Highlight of jury instruction conference from Drew Peterson trial. Who needs cameras in the courtroom?

They do it in Taiwan, you know. When there isn’t any video and no photographs available for a news story, the news agencies in Taiwan create a computer-generated animation to go along with the report.

Here at Justice Café, we may not have the resources to go quite that far, but we do what we can.

~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.~


101 thoughts on “Highlight of jury instruction conference from Drew Peterson trial. Who needs cameras in the courtroom?

  1. lol
    Brodsky actually appears semi intelligent as an animated character. But I know that video was entertainment and I should not mistake it as fact. 😉

  2. In fairness, the last bit of argument was actually Greenberg. That’s probably why he might have seemed more intelligent.

    But the “taken by surprise” part was all Joel.

  3. Kathleen Savio’s sister, Sue Savio, would like to be in Joliet next week for the closing arguments/deliberation/verdict.

    If anyone has hotel connections and can find a way to get her a reduced rate or free lodging, please email me at petersonstory@gmail.com and I will put you in touch.

    Thank you!

  4. I’ve lurked for years, here, too and just wanted to give a shout out of thanks to the keepers of this blog for all the updates all this time. I followed this from the beginning. There used to be several blogs regarding this case, but they eventually evaporated so I really appreciate that you kept this going.

  5. I was just reading Thomas peterson testimony again from Aug. 30. On page 9 paragraph two, he says, his mom would wrap her hair in a towel.

  6. Yep, Grandam. I’m wondering how that was supposed to help the defense since everyone testified that there was no towel in the room and it only showed up in the investigator’s photos taken hours after her body was discovered and the EMTs had left.

  7. Sure hope the prosecution was watching Judge Jeanine! THAT’S the kind of closing they need. Based on their many calamitous bloopers, it’s painfully apparent they could use the instruction she provided them tonight. She wrapped the whole thing up in minutes using only what was entered into evidence and explained why circumstantial evidence is more reliable than an eye witness. It’s easy to see why she’s where she is. Lord, I hope the prosecution was watching!

  8. Welcome, Zebras and Aimee. It still tend to think that the pathologists’ testimony might cancel each other out, but throw in the circumstantial evidence and a jury could reasonably conclude that drew killed Kathleen.

    I liked Gold’s analogy that a person could stay up all night and watch it snow and then say in the morning that it had snowed, but a reasonable person could also go to bed the night before, wake up to snow on the ground and say, yes it snowed.

  9. Harry Smith rightly pointed out Brodsky’s Big Blunder. Only an inexperienced attorney would put a witness on the stand not knowing what he was going to say. The defense couldn’t afford to be “taken by surprise” at that point in the trial, but that’s what happened and Joel took no steps to remedy it while his witness was on the stand.

  10. This is a question for anyone who has attended the trial so far. What time do people start lining up, please? I’m thinking about attending on Tuesday. If I get in, I will come back here to report.

  11. If I can ask another question please, how many tickets are given out each day? Also, do they once again give out tickets after lunch, or is it that once you’re in, you’re in for the entire day and can return with that same ticket after lunch? Thank you for your answer.

  12. Not sure about the morning vs afternoon session, but I think they start lining up around 3-4AM. Saw an interview on InSession with a older gal who started handing numbered papers to people as they arrive, to keep later-comers from trying to take ‘cuts’. She said that the person, from the courthouse, who comes somewhere around 8AM to pass out the tickets, is glad that she is doing this, to keep the order. So probably you need to arrive early to get a ticket. Good luck! If you get in, please post your impressions of the closing arguments. 🙂

  13. OMG! 3-4 am?!? I’ll keep checking back, hoping that someone who has been to the Trial answers. No offense and thank you very much for your answer, but it’s one I don’t like! 😉

  14. I’m hearing that the older gal is holding seats for her friends so make sure if you get there early to stick up for yourself and don’t rely on other courtroom observers to keep order. That’s up to the court officials.

