Drew Peterson trial – Closing arguments Part 3: James Glasgow rebuts for the prosecution

UPDATE 04:17:

Judge says it took so long for closing arguments and the late hour, he is considering sending jurors home now.
Neither prosecution or defense objects. Jury won’t start deliberating until 9 am tomorrow.

UPDATE 03:30:

Jury coming back after quick argument over testimony of Teresa Kernc.
Glasgow says circumstantial evidence is better than eyewitness evidence. “It’s solid, it’s real.”
“If you put it all together you can absolutely see this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt”
Glasgow done with rebuttal.
Trial in recess. Jury instructions to follow.

UPDATE 03:00:

Glasgow reads Drew Peterson statements from CNN interview from 2008, questions on the weekend Savio died. Peterson indicated that he didn’t know it was a 3-day weekend.
“Clearly, out of the defendant’s own mouth, that says that he didn’t think this was a three-day weekend. And there were 12 phone calls throughout the day to Kathleen Savio’s house.”
Glasgow asks why Drew didn’t contact Savio family if concerned? Or other cops?
Glasgow says Drew’s behavior after Savio death “shows consciousness of guilt”
“She hasn’t been heard of or seen for 2 days, how many alarms would that set off in an investigator’s head?”
Glasgow says a cop calls other police when doing a well-being check, not “a teenage boy and a woman.”
Glasgow asks why, after he hears neighbor in Savio house scream, he didn’t pull his gun?
Jury sent out while Steve Greenberg objects, says prosecution claiming 2 incidents Savio had with Drew, not claimed that before. (Mary Parks’ testimony)
Objection is overruled. Judge calls for jury.
Glasgow: Kristin Anderson testimony backed up by phone records.
Judge sustaining several objections as Glasgow tries to talk about death scene investigation.
Glasgow: ” w/in 10 min of being there – evidence technician Deel determined it was an accident, and everyone went from there.”
Glasgow said Tom Peterson gave “valuable information” when he said it’d be unlikely for his mom to take a bath in the morning.
Glasgow says witness who says Drew tried to hire him to kill Savio is believable, he didn’t come forward or try to profit. Pachter “basically paid a price for coming in here.”

UPDATE 02:31:

Will County State’s Attorney James W. Glasgow

Glasgow begins rebuttal: ” I want to remind everyone that this trial is about the murder of Kathleen Savio.”
Glasgow says Lopez gave a “distorted view” in describing Savio’s head injuries. “The only thing damaged [on Savio’s head] was the skin.”
Glasgow tells jurors “I’m going to show you what a distortion you were just given (by defense”, Defense keeps trying to object.
Glasgow: Defense said “this was a slip and fall. But you know better than that.”
Glasgow points to copy of Savio death certificate and talks about info used for statistics. LOUD objection from defense.
Prosecutor Glasgow agrees to move on from death certificate talk. Jury being brought back in.
Glasgow changes tactics a bit, says there are documents in evidence which say death was accident “that’s not true”
We’re a minute into the rebuttal, the defense has objected 3 times and there have been 2 sidebars.This could take a while.
Glasgow: “Evidence clearly shows this is a homicide”, Defense objects 3 more times, all overruled.
Glasgow: “None of our experts wavered from their opinion.” Defense witnesses have conceded “it’s possible” case is a homicide.
Prosecutor Glasgow talking to jury about mark on Savio’s buttock, saying it’s an abrasion. Tub surface couldn’t have cause it.
Prosecutor Glasgow says defense expert acknowledged Savio death could have been murder. State experts never wavered, he says.
Glasgow says in DiMaio’s reference book, it states a head wound like Savio’s could be caused by bat, blunt object.
Glasgow says defense expert said Savio wasn’t unconscious when fell so why would she stay under water if she slipped down.
Glasgow recalls that expert witness could not provide ONE case where a healthy adult drowned in a bathtub.
“Use your common sense, look how she was in that tub, that’s not how someone would be if fallen in tub”, says Glasgow.
Glasgow: Savio’s rigor mortis points to death in early morning hours when Stacy said Drew Peterson went missing from their house.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today the defense and prosecution attorneys will deliver their closing arguments to the jury.

Check out the comment thread for updates throughout the day.

Today we are following:

Ruth Ravve
Ben Bradley
BJ Lutz
Stacy St. Clair
In Session
Kara Oko
Dan Rozek

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – Closing arguments Part 3: James Glasgow rebuts for the prosecution

  1. In Session Judge Burmila returns to the bench. He sends for the jury.

    I’m here Facs…. Didn’t have to go afterall. 🙂

  2. Cause for optimism…if the earlier tweet re typos is correct

    Nothing undermines a presenter like having typos in a Powerpoint presentation.

    The audience (jury) focuses on the screen and quickly discount the speaker’s accompanying words as unprofessional. Seen it many times!

  3. The jurors are now in the courtroom, and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow begins his rebuttal closing. “I want to remind everybody that this trial is about the murder of Kathleen Savio . . . young, vibrant, and murdered within the prime of her life.

  4. In Session
    “You were just told that the laceration on Kathleen Savio’s head was the size of the Grand Canyon . . . there were no injuries to the brain whatsoever. Dr. Case has found a marker, a very thin layer of blood. You’d see why that could happen . . . they were implying that she said you could not be knocked unconscious without some sign of visible injury to the brain That’s not what she told you. But in this case, Kathleen Savio probably wouldn’t even have suffered a concussion in a fall of this type. It didn’t happen . . . all you heard during the defense closing was that this was a slip and fall accident. But you know much better than that,.”

    “If this piece of paper [Savio’s death certificate] stood for what the defense says it does . . .” Objection. The parties go to a sidebar.

    The sidebar ends. The jurors are excused from the courtroom.

  5. In Session
    The jurors are now gone. Attorney Greenberg states the defense objection, claiming the State “wants to impeach the document with some kind of conjecture.” Prosecutor Glasgow agrees to move to a different line of argument. The judge then sends for the jurors.

  6. In Session
    The jurors are back in the courtroom, and prosecutor Glasgow resumes his rebuttal summation. “There are two documents relating to the coroner’s office that are in evidence . . . one of them is the autopsy protocol of Dr. Mitchell. You heard Mr. Lopez say he found the manner of death to be accident; that’s not true. He made no determination of the manner of death . . . :” Objection. The parties go to a sidebar.

  7. In Session
    The sidebar ends. “You heard the testimony of Dr. Blum, as to how he proceeded with the second autopsy . . . he gave an opinion as to manner [of death], which was homicide . . . with regards to Dr. Jentzen, the key thrust of the defense argument is that this is a slip and fall, an accident. The evidence clearly shows that this a homicide. There was only one neuropathologist who testified in this case, Dr. Mary Case. He testified that she predominantly does autopsies on children’s brains. Clearly, that was a misrepresentation of what she does. Also, Dr. Jentzen testified that she had said she couldn’t be rendered unconscious without a visible injury. She didn’t’ say that . . . she said there wouldn’t even be a concussion in this case.”

