Drew Peterson trial – Closing arguments Part I: Chris Kochs for the Prosecution

UPDATE 11:00:

Koch talking to jurors about letter Savio wrote to judge, about comments to others about problems with Drew.
Koch says Savio claimed Drew came in her home & held a knife to throat, saying “why don’t u just die”
The motive is clear: ‘I’m tired of paying child support, I don’t want to pay you anything.’ The intent is clear; a knife up to her throat. Use it to determine motive and intent when you consider this offense.”
“I could kill you and make you disappear” Koch quotes Drew saying to Savio, according to witness Mary Parks.
Prosecutor Koch implores the jury to consider how many witnesses – at least 3 – said that Savio feared Peterson killing her.
Koch says Drew told his insurance agent that Savio’s death was drug related–even tho there’s no evidence of drugs.
Prosecutor Koch asks if it was an accident, why did Drew tell people he would be a suspect if police decided it was a murder.
Koch “He went into the house that night, and he pushed her down, he held her down, until she inhaled fluid, and she drowned.
Prosecutor Koch reminding jury of Pastor Neil Schori’s account of what Stacy said happened the weekend Savio died.
Prosecutor reminds jury that both Schori and Savio divorce atty Harry Smith testified Stacy implicated DP in Savio death.
Prosecutor Koch says “we have proved…beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered that home…He held her underwater, and he pushed her down. Because of that, we are asking that you find him guilty, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Thank you.” This ends the prosecution’s closing argument.
Brief break.

UPDATE 10:33:

Prosecutor Koch says “with the state’s medical evidence we have shown you that she died at the hands of another person and that person is the defendant. That’s who did this . . . less than one in a million people will drown in a bathtub.”
Koch: “Where in that tub would you get three separate points of contact? You can’t do it. You can’t do it.”
“DiMaio’s theory fails. Don’t give it any credibility.”
(Defense has twice objected, saying Koch misstated expert testimony. Judge overrules, says jury will recall evidence on its own.)
Koch now reviewing testimony from Savio neighbors, friends.
Prosecutor Koch says DP acted strangely that weekend, returning kids Sunday, not trying to reach anyone when Savio wasn’t home.
Peterson didn’t call cops to help with Savio wellness check. And if their relationship had improved, why didn’t he go in?
Koch: Neighbors walking in the house, not knowing what’s inside: “Drew knows. The defendant knows what they’re going to find.”
“Why doesn’t he have his gun out? Because he knows. He killed her”
“I just found my wife dead in the bathtub and they’re gonna think I did it” Koch quotes Drew “Why would they think that?”
Peterson returned to the house to clean the tub. Koch says, “Murderers sometimes go back to scene to make sure they got it right.”
Prosecutor Koch says DP stood to inherit entire value of Savio’s Bolingbrook home once she died. It was worth $300,000.
Koch reminding jurors about testimony of officer who had initial reservations about conduct of investigation.
Koch says cops let Drew sit in on interview with Stacy. “Defendant spent hours telling Stacy what to say in that interview”

UPDATE 10:14:

Judge Burmila: “Good morning, everyone. We’ve reached the point of closing arguments . . . the parties now have an opportunity to make inferences from the evidence that was produced in this case . . . the State will have two opportunities to address you, because they have the burden of proof.”

Assistant State’s Attorney Chris Koch

Prosecutor Chris Koch opens with Drew Peterson’s alleged words: “I am going to kill you. You’re not going to make it to the divorce. settlement.” That became a reality.
Koch: “You did not leave your common sense at the front door. When you look at common sense..it is clear this man murdered Kathleen Savio.”
Prosecutor Koch tells jurors state expert proved healthy adults don’t drown in tub unless they are drunk, drugged or diseased.
Koch goes over testimony on how Savio body was found jammed in tub, so could not be an accidental fall.
Koch has repeated his theme a couple of times: “common sense” and “everyday life experiences.”
Savio had injuries on both sides: “How can you get that from one fall? You can’t. You can’t do it. It’s not possible.”
Koch says Dr Case agreed with Blum. Touts her experience and her conclusion that Savio’s brain couldn’t have been injured in tub.
Koch says when you look at death scene, “there is not enough velocity” for a fall to render someone unconscious.
Koch reminds jurors of the women’s clothing Drew Peterson allegedly brought home, put in washing machine.