  15. I watched Judge Jeanine tonight too and her final commentary – summation was a blockbuster!

    I’m looking forward to the prosecution’s closing argument. If they can pull together all the bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence into a narrative that shows that Kathleen’s death was a homicide and that Drew Peterson had the means, motive, and opportunity to kill her, I think there’s an excellent chance for a conviction!

    Hearing Dr. Blum describe to Judge Jeanine his observations that led him to believe Kathleen’s death was a homicide made me understand it a lot better than reading the testimony. I also liked hearing from the former NYPD investigator.

    I only wish that the prosecution could have presented a financial accounting of the marital assets that were to be the subject of the property settlement hearing that was to take place a few weeks after Kathleen’s death. This would have been been strong evidence for a motive. Drew stood to profit financially.

  16. Without any physical evidence linking the former Bolingbrook police sergeant to the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, the final soliloquies provide the only chance for attorneys to show jurors how several pieces of circumstantial evidence come together to either prove or refute Peterson’s guilt.

    “They’re going to be incredibly important for both of us,” said Peterson attorney Joseph Lopez, who will handle arguments for the defense. “Both sides know that the stakes are high. I expect the prosecution to have a great closing, and I’m going to give it everything I’ve got too.”

    Prosecutor Chris Koch will give the state’s closing argument, with State’s Attorney James Glasgow providing the final words as he rebuts Lopez’s remarks to jurors. Koch — a no-nonsense lawyer who has handled several of the trial’s trickiest witnesses — declined to discuss his closing but offered a possible preview of his remarks in routine motions before the court Friday.

    In essence, he will tell jurors that accumulated evidence will show that no one else besides Peterson had the motive or means to kill Savio. If jurors use their common sense, prosecutors will say, they’ll find that they can convict him even without DNA, fingerprints or witnesses tying him to the death scene.

    “The circumstantial evidence isn’t just one piece of evidence, but all taken together,” Koch said. “If you look at testimony from expert witnesses, it’s not consistent with accidental slip and fall.”


  17. Facs, thanks so much for the court animation. It was a much needed giggle. I’m thinking it could be a regular series at JC.
    Hats off to Jack Ruby for providing Sue Savio with a room.
    Victims Heartland, I’m going to watch the link you posted. I missed it yesterday, so a “thank you” to you, too!

  18. I liked the Judge’s summation even if she did get a couple of things messed up as far as the sequence of events. Overall, it still tells the story that the circumstantial evidence has built very well!

    She omitted the point at which Kathleen is undressed – did Peterson order her to strip before he drowned her or did he strip her body before putting her in the tub? Maybe it doesn’t matter.

    I do agree with the scenario overall, but I believe he did fill the tub after placing her in it. There was pruning on her fingers. The tub drained due to the faulty stopper. I think the ISP did test it at one point and it took about two hours to drain. But again, I don’t think we need to guess at or even be correct about the actual sequence of events to be convinced that he killed her. Like Attorney Gold said, you can wake up in the morning and see snow on the ground and know that it snowed during the night before.

    What’s this about a son’s missing key? Did I miss that in someone’s testimony?

  19. Judge Jeanine gave a good “make sense” summary of the testimony and people who came forward on Kathleen’s behalf. The fact that they did not have connections to each other is powerful when you consider a botched crime scene investigation. I hope the prosecution is able to pull all of the pieces together for the jurors in their closing.

  20. I want to take Tom Peterson’s testimony statement, “I have never seen someone so shaken,” Thomas Peterson told jurors. “It was troubling to see.”
    and surround it with all of the media clips we have over the years stating from Peterson, himself, that he has been “trained” not to show emotion. So we’re to believe that Drew was so distraught over a woman he no longer loved and wanted out of his life, that he broke down in front of Kathleen’s friends and then again, in front of his own children? I don’t believe for a minute that Tom Peterson wasn’t aware that his mom was very afraid of his dad.