  8. In Session
    “It takes a fall of ten to fifteen feet, or a car accident to get diffuse axonal injury. Yet that’s what Dr. Jentzen says we have here . . . Dr. Baden found that diaphragm bruise . . . but that diaphragm bruise doesn’t fit this fall, so it’s gone; it’s an artifact . . . that buttock bruise, Dr. Mitchell saw it when it was fresh; that finding stands. But you can’t get that abrasion in this fall. So what do they do? It’s gone, it’s an artifact . . . you know beyond a reasonable doubt that what you’ve been seeing in these pictures is an abrasion, not an artifact. Finally, Dr. Jentzen said it was possible this could be a homicide . . . none of our witnesses said it could be an accident.”.

  9. In Session
    “I would submit that Dr. Jentzen’s testimony bears little weight in this case, especially with respect with Dr. Case and Dr. Blum. And Dr. DiMaio . . . for all the evidence you heard about drugs, about cervical vertigo, Kathleen Savio was a healthy woman when she was in that tub that night . . . Dr. DiMaio, after admitting this was a neurological question, admits he’s a gunshot expert. But this isn’t a gunshot case. As to the hip bruise, he also brings it down to one bruise. But you saw the picture, the three single bruises . . . you heard the testimony from Dr. Blum, Dr. Case, and Dr. Baden that it would take a forceful blow to make those . . . those were deep bruises. As to the clavicle injuries, it doesn’t fit this slip and fall, so [SNAPS FINGERS] artifact!”

  10. In Session
    “The orthostatic hypotension . . . Dr. Baden worked with patients that had that. And he indicated you’d normally see a history of this; it doesn’t just come on. You know she didn’t have orthostatic hypotension; that didn’t happen here. There’s a laceration in Dr. DiMaio’s book, and it’s a wound caused by a baseball bat. That’s just like the wound on Kathleen Savio’s head. That injury could also have been caused by a pipe or a pool cue; it’s a blunt injury. Dr. Blum also said it could be caused by a weapon. If she’s only stunned, and you go under water in a tub, are you going to stay there? Not hardly.”

    “I asked him [Dr. DiMaio] if he could give me one single case of a healthy adult drowned in a bath tub, and he could not. He could not give me one case where a healthy adult drowned in a bath tub.”

  11. Lopez: “I’ve said it before, the framers of the constitution would BARF on this evidence!” i did not like this comment he does not know , but me thinks they would agree with the pros

  12. In Session
    “You know in your every day life if you have a problem with a brain injury, you’re not going to your general practitioner, you’re going to your neurologist. And she was unwavering in this case that this injury was not caused in that bath tub.” Objection/Sustained. “Look how she’s wedged in that tub . . . half of her foot is blanched. That’s not how someone would come to rest naturally . . . there was dried blood on her face. Dr. Blum said for that to happen, her face couldn’t have been sitting in water. You know that from your every day experiences.”

    “An issue was raised in regard to when she was killed. Mike VanOver said the rigor was slight when he got there, and the next day the rigor was gone . . . if you go back, that puts you into the early morning hours of Sunday. And that’s the time that Stacy Peterson said that Drew Peterson was gone from the house.”

  13. In Session
    “The defendant made statements on national television, and the transcripts of two of those statements have been admitted into evidence. You heard mention by Mr. Lopez of the three-day weekend. When he was on CNN, he was asked about what happened. ‘I don’t know . . . I was working; I was a watch commander at the police department, and the previous night she had failed to respond at the door to allow me to bring the children home . . . that was unusual for her, so I started calling on the phone, and I alerted the neighbors . . .’ Clearly, out of the defendant’s own mouth, that says that he didn’t think this was a three-day weekend. And there were 12 phone calls throughout the day to Kathleen Savio’s house . . . “ Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar.

  14. that is not right that the defense keeps interupting with objection and side bars they are not supposed to do that ,, well , hmm casey anthony case they did but glad the pros gets the last rebuttle

  15. In Session
    The sidebar ends. “If we look at the defendant’s behavior, he committed the murder on the early hours of Sunday morning. He clearly emphasizes on national television how unusual it was for her not to be there. And he couldn’t go into the house without her accusing him of stealing stuff . . . he was afraid to go into the house. This isn’t a picture of a smooth relationship . . . he’s the watch commander, in uniform, and his wife isn’t there to pick up the kids, isn’t answering the phone. Mary Pontarelli is 35 feet away. And he doesn’t reach out to her? He also doesn’t try to reach out to her boyfriend, Steve Maniaci. He had his phone number . . . he’s the watch commander, the top banana, he’s in charge . . . he’s a sergeant, and he’s the watch commander. He takes the children home, and then a series of phone calls begins from his house to Kathleen Savio’s house. He did an interview on NBC News, and he said ‘I was one of the first people there, and I was actually the watch commander . . . I went ahead and met with her best friend . . . I was planning the next day, Tuesday, to go into her home with the neighbor. But the neighbor wanted to go in that night.’ The neighbor was upset, not the watch commander. ‘Kathy didn’t want me in her house; she was always afraid I was going to steal something.’ I would submit that as a police officer for decades, having gone on wellness checks, as a certified evidence technician, that his behavior shows consciousness of guilt. That Sunday night, he doesn’t go in, because no one has yet found the body . . . he collects a band of civilians, and they go in the house in the middle of the night . . . how many red flags would go off in a policeman’s mind? There could still be an intruder in the house.”

  16. In Session
    “You have police backup when you do these wellness checks. Instead, we have a woman and a 14-year-old boy going in there. Why? Because he knows what they’re going to find in there. He hears this loud scream; he goes into the house . . . he’s got a scream, he’s in uniform; it should be his duty immediately to spring up the stairs . . . once he gets upstairs, you heard Chris Koch’s description of what goes on there.”

  17. In Session
    “You heard what Mr. Lopez said about Mary Parks . . . you know she had met Kathy Savio at school. And just before Thanksgiving, Kathy Savio appeared at school wearing a fleece pull-up . . . she saw marks on her neck, and Kathy Savio told her that Drew said, ‘You should just die.’” Objection. The parties approach the bench for a sidebar.

  18. Another cause for optimism

    The more i think about telling the jury to think about a cartoon of a Cheshire cat while they deliberate…the more I’m convinced Lopez lost the plot. I think he allowed his hatred for Smith getting one over on the Defense team to cloud his judgment…I bet the cartoon was a huge hit among “The Three Blind Rats” and their paid cronies …and that led Lopez to believe the jury would be equally impressed and amused.

