Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
ISP officer Eileen Payona on the stand now. #DrewPeterson

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Payona said she was assigned to the re-investigation of Savio's case. #DrewPeterson

 

[Cappuccino]

Still, I don't see why that question would have prompted a sidebar. The defense asks for a sidebar.

The defense asked for a sidebar in response to the judge sustaining the prosecution's objection. I would guess the defense's sidebar was to ask exactly the same question you asked - "what was wrong with that question?"

 

[~n/t~]

In Session
The next defense witness is Eileen Payona. She is an Illinois State Police officer (for the past 16 years). She is questioned by attorney Greenberg.

In Session For the last 13 years, she has worked in the Investigations unit. As such, she was part of the reinvestigation into Kathleen Savio and Drew Peterson. “Did you have occasion to interview Mary Parks, in August of 2008?” “Yes, Sir.”

 

[~n/t~]

I need a 5 minute break.....

Can someone take over?

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

 

[LaLaw2000]

Well, DP wouldn't have just done the murder (IMO), so of course he wouldn't have been disheveled. PT or defense, I still don't see what was wrong with that question or why the defense wanted a sidebar.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

@InSession: #drewpeterson next witness is IL St. police ofc Eileen Payona, questioned by Greenberg. She was part of reinvestigation of Savio's death.

Payonk headed ISP's re-investigation of Savio death.

witness is asked about reinterviewing Mary Parks. Witness says she spoke w/ Parks 3x.

atty Greenberg wants Payonk to undercut testimony from earlier state witnesses by pointing out inconsistencies in testimony

 

[Cappuccino]

Well, DP wouldn't have just done the murder (IMO), so of course he wouldn't have been disheveled. PT or defense, I still don't see what was wrong with that question or why the defense wanted a sidebar.

JMO

The defense wanted a sidebar to ask the judge what was wrong with that question.

 

[katydid23]

In Session For the last 13 years, she has worked in the Investigations unit. As such, she was part of the reinvestigation into Kathleen Savio and Drew Peterson. “Did you have occasion to interview Mary Parks, in August of 2008?” “Yes, Sir.”

In Session The witness says that Parks told her that she and Drew were fighting over Suds Pub. However, she later learned that Suds Pub had been sold prior to that time. In all, she spoke to Parks three times. “Did she ever tell you she had called the State’s Attorneys?” “No.” “Not during any of your conversations with her?” “No.” She also arranged for another canvas of Savio’s neighborhood. “As a result of that canvas, did you learn anything suspicious?” “Not that I recall.”

 

[LaLaw2000]

That little thing could have been handled in open court like in most other trials.

 

[katydid23]

For example, one witness said #drewpeterson & Savio were fighting over bar & printing business at time of her death. But both had been sold....


[ so? They could have been fighting over the money and who was going to get what. imo]

 

[Cappuccino]

That little thing could have been handled in open court like in most other trials.

We don't know what was wrong with that question from the prosecution's pov, so we can't really judge that.

 

[katydid23]

In Session Nick Pontarelli told her that he had pictures of Kathleen Savio. “He had not given those pictures previously to the state police?” “No.” “You were aware there was a second autopsy done?” “Yes, Sir.” “At that autopsy, there were numerous people from the state police?” “Yes.” “You were there?” “I believe so.” “Mr. Glasgow was there?” “I don’t recall.” The witness is handed a copy of her report. “Dr. Blum was there?” “Yes.” “Dr. Mitchell?” “Yes.” She names several more persons who were present at this second autopsy. “They took fingernail clippings, for testing for DNA?” “Yes.” “There was also a religious father?” “Yes.” “And the autopsy on that day, it lasted almost three hours?’ “I believe so.” “At some point, you went back to the house on 392 Pheasant Chase Drive?” “Yes.” “Know how many times you went back?” “No.” “All of the original witnesses were interviewed again?” “I believe so.” “There were dozens and dozens of interviews?” “I believe so.” “Additional phone records, work records were collected?” “Yes.” “Mr. Peterson’s work records?” “Yes.” “Were you allowed to inspect the house?” “Yes.” “Was the carpeting from the master bedroom removed?” “Yes.” “And before it was removed, it was tested with ultra-scientific techniques?” ‘I don’t know.” “But you’re aware the carpet was taken and inspected?” “Yes.”


In Session The witness says the bathroom was inspected, and even the grout was removed and sent in for testing. The prosecution then asks for a sidebar.

 

[katydid23]

Defense gets Payonk to say "nothing of evidentiary value" was learned from DNA taken, phone records, interviews...

[ He wore gloves and he never called her on the phone and he subdued her, so none of the neighbors heard anything..]

 

[katydid23]

#Drewpeterson Payonk on stand for Peterson defense but was also just called as a witness on the Christopher Vaughn trial next door! Oops!...

 

[katydid23]

In a conversation w/ Savio's sister Anna Doman, Payonk said she was given affidavit to open a safety deposit box.

Greenberg has no further questions for Payonk. State moves in for cross-examination.

 

[katydid23]

InSession: #drewpeterson Dr. Michael Baden just arrived at the courthouse.

 

[LaLaw2000]

InSession: #drewpeterson Dr. Michael Baden just arrived at the courthouse.

Wonderful!

 

[katydid23]

#drewpeterson prosecution now cross-examining Payonk...

On cross, Payonk says not all ppl she just said were present during Savio's 2nd autopsy were in room. Some were just in the building...

Payonk confirms that bathtub in which Savio was found was removed and taken into evidence.

No further questions from state. Greenberg begins re-direct of cross.

 

[katydid23]

Greenberg: Walls, carpet, grout all inspected, tested in 2007 and 2008... no evidence that points to a crime? Payonk: correct.

Defense asks Payonk "Just because someone cleans carpet doesn't mean things will disappear, does it?" No evidence of crime...

Payonk is done testifying and the jury is leaving for lunch.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg begins his redirect. “The carpet was taken also from the stairway, leading up to the second floor?” “I don’t recall.” The witness is again shown a copy of her report. “That’s actually the corrected crime scene report?” “Yes.” “In fact, the carpeting from the stairway was also removed?” “Yes.” “Not only did they take the carpeting and the grout, but they also used their forensic light sources to inspect the walls for any blood?” “I don’t know, Sir.” Once more, the witness is directed to her report. “The walls were also inspected for stains, anything like that?” “Correct.” “Just because someone might clean carpet doesn’t mean stains will disappear?” “I don’t know. I can’t answer that question.” “The walls, the carpet, the grout . . . all of it was tested in 2007, 2008, and no evidence came back from any of it that points to a crime?” “Correct.” “And it was all the original stuff?” “Yes.” That ends the redirect.


In Session Koch has one quick question on recross, but it is objected to, and the judge sustains the objection. With that, the witness is excused, and she leaves the courtroom. The judge excuses the jurors for the lunch recess.