Did Drew Peterson murder Kathleen Savio? Jury deliberations begin.

“If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. If you find that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.”

The jury has begun deliberations in the Drew Peterson murder trial.

What do you think the outcome will be?

Deliberations began at 9:37 am CST. Retired Judge White predicts 6 hours and 38 minutes of deliberations. How long do you think they will take?

~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.~


204 thoughts on “Did Drew Peterson murder Kathleen Savio? Jury deliberations begin.

  1. Craig Wall‏@craigrwall

    Sheriff’s department only handed out 12 tickets for seats in the #DrewPeterson trial so far. Usually there are 20 + another dozen waiting.

  2. Judge Burmila has just taken the bench. “The matter comes on for charging the jury.” There is a brief judge/attorney exchange (about the use of the word “charge” vs. “charges” in the jury instructions). There are two counts of First Degree Murder with which the defendant is charged, however there is only one verdict form. The judge decides to read the instructions in the singular.

  3. In Session
    The judge sends for the jury.

    The jurors enter the courtroom. Judge Burmila: “I will now instruct you in the law . . . you must not single out certain instructions and disregard others . . . it is your duty to determine the facts, and determine them only from the evidence in this case.”

  4. In Session
    “The evidence which you should consider consists only of the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits which the court has received . . . faithful performance by you of your duties as jurors is vital to the administration of justice.”

    “Neither the opening statements or the closing arguments are evidence. And any statement by an attorney that is not based on the evidence should be disregarded . . . the defendant is charged with the offense of first degree murder, and he has pled not guilty.”

  5. In Session
    “The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him . . . that is not overcome, unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.”

    “You should not concern yourselves with who made objections, or whether they were sustained or overruled.”

  6. In Session
    “Evidence in the form of the testimony of Jeff Pachter has been received . . . it has been received on the issue of the defendant’s intent, and is to be considered by you only for that limited purpose . . . evidence in the form of testimony from Mary Parks and Teresa Kernc has been received on the issues of the defendant’s intent and motive . . . again, it is for you to determine what weight should be given to this evidence.”

    The judge now goes over the elements of first degree murder. “If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. If you find that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.”

  7. In Session
    The judge goes over the verdict form. He then has the bailiff sworn in who will be in charge of the jury. “Jurors, go with the bailiff, please.” With that, the jury leaves the room to begin deliberations.

  8. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    Jury deliberations began at 9:35, but courtroom clock is two minutes fast so some are going with that as official time.

  9. Wouldn’t it be nice if they took a preliminary vote, and the votes are all guilty. Deliberation over in 15 minutes 😉

  10. Thanks Facs… I was just wondering if I was. 🙂

    Well, Here we are. Finally. Verdict Watch. I hope the verdict is guilty and justice is served.

    Whatever happens, I hope that Kathleen’s family knows (I think and hope they do!) that there are so many people out there who know the truth and support them!

    The same goes for Stacy’s family!

  11. In Session
    The sidebar ends. Attorney Steve Greenberg objects to the fact that the judge is keeping the alternates, says that the law mandates that they be released once the deliberations begin. Judge: “So you’re telling me that if someone becomes ill, Mr. Peterson is going to accept 11 jurors?” Greenberg: “I think it would result in a mistrial.” Judge: “So if something happens, then all of this is for naught?” Greenberg: “That is what I believe is a correct statement of the law.” Prosecutor Glasgow says the State agrees with what the judge has done here. The judge decides to defer his ruling on this issue until the attorneys can produce any case law to back up their positions. In the meantime, he will handle his normal morning calendar, and the Peterson trial is in recess until further notice.

  12. Interesting – The poll currently shows 20% think a verdict will take 10 hours or more.

    I’m interested to know why people think that. Please share!

  13. Another look at the jurors:

    The jurors:

    The men and women chosen as the 12 main jurors for the Peterson trial include:

    A woman in her 50s who took college classes in business and child care. She is married to an auto body technician, and is one of eight children. She likes to read The National Enquirer, but says she doesn’t really believe the stories it prints.

    A 22-year-old man who was born in Puerto Rico, but moved to Bolingbrook, Illinois, in 2001 with his family. He is attending Columbia College in Chicago, and hopes to become a sports broadcaster.

    A man in his 50s who has lived in Joliet his entire life. He has worked at the same job for 30 years, and previously worked for Texaco. His wife is a retired school nurse.

    A woman in her 50s who was born in Poland and moved to Chicago when she was five. She is a high school graduate, who now watches her six-year-old granddaughter for her own daughter, a single mother.

    A man in his 40s or 50s who is a senior research technician. His first marriage ended in divorce, but there were no children and no property to settle. Now remarried, his hobby is photography.

    A man in his 60s who is married and works as a plant manager. He said that he hasn’t paid any attention to the Peterson case, because three years ago, the original trial judge, Stephen White, told prospective jurors not to follow the case. He uses the Internet primarily to purchase parts for his motorcycle.

    A woman in her 60s who works for a telecommunications company. Her husband is retired. She has two sons and five grandchildren.

    A man in his 40s who grew up in Hawaii and then lived in Virginia before moving to Bolingbrook. A former member of the Hawaiian Army National Guard, he works for the U.S. Postal Service as a mail carrier.

    A man in his 50s who has lived in Will County his entire life. He works as a homebuilder, developer and consultant, and he used to own his own construction company. He is married and has a cousin who’s a retired Joliet police officer. He’s also taking flying lessons to become a pilot.

    A woman in her 50s who lived in New Jersey and California before moving to Illinois 14 years ago. An inventory manger, she has a brother in California who’s an attorney. The mother of two grown children, a son and a daughter, she occasionally spends “a little time” on the Internet, “to see what my kids are doing on Facebook.”

    A woman in her 60s who writes poetry, likes to read biographies and books about old movies, and watches nonfiction television. She works as an administrative assistant and said she likes to hear both sides of a story. The two-time divorcee offered the opinion that “all divorces are unpleasant.”

    A man in his 20s or 30s who is single and lives with his parents. He was laid off a few months ago from a job as a cashier and bagger. He spends five to 10 hours a week on the Internet, reads science fiction novels and works out regularly. He said he doesn’t know anything about the Peterson case.


  14. In Session
    The attorneys are being called into the courtroom. The judge is still on the bench handling other matters, but we may be going back on the record in the Peterson case shortly.

  15. I am on a flight right now but had to WiFi in to see what the morning holds for DP. I voted for 10 hours for deliberation based on the profile of some of the jurors. IMO there are some that might not really get the value of circumstantial evidence and might buy into the patriotic stuff of JL.