  21. And good ol’ jokester Drew was “jovial” with the ISP the next day, after getting up bright and early to plunder his ex-wife’s house.

    On the show Sue Savio said that when she got to the house the next day there were 7-8 garbage bags of Kathleen’s clothes readied for the family. Drew was pretty industrious despite all that grief.

  22. Tom Peterson may not even realize he is very much afraid of his father who is ruling him from his jail cell and thru his lawyer JB. DP has groomed his children from birth and preached that we all stick together, ‘spirit de corps’ message he learned in his military and police brotherhood. I want to talk to Tom in a few years after DP is safely locked up in prison and Tom has some education and years to think about this tragedy.

  23. I do hope the jury gets it right, even if they did not know Anything or much about this case beforehand and even though the chopped up testimonies and critical things not being allowed in. I believe if they don’t, and then do some research about this case afterwards, they will have nightmares

  24. I would hate to be on this jury and find him not guilty , the! majority of the people believe he is guilty . The only possible saving factor is that some day he will be charged with Stacy’s murder , how many years until she can be legally declared dead ? How many years until he can divorce her for abandonment?

  25. Ellie, they don’t have to legally declare Stacy dead before Drew can be charged with her murder. Many a murder case has been won without a body of evidence.

  26. Do you all think there is something sealed, that will enable his arrest for Stacy, should he walk free from Kathleen?

  27. Lopez Twitters this evening just show his Unprofessionalism, pretty sad, when a self proclaimed high profile Defense lawyer sounds like a whining baby on Twitter. Maybe he should stay off some of those networking things during a trial, and act like what he proclaims to be. When you are on Twitter or whatever else, you are going to invite the good, bad and ugly. His method should have been ignore, instead of responding. Shows me his mind set, and its not in his favor

  28. Yes, lostacres. I also wonder if there is something else in addition to Stacy’s murder lurking in the archives of the Grand Jury investigation. Judge White looked at everything and decided the enormous $$$$ on his head should remain intact. I pray for the Savios sake that there is some degree of a guilty verdict. If for some reason the jury wants a TV version of evidence, then we could see an outcome like Casey Anthony. (still makes my blood boil) Another arrest is sure to follow either way. IMO There are too many people who will possibly have their lives at risk, should he walk. Drew Peterson had a lot of cash handy. Those funds had to come from somewhere. imo

  29. Facs, there has never been anything confident about the defense. They are putting on a show, and a show it is to all of them. Nothing to do with an innocent man going free, its all about winning. I do not believe all Defense lawyers work in this manner. These guys are a joke.

  30. I know that they can charge him with Stacy’s murder now but will it not help if she is legally declared dead rather than missing?
    The DF is trying to engage people to gather public opinion for the closing, why else would Lopez be seeking follower except his elephant size ego.

  31. Today we’re going to talk about a somewhat depressing topic that’s in the news all-too-frequently: People who are missing and presumed to be dead.

    Illinois, where I live, is home to Stacy Peterson, the fourth wife of former police officer Drew Peterson. No one has seen or heard from Stacy since Oct. 2008, and her husband is in jail, where he has been charged with murder in connection with the death of his third wife. These days, this is one of the more high-profile cases of a person who is missing and presumed dead.

    If someone has died – under natural, accidental or criminal circumstances – but no body has been found, how can he or she be declared dead? In the legal system, there’s something known as death in absentia (also known as presumption of death). This is a legal ruling that, despite the absence of a body, a person is presumed to be dead.

    What Does a Death in Absentia Ruling Involve?

    Death in absentia laws vary from state to state. Typically, at least one of the following criteria must be satisfied before someone is presumed to be dead:

    • The person has been missing for four to seven years, those close to the person have had no contact with him and a diligent search has failed to find him, or
    • The person was exposed to imminent peril (such as an airplane crash or the collapse of the World Trade Center) and did not return

    If a missing person falls into either of these categories, a petition can be filed asking the state to declare him legally dead. The state usually requires a public notice to be filed, officially notifying the missing person of the death in absentia petition.