UPDATE 9:34:

A smiling Drew Peterson arrives in court. All of his team are present now.
The jurors are not wearing matching clothes today.
Defense is setting up a power-point demonstration and then prosecution wants to see it before court gets started.
A few last-minute discussions on jury instructions before closing arguments begin.
Brodsky asking judge to remind people in the gallery to stay silent during closing arguments.
Judge: “One can only assume the people in the gallery understanding they’re in a courtroom… I don’t think I need to make any further admonitions than that.”
Atty Greenberg wants the judge to bar the State from saying that Drew Peterson did not want Savio to gain anything from divorce settlement. Judge says either side is free to object during closings.
Jury enters the courtroom.

UPDATE 8:57:

Court running late as Joe Lopez, who is slated to deliver the closing arguments for the defense tweets that he is stuck in traffic.
Prosecutor Chris Koch expected to give an hour-long closing and Will County State’s Attorney, Jim Glasgow, expected to wrap up with a 45 min. rebuttal.
Defense attorney, Joe Lopez, will have nearly two hours for his argument.
Numerous relatives of Savio’s as well as Cassandra Cales are in the court room to hear the closing arguments. No relatives of Drew Peterson are to be seen. His attorneys have said he has asked them not to attend trial.
Courtroom observers began lining up as early as yesterday afternoon for a chance at a seat in the court room.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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

66 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – Closing arguments Part I: Chris Kochs for the Prosecution

  1. In Session

    Closing arguments will be held this morning. The prosecution team just entered the courthouse. As they walked in, Susan Doman’s husband shook hands with lead prosecutor James Glasgow.

  2. in session
    Michelle Sigona‏@MichelleSigona

    I’m in the chair, will be live soon – defense team just arrived minus Joe Lopez who tweeted he’s stuck in traffic.
    No planning Lopez, you should have left earlier!!

  3. Unreal! Do they not know there will be traffic? Why not leave earlier? Sheesh!

    BJ Lutz‏@bjlutz

    #DrewPeterson defense attorney tweets they’re stuck in traffic. Expected to arrive 9:15 am CDT.

  4. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson judge giving each side an one hour and 45 minutes for their arguments.

  5. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson prosecutor Chris Koch will give an hour-long closing with Will County State’s Atty. Jim Glasgow ending w/ a 45 min. rebuttal.

  6. Kara Oko‏@KaraOko

    Courtroom is packed; members of the public fill the media overflow room. Reportedly, #DrewPeterson has no family present.

  7. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson does not appear to have any family in the courtroom. His attorneys have said he has asked them not to attend trial.

    Gee, I wonder why? 🙄

  8. Defense attorney, Joe Lopez, will have nearly two hours for his argument.

    He should have the amount of time he is late deducted from his 2 hours!

  9. I’d like to think this is the end of a very long road, but wonder if there are too many appellate issues looming.

  10. Ruth Ravve‏@RuthRavve

    #DrewPeterson Jurors actually not trying to match today, wearing regular clothes, “showing respect” says one victim’s family member

  11. They’re supposed to disregard prosecutors’ accidentally blurted words about an alleged $25,000 hit man plot, and to refrain from second-guessing the things certain witnesses weren’t supposed to say. That business about a bullet in the driveway? They’re supposed to pretend they didn’t hear it. The suggestion by a defense attorney that a videotape of the autopsy was offered to “Girls Gone Wild”? Strike that.

    They’re expected to shrug off Judge Edward Burmila’s sometimes caustic remarks, mostly directed at prosecutors, and try not to ponder what went on in all those sidebar discussions.

