had available to you not only the services of the Illinois State Police, but also of the FBI?” “Yes.” “And the State’s Attorney’s Office investigators?” “Yes.” “Did you find anywhere where a will might have been hidden in the floor?” Objection/Sustained. “Were you given any documents by Anna Doman in the course of your investigation?” “No.” “Do you recall talking to Anna Doman?” “Yes.” “But you do not recall being given any documents regarding a will from Ms. Doman?” “No.” She is then shown a copy of her report. “Does that refresh your recollection?” “Yes, Sir.” “In December of 2008, you talked to Anna Doman?” “Yes.” “And did she give you some documents?’ “Yes.” “Among those documents was an affidavit to open a safe deposit box?” “If that’s in the report; I don’t recall . . . yes, Sir.” “Did she give you an affidavit to get into a safe deposit box?” “Yes.” The witness identifies a copy of the affidavit, dated March 10, 2004. The parties then approach the bench for a sidebar.

  53. In Session The sidebar ends. The defense announces it is finished with its direct examination. But before the State begins its cross, the parties approach the bench for another sidebar.

  54. In Session The sidebar ends. Koch begins his cross. “You went through a series of individuals who were at the second autopsy?” “Yes.” “In fact, they weren’t all present at the autopsy, they were just all in the building?” “Correct.”

    In Session The witness confirms that another family has been living in Savio’s home since 2004. “The evidence technicians from the Illinois State Police did remove that bathtub and place it into evidence?” “Yes.” That ends the cross.

  55. In Session Greenberg begins his redirect. “The carpet was taken also from the stairway, leading up to the second floor?” “I don’t recall.” The witness is again shown a copy of her report. “That’s actually the corrected crime scene report?” “Yes.” “In fact, the carpeting from the stairway was also removed?” “Yes.” “Not only did they take the carpeting and the grout, but they also used their forensic light sources to inspect the walls for any blood?” “I don’t know, Sir.” Once more, the witness is directed to her report. “The walls were also inspected for stains, anything like that?” “Correct.” “Just because someone might clean carpet doesn’t mean stains will disappear?” “I don’t know. I can’t answer that question.” “The walls, the carpet, the grout . . . all of it was tested in 2007, 2008, and no evidence came back from any of it that points to a crime?” “Correct.” “And it was all the original stuff?” “Yes.” That ends the redirect.

  56. In Session Koch has one quick question on recross, but it is objected to, and the judge sustains the objection. With that, the witness is excused, and she leaves the courtroom. The judge excuses the jurors for the lunch recess.

    In Session The jurors are now gone, but the judge and the attorneys remain. They return to the issue of the purported discovery violation on the part of the State regarding its interview of Thomas Peterson.

  57. Wow.. it seems like the Defense is scoring points this morning with the Pros unable or unwilling to throw any punches during their cross-exam…wonder if the Pros went to bed too late last night and as a result have not been able to summon their “A” game this morning

  58. If Baden’s in the court house, presumably the defense wlll be resting today and Baden will be called as a rebuttal witness…unless someone knows different?

  59. @ fac…we all feel your pain.

    Just spotted these facebook comments

    Aimee Lindsay Dearmon
    Not since the OJ trial have I seen a prosecution and police investigation as inept as this. Poor Kathleen.

    Joe Chudzinski
    This is about the Fourth High Profile case that Glasgow is botching up

    So what other screw-ups does Glasgow have on his track-record?

  60. Craig Wall: Paula Stark, who wore a wire for ISP investigating DP in 2007 says if Tom Peterson says anything good about his dad, he is lying.

  61. Just a thought. If ISP interview Tom for several hours, I would think the majority would be about Stacy Peterson’s dissappearance. Since no one is allowed to mention her being missing during this trial, why would it matter if the defense did not get that portion. It is my understanding the defense is complaining because they did not get ALL of the interview.

  62. @ Lost Acres…apparently here is what else Paula told the GJ

    From March 2008 through May 2008 Lenny Wawczak secretly pretended to be a woman named “real_ashley” on the Internet in a secret love relationship with Drew Peterson while Lenny’s wife Paula secretly pretended to be yet another online love interest for Peterson named “katie elstro.” At the same time Drew Peterson was hitting on Paula at his house and wanted her to run off to Lexington, Kentucky with him and when she said Lenny would never let her leave, Peterson said, “Don’t make me shoot him.”

    Source acandyrose

  63. @ pearl it strikes me that the defense is whining in an effort to run out the clock to achieve its stated goal of closing arguments beginning after the Labor Day holiday

  64. According to the discipline of statement analysis, using absurd percentages (%1000) is a red flag. Just sayin.

    I don’t mind the boys and their party video too much. It’s the stupid “gangsta” culture where they sing about guns’n’ slapping their bitches that makes it look worse. The same party in 1968 would be blaring out The Doors, and they’d be drinking beer and smoking weed if they could get it.
    Gansta/macho culture is really nasty and unappreciated in my house. Quentin Tarantino has a lot to answer for. Boo.

  65. Bear in mind that Paula Stark is not being called as a witness. She is merely talking to the media today:

    The couple (Paula and Lenny)said Thursday that Peterson “disposed” of what they believe was evidence during a visit to their home in December.

    “He disposed of things in my presence on my property,” said Paula Stark. “(Peterson) knows what he disposed of at my house,” Stark said. “That’s on the tape, and that’s something I won’t take to my grave.”


  66. Gosh DP is a sicko, isn’t he? All those things we followed in the last many years, that just Screamed his guilt, is now being trimmed down and diluted in a court room. For shame

  67. @ fac…believe it or not, I knew nothing about this case until the trial started…(obviously I knew DP what DP was accused of, but never followed his story in any way.

  68. I know what your’e saying bucket. That kind of gangster wannabe culture isn’t a part of my household either, but I know that a lot of suburban kids like to play at it, and some even glorify it.

    I realize the video is in fun but I still think it’s ill-advised for Tom and Kris to let themselves be shown in a light that could easily be interpreted as…oh…less than School Valedictorian-ish. Just not too smart for what I’m sure are a couple of smart young men.

    It also makes me think about their Dad and how he enjoys mingling with that hood rat culture. Maybe runs in the family?

  69. @ fac …Well that’s a damn pity….cos it seems like Paula would have been an excellent witness to Drew’s unbelievable arrogance and modus operandi…sneaking out of his house; killing husbands etc.