    Of course, this serious miscalculation was immediately exposed by Glasgow in his opening remarks that this trial is all about the murder of a healthy 40 year old woman in the prime of her life. Talk about taking the wind out of Lopez sails…I bet the smiles from Kathy’s family in the courtroom could be heard all over the State of Illinois.

  19. that is what insession was saying or mike was saying , your dressed in cop uniform and you go there, and you would pull your gun if ya heard a scream, maybe glassgow heard mike brooks say that 🙂 to help with that part of the closing …

  20. In Session
    The sidebar ends, and the jurors have left the courtroom. Attorney Greenberg puts on the record the defense objection to this line of argument. Prosecutor Glasgow responds, says that Mary Parks “saw red marks on her neck . . . and she told her that Drew Peterson hold her down and said, ‘You should just die.’” The judge overrules the objection, and sends for the jury.

  21. In Session
    The jurors are now back in the courtroom, and prosecutor Glasgow resumes his rebuttal. “Again, clearly Mary Parks was talking about an incident at Thanksgiving, 2003, not the July 5 incident. Yet you were told that it was the same incident. Kristin Anderson came in there and testified she lived with Kathy Savio for a couple of months, and she moved out on the 25th of November. That’s just before the incident that occurred with Mary Parks. Kristin Anderson indicated she had a heart-to-heart conversation with Kathy Savio . . . she’s a compassionate person, and she and Kathy were having a heart-felt moment, at which time Kathy told her Drew Peterson had said to her, ‘I could kill you, and make it look like an accident.’ She made three separate phone calls to the State Police . . . the records are there . . . she never got a call back, until much later. So she made effort to report it, and it fell on deaf ears. She made that effort to call. I think a lot of people wouldn’t go that far.”

  22. In Session
    “Anna Doman testified her sister told her just a few weeks before she was killed that Drew Peterson said, ‘I’m going to kill you’ . . . that statement rings true. And that’s what happened when Kathy and Anna had that conversation. Susan Doman also had spoken with her sister, and was told the same thing Kristin Anderson was killed, that Drew Peterson said, ‘I could kill you, and make it look like an accident.’ We know how rare these drownings are in tubs, these accidental drownings . . . the evidence shows Drew Peterson drowned her; it was made to look like an accidental drowning.”

  23. In Session
    “That brings us to Neil Schori, Pastor Neil Schori. He told you he had been counseling Stacy Peterson, and got a call on the 30th of August, asking for an appointment the next day . . . he is very cautious in his professional life, to maintain his integrity. At one point, she was crying . . . and proceeded to tell him that Drew Peterson had killed Kathy Peterson . . . she said she’d gone to bed with Drew, woke up during the evening, and he was gone . . . she tried to reach him by phone, and was unsuccessful. IN the middle of the night, he came back, all dressed in black, and put his clothes into the washing machine . . . she looked into the washing machine ,and saw women’s clothes that weren’t hers. . . she said she lied to the police on his behalf. We know Harry Smith got a call from Stacy Peterson, asking if she could use in her divorce how Drew Peterson killed Kathy Peterson. She also said that Drew Peterson was very angry at her, because he thought she had told Tommy Peterson that Drew killed his [Tom’s] mother . . . the same Tommy Peterson who came in her and testified. And Jeffrey Pachter . . . he did not call the police; the police called him. The defense trashed him, made him look like the most demonic person who ever came into a courtroom. Drew chose him because he did have his problems and might not be believable . . . but he was believable, and he gave the statement that you heard. He didn’t embellish it . . . so if he’s coming in here to make a name for himself, write a book, or make a lot of money for himself, he’d come up with a better story than that . . . in fact, what did he get out of coming in here, except having the world know he’s a registered sex offender? He basically paid a price for coming in here . . . he suffered embarrassment by coming in here.” Objection/Sustained.

  24. In Session
    “The incident Kathy Savio reported, the July 5th incident . . . she wrote the knife in there, and then crossed it out . .. she told Ofc. Kernc that she did not want him to lose his job . . . she’s trying to make ends meet. And if her husband does not have a job . . .” Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar.

  25. In Session
    The sidebar ends. The jurors are excused from the courtroom. Attorney Joel Brodsky addresses the judge, claims that the State has injected information before the jury that was previously stricken. The State responds, reads from the transcript of Teresa Kernc’s testimony. Judge: “The [defense] objection is overruled.” He sends for the jury.

  26. Oh, good grief! Anything to keep the real attorneys from repeating the real statements from witnesses. I think Lopez thought he was smart enough to wing it. I have dealt with attorneys who think they are hot and they never put the effort in to the case. It certainly appears that is the case here.

  27. In Session
    The jurors are back in the courtroom. “Mr. Lopez talked to you about circumstantial evidence. The hearsay presented to you is substantial evidence, the same as if the person was here on the stand . . . circumstantial evidence can many times be more powerful than direct evidence . . . if you combine the circumstantial evidence, with the expert testimony, Stacy’s evidence, the hiring of a hit man . . . when we combine the reasonable inferences from each of those pieces of evidence, you can absolutely see that this case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s solid, it’s real, and it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio in cold blood. And we ask you to go to the jury room and return a verdict of guilty.”

  28. In Session That ends the closing arguments in the Peterson case. The judge calls “a brief recess so that the jurors can eat their lunch.” He leaves the bench, and the trial is in a recess of undetermined length

  29. If they are having lunch now, that tells me it will be a long day for them. Jury instructions, and then start deliberating until ????

  30. @ Harley….half an hour for jury instructions – appoint a foreperson…quick preliminary vote — unanimous…fill out the verdict form…inform the judge…give the attorneys etc time to return…so by my calculations we should have a guilty verdict in time for the 6pm news on the West Coast.

    More realistically, no reason we wont know by tomorrow night or Thursday pm. Longer than that is not good for the pros,.imo

  31. Yeah Oxy, longer than that won’t be good.

    LA – I want them to start today while evrything is still fresh. Maybe they can go until 6 or 7? Who knows…

  32. Ruth Ravve‏@RuthRavve

    #DrewPeterson I’m told “We don’t quit at 5pm, jurors could deliberate all night if that’s what the judge wants”.

  33. yes we need a guilty verdict and god I do hope that happens, thanks for all ya reports ,, kinda like we were in court. so what did you guys think of the defense and prosicution closing arguments, me well the def was idiots for objections , and pros did very well

  34. Just a thought…Wonder if Lopez’s multiple references to the Flag, Constitution, Ollie North etc were inspired by the jury showing up on one day wearing Red White and Blue?