  32. Ellie – we’ve had some discussions on that in the past when Drew was consulting an attorney about divorcing Stacy. He, of all people would not be trying to get her declared dead since it would mean a division of assets and most likely insurance questions.

    As for the Cales, I don’t know if they have looked into it or not.

  33. Here’s another item to read related to the discussion:

    …Yet these are factors that probate judges take into account when considering petitions to having missing persons declared dead, according to Oak Park probate attorney Joel Schoenmeyer, proprietor of “Death and Taxes, the Blog.”

    Schoenmeyer pointed out that the sections of the Illinois Compiled Statutes that deal in probate law lay out numerous formal steps that petitioners must take in order to succeed. These include spreading the word far and wide that you’re planning to have a person declared dead, and demonstrating that you’ve diligently searched for the person.

    The seemingly extraordinary question then becomes just like many of the ordinary questions that judges face every day: Where does the evidence point?

    If the preponderance of evidence points toward death, then the missing person is declared dead. If it points toward life, the legal waiting game continues, sometimes well beyond seven years.

    These standards will apply in the Fossett case and, perhaps, someday, in the cases of Lisa Stebic and Stacy Peterson as well as some of the estimated 50,000 other adults that the National Center for Missing Adults says can’t be found.

    It’s a fascinating area of law, really. Fascinating but very sad….


    Lots of links to information at the end of that column, too.

  34. The family of Bradley Olsen, who is also missing from Northern Illinois, has been trying to get him declared dead for quite a while so that his daughter can collect SS, but it has been very difficult.

  35. Wow, yes of course DP does not want to declare her dead but can he divorce her on grounds of desertion,if he is freed he might try to do that so he can remarry . How sick would that be? I wonder if he would be allowed to do that would it create a challenge for the Cales family to then declare her dead?

  36. Lopez is in his Pillsbury Dough world. Nothing send his way means anything to him. After all, there is “NO EVIDENCE”

  37. “And good ol’ jokester Drew was “jovial” with the ISP the next day, after getting up bright and early to plunder his ex-wife’s house.

    On the show Sue Savio said that when she got to the house the next day there were 7-8 garbage bags of Kathleen’s clothes readied for the family. Drew was pretty industrious despite all that grief.”

    I know I’m a bit slow, but I am still pondering all these times Drew went to the house when he supposedly didn’t have any (official) access………

    I still believe young Nick Pontarelli’s statement he saw Drew, Steven and Stacy early in the morning next day and took “stuff” out of the house.

    Drew finished being interwiewed at BB Police Station around 7.30 am, so he had plenty of time to go home, round up Steven and Stacy and start plundering.

    Then when he knew the Savio family was at the house, he went back banging on the door ……

    Next he also plundered the house when the family was at the wake……

    My question remains – how did he get into the house all these times – other than the time the family let him in ……

  38. It would be extremely hard (and ill-advised) for Drew Peterson to divorce Stacy Peterson on the grounds of desertion. He would be compelled to show that the reason she left had nothing to do with bad acts on his part.

    …In order to use Desertion as a ground for divorce, the deserting spouse must have willfully deserted or absented himself or herself from the other spouse for the space of one year, including any period during which litigation (for dissolution of marriage) may have pended between the spouses.

    The party claiming desertion must prove the absence of the other spouse for a minimum of a year and a day and must also prove, generally by testimony, that the desertion was not caused or provoked by the party left behind.

    Desertion may not be what you think it is.

    Illinois case law protects the innocent spouse in a situation where he or she is forced out of the home because of the other spouse’s behavior. The law will not allow the wrongdoer spouse, in this situation, to claim desertion against the innocent spouse.

    Drew Peterson looked into divorcing Stacy in the fall of 2008, but most likely this is why he never followed through on it.

