Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

[~n/t~]

In Session Attorney Steve Greenberg responds for the defense. “I believe that the hearsay statement they’d like this gentleman to testify to was found unreliable by Judge White…I don’t think he’s got any relevancy at this point; I don’t know what it is that they want him to testify to…they can’t use this to show Mr. Peterson’s state of mind in any way.”

 

[katydid23]

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.

I don't think it is on purpose. I think the judge is ruling against them on purpose.

 

[dunlurken]

I hate to do this to you guys, but I will. Everytime I read the initials DP I keep thinking it stands for Death Penalty.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session According to Connor, “There are many other things that Mr. Smith would testify about…such as the fact that he’d subpoenaed the Bolingbrook Police Department about Mr. Peterson’s pension information…he received that information on March 4, four days after the death.” Judge Burmila: “But in October the defendant knew the pension was in play…so what would be the significance of having Mr. Smith say they were trying to get those records, when they had agreed in October?” Connor: “They were still fighting…he was indicating he [Peterson] did not believe Kathleen Savio was entitled to any of his pension…that issue would not be disposed of until the trial.” Judge: “But it wasn’t like Mr. Peterson decided what the issue was; the judge made that decision and signed the order.” Connor: “Yes, the judge signed the order…after that hearing was over, Mr. Peterson was angry, and was observed yelling at Mr. Beck in the hallway. Mr. Smith would also testify as to the timeline…he can obviously testify as to what was being said, and where things were going. The defendant had not disclosed the sale of a bar in a timely manner…that was the first time the defendant had to pay out anything close to $15,000 in the divorce. And Kathleen did not survive that by more than five months.”

In Session Connor: “The financial issues were never preserved, based upon the death of Kathleen Savrio.” Judge Burmila: “As far as Mr. Smith is concerned, I do believe the State is allowed to go into the timeline. As far as the questions of the legal issues before the court, they will be able to go into that with this witness as well. As far as anything touching on how Mr. Smith believed the matter would be resolved by the trial court, those things are not going to be elicited through the testimony of this witness.”

 

[katydid23]

The judge has been so combative with the prosecution so far.

 

[KathrynL]

No words for this quote-


agrimm34
about a minute ago
State: Kathy Savio disadvantage in divorce case b/c she was dead. Judge: Just b/c it makes logical sense, doesn't mean it makes legal sense

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Attorney Greenberg addresses the Court, and argues against the ruling Judge Burmila has just made. “It [the Peterson/Savio divorce] was a bifurcated proceeding, which the jury already heard in opening statements…they [the State] don’t have any evidence there was any motive not to have a trial…so I don’t understand the relevancy, if it’s not motive, of what happened in the divorce proceedings.” Judge: “Well, whether or not the State will attempt to demonstrate if this was the motive for this homicide, if it was indeed a homicide, remains to be seen…he can say what the issues were that would remain after the couple was divorced.” Greenberg: “And how is that not privileged?...how is what Harry Smith believes not privileged?...I’d like to know what issues they’re talking about.” Judge: “Well, I guess we’ll find out when the witness gets here…the only other way to handle it is for the State to make an offer of proof. We’ll hear what he has to say, and then determine what goes before the jury.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Connor hands the judge a copy of a letter from Kathleen Savio to the State’s Attorney’s office, and redacted by Judge White in 2010. “The judge made some statements about it stands on its own…Harry Smith is the witness we’re going to use to introduce that letter…so we would be asking this witness to authenticate a portion of that letter, and introduce that during his testimony.” Judge: “OK, we’ll take five minutes, to give you [the defense] time to look at that letter. And then we’ll go from there. I’ve made all the statements I’m going to make about my conversation with Mr. Smith on the record. I’m not going to say anything more on that.”


In Session Judge Burmila leaves the bench. The court is in recess for approximately five minutes (until 2:50 CT/3:50 ET).



Gotta go! See you all later this evening!

If anyone wants to copy and paste for InSession, here is the link. https://www.facebook.com/InSession:seeya:

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

Any person who would convict based on less than 2 days of testimony in a murder trial--a trial that just started, has had more delays than on the record time, and is nowhere near completed, should not be on this or any jury, IMHO.

 

[ohiogirl]

Their recesses always take longer than they say.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Prosecutor Connor informs the Court that the offer of proof regarding divorce attorney Harry Smith will not be done at this time. Apparently, Smith will instead be called at a later time.

 

[ohiogirl]