  35. @ lug…imo the pros were dogged, no b/s,just the facts ma’am
    and as for the Defense …the Rats were spewing vermin, invoking Ollie North, Hank Hill and other great American heroes to bamboozle the jury by blowing smoke up their proverbial backsides.

    So whats new?

  36. Lug – I was not impressed at all by Lopez. I thought he came off as a bumbling fool. Cats eating pie, Da Bears, Packers, mini-me’s, the flag, constitution, fishing – 2 or 10 lb fish, the U.N., condoms, the poor dead guy, autopsies gone wild, Hank Hill, Walmart, Target, jello, … yeah and whatever else.

    Not to mention the blatant lies he told.

    Yes, I understand that he is trying to get his client off, however, I don’t he did a very good job. He is clearly a big talker with no substance to back it up.

    I think the State did a better job.

    Then again, when we have limited info to make a determination from – Who the heck knows?

  37. @ victims…here here…big thanx to Fac…he knows EVERYTHING about the history of this case..and also thanks this past couple of weeks to Harley Joey for the excellent updates.

    And thanks to all of you who make comments…sometimes its good to know i’m not alone as i shake my head in disbelief as i read about the antics of those scumbag defense attorneys and their worse than scumbag p.o.s. client.

    I have faith in this jury to do the right thing

  38. Thanks, Oxy, but I am a she! Well said, about the commenters. It would be a lonely and dry site without our discussion.

    And a huge thank you to Harley for the IS updates so I could be mining the Tweets for the main post.

  39. “Thanks, Oxy, but I am a she!”

    Allegedly!

    Oops , when i used the word “he” i meant in the biblical sense…which as we all know is a generic pronoun for he or she.

    No offense intended…and in any case, big thanks for all you do!
    (Oxy breaks into chorus “For she’s a jolly good fellow.” and then slinks off to hide in a corner.)

  40. Thanks Oxy! (I’m a she too fyi) 🙂 I have some comments about Mr. Greenberg – But I’ll wait until later…..

    No problems Facs! I hear you are short handed these days. 😉 Happy to help!

  41. In Session
    Judge Burmila is back on the bench. “We broke at the conclusion of the rebuttal argument, and I pointed out the parties in a sidebar . . . they’ve taken so much longer than I thought that would, and that’s certainly not a criticism of anybody . . . it’s 4:15, the jurors have just eaten their lunch, court’s been in session almost continuously since 9:00 this morning . . . because of the late hour, I’m considering sending the jurors home for the evening, charging them on the law in the morning, and having them start their deliberations in the morning. There’s certainly case law for that . . . so State, your position on my proposed way of proceeding?” The State defers to whatever the defense wants to do, while the defense says that it is in agreement with the Judge. With that, Judge Burmila decides to postpone the jury charge until the morning. He sends for the jury.

  42. In Session
    The jurors have returned to the courtroom. Judge Burmila: “The arguments are now at an end. I did not anticipate they’d take as long as they did; it was just a matter of chronology. Because of the lateness, I’ve made a decision to send you home for the evening. The Sheriff is going to attend to you in that regard. You’re all to be back here tomorrow morning by 9:00 [CT] . . . you cannot begin to deliberate until I’ve instructed you in the law, and you are all joined back together . . . all of the law I previously told you is still applicable up to this point. I will charge you in the law at 9:00 am tomorrow morning, and then you’ll begin your deliberations.” With that, the jurors leave the courtroom.

  43. We may get a verdict in the Drew Peterson murder trial tomorrow. Deliberations will begin Wednesday morning after Judge Burmila gives them their jury instructions.

    Judge Burmila: “Folks, that’s it. I’ll see you at 9:00 tomorrow morning.” The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 9:00 CT/10:00 ET Wednesday morning.

  44. I’m kind of surprised. Why bother with that lunch if he was just going to send them home and start in the morning? I just understand this judge.

  45. @ Facs – I doubt the delay will have any significant impact. I bet they would have preferred to start tonight…they must be dying to know what their colleagues think…5 weeks or so is a heck of long time to live with fellow humans and be deprived of the chance to talk about the one think you have in common.

    Kind of like going to watch football for four years worth of Sundays and talking to your mates about everything but the match.

  46. If I’m getting this correctly, Lopez says that the problem with the PowerPoint was that it had to be reformatted from Mac to PC version and then Liza Lopez had to retype stuff with her laptop half-closed to keep “nosey people” from seeing which resulted in a lot of typos.

    I’m just wondering what’s so secret about a PowerPoint presentation that they were about to put up on the screen for the whole room to see?

  47. @ fac…that Mac to Windows story smacks of rank amateurs…and in any case its hard to believe they would not thoroughly vet the slides before using them…

    If Liza doesn’t get fired for this…it will prove she is sleeping with the boss…j/k

  48. I don’t buy that excuse Facs. Even if she did have to re-type stuff…. Has she never heard of spell check? Takes 2 seconds to do! Baloney excuse for them being unprepared if you ask me.

    Like you said, what was so secret if they were going to put it on the screen anyway? 🙄

  49. This judge gives me grave concern, he does not stop Lopez when he runs over his time, He sends the jury to lunch and then says it it too late to begin deliberation. He has sided with the Def and has allowed this trial to become a circus. He has done a diservice to the Savio family and to Kathy. IMO he has displayed a predisposition to the Defense and the Defendent , again that unspoken professional courtesy that has been present in the case and why Kathy never received protection.

  50. Can you imagine if Liza Lopez had done Powerpoint slides for

    MLK’s “I have a Dread” speech

    Or Reagan’s “tear down that will” speech.

    Or Rodney King’s “People Cant we all get aDong”

    So now we have a new game to pass the time while the jury;s out!

  51. Thanks to everyone for great summations of the day’s events! I think the prosecution did a great job of putting all the factual evidence – forensic – and circumstantial evidence together in a narrative for the jury in their closing argument and rebuttal.

    The defense, as per usual, were being jerks with their constant objections, most of which it appears were overruled. Lopez clearly overstepped his bounds with the Cheshire Cat routine.

    If I was on the jury, I think I’d be anxious to at least begin deliberations today while the closing arguments are fresh in their minds. They could at least appoint a foreperson, and get a preliminary show of hands regarding guilty or not guilty. That would give them a basis for going forward with deliberations tomorrow morning.

    I expect the verdict to be relatively quick. If it takes longer than a day, it might mean the jury is getting bogged down in technical arguments.

    While the jury cannot consider Stacy Peterson in all this…………………..I’ve said this before. I would think that anyone who lives in Will County knows, at the very least, that Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, is missing and her disappearance is under highly suspicious circumstances. No one living there could miss the national media camped out in front of the Peterson residence for weeks on end, nor the blaring newspaper headlines.

