Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

[Woe.be.gone]

In Session That night, he drove his parents to a family party, leaving around 5:00 pm and returning about 2:00 am. He parked outside, in the driveway. “I pulled straight in, facing the garage . . . I noticed that her bedroom light was on, and I remarked to my parents that it was kind of odd that her lights were still on at that hour of the morning.”

Why does he say they returned from the party around 2AM when (is it his sister?), the man and the woman said it was earlier, around midnight iirc?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

<modsnip>

I've seen nothing to indicate anything this judge is doing is bordering on illegal or has done anything illegal in the past.

Some of the things the Judge said, especially the first week, sound so unjudgelike imo. Last night I was thinking about this though and decided that without being able to see and hear him, especially his tone, I'm not able to interpret his comments exactly. Just like on WS, through writing alone, sometimes we misunderstand one another.

I wish we could see this trial. Will it be covered next week? Why would they begin to cover it in the first place then?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Another point I believe the defense is going to try to drill in, is that Kathleen took drugs therefore she may have keeled over.

What kind of heart medicine/condition did she have?

As far as Zoloft is concerned, if I was married to DP (or having to deal with him personally), I'd take Zoloft too. I never heard of anyone dropping dead from taking Zoloft (or one antidepressant type medicine alone) if they didn't have an allergic reaction to it to begin with (then they stop taking it).

That said, if she was preparing to take a bath and had been in the bath, her hair would be pinned up (any woman with longish hair can relate to this) and she'd have a towel at the ready, maybe there'd be a soap in the tub or bubble bath open by the side of it, a washcloth or loofah there with her in the tub, etc. Oh ya and WATER!!!

DP told someone there was a wine glass there too - did they find/see that?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The next witness is Dominick DeFrancesco (questioned by Kathy Patton)


Seems like more would proceed this transcript, hmmmm.




He moved to Pheasant Chase Drive in 1997 (with his extended family). “Did you know Kathleen Savio Peterson?” “Yes.” Mary Pontarelli is his sister. “How did you know the Petersons?” “They moved next door to us . . . December, 1999, I believe, or 2000.
” He says the Peterson home was directly next door to the home where he lived. “Did you come to know the Petersons when they moved to that residence?” “Yes.” “Do you know if the defendant was living in that house in 2004?” “He was not . . . I believe he was living down the block, on Pheasant Chase Street.” “Did you see Kathleen frequently?” “Yes.” “What was the last time you saw Kathleen Savio Peterson?’ “That Saturday, Feb. 29 . .. I had just gotten back from the grocery store with my sister. We pulled into the driveway, and she pulled up to her house, too.” Objection/Sustained. “We met midway on the sidewalk, after we had both pulled into the driveway . . . 11:30 [am].” “Did you have a conversation with her at that time?” “Yes, it was a short conversation; we had just gotten back from vacation in Florida the night before, and she asked how the trip was.”

In Session That night, he drove his parents to a family party, leaving around 5:00 pm and returning about 2:00 am. He parked outside, in the driveway. “I pulled straight in, facing the garage . . . I noticed that her bedroom light was on, and I remarked to my parents that it was kind of odd that her lights were still on at that hour of the morning.”

In Session The defense begins its cross-examination (I can’t tell who this attorney is). “Fair to say that you’ve driven away from your home hundreds of times?” “Yes.” “Shades are up, shades are down; light are on, lights are off?” “Yes.” “And you literally came from your home back and forth, winter, summer, thousands of times?” “Yes.” “Lights are on some times, and lights are off some times in the neighborhood?” “Yes.” “Did there come a time when police officers came to your home, in 2007?” “Yes.” “Two officers, a male and a female, from the Illinois State Police?” “Yes.” “They came to your home?” “I had just driven into the driveway, and they were outside. And they approached me, to come in and talk to my parents.” “This was approximately three years after you claim you saw the light on in Savio’s bedroom?” “Yes.” “While you speaking, they were taking notes?” “Yes.” “Contemporaneously?” “Yes.” “As you were in your driveway, you told them you saw the light on?” “Yes.” “And this afternoon, you told His Honor and the jurors that you thought it was unusual for the light to be on?” “Yes.” “But back when you talked to the officers, you said it was your mother who thought it was unusual, didn’t you?” “I don’t remember.” The witness is asked if looking at the police report would help, and he responds that it would.

Who are they speaking too? Is it the neighbor's brother or son? I thought the brother, who came to stay with his sister, was on the stand. I'm confused.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I am catching up today......I took a break after the cross exam by Joe the Shark of Kathleen's boyfriend. It made me very angry....it must have been humiliating for her boyfriend to be talking about such personal details and extremely uncomfortable for her father to hear. It was really crude and low.