    Presumably. she will also be unavailable to testify in the Stacy trial…which is an even greater pity as she claims she saw Drew destroying evidence at her house.

  70. Facs,
    Of course. They’re Daddy’s Little Hoodrats. He fetched them up with all the essential stealth skills like dressing all in black and sneaking through people’s gardens and so on in the middle of the night. I worry mightily for Kris, and even fear for his life if his dad got out. Serious.

  71. I’m surprised and very disappointed to hear about Paula’s difficulties. Lenny too? What a terrible shame.
    I think they made the DP movie way too soon. Can you imagine P and L’s chapters on film? Wow.

  72. Smith on stand. This is going to get interesting, as the Judge warned the def that they could be opening Pandoras box if they called him. They did anyway

  73. See ya, Heartland.

    Objections already – this is going to be painful, I anticipate. Maybe if the prosecution lets him talk more, they’ll get to do more on cross though?

  74. From In Session

    The judge sends for the jury.

    The jurors enter the courtroom. The defense calls its next witness: attorney Harry Smith (questioned by attorney Brodsky). He has been an attorney since 1993. “It’s a litigation firm. I handle the family law part of that . . . and I also do some criminal defense work.” His firm’s name is “Smith and Fuller.” The witness says that he was formerly a prosecutor (but not in Will County). “You had a client named Kathleen Savio?” “That is correct.” “When did she come to you?” “I believe 2002 or 2003.”

    The witness is shown some billing records, which show that he first met Kathleen Savio in January, 2002. “That was a divorce between Kathleen Peterson and Drew Peterson?” “Yes.” “At some point in that case, there was a bifurcated divorce?” “Yes.” The prosecution objects, and asks for a sidebar.

    The sidebar ends. “At sometime during these proceedings with Kathy Savio and Drew Peterson, was their marriage dissolved?” “Yes.” “Subsequent to that, are you aware Drew Peterson married Stacy Cales?” “Yes.” “Did you recall a call in 2007 from Stacy Peterson?” “I did receive a call from Stacy Peterson; I’m not sure of the specific date.” The witness is shown a copy of a report, to refresh his recollection. “Yes . . . she contacted the office on Oct. 24. I just didn’t talk to her that day.” “The purpose that she called you was for information about a divorce?” “She told my office she wanted to retain me as a divorce attorney.” “From Drew Peterson?” “Yes.”

    Brodsky asks for permission to question Smith as an adverse witness. The judge then calls the attorneys to a sidebar.

    If anyone else wants to volunteer to paste the IS updates, I can stick to the main post and the tweets…

  75. Smith of phone call with Stacy Peterson: “She wanted to know if, in my opinion, the fact that he killed Kathy could be used against him

    I love it!

  76. In Session

    The jurors are back in the courtroom, and Brodsky continues his direct examination. “When you spoke to Stacy Peterson, the purpose of her call was to do what?” “She contacted our office to retain me as an attorney in a divorce proceeding.” “Did she eventually retain you?” “No.” “Why not?” The witness is hesitant to answer. The judge then calls the attorneys to a sidebar.

  77. In Session
    The sidebar ends. “Even though there was this conflict of interest, she did ask you questions about divorce?” “Yes.” “Did she tell you she had information about Drew Peterson?” “Those were not her specific words, but she did tell me she had information about Drew Peterson . . .she said she had information regarding Kathleen Peterson she wanted to us.” “She wanted to use that as leverage in the divorce case?” Objection/Overruled. “She wanted to know if it, in my opinion, the fact that he’d killed Kathy could be used against him.” “In the divorce proceeding?” “Yes . . . she didn’t use the word ‘leverage,; but that certainly was the intimation.” The State objects, and the parties approach the bench for a sidebar.

  78. so now we know stacy asserted that Drew killed Kathy to TWO witnesses…a Pastor and a Lawyer.

    Just because a naive 23 year old makes that claim in the context of a divorce consultation does not negate the underlying fact…especially as she also made the same assertion outside of the divorce consultation to her pastor.

  79. Thanks, LA. Looks like you found it. Don’t feel like you have to c/p unless you want to, though. I’m copying everything to a file to post at end of the day, regardless. 🙂

  80. Looks as if in the past Smith has said that Stacy wanted to know if she could get more money from Drew if she threatened to tell people that he killed Kathy. Today he testified that Stacy made reference to the “fact” that Drew killed Kathy.

    So now he’s a hostile witness.

  81. @ granddam yep i agree it was probably joel who insisted on calling Smith…lets hope his hubris leads to his downfall…so far this strikes me as a witness of questionable value to the defense…and just maybe it will turn out to be an own goal

  82. In Session The witness and the jurors return to the courtroom. Brodsky continues: “Isn’t it true when you testified previously you were sworn under oath?” “Every time I’ve given a statement, I’ve been sworn.” “And never before have you ever said that Stacy said that Drew killed Kathy?” “I do not know if the words you just said to me are the way I said it to you.” The witness is confronted with some of her previous testimony. “I think you just intimated those were my words. I just want you to know that that is what she said to me. Those aren’t my words.” “Did I ask you that question, and did you give me that answer?” “I responded to that question.” “Did you give that answer?” “Yes.”

  83. In Session “Stacy wanted to threaten Drew, in order to get more money out of him in a divorce?” “She asked me if we could use information to get more money.” “Not to prosecute him, but to get more money for herself?” “I don’ t know that.” “So Stacy wanted to say whatever she could in order to get more money out of Drew Peterson?’ “No, she wanted to say that he killed Kathy . . .that was absolutely one of the reasons that she gave.” “She said, ‘If I give information, give me money’?’ “No, she said, ‘If I threaten to do this, can we get more money.”

  84. Big thanks Lost Acres
    Great stuff in your 2.07pm update….all serving to under-score for the jury that Stacy yet again referred to the FACT that DREW kiilled Kathy

  85. In Session Brodsky moves to the Savio/Peterson divorce. “Isn’t it true that if it was Drew Peterson’s visitation weekend, and that happened to be a three-day weekend, he got the kids for the additional day?” “I remember that being an issue . . . I think they fought over that.” The witness is asked about his October, 2008 grand jury testimony, in which he indicates that Drew could keep the boys until Monday night on a three-day weekend. “I would agree with that transcript.” “So Mondays, like Casimir Pulaski Day, would belong to Drew?” “No.” Once again, Brodsky reads from the transcript. “I again agree that was the question and the answer.”

