Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

[rpgman]

RT @StacyStClair: #DrewPeterson judge allows prosecution to present testimony about the receipts and the red folder.

bjlutz: Burmilla says receipts from a Krispy Kreme & Shedd Aquarium are admissable. Receipts were for cash, not credit, and kept in a red folder

great. awesome, they should be allowed in.

 

[Jackson44]

Watch this thread for live updates from the Drew Peterson murder trial!

It appears that everyone is now heading into the courtroom.
Judge Burmila is back on the bench. “Are we ready for the jury?” Brodsky: “My understanding is that the State wants to call investigator David Margliano. His testimony would be about his search of the defendant’s home, and items he found in an envelope, including
tickets to the Shedd Aquarium from Feb. 29, 2004 . . . both Your Honor and Judge White had both ruled that since the defendant is not asserting an alibi defense, no evidence of a false alibi could be introduced. This is no more than a back door way to suggest that the defendant was trying to set up an alibi . . . it also goes to the defendant’s right to remain silent. It’s irrelevant and immaterial . . . it would only ask these people here to speculate as to why he would do it. Perhaps he’s a compulsive record keeper . . . I don’t see how or why this witness should be allowed to testify.” Prosecutor Connor responds: “It did not appear from the other items in this file cabinet that he was a compulsive record keeper . . . these are items of physical evidence, maintained by the defendant for three years, even after the coroner’s office had determined this was an accident . . .” Judge: “I’m with you, except on two points. What is the compulsion for the defendant to give this evidence to the state police?” Connor: “It’s not a legal compulsion; it’s a common sense compulsion.” Judge: “We’re going to have to revisit this one . . . I understand what you’re saying.” Connor: “Our argument is that he had to keep those documents for use at a later time.”

 

[TxLady2]

Talk about a Freudian (or whatever kind of) slip:

Lopez before the crowd outside, talking about Schiori (sp) and why didn't he tell her not to go home: "You're letting her go home to [Drew Peterson] a murderer?" (Size 9 foot in size 10 mouth... I had to laff...)

Right!! But I think that might have been a little sarcasm there. Like mocking the pastor because he seemed to believe Stacy's story yet didn't try to stop her from going back.
Besides... what was the pastor supposed to do, tie her up?? She was an adult, nobody could stop her from going back to her husband.

 

[Jackson44]

In Session Connor continues: “The nature of these particular documents . . . were all unfolded, unwrinkled . . . the unique nature of this is something we believe the jury should be allowed to consider.” Brodsky: “Consider for what? They want the jury to speculate . . . we have not asserted an alibi defense; our defense is and always has been that this was an accident . . . there’s nothing here, no inference other than gross speculation.” Judge: “The jury has heard testimony that the defendant’s intent to have his wife killed would be masked by his being elsewhere . . . in this instance, the State says the witness will link the death to these specific items, because there’s a newspaper article. I think that because the witness testified that the defendant hoped to create a true alibi for himself, I think it does not touch upon his right to remain silent, and is something the jury could take into account . . . so this evidence is admissible.”

 

[katydid23]

Attys arguing over alleged phone calls #DrewPeterson wife made - Burmila says "Which wife are we talking about?" HA."

Brodsky: "His testimony would be about his search of the defendant’s home, and items he found in an envelope."

Prosecutor Glasgow asks for a few moments to speak to the upcoming witness about the judge’s ruling.

The judge grants this request, and leaves the bench. The trial is again in a short recess

 

[fifteen89]

Seems like he said he had a feeling that she had something "big" she wanted to discuss so he said he wanted someone with him.

He also said earlier that he never met anyone in his office -- that goes back to what Kimster said about her pastor. Pastors these days need to look after their reputations, too.

Yes, normal Pastor practices have been discussed here since the testimony. But if Schori didn't do something like that (even though he stated as much in his testimony), he would be smart to have a witness along if he knew anything about DP's history of following his wives around to see what they were up to and accusing them of things later. No point in Schori putting himself or Stacy in that position.

 

[Jackson44]

n Session Greenberg: “Are they now alleging there was a hit man?” Judge: “All I can do is address what they’re asking me to do.” Greenberg then moves to an objection to the testimony of “Mr. Mims,” another potential witness. Connor clarifies that this witness will be able to testify about phone records that no longer exist. “It provides an explanation why there would be no direct call records from that particular evening.”

 

[katydid23]

Judge: “The jury has heard testimony that the defendant’s intent to have his wife killed would be masked by his being elsewhere . . . in this instance, the State says the witness will link the death to these specific items, because there’s a newspaper article. I think that because the witness testified that the defendant hoped to create a true alibi for himself, I think it does not touch upon his right to remain silent, and is something the jury could take into account . . . so this evidence is admissible.”