What was his/their aversion to the bed? Sorry for asking but seems strange to me - has nothing to do with anything really other than I take it as a sign he didn't want real intimacy. Poor Kathleen.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I totally agree...BUT! The DT kept implying that we'd understand those bruises/marks on Kathleen once we heard from this witness. I hardly think that his description of their night together has left the jury with the impression they had such a wild night! It certainly doesn't explain those all away!

Still, I wish I didn't have to hear about that. Very low defense tactic imo.
Besides, are bruises on her knees one of the big issues? She could have washed the kitchen floor the day before or something -geesh.

I'm more interested in the unexplainable gash in the back of her head.

 

[dunlurken]

What was his/their aversion to the bed? Sorry for asking but seems strange to me - has nothing to do with anything really other than I take it as a sign he didn't want real intimacy. Poor Kathleen.

I have to agree with this. It's not like the bathtub had a shower, that would have made more sense. I'm questioning the BF's character a bit. Am I correct that he is 60 years old? Never been married. No kids, etc.

One thing I wish they would bring up during the trial is that most police officers have some sort of card or something that can get through locked doors (don't know about deadbolts though). Maybe that's not relevant, but it's still nagging at me and I wish someone would bring it up at trial.

I would also like to know more about the two ex wives. We're not hearing much from/about them, and it's probably relevant someway. Has either been called to testify? Not to my knowledge and I try to watch as often as I can until IS turns off their coverage. :banghead:

Just my feeble thoughts as I try to sort through this mess. And I think he will walk.

dunnie

 

[Cubby]

I wish we could see this trial. Will it be covered next week? Why would they begin to cover it in the first place then?

SBM.

I think the trial will be covered next week. Gonna be a busy week for trials. DP's, Christopher Vaughn's - also out of Will County, and Phylicia Barnes murder trial is expected to start Monday.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I sure hope some of the jurors are of Italian descent and take offense at those remarks. These defense attorneys are as disrespectful and pompous as their dispicable client. :banghead:

It does point out how weird our culture is in some respects - like you're allowed to say this or that about Italians but don't you dare say this or that about _______ people (fill in the blank). It's in very poor taste even though I don't think being feisty is bad thing or only fits if you're an Italian.

Now let's tell Polish jokes. (KIDDING)
And, when are we going to get a Leif Erikson day (there is one but nobody gets the day off work or anything). Crazy.

 

[LambChop]

I have to agree with this. It's not like the bathtub had a shower, that would have made more sense. I'm questioning the BF's character a bit. Am I correct that he is 60 years old? Never been married. No kids, etc.

One thing I wish they would bring up during the trial is that most police officers have some sort of card or something that can get through locked doors (don't know about deadbolts though). Maybe that's not relevant, but it's still nagging at me and I wish someone would bring it up at trial.

I would also like to know more about the two ex wives. We're not hearing much from/about them, and it's probably relevant someway. Has either been called to testify? Not to my knowledge and I try to watch as often as I can until IS turns off their coverage. :banghead:

Just my feeble thoughts as I try to sort through this mess. And I think he will walk.

dunnie

The state has not gone through all their witnesses and with 25 sidebars, 6 recesses that were about 20 minutes a piece and did not include lunch getting through the witnesses is a slow project.

Apparently DP has a set of lock picks. It will not be introduced because there is no proof he had the set when Kathy died. However, it seems very suspicious to some that DP called for a locksmith who opens doors with picks when other locksmiths were on duty for the night. So if you had broken into a home and wanted to cover up that you used picks to get into the home would you show up, claim you can't get into the house and then call a locksmith you knew would use a pick on the lock which covered up what you had previously done. What better way to cover up evidence that the lock was picked to gain entry into the home. LE know how to do it all. As long as they stay honest there is never a problem. The minute they step out of line they are dangerous because they do know how to cover up a crime.

Kathy did not just have bruises on her knees. She had bruises on her hip, her back, knees, a leg and a cut on her hand...seen here at 2:27 in the video

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/08/06/nancy-grace-grills-drew-petersons-attorney

 

[Cubby]

As a resident of Will County, Illinois ( sad I wasn't on the jury) and after the fiasco of a trial in Orlando, I am watching and learning more than ever about our Justice system.
The fact that victims cannot and do not have a voice, or if they do it is so restricted, while the defendant gets to "speak" through attorneys with lies and innuendos, and trash mouth and defy the victims is so appalling to me. My vote does count, and I will be an active participating voter, especially with the Judicial area. Our rights, which we stand by proudly in this country, have been over-used and abused when it comes to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Victims are all but forgotten, and protecting the accused becomes more important.