  86. In Session “Also in this case, there was a child support order?” “Yes.” “So Drew Peterson agreed to pay child support?’ “Yes.” “And he paid it on time?” “I do not recall a time when there was a child support order.”

  87. It occurs to me that the more time the jury hears from Stacy, the more likely Peterson will be convicted.

    Although not explicitly stated, you’ve got to believe some juror is going to wonder why Stacy is allowing her attorney (and priest) to break confidence and testify on her behalf.

    IMO, calling Smith is a serious defense miscalculation…little to gain and much to lose

  88. Oxy – I agree. I think even the defense was not in agreement about calling Smith. I wonder who it was who admitted this morning that they might “really go south” today.

  89. Here’s why tit makes no sense to put an attorney on the stand, especially one who had planned to testify for the Pros…

    “So Stacy wanted to say whatever she could in order to get more money out of Drew Peterson?’ “No, she wanted to say that he killed Kathy . . .that was absolutely one of the reasons that she gave.

    As an attorney he simply wont be bullied by the defense…and instead reflects the question to yet again repeat the assertion that Drew Peterson killed Kathy!

    Great stuff!

  90. In Session “Remember some talk in the divorce about a company called Fast & Accurate Printing?” Objection/Overruled. “Isn’t it true this company was sold back in 1999?” “I do not recall.” The witness is shown a copy of a deposition taken in 2004. “Fast & Accurate Printing was, in fact, sold back in 1999?” “That’s what Ms. Peterson said in the deposition.” “And the profits were already split?” “I do not recall that, either.” Once again, the witness is directed to his deposition. “They divided the money; half went into Mrs. Peterson’s account, and half into Mr. Peterson’s account.” “If the property was sold before the divorce was filed, and they split the money . . .” I don’t remember whether there was an issue about some of the proceeds, honestly.”

    “This was a difficult divorce for Kathy?” “Yes.’ “Sometimes she would get angry?” “Yes.” The defense then asks for a sidebar.

  91. THX LA!

    “I’m the informant who spent seven months with Drew Peterson,” Paula Stark said as Brodsky and defense attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez retreated from a bank of microphones.

    Stark and her husband, Len Wawczak, say they wore wires for the Illinois State Police to record testimony. Stark said the recordings will be used as evidence if Peterson is charged in connection with the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    “I learned that Drew’s a murderer,” Stark said of her time with Peterson.

    She also said he was cruel to his children.

    “Every time they brought up their mother, he told them to shut up and go to their rooms,” Stark said.

    Stark also said Stacy’s young son, Anthony, secretly kept a hidden picture of his mother in his room.

    Stark and Wawczak were left to watch Peterson’s children when he took trips out of town to appear on talk shows.

    Stark said Peterson and Kathleen Savio’s elder son, Thomas Peterson, deep down believes that his father killed his mother.

    Thomas Peterson is scheduled to testify in his father’s defense this afternoon.

    Stark also said Peterson once called Thomas a “faggot” after Thomas complained about his father’s cooking.

    Stark also told of a letter to Santa Claus Peterson’s younger son, Kristopher Peterson wrote when he was about 10.

    In the letter, Kristopher asked Santa to stop his father from beating his mother and to give his mother the divorce she wanted.

    “If Tom says anything positive about his father, it’s all lies,” Stark said.


  92. omg…In the letter, Kristopher asked Santa to stop his father from beating his mother and to give his mother the divorce she wanted.

    What a pity this didn’t make it into court! Truly sad.

    Got to believe the rest of the defense attorney’s are standing in line to say i told you so to the arrogant Brodsky for calling Harry Smith. so far HS has been an unmitigated disaster for DP

  93. In Session

    The sidebar ends. The jurors are then excused. Prosecutor Connor states his objection to this line of questioning, says “we’ve gotten WAY beyond financial motive at this time.” Brodsky: “We’ll withdraw the question.” The judge sends for the jury.

    The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Brodsky: “I withdraw my last question. And I have no further questions for this witness.” That concludes the direct examination of Mr. Smith.

    The attorneys head to a sidebar.

    The sidebar ends, and prosecutor Connor begins his cross. “Did she [Stacy] tell you that Drew was pissed at her because he thought that she told Tom that Drew killed Kathy?” “Yes . . . she told me that she had too much shit on him for him to do anything to her.” “She specifically used the word ‘how’ he killed Kathy, not just that he killed Kathy, but ‘how’ he killed Kathy?” “Yes.’ Objection. The parties go to a sidebar.

    The sidebar ends. “When Stacy referred to ‘Tom,’ did you know who she was referring to?” Yes, Drew’s son.” “Did you hear anyone speak to her during this conversation?” “Yes.” “Who was that?” “Drew . . . he called to her, and asked her what she was doing and who she was talking to.” “Did he call her a second time?’ “To rush her off the phone and tell her to get ready.”

  94. “Did she [Stacy] tell you that Drew was pissed at her because he thought that she told Tom that Drew killed Kathy?” “Yes . . . she told me that he [Drew] had too much shit on her to do anything to her.” “She specifically used the word ‘how’ he killed Kathy, not just that he killed Kathy, but ‘how’ he killed Kathy?

    Dont know about y’all but I’m celebrating every time this witness gets in to the record that Stacy said Drew killed Ksthy.

    I honestly can’t rationalize what Brodsky was thinking when he called this witness.

  95. In session:

    At the time of the Peterson/Savio divorce, the property settlement was still to be finalized. “When you heard the defendant’s voice in the background, was it close by?” “Further away. Not standing right next to the person.” “When he spoke to her [Stacy], did you hear her respond to him?” “I did.” “Could you describe how loud she was when she responded to him?” “As I sit here right now, I cannot recall.” “When he called the second time, did she end the call?” “Yes.” The witness is shown a document to refresh his recollection. “My memory is refreshed as to how she responded to Drew’s first call. “She yelled to Drew that she would be in in a minute.”

    “Did Stacy say to you something about a GPS during that conversation?” “I do not recall.” Once again, the witness is shown a document to refresh his recollection. “Did she say to you that she believed he was tracking her [by cell phone]’?” “Yes . . . ‘but now I have a new one he doesn’t know about.’” The State then asks for a sidebar.