    While the jury pool was instructed to not watch any media about this case when Drew was arrested in May 2009………..most of the media attention in this case took place long before then. Stacy Peterson disappeared on October 28, 2007 and for the next couple of months was a major topic of the national mainstream media. It would have been next to impossible for members of this jury to not know about Stacy Peterson disappearance.

    The jury cannot consider Stacy Peterson’s disappearance in this case………..but Stacy really is the elephant sitting in the middle of the room. Stacy is the biggest piece of circumstantial evidence in this case because it was her disappearance that was the basis for authorities deciding to exhume Kathleen’s remains and do a second and third autopsy. Had it not been for the disappearance of Drew’s 4th wife, Stacy, the death of his 3rd wife, Kathleen, would likely have remained an accidental death.

    I wonder how many of those members of the jury might be thinking about Stacy, perhaps only fleetingly, as they deliberate the death of Kathleen?

  52. wow , thank you guys very much it has been intereesting , and yes the DEFENs is jerks and think they know lots more than anyone else geesh,, lopez is an idiot for saying what he did , i bet the jury will lol af that stuff they tryed to say like donald duck did it ya know what I mean,but all those obections are not right trying to confuse the jury and i do hope they will listen to the pros side of things …OH how long did it take for the jury in the peterson case ya know SCOTT to deliberate and found him guilty… and spector case and um others..the judge was not fair is my thoughts with the pros ,,,, I wish insession was on longer for west coast peeps, cause it over at noone here to watch on tv .. they used to be on longer …

  53. You’re right Ellie but its the judge’s job to ensure that Peterson has a fair trial and certainly in capital cases he will go out of his way to give the Defense the benefit of the doubt to avoid creating appeallable issues.

    TBH, and i know it wont be popular for me to write this…and while I agree the judge at times appeared to allow his own ego to get in the way of his sidebar comments…on the whole I honestly believe he did a solid job in unusually difficult circumstances, with unusually complex legal issues relating to hearsay.

    As for the sandwiches..the poor jurors were probably starving…so there was no way the judge could deprive them of their court-sponsored lunch…i bet he could hear a cacophony of belly noise from the bench.

  54. At Molly,, agree with everything except your point that the jury cant think about Stacy.

    I would say the opposite is true…how can they debate the critical testimony of Smith and The Pastor and not wonder why she wasn’t there to deliver those claims in person. Surely even a moderately curious juror would be on notice that Stacy was not around to deliver her own testimony.

  55. I have to make a comment about Mr. Greenberg. I knew him personally a very long time ago. He was the divorce attorney for 2 people very close to me. At the time, I thought he was a great attorney. He is one that you definitley want on your side! He is also a very intelligent man. No complaints here!

    Moving forward when this trial started to be in the news more and more, I saw Steve on several shows talking about the case. He was one who without question saw that Drew Peterson murdered 2 of his wives. He would also comment about how this was a “no win” case – That was how strongly he felt Drew was guilty. No complaints here! I felt kind of proud of him for voicing his opinion so strongly.

    Fast forward to him joining the defense team. I have defense lawyers in my family. I understand that it is a defense attorney’s job to protect their client’s rights. I get that – No problem with defense attorneys doing their job. The problem I have with Joel Brodsky and Joe Lopez is not that they are defense attorneys, It is the way they go about it. They are slimy, deceiptful, and attack anyone they can. These attacks have been personal, to victims as well as witnesses. I think there is a way to go about protecting one’s client without the personal attacks and outright shady slimy tactics.

    You will notice I left Steve out of that, for the moment. My DH and I have both watched Steve on IS and on other shows. While he has engaged Beth Karas in some lively debate, I think his tactic was more that – Lively debate. I don’t think I heard him be as sleazy as the other 2. I cannot say I liked what he had to say now that he is on the other side, but at the same time, I cannot say he is as sleazy. I do think the other 2 have rubbed off on him to a degree, and he may get caught up in the moment. I was disappointed in him, when I saw he joined the team. 😦

    He filed all of those motions to keep Harry Smith out of the trial. We all saw how angry he was at JB. I think he tends to prefer to fight his battles in the courtroom rather than in the media.

    I know my opinions won’t be popular here, but I really do believe he is just doing his job to the best of his ability. He really doesn’t have much to work with.

    Heck – I’m not even sure if I am sticking up for him. I just think he is better than the other 2.

    Anyway, sorry for the long post… just wanted to share my thoughts….

  56. @ Harley …Appreciate your post…As I understand it Greenberg’s focus was primarily on the objections ie ensuring that DP got a fair trial. As I recall, he was rarely the one who was directly scum-bagging decent people or “lying” to the jury to convince them to make ludicrous inferences which bear no relation to reality.

    OTOH, people judge you by the company you keep. He chose to defend Drew and work with the Shark and Joel.

  57. @ lug

    The Scott Peterson jury reached a verdict in the case in its seventh day of deliberations, after three jurors were replaced during the trial, including the first foreman.

    See y’all later…got to run for a few hours

  58. I very much value all opinions as long as they are based on facts and not pure speculation and/or bias.

    I do remember Greenberg in the early days being publicly critical of Joel’s handling of the case and saying that the defense was weak.

    I believe he’s a good lawyer but I also can’t help holding against him the times he has outright lied to the media about the facts of the case. I understand a vigorous defense – everyone deserves that in court, but I don’t see how it’s necessary to go on camera and say that no one came forward after Kathleen was found dead when we KNOW that is not the case, and there are phone records to back up the testimony of her friends, family and lawyer who said they tried to talk about what they knew, but were brushed aside and ignored.

    Imagine how it must feel for those witnesses to hear someone say that they did nothing when they know that they did try.

    IMO, Greenberg has had his nasty moments but I think that he likes the law and lawyerin’ more than he likes Drew Peterson, which is more than I can say for Joel Brodsky. And I know he’s a better lawyer than Joel.

    Sadly, Brodsky, Greenberg and Lopez all chimed in at that awful presser where they intoned “Stacy who” like a bunch of frat boy owls.

  59. Right Oxy. He did not do much scumbagging, or lying.

    You are right about choosing the company you keep. That is why I sometimes struggle with him being on this team. 😕

    I guess what I am trying to say is that while I cannot defend his actions, I cannot bad mouth him either? If that makes any sense? I’ll leave it at that.

  60. IMO Greenberg was just as much of a contributor to misinformation that was fed to the media & jurors as the rest of the DF team. Whatever honorable reputation he may have had before joining the team is negated by his very visible role he took in defense of DP. No matter the verdict, the majority of people believe DP is a criminal and a murder. When does one’s own morals fall into defense law? I am not an attorney rather a comsumer of legal services and I would not hire him based on his association with JB, JL, & LL.

  61. I hear ya Facs. ***sigh*** Frat boy owls. That they were!

    I can’t imagine being a family member having to hear any of that nastiness.