    They have to factor out whatever they might have read into the title of the made-for-TV movie they weren’t supposed to watch: “Drew Peterson: Untouchable.” Hmmm.

    The actual jurors have a much harder job. Having purged all of the above from their deliberations, they have to decide what to make of the evidence that’s before them: A homicide originally ruled accidental. No fingerprints, no DNA, no confession. Dueling autopsies. A prosecution narrative hobbled when key evidence was ruled inadmissible, then bolstered when defense attorneys called a witness whose testimony veered into the wrong lane — though really, it’s hard to say what jurors might have concluded about what the witness said Stacy said Drew said. Like we said, we hope they were taking notes.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-02/news/ct-edit-drew-20120902_1_peterson-jury-stacy-peterson-drew-peterson

  12. Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson is chatting, chuckling with defense team assistants/interns as he waits for closings to begin. Wearing glasses, clean shaven
    _________________________________
    I really think that man completely believes he is going to walk and go home. How arrogant is that? Chatting and chuckling as if no care in the world

  13. In Session The reason for this morning’s delay is apparently because the defense has been setting up the equipment for a PowerPoint presentation to use during its summation — not only does it have to be set up, but the prosecution wants to see the presentation before it gets used. That’s according to defense attorney Steve Greenberg

  14. In Session

    Judge Burmila has just taken the bench. “There were two unresolved issues regarding jury instructions . . . has the language been agreed upon?”

    The prosecution says that it has, so the first of the two instructions will be added to the packet. Attorney Joel Brodsky then addresses the second proposed instruction, which involves “dissolution of marriage.” “To a lay jury, it may seem unwieldy . . . so I slightly modified it, added four or five words to make it clearer.” This involves the fact that the defendant and Kathleen Savio had a bifurcated divorce, with the property settlement to follow. Prosecutor Colleen Griffin, however, disagrees with the wording. “We believe the jury instruction as proposed by the defendant would draw attention to facts not in evidence . . . I believe it would allow the defendant to argue to the jury that Drew Peterson did not have any motive or intent to kill his wife . . . we believe the instruction is inappropriate.” Judge Burmila: “I find the State’s argument to be persuasive. It will not be given.”

  15. In Session

    The order of the jury instruction is now being finalized. The defense asks the judge to order the spectators in the gallery to show no displays of approval or disapproval during the closing arguments. The prosecution takes no position on this matter. Judge: “One can only assume the people in the gallery understanding they’re in a courtroom… I don’t think I need to make any further admonitions than that.”

  16. In Session

    Attorney Steve Greenberg addresses the judge, says that the State should not be allowed to argue during its summation that the defendant did not want Kathleen Savio to gain anything once the divorced settlement was completed. Prosecutor Chris Koch disagrees, saying such evidence was indeed introduced during the trial. Judge: “The parties understand they can draw inferences from the evidence introduced during the trial . . . if they make an argument that the other party doesn’t agree with, you’re certainly free to object, and we’ll deal with it at that time.”

  17. Judge: “The parties understand they can draw inferences from the evidence introduced during the trial . . . if they make an argument that the other party doesn’t agree with, you’re certainly free to object, and we’ll deal with it at that time.”

    Whee! That should certainly interrupt the flow and make things unbearable.

  18. In Session

    Judge Burmila has left the bench. The defendant, however, remains inside the courtroom, and it appears that most — if not all — of the attorneys are still in there as well.

  19. In Session

    Steve Greenberg has just come into the overflow courtroom. When asked the reason for this delay, all he will share is “they’re working on stuff.”

  20. In Session
    The jurors are now in the courtroom. Judge Burmila: “Good morning, everyone. We’ve reached the point of closing arguments . . . the parties now have an opportunity to make inferences from the evidence that was produced in this case . . . the State will have two opportunities to address you, because they have the burden of proof.”