Sometimes I actually like this judge. :smile:

 

[Jackson44]

In Session Judge: “The only phone records you have are from this Nextel company?” Connor: “Those are the only ones we are aware of from our investigation.” Judge: “Is there any indication that those minutes were used between those two phones?” Connor: “It has to be between two phones that are on the network.” “You could chirp anyone else who was on the network?” “Yes.” Judge: “I’m going to take the issue of Mr. Mims under advisement. You can call Mr. Margliano, and we’ll go from there.”

 

[Jackson44]

Is this what you call waiting? Going to do more laundry. lol

 

[Kimster]

I've heard back from one of our wonderful verified attorneys - AZLawyer! She gave me permission to quote her answers to my questions to all of you! :grouphug:

This was in response to what if the jury asks about Stacy during deliberations and my comment that I felt the judge is partial to the defense.

Hi, Kim. I'm not following the case closely, but I think I can still answer your question. If the judge has decided that evidence about Stacy being missing is inadmissible (and it sounds like he has), then he would tell the jury either (1) that the information they requested cannot, for legal reasons, be revealed, or (2) simply that Stacy is unavailable to testify in person.

Keep in mind that the judge is constitutionally required to be "defense-sided." The defense is the only side with any constitutional rights at all in a criminal case. Any other rights, rules, etc. have to take a back seat to the rights of the defense, because they are based on law that is "trumped" by the US Constitution.

 

[katydid23]

Assistant State's Atty John Connor says receipts cover period of 11a to 5p. Burmila questioning relevance if alleged homicide was 3 a.m

Connor: "These are items of physical evidence, maintained by #drewpeterson for 3 yrs, after the coroner determined this was an accident."
Brodsky: "It would only ask these people here to speculate as to why #drewpeterson would do it. Perhaps he’s a compulsive record keeper."

Prosecutor Connor: “It did not appear from the other items in this file cabinet that he was a compulsive record keeper.

Brodsky: "This is no more than a back door way to suggest that the defendant was trying to set up an alibi."

Judge: “I’m with you, except on two points. What is the compulsion for #drewpeterson to give this evidence to the state police?”

Brodsky: "It also goes to the defendant’s right to remain silent. It’s irrelevant and immaterial."

Connor: “It’s not a legal compulsion; it’s a common sense compulsion

udge: “We’re going to have to revisit this one . . . I understand what you’re saying.”

Connor: “Our argument is that he had to keep those documents for use at a later time.” #drewpeterson

Glasgow: Peterson is "hedging his bets" and covering his tracks by keeping cash receipts.

judge doesn't like Glasgow's language or raised voice. Prosecutor apologizes.

 

[rpgman]

I've heard back from one of our wonderful verified attorneys - AZLawyer! She gave me permission to quote her answers to my questions to all of you! :grouphug:

Thanks Kimster. :rocker:

 

[katydid23]

prosecutor Glasgow says no man keeps unblemished receipts for three years.

Burmila scolded Glasgow for tone, volume of his voice while stating his case. Glasgow apologized profusely. "It will not happen again."

[ oh puh-lease. ]

 

[fifteen89]

Sleuthers, Lopez did ask Schori that you had someone come with you just in case and to basically CYOA. Schori answered: "Yes, that was maybe part of the reason", or something very close to that statement.

I have no idea why this testimony was not posted but I promise you all I heard it.

It was posted. See post #848 on page 34.

ETA: Well, that was talking about meeting Stacy in public. Not about having a witness.

 

[katydid23]

Defense atty says *IF* Drew was creating an alibi, he'd have done better job, given years as a police officer, knowledge of investigations.

[ hahahahaha...great defense....]

Glasgow says #DrewPeterson staged scene - complete with OJ on kitchen counter - to make it look like Savio died in morning so kept receipts

Glasgow said #DrewPeterson plan fell apart because he was such "insensitive husband" he didn't realize Savio would never leave OJ out...

 

[katydid23]

judge now bans receipt testimony because it doesn't speak to Drew's whereabouts at exact time state has suggested Savio died.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:furious:

 

[katydid23]

What stupid reasoning! Obviously he needed no receipts for 3 am because he had his wife lie for him. But he still needed receipts for the early morning because he did not know if they would be able to pinpoint the TOD. And he staged it for morning time.

UUUGGHHHHHHHHHH

 

[ohiogirl]

I don't like this judge. He is supposed to be making decisions based on the new hearsay law and he seems to think he has to ban "everything" that is evidence that DP may have been involved in KS' death. The receipts aren't hearsay. This kind of stuff should have been decided before the trial, imo.

 

[katydid23]

trial now on a break, as prosecutors lose witness and consider whom they should call next....


DARN!