  96. This is awesome…Harry Smith is making Drew Peterson seem more controlling than the much-hated OJ Simpson.

    Well you cant say Judge Burmilla didn’t warn Brodsky they were opening Pandoras box…what an arrogant sob Brodsky must be…a perfectly matched lawyer for Drew Peterson…no wonder they get on so well!

  97. In Session

    The sidebar ends. The jurors are then excused from the courtroom. The attorneys are arguing over exactly what was said in the witness’ previous grand testimony (regarding Drew’s custody of the boys on “long weekends”). Glasgow: “I believe he [Harry Smith] was mistaken, and I’d like to be able to show him the court order.” Brodsky joins in: “I have very clear grand jury testimony by an officer of the court.” The judge then sends for the jury and the witness.

    Brodsky begins his redirect of Harry Smith. “Isn’t it true that when Stacy Peterson asked you about threatening to tell the police that you told her to be careful because she could be arrested for extortion?” “During that call, I did tell her to be careful. But it wasn’t about extortion.” “What were you telling her to be careful for? She could be arrested for telling a falsehood?” “No, that’s not what I told her.” “She told you her cell phone had GPS?” “Yes.” “Isn’t it true all cell phones have GPS?” Objection/Sustained. There are no more questions for this witness, and he is excused.

  98. (Attorney Joe Lopez says Smith testimony “was part good, part bad. You take the good with the bad.”

    Agreed…1% good and 99% bad for the Defense!!

  99. Methinks a harppon just landed on the Shark’s forehead and he’s not yet recognized the full extent of what just happened…my list of “Indications that Drew is Guilty” just increased from 22 to 25 as a result of their own witness.

  100. I mean what was Brodsky thinking?…Smith is an experienced attorney …someone presumably well versed in the art of verbal sparring and who was likely really pissed with the defense for forcing him to show up for 5 straight days while he waited to be for the Prosecution to overcome the Defense’s continuing objections to his testimony. And then Brodsky thought he would get Smith to testify to what exactly…and in doing so somehow keep the witness sufficiently constrained to avoid him laying a blow on Peterson.

    I have heard of confidence in one’s own abilities but Brodsky’s actions smell of delusions of grandeur…like when he preemptively compared his opening remarks to the Gettysburg Address…and we all know how that went down the rathole!

  101. Abood said that he and Lenerd were not forced off the case, attributing the decision to leave to personality differences with Brodsky.

    “Joel’s a different kind of lawyer than I’m used to,” he said. “He’s a very good lawyer in his office and he’s very knowledgeable, but to be a trial lawyer and to present a case requires a certain amount of skill and ability to think on your feet and understand issues and an ability to communicate those issues to jurors.”


  102. Bucket: I’m sorry to say it, but I believe those boys were brainwashed by their dad and have been raised to disrepect women. Young men learn about being a man from their father (or other significant man in their life), and Drew Peterson is a woman hating, controlling, sociopath. I have little hope that they magically turned out any different. I’m sure Kathleen worried about her sons being influenced by him. My boys being influenced by their dad worried me. Hopefully, they learned something about respect and treating others through the women in their life, but if daddy dearest constantly told them bad things about their mom and Stacy, I wouldn’t count on too much.

  103. In Session

    The jurors are back in the courtroom, and the defense calls its next witness: Thomas Peterson (questioned by attorney Brodsky). “My name is Thomas Drew Peterson.” “Who’s your mom?” “Kathleen Savio.” “Who’s your dad?’ “Drew Peterson.” He identifies the defendant in the courtroom. The witness is 19, and attends the University of Pennsylvania. He was the valedictorian of high school class at Bolingbrook H.S. He hopes to go to medical school and become a doctor. “Do you live in a dorm?” “Yes.” “At home, where do you live?’ “In the basement of my house.” “The house you lived with your father?” “For about eight years.” “Before your mom passed away, who lived at your dad’s house?” “My father, Drew Peterson, and Stacy Cales. And I believe Anthony Peterson, and Laci, too. And my brother Kristopher; he’s 18.” His older brother, Stephen, “also lived at the house for a brief time.”

    “Going back to before your mom passed away, in early 2004, you lived with your mom and had visitation with your dad?” “That’s correct.” “At any time after your mom passed away, did you ever tell anybody that you suspected that your dad had killed your mom?” “I have not once suspected that.” “If anybody said so, they would be telling a lie?” Objection/Sustained.

    The witness says that it was “only weekends” when he and his brother would visit the defendant. “My father would come to my mother’s household, and pick up both Kristopher and I. He’d take us back to his house, and we’d spend the weekend with my father, until Sunday night, when he’d bring us back . . . if it was a three-day weekend, I was never fully clear of when we were supposed to be brought back. But if there was a three-day weekend, we would stay until Monday.” He describes the defendant as “a fun guy . . . we all had a really good time. Stacy was very fun, like my dad was very fun. Just very enjoyable weekends.” He describes Drew as “very genial, just very happy with his job and his life . . . I was very glad to be over there.”

    “When you would come back from visitations, was your mom’s screen door always locked?” “Sometimes it was locked.” “And sometimes it was unlocked?” “Yes.” “And if it was unlocked, that wasn’t unusual?” “That’s right.” “What time would you come back from visitations, normally?” “Sometimes it was dark outside, so I’d say around 7:00.” “Were the lights always on in your mom’s house?’ “It varied; it wasn’t always on or always off.” “If you came home and all the lights were off, did that mean your mom wasn’t home?” “More times than not, if all the lights were off it meant she wasn’t home. But we would check anyway . . . I don’t remember coming back and all the lights being on.”

    The weekend that Kathleen died, Drew picked the boys up as usual. “Did you notice any change in his demeanor in any way . . . any change in his personality at all?’ “There was nothing odd at all. I would remember if there was. But there was nothing out of the ordinary, to my recollection.” “When he went to drop you off Sunday night, what was your dad’s demeanor?” “He was a little bit concerned. And then I think we came to the conclusion that we’d forgotten it was a three day weekend, and she was out with a friend or someone else at that time . . . he just took care of us for the rest of the night, and then the day after.” “Did you notice anything unusual that night about your dad’s demeanor?” “No . . . we just figured that because it was a three day weekend she was out, and we’d leave her to her business.” “After spending the holiday with your dad, he again tried to drop you off on Monday?” “That’s correct.” “And again your mom didn’t answer the door?’ “Correct . . . he was definitely more concerned, because that was the day we were definitely supposed to be back with my mother . . . he was kind of, like, more concerned about the situation. So he brought us back, told us to go to bed, and said he would try to figure out what was going on.” “Did you try to call your mom when you got home?” “Yes. There was no answer.”