  21. Prosecutor Chris Koch begins the prosecution’s closing statement: “‘I’m going to kill you’ . . . that is the statement the defendant told Kathleen Savio just weeks before her death. And on Feb. 29, 2004, that became a reality, as she lay dead in that bathtub at the hands of Drew Peterson . . . you bring with you your common sense, and your life experiences . . . I ask you to keep in mind common sense, common sense. Because it is clear that this man murdered Kathleen Savio.”

  22. In Session ‎”There are two things the State has to prove, and that we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt for you to find the defendant guilty: that he performed the acts that killed Kathleen Savio, and that when he did so he knew that his acts would cause death or great bodily harm to Kathleen Savio. The evidence in this case shows we did prove it, that he did commit this act, and that he did cause the death of Kathleen Savio. What was the cause of the death of Kathleen Savio? That’s not really in dispute . . . the cause was drowning; everyone has agreed that the cause was drowning . . . so the issue becomes did she drown at the hands of the defendant? The answer to that is yes.”

  23. In Session
    ‎”Dr. Larry Blum came in here . . . one of the first things he wanted to rule out were the three D’s: drugs, drink, and disease . . . he ruled out the three D’s, and moved on to the next analysis; he looked at the positioning of the body in the tub. He talked about the toes, that they are so much bent at a 90 degree angle . . . he said that was something he looked at in helping him to determine that this was not an accidental fall. He also talked about this falling backward, the basic principles. In order for her to get this laceration on the back of her head she’s got to fall back to get there. There is not one single thing that’s out of place in that tub; are you kidding me? There’s gong to be stuff knocked over. Reality, common sense . . . every day experiences.”

  24. In Session
    ‎”He [Dr. Blum] described that tub . . . it’s a smooth contour, another thing he looked at to determine that this laceration could not have happened in this tub. IN his expert opinion, this laceration required a concentrated edge: a weapon, an object, a concentrated surface. Not one of those things is in that tub area . . . not one thing. Another thing he looked at is the injury pattern . . . we have left front injuries, left side injuries, left back injuries, right injuries, right and left injuries. So it’s not just one side of her body; it’s multiple sides, four sides. How can you get that in one fall? You can’t. You can’t do it. It’s not possible.”

  25. In Session
    ‎”The bruising was deep bruising . . . you can look at the pictures . . . this abrasion to the buttocks, you could not get one in that tub. Now Dr. DiMaio, who says it’s not an abrasion . . . but if it is, it didn’t happen in that tub, that’s his testimony. That abrasion was not caused by that tub. The bottom line is as she falls backward she’s hitting her backside, as well as her head . . . he looked on the back of the arms, found nothing, no bruising. The last thing he talked about was the pattern of dried blood, that there was this really defined drying blood pattern around the eye and nose. If this is a tub full of water, the blood just goes in with the water; that’s not that what happened here. That’s another thing that told him [Dr. Blum] as a pathologist that it’s just not there, it isn’t possible. And he said, ‘In my expert opinion, this was a homicide.'”

  26. In Session
    Prosecutor Koch now moves to prosecution expert Dr. Mary Case. “She got on the stand, and she talked about the same kind of injuries that Dr. Blum saw . . . she looked at the diaphragm; she found a hemorrhage there, that would require significant force. She spent a lot of time talking about the different layers of this head injury . . . then she also talked about diffused brain injuries, your concussions. She said when you look at the situation, there was just not enough velocity when falling in a bathtub to render you unconscious, to take it to the level of a shaken baby or being in a severe car injury. That’s the kind of force they want to opine happened in this case; that’s NOT what happened in this case.”

  27. In Session ‎
    “Dr. Case told you she would not lose consciousness from that kind of injury . . . her opinion stands for the truth in this case. That force was not sufficient enough to render her unconscious. The clavicle, that was the result of blunt force trauma . . . like a motor vehicle accident, the force was so great on that injury . . . Dr. Blum aged the abrasions to within an hour of her death, and the bruising to within 24 hours of her death. Both Drs. Blum and Case had the opinion that this was a homicide. And Dr. Baden said these injuries were consistent with a struggle, and not with a single fall.”