    Maybe I just missed other nastiness on his part, but I’m sure it has happened.

    I do agree he is a much better lawyer than the other 2.

    I appreciate you letting me voice my opinion! That’s why I like this joint! 🙂

  62. “Lopez: Savio’s fall wouldn’t topple bottles if the carpenter installed the tub correctly.”

    Seriously, did he really say that ??

  63. “Look at the gash in the back of her head, it’s as big as the Grand Canyon. You can stick your fist in there!” Lopez says.

    “Don’t you think that’d knock her out?”

    Did he really say that too ?? and making the bizarre analogy of a balloon filled with water ?

  64. “The judge is very important..and you are also important cuz you’re mini judges”

    Is Attorney Lopez talking to 2 year olds here ?

  65. He failed big time today, never followed any of his other trials, don’t know him from adam, and he seems to like the Big Kilo (drug) ones, but if this is how he works? well…..nuff said

  66. Unfortunately, there’s defense attorneys and then there’s defense attorneys.

    We’ve all seen cases in which the defendant was not guilty, but circumstantial evidence convinced a jury to find him or her guilty. Years later, new evidence is found that exonerates the defendant and he or she is released from prison. We’re seen older cases, prior to modern forensics such as DNA, turned over many years later when evidence is tested with the new technology. In these cases, if the defense attorney really believes his client is not guilty, I can understand doing all he can to get him or her acquitted.

    But, those cases are few and far between. In this case, I cannot fathom Joel Brodsky, Joe Lopez, Steve Greenberg and the rest of the defense team not knowing that the defendant in this case is guilty.

    The job of the defense team is to insure the defendant gets a fair trial and to provide a reasonable defense. It’s not about “winning” and thereby letting a guilty person to go free.

    Early in this case, Drew Peterson hired Joel Brodsky, and he’s one of the worst of the worst as far as defense attorneys are concerned. The way in which he disparaged Kathleen, Stacy, and their families was so outrageous and so not necessary, that I’ve opted for not watching any press conferences or media that involved Joel Brodsky, and that has included any of the defense team.

    So, I cannot truthfully comment on the members of the defense team that came along after Joel Brodsky. I do feel however that the entire defense team in this case did far too much to disrupt the flow of testimony, and in some cases to try to intimidate witnesses.

  67. “Lopez: No one asked DP if he killed his wife because everyone could see it was an accident.”

    and then:

    “Lopez says police looked for evidence of foul play at death scene and couldn’t find any.”

    Isn’t that because everyone had already “seen” that it was an accident ??

  68. Facs, Lopez ruined the day with his closing I am just not getting it. I mean he was all over the place and NOT making sense. And this dude is a lawyer?????

  69. But, those cases are few and far between. In this case, I cannot fathom Joel Brodsky, Joe Lopez, Steve Greenberg and the rest of the defense team not knowing that the defendant in this case is guilty.

    Oh Molly, I completely agree! They Know it! I still remember an interview where JB made a huge mistake about Stacy being missing….

    This video told me he (JB) knows Drew is guilty! They all know it! They are just trying to “beat the system!

  70. “Lopez says you don’t see blood all over the place in the bathroom because she hit her head, fell under the water and drowned”

    So Kathleens head went splat like a balloon filled with water, causing a hole in her head as big as the Grand Canyon and that didn’t cause any blood all over the place in the bathroom ……..

    Of course, how silly of anyone to think there’d be blood anywhere ………………..

  71. @ Hen…as Lopez speech unfolded i couldn’t help but observe that he was repeatedly talking down to the jury…and appeared to be deliberately making light of the tragic death of Kathy Savio thru the use of pop cultural references.

    We know that at least one member of the jury had previously led a successful construction company, so I seriously doubt he would have appreciated being told “they are mini-judges etc”.

    OTOH it only takes one juror to hold out…and these days most defense attorneys run their speeches thru they’re jury consultants and make sure they are directly communicating with potential hold-out jurors…so maybe he believed that “dumb” was the way to go…but I certainly hope it back-fires.

    @ Lost Acres – My understanding of Lopez’s career is that his claim to fame was successfully defending mobsters in murder and drug trials. At the time he joined the team, Brodsky specifically mentioned his last 3 cases, where he claimed the acquittals all owed much to Lopez’s closing oratory

    Of course,obtaining acquittals in mob trials sometimes has little to do with what happens in front of the judge. But maybe Lopez believes his own PR, and as a result failed to adequately prepare for this closing with result that:
    1) he rambled
    2) couldn’t recall the definition of hearsay,
    3) presented typo filled Powerpoint slides
    4) displayed poor time management exceeding his 2 hours
    all of which would likely hurt him in front of the jury.

  72. You guys did a fantastic job today. I did sprain a gut muscle laughing at some of your comments. I know it’s a serious matter but I think that even Kathy and Stacy were looking down and laughing at that Lopez. I keep getting the feeling that there is a higher power in control of this thing and it seems to have it’s thumb on the defense. I hope it also guides the jury to make the right decision.

  73. Taking all things into consideration, that closing argument by Attorney Lopez was nothing short of bizarre.

    It didn’t make one iota bit of sense and most likely undone any credibility the Defense Team may have had………

  74. Maybe it’s time to revisit this:

    · Hispanic male in his mid-20’s, never been married and not engaged. He was born in Puerto Rico and moved with his family to Bolingbrook, IL in 2001. His father is the dean at Bolingbrook High School. He lives with his parents during school breaks. Otherwise he attends Columbia College in Chicago, studying sports broadcasting.

    · Older white female who attended four different colleges and took classes in business and child care. She doesn’t have a degree. She and her husband, an auto body technician, have twins. She has seven siblings; half of her siblings are divorced. She likes to read the National Enquirer but doesn’t believe its stories.

    · White male in his late 60’s. He’s a graduate of Lockport, IL High School. He has been with his current employer for 30 years and was an employee of Texaco for eight and a half years. His wife of 15 years is a retired school nurse and stays at home with their grandchildren.

    · White female in her 50’s who is Polish-born and immigrated to the United States with her family when she was five. She complained that serving on a jury would be a hardship for her because she is a single mother and sole supporter. She watches Dancing with the Stars and Channel 7.

    · African-American male in his 50’s and is a research tech. Divorced once and is now remarried. He has a daughter in medical school. He enjoys photography and watching the TV show Criminal Minds.

    · White male in his 60’s. Said he has seen nothing on the Peterson case since he was told not to by judge White three years ago. He uses the Internet to buy parts for his motorcycle and watches local Fox station.

    · Older white female who works for a telecommunications company. She has two sons and her husband is retired. She enjoys watching Dancing with the Stars, What Not to Wear, Survivor and NCIS.

