Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Now Koch reading a transcript of one of Peterson's TV interviews. #DrewPeterson

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
In interview, #DrewPeterson said his and Savio's children would receive a $1 mill life insurance payout

BJ Lutz ‏@bjlutz
State's attorney now reading to jurors transcript of portion of TODAY interview. #DrewPeterson

BJ Lutz ‏@bjlutz
Asst. State's Attorney now reading to jurors transcript of portion of #DrewPeterson April 11, 2008 appearance on CNN Larry King Live.

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
First transcript was from a 'Today Show' interview, now reading from a 'Larry King Live' interview. #DrewPeterson

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Koch now reads the second transcript, which is of the defendant’s appearance on CNN’s Larry King Show. “The children were with me for the weekend . . . the neighbors were also worried. I had neighbors go into the house, and they found her dead in the bathtub . . . for many years, my children and I were believing she died in a household accident.”

 

[Cubby]

I added a thread regarding Jeff Ruby's reward in the Stacy Peterson case to the forum set up for Stacy.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183032"]Restauranter Jeff Ruby offers 6 figure reward for recovery of Stacy Peterson - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Koch reads another stipulation, stating that if Illinois State Police Sgt. James Poortinga testified, he would note specific telephone calls which would be reflected in phone records.

In Session Day by day, Koch goes over the phone records, indicating the dates, times, and lengths of phone calls between Peterson and Savio.

 

[Jackson44]

In Session The jurors are now back in the courtroom. The judge informs them that the parties do not necessarily agree that the previous letter was accurate, only that it was sent. Prosecutor Koch then proceeds to read other stipulations: “It is stipulated that if Patrick O’Neil were called to testify, he is the Will County Coroner, and Dr. Mitchell was contracted to do autopsies, and was a licensed doctor in the State of Illinois . . . he was requested to perform an autopsy on Kathleen Savio on March 2, 2004, and prepared an autopsy report.”

I don't like that the judge said this. He should have kept his mouth shut and just said that the prosecution would do their own reading of the stipulations.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I don't like that the judge said this. He should have kept his mouth shut and just said that the prosecution would do their own reading of the stipulations.

I agree, Jackson44. I don't like it either.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Another stipulation: “It is agree to that if Kevin Stevenson were called to testify, he would say he was a deputy coroner who attended the autopsy of Kathleen Savio . . . a photograph taken at that time would reflect a necklace around her neck . . . toxicology specimens were sent to St. Louis University . . . Michael VanOver took over the custody of the body following its exhumation.”

 

[Cubby]

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Burmila calls jurors "intelligent" since none of them are wearing #Cubs gear. #DrewPeterson #SoxSidePride

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Burmila, commenting on the jurors' jerseys: This jury is so intelligent that no one has any Cubs clothes on. #drewPeterson

The jury is from south of North Ave. Rt 64. Everyone in Chi town knows the dividing line between the north and south siders. HA HA!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Another stipulation: “If called to testify, Cassandra Cales, Stacy Peterson’s sister, would testify” as to Stacy Peterson’s cell phone number [he reads the number}. Another stipulation is to the introduction of an aerial map, which shows both Kathleen Savio’s and Drew Peterson’s homes.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session
Prosecutor Glasgow: “Your Honor, the People rest.” The judge asks to have the jurors removed from the room.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Attorney Greenberg begins the defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. “They have not offered any evidence as to how she died . . . certainly no evidence that her injuries were inflicted in a criminal manner . . . they have not provided any evidence as to the when, how, or who with respect to this particular incident, or disproved that it was an accident. All they have shown, if anything, is that there was a contentious divorce for a period of time. And that’s it. So we would ask that you grant our motion.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecutor Koch responds: “Evidence of the defendant’s motive, opportunity, and conduct before and after the death is relevant evidence . . . you have the evidence of what Stacy Peterson relayed to Neil Schori . . . there’s reasonable inference that he was in that home that night . . . he came back with a bag of clothes, women’s clothing that was not his wife’s . . . he told Stacy Peterson that the police would want to interview her, and he worked with her for hours. According to Neil Schori, she did lie to the police . . . the cause of death is drowning, which comports with the bill of indictment in this case . . . both doctors did opine that this was a homicide, Dr. Blum . . . [and] Dr. Case . . . this was a homicide . . . you have the defendant’s comments as to how she died . . . all those different statements made by him . . . we believe those circumstances show this defendant did, in fact, perform the acts of drowning her, with the intent to kill her. We ask that you deny the motion for a directed finding.”