  28. In Session ‎
    “Dr. Baden said that the diaphragm, he saw it with his own eyes. He’s had particular interest in the diaphragm over the years . . . he said that injury could be caused by a blow or a very strong bear hug, squeezing the body around the rib cage . . . everybody wanted to say what a great job Dr. Mitchell did; Dr. Mitchell said it was an abrasion. The reason why the defense theory fails is because they just want to dismiss it . . .they just kind of move it out of the way so that it fits their theory.”

    With the State’s experts, we’ve shown you that she died at the hands of another person. And that person is the defendant. That’s who did this . . . less than one in a million people will drown in a bathtub.”

  29. In Session
    Prosecutor Koch moves to the testimony of defense expert Dr. Vincent DiMaio. “Where in that tub would you get three separate points of contact?” “You can’t do it . . . when he got down to it, he said, ‘I don’t know, maybe she was stunned . . . it was one of those things.’ His methodology, his scientific theory on these injuries fails. I ask you not to give any credibility to Dr. DiMaio’s testimony.”

  30. In Session ‎
    “Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen . . . the testimony from Dr. Blum about the size of the tub, Dr. Jentzen says you slip up and you go airborne. In his theory, she’s up in the air, twisting, to get to this position to strike this pelvic bone. At the same time, he said the skin was folding over and protecting itself. So I guess in midair the skin decides to fold over, and she then hits the back of her head. His theory fails . . . how are you going to get airborne in a tub that’s only 40 inches? But that gives her the velocity that he says she has to have. DiMaio says sliding into position; Jentzen says bouncing. Use your common sense, ladies and gentlemen . . . if you use common sense and your every day experiences, their theories are just not sound. There were 14 different injuries on that body.”

  31. In Session
    Prosecutor Koch now moves to the subject of circumstantial evidence. “You take this evidence as a whole . . . but look at all the separate pieces of evidence. If you start to put it all together, you can see that we’ve proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this man killed Kathleen Savio. Steve Maniaci . . . you heard from him . . . they had sexual intercourse, no abrasions, no bruising . . . they had sex and went to bed . . . and the Pontarellis saw her on Saturday; she was going to stay home and study. On Sunday, they try to reach her; they’re unsuccessful . . . it’s not until Monday night that the defendant goes to Mary Pontarelli and that decision is made to go into the house . . . if it was a holiday weekend and you were supposed to have the kids, why try to take them back on Sunday? And he doesn’t call anyone . . . he doesn’t try to call Steve Maniaci, he doesn’t go speak to Mary Pontarelli. He does nothing . . . he says he drives by a couple of times that night and that was the end of it.”

  32. In Session ‎
    “He’s the watch commander, the one on duty . . . [but] he doesn’t call a single officer to come over there to assist with this wellness check . . . the only one there is the defendant. [Locksmith] Bob Akin talked about the fact that only the front door was locked . . . you know Kathy always liked to keep her doors locked. And when the door is unlocked, the defendant lets [others] go into the house, not knowing what they’re going to find. But he knows, Drew knows . . . they flip the light on, and they see her dead. And Mary screams. The defendant goes upstairs, and when he gets upstairs he doesn’t have his gun drawn, isn’t on his radio, doesn’t have his flashlight on. If this is a scream, why doesn’t he have his gun out? You know why? Because he killed her; he knows what they’re going to find up there in that tub.”

