Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

[passionflower]

~N/T~ thank you, you are fast and great at transcribing!

 

[Cubby]

In Session Greenberg: “With the bullet, they’re trying to get in Mr. Pontarelli’s state of mind…whether at some point he was afraid of Drew has nothing to do with what he observed that particular evening…his state of mind is not relevant. Ms. Savio’s state of mind when she slipped and fell in that tub is not relevant…‘everyone was afraid of Drew Peterson, so he must have done this.’ I’m done.”

Greenberg ran on too long. He should have quit while he was ahead. He's way too far reaching with everything is unfair, blah blah blah. Next he'll be arguing it is unfair Drew even has to be tried. :censored: defense just leveled the playing field, imo.

 

[Madeleine74]

Am I understanding this correctly? DP waited outside and chatted with the locksmith after the door was opened? If he was so worried about his ex-wife, why didn't he go right in and check?

Another hinky behavior!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Akin is shown a photograph of the Savio house. Defense: “This is what it looked like?” Akin: “OK.” Defense: “To the best of your recollection?” Akin: “Yes…to the best of my recollection.” It was dark when he arrived, but he’s not sure of the time (“it was getting dark quickly”). “I walked up to the door to check the lock, to see if it was locked. I don’t remember the screen door being there, honestly…I don’t remember the screen door being there.” In March, 2004, he was interviewed via phone by an Illinois State officer. Defense: “Remember telling him that when you were starting to work on the door that Drew was holding the screen door open for you?” Akin: “I don’t remember, but somebody might have opened the door; that’s why I didn’t work on it.” Defense: “Would the report refresh your recollection?” Objection/Overruled. The witness is shown the police report in question, then reads it silently to himself. Akin: “Well, it looks like he was holding the door for me.” Defense: “So that refreshes your recollection?” Akin: “No…but in 2004, I would have had a better memory. So I’ll go with that.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Peterson held the flashlight as the witness knelt down to work on the door locks. He began on the door knob lock, which was installed upside down. Akin: “After you work on something for a little while, there’s no point in just beating it to death. I try to work my way to a different lock, so I worked on the deadbolt next.” Defense: “You discovered that the deadbolt wasn’t locked?” Akin: “Correct…the bolt wasn’t thrown.” Defense: “There wasn’t any resistance?” Akin: “Absolutely not.” At this time, Peterson continued to hold the flashlight. Akin: “I would of, it if it had been a normal situation, gone out and got my flashlight. I had the kindness of Sgt. Peterson to hold the flashlight for me…you don’t need a whole lot [of light], you just really need enough to find the keyhole.”

In Session Akin describes the locksmith tools he used to work on Savio’s front door. Defense: “This makes a bit of noise?” Akin: “Not really. You could do it loud, like I do, or you could do it very quietly. I’ve done it quietly, I’ve done it loud.” Defense: “It takes a lot of training to be a locksmith?” Akin: “I believe so, yes.” Defense: “You’re still learning after 30 years?” Akin: “Yes.” Defense: “So to do it quietly is a skill you’ve developed over 30 years?” Akin: “Yeah.”

 

[katydid23]

Am I understanding this correctly? DP waited outside and chatted with the locksmith after the door was opened? If he was so worried about his ex-wife, why didn't he go right in and check?

Another hinky behavior!

Exactly. It was such an urgent situation that he needed the locksmith to come right over to open the house, and he sits and chit chats, letting two civilians enter the unknown situation.

And when he hears the scream, he runs in the house, apparently without his gun drawn. Hinky!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session In all, it took him about six minutes to open the front door. “I’ve had quicker, and I’ve had longer…there’s any number of reasons why it could take 30 seconds one time, and ten minutes, even 15 minutes the next time.” Once the door was open, he stood aside, and the others went in. Peterson stayed out with him. Defense: “You didn’t notice anything unusual about him?” Akin: “No.” Defense: “Just shooting the breeze?” Akin: “Yeah.” Defense: “And at the end, you didn’t charge Sgt. Peterson for this?” Akin: “I probably wouldn’t have charged him, no…I just get a feel for when I want to do something, and when I don’t want to…there’s no need to charge. It’s not a perk for the police officers, it’s my way of helping…just helping.” This ends the cross-examination.