  16. Beth Karas just explained on In Session that even though there are two counts of murder that there will only be one verdict delivered, guilty or not guilty.

    If 6 jurors say guilty on one count, and 6 say guilty on the other count then he will be “guilty” by consensus.

  17. In Session
    The few attorneys who are in the courtroom are trying to get a hold of their colleagues. Once everyone gets here, we should be going back on the record.

    Brodsky was outside blabbing – He check his phone and saw that he needed to go in. 😕

    Ellie – Thanks for sharing!

  18. In Session
    Joel Brodsky has just arrived on the fourth floor of the courthouse. Most of the attorneys are still missing, however, and the defendant has yet to be brought back into the courtroom.

  19. Already?
    But wait-this jury has been so conditioned to stop every time something gets started, that’s all they can do. Bless their hearts. It must have been agony to sit in that jury room, wondering what it was that they were not allowed to hear, and why!

  20. In Session
    The prosecution team has just arrived, and entered the courtroom.

    Defendant Drew Peterson has just been brought into the courtroom.

    Prosecutor Glasgow has left the courtroom, and is chatting with court personnel in the hallway. It appears that the rest of the attorneys are inside the courtroom.

    Glasgow is now back in the courtroom. Everybody seems to just be waiting for Judge Burmila.

  21. Keep in mind that the phone records for that night did not show actual calls, although the phone was used in the walkie-talkie capacity. Individual “chirps” are not tracked in the phone records.

  22. In Session
    Judge Burmila takes the bench. He notes that he’s received two questions from the jury. The first, at 11:10 CT, asked, “Can we have Drew Peterson’s phone records (2/28-3/31), and Neil Schori’s testimony?” The second question, from 11:15 CT, asks for Stacy Peterson’s phone records (2/28-3/3) and Harry Smith’s testimony. Judge: “The case law is crystal clear: I can’t give them the transcript . . . transcripts, if they are made available, are going to be read to the jury.”

  23. In Session
    Attorney Brodsky objects to even reading back transcripts to the jury, arguing instead that the jurors should be told to rely on their collective memories. Prosecutor Glasgow argues instead that any requested transcript should be read to the jury. Brodsky continues to object to that plan, arguing that it’s improper. Judge: “Do you have a case that says it’s improper?” Brodsky: “I suppose that [‘improper’] was an inartful word.”

  24. jury just sent a 3rd question asking for Savio letter to prosecutors office and police report about alleged staircase incident. (second question was for Harry Smith testimony)

  25. Jury requested police report from [7/5/02] incident, which was taken on July 18 2002. Jury not given the report because it was not in evidence.

    How could the report not be in evidence!?

  26. In Session
    third: “Kathleen’s letter to the state’s attorney, and July police report for July 5 incident.’ I will not be regarding them with the police report. What’s your opinion regarding the letter?” The defense suggests that the request for the police report be clarified, while the State says that would not be proper. Judge: “I think the State’s argument is correct; I don’t think I can put my interpretation on what they say . . . I can answer the question in such a way so if they want something else they would know that they could ask for it, if you want me to answer it in that fashion . . . how do you want me to answer that portion of the question?” Brodksy: “The police report about the July 5 incident which was taken on July 18 [2002] was not published to the jury.” Greenberg: “I think you should tell them that the police report is not in evidence, and simply say ‘the police report.’” Prosecutor Patton: “I believe this question is frequently asked by juries.” Judge: “How do you want me to answer the question?”

  27. @lost acres its clearly a good sign.

    Peterson’s only defense per JB was this was an accident

    Why does the jury need to see phone records if they are convinced there was no murder?

    So at least from that perspective this is excellent.

    OTOH, those optimists who thought there would be an immediate vote 12- 0 due to Peterson’s obvious guilt will be disappointed.

    Personally, i was expecting something like a 8-4 opening vote for guilt, followed by a day and a half of detailed deliberation before unanimity is achieved. I am thrilled they are focusing on the Stacy testimony.

  28. In Session
    There is a long pause while the attorneys ponder the judge’s question. Patton: “If we say the police report is not available, that’s not entirely accurately. Perhaps we say the entire police report is not available, and that is, I guess, a fact.” Judge: “Well, there’s no part of the police report that’s in evidence.” Brodsky: “If they’re looking for inconsistencies with the letter, we would only be providing half of what they want.” Greenberg: “I think the law is if a jury question has some ambiguity to it . . . the may very well think the statement is part of the police report, because it was prepared with the police there. So I think it would be proper to ask them to clarify if they’re requesting the police report or the statement that was prepared when Officer Kernc was there.”

  29. Well, that really sucks if the police report is not in evidence because it proves that Kathleen Savio told both Steve Maniaci and Mary Pontarelli about the straicase incident, even though defense alleges that she did not.

    This is what it states:

    Steven advised that on Friday, 07-05-02 he received a telephone call from Kathleen at approximately 12:15 or 12:30 p.m. he was on a motorcycle ride. She was upset and wanted him to come over. She told him that Drew got in the house by using a garage door opener. He popped out of a room as she was coming down the stairs with laundry. he wouldn’t let her leave. He grabbed her a few times and made her sit down. She told him if you are going to killme just do it. He pulled aknife and asked her where she wanted it. he ws wearing a swat uniform. She did not mention if he had a gun.

    Steven went and saw Kathleen later that day. She told him that she did not want Drew arrested or reprimanded. He also advised that he was aware that previously Drew cut a hole in the garage drywall to gain entry to the family room.

    Later this date I spoke to Mary A. Pontarelli [redacted]. She advised the following summary. [redacted]

  30. Judge: “OK, I’ve prepared the following responses: “The exhibits and testimony requested will be provided in open court.’ The second response is: ‘The Court is unclear as to your request for the July police report.’ . . . I’m going to send these two answers back, and then I’m going to let them eat their lunch.” The notes are sent back to the jury room, and the trial is in recess until after the jurors have had their lunch. At that time, we will presumably have readbacks from the testimony of Neil Schori and Harry Smith in open court.

  31. I’m glad to see that they are asking to review materials. Even if the police reports doesn’t get in, they are going to get some powerful readbacks of Stacy’s words to Neil Schori and Harry Smith.

  32. As we continue to speculate on when we will get a verdict, i think its worth taking a look at what happened in other high profile cases. I seem to remember reading somewhere that on average jurors in high profile cases take significantly longer than juries in routine cases…which certainly implies they are aware the eyes of the nation are upon them and they need to not only reach a verdict but be seen to reach a careful verdict.