The boys in blue system, and protecting one of their own is so apparent in this case, yet this also will probably not be allowed...and I have to continue living in this county...knowing it goes on and on and on. I know a few wives/ex-wives of PD's...it is a fact that this goes on. If ya talk to a cop about this case, there is a silent understanding and it is very apparent to me. They don't say much, but I can read expressions pretty well. They know he got away with murder, and he probably had a little help too.

BBM. Technically, he hasn't gotten away yet.... I'd have to call getting away with it being found not quilty.


I have a neighbor on the ISP (district 15), who was part of the team that arrested Drew. FWIW, since this was an open investigation at the time, I really did not ask him about this case. I now find myself refraining from offering him my opinion on the two ISP troopers that testified. He's not in a position to make any official changes within the department, so there is really no point in sharing my opinion with him.


That said, I wish the media would uncover what, if anything, HAS been done about this problem of Domestic Violence among cops.

Cops and how they react or if they are guilty of domestic violence, is a whole lot bigger than just Drew's case. I do wish the media would expose whatever changes have been made with respect to this problem within both the ISP and Bolingbrook PD. And let's add the Will County Sheriff's office while we are at it. Drew got away with too much for too long, what changes have been made within LE so this does not happen so easily again?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I am still catching up but wanted to comment.

All of these sidebars the DT is calling is meant to interrupt the flow of the testimony, IMO. I think that the DT wants the jury to think that the prosecution is continually asking inappropriate questions and the DT wants to challenge the questions on points of law. It is one of their little tacky strategies, IMO. I hope the jury is taking comprehensive notes!

This poor jury needs springs on their backside. The members of the jury are people just like all of us who are probably frustrated just as we are by all of the sidebars called by the DT. If we see or feel that the judge is too lenient with the DT, then surely they can also. I do wonder what the jury thought when the judge told Ms. Doman not to 'fence' with the defense lawyer? I thought it was wrong of the judge and felt so badly for her. Then he again reprimands her for even looking at the prosecution before answering one question maybe even waiting to see if the peosecution was going to make an objection to the question. I have never seen a judge behave this way. I have also never seen a more biased judge being so in favor of the defense. In a sense, this judge is letting the DT run the courtroom insofar as the calling of all of these sidebars.

With the sidebars and the judge hinself bouncing on and off the bench so much, this trial will take far longer than it should, IMO.

If the DT cannot run a plausible defense (and they cannot, IMO), then they have chosen to attempt to 'baffle with BS.'. We have seen their slimy little offensive tactics, and I believe this jury has also.

Sorry for this long post. I have had company for a few days and could only read at different times. I usually leave the computer on all day and with tabs open on what I am following. Maybe I can keep up now!

lease:...............I pray that DP will not walk. I consider him to be a double murderer and one who should never again breathe the same air as the rest of us! Justice for Kathleen Savio and her family!!

If trials are going to be like this from now on, rather than devising padded enclosures as discussed earlier, they should film and edit the trial and, then, after everyone is happy with the watered down version of what really happened, they can present the film to a jury. They can decide a verdict based on the film. It's ridiculous imo to pretend that character doesn't count and that who knows whom doesn't have influence over life's circumstances, etc.

They're allowed/free to paint Kathleen in a bad light but they want Drew to be featured as a saint and a good father. IMO once you're on to your third wife your points go down as to whether or not you're a good father. I say that because, the best fathers are also good husbands when all things are considered.

If restrictions are going to be placed on what can be revealed about this person but not that person, they should only be allowed to discuss the tub. What I mean is - forget about everything else - but decide if it's possible that Kathleen could drown in the tub with no water. Did they test the tub - no. Did they take swabs from the residue on the tub - no. Authorities messed up because DP was one of their own, simple as that. Shameful.

 

[Cubby]

Outloud questions....

If Drew is convicted, does he lose his pension?

Does anyone know why Illinois State Police investigator Patrick Collins - who testified in this case, retired? It might be a little off topic, but I have to wonder if he retired as opposed to being terminated or getting in some kind of trouble for his less than stellar investigation into Kathleen's death. I sure wish we knew the circumstances surrounding his retirement.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Good point Cubby. How are others to get the message and citizens to have any faith in these systems if this is kept secret. Some people may know but it's like they allow people to save face or something and nothing is REALLY done.

 

[officer'swife 2010]

I truly am ashamed to admit that since last summer, with Casey Anthony being acquitted, I have had a hard time getting involved with anything else. i was involved in the Stacy Peterson case from the word go, and want Drew to go to jail in the WORST way. If that does not happen, I am afraid all of my faith in our Justice system will be forever gone. I hope they hang him for Kathleen and Stacy.

