Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[katydid23]

In Session “After you got the underwriting file together, what’s the next thing you did?” “I called Anna Doman back. And I found out that her sister died on March 1, 2004, but the sister told me . . .” Objection/Sustained. “After you called Ms. Doman, did you discover who the beneficiaries were?” “Her sons.” “Thomas and Kristopher?” “Yes.” “And Mr. Drew Peterson was not a beneficiary?” “Not at that time . . . because they were minors, I advised her we wouldn’t be able to pay benefits directly to them. Someone would have to be appointed guardians of their estate.” He then sent a memo to his supervisor, asking him how he should handle the matter.

 

[AngelWings444]

Craig Wall ‏@craigrwall
Defense atty @josharrk says #DrewPeterson would love to testify but they advise not to. Also says Drew is scared to death not cocky



:boohoo:

PANSY! JMO..back to catching up. A very good Monday morning. Praying for Justice for Kathleen.

 

[katydid23]

prosecution asks for a sidebar when witness is shown another memo from his file, dated April 21, 2004.

 

[katydid23]

Steadman says colleague inquired how to handle policy because Savio's sister, Anna Doman, also filed a claim on it.

Steadman says he told Doman via phone that #DrewPeterson "would have to pursue claim."

 

[katydid23]

Steadman: "If Mr. Peterson murdered her, he wouldn't be eligible to be the guardian," and the insurace co. wouldn't pay the claim...

 

[katydid23]

In Session The witness is next asked about another memo in the file, dated April 21, 2004. Objection. The prosecution asks for a sidebar.

The sidebar ends. The witness is asked to look at another document. “Sir, this looks like the same memo.” After a moment, Brodsky realizes the witness is correct. “Recall the next step you took in the investigation?” “I called Mrs. Doman back, and I advised her that Mr. Peterson would have to pursue the claim. I received a telephone call from Mr. Peterson.” “What did you do next?” “I set up a file, and I waited to hear from Mr. Peterson.” ‘Did you then receive a proof of loss?” “After I spoke to him, I basically told him what information we would need to process the claim . . . I received proof of loss from him.” “That would be the next step you took?” “Yes, Sir.’

 

[katydid23]

In Session Now, the witness is once again shown a copy of the April 21, 2004 memo in his claim file. “Were the proof of losses on Mr. Peterson’s behalf, or on behalf of the minors?” “On behalf of the minors . . . I called Mr. Peterson on the telephone; I had some questions for him.” “Did he give you information?” “Yes, he did . . . I followed up on part of the information he gave me. I asked him if he knew the name and phone number of the Illinois State Police officer handling the case.” Objection/Sustained. “Did you follow up with the police officers?” “Yes, I did, Sir.” “Did you receive documents which appointed Mr. Peterson as guardian for his two children?” “Yes, I did.” “Did you receive information regarding the cause of death?” “Yes . . . if Mr. Peterson murdered her, he would not be eligible to be the guardian.” ‘Did the insurance company eventually pay the claim?” “Yes.” “In full?” “Yes . . . one million dollars, plus interest.” That concludes the direct examination of this witness.

 

[Kimster]

:waitasec: Isn't this something the defense WOULDN'T want to bring up? That Drew was going to get the money for the life insurance?

I'm at work and must have missed something here.

kay:

 

[wishinuall]

The defense said their case would go so much smoother than the state's. Okay, they are up to bat. What I want to know is: "Where's the beef?" Where is this great defense they seemed so sure of?

I seriously don't think they believed for a minute it would actually get this far! They were so certain they would get a mistrial or that Judge B (who I've totally changed my mind about...well, for now) would find in their favor this morning, that possibly the ONLY thing they've had as a defense was to smear every single witness & VICTIM! I'm so thankful the judge got up on the right side of the bed today! The rulings seem fair, but not favorable for the DT! :woohoo: On another note, on IS there wa a '13th juror' who called in with a very good point; that being a juror, he would want the trial to take however long as necessary in order to come to a fair verdict. I pray these jurors feel the same, & that KS's fears, predictions, voice & JUSTICE is finally recognized!! And IMHO, DP will forever be :jail:!!!!

 

[atthelake]

Hey you guys down there be safe! Get your wi-fi set up so you can follow with us in the bathroom or basement as crossing my fingers that it will only be high winds when it gets to you all.

*groan*

 

[katydid23]

Insurance adjuster still on stand, says Savio policy was for $1 million, beneficiary changed from Peterson to Savio sons

Steadman: In 1997, Savio listed #DrewPeterson as the beneficiary. In 2002, she changed the beneficiaries to her sons.

Steadman, upon question from Brodsky: Peterson knew he wasn't the beneficiary on policy when he called to make claim after Savio death.

witness says $1 million claim was paid out in full. This concludes direct of this witness.

[ How does this help Drew? He got a million dollar payout for her death. ]

 

[katydid23]

:waitasec: It's this something the defense WOULDN'T want to bring up? That Drew was going to get the money for the life insurance?

I'm at work and must have missed something here.

kay:

I think what they were TRYING to show, was that the insurance policy would not have paid out in cases of MURDER, but since they did pay out, then it was not murder...?

 

[katydid23]

John Conner begins cross, but sidebar is called right away.

KaraOko: Steadman steps down - can't say I saw the point in that witness, nothing new brought to light, nothing of value reiterated.

 

[katydid23]

In Session Connor begins his cross. He shows the witness an internal memo from March, 2004. But before the witness can be asked any questions, the attorneys approach for a sidebar.

In Session The sidebar ends. The policy was originally taken out on “Sept. 17, 1997 . . . for one million dollars.” “Who was the beneficiary?” “Drew Peterson . . . April 10, 2002, the beneficiary changed to her two minor sons, Thomas and Kristopher.” That ends the cross.

In Session The witness “believes” that Peterson knew he was no longer the beneficiary of the policy at the time that Savio died. That ends the redirect. On recross, Connor asks, “You don’t know when he found out he wasn’t the beneficiary, do you?” “I believe it was due to their divorce.” “But you don’t know when he found out?” “No.” With that, the witness is excused.

 

[Kimster]

I think what they were TRYING to show, was that the insurance policy would not have paid out in cases of MURDER, but since they did pay out, then it was not murder...?

Ya got me! We already know it was ruled an accident. I really don't think it was wise to bring this up, but what do I know? :dunno:

 

[katydid23]

defense calls FBI agent Joseph Basile....

 

[LaLaw2000]

Hey you guys down there be safe! Get your wi-fi set up so you can follow with us in the bathroom or basement as crossing my fingers that it will only be high winds when it gets to you all.

O/T

Thanks, atthelake! I'm hearing we will only get 35 mile per hour winds and heavy rain. We'll be fine, I'm sure. My family from South Louisiana have already come up with their 4 horses. Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Jackson44]

In Session The witness “believes” that Peterson knew he was no longer the beneficiary of the policy at the time that Savio died. That ends the redirect. On recross, Connor asks, “You don’t know when he found out he wasn’t the beneficiary, do you?” “I believe it was due to their divorce.” “But you don’t know when he found out?” “No.” With that, the witness is excused.

Good for the prosecution.

 

[atthelake]

I think what they were TRYING to show, was that the insurance policy would not have paid out in cases of MURDER, but since they did pay out, then it was not murder...?

Circular logic at its best! Agree with you!

 

[katydid23]

Basile says he got involved in Savio investigation on April 10, 2008.

Lopez directs questions ...

Basile interviewed Sgt. Coughlin about an interaction w/ #drewpeterson at Will County courthouse