    Anyways here’s a brief summary from CNN Headline News Web site

    Some people would say a short deliberation time means a guilty verdict and a longer deliberation means the jury, or at least one juror, thinks the defendant is not guilty. But take a look at how long it took jurors to decide these cases:

    Casey Anthony was acquitted of first-degree murder in the death of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. The jury deliberated ten hours and 40 minutes.

    In 1995, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Jurors deliberated for less than four hours.

    Jurors from the second Phil Spector trial deliberated for 30 hours and convicted him of second-degree murder in the death of Lana Clarkson.

    After 35 hours of deliberations, stretched out over nine days, jurors acquitted Robert Blake of first-degree murder in his wife’s death.

    Scott Peterson was convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder for killing his wife and their unborn child. The jury deliberated for seven days.

    After four days of deliberations, the Menendez brothers were convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing their parents.

    Steven Hayes was convicted of capital murder in the deaths of three members of the Petit family. The jury deliberated four hours.


  33. Of course, the police report also contains Drew’s version of the stair case incident in which he says that Kathleen exposed her crotch and breasts to him and says “Don’t you miss this?” and tried to kiss him. So…maybe all for the best if it stays out.

  34. I’m kind of worried about the phone records. Remember that there will be no record of Stacy calling Drew that night – Because she probably chirpped, and that isn’t on the phone records. 😕

    I just don’t know what to think at this point.

  35. I’m sure at least some of the jurors will remember that the chirps are not tracked. Maybe they just needed the phone records to remind some jury members who aren’t clear on that.

  36. So far so good…its clear that several people on the jury is hard at work presenting the State’s case. And they are using the evidence to substantiate the case against Peterson… which is far more likely to lead to a change of mind from a holdout than if they were relying solely on verbal persuasion.

    The only requests that would concern me would be for testimony from any of the half dozen pathologists…as this would indicate someone is hung up on whether there was a murder..

    I suspect (and frankly hope) the conflicting expert testimony is viewed as neutral by the lay jury..and is effectively being ignored. This allows the jury to do what it does best…use its common sense to evaluate the crushing weight of circumstantial evidence that points to the fact that Drew Walter Peterson is a murderer.

  37. This is what the Nextel employee had to say about the phone records for that night. They gave him a bill to look at since the company does not track “chirps”:

    “Is there any subscriber information for those two lines?” “There is some subscriber information . . . according to this bill, the subscriber is Drew Peterson.” “If a chirp goes out to a phone that’s turned off, would a record be generated?” “If a chirp was made to a phone that’s turned off, it would simply come back as ‘unanswered.’” “Is that anything that would show up in the bill?” “In the bill, no.”

  38. I have a question for anyone that might know the answer.
    When there is so much information and technology out there, how can you consider the autopsy report “hearsay”? Or am I missing something here. Were there any actual witnesses to the (alleged) murder itself? Were there any domestic violence calls in the past against DP? I haven’t been following this case very much. I’m in Ohio.

  39. Hi Goof,

    The autopsy reports and anything from the pathologists is not hearsay evidence.

    The hearsay statements that were admitted in this trial refer only to the words of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson (whether told to someone, written down or recorded).

    Normally hearsay is not admissible but these statements were admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule called “forfeiture by wrongdoing”. The judge, (and appellate justices) deemed that there was sufficient evidence that Drew Peterson had made those two witnesses unavailable to testify.

    Since our law does not allow a person to benefit by their wrongdoing, the statements of those two women were admitted.

    All the other evidence in this case is either hard evidence or circumstantial evidence.

    No one in this case has claimed to have actually witnessed the murder of Kathleen Savio.

    Yes, there were domestic violence incidents before she was found dead. The police report from 7/5/02 is a “domestic incident” report. There was an incident in which Drew Peterson’s son saw Drew dragging Kathleen by her hair. (this testimony didn’t make it to trial as the judge deemed it was too remote in tie from the death) There is a lot of info on this site and elsewhere if you want to read up on the history of the case.

  40. Ruth Ravve‏@RuthRavve

    #DrewPeterson One defense atty (not working on this case) just told me the jury questions asked means things look bad for the defense

  41. On a more sobering note, as we wait and hope…its scary to think as things stand …later tonight some of us could walk into a restaurant or a bar and find Drew Peterson sitting there with his latest squeeze. Lets hope the jury think about this as they deliberate, (as well as the cartoon of the Cheshire Cat.)

  42. Judge Burmila is back on the bench. “The jurors have had their lunch . . . we have received another question at 1:05: ‘Kathleen autopsy pictures, bruises and hemorrhage pictures, pictures of tub and body (bathroom pictures), July Kernc report’ . . .we’ve had two request from the jury regarding Ofc. Kernc’s report . . . I intend to respond as follows: ‘Enclosed is the handwritten statement of K. Savio . . . open the document only if it is responsive to your request for Ofc. Kernc’s report, as requested in your notes.’” Both sides say that will be fine with them, and so Savio’s written statement will be provided to the jury.

  43. In Session
    Attorney Brodsky objects to some of the photographs going back to the jury. However, the photos were entered into evidence, and the judge allows them to be sent back to the jury (over the defense objection). The defense objects to any of the autopsy photos going back, but Judge Burmila allows it.

  44. In Session
    Brodsky “vehemently” objects to the autopsy photographs going to the jury, calling them “gruesome.” However, the judge allows these photographs to go back, since they are in evidence and the jurors requested them (with only one or two exceptions).

  45. In Session
    Greenberg suggests that the jurors be allowed to look at the photos inside the courtroom, rather than being allowed to have them back in the jury room. Prosecutor Koch disagrees, and the judge agrees with State. “Over the defendant’s objection, the photographs are going to go back to the jury.”

  46. In Session
    The defense also objects to some of the bathroom photographs going back to the jury (but not to most of them). The judge allows most of them to go back. He then sends for the bailiff, instructing her to take the evidence back, and then to bring the jurors and alternates back to the courtroom. The judge then swears in the court reporter, who will be reading back the requested transcripts.

  47. Again this is excellent news. The fact that are requesting the photos….rather than the expert testimony…shows that the jurors will use their common sense when it comes to figuring out how she was killed….and i think the general view from all of us that looked at the grotesque bathroom pics was that there was no way anyone could have slipped and fallen…and landed in that position with nothing disturbed around the tiny bathtub.

    The fact they want to see the autopsy photos suggest they will be focusing on the nonsense of the 13 bruises resulting from one fall.

