Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session “Then, on December 21, 2007, did you have occasion to speak with someone from the Illinois State Police?” “Yes.” “Did you tell them about the statement Kathleen Savio made to you in the bedroom?” “Yes, I did.” Objection/Overruled.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session “You called two different numbers for the State Police?” “Yes, I did.” The witness is shown some phone records. “See the three phone calls that you made?” “Yes, I do.” “and the first phone call you made was at 4:34 on March 9?” “Yes.” The second call was made at 4:35 on the 9th, and the third call was on the following day.” This ends the prosecution’s direct examination. The defense then asks for a sidebar.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session The sidebar ends. Attorney Joe Lopez begins his cross. The witness repeats that she met Savio through their sons, and that she and her family rented the basement apartment between houses. “You moved into the basement, with your kids, your dog, and your cats?” “Yes.” “You lived there for two months?” “Yes.” “And you never once saw Drew in that house?’ “Not while I was living there.” “You also said you had this conversation with her?” “Yes.” “When was that conversation?” “Probably three weeks after we moved in . . . we closed our house mid-September.” “So when you moved in mid-September, that was sometime the week of September?” “Approximately.”

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session “She told you that Drew had threatened her, and said he would kill her?” “Yes.” “And you didn’t move out?” “No.” “You stayed, and put your family in harm’s way?” “No, I didn’t believe my family was in harm’s way.” “It’s because you didn’t’ believe her, isn’t it?” “No, Sir.” “You did nothing, did you?” “I stayed there, and I was a good friend.” “You stayed there, because you didn’t believe her.” Objection/Sustained.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session Anderson says she told her husband about the conversation about a week after it happened. “Your husband didn’t buy a gun to protect him and your children, did he?” “No, Sir.” “You didn’t call law enforcement about this, did you?” “Who would I call?” “You didn’t report that statement to anyone other than your husband?” “That’s true.” “You didn’t call any type of women’s shelter to come in and intervene?” “I did not.” “You did nothing?” “I was there for her.” “During the day, she was at that house, as far as you knew?” “As far as I know . . . when she was there, my husband was sleeping in the basement.” “Well, sleeping doesn’t help if something happens, does it?” “No, Sir, it doesn’t.” “Drew never talked to your husband?” “No, Sir.” “Drew never came into the house when your husband was present?” “That’s correct.” “You didn’t move until your house was ready?” “That’s correct.”

 

[borndem]

In Session Were you aware that the initial people who were in the house did not notice a blue towel in the bathroom?” Objection/Sustained.

This is just getting almost ludicrous -- "Objection," "Sustained." I have never seen anything like it -- and I've seen a few, including the CA roadshow. Besides not letting the jurors hear pertinent info that would serve to make this a fair trial, IMO, it almost makes the PT look like a bunch of dummies. Can you imagine their rage and frustration?? What is really going on here?

AND, ohiogirl, :yourock: A big, big THANK YOU!!

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session After she moved, she didn’t call or visit Kathy on a daily basis. “You didn’t do anything, did you?” “I did. I was there for Kathy . . . it was the first time I went back to work after being home for ten years . . . it was a lot on our plate.” “So that was more important than your friend’s well-being?” “No, Sir, that’s not true.” “But you didn’t’ call her, did you?” “No, I didn’t.” “After you moved out, you didn’t see her until a month later?” “That’s correct.” “And she was happier then, wasn’t she?” “Happier than when I’d last seen her.”

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session “You weren’t present in that house at any time on the day that she passed away?” “No.” “Eventually, you called the Illinois State Police?” “Yes.” “After you talked to Mary Pontarelli?” “Yes.” “She gave you the numbers?” “No, I looked them up in the phone book.” “You just called the state police, because Mary told you they were investigating this case?” “No.” “How did you come to call?’ “Because my heart told me to . . . I was in shock about what had occurred.” “Any time any friend passes, that’s shocking, isn’t it?’ “But these circumstances are different.” “Did you feel responsible for her passing, because you moved out of the house?” “Not at all.” “Why? Your life is more important than hers?” Objection/Sustained. “Your family commitments were more important than checking up on her?” “That’s not true. I prayed for her every day.” The judge strikes this last response.

 

[LambChop]

This is just getting almost ludicrous -- "Objection," "Sustained." I have never seen anything like it -- and I've seen a few, including the CA roadshow. Besides not letting the jurors hear pertinent info that would serve to make this a fair trial, IMO, it almost makes the PT look like a bunch of dummies. Can you imagine their rage and frustration?? What is really going on here?

AND, ohiogirl, :yourock: A big, big THANK YOU!!