 

[passionflower]

Oh now what InSession is over.......going to tweets.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Koch begins his redirect. The witness says he normally picks a lock like this by himself, and can do it by himself with his own flashlight. Prosecution: “Based on a lot of different factors on each lock, it could be 30 seconds, or five minutes, or longer?” Akin: “Yeah, I’ve had some dickens locks in my day. Sometimes you’re embarrassed to let the customer see it.” Prosecution: “Do you need to be certified to be a locksmith?” Objection/Overruled. Akin: “You have to have a license…a State license. There are certain things that the State requires to get the license…to be a locksmith, yes.” Prosecution: “Are the tools you use specific to the job?” Akin: “Most supply houses will sell the tools to a licensed locksmith, or a licensed locksmith agency.” Prosecution: “And you make sure you don’t open up a house you’re not supposed to?” Akin: “That’s correct.” Prosecution: “When you do these wellness checks, is there always a police officer on scene?” Akin: “Yes.” This ends the redirect.

 

[~n/t~]

1m In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson : Jean Casarez, DP holding the screen door is important b/c it would establish prints on the door.

 

[katydid23]

In Session Peterson held the flashlight as the witness knelt down to work on the door locks. He began on the door knob lock, which was installed upside down. Akin: “After you work on something for a little while, there’s no point in just beating it to death. I try to work my way to a different lock, so I worked on the deadbolt next.” Defense: “You discovered that the deadbolt wasn’t locked?” Akin: “Correct…the bolt wasn’t thrown.” Defense: “There wasn’t any resistance?” Akin: “Absolutely not.” At this time, Peterson continued to hold the flashlight. Akin: “I would of, it if it had been a normal situation, gone out and got my flashlight. I had the kindness of Sgt. Peterson to hold the flashlight for me…you don’t need a whole lot [of light], you just really need enough to find the keyhole.”

In Session Akin describes the locksmith tools he used to work on Savio’s front door. Defense: “This makes a bit of noise?” Akin: “Not really. You could do it loud, like I do, or you could do it very quietly. I’ve done it quietly, I’ve done it loud.” Defense: “It takes a lot of training to be a locksmith?” Akin: “I believe so, yes.” Defense: “You’re still learning after 30 years?” Akin: “Yes.” Defense: “So to do it quietly is a skill you’ve developed over 30 years?” Akin: “Yeah.”

" the kindness of Sgt. Peterson?" Gheeezzzz. this poor ol coot has no clue that he was a patsy, picked by Peterson to be there when he 'found' his dead ex wife.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Defense: “If a person wanted to become a locksmith now, my understanding is they’d have to take a test…it shows that you know the answers to the questions.” “That requires a little bit of study?” Akin: “In my view, it takes a lot of study…so you might as well know what you’re doing by doing it.” Defense: “You would think?” Akin: “You would think.” Defense: “It’s easier for because of your experience?” Akin: “Yes, I can feel my way around a lock…if I absolutely, positively needed to, I could probably [open a lock in the dark].” Defense: “So even an experienced locksmith would require illumination?”Akin: “I would prefer that, yes.” This ends the recross of this witness, and he is excused.


In Session The attorneys approach the bench for a sidebar.

 

[katydid23]

I wish the state would have asked him if DP pulled his gun before he ran inside in response to the scream.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends, and the jurors are now gone. Prosecutor Connor informs to the Court that at this time the State would intend to call attorney Harry Smith, Kathleen Savio’s divorce attorney. According to Connor, Smith’s testimony will involve some prior bad acts. “I have some transcripts…in addition, there is testimony we were previously seeking to bring in…we’d like to ask him one question about the initial filing for divorce in this case, and whether that opens up testimony during the divorce trial for issues of mental cruelty. I don’t know how else to get that except to just ask the witness.” Judge Burmila: ”What would the relevance be of what led them to be divorced? Why would that be relevant?” Connor: “He was seeking custody of the children. During the bifurcation hearing, it was said by both sides that this was going to trial…allegations of mental cruelty might have played some role in the subsequent trial. To make that distinction to the jury, I would be asking that of this witness…obviously, the issue of what was possibly going to be testified to during the actual divorce trial would be at issue, given the State’s allegations.” Judge: “If the State is saying they want to ask Mr. Smith what issues would be before the trial court in a bifurcated hearing, they can ask those general questions. But Mr. Smith would not be allowed to testify as to what he expected the outcome of that trial to be…the issue of what he believes the judge would have done, or the outcome, that would not be admitted.”