  48. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson jury specifically asks for “bruises and hemorrhage pictures,” as well as photos of Savio body and tub.

  49. @ Fac…tiny little detail

    Its interesting that the juror who ran a construction company…and is training to be a pilot etc is listed in your post above as being in his 50’s, In the post you made yesterday from a different source he was listed as being in his 70’s.
    Either way both agree he is scheduled to retire this month.

  50. In Session
    Attorney Greenberg has made a lengthy argument, objecting to the fact that some evidence (such as photographs) are going back to the jury room, while other evidence (the transcripts) are being read to the jurors, but will not go back. The judge, however, is adamant that the transcripts should not go back, since they contained portions which one can clearly see have been redacted. Greenberg then finds case law which he believes supports his position, and the judge takes a brief recess to consider the issue.

  51. The jurors and alternates are now back in the courtroom, and the court reporter starts by reading the stipulations which were previously agreed to regarding the phone call records of defendant Drew Peterson.

    Those records reflect calls between Savio and Peterson on the weekend that she died (including calls from Peterson to Savio that were not answered). These records include calls made to/from both cell phones and land lines. The last call reflected is a March 1, 2004 call at 10:05 there was a 14 second call from Peterson’s land line to Savio’s cell phone.

  52. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    About five members of #drewpeterson jury – all men – took notes when read phone records. The rest sat passively.

  53. Sure Cheryl…but if they were all agreed they would have finished by now. I think its unrealistic in the days of jury consultants etc to believe we would get immediate agreement on a guilty verdict. But my gut tells me based on the number and type of requests that SEVERAL jurors are working hard to make the case for the State. And given the speed with which they are making requests, i suspect they are making progress one point at a time against the people are expressing doubt.

    My guess is there will be none, or very few more requests for a couple of hours,,,during which time they deliberate and then take another vote..and then they’ll either wrap up with a verdict late today…or if there are still a couple of holdouts adjourn for the day…starting fresh after a good nights sleep

    IMO its going as well as any one from the prosc could have imagined.

  54. In Session The court reporter now begins to read the transcript of witness Neil Schori, beginning with his direct examination. In his testimony, Schori says he met with Stacy Peterson at the Bolingbrook Starbucks, after she called. He saw her sitting by herself, on the patio, as he approached. “Stacy appeared to be nervous, tentative . . . I approached her and greeted her . . . I did all of my counseling out in the public . . . I never wanted to have any question of impropriety on my part.”

  55. In Session “She withdrew physically and kind of into herself . . . she had tears streaming down her cheeks . . . she told me that one night she and Drew went to bed at the same time, and they both went to sleep. She woke up in the middle of the night, and she noticed Drew was not in bed with her . . . she did not find him in the house. She attempted to contact him by phone, and was unsuccessful . .. sometime later, in the early morning hours, she saw him standing near the washer and dryer, dressed in all black, carrying a bag . . . she said he removed his clothing, and took the contents of the bag and put all of that tin the washing machine . . . she walked over to the washing machine, and looked to see what was inside. And she saw some women’s clothing that she identified as not hers . . . he told her that soon the police would be wanting to sit down to interview her, and he told her what to say to the police . . . it took hours . . . she said that she lied [to the police] . . . she said that she lied on Drew’s behalf to the police . . . she continued to cry; she was very scared.”

  56. @ Ellie…yes if its a hung jury, the State will have to decide whether to go for a retrial. They will. The odds of a conviction in a retrial when looked at on a national basis increase from 80% to 90% for all jury trials.

    @ Ellie…yes the Defense will request a lower bail…I see no reason it will be granted.

  57. In Session
    The court reporter now begins to read back the cross-examination of Neil Schori’s testimony. The witness admits that he’d “heard a little bit” about what had happened to Kathleen Savio at the time he met with Stacy. However, he denies that he thought much about it. He repeats that he met Stacy at Starbucks, rather than at church. Schori says he “absolutely” conducts counseling sessions in public places. He also repeats that Stacy was crying when he talked to her, and denied that he knew what Stacy wanted to tell him before he met with her.

    “You don’t even know if she was telling you the truth, do you?” “I believe she was telling me the truth.”

  58. In Session
    Schori acknowledges that he didn’t take any notes during this meeting with Stacy (he says he never takes notes during counseling sessions). He acknowledges that he didn’t follow up with Stacy the next day, and didn’t talk to Drew about what she’d told him. He also acknowledges that he was sitting on a grand jury once a week during this time period, but didn’t speak to anybody there about what he’d been told until October (two months after Stacy’s statement). “During this meeting, she also told you that Drew killed his own men while he was in the Army, isn’t that right?” “Yes.”

  59. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    During Schori reading five #drewpeterson jurors – four men and one woman – are taking notes. The rest just sitting there.

  60. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    No #drewpeterson jurors taking notes during reading of Schori cross-examination at the moment

  61. BTW, I spoke to Ollie North last night, He confirmed he knew that Peterson killed his own men when he was in the army!


  62. Schori repeats that he met Stacy in a public place “for reasons of integrity.” He defends his decision not to tell anyone about what she said because it’s what Stacy asked him to do. “You let her go back to that house?” “I don’t let anybody do anything . . . that’s not my job to stop somebody . . . I didn’t stop her.” “No, you didn’t stop her because you didn’t believe her?” “No, that’s not right.”

    The witness concedes that he wasn’t present when Stacy was interviewed by the police, and doesn’t know what she told them.

  63. The redirect portion of Schori’s examination begins. “She asked you not to tell anyone?” “She did . . . I honored her request because she asked me to.”

    “I sensed from the phone call that I had received from Stacy the day before that I needed to have somebody else there to observe, to see what was going on.” Finally, in October of 2007, he informed an Illinois State Police officer of what he’d been told.

    The recross-examination of Neil Schori begins. “You knew that she was trying to seduce you, right?” “Absolutely not.”

  64. Schori concedes that he is not a licensed counselor. That ends the examination of this witness.

    The court reporter now begins to read the direct examination of attorney Harry Smith. He notes that he specializes in divorce law (but was once a prosecutor in another Illinois County before going into private practice).

  65. I swear, only in this trial could there be an objection to a read-back! 😕

    In Session
    The transcript readback has been interrupted by a sidebar. The jury is subsequently excused from the courtroom. The judge points out to the court reporter that the defense is complaining that she skipped a portion of the transcript. The reporter says she’s confused, because there’s a photocopying problem. The judge, attorneys, and reporter try to figure out exactly what the transcript is supposed to say. As it turns out, the only thing that was omitted was the word ‘yes’ at one point. With that, the judge asks to have the jury returned to the courtroom.