    · Male in his 40’s, born in Hawaii. He said he has never seen or read anything on Drew Peterson. He attended but did not graduate from law school. He was a member of the Hawaiian Army National Guard but was discharged early. He has lived in Bolingbrook, IL for 28 years. He does not have any children and was married a little over a year then divorced in 1991.

    · White male in his 70’s who is about to retire. His cousin is a retired policeman in Joliet. He has lived his entire life in Will County. Listens to XM radio and enjoys 80’s music. Watches Modern Family. He gets his news from the Internet. He is working on his pilot’s license and has 90 hours flight time so far. He is married and has two kids. Enjoys watching all sports and is a Cubs fan. Owned his own company. Former college baseball player. Wife is a retired nurse.

    · White female in her 50’s. Is a White Sox fan. She gets her news from the radio and CNN. Her husband hopes she doesn’t get picked for the jury. She is from New Jersey and has been in Illinois for 14 years. Her husband is from California. Her brother is an unemployed attorney. She is not a fan of Nancy Grace.

    · White female in her 60’s. She reads the Chicago Sun Times. She works in an office and manages eight other co-workers. Her mom has been divorced two times. She writes poetry, enjoys Scrabble and watches true crime shows. She believes there are two sides to every story. She divorced in 1992 and is now friends with her ex-husband. When she was asked how she feels about divorces she said, “divorces are never happy.”

    · African-American male in his 30’s. He listens to 107.5 and sports channels. He grew up on the south side of Chicago. His mother is a 3rd grade teacher. He is currently unemployed and likes to work-out. He reads sci-fi novels and lives with his parents. He spends 5-10 hours a week on the Internet. He’s single and has never been married.

    http://www.chathousenews.com/2012/08/exclusive-deeper-look-into-drew.html

  75. It may not change how I feel about the way this case has been handled, but I have to be a bit chuffed that Lopez, Greenberg and Reem Odeh have all said they like the animation of the Harry Smith jury instruction request.

  76. @ Fac…You had me worried for a minute…i thought we’d lost the juror who’d run his own construction company.
    But after further review, it turns out its this guy

    “White male in his 70’s who is about to retire. His cousin is a retired policeman in Joliet. He has lived his entire life in Will County. Listens to XM radio and enjoys 80’s music. Watches Modern Family. He gets his news from the Internet. He is working on his pilot’s license and has 90 hours flight time so far. He is married and has two kids. Enjoys watching all sports and is a Cubs fan. Owned his own company. Former college baseball player. Wife is a retired nurseI”

    In his 70’s…reeks of wisdom

    My guess is he will be a leading candidate to be foreperson…and as a Cubs fan he may not have been impressed with some of the judge and defense lawyers banter.

    Training to be a pilot…get his news from the internet…strikes me as independent minded and unlikely to be bamboozled by defense B/S.

  77. harleyjoey………….wow! I do remember that particular video from a long time ago! Yes, JB knew then.

    One thing that I remember that I thought was telling was that sometime in 2008 (?) there was a search of a river, in which divers spent a day diving in a particular stretch of a river. I don’t remember now the exact circumstances of why that search was undertaken and why that particular location. But the media covered it with a high degree of expectation.

    Drew Peterson spent that afternoon at Joel
    Brodsky’s office and they reportedly spent the entire afternoon watching that search on television.

    Now, if Stacy had indeed run off with another man, why would Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky waste an entire afternoon watching that river search???? If Stacy had run off, Drew and Joel would know that nothing would come of that search, so why watch it.

    I’ve always wondered if that river search came close? Maybe Drew and Joel were watching it, expecting that Stacy would be found and planning how they would respond to the news.

  78. OK, I just heard from someone who was in court today and she said that Lopez was awful. He kept repeating himself and reading from the slides. It was torture and she just wanted it to end!

    So it wasn’t just us…

    Jurors were attentive but not taking notes for the most part – just listening. They did not smile or laugh while Lopez was giving his closing.

  79. I just finished reading all of the comments from this amazing team of bloggers. I’m not allowed to access any of this from work, so JC is a blessing. I can’t believe the Lopez story. I thought the only thing you had to do when you went from a Mac to Windows format, was move the text boxes slightly. Wouldn’t you think a professional would convert the program BEFORE court?
    Somehow, Lopez’s bazaar metaphors attempt are just what Drew Peterson deserves for his representation. Peterson has mocked the families of these women and done everything possible to make a joke out of their deaths. If I were a juror, Lopez would have gotten on my nerves today.

  80. @ fac …That’s good to hear from the trial attendee…I was slightly concerned that we were getting the wrong impression from our vantage point…i.e. dependent on choppy sources such as Tweets/ I-S updates…but if a member of the gallery confirms Lopez was “awful” that counts for a lot.

    Also, its good to know the jury wasn’t openly reacting positively to Lopez. Anyone who heard the likes of Johnny Cochran do a closing would use words like “mesmerized” or “eating out of his hand” to describe the jury’s reaction to his oratory.

    Hopefully words like “smoke and mirrors” will come to the jury’s mind when they try to make sense of Lopez’s disjointed and factually-inaccurate closing RANT.

  81. Fac asked:
    “i wonder which is the guy who reportedly pays no attention to the testimony but just looks at everyone in the gallery the whole time”

    I believe that would be the Accused …Drew Walter Peterson

  82. The Defense Team looked inept and unprepared. jmo

    I was concerned … I really thought the Defense would be sharp and the Prosecution dull. Actually very relieved. 🙂

    Thank you all for your posts and keeping us up-to-date! Accessing during the day has been difficult for me … so very much appreciated!

    ~NoWay~
    (also a female member) 😉

  83. Thanks Facs .. For making our videos come to life, as well as everything else you do!

    Funny how Lopez isn’t tweeting much tonight,

    Oh Well. See y’all tomorrow. 🙂

  84. Lopez has me confused, and I will need to go back to read it all again, but I think he said “if you hit someone after they are dead, they still bleed…” and he was speaking in reference to Kathleen’s head injury.

    So does that mean Kathleen was already dead when she slipped and fell in the tub?

    Or did “someone” hit her in the head after she was dead?

    Where was he going with that closing statement?

  85. Let me just be clear. Of course I have sympathy for the Peterson kids -all four of the ones who have lost a mom.

    OTOH, when a young man comes of age and as an adult decides to come forward and defend a man who I believe to be a murderer, I will respond to that. If I see information from that person that looks as if it could be interpreted in a way other than in support of the accused, I’m going to share that.

    As for the video, I love to educate teenagers on the fact that there are consequences to social media and what is put out there for the public to see is being seen and interpreted. This is something I’ve tried to teach to my own sons (who are 21 and 18). Kids, don’t party to rap music, throw down gang signs and wave bottles of alcohol and then record it and put it on Youtube if you are planning on taking the witness stand (or interviewing for a job). Especially not if you are involved in a criminal case in which you are being depicted as the jewel of American youth.