  104. Sorry, I’m catching up again. Mom called from the States. All I have to say is Wow, man. Just Wow. I always knew the defense team was made up of a bunch of idiots, but now the whole world knows!

  105. In Session

    The next morning, Drew informed the witness that Savio was dead. “My brother and I were both downstairs, and he told us to come upstairs. He brought us into his room, and told us that our mother had died. He was very shaken up about it; I’d never seen anyone so sad . . . it was very troubling to see him so shaken up.” “He was sincerely shaken up by your mother’s death?” “Yes.” “Your mom liked to take baths?” “Yes.” “Up until a certain age, you used to take baths with her?’ “Yes, both Kristopher and I . . . until we were about five or six. She definitely liked to have hot baths; I wouldn’t say scalding, but very hot.” “Would she always put her hair up when she was taking a bath?” “She would sometimes have her hair up; she would sometimes have her hair down . . . when she would get out of the bath, she would put her hair up in a towel . . . I would know that she at least had gotten her hair wet.” “You’d see her washing her hair in the bathtub?” “Yes.” “Are you here voluntarily?” “I’m here completely voluntarily . . . because I believe my dad is innocent.:” Objection/Sustained.

    The witness and the jurors have returned to the courtroom. Prosecutor Koch continues his cross-examination. “Do you recall being asked about your memories of your mother taking a bath, and saying you didn’t recall anything specific?” “That sounds like a strange answer. I don’t recall.” “Recall being asked if you’d be in bed before she’d doing that normal, and you answered ‘yeah’?’ “I’m so sorry. I still don’t understand the question.” The question is repeated. “It doesn’t sound like a question at all.” The parties then go to a sidebar.

  106. What a well coached witness! The Pros is now between a rock and a hard place,…ripping him apart will not go over well.

  107. In Session

    The sidebar ends. “Let me try this again . . . you were asked if you recalled your mom taking a bath, and you said you recalled nothing specific?” “Yes. I don’t recall that.” “And you said you guys would normally be in bed before she’d do that? Do you remember saying that on June 26, 2008?” “Yes.” That ends the cross-examination of this witness.

    “What you know about what she did inside the bath is from when you were younger?” “Yes.” “When she was older, you probably don’t have any specific memories about her taking baths?” “That’s correct.” “But you know she washed her hair, because when she came out her hair was wet?” “Yes.” “And you knew she didn’t take a shower, because you didn’t hear the shower running?” “I wouldn’t know that, if it was a shower or a bath.” “Your mother sometimes took baths at night, to relax?’ “I wouldn’t know that.”

    “When she would take as bath, she would sometimes have a glass of wine?” Objection/Sustained. The judge excuses the jurors.

    The judge calls a brief recess, because another judge in the courthouse needs some equipment that the prosecution is using. Once that can be accomplished, the Peterson trial should resume.

  108. Tom: I have never seen anyone so sad” That statement kind of rubs me the wrong way, something seems off about it.

  109. I think maybe upset vs sad would have sounded more right. It sounds scripted, not sure if I can explain it right

  110. That struck me as weird too. We know Drew Peterson cares about his kids. Of course he would be “sad” (or upset) telling them that their mom is dead — maybe especially so if he had killed her.

    Pretty cool that Tom Peterson got to testify about mom’s bath habits based on what he remembers from 14 years ago, when he was 5.

  111. In Session:

    Both sides have decided that they have no further questions for Tom Peterson. So his testimony has ended.

    Judge Burmila has just returned to the bench. He confirms that the defense has no more witnesses for today. The defense attorneys go over the exhibits that they hope to move into evidence.

    The prosecution objects to one of the defense exhibits, Kathleen Savio’s death certificate. Prosecutor Koch cites case law that he believes supports his argument that this exhibit is not admissible.

    Attorney Greenberg responds, says the death certificate is admissible as an official record. However, he has forgotten to bring in case law that he believes shores up his position. Judge: “I’ll take this under advisement until I get the other case law . . . we’ll put this one on the side.”

  112. Wow, after a week in the hospital, glad to see you’re still here.

    Again, the defense harping on this struggle scenario as if there were no visible signs of a struggle, Peterson didn’t do it. I hope the jury is not falling for this hogwash. Peterson had plenty of time to clean up any signs of a struggle had one occurred. He also had the ability to render Kathleen passive immediately with techniques he learned from the military, from his police training, and from his martial arts training such that it was likely there was no struggle. All he had to do was sneak in the house, creep up on her from behind, and put her in a choke hold; cutting off the blood to her brain while she was in that hold would have kept any possible struggle to, at the most, a bare minimum.

    This happened several days ago, but it was so ridiculous that I have to comment on it since I didn’t have a computer in the hospital. In Session’s Mike Brooks, in trying to explain away the fact that there was no evidence of the blood from Kathy’s head wound coming into contact with the bath water, said that maybe there wasn’t any water in the tub when she drowned in it. lmao. No, “thin blue line?” sure.

  113. So if the defense rests tonight after those exhibits, and if the pros does not call rebuttal witnesses, this can go to the jury tomorrow. I think it would be better, fresh after everything, rather then wait until tuesday. I bet they will not deliberate for a long time

  114. Robert Frank sure hope your feeling better. Nice post! I believe it has been testified to the bath tub was “CLEAN” and dry. So no blood at all was found in the tub. If there has been water in there there would have been a blood stain in the tub. BS to the theory her thick hair kept her from bleeding.

  115. Hope you are well, Robert!

    In Session

    The discussion of exhibits is now ended. Judge Burmila addresses the defendant: Mr. Peterson, stand please . . . have you reached a position as to whether or not you will testify?” “I will not testify.” “That is your decision?” “Yes, Sir.”

    The judge sends for the jury. Attorney Brodsky: “Your Honor, the defense rests.”