  66. Well it looks like Joey Lopez’s words from yesterday are coming back to hurt him. Remember he told jurors… “The hearsay instruction; basically it says the statement rests upon the credibility of the person who said it”

    Well guess what? Seems the jury is focused on the “hearsay” of the two men who had direct contact with the mysteriously absent Stacy Peterson.

    These two men are not sexual predators, tax cheats…as Lopez stated in dismissing the hearsay of much maligned hitman.

    These two man represent and Church and the Court…one a pastor and a one an Illinois attorney and therefore an Officer of the Court.

    Surely these men represent sufficiently strong hooks on which the jury can hang their hats to allow for a vote of guilty.

    Thanks Joey for reminding the jury that it all comes down to credibility…something you and Joel apparently lacked in front of this jury

  67. Welcome Sherrie…you just doubled the Washington State contingent…and we certainly know a thing or two about serial killers!

  68. Oh, that’s fascinating about the back-firing jury instruction concerning “moral turpitude” which they wrote solely to go after Pachter. It does kind of highlight the fact that Neil Schori and Harry Smith have no issues on that count.

  69. @ Sherrie…As for your question, I never heard mention of sequestration…so i was confused when i read one of three alternates had brought an overnight bag. So my guess is they will go home tonight…of course if you want facts rather an educated guess, wait for Facs to respond…she’s the Queen of All Knowledge

  70. Hey guys! I’m sending this from my phone….. Having computer problems right now.

    Apparently Brodsky objected again! He also got admonished by the judge for saying “that’s wrong” during the read back of Harry’s testimony!

    Be back soon! Hopefully! 😉

  71. As for the sequestering, I have no Knowledge, I am the Princess of Not Knowing That.

    Although, yesterday the judge did say something about how he wasn’t going to set hours and if they went unitl 9 pm, they’d go to 9 pm…and then he sent them home at 4:30. 😉

    Thank you for all your updates, Harley!

  72. my goodness, I thought tthat you cannt object when the jury is deliberating . i never heard that even in other cases as the above was stated for the otherones..but geesh brodskey is an idiot . he needs to put a sock in it.. ..and to me when that happens the jury sees what they DEFENS is doing to interupt things that is not good

  73. In Session

    The jurors are back in the courtroom, and the court reporter resumes her readback of the direct examination of attorney Harry Smith. “She asked me if we could get more money out of the divorce if she told the police how Drew killed Kathy . . . she asked me if we could use information to get more money . . . I don’t know if she wanted money for herself; she wanted to take the kids out of state . . . she said, ‘If we threaten to do this, can we get more money?’”

  74. @ At Sherrie…well it seems facs may not know about sequestration,,,but she can certainly tell the time! One out of two ain’t all that bad.

    Well at least we can laugh a little, on this tense afternoon….which is more than can be said for poor Harley Joey who is turning black…and Joel Brodsky who appears to be pulling out his beard…his hair having long been demolished.

  75. Isession said that there is one lady that is divorced. and yes we do ask if we can get more money from the soon to be ex.. I know i asked my lawyer that question and if i would get a pention from him and child support and spousle support and the answer was yes ,., so those are general questions asked to divorce lawyers in my state…

  76. I like what the jurors are asking to see and I don’t think it indicates a hung jury. I wouldn’t want to think that they had made up their minds before deliberating. I would want them to have discussions , ask to see and hear things, etc. before they render a verdict. I’m glad they are looking at things twice.

  77. @ Fac…yes and I find it poignant that it appears the jury may ultimately base its guilty verdict on the words of Stacy.

    Talk about the jury sending a loud message!!!!

    Let’s hope for such a fitting outcome

  78. Just now getting online and have only briefly scanned the posts, as I want to ask a question.

    Question: Does the jury have to be unanimous in their decision – all 12 voting for guilty or not guilty?

  79. In Session

    The jurors return to the courtroom, and the court reporter continues to read the cross-examination of Harry Smith’s testimony. “She said, ‘Could we get more money out of Drew if we threatened to tell the police how he killed Kathy?’” “Yes.” “She specifically used the word ‘how,’ not just that he killed Kathy, but how he killed Kathy?” “Yes.” Smith then describes what he heard in the background during his telephone conversation with Stacy. “He [Drew] called her, and asked her what she was doing, and who she was talking to . . . not standing right next to the person.” “Did you hear her respond to him?” “I did.” “When he called a second time, did she end the call?” “She did . . . she yelled to Drew that she would be in in a minute.” Smith also testifies that Stacy told him that she believed Drew was tracking her via the GPS on her cell phone (“but now I have a new one he doesn’t know about”).

    The redirect portion of Smith’s testimony is now read. He says that he warned Stacy to be careful, but not about extortion but for concealment of a crime. “She was threatening to tell a falsehood to get money?” “No.”

    The readbacks of testimony the jury requested has now been completed. The jurors are excused from the courtroom to resume their deliberations. The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is again in recess.

  80. Molly, there was some discussion on In Session this morning and I didn’t hear all of it so I may not be right (someone tell me if I’m not), but I think they said it has to be unanimous but it can be by consensus.

    I heard that they need twelve votes of guilty but they can be split between the two murder counts. So if some think he’s guilty on one count and the rest think he’s guilty on the other count, it will still be one single verdict of guilty.

    I think that if anyone votes “not guilty” then it’s just a hung jury and the judge will decide what to do next.

  81. I’m going to wear my computer out…maybe that’s what happened to poor harleyjoey!
    How about a state roll call while we chew our nails?
    Southeast Texas

  82. The judge presiding over the Drew Peterson murder trial on Wednesday afternoon allowed jurors to see autopsy photos of Peterson’s deceased ex-wife, Kathleen Savio.

    The request to see the autopsy photos, as well as photos of Savio’s injuries and of the bathtub where she was found, was among several jurors made in the few hours since they began deliberating.

    The first question, a request for Peterson’s phone records the weekend she died, was made a little more than an hour after the panelists began discussions.

    Jurors also requested a transcript of the testimony from Rev. Neil Schori and attorney Harry Smith. Judge Edward Burmila ruled against handing over the transcripts, instead opting to have them read back to jurors by a court reporter.

    Additionally, they wanted a letter written by Savio where she described a fear that Peterson would kill her. The judge allowed them to have a heavily redacted version.