 

[Mama-cita]

Crossing my fingers that the judge does not dismiss!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg responds, charges that the State is trying to convict Peterson “based on the idiosyncrasies of his past life . . . the State claims they’ve made a circumstantial case . . . [but] they have to establish that Drew Peterson committed this offense. Their doctors say there was a laceration . . . I have no idea what caused the laceration. Do you, Judge? . . . whatever caused the laceration, how is that proving that Mr. Peterson had anything to do with the laceration . . . whatever caused that laceration didn’t cause her to die, didn’t cause her to pass out, that’s what they say. OK, when is the theory, then, Judge . . . we didn’t’ hear anyone say that there were marks on her from being held underwater . . . was she attacked in the bedroom, attacked downstairs? I don’t know . . . we have no theory as to what happened to this lady . . . we know she drowned, undisputed. If a laceration to the head did not make her pass out, then she would be fighting . . . not a single defense wound on her body, not a single scratch on Mr. Peterson . . . nothing about that at all. Her fingernails were tested for DNA; none of his DNA was found. There is absolutely nothing in this record to explain that somebody drowned her; not a single witness said that she was involuntarily drowned . . . where was a witness saying she was held underwater and drowned? No one said that, Judge . . . are we to assume she was held underwater and drowned? They say it wasn’t an accident; it was a staged scene made to look like an accident. They say that because they don’t want to accept that it was an accident.”

 

[Livingthedream]

There is not chance in hades that judge B will dismiss the case. He would never hear the end of it if he did and despite the blunders in the case, it's still very strong.

 

[LaLaw2000]

*refresh, refresh, refresh!

Wonder what is going on now?

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg continues: “What is undisputed in this case? It’s undisputed Monday night that Mr. Peterson went over there and they got a locksmith . . . we know that Mr. Peterson didn’t want to go in that house; he didn’t want to be accused of anything . . . he was afraid there’d be problems. That’s undisputed . . . they go in there and they find a body in the tub, and they scream. And he goes running up the stairs to that bathroom, and he checks that body. And when he checks that body, he says, ‘She’s dead. And what am I going to tell my kids?’ Not a single witness said that he seemed anything less than genuinely upset by that . . . they go into this song and dance about this blue towel; no witness says that Mr. Peterson put that blue towel there . . . Peterson wasn’t there. How is it a staged scene; what’s staged in the scene? . . . don’t you think that if Ms. Savio had these habits to put her hair up and take her jewelry off that Mr. Peterson would know these things? . . . where is any evidence in this record from which someone could conclude that she did not die in the morning? Where is any evidence to contract that? Where is the evidence to conclude that it happened at night, as they want to say? They’ll say, ‘Well, there’s the statement from Neil Schori’ . . . when you evaluate that statement, it’s not specific as to date . . . and look at Rev. Schori; he brought a prover with him to that meeting. I’m Jewish . . . if I want to talk to the rabbi, he does not bring the cantor with him!”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “They say there are all these other incidents . . . this supposed July 5 knife incident . . . it’s two years almost before she dies, and the evidence of that is rather incredible . . . she doesn’t make any prompt report of the incident; she changes her story multiple times . . . we know that she lies; we know that Kathleen Savio lies about things that happened . . . these things could not have happened in the manner in which they say they happened. Because the events in this record aren’t consistent . . . we know that Kathleen Savio and Mary Pontarelli were together every day, or almost every day; they were best friends. Mary Pontarelli didn’t say anything about this supposed knife incident, because nobody said anything to her about it.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “If he was going to kill her so they didn’t’ have to get to trial, why didn’t he kill her before the January trial date? Why didn’t he kill her before the February trial date? . . . what evidence can you point to in this case to say that Drew Peterson committed this crime? You can say they had a storm relationship, a stormy divorce . . . you can say pathologists differ on the conclusions to be drawn from her injuries . . . but none of that puts Drew Peterson in that house, committing a crime that weekend . . . they get up here, and they regurgitate the same stuff.”

 

[Mama-cita]

They know da#n well why Schori brought a witness, because their client is a menacing ! How about they play the message Schori had waiting for him AFTER his meeting with SP? "I know you met with my wife. How about you meet with me now? We could go up in my plane this afternoon". He's such a !