    And going back to declaring Stacy dead. I doubt the Cales would pursue this as again it would mean settling her estate, which at this point would rightly go to Drew and/or to her children (she adopted Kris and Tom after K died, so that’s four kids). Drew has often expressed a desire to leave the state and start over. I can’t imagine the Cales doing anything that would make it easier for Drew to sell the house and take the kids away from them, out of state and possibly out of their lives forever (if he is acquitted of Kathleen’s murder).

  39. It’s interesting to note that the Lifetime Channel is presenting the made-for-tv movie about Drew Peterson again tonight. This is the second time this month that Lifetime has shown “Untouchable.”

    I have faith and confidence that the prosecution will deliver a great closing argument. And even if the defense pulls together a decent closing argument, the prosecution still has the final word with a rebuttal, which I understand will be given by Glascow.

    Then the jury instructions, and then we wait. It’s conceivable that this case will go to the jury sometime on Wednesday. We may have a verdict by the end of this week!

    After waiting nearly 5 years for Drew Peterson to be brought to justice, it hardly seems possible that we’re almost there!

  40. I think you are talking about 2 different things. While they may charge him in Stacy’s death, they do not have to declare her dead to do so.

    That sounds silly when I read it but I know what I mean.

  41. Declaring Stacy deceased does mean 2 different things. I am simply stating if Drew is convicted of killing Kathy and in prison declaring Stacy dead would mean a lot to her young children. Settling her estate and protecting her children.

    If Drew is convicted and sentenced to life in prison then that is justice in a way for Stacy’s demise.

  42. Who is providing some accountability for how Steven is raising the kids and how he is using their money ? Who is speaking on behalf of those kids , a cop charged with murder or a cop that has been fired from the PD? Is there any formal guadianship with court oversight and accountability? Or did DP just have Steven move in and provide power of attorney? If that is the case then that does not provide any protection financially and emotionally to the kids. If there is court accountability then it would seem that Kathy’s & Stacy’s family would have access to visitation and not leave it up to DP to set those guidelines. Has Child Family Services ever been brought in to protect the kids? Who’s money is Steven using to wage his case against Oakbrook PD ?

  43. Ellie, bear in mind that Drew Peterson hasn’t been found guilty of anything. On what grounds would anyone have the right to intercede with the guardianship of his kids?

    From the first days of Stacy’s disappearance Drew was putting his affairs in order and making plans for any contingency (especially for his potential arrest). He’s got the advice of a team of lawyers to make sure that the family continues to be run the way he wants.

    IIRC, someone called DCFS early on when Drew was seen out on the town a lot and the young kids seemed to be left alone a lot with the teens, but as far as I know everything was in order. In those days I think it was lawyer Reem Odeh who was helping out with legal issues relating to the kids.

    Kris and Tom did have a court assigned guardian ad litem representing them in regards to their mom’s estate matters, but now that they are both 18 I would assume that is no longer the case.

    I realize that this could sound a bit hypocritical, considering how deeply I’ve delved into the stories and histories of people involved in this case, but I actually think as long as the kids are safe and being nurtured that some of this stuff really isn’t our business. It’s up to the Cales and the Savios and the Petersons to come together and hammer out what’s in the best interest of the children.

    Naturally, out of interest in the case we are curious and concerned, but I don’t feel that we are owed any answers.

    From what I hear through the grapevine, the two little ones are happy, outgoing and thriving.

  44. I have to agree with Noway that I’m not so sure a conviction for murder of Kathleen would clear the way to getting Stacy declared dead.

    I also don’t see how it would change the fact that Drew would most likely inherit all of Stacy’s assets. Conviction and imprisonment wouldn’t have an impact on his right to inherit. As far as I know. imprisonment doesn’t strip a person of their property rights.

    Of course, the Savios could always go after him with that pending wrongful death suit…but seeing as the boys have taken their names off of it…

    Gah, my head is spinning.