  83. Southern California here………………..

    Just based on what the jury has asked for – the testimony of Neil Schori, Attorney Harry Smith, and the phone records, that indicates they’ve agreed that Kathleen’s death was not an accident. They believe it was a homicide. They’re now considering if Drew Peterson is Kathleen’s killer.

    We may get the verdict today. I’m wondering if Judge Burmila would allow the jury to work into the evening hours if they feel it’s necessary? It’s now coming up on 4:00pm Chicago time.

  84. Facsmiley………….this is off-topic, but since you’re originally from California…………would you believe…….it’s completely overcast here today, 73 degrees, and we’ve had two brief periods of rain! Not a lot, but this weather is so unusual for our area. We usually don’t get any rain until late October.

  85. It’s weird everywhere, Molly! Illinois has been very hot and dry – I called it the “Vallejo” summer.

    And to stay on-topic, an excerpt from Lopez’s Sun-Times blog:

    We arrived to court Tuesday with a throng of reporters waiting in the parking lot. Immediately, as we hooked in our MacBook, we had problems. It would not communicate with the overhead projector in the courtroom, and panic kicked in. Now what? We emailed the presentation to a Windows laptop of our colleague. The presentation was reconfigured. OMG!! The state was just starting its case. Like a surgeon, Lisa quickly went to work trying to salvage it. She had to type with the screen halfway closed, to keep it concealed from the sketch artists and the gallery. Voila! She finished and ran spell check — another disaster, some words were misspelled as I stood at the podium launching into my attack displaying one slide after another using references to “Pulp Fiction”, “King of the Hill”, the Cheshire Cat from “Alice in Wonderland, the Hollywood sign, a photo of Larry the Cable Guy and a picture of a Starbucks. The presentation was well received by the jury, and they were able to read along as I argued one slide at a time for 2 hours and 20 minutes. It was effective as it kept their attention.


  86. Eastern Oklahoma here.

    Asking for the pictures and autopsy tells me they are revisiting the accident vs murder issues too.

  87. Anyone think they’ll reach a verdict tonight? BTW, I’m born and raised in Illinois, lived not far from Bolingbrook for most of my adult life, but now live in St. Louis. 🙂

  88. Drew Peterson may not have many fans, but his case has dozens of followers who come from near and far to file into the Will County Courthouse.

    Peterson, 58, is charged with murder in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. The trial is in its sixth week, and jurors got the case just Wednesday morning.

    Mandy McGlothlin, who is from Tampa, Florida, practices what some might call “trial tourism.”

    Related Content
    MORE: Drew Peterson Murder Trial
    STORY: Jurors ask for transcripts, photos, phone records
    “I flew out here. I am a trial watcher. I love the domestic violence trials. That’s my focus,” McGlothlin said.
    McGlothlin has attended every day of this trial since jury selection began more than six weeks ago. She did the same thing during the trial of Casey Anthony, the Florida mother found not guilty of killing her own daughter. How does the Peterson case compare?

    “The jurors are definitely a lot more interested, they’re taking a lot more notes,” McGlothlin said. “The jurors in the Casey Anthony trial they didn’t take any notes at all.”


  89. In session

    Defense attorney Ralph Meczyk has just walked into the overflow courtroom. He says he believes the judge will send the jurors a note in a few minutes, asking them if they’d like to get dinner and continue deliberating, or go home. Again, according to Meczyk, this should be happening shortly.

    According to media coordinator Ken Kaupus, defendant Drew Peterson is being brought up to the courtroom. Once the judge takes the bench, according to Kaupus, he will “communicate with the jurors.”

  90. A big thanks to all of you. I felt like I fell off the face of the earth when In sessions goes off at noon out on west coast. It sure would be great if we have a verdict soon tonite. I did hear that HLN will let us know if there is a verdict and they would cut to the courthouse. Just think about this if there is a guilty verdict. Gods two special ladies were in charge. Amen to Kathy and Stacy.

  91. If jury is willing to go on tonight, as it was just stated they are as they asked for dinner before judge could send note, does it look like they may be close?

  92. If the jury chooses to stay its a very good sign for the State…it usually means the Foreperson thinks he or she can get a verdict this evening. So I’m anxiously waiting to see signs on Twitter that dinner is being brought in!

  93. Sam Adam JR, Blago attorney, just said on WLS radio in Chicago that the jury questioning phone records from Stacy is a good sign for the defense. He states that it shows they are trying to collaborate hearsay testimony from the pastor that she attempted to contact Drew several times during the night Kathy drowned to determine whether the statement can be tied to facts. He obviously is not following the case as closely as he thinks since the phone rep said “chirping” will not show up on the records. Interesting since Mr. Adams has attended the proceedings and has become a “local” media expert offering his two cents on how the trial is proceeding. Perhaps that’s why Gov Blago is doing 14 years in prison.

  94. Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson defense wants them to be told that tonight they will go home.
    Who cares what the defense wants

  95. In Session

    Judge Burmila takes the bench. “It is 5:45, the jurors have been deliberating since 9:00 this morning . . . I have proposed to communicate with them in the following fashion: ‘please halt your deliberations momentarily, and advise me if you’d like me to order dinner, or prefer to go home for the day and resume deliberations tomorrow.” However,, the jurors communicated [in the meantime] with the bailiff, and provided her with a dinner order. They’ve asked to have food brought in. There is a question of the length of deliberations; the appellate courts have opined that the deliberations should not be lengthy . . . it is something I have to be cognoscente of.” Brodsky says that the defense position is that the judge should send the note to the jurors; Koch argues that the judge has no need to send a note since the jurors have already sent their own. Greenberg: “Give them the choice: order dinner, or go home. I think it’s fairly simply. If they want to continue to deliberate, they’ll continue to deliberate . . . we don’t know if they know they have a choice.” Judge: “I’m going to take this under advisement for a minute. Keep the defendant here, though, Sheriff.” With that, the judge leaves the bench, but the defendant and attorneys remain in the courtroom.

    Ben Bradley

    Jury responds to judge: If we continue deliberations tomorrow, does that mean we can go home now?? Judge says he has no plans to sequester

  96. From what I am reading, it sounds like in a roundabout way the judge is asking the jury as to how close they are.. hmmmmmm

  97. Chitown- the chirps do not show up on the bill, which is all that is in evidence. Nextel does not track individual “chirps”.

    “Is there any subscriber information for those two lines?” “There is some subscriber information . . . according to this bill, the subscriber is Drew Peterson.” “If a chirp goes out to a phone that’s turned off, would a record be generated?” “If a chirp was made to a phone that’s turned off, it would simply come back as ‘unanswered.’” “Is that anything that would show up in the bill?” “In the bill, no.”