Judge Burmila sends for the jury

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The jurors are now back in the courtroom. The State calls Michael Newton to the stand (questioned by Prosecutor Connor). He is a lieutenant with the Bolingbrook Fire Department (since 1991). He goes over his professional experience, then is asked about the evening of March 1, 2004. “As the lieutenant, I oversee the crew that responds to the call…I’m in charge of the scene.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Newton: “We drove the engine and ambulance to the scene, with emergency lights and sirens in use…we exited the vehicles, and went into the residence in an orderly fashion.” Prosecution: “Did you see anyone on the stairs when you went up?” N...ewton: “Yes, I did …two.” Prosecution: “Did you know those individuals?” Newton: “No.” Prosecution: “They weren’t police, and they weren’t fire?” Newton: “No…we made a right turn into the master bedroom.” He identifies “Mr. Peterson” in the courtroom, and says that he encountered him when he entered the master bedroom. Persecution: “Was there anyone else in that bedroom area when you entered?” Newton: “Not that I recall.” Persecution: “What did the defendant say?” Newton: “He said something to the regards of ‘This is my ex-wife…treat the scene with respect’…I don’t recall if that was his exact term. In the master bedroom, I noticed a picture frame face down on the floor.” Prosecution: “Did you ever take a blue towel and place it in the bathroom?” Newton: “No.” Prosecution: “Did you observe any other individuals take a towel and place it in the bathroom?” Newton: “No.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Prosecution: “Were you the first individual into the master bedroom, or the last?” Newton: “The last.” Prosecution: “How certain are you that you did not place any towels at that scene?” Newton: “One hundred percent.” Prosecution: “When you...came up the stairs, where were the two individuals who you saw?” Newton: “They were outside of the bedroom.” Prosecution: “And where was the defendant in relationship to them?” Newton: “Inside the bedroom.” That concludes the direct examination of this witness

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Joel Brodsky begins his cross. The witness says that he specifically recalls this incident, “because of Drew being there, and what he said about his ex-wife.” Newton says he’s known Peterson for virtually his entire career with the Boling...brook F.D. He describes Peterson as “seeming upset” at the scene. He then identifies a photograph of the staircase in the Savrio house. But he can’t remember where he saw the two individuals on the stairway, whether they were at the top, or just a few steps down. “I believe it was two males

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Because he was the supervisor, the witness didn’t really go into the Savio bathroom very much. “I saw what I could to do my job as supervisor.” Defense: “And the EMTs do their job, rendering first aid if the person’s alive?” Newton: “Correct.” Defense: “So when you talked about a towel, you really didn’t spend enough time in that bathroom to determine what clothes or what towels were there?” Newton: “Correct.” With that, Brodsky’s cross-examination is concluded.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I agree and would like to add that upon hearing Mary screaming, Drew, who was in uniform and had his gun, ran up the stairs and didn't draw his gun. In a normal situation a woman screaming would mean danger - like maybe she had confronted an intruder who was still in the house. Drew knew why Mary was screaming and didn't need to draw his gun.

Also, Kathy's feet were in an unusual position in the bathtub with her toes up against the side of the tub..........not consistent with drowning.

To me, this point is very strong indicating DP already knew what the scene was upstairs. Stronger than just the fact that he didn't draw his gun when he went up stairs. He heard the neighbor lady scream and went up before drawing his gun. Connected, it's powerful evidence.

Plus he let neighbor man and son head up the stairs before he did.

 

[katydid23]

To me, this point is very strong indicating DP already knew what the scene was upstairs. Stronger than just the fact that he didn't draw his gun when he went up stairs. He heard the neighbor lady scream and went up before drawing his gun. Connected, it's powerful evidence.

Plus he let neighbor man and son head up the stairs before he did.

I think that is very important and I hope it didn't get past the jury.

He calls for a locksmith because he feels it is urgent to enter a locked home to check on his ex wife's welfare. But then, he lets 2 civilians enter the home, while he chit chats on the porch?

Also, as you said, an officer responding to a scream inside a home would never run up the stairs without their weapon drawn.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Just adding my feelings of disappointment and dismay to others here over the way this case is unfolding.

When this case first began, with the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, I had high hopes that Stacy's remains would be found and DP arrested and tried for her death.

During those first few months, I based my hope on the fact that DP had gotten away with Kathleen's murder and had grown sloppy, never even once thinking that Stacy's disappearance would garner the national media. Cassandra going to the state police to report Stacy's disappearance in the wee hours of the morning on October 29, 2007, didn't leave DP a lot of time to dispose of Stacy's body, and here again, I hoped that caused DP to be sloppy.

I have always believed that LE made a huge mistake in not following DP when he went off on his motorcycle for a three-day trip to "clear his head." I believe those three days were crucial to the permanent disposal of Stacy's remains. I don't think her remains will ever be found.

This puts a lot of pressure on this case, the murder of Kathleen Savio, with the hope of a conviction and justice for not only Kathleen, but for Stacy and any other victims. And I do feel there are other victims.

Over the past years we've learned about other strange deaths and disappearances. One that I find intriguing is the young man who was found hanging in his garage. The young man's sister, Monica, a teenager was a girlfriend of DP's during his first or second marriage. DP was sneaking her into the house. The young man confronted DP and told him to stay away from his sister. DP found him hanging in the garage. No suicide note, and the young man's family and friends said there were no signs of depression or anxiety. I think this may have been DP's first victim.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if DP is allowed to go free through a mistrial or acquittal, he will kill again. He will think he's truly untouchable.

Those who have testified against DP or have spoken out against him will be harassed. One ex-girlfriend, Kyle Piry, has said in interviews that after she broke off with DP he harassed her with parking or speeding tickets.

Many would have to watch their backs. At the top of the list is Sharon Bychowski, members of Stacy's family, members of Kathleen's family, and those who testify against him in this trial.

And the neighbor man knows all of the above and fears DP. I bet he blurted the comment about the bullet out without the Prosecution's prior knowledge that he would say that. We can't see inside the courtroom. Was DP glaring at him? He may just have wanted people to know what he's dealing with here. Can't say I blame him as he's had his life disrupted by all this too.

note to self - don't assist neighbors directly when asked to enter the house of their ex when they've intentionally been locked out. Ask them to call the police for assistance.