  45. Anyone else getting annoyed with the preponderance of “jury dressing alike” stories? Good God, you’d think that they were going to signal their verdict by the color of their clothes – like the puff of smoke when electing a pope. I’m so over it.

  46. Facs,
    I understand your position but he has been in prison for 3 years , a significant time out of a young childs live. Yes it is up to the Savio’s and Cales, probably yet to be decided pending the outcome of this case and if he is charged with Murder x2. I think your key word is nutured !
    It sounds like the rumor mill has it they are all thriving? Not sure how that can be true as they are victims of such tragedy but wait a few years when they all are older. Tell me how having him as a father is nuturing ? . The loss of two mothers is nuturing? But sadly this is all about Drew and his circus! So oftern occurs in families of domestic violence! It somehow becomes about the person inflicting the violence , as in this case the DF has Kathy a drugged up crazy lady who lies, and Stacy a tramp and extortionist. Is that going to be the nuturing image these kids grow up with.

  47. When i say “safe and nurtured” I just mean that they are being cared for and raised by people who love them. From what I hear, since Drew has been in jail awaiting trial, they have been allowed to spend time with some friends and relatives who had been barred from their lives while Drew was a free man. Stacy’s Aunt Candace was able to spend a weekend with them while she was in town for the trial a few weeks ago and even Drew’s estranged son, Eric, is spending time with the kids.

    Of course, losing a parent is a tragedy which will always be a part of their lives, and the possibility that it was at the hands of another parent makes it even worse.

    Still, even a tragic event like that is not going to keep a child from playing, learning and growing. I like to believe that the human spirit and plain old human nature gears us to overcome, to look for joy and to find our own happiness. I think this is especially true for the young.

  48. What time, tomorrow, do you think closings will actually get started? Lets see, attorneys will be ,at least, an hour late. court business,jury in jury out. My guess, around time for lunch and then lunch break!!!!!!!

  49. For some reason, Joel Brodsky seems to think that he can redeem his error of calling Attorney Harry Smith to the stand by making public the court transcripts of his direct and re-direct examination of Smith.

    Like, maybe if you READ the transcript it will erase the fact that SA Glasgow called it a “gift from God” and that Attorney Greenberg yelled at Brodsky in the hallway, “I’ve filed 74 (expletive) motions to keep him out and now you’re going to undo all of it” before Smith testified.

    Here you go. See if after reading this you’ll change your mind and think that it was a good decision:

    Transcript: Joel Brodsky’s direct and redirect examination of attorney Harry Smith

    (Document is only of Brodsky’s examination – not the States’)

  50. OK, I read it and this still sounds as bad for the defense as it did before:

    Q. Let’s see. Okay. Let me make sure I have the right page here. Isn’t it true that when — here it is. Isn’t it true that when Stacy Peterson asked you about threatening to tell the police and the, S-H-I-T, and Kathy, that you told her to be careful because she could be arrested for extortion?

    A. I think the, S-H-I-T, was separate from Kathy. During that call I did tell her to be careful, but it wasn’t about extortion.

    Q. That she could be arrested. What could she be arrested for?

    A. Concealment of a homicide.

  51. Hi Everyone!

    Yepper, still bad for the defense. I know you quoted it, but I think it would look better in BOLD print. 😉

  52. After reading this and his actions on the bench this judge IMO is prejudical and is aligned with the DF team. The lack of constraint on the DF teams actions , the jury acting in such disrespect for the systems with their color coded message , JL allowing to blog during the trial . It is a disservice of justice , and if I lived in Will country he would never get my vote!

  53. Honestly, I think the jury has already made up its mind by now, now they all just have to agree one way or the other. The rest was/is showmanship from the DF, and the Pros trying to get this case presented. What a cluster****

  54. No one wants to see your clip, no matter what hat you are wearing, other then to chuckle

    Joseph R. Lopez ‏@josharrk

    Anyone see my clip on ABC a few minutes ago I wore a Jeff Ruby Steakhouse hat thanks to Jeff the voice no none can stop

  55. fools! from the DF to DP , if they win this case I feel sorry for the people of Illinois , at least with the Florida trial you did not have such low class attorneys . No wonder JL has been kicked out of Federal Court .