  98. @ Facs…re your 3.35pm post on the jury verdict, you are correct.

    There are two counts
    1) Murder 1…Peterson made her inhale fluids so as to kill her
    2) Murder 1 ..Peterson should have known he had put her in a position where she would inhale fluids and drown.

    I believe the counts reflects the State’s uncertainty as to whether he held her under water or whether he left her to die under water.

    Each can use his or her vote to vote guilty to either of these two counts…and as long as there are 12 votes in total for guilty that is enough for a Murder 1 rap.

    Sadly it only takes one hold-out to hang the jury…but until jurors have been out for at least two full days, there is no need to worry to much about that.

    Still the general rule of thumbs are that long deliberations are good for Defendants…although there are many high profile exceptions to that rule.

  99. As long as they’re there, I’m here. I’ve been afraid to leave this site for over the 30-minute time limit, all day. The jury has got to be tired-and more than a little frustrated. If we’re wanting a verdict, I imagine they want one even more.

  100. Stacy St. Clair
    Judge admonishes jury to avoid media coverage as he dismisses them for the night. Says stop deliberating or pondering the case.

    (wow, how do you do that?)

  101. facsmiley, Why are they letting Drew Peterson come up to the court room? I thought he wasn’t allowed to do that while the jury is deliberating? If it is a hung jury will Drew have to stay in prison?

  102. I know alot about the last five years of this case but I am no trial junkie and I’m learning how this stuff works as we go.

    Does anyone else know if there are any rules to keep Peterson out of the courtroom? AFAIK the judge ruled that the readback would take place in “open court” in which case I think Drew would be there.

    As far as a hung jury, the judge and lawyers would need to hammer out what to do if that was the case. It can proceed a few different ways from there, as far as I know. My guess is defense would file a motion to get Drew out of detention until he could get a new trial, but the judge might deny for the same reason it was denied during the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. I think Joel tried to Spring Drew at least five times in the last three years and it was always denied.

  103. The way the defense wants them to hurry and go home, I hope they don’t plan on sending a black car with darkened windows past each of their houses. If they got scared, who would they call…the police?? Just kiddin…

  104. Oh well not a surprise …but still disappointing…I’m guessing that the 90 minute read-out of testimony coupled with the lengthy wait for the reading to begin …could easily have been another hour or so …ate into a large chunk of today’s deliberations. So i’m guessing real deliberation time was around 5 hours…(although it’ll show in the record books as 7.5 hours)

    Given what specific testimony was read back today, I remain highly optimistic.

    OTOH If no verdict by this time tomorrow, i might start to change color like Harley Joey.

  105. New trial, new judge and I think this team got all the publicity they wanted. Joel would have to put together a new crew.

  106. Hoping this is a good thing the jury is taking so long to come back with a verdict. Everyone say your Prayers tonight for the Savio family, and that the jury gives a guilty verdict tomorrow. IMO it will be tomorrow between 1-3 that they reach a verdict!

  107. @ Lynn.and Fac…a defendant has the due process right to be present at all times during the conduct of his or her trial. Had he not been present during the read-back it would be a due process violation and grounds for appeal. Peterson can waive his right …but given he thinks he’s God”s gift to women why would he miss any opportunity to influence the female jurors.

  108. I am not guessing anymore. I just have to wait and respond accordingly as the verdict is read. I was flabberghasted at the CA verdict, I watched that trial every minute it was online, and I was floored when that verdict came in. Anything is possible in the good old U S of A

  109. @ fac…the decision whether or not to retry would obviously depend on the split of any hung jury. That said, its hard to imagine a situation where the State would not retry…and as i wrote previously there is around a 90% chance of conviction, second time around v 80% for a first trial (using national stats for jury trials)

    As for bail, if the State intends to retry, and the hang out was only a couple of jurors, I’m sure bail would be maintained at its current level. Lets not forget even if there is a 10 -2 vote of guilt in this Savio trial, he would still be the primary suspect in the disappearance of his 4th wife….making a reduction in bail highly unlikely.

  110. Dang! I thought for sure they would have a verdict today! Asking for dinner kind of told me they were close. I’m with you LA, after that verdict – Who knows what any of it means. I guess the good thing is that they’re at least looking at stuff. Those lazy jurors in Florida couldn’t even bother themselves to do that much!

    Still no pc. 😦
    I think I like my iPad better anyway! 🙂

    I’m in Texas! 🙂

  111. Facs….I know “chirps” won’t show up on the billing statement from the Nextel rep testimony. That’s what’s irritating about Sam Adams JR media comments. The so called “trial expert” is not paying close enough attention to the testimony given. Send him a link to this site and perhaps he could be better informed.

  112. Thanks facsmiley! Maybe if Peterson was in the court room during the read back, that why the jury can get a better feeling about how it all happened! So it might not be a good idea for the defense. I wonder if anybody else thinks that Peterson’s attorneys know or think Peterson really did kill Katherine and Stacy, cause I sure do, especially Katherine!

  113. Question: If “chirps” don’t show up in the billing, is there anything in the company records (separate from billing) that would indicate a phone in use? What I want to know is this……is there anything that will show a cell phone in use one or more times in the middle of the night?

    I too watched the CA trial last year and was devastated by that verdict. What a travesty of justice! I had watched that case unfold from the beginning.

    The same thing with this case………..from the moment I heard about the missing wife in Bolingbrook, IL, I followed the case in the news media and online. I was so hopeful that Stacy’s remains be found and this monster be charged. I now believe Stacy will never be found and this is the only chance for justice for both Kathleen and Stacy.

  114. I think it’s quite possible that the jury wanted to hear the important testimony again so they could get it all in one piece — WITHOUT interruptions. The way it went down in court, there was an objection or sidebar every few minutes during that part of the testimony. I can’t blame them for wanting to hear it from beginning to end.

    The fact that they wanted all the photos is also a good sign. Can’t possibly achieve that many bruises in one fall OR show the preponderance of bruising to the front of the body after hitting the back of the head. Just can’t happen.

    I think this jury is smart enough that they can put the puzzle pieces together in the quiet of their own room and come up with the only rational conclusion…..GUILTY AS CHARGED!

  115. @ Lynn – Not sure why you think its dangerous. This jury has already had to swear on a stack of bibles that they have not been following the case since 2009. Surely they can be trusted for one more night.

    If you are referring to physical danger…I’m not sure who would be dumb enough to try to run interference for Peterson. As far as can be seen he has no support apart from his immediate family and a friend or two.