    The jurors leave the courtroom. The judge and the attorneys, however, remain in the courtroom. Attorney Goldberg asks the Court about the rebuttal… “It’s not fair for the State to get a second bite of the apple, and I don’t want surprises tomorrow morning. I’d like you to instruct the State to truly limit their case to rebuttal.” Prosecutor Connor: “Your Honor, there has been testimony about the manner of death.” Judge: “What are those two witnesses going to rebut? They just can’t come back in here and testify about what they’ve already testified about.” Glasgow responds, says that Dr. Mary Case will talk about possible axonal shearing in Savio’s brain. And Dr. Larry Blum will apparently be discussing the issue of the alleged diaphragm injury, and the presence of white blood cells.

  116. Thanks, VH. I hope I’m feeling better too. 🙂

    Good point. Hair does not repel water, and It’s low viscosity ensures that it will work its way between the hair no matter how thick it is.

  117. Tom: We all had a really good time. Stacy was very fun”

    Note the WAS in this statement. The jury HAS to know that something happened to Stacy.

  118. It would surprise me if they did not know about Stacy since all of that happened before they were empaneled. If she had been found before the trial, there is no way they could have or would have stayed away from the story; it would be constant coverage in the national media for at least a week if it happened. The jury HAS to wonder why no one is talking about her disappearance.

  119. VH. I believe there was blood from Kathy’s head wound in the tub. There just was no water or ring to suggest she had taken a bath. The blood in the tub cries out when she was placed in the tub and if it ever had water. The blood from her head injury/hair would have been disbursed into the surrounding water. After she had died there would have been very little bleeding. I believe one forensic specialist said there was some bloody purging.

  120. I think Kris is angry and sullen, living in the shadow of his “Bright” older brother. I don’t know Facs, I have always thought if they could that kid to talk, he would tell what he saw, heard, and felt. They are only a year or so apart in age, but I believe that DP found much more resistance in Kris, when he was grooming the boys. And as smart as Tom may be, He sounds very inmature in his speaking

  121. During that call, I did tell her to be careful, but it wasn’t about extortion. It was concealment of a homicide,” Smith replied.

    Exactly how far south was Brodsky thinking he was gonna go? I’m thinking he may have gone down to Argentina!

    I’m surprised that Greenberg let him call Harry! Oh, nevermind – I keep forgetting that Brodsky is the “Brains” of this operation! 🙂

    WOW. Just WOW!


  122. Oh, and Tom’s testimony couldn’t have been more scripted IMO. He specifically said “Stacy CALES”. I mean really, what kid especially a boy knows what his mother’s bathing habits are? Give me a break. 🙄

    Like I said this morning, Tom only knows what he was told to know!

  123. Welcome back Robert Frank…hope you’re feeling better.

    Today was indeed a great day for the prosecution…the defense not only scored several own goals with Harry Smith…but resorted to the desperate measure of introducing the testimony of someone who was 11 years old at the time of the murder and seems to be the only person in the world who is living under the illusion that Drew was beside himself with grief at the loss of the woman who threatened to dilute his cherished police pension.

    Kudos to the Prosecution for not ripping the kid to pieces…as to do so would have likely upset the jury.

    It would be good for the jury to get the case by Friday…as it would likely speed up deliberations and reduce the risk of the hold-out juror. Which is probably why the Defense stated they want closing arguments to begin on Tuesday.

  124. I heard on In Session this morning that they don’t want the jury to get the case until Tuesday. They don’t want them to have to deliberate over the holiday weekend. They meaning the judge and the attorneys.

  125. Public Agency‏@PublicAgency

    @josharrk Your fans gotta know – What did you and @SGcrimlaw say to Brodsky after he elicited the “for concealing a homicide” testimony

    Joseph R. Lopez‏@josharrk

    @PublicAgency @sgcrimlaw none of your business

    Hmm…. seems like someone struck a nerve. 🙂

  126. Poor Thomas, what a terrible position to be in ……..

    Thomas says his father was very upset; he’s never seen him so upset; yet the same father kept badmouthing this boys mother after her demise of a “slip and fall”.

    He tried to needlessly paint her death as the result of Kathleen being a drunk and medication affected woman, not only to his friends and associates, but the Insurance assessor of all people – what point was he trying to make there ??

    He may have been “upset” at home, but he wasn’t anywhere else ……

  127. Kind of like the same face some people put on when the family dog got out and run over, or put to sleep, and then having to tell the kids. So sad.!! Even if the “People” don’t really care, they have to put on that face for the kids

  128. So there’s a huge surprise. “OJ” Peterson when accused of murdering his 3rd wife will NOT take the stand in his own defense.

    Why would that be? I can only think of 3 possible reasons

    1) He hates talking in public and believes he would make a lousy witness.

    2) He’s scared the Pros will impeach his credibility with prior bad acts..

    3) He’s guilty as charged and is exercising his right to avoid self-incrimination.

    Of course, his actions will not be commented upon by the attorneys or the court, and the jurors can not consider his failure to declare his innocence during deliberations…so I suppose we too shouldn’t speculate why the publicity-seeking police sergeant with no prior criminal convictions will not be taking the stand to proclaim his innocence of this capital crime.

  129. So Lopez is stating that Abood and Odeh were terminated? Would love to hear from both of them as far as that goes. Maybe Lopez is not on the up and up.

  130. “Tom Peterson on visitations: “We all had a really good time. Stacy was very fun.”

    So home life at Petersons family no 4 was great fun.

    They all had a really good time and Stacy was very fun, yet only a few years later Stacy “ran away” leaving all these children behind and hasn’t been seen since.

  131. Tom implied his father was beside himself with grief when he gave the kids the news.

    Well that’s in stark contrast to what Officer Falat testified about Peterson’s demeanor when he was interviewed at 6.10 am just hours after he saw Kathy’s dead body

    “Do you recall what time you began to speak with the defendant?” “Approximately 6:10 am.”
    Who was present?” “
    Just myself, Sgt. Pat Collins, and Drew Peterson.”
    “Did other people come and go out of that room?”
    “Not during our interview…the majority of it was conducted by Sgt.Pat Collins.”
    “What was your role?” “
    To take notes, and write down what was said.”
    “What question did you ask the defendant?”
    “There was a question Sgt. Collins asked about any financial gain…I asked exactly what financial gain Mr. Peterson might get from Ms. Savio’s death. He said they had a
    $300,000 house that was all his now.”
    The witness describes the defendant as “jovial…he was joking almost with us.”

    Source IS Testimony August 22

  132. Two of Peterson’s attorneys — George Lenard of Joliet and Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich. — filed motions to withdraw from Peterson’s murder case.