I think it is just so obvious that this is a bad person who had more power than anyone should have ever given him and the judge is giving the defense the benefit of the doubt. I don't think they can make DP look any worse than he does right now. But I'm sure there is a lot more to come. Just picturing Stacy sitting there crying because she knews exactly what happened to Kathleen and that is why she went and told the minister knowing her days were numbered. jmo

 

[Mama-cita]

I know he sounds like such an idiot, badgering the poor woman "It's because you didn't believe her!". No the poor lady knew she wasn't at any risk; batterers and wife beaters like Drew save that type of behavior for the women in their lives. He wouldn't have shown up in full swat gear with a knife with actual witnesses present. Sheesh. I hope this jury isn't like the Pinellas 12; they shared one brain cell, and it was a damaged one at that!!

 

[LambChop]

I know he sounds like such an idiot, badgering the poor woman "It's because you didn't believe her!". No the poor lady knew she wasn't at any risk; batterers and wife beaters like Drew save that type of behavior for the women in their lives. He wouldn't have shown up in full swat gear with a knife with actual witnesses present. Sheesh. I hope this jury isn't like the Pinellas 12; they shared one brain cell, and it was a damaged one at that!!

He's trying to get her to say she never thought he would actually hurt her. Makes you wonder how some of these attorneys sleep at night. jmo

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session “Just so I understand . . . you only had your clothes at Kathy’s house?” “Yes, Sir.” “So it only took you a couple of hours to move out?” “Yes.” “The State Police came to your house, and you talked to them?” “That is correct.” The first time she called the state police, she talked to a female (“I don’t know their name&#8221. “You didn’t write down the name?” “No, I didn’t.” “You talked to them only for a couple of minutes?’ “Yes . . . I introduced myself, and told them that I had lived with Kathy for two months.” “That’s what you told the grand jury, isn’t it?” Objection/Overruled.

 

[ohiogirl]

I think Burmila's last decision may have been the breakthrough the prosecution has been needing. The prosecution appealed to his ego by saying he wasn't bound by White's decisions. The defense kept saying White was like God and could not be denied.

Legally, the prosecution is correct.

Could be, or he just gave the defense the perfect appeal issue.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad he is letting this in, I'm just not sure about him changing the ruling of the prior judge at this late date. jmo and all that jazz:seeya:

 

[seattlechiquita]

I think Burmila's last decision may have been the breakthrough the prosecution has been needing. The prosecution appealed to his ego by saying he wasn't bound by White's decisions. The defense kept saying White was like God and could not be denied.

Legally, the prosecution is correct.

Hey lady :wave: nice to see you!

I agree with your post. I am still a bit taken aback by the judge's apparent bias towards the defense. I wonder if he has his own skeletons to contend to (a bitter ex, custody battle, etc) and somehow feels kinship (allow me to :sick: )with the defendant...

 

[borndem]

They had no reason to suspect him....he was a "good old boy", one of them. This from the beginning was a problem and it should have been investigated because of who DP was. jmo

Exactly, LambChop (your name brings back some good, old memories...)

The PD should have had the attitude that, since he WAS one of them, to leave no stone unturned -- prove that there was no way one of their own could have committed 1st Degree Murder. Tape off the property, allow no one in, and then bring in the State Police to investigate, and ask them to spare nothing and show that this man Drew Peterson could not possibly have had anything to do with it.

They didn't even seal the house and allow no one in, at least until independent LEO's could determine it indeed was an accident.

Excuse the rant....:rant:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

:banghead: Waiting for more updates. This witness has been wonderful for the prosecution and so far, she's not allowing Joe the Shark to intimidate or demean her.

:moo:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session “When you called the State Police, that call was made at 4:34?” “Yes.” “And that call lasted a little over two minutes?” “Yes.” “You never mentioned on that call that Kathy was threatened by her husband?” “No.” “The second call was on the same day, at 4:35?” “Yes” “That call lasted three minutes . .. who did you talk to?” “I can’t recall the name . . . it was someone different, a male. The first person referred me to the second person. And I shared what Kathy had shared with me, about the SWAT incident. She said it was before I moved in.” “You don’t know month that was?” “No.”

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session The sidebar ends, and the judge asks the jurors to leave the courtroom.

Huh? They didn't report a sidebar!

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Sorry, that last one was out of order. We're getting blitzed!









In Session When the witness lived in Savio’s basement, she believed that Drew and Kathy were still going through their divorce. “She told me that they were in the process of getting a divorced . . . separated, but not married, not living [together] . . . it wasn’t finalized.” Objection/Sustained. “She never told you at any time that she was legally divorced from Drew Peterson?” “No, just that she was in the process of getting a divorce.” “Would it surprise you to know that they were already divorced when you were living there?” “It wouldn’t divorce me, given that Drew was already living with Stacy.”

 

[CarolinaMoon]

In Session “There was only one incident that she described to you where he came into the house with this SWAT incident?” “That’s right.” “And only one incident where he made this threatening incident?” “Yes.”