I totally agree with every single word of what you posted. Honestly all my life I had faith in our system until CA and now I think you can get away w anything. I hope they fry Drew. Did he not tell Kathleen and Stacey both that he could kill them and get away w it bc he's a cop???? I'm he if Bolingbrook pd covered 4 him since he was 1 of their brothers????

 

[LambChop]

I totally agree with every single word of what you posted. Honestly all my life I had faith in our system until CA and now I think you can get away w anything. I hope they fry Drew. Did he not tell Kathleen and Stacey both that he could kill them and get away w it bc he's a cop???? I'm he if Bolingbrook pd covered 4 him since he was 1 of their brothers????

Not just them. The State Police are not looking too professional right now either. I know there are officers who will give a fellow officer a break on a ticket but when it comes to giving a fellow the benefit of the doubt in an investigation (such as letting him sit in on an interview with his girlfriend and not mentioning it in their reports) that is just so over the top. Most officers would not do that. Most officers would have gone back and told their supervisors that there is a problem. jmo

 

[Madeleine74]

What's done is done wrt what the officers did or didn't do in the investigation. Lots of mistakes, absolutely. Would they do it all again? Have they learned anything from their actions in this case?

Those who think DP will have this great/awesome life if he manages to get acquitted of this particular murder would do well to look at the life of past murder defendants who walked away.

The public has an extremely low tolerance for murderers getting away with one murder (let alone more than 1), particularly in high profile cases.

And there is always the possibility of him eventually being held responsible for Stacy's murder...no statute of limitations on murder.

Now who has previously been acquitted of murder 1 and walked away unscathed?

- OJ? Pariah, druggie, lost civil case, armed robbery, in jail
- Robert Blake? Career is over & no one wants to associate with him
- Casey Anthony? Death threats, living in hiding, pariah, no future

 

[Cubby]

Not just them. The State Police are not looking too professional right now either. I know there are officers who will give a fellow officer a break on a ticket but when it comes to giving a fellow the benefit of the doubt in an investigation (such as letting him sit in on an interview with his girlfriend and not mentioning it in their reports) that is just so over the top. Most officers would not do that. Most officers would have gone back and told their supervisors that there is a problem. jmo

BBM. That is what I just don't get. I honestly couldn't believe I heard that. Seriously, who does that? This was cop 101, heck cop 090, that was blatently ignored by the Illinois State Police with this investigation.

I understand Drew's trial is the first priority, but seriously, we can not just look the other way with how the ISP handled this investigation.

I'm also curious as to why ISP and not Will County sheriff's department had jurisdiction with the initial investigation into Kathleens death.

 

[officer'swife 2010]

Not just them. The State Police are not looking too professional right now either. I know there are officers who will give a fellow officer a break on a ticket but when it comes to giving a fellow the benefit of the doubt in an investigation (such as letting him sit in on an interview with his girlfriend and not mentioning it in their reports) that is just so over the top. Most officers would not do that. Most officers would have gone back and told their supervisors that there is a problem. jmo

I agree. The other day I got pulled over 4 speeding which I totally was n all I had 2 do was tell him who I was n show him my husbands card n he let me off after he said you're husband needs 2 smack you around 4 speeding(which I shouldn't have been) but I def think sometimes they give each other breaks but murder that's very serious, not speeding you know?

 

[Cubby]

What's done is done wrt what the officers did or didn't do in the investigation. Lots of mistakes, absolutely. Would they do it all again? Have they learned anything from their actions in this case?

Those who think DP will have this great/awesome life if he manages to get acquitted of this particular murder would do well to look at the life of past murder defendants who walked away.

The public has an extremely low tolerance for murderers getting away with one murder (let alone more than 1), particularly in high profile cases.

And there is always the possibility of him eventually being held responsible for Stacy's murder...no statute of limitations on murder.

Now who has previously been acquitted of murder 1 and walked away unscathed?

- OJ? Pariah, druggie, lost civil case, armed robbery, in jail
- Robert Blake? Career is over & no one wants to associate with him
- Casey Anthony? Death threats, living in hiding, pariah, no future

Great post. What is done is done, absolutely, but for those of us who live here and have to deal with these same LEO departments, I think it's fair to want to know what has been learned and what is being done differently. I am not satisfied with DP's trial being the only result here.

This is a whole lot more than a murder which took years to solve and bring to trial. There is clear evidence within this trial of inept police work which likely lead to a second presumed murder. That has to be addressed by those police departments who effed up this investigation. That is more than just Bolingbrook PD.