Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

[passionflower]

3 years of preperation and all these mistakes happen???

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “With the bullet, they’re trying to get in Mr. Pontarelli’s state of mind…whether at some point he was afraid of Drew has nothing to do with what he observed that particular evening…his state of mind is not relevant. Ms. Savio’s state of mind when she slipped and fell in that tub is not relevant…‘everyone was afraid of Drew Peterson, so he must have done this.’ I’m done.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila addresses the attorneys. “One of the matters we’re going to have to deal with is what Judge White ruled, as if he came down from the mountain with tablets…whether things are admissible at trial is completely different from the pre-trial hearings…I’m not clairvoyant; I don’t know what else the State is going to try to elicit…one of the things Mr. Greenberg said was his fear that by objecting the jury would think we were trying to keep things from them. During jury selection, didn’t I tell them that no one is trying to hide anything from them; haven’t I done that?...if the State’s case is entirely circumstantial, based on hearsay, they must do it under the rules of evidence.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session JUDGE DENIES MISTRIAL: “The defense says there should be a mistrial…there’s no question that the State asked that purposely, and the witness’ answer was not a surprise; it was the specific answer the State sought to elicit. However, the sanction of striking the testimony in its entirely is too severe, and might hurt the defendant more than the State…I find the State did not ask the question with the intent of causing a mistrial…so the motion for the mistrial is denied. I have drafted a cautionary instruction I intend to give the jury.”


:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

 

[ohiogirl]

Thank goodness!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The attorneys are apparently reading over the judge’s proposed instruction. The Court is now in a five minute recess.



I need fresh air!! BBL

 

[katydid23]

But now the state has it's hands tied and very little ammo they can offer up.

 

[~n/t~]

A few seconds ago

In Session Chuck Pelkie has just given us the list of today’s expected witnesses. The State is now planning on calling Louis Oleszkiewicz, Michael Newton, Tim Berkery, and Mike Johnson…all are paramedics or EMTs who responded to Savio’s home the night her body was discovered. It’s also “possible” that attorney Harry Smith may be called later this afternoon, but that is still questionable.
A few seconds ago

 

[passionflower]

nail biter!

 

[seattlechiquita]

But now the state has it's hands tied and very little ammo they can offer up.

I know.... and to think they had YEARS to prepare for this prosecution. :maddening:

 

[outofstatelawyer]

As I said yesterday, this really wasn't grounds for a mistrial. The Judge agreed. Please keep in mind that these defense lawyers are over the top. Everything to them is an OUTRAGE!! It's fine to be a zealous defender of your client, but the outrage gets old after a while.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila has returned to the bench. Joel Brodsky addresses the cautionary instruction proposed by the Court. “At the end of the first paragraph, you do say the State asked a question which they knew would draw an inadmissible answer. We think that needs to be a little bit stronger…we’d like you to add ‘this was a purposeful violation of the rules of evidence by the State.’ The next paragraph, where it states ‘the State’s Attorneys will not be allowed to continue its redirect examination of Mr. Pontararelli, we’d add at the beginning of that, ‘as a result,’ so the jury knows the State is being sanctioned.” And he asks the judge to stress that “Mr. Peterson knew nothing about the bullet…there is absolutely no proof.” Finally, he asks the judge to note that trials are ‘a defined process, with rules that must be obeyed.’ We think with those additions, the cautionary instruction would be sufficient.”

In Session Prosecutor Koch responds, argues against the requests made by the defense. “We don’t believe it’s necessary to put in there that this was a purposeful violation.” Judge Burmila: “The defense’s suggested wording is denied by the Court…but I will include the additional factual information about the bullet…the inclusion of the phrase “with rules that must be obeyed” will also not be granted…the only change I’m going to make is the phrase, ‘or anything regarding the bullet.’”

In Session The judge sends for the jurors. Once they arrive, he will read them the cautionary instruction.

In Session The jurors have just entered the courtroom. Judge Burmila greets them, and reads them the cautionary instruction in question. “I have an instruction on the law I’m going to read to you before we proceed any further in the case. I will re-read this instruction at the end of the case. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Thomas Pontarelli…during the redirect examination, the assistant state’s attorney asked the question which she knew would draw an inadmissible response. You cannot consider any of the testimony given by Mr. Pontarelli during his redirect examination, and more specifically whether he said he had gotten a message from Mr. Peterson, felt intimidated, or anything about a bullet…the Court does not mean to suggest that you must necessarily disregard the remainder of Mr. Pontarelli’s testimony…it remains your duty to reach a verdict on the facts before you, and not on any other grounds.”

