Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[~n/t~]

Craig Wall ‏@craigrwall
Defense attorneys for #DrewPeterson arguing in hallway about whether or not to all Harry Smith. The risks could outweigh the benefits



WTF? In the hallway? How professional. NOT

 

[ohiogirl]

So the DT has known for months that there was an interview of TP, they have known he is on the witness list, and they knew they never got a copy of the interview. So, they wait until now to cry foul. They suck!
I know the PT is supposed to share discovery, but it seems it was overlooked and the DT is crying. I agree with the judge. You have the interview now, go read it and come back and finish this thing!

 

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Prosecutor: Cops who wrote report on interview with Tom Peterson will be available to defense team this afternoon. #DrewPeterson

:rocker:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. One of the police officers who was discussed prior to the lunch recess will be available at 2:00 CT this afternoon. The other one will be available at some point today via phone.

 

[Cappuccino]

Or, maybe it just slipped by them, because they know deep down that it really is a homicide.:seeya:

That's a nice theory but I doubt it. If they let it go it was for a reason, most likely because it would have maximised the damage to draw attention to it.

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson defense calls Harry Smith, Savio divorce attorney, to stand

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#DrewPeterson judge has warned defense that they could be opening Pandora's box by calling Smith. They called him anyway.

 

[~n/t~]

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Defense calls Harry Smith to the stand #DrewPeterson [He's actually on the stand, giving testimony after 6 days of waiting]

 

[Cubby]

So the DT has known for months that there was an interview of TP, they have known he is on the witness list, and they knew they never got a copy of the interview. So, they wait until now to cry foul. They suck!
I know the PT is supposed to share discovery, but it seems it was overlooked and the DT is crying. I agree with the judge. You have the interview now, go read it and come back and finish this thing!

BBM. There have been a few examples of the DT knowing for a long time, 'sand bagging' so to speak and waiting to cry foul now. It's obviously a planned DT tactic.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The jurors enter the courtroom. The defense calls its next witness: attorney Harry Smith (questioned by attorney Brodsky). He has been an attorney since 1993. “It’s a litigation firm. I handle the family law part of that . . . and I also do some criminal defense work.” His firm’s name is “Smith and Fuller.” The witness says that he was formerly a prosecutor (but not in Will County). “You had a client named Kathleen Savio?” “That is correct.” “When did she come to you?” “I believe 2002 or 2003.”

In Session The witness is shown some billing records, which show that he first met Kathleen Savio in January, 2002. “That was a divorce between Kathleen Peterson and Drew Peterson?” “Yes.” “At some point in that case, there was a bifurcated divorce?” “Yes.” The prosecution objects, and asks for a sidebar.

In Session The sidebar ends. “At sometime during these proceedings with Kathy Savio and Drew Peterson, was their marriage dissolved?” “Yes.” “Subsequent to that, are you aware Drew Peterson married Stacy Cales?” “Yes.” “Did you recall a call in 2007 from Stacy Peterson?” “I did receive a call from Stacy Peterson; I’m not sure of the specific date.” The witness is shown a copy of a report, to refresh his recollection. “Yes . . . she contacted the office on Oct. 24. I just didn’t talk to her that day.” “The purpose that she called you was for information about a divorce?” “She told my office she wanted to retain me as a divorce attorney.” “From Drew Peterson?” “Yes.”

n Session Brodsky asks for permission to question Smith as an adverse witness. The judge then calls the attorneys to a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
Jury taken out of courtroom - Brodsky wants to speak to Harry Smith as a hostile witness #DrewPeterson

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Brodsky: wants to treat Smith as a hostile witness. State: First you have to establish some hostility. #DrewPeterson

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#DrewPeterson prosecutor Connor points out that to be a hostile witness "first he has to be hostile in some way." Smith has been amiable.

 

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Burmila: no reason to treat him as a hostile witness. #DrewPeterson

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#DrewPeterson judge agrees with prosecution and strongly warns Brodsky not refer to Smith as an "adverse witness" in front of jury

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The jurors are back in the courtroom, and Brodsky continues his direct examination. “When you spoke to Stacy Peterson, the purpose of her call was to do what?” “She contacted our office to retain me as an attorney in a divorce proceeding.” “Did she eventually retain you?” “No.” “Why not?” The witness is hesitant to answer. The judge then calls the attorneys to a sidebar.