  33. In Session ‎
    “Tom Pontarelli heard the defendant say, ‘I just found my ex-wife dead in the bathtub. And they’re going to think I did it’ . . . what do they think he did? When the paramedics arrived, the defendant said, ‘I’d like a little professional courtesy . . . the same thing he said when they came to talk to Stacy Peterson . . . ladies and gentlemen, he’s trying to control the scene, just like he controlled that interview with Stacy Peterson. And the next day, when the Domans are over at the house, ‘Let me in! Let me in!’ He’s all over that house . . . and my God, what is he doing? He’s cleaning the bathtub! He’s cleaning the bathtub on the same day that Kathleen Savio is taken out of that house! Are you kidding me? . . . you know, murderers sometimes go back to the scene, to make sure they got it right.”

  34. Good morning everyone, here is my thought on when drew went to savio house, Drew knew to call the police first before calling the neibors, you just dont do that or ask neibors to do a well check nope.. to me that was trying to astablish an alibi,, what your thoughts on that … it was wrong plus he was a cop .. and he knows the prosedure on what to do … when no answer at the door.. my hubby had to do a well fair check at the apt he works at and they found a dead body ,, because he did not show up for work. and usually apt maintenance people do that .. but not any more do to the dead body ,, but that is my thought ,, the PROS is doing great thus far and hoping he gets convicted

  35. In Session
    ‎”Sgt. [Patrick] Collins had never investigated a homicide before . . . they decided they were going to interview the defendant . . . they go to the Bolingbrook Police Department, in the lunch room . . . they asked him about any financial gain that would exist, and he said he guessed he would get the full value of the house, which was $300,000…it just doesn’t add up, ladies and gentlemen. But then we get to the interview of Stacy the following afternoon. Drew’s looking for professional courtesy, wants to sit in on the interview . . . Stacy was real shaken and nervous about the event . . . they’re sitting right next to each other; he’s got his hand on her knee, his arm around her, consoling her. At one time he helps her with a breakfast question. Too bad they didn’t know he had spent hours and hours with Stacy, telling her what to say. That’s what you heard from Neil Schori.”

  36. In Session
    The judge is going to instruct you regarding some conduct, other conduct on the part of the defendant . . . conduct other than that charged in the indictment . . . that may be considered for you only for limited purposes . . . Teresa Kernc and Mary Parks were motive and intent, and Jeffrey Pachter for intent. We know Kathleen Savio called the police in July, 2002, she told Teresa Kernc how the defendant entered the house, pulled her down the stairs, and pulled out a knife . . . a couple of months later, in November, 2002, she also drafts a letter to the Will County State’s Attorney’s office saying the defendant, Drew, was very upset that the judge had ordered him to pay child support, and that he didn’t want to pay her anything. She also told Sue Doman and Kristin Anderson what had happed on that day. I submit that her repeated telling of this incident lends itself the credibility that you need to know this happened. Use it to decide his intent and motive. The motive is clear: ‘I’m tired of paying child support, I don’t want to pay you anything.’ The intent is clear; a knife up to her throat. Use it to determine motive and intent when you consider this offense.”

  37. Koch: “He’s upstairs CLEANING THE BATHTUB! The day her body was taken out of there! Who does that?! this was tweeted , but he is correct on that , would you do that right away NO you would not cause the evidence still needed to be processed

  38. In Session
    Prosecutor Koch now moves to the testimony of witness Mary Parks. “Now we have him in November of 2003, telling her [Savio] ‘why don’t you just die?’ And Jeffrey Pachter . . . this testimony was offered to show that the defendant intended to kill his ex-wife . . . it’s during this ride-along that he’s looking to see if Mr. Pachter can find someone to take care of his ex-wife; he’s going to pay $25,000. First of all, you have to decide whether that actually happened . . . I’d ask you to recall the testimony of the witnesses. The defendant told Mr. Pachter that she worked at Red Lobster. You heard the witnesses who took the stand: she worked at Red Lobster. That corroborates the fact that Mr. Pachter was telling the truth. Then you can look at that conduct as it relates to his desire to kill Kathleen Savio.”