    The motions for both men cited “irreconcilable differences with co-counsel Joel Brodsky” and stated that “to go forth and proceed to trial would violate our firm’s ethical duty to zealously represent the best interests of our client.”,/blockquote>


  133. @ fac…thanks for posting the fb updates from in session.

    After reading them i have two questions:

    What was Brodsky trying to achieve by getting Tom to say that on three day weekends the kids were given to Drew for all three days? (Given the Pros objected..i assume this must be important to the Defense but i’m cant figure out why).

    What did Brodsky hope to achieve by getting Tom to say the screen door was sometimes open he returned to his mothers home?

    Any answers?

  134. a.) I have NO idea what that testimony did for the defense. It would seem to help the prosecution – because why was Drew trying to return the boys on Sunday and “concerned” when Kathy didn’t answer the door if the agreement was that he would keep them all three days?

    b.) The screen door was not locked when the locksmith accessed the front door. Other witnesses for the prosecution had testified that she always kept it locked. Tom did say that if the door was unlocked it wasn’t “unusual”, so I guess that went towards the defense.

  135. Robert, so sorry we didn’t know you’d been in the hospital. I do hope everything is all great, now, or at least a lot better!
    Have read all your posts, and appreciated them so much!
    i was ferrying my dad around all afternoon. I feel like I deserted the ship-but at least it wasn’t the prosecution that sank today. Don’t guess the defense will be wearing matching outfits tomorrow, hehehe…sounds like trouble in the fo’castle. (How’s that for analogies?) I’m bad.
    So what happens tomorrow?

  136. @ fac..so we agree on point a…it certainly seems to hurt Peterson…another own goal.

    As for point b …I cant understand why it matters to the defense whether the screen door was open or closed. Last time i looked the defense’s only argument was that there was no murder…simply an accident.

    Seems like Brodsky got spooked by something and was goaded into putting on a couple of other witnesses Smith and Tom ….and in doing do not only went off-message. but may have done his client considerable harm inside the jury room.

    Who is a juror to believe about Kathy’s hair wash habits…the memories of a 19 year old boy about baths with his mom when he was all of five years old…or the testimony of her 51 year old lover an at the time she was murdered, as corroborated by Kathy’s adult sister. All Brodsky did was underline the importance of the fact that Kathy’s hair was unusually down at the time she allegedly took her final bath

    As for Smith, all Brodsky succeeded in doing was corroborating the testimony of The Pastor. This really helps the Pros, because to some degree The Pastor was undercut by the admission he sent Kathy back to be with a murderer…suggesting he was not convinced by her confession.

    But Smith was clearly convinced by Stacy’s confession.Not only did Smith testify that Stacy reported the “FACT that Drew had murdered Kathy”….but he was so convinced by her remarks that he felt professionally obligated to warn her that she could be in trouble for covering up the homicide.

  137. Tom Peterson recounting how upset his father was when he told him Savio had died. “I’ve never seen someone so sad,” Tom says. “He was very very shaken up about it. …”very troubling to see him so shaken up.”

    “troubling” That is SUCH a lawyer-fed word.

    …their failure to do anything doesn’t lead to any conclusion that makes it more likely than not that a crime was committed, or that Mr. Peterson committed a crime… it’s burden-shifting… it’s very troubling to me… so we’re asking that you restrict them from getting into that.”

  138. @ Fac…agree “troubling” is a lawyer-fed word, but in fairness Tom does attend an Ivy League school, so its not all together unbelievable.

    That said, the jury will need to weigh the testimony of a 19 year old student about what he remembers about his father’s actions concerning a trauma he experienced 8 years ago when he was only 11, with the matter-of-fact testimony of Officer Falat that Peterson was JOVIAL during an interview at 6.10am that morning, probably a couple of hours before he broke the news to Tom.

  139. IMO Tom’s statement about the screen door not being locked to be “not unusual” is neither here or there as I take it neither boys at the young age of their mothers death ever came home that late to know if the screen door was left unlocked at night.

    He simply wouldn’t know that ……..

  140. Drew Peterson defense witness called ‘gift from God’ by prosecutor
    In latest twist, Stacy Peterson divorce lawyer called to testify — against advice of other defense attorneys

    By Steve Schmadeke, Matthew Walberg and Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune reporters

    “It’s a gift from God,” State’s Attorney James Glasgow was overheard saying outside the courtroom after Smith finished testifying.

    Before defense attorneys called Smith to the stand, the judge warned them of the possible consequences and Peterson lawyer Steve Greenberg could be heard in the courthouse hallway urging Brodsky not to do it.

    “I’ve filed 74 (expletive) motions to keep him out and now you’re going to undo all of it,” Greenberg said in a loud, exasperated voice.

    As jurors intently took notes, Smith surprised defense attorneys by describing Savio’s query differently.

    “She wanted to know if the fact that he killed Kathleen could be used against him,” Smith testified, later adding that he had told Stacy to be careful and advised her she could be charged with a crime.

    After Smith testified a second time that Stacy told him “Drew killed Kathleen,” defense attorney Joseph Lopez called out “Joel!” and motioned Brodsky over to the defense table. Brodsky then dropped the line of questioning.

    Pamela Bosco, the spokeswoman for Stacy Peterson’s family, said her heart broke for Savio as she watched Thomas Peterson vouch for his father.

    “That’s what the sad thing about this is,” Bosco said. “This man, this coward would rather put his son on the stand to testify than testify himself.”

    In a courthouse elevator after testifying, Thomas Peterson declined a request to speak with reporters camped outside.

    “God, no,” he said softly. “I don’t want any part of that.”


  141. @ Hen…great point.

    My other point was irrespective of how Tom answered the question, how does this fact support the defenses only argument that the death was an accident.

  142. “I’ve filed 74 (expletive) motions to keep him out and now you’re going to undo all of it,” Greenberg said in a loud, exasperated voice.

    Freeeeeking unbelievable! Such a ‘fail’ couldn’t have happened to a more-deserving defendant.

  143. Disagree Hen….Joel had already driven the bus south over the Mexican border and Greenberg tried his best to redirect the out of control bus in a Northerly direction …but the vehicle had already lost four tires and hopefully some engine parts. The damage was done.

  144. “My other point was irrespective of how Tom answered the question, how does this fact support the defenses only argument that the death was an accident”

    Oxy, I’m not sure where they were going with that question either.