Ruth Ravve ‏@RuthRavve
#DrewPeterson Defense asks Smith why Stacy didn't ever hire him, Smith stumbles because he's not allowed to say Stacy disappeared


The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Brodsky asks Smith why Stacy never retained him to represent her in her divorce. Smith: Uh... #DrewPeterson

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson atty asks Smith why Stacy didn't hire him after an Oct. 2007 call. Smith, clearly stunned, stammers and does not answer.

:what:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends. “Even though there was this conflict of interest, she did ask you questions about divorce?” “Yes.” “Did she tell you she had information about Drew Peterson?” “Those were not her specific words, but she did tell me she had information about Drew Peterson . . .she said she had information regarding Kathleen Peterson she wanted to us.” “She wanted to use that as leverage in the divorce case?” Objection/Overruled. “She wanted to know if it, in my opinion, the fact that he’d killed Kathy could be used against him.” “In the divorce proceeding?” “Yes . . . she didn’t use the word ‘leverage,; but that certainly was the intimation.” The State objects, and the parties approach the bench for a sidebar.


What a mess!! :thud:

 

[Livingthedream]

The DEFENSE ASKED the question so let him ANSWER it!! As judge B said to the D team: "You could be opening a pandora's box".

This could blow up on the defense right now.

 

[fifteen89]

I think there is plenty of examples "WHY" Drew wanted KS gone. Mainly, financial. He didn't want to share any of his pension with her. He didn't want to split marital assets. He wanted all of it for himself.
Drew purposely did things to KS and to the scene at KS's house, to make it look a certain way.
If Drew didn't kill KS, who did? Some random ("pure chance") intruder, who left a pristine scene (nothing broken or disturbed except that picture off the wall), some random person who breaks in and does not rape KS, but kills her and leaves her in a bathroom tub devoid of bathroom rug, towel, discarded clothes, WHY would a random stranger do that? Someone cleaned the scene.
A random intruder wouldn't take the time to do all that IMO. Who would break in, whack KS in the head but not hard enough to kill her and possibly not even hard enough to render her unconscious. Then he drowns her- how often do random killers break in and drown someone, then takes her clothing with him?
Did KS have enemies? You would think the DT would have a litany of people that Drew says could have killed KS and had a motive. But no, we didn't hear that from them.
I am sure the jury knows that SP is missing. You would have to be living in a cave in Illinois to not know. I could kill you and make it look like an accident. Maybe he said to Stacy I could make you disappear and nobody would ever find you. We will never know.

abbie:moo:

Exacty.

 

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Jury's out. Burmila: Smith keeps trying to make eye contact with prosecutors before answering each question #DrewPeterson


Welllll no kidding! Poor guy is probably terrified as to what to answer. He can't mention Stacy's disappearance. Good lord.



:bigfight:

 

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Brodsky again said he would like to treat Smith as a hostile witness. #DrewPeterson

:bigfight:

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
Smith didn't answer because he knows much testimony about Stacy has been barred. Stacy disappeared 2 days after calling him.

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Glasgow: No one here was signaling Harry Smith. Burmila said he realizes that. #DrewPeterson

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The sidebar ends. “Even though there was this conflict of interest, she did ask you questions about divorce?” “Yes.” “Did she tell you she had information about Drew Peterson?” “Those were not her specific words, but she did tell me she had information about Drew Peterson . . .she said she had information regarding Kathleen Peterson she wanted to us.” “She wanted to use that as leverage in the divorce case?” Objection/Overruled. “She wanted to know if it, in my opinion, the fact that he’d killed Kathy could be used against him.” “In the divorce proceeding?” “Yes . . . she didn’t use the word ‘leverage,; but that certainly was the intimation.” The State objects, and the parties approach the bench for a sidebar.


What a mess!! :thud:

OMG, I can't believe they let him say this!