In Session Louis Oleszkiewicz (“oh-LESS-keh-vitch”) takes the stand. He is being questioned by prosecutor John Connor. He is a firefighter paramedic for the town of Bolingbrook, Illinois. He briefly goes over his training and professional experience. He also explains that he fills out a form for every call to which he’s dispatched.

In Session On March 1, 2004 he received a call for “an unresponsive female” at 10:25 pm. O: “We arrived at 22:49 [10:29] there was a Bolingbrook policeman outside who directed us inside.” He says there was a second Bolingbrook police officer in uniform inside the house, but can’t identify him at this time. “I entered the bathroom, and found a female down in the bathtub. She had no pulse; she appeared to be deceased. I attached her to our electrocardiogram…there was no electrical activity in the heart at that time…it prints out a piece of paper with the electrical activity on it, which we attach to our report…and it’s submitted to the hospital.” Prosecution: “Do you have to go back out to the ambulance at that point?” O: “Yes, we call the medical control physician, let him know what we saw…and he will make the decision whether we work the patient or whether we pronounce them. And we don’t do any lifesaving action at that time.” The “pronouncement time” was 11:05 pm.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session O: “We write down what we saw.” Prosecution: “Recall how the skin felt for the body of Kathleen Savio?” O: “She felt cold to the touch, like a waxy, cold feeling. And dry.” Prosecution: “What do you remember about her hair?” O: “Her hair was like matted, damp…and kind of matted down; I have no other way to explain it than that.” Prosecution: “How did you place the monitors onto her body?” O: “Normally, the monitor leads are placed on the front of the chest. Because of the position of Miss Savio, they were placed on her shoulder blades, on her back.” Prosecution: “The scene that night, would you recognize what you observed if it were shown to you in court?” O: “Yes, I would.” Shown a photograph of the bathroom, the witness says that he doesn’t recall seeing a towel that evening that is now present in the picture. Other than that detail, the photograph accurately reflects the scene as he saw it that night.

In Session Using a laser pointer, the witness notes the blue towel that’s in the photograph but that he didn’t see it that night. Before he can go further, the attorneys go to a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends. Prosecution: “What was the time frame that you were actually inside that residence?” O: “From 22:49 until we cleared the scene at 23:12.” Prosecution: “After you called the doctor, did you have to go back into the residence?” O: “Yes, to collect our equipment.” Prosecution: “When you came back in, that towel was still not present?” O: “That is correct.” Once again, the witness is asked about “some type of plastic objects” that can be seen in the bathroom photo. O: “These are the plastic covers that are on the electro-leads…there are three of them…those caps are removed from the leads themselves, and placed down there, and then the leads are placed on the body.”

In Session The witness points out these plastic caps he has just mentioned. Again, he says the photo reflects the scene accurately except for the presence of the blue towel. O: “I mentioned to the State Police investigators that I thought it was odd…Objection/Overruled…I told them there was no towel or bath mat present when I responded to the scene. I don’t recall mentioning clothing.”

 

[ohiogirl]

As I said yesterday, this really wasn't grounds for a mistrial. The Judge agreed. Please keep in mind that these defense lawyers are over the top. Everything to them is an OUTRAGE!! It's fine to be a zealous defender of your client, but the outrage gets old after a while.

The judge sure seemed to think this was a possibility yesterday! jmo

 

[Nana46]

Have there been any photos of DP at all even entering the courthouse?
TIA!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecution: “Recall how many days it was from that evening before you spoke to the state police about the towel?” O: “It was either three or six days.” Prosecution: “Did you meet an individual that evening you later came to know was Drew Peterson?” O: “Yes.” He identifies “Sgt. Peterson” in the courtroom. Prosecution: “That evening, do you recall where in the house you saw Sgt. Peterson?” O: “Later on in the evening, he was upstairs in the landing area of the second floor… that’s where I recall seeing him.”

 

[imawitch]

nt, thank you so much for the details in your post. I can follow along so easily because of you taking time to post whats happening

 

[seattlechiquita]

btw, I need to inform y'all I am no longer drinking caffeine. So my insanity is 100% natural. Carry on

 

[outofstatelawyer]

The judge sure seemed to think this was a possibility yesterday! jmo

Well, the Judge is supposed to consider motions of counsel. Recall that he went into chambers for some time, probably looking at case law. After that, he seemed disinclined to grant a mistrial.