Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[LaLaw2000]

Oh, good Lord!

ETA: In reference to the judge's remark concerning the Cubs.

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson judge reads to jury a 2002 letter that Kathleen Savio to state's attorney about Drew threatening her life.

 

[passionflower]

Where is RESPECT in court?
JUSTICE FOR VICTIM KATHLEEN SAVIO!
HER POOR FAMILY!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The jurors are now inside the courtroom. Judge: “We have a number of stipulations to present to you . . . each one has been agreed to by the State and the defense. The first is a November 14, 2002 letter to [prosecutor] Elizabeth Fragale . . . ‘On July 5, Mr. Peterson got into my house with a garage opener he programmed for himself . . . I was very afraid for my life . . . Drew was in uniform (SWAT uniform) . . . he was very angry that in our divorce the judge ruled he would have to pay child support; he told me he didn’t want to pay anything . . . he asked me several times if I was afraid; I started to panic. He brought out his knife and held it to my neck; I thought I’d never see my boys again. Sincerely, Kathleen Peterson.”


:tears:

 

[LaLaw2000]

With that read to the jury, how could they possibly think DP didn't kill Kathleen?

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Following the reading of this letter, the defense asks for a sidebar. Once the sidebar ends, the jurors are excused from the courtroom. Attorney Brodsky asks for a special jury instruction, due to what he worries is the prejudicial effect of the letter. Judge: “It’s the local practice here that the Court reads all the stipulations to the jury, which makes them neutral.” Greenberg: “It’s not a stipulation . . . it’s a piece of evidence, and should have been read in by the State.” Judge: “We’ll clear that up when the jury comes back . . . [but] I said several times that I would be reading the stipulations.” Greenberg: “It’s their evidence. I think someone from their side should read that in . . . when it comes from you, Judge, jurors will look at it differently.” Judge; “I said repeated since Friday that I would be reading them all . . . tell me which ones you want me to read and which ones you don’t.”

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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

:furious:

OMG ! This is a COURT ROOM -- where a MURDER TRIAL is being held !
This is NOT a place for a PEP RALLY for Sports Teams !

Good grief ... next thing you know, they will be "tailgating" at the courthouse !


This judge needs to be investigated ... :waitasec: and this jury ...

:moo:

 

[Livingthedream]

Big blow to the defense with this letter. If the jury can't connect the dots here, I do know what to say.

 

[concernedmother]

in session the jurors are now inside the courtroom. Judge: “we have a number of stipulations to present to you . . . Each one has been agreed to by the state and the defense. The first is a november 14, 2002 letter to [prosecutor] elizabeth fragale . . . ‘on july 5, mr. Peterson got into my house with a garage opener he programmed for himself . . . I was very afraid for my life . . . Drew was in uniform (swat uniform) . . . He was very angry that in our divorce the judge ruled he would have to pay child support; he told me he didn’t want to pay anything . . . He asked me several times if i was afraid; i started to panic. He brought out his knife and held it to my neck; i thought i’d never see my boys again. Sincerely, kathleen peterson.”


:tears:

yes!!!!!!!!

 

[Cubby]

o/t and perhaps should be posted on Stacy Peterson's thread. I'll do so later when I have time

Ruby to offer reward for information on Stacy Peterson case



http://www.fox19.com/story/19383705/ruby-to-offer-reward-for-information-on-stacy-peterson-case

I'll add it to Stacy's forum/thread if no one else has.

 

[~n/t~]

I'd love to see Peterson's face when the letter was read to the jury!!!! :rocker:

Defense whining now.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg comes up with a total of four of the agreed-upon stipulations that he believes the State should actually read (rather than the judge). “It’s not your evidence; it’s their evidence . . . when it comes from you, it has a different intonation to it. Regardless of whatever the practice is, I do not believe that the judge should be reading these stipulations.” Judge: “It’s not something that I want to do; it’s something that I routinely do.” Connor responds, argues that the judge should simply read all of the stipulations. Judge: “The defendant has suggested that the State read the stipulations . . . I guess I can understand the point they’re making, Mr. Glasgow. Pick one of your assistants to read the stipulations . . . and we’ll go from there.” With that, the judge sends for the jury.

 

[LaLaw2000]

It was going so well. I am sick of the defense having their way all the time.

 

[~n/t~]

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.”

 

[~n/t~]

Again the judge allows the defense to control the court room. If reading stipulations is what he does in other trials, why is this any different? :maddening:

 

[Jackson44]

Wonder why Glasgow can't read the stipulations? Is the Judge upset that if he can't read them then neither can Glasgow, and Glasgow has to pick an assistant.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Koch: “It was Dr. Mitchell’s opinion that the cause of death of Kathleen Savio was drowning.” The next stipulation is what Peterson said in an interview on the NBC Today Show, and Koch reads from the transcript. In the interview, Peterson says he went into Savio’s house because “the next door neighbor [Mary Pontarelli] was upset and wanted to go into the house . . . she was dead in the bathtub . . . I felt her pulse, and being a policeman, I didn’t want to touch or disturb anything.” Peterson also said that Savio was from “an abusive home life . . . we were always basically trying to outdo each other with different things.”

 

[~n/t~]

Wonder why Glasgow can't read the stipulations? Is the Judge upset that if he can't read them then neither can Glasgow, and Glasgow has to pick an assistant.

LOL! Good catch.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Again the judge allows the defense to control the court room. If reading stipulations is what he does in other trials, why is this any different? :maddening:

Because I think this judge is intimidated by the defense lawyers!

 

[Sha]

I agree. It's almost like they're not even taking this seriously.

I have served on both a jury and a grand jury. We were told to wear regular business attire. You could not wear t-shirts and so forth. Louisiana is not up on fashion, but the at least the courts dictate that you dress decently.

This is the judge's fault. He should have stopped the color coordinated outfits after the first time it happened, IMO. He doesn't have to embarrass the jurors; he could write a memo.

Sports jerseys is going way too far, IMO.