In Session Connor continues to argue before Judge Burmila. “The jury has to consider the financial motive in this divorce. And in order to do so, they have to understand what the defendant was facing at that time, regarding his financial future, and what the judge would have been looking at.” Judge: “How is the State going to be able to demonstrate that the absence of Ms. Savio affected the outcome?” Connor: “The issue is what further issues could she have made, and what testimony was going to be elicited during the trial that could have affected the case? We’ll never know. But if I’m dead, I’m certainly less of a threat to the other side…there’s all sorts of things that Ms. Savio can’t assist her attorney with…Ms. Savio was long dead by the time the case was set for trial.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge: “But these parties were divorced, and they entered into an agreement…the issues before the Court were already agreed upon, were they not?” Connor: “They were going to be addressed at the April 6 hearing…but one party was dead by then, Your Honor.” Connor asks for a moment before he continues. “Your Honor, basically there were a number of issues; some of them were held in abeyance…clearly, in the defendant’s mind, the issue of whether Kathleen Savio was entitled to any of his pension was still in play…in addition, the bar was a subject of dispute in the case…whether that was or was not marital property was still in dispute. Both Mr. Beck and Mr. Smith indicated that this was going to trial; there were many issues that were still in dispute.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “In 2003, things might have been getting better…but, financially, crunch time was coming for the defendant. The judge was pushing the divorce toward conclusion. So the idea that this divorce was in any way solved is wrong, and Mr. Smith was involved in that front and center.” Judge: “Once they were divorced, the defendant’s pension became a marital asset. And whether or not Miss Savio was going to get the pension was going to be up to the judge. So the pension was in play, and it was going to be resolved by the judge one way or the other?” Connor: “I apologize; I don’t practice divorce law…the law seems to say that the pension is to be considered part of the marital assets. What portion she was going to get, her ability to fight for that went away when she died.”

 

[Madeleine74]

The state should have emphasized that DP stood outside chit-chatting with the locksmith while supposedly "worried" about his ex-wife. I mean he was worried enough to call a locksmith, but once the door was open, he delayed going inside.

The state, through a series of additional questions, could have emphasized and highlighted this point through the witness. :banghead:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecutor Connor: “Certainly, the pension is not going to be an issue while Mr. Peterson is alive and still working. To assert that any individual is unchanged in any legal situation by their own death is a legal fiction…Kathleen Savio cannot protect her own interest, given the knowledge that she has, once she’s in the grave…everything that was to be hotly contested was still open…at that point, the defendant was still disputing on the record that Kathleen Savio would have any portion of his pension, and was still set to fight at a trial the financial implications of this divorce. She was prepared to fight, and was assisting her attorney greatly…the legal fiction of the estate continuing as if nothing has changed belies the real situation of what occurred…even people outside the legal community would understand they’d rather be alive than dead when they’re trying to protect their assets.” Judge: “I get what the State is trying to say. But just because it makes sense doesn’t mean it makes legal sense…if the question here is this is the status of two people who were now divorced…the fact that she was not there at the trial and the trial wasn’t held does not necessarily extinguish her interests…I believe the right to the pension would continue to her estate; the pension was in play, and it was going to be addressed one way or the other. But you can’t say she was going to get everything she wanted, and the only way she’d get everything she wanted was if she was there. I understand what you’re saying…but I’m telling you once they were divorced, the pension became an asset of their marital estate, and it was going to be resolved one way or another.”

In Session Once again, prosecutor Connor asks for a moment before proceeding. “I skipped a rather obvious point. In Judge White’s ruling, he would have to make a finding that Kathleen Savio was murdered to prevent her testifying at a specific hearing…in making that finding, Judge White was basically finding that the defendant’s motive in murdering Ms. Savio, by a preponderance, was to keep her from testifying at that hearing.” Judge: “Well, the State’s argument is absolutely incorrect…you have perverted Judge White’s ruling 100%.”

 

[seattlechiquita]

The state should have emphasized that DP stood outside chit-chatting with the locksmith while supposedly "worried" about his ex-wife. I mean he was worried enough to call a locksmith, but once the door was open, he delayed going inside.

The state, through a series of additional questions, could have emphasized and highlighted this point through the witness. :banghead:

The state is losing this case. I am starting to wonder if they are doing it on purpose.

If i was in the jury, I would not convict with what I have witnessed so far.

 

[katydid23]

The state might as well walk away and give up, if this judge rules against them here again. If Harris is not allowed to talk about the nastiness of their divorce, then what?