    It seems totally irrelevant to someone having a bath at any time of the day or night ……

  145. From tonight’s AP

    “In comments to reporters later Wednesday, Brodsky stood by the decision to call the divorce attorney.
    “We have now given a motive for Stacy to fabricate (her claims that her husband killed Savio),” he said.”

    Nice try Joel….shame you failed miserably

  146. WhooEee, WHAT a day! Who’d have guessed that with all the motions, objections and courtroom antics by the Defense team this last month that they’d sink their own ship! We’ve always known Brodsky was a crass self-promoter and he proved it today by going against his own team and blowing the whole case in one fell swoop.

    I was gone today and it took me over two hours to read everything, but two things stuck out:

    1 — When Brodsky was grilling Smith about the phone call from Stacy, he asked Smith why Stacy never retained him as her lawyer. Didn’t I read somewhere that Stacy disappeared within a few days of that phone call? If so, didn’t Brodsky’s question open up the door for the Prosecution to ask on cross why Stacy didn’t follow through? I saw that Burmilla called them to the bench after that question. Did Burmilla save Brodsky’s butt on that one?

    2. I was also quite unnerved by Thomas’ stilted testimony. It came across as very fake and not what a teen would normall say. For example, when he was asked who lived in his father’s house, he said ““My father, Drew Peterson, and Stacy Cales. And I believe Anthony Peterson, and Laci, too. And my brother Kristopher; he’s 18.” Why would he call Stacy by her maiden name? THAT is weird. They were married at that point, so why wouldn’t he call her just Stacy. Or, if he wanted to be formal, why not Stacy Peterson. She wasn’t Stacy Cales at the time of Kathleen’s death.

    It all seemed very rehearsed — somewhat like the testimony from Stacy after Kathy’s death.

  147. Guess I was confused about whose testimony was impeached. Thought it was HS but apparently according to Defense, HS impeached the testimony of Stacy Cales?

  148. @ AtlGran

    Re Smth …The judge had forbid both sides from mentioning the fact that Stacy disappeared.

    In any case the correct answer to the question as to why he didn’t
    follow thru with Stacy was that Smith had a conflict of interest as he had already been retained by Kathy’s family in a matter that could directly impact Stacy’s financial well-being. In the end after biting his tongue he gave the correct answer although I bet he was aching to give some color commentary about Stacy’s disappearance. Good on him for retaining his professionaliism

    As for Tom…Lets hope the jury was able to spot that Tom had been well-coached just as easily as you apparently did from many thousand miles away.

  149. A little detail…it was implied by a tweet from Public Agency posted on here at 6.39pm that Smith had replied to a Brodsky question that he had warned Stacy about “covering up a homicide”.

    Turns out that this specific reply never made it to the jury…it was something he said to reporters outside the courtroom after his testimony.

    Nevertheless this does not negate that Smith had earlier told the jury that Stacy referred to the FACT that Drew had killed Kathy.

    MOD EDIT: For clarity

  150. Facs,
    I agree with you about Tom’s strange choice of words. I don’t care what school he goes to, how many 19 year olds, says my Mother’s “household”, instead of saying, my Mother’s “house”. The following statement is from Tom’s testimony.

    The witness says that it was “only weekends” when he and his brother would visit the defendant. “My father would come to my mother’s household, and pick up both Kristopher and I.

    His whole testimony sounded so very weird to me. Very controlled, as if he had been rehersing every word to say, and to remember certain things to say.
    Poor kid. Too bad his Dad didn’t have the balls to get up there, instead of making his son do it for him. So much for Drew’s big tough, smart guy image. He just proved how tough, and smart he is. What a Wimp ! Hiding behind his 19 year old kid. So disgusting, big coward, is what he is.

  151. Oxymoran, we only have what the media is reporting at this point as an indicator of what the testimony is.

    Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that the In Session facebook updates are actual transcripts of court proceedings. They are not. They are just reports posted while listening to the audio feed in the the overflow room at the court house and they do contain omissions and typos.

    The Tribune reports that Smith did, in fact, say on the stand that he warned Stacy about concealing a homicide.

    On re-direct, defense attorney Joel Brodsky asked whether Smith warned Stacy to be careful because she could be charged with extortion.

    “During that call, I did tell her to be careful, but it wasn’t about extortion. It was concealment of a homicide,” Smith replied.


    CBS also reported that this was stated on the stand.

  152. Stacy St. Clair tweeted this from inside the courtroom, as the cross-examination was occurring:

  153. On re-direct, defense attorney Joel Brodsky asked whether Smith warned Stacy to be careful because she could be charged with extortion.

    “During that call, I did tell her to be careful, but it wasn’t about extortion. It was concealment of a homicide,” Smith replied.

    “She said, ‘Could we get more money out of Drew if we threatened to tell police about how he killed Kathy, and you to be careful because you could be arrested for extortion?” Brodsky said.

    “No, that’s not what I told her,” Smith said.


  154. OK good news. I’ve found a real-time tweet from a second court reporter confirming the testimony!

    BJ Lutz ‏@bjlutz
    Brodsky: Did you tell SP to be careful becuz she could be arrsted for extortion? Smith: No, fear was abt being arrested for hiding homicide.

    Ironically its BJ Lutz of NBC who also said the statement occurred outside the courtroom and confused me in the first place.

    Fac,,,as usual you are right!

  155. I think it was HS who saved Brodder’s arse… he could’ve have answered before anyone coud stop him!
    Brodsky has always been about making the biggest splash possible for his vanity, end of.
    He’s not the one facing prison. He will still be smiling when DP’s convicted.

  156. Oh bucket… I wish he had answered that question! I couldn’t believe when Brodsky asked it. Poor Harry didn’t know what to do!

  157. Hey HJ. Me, too, but I must say, that as a juror I would be trying to figure out what that’s all about…and with a decent likliehood of coming up with the right answer.

    Yo Charmed!
    I think he maybe contracturallyobliged to, ha ha ha ha ha.

  158. I think Dr Blum may be bringing a pocketful of macrophages for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. (macro=big phage=eater), but if he doesn’t, they’ll be along in seconds! LOL!

  159. Yes, it is! He got under DP’s skin. *That* was funny. DP whined that GR manipulated him which is unfair because he trusted him because he’s a celebrity.


    Then there’s this


    scroll down to page 6 🙂

Comments are closed.