  56. After reading the transcript of Joel’s exam of divorce attorney Harry Smith, I am now convinced that calling Smith was not the biggest faux-pas in the history of American Criminal Justice, and certainly no “Gift from God” as DA Glasgow claims.

    In fact, after studying the defense team’s bickering, I am been persuaded that:
    1) Drew Peterson is the innocent victim of a huge conspiracy which includes the Judge. the DA, Harry Smith, and all members of his defense team, except Brodsky
    2) Joel Brodsky is much smarter than the other members of the defense team and all other attorneys in Illinois.
    3) The Cubs will win the World Series in 2012

    Thank you, Joel, for sharing the detailed transcript and preventing a miscarriage of justice in the court of public opinion.

  57. Hi, Harley!

    And I think I need to eat some crow about Jeff Ruby. I wasn’t sure about his motives at the beginning but he responded immediately when the Savios needed help getting lodging in Joliet next week.

    He puts his money where his mouth is.

  58. Still not sure what JR’s motive is.. he hates DP obviously, but yet he is chatting with the doughboy Lopez on Twitter

  59. I really feel like Joe Lopez is posting out on Twitter in hopes of getting input from as many people as possible to try to cover anything people have brought up as why they think he is guilty. His methods are unorthodox without doubt – as is Brodsky. Think that the whole sink to the bottom Defense is the thing this year after Jose Baez’ successful defense of Casey Anthony. :/

  60. @ Fac…do you happen to know the EXACT wording of the four questions posed to DP during the polygraph that was ordered by Joel and highlighted in Armstong’s book ‘Drew Peterson Exposed’. I know the conclusions reached, but wondered what were the four PRECISE questions posed?

  61. All we know about the polygraph questions is the way Armstrong presented them. The polygraph was done at his request but as you know, he was not allowed to write the questions.

    This is how Armstrong presented the Q and A:

    1. Did you see your ex-wife Kathy alive anytime after you picked up the kids from her house on Friday, February 27, 2004?

    2. Did you have any type of contact with your ex-wife Kathy after you picked up the kids from her on Friday, February 27, 2004?

    3. Did you have any involvement in the death of your ex-wife Kathy in 2004?

    4. Were you present at the time of your ex-wife Kathy’s death?

    He showed no deception in answering “No” to these questions. However, Peterson did show deception in his answers to three out of six questions about Stacy Peterson:

    1. On Sunday, October 28, 2007, did you last see your wife Stacy in your home before going to bed but after coming home from work?

    2. Did you have any involvement in the physical removal of your wife Stacy from your home on Sunday, October 28, 2007?

    3. Did you in any way physically harm your wife Stacy during the time that she disappeared?

    4. Do you know the whereabouts of your wife Stacy?

    Then it would appear that these queestions were asked at a different session

    1. Did you receive a phone call from your wife Stacy on the evening of October 28, 2007, telling you that she was leaving you?

    2. Did your wife Stacy call you on Sunday, October 28, 2007, and tell you that if you wanted the car it was parked at the Clow Airport?

    Not sure everyone is familiar with Derek Armstrong, but he is a Canadian author of historical fiction who agreed to write a pro-Drew book with certain stipulations – one was the polygraph beforehand.

    Armstrong later tried to market the tapes of the conversations he had with Drew Peterson (he claimed over 200 hours), but when the State tried to subpoena him as a witness, he claimed Journalistic privilege, stated that everything he had on tape had already been made public (!?), and that he was no longer travelling to the US for interviews.

    These days, he does not even mention the book on his professional facebook page. His publishing venture, Kunati, (under which he produced the book) failed and closed down.