  39. In Session ‎
    “‘My life would be easier if she was just dead, or died.’ That was the statement the defendant made to Lt. Coughlin of the Bolingbrook Police Department in February of 2004. He was in that courthouse . . . there was this comment made . . . ‘They’re getting all my money.’ Again, it’s money . . . he doesn’t want to pay Kathleen Savio anything. Again, it’s for you to decide the credibility and weight to give these witnesses. But Lt. Coughlin got up here and testified as to that statement . . . the bottom line is the statement was made . . . ‘my life would be easier if she was just dead, or died.’ Mary Parks walked her to her cal in the fall of 2003, and during these walks Kathy said to her that the defendant said, ‘I could kill you and make you disappear.’ That’s what Mary Parks told you the defendant told Kathleen Savio. She told you how after Kathleen died she called the State’s Attorney’s office, to see if an investigation was taking place. I submit to you that she was credible on that stand; that statement was made, and it was made by the defendant”

  40. In Session
    ‎”Kristin Anderson . . . Kathy confided in her that the defendant said he could kill her and make it look like an accident. He could kill her and make it look like an accident. That’s a statement Kathy told Kristin Anderson that the defendant made directly to Kathleen Savio . . . after finding out that Kathleen had died, she called the Illinois State Police on three occasions to tell them this particular information. Anna Doman testified that six weeks before Kathleen’s death Kathleen showed up, scared, saying that Drew was going to kill her . . . and make it look like an accident. Sue Doman, the other sister of Kathleen Savio, testified that Kathleen Savio told her, ‘I’m going to kill you and make it look like an accident.’ Take all of those things together . . . this is multiple people . . . they are believable, and those statements were made.”

    ‎”Drew told Joseph Steadman that her death was drug related . . . we know that no drugs were involved. He told Mr. Steadman, ‘If she was murdered, I would be one of the suspects’ . . . she’s in a bathtub, why is he going to be a suspect? If this is just a slip and fall in a bathtub, why would he be a suspect in a murder? Of course, why is he cleaning out the bathtub the next day, too?”

  41. In Session ‎
    “He told Jennifer Schoon that there were anti-depressants on the counter, and that she may have fallen and hit her head . . .why is he telling different people different things? And he told Susan McCauley there was a wine glass by the tub . . . all these statements he’s making, it’s deflection, deflection, deflection! . . . all those things lead right to the point of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he went into the house and forcibly held her down so she could inhale fluid, so she could drown. Remember Dr. Baden? He said the injuries to the clavicle would be consistent with someone pushing her down on a hard surface. That’s where she got those hemorrhages. He said those injuries were consistent with t a struggle. He went into that house that night, and pushed her down, held her down, until she inhaled that fluid.”

  42. In Session
    Koch now moves to the testimony of Neil Schori. “He said she told him that sometime in the early morning hours he’s there, standing by the washer and dryer, dressed in black, putting clothes from a bag in the washer, his clothes in the washer, and then walking away. She told Neil Schori there were women’s clothes, and they weren’t hers. Soon after that, she had a conversation with him, and the defendant told her soon the police would be wanting to interview her. And he told her what to say to the police . . . it took hours. She said she lied. She lied to the police. So not only do you have all that other evidence, you have his wife who tells Neil Schori about the night he came home with these items of clothes in this bag.”

  43. In Session ‎
    “A couple of months later, she [Stacy] called Harry Smith . . . she wanted to know if the fact that he killed Kathy could be used against him in the divorce . . . ‘I have information about how he killed Kathy’ . . . that conversation transpired in October of 2007. Common sense, everyday experiences.”

  44. In Session
    ‎”He held her underwater, and he pushed her down. Because of that, we are asking that you find him guilty, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Thank you.” This ends the prosecution’s closing argument.

  45. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #DrewPeterson jury did not show much reaction to Koch’s closing, took some notes and paid attention. Typical jury react.

  46. Kara Oko‏@KaraOko

    Defense objected 12 times during Koch’s closing;1 sustained, rest overruled w/ “the jury will determine what the evidence was” #DrewPeterson

Comments are closed.