  116. I remember when the bail for DP was set so high it was said the reason for that would be revealed at trial. Am I the only one who didn’t hear anything particularly surprising in the trial? I also found it strange that Ric Mimms wasn’t called. The fct that he followed Kathleen on behalf of Drew should have been heard by the jury.

  117. oxy, I know what you mean, but in most cases doesn’t the judge usually make the jury stay together in a hotel or something? I just don’t want ANYTHING happening to make Lopez start screaming!! LOL

  118. @ Molly

    Q: What I want to know is this……is there anything that will show a cell phone in use one or more times in the middle of the night?

    A: Apparently not or the pros would have been all over it .

    Here’s current record retention policies:

    “Cell-site data, or tracking information, is another big point of difference between providers. The data lists a phone’s connections to mobile-phone towers to show where the phone has been used across a certain period of time. The retention periods for cell-site data are not as straightforward as in other categories. For Verizon, that period is a one-year “rolling” basis, T-Mobile says it stores it for “a year or more,” Sprint keeps it for up to two years and AT&T indefinitely, starting in July 2008″
    Source: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/73400.html

    From this it can be surmised:
    1) 2004 call info is no longer available
    2) Such info could have been obtained had the ISP requested it during the initial investigation in 2004

  119. @ Lynn…even if the jury had been sequestered its almost certain Joel would have found something to “object to”. It seems he simply cant help himself…so the Judge may as well let the jurors go home.

  120. Aussienat! I was just thinking about you. I agree with you about the high bail and Ric Mims.
    I swear, more was kept out of this trial than was let in!
    I was also thinking about Mark Fuhrman stating he was the first person to request phone records. Big fat lot of good that did us.

  121. I thought I remembered reading that the hitman had to do with the high bail. I could be wrong.

    I’m in Pennsylvania.

  122. Ric Mims was on the witness list and there was discussion about calling him to testify about Drew and Stacy’s cell phones. The state wanted to call both Mims and Cassandra Cales to talk about the phones but agreed to a stipulation instead.

    I would have thought his value as a witness would be to much more incriminating stuff, but hard to know why he was not called.

    One thing that could have been a problem with Mims testimony is that he did publicly change his story about why he was following Kathleen.

    On one occasion he said it was in the mornings because Drew thought she was taking the kids to spend the night at Maniacis and he wanted to verify it to use against her in divorce court.

    Another time Mims said he watched Kathleen while Drew broke into her house.

    Both of those things could be true, but he may have given even more versions of that story which might not go over well on the witness stand.

    Throw in that he sold his story to the National Enquirer and for a while had a very public web site about the case where he did Q and A, probably made him a difficult witness to put on the stand.

    AND, if you recall Jeff Pachter admitted to his (he says unwiting) involvement in a workers comp scam. They co-worker that he drove to the hospital with the faked injury? Ric Mims.

  123. I live in a bigger town near Bolingbrook and have followed this awful story since it began. So much evidence against DP was not allowed like how he had a hole cut in Kathleens house so he could slither in and out. If he is not convicted, it will surely be an outrage to women across the globe. Hopefully that POS will have a fine roomie in he’ll like Bin Laden. I have often looked along the Illinois river for what’s left of Stacie, and I always pray she will be found. Factsmiley, thank you for all you do and have done.

  124. charmed,
    The hit man was what I thought the high bail was all about. The judge wouldn’t lower it, because if he did, and Drew got out of jail and hired a hit man to kill someone, or killed someone himself. The judge would be held responsible for it, cause he lowered the bail, and Drew got out.

  125. Here’s something new about jury deliberations from the Chicago Tribune

    Around 6pm “Judge Edward Burmila reported that jurors have asked for dinner. But Burmila said to the attorney’s he is concerned about how long the day has been for the jury, noting a recent conviction in Will County was overturned after an appellate court found they were made to deliberate for an excessive length of time.”

    So although its been reported that the jury CHOSE to go home, this choice was made only after the judge told them that if they continued to deliberate they would NOT be sequestered.

    So maybe by taking the hotel option off the table, the judge was encouraging them to wrap it up for the night and thereby avoid another appellate issue. Methinks Burmilla is one smart cookie.


  126. That’s interesting because I was just rereading this and thinking “what’s all this about the appellate court”? So thanks for answering that question.

    JUDGE: “It is 5:45, the jurors have been deliberating since 9:00 this morning . . . I have proposed to communicate with them in the following fashion: ‘please halt your deliberations momentarily, and advise me if you’d like me to order dinner, or prefer to go home for the day and resume deliberations tomorrow. However…the jurors communicated [in the meantime] with the bailiff, and provided her with a dinner order. They’ve asked to have food brought in. There is a question of the length of deliberations; the appellate courts have opined that the deliberations should not be lengthy . . . it is something I have to be cognoscente of.”

  127. I am glad the jury asked for various pieces of evidence. Even if I were talking notes, I might feel I had missed something, and would take my responsibility seriously — having someone’s life in my hands — I would want to make sure I had understood the evidence. With all the up/down and in/out, I don’t think I could have relied on my memory.


  128. According to Chicago Tribune reporter Stacy’s Tweet:

    “Joel Brodsky is now being accompanied to court by an off-duty Chicago cop”

    No word on why the once cocky lawyer is now using a body-guard

  129. Thanks Oxymoran for the info on cell phone records! It’s a shame that the investigators in 2004 didn’t request cell phone activity right away. That information would, of course, be invaluable today.

    Labeling Kathleen’s death an accident within hours of discovering her body, effectively shut down any investigative work that might have been done.

  130. No kidding, Molly. And once they skipped out on that initial important investigation, they had no motivation to follow up on what people told them afterwards. It would only have exposed their laziness and ineptitude. It’s very sad.

  131. I hear that in the court room today when jury was requesting transcripts, photos and read backs, that conversation between Joel Brodsky and Steve Greenberg was heated and expletive-filled. So heated that at one point, Drew, who was seated between them, put his hands on each of their shoulders.

  132. Facs,
    Wouldn’t you have liked to be there, to see that???? I would have, sounds like Greenberg is still ticked off at Brodsky for calling Harry Smith to the stand, and maybe by Brodsky being “surprised” by Smith’s answer to his question. I think the whole defense team went into shock at that. For once, No One Objected, and just at the right time, too. Too bad, I loved it, and I hope that is what will make the difference, and get a Guilty verdict. Exactly what Drew and Brodsky deserve. What a pair.

Comments are closed.