  62. I’m still hoping someone will log on who has been to the Trial. As much as I appreciate the response I got of people lining up at 3-4am, I don’t want that to be true! lol What in the world do people do with themselves for 5-6 hours until the doors open? How would you even go to the bathroom, and where?!? PLEASE someone, log on! 🙂

  63. Myowntime, I talked to Tony Quilico who has attended almost every day of trial and has been interviewed by Vinnie Politan a few times over the last weeks (If you’ve been watching In Session, you’ve seen her). In fact she and her friend are going to be followed by an In Session crew all day tomorrow.

    She suggests you get there by midnight tonight.


  64. Well thank you so much, Fac, appreciate the first-hand report. UGH! There is no way I’m going there at midnight, not a chance! What in the world will those people do for all of those hours? That’s really just insane if you ask me!

  65. A court attendee related this to me as of August 22. I’m guessing seating will be harder to get tomorrow:

    Woke up at 4:30AM on August 21st went and got coffee with a couple friends and we sat outside the Joliet courthouse where we received a number…I got number 11.

    We sat there from 5:00AM until 8:00AM and then they gave us a different sheet of paper that had our number on it. We went and got another coffee and came back and waited in line for the court doors to open at 8:30AM.

    Once inside the courthouse we took the elevator to the fourth floor. We lined up by numbers and were walked into the court room. We sat and waited…

  66. Jeff Ruby offers reward for finding Stacy Peterson’s body
    CINCINNATI – Cincinnati restaurateur Jeff Ruby announced Monday a six-figure financial reward for information leading to the whereabouts and recovery of Stacy Peterson’s body.

    Ruby made the announcement at Cincinnati police headquarters downtown Monday afternoon that he is offering a $100,000 reward.

    more at

  67. Thanks again, Facs, I might just head over there at 5:00ish and see what’s flyin’. Do you have any idea how many are allowed in each day? You’ve been so helpful, bless you!

  68. What I got from that transcript of Joel was that Drew killed Kathleen, Stacy knew Drew killed Kathleen, Greensburg knows Drew killed Kathleen, they believed Thomas knew Drew killed Kathleen, and Stacy told Mr. Smith that Drew killed Kathleen. Yes, Joel, you are a good lawyer….NOT!

  69. It just really frosts me that the Prosecution is so limited while the Defense is able to do basically anything they want. Then they go on Twitter and make half-truth-filled comments. The Prosecution experts were NOT ALLOWED to speculate or describe their theories about how Kathleen died. It isn’t that they do not have thoughts or ideas about how it happened. Smith was indeed not called by the Prosecution because they were walking on egg shells from their previous bad decisions / mistakes and unfortunately more of his testimony was never heard. There was so much restriction on what people could testify to that some people didn’t even get called and a some evidence wasn’t even allowed (many of the media appearances that Drew made). My take is – any of the media stunts should have been allowed. He went out to the public on his own and stated that he could con anyone. Why wasn’t that allowed? Oh and he admitted to a news crew that he cut a hole in the wall of his own house because it was HIS house and he could. Why wasn’t that allowed? And his own other son couldn’t testify about firsthand witnessing of violence by Drew against Kathleen. Why wasn’t that allowed? It unfortunately is possible to win a case when the Prosecutors have to fight with their hands tied behind their backs.

  70. Good morning, everyone! I know I’m several hours ahead of you guys – it’s almost 10am here in Europe. Looking forward to reading the closing arguments and the new posts today. I just want to say one more time, THANK YOU for this site!

  71. That statement from his mob boss/attorney really bothers me….”I’m going to break every rule in the book”. Is it possible for those guys to intimidate the jury? From what I’ve seen, the police seemed to be afraid of DP. Heck, at times the judge seemed to be afraid from what all he allowed the defense to keep out. If I were a juror, the visual message to me if the defendant needed that gaggle of lawyers would be…..not if but how many people did he kill?

Comments are closed.