    It’s too bad that his own counsel didn’t clue him in on that.

  86. Lopez says you don’t see blood all over the place in the bathroom because she hit her head, fell under the water and drowned Lopez asks judge how he’s doing on time.

    AND

    “If you hit somebody when they are dead, you can get bleeding, even though the book says that you can’t . . . when the heart stops pumping, the blood stops pumping; it just stops.

    ???

  87. Hi Fac..I’m intrigued to learn what led to Tom calling you a cyber-bully…something of which I’ve seen no evidence…on the contrary you seem to go out of your way to ensure all comments are accurate and proportionate.

    Is there some correspondence that led to Tom’s accusation?

  88. Loved this report on the closing from NBC.
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/04/13658789-prosecution-hammers-drew-peterson-in-closing-arguments?lite

    “Prosecution hammers Drew Peterson in closing arguments”

    After going through a long list of incriminating evidence against Peterson the reporter writes prosecutor Koch said

    “Taking all of that information together and drawing reasonable inferences from them … we have proved to you” that Peterson killed Savio. “We are asking you to find him guilty.”

    Attorney Joe Lopez, speaking on behalf of the defense, appealed to jurors patriotism.

    “You don’t have to like Mr. Peterson. But you have to like that flag. You have to like America,” he said, pounding the podium….etc etc

    Seems we were not the only ones who were perplexed by Lopez’s appeal to patriotism.

  89. Oxy, according to Tom Peterson’s tweets today, I:

    1. “drew unnecessary conclusions” about one of his Facebook statuses. He’s probably referring to this comment I made on the blog a few months ago:

    “Interesting that on June 21, Tom Peterson posted this status on Facebook, “have I been living a lie?” Of course, that could pertain to anything: girlfriend, religion, college major. Could even be a joke. But I still found it interesting.”

    2. “Dug up dirt” about his brother Kris and him:

    I assume he’s referring to the party video that I saw on youtube and posted. He’s the one who called it dirt and it was subsequently removed so apparently he agrees it didn’t show the Peterson boys in the best light. It was available to the public and I came across it without a modicum of “digging”.

    3. Turned an “innocent post into something bad”.

    On the contrary, I was intrigued to see him tweet today “God will make things right” and also a little sad, as I felt it could mean that although his father might escape justice on this earth, that God would sort things out in the end. I do believe it to be a very “innocent” post and not bad.

    He then said that my posts about him are “completely unjustified”.
    I disagree. First amendment and all that.

  90. If someone is dead, hasn’t their heart stopped beating? Is that not a key component of being dead?

    Curse you, Joe Lopez. I cannot imagine how the jury feels.

  91. Here’s the Tribs report on Lopez’s rant…it adds new detail about the powerpoint presentation and pop culture references…seems there were more than we thought…

    …Jurors sat up in their seats as Lopez began his 21/2-hour closing argument in which he referred to his client as “Sgt. Peterson.” Several smiled or laughed as he compared trials to Monopoly and a Bears-Packers football game, claimed the French philosopher Voltaire once said “Common sense is an uncommon thing” and called the state’s case nothing but “spec-u-lation,” drawing out the second syllable for effect.

    He told jurors they can ignore the hearsay statements if they find them unreliable. Lopez said they don’t add up to anything anyway.

    “If you can’t show it’s a homicide, who cares?” Lopez said of the hearsay.

    Lopez referenced a number of movies, including “The Big Lebowski” and “Zorba the Greek,” but at times he seemed to try jurors’ patience. When he strained for several minutes to remember the name of the animated comedy “King of the Hill” to make a point about Savio’s neighborhood, one juror sighed and raised his eyebrows.

    The defense attorney also tried to hold attention with a variety of metaphors. He described circumstantial evidence with a story about a pie-eating cat and referred to Savio’s head injury in the tub as being akin to dropping a water ballon at low speed on concrete.

    “Boom! It explodes,” said Lopez, calling Savio’s death “a weird accident.”

    “Back of your head — same thing.”

    He also used his PowerPoint slides to poke fun at prosecution witnesses, putting up a photo of the Hollywood sign to mock Savio’s sister Sue Doman, who signed a book and movie deal. Jeff Pachter, who testified that Peterson offered him $25,000 to find a hit man to kill Savio, was illustrated with a photo of Larry the Cable Guy.

    And Lopez repeatedly displayed a photo of the Cheshire Cat from the Disney animated film “Alice in Wonderland” in reference to Savio’s divorce attorney Harry Smith, whom Lopez dubbed “Smiley” in another slide.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-trial-0905-20120905,0,624247.story

  92. Wow – sounds like you need one person in the overflow room to get the words and another in the courtroom to gather the visuals.

    Damn, I wish we could have seen this televised!

  93. @ Fac…thanks for sharing the back-story.

    I know that you are not a cyber-bully. I’m sure all your other readers would concur.

    I can barely imagine how difficult a time this must be for 19 year old Tom Peterson. I wish him well whatever the outcome of this trial.

  94. I don’t feel like a cyberbully, if that counts for anything.

    It sounds as if he has been pretty insulated from the reality surrounding this situation. Up until now that’s probably been a good thing if you consider how horrific it would be to face up to what the reality might be.

    Still I hope that as he gets older he’ll learn that the truth will set you free. No matter how scary it is to look at. I wish him well, too.

  95. I’m catching up here on the comments thread, and I thought I’d chime in: Facs, you are most definitely NOT a cyberbully. I have been reading all I can find over here, and never once have you ever posted anything inappropriate or anything that could be considered to be bullying anyone, and especially not to the children involved in this case. In your responses to Tom’s tweet, you show sensitivity, and it’s obvious that you are mindful of his tender age as well as the position he’s been put in. Anything sarcastic that has been written by anyone posting on this thread has been aimed at the defendant, the lawyers and/or the judge in this case.

    I was very surprised to see the party video, and I was indeed disgusted by it for the very reasons you state, and especially because of the potential for these kids to be called as witnesses in a criminal case. Hey kids, future employers, university admissions officials, and those who work within the legal system know about the internet, too. Don’t take pics and videos of yourselves acting like fools and then post them on the internet. How many times have programs like “The Today Show” or “Dateline NBC” featured stories about the perils of posting stupid stuff like that on youtube or FB? And Facs is correct – there is no digging required. All it takes is plugging someone’s name into a Google search, and BAM! in about 2 seconds, the cyber footprint comes up for all to see!

    Facs, you’ve done a really nice job with this site, and although I’m sure it’s hard to hear from Tom like that, but please don’t stop posting.

Comments are closed.