Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

[ohiogirl]

In Session The sidebar has now ended. “In your general investigations, did you investigate forgery cases?’ “It’s possible; I can’t recall.” “How about burglary cases?’ “Possible; I can’t recall.” “Identity thefts?” “Yes.” “Vehicular thefts?” “I can’t recall.” Brodsky then reads from the witness’ grand jury testimony, where he was asked about what kinds of investigations he had participated in during his career. “So you did do vehicular homicides, and burglaries, and forgeries?” “That’s the kind of cases the unit would get assigned all the time, not necessarily me, personally... I could have assisted; I don’t remember.” “You’ve been interviewed by the State’s Attorney’s Office in this case?” “I’ve talked to them.” “How many times since 2008?” “Probably five to six times.” “When was the last time?” “Yesterday.” “And you went over all your testimony?” “NO.” “Go over your reports with them?” “Some.” “When was the last time before yesterday?” “Monday.” “So twice in the same week?” “Yes.”

 

[Kimster]

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: "low rent version" of MG ... this made me LOL !

JMO ... but these defense :clown::clown: have got to be one of the most arrogant and [ :silenced: some words I cannot use here ] group of attorneys I have ever seen ...

And THANKS to all of you for the updates here !

:seeya:

I used to think these kinds of lawyers would work to the benefit of the prosecution, but after the KC Anthony trial, I've put that on the shelf. :sigh:

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “In his interview, you asked Mr. Peterson if he was going to benefit from Kathleen Savio’s death?” “Yes.” “And he said he was going to benefit from half of the house, which was worth $300,000?” “Yes.” “And you took that to mean he was going to benefit by one half, $150,000?” “Yes.” Once again, the witness is asked about his previous testimony, in which he indicted that Peterson “never stated anything like that.” “Remember being asked that question and giving that answer?” “Yes.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session When he arrived at the Savio house, the defendant was not present. “I briefly spoke to the two Bolingbrook commanders... and then I proceeded upstairs.” “That’s when you talked to CSI Deel?” “Yes, Sir.” “And he led you around the house, and showed you where he had taken pictures?” “Yes, Sir.” “And he gave you his impressions?” “Upstairs, yes.” “He said it appeared to be an accident?” “He said it appeared to be an accident; that’s what he stated.” “Nothing to indicate any foul play?” “That’s correct.” “And that’s what investigators do, start exchanging theories?” “I asked for his opinion, yes.” “So him saying it’s an accident is just part of the investigative procedure?” “Yes, Sir.”

 

[WindyCityGirl]

for us to exchange feelings and ideas about these cases.

No one knows. I was just sharing my feelings. I'll refrain from that

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “When he said it was an accident, you were still investigating?” “Yes.” “So you still had an open mind?” “I didn’t close the door completely... I was still conducting the investigation, with that sixth sense you said I should have.” At this last comment, there is a chuckle throughout the courtroom.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “You noticed at some point a laceration on the back of Kathleen Savio’s head?” “Yes, Sir... that was before the body was moved... I looked, observed the body, and I could see the back of the head... I did see the laceration at the back of her head, that was matted with blood.” “Did you have to kneel on the side of the tub to see that?’ “No.” He repeats that Savio’s hair was matted with blood around the laceration. “I asked him how the laceration occurred. He gave me a statement.” “But that was just his opinion?” “Yes.” “You didn’t see any blood spatter, or anything out of place, did you?” “No... I asked Sgt. Deel if there were any struggle marks... I didn’t see anything out of the ordinary.” “Nothing that would indicate she’d been in a fight, or a serious struggle?” “No.” “You didn’t see any sign of forced entry?’ “That was one of my main concerns, yes... there was nothing at that particular time in disarray.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session He told the Bolingbrook police commanders who were at the scene “that I would have to talk to Drew eventually.” “Because you were still investigating?” “Yes, Sir.” “That’s just common sense?” “Yes, Sir.” “The commanders told you that Drew had gone home?” “They didn’t get into details... they didn’t say he was at home, or in the station, or anything like that.” Once again, Brodsky refers back to the witness’ grand jury testimony, which indicates that the commander had sent Peterson home. “So they told you Drew was at his house... but you decided you wanted to interview Drew at the police station?” “I assumed that we would interview Drew at the house. Trooper Falat said that wouldn’t be a good idea... we had a discussion, and we agreed to have Drew interviewed at the Bolingbrook Police Department.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila decides that this would be an appropriate place to break, since the jurors’ lunch is almost here. “We’ll be in recess then until 1:30.” The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:30 CT/2:30 ET.

 

[ohiogirl]

See you back at 2:30.

 

[borndem]

Here's a good summary of the history of Stacy Peeterson. I think I've read back and haven't seen it. It's a good read for background as we wait for the trial to resume tomorrow. DP sure knew how to pick his "child" bride. He picked the neediest one of all.

Disappearance of former cop Drew Peterson’s fourth wife follows her mother’s vanishing

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation..._warning_dR39MsBYUvFR6LMqfNpMiP#ixzz22lKtP7uw

"My kids will never have to wonder where I am," Stacy said.

Just makes me want to cry & scream at the same time. Oh, my.

Thanks for the good, good article, C'Moon.

 

[ohiogirl]

Nothing yet. Testing...

 

[ohiogirl]

The courtroom doors have opened, and people are going in to the Peterson courtroom. The trial should be resuming before too long.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Just getting back here after some very welcome thunderstorms and a second day of drenching rain. Ohiogirl, thank you so much for helping me catch up!

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila has returned to the bench. The parties are ready to proceed, so the judge sends for the witness and the jury. Attorney Greenberg reminds the Court that there may be some issues that need to be discussed prior to the next witness

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The jurors are now back inside the courtroom, and attorney Joel Brodsky resumes his cross-examination of witness Patrick Collins. “In this case, you interviewed a number of people in addition to Drew Peterson?” “Yes.” “You interviewed Thomas Pontarelli, Mary Pontarelli, and Steve Carcerano?” “Yes, Sir.” “That was not problematic, your interviewing them in a basement?” “NO.” “And later on, you interviewed the EMTs, the paramedics?” “They were interviewed... I did not do all the interviews of the EMTs.” “But you did at least one?” “Yes.” “Where did you interview him?” “I cannot recall.” He also interviewed locksmith Robert Akin. The witness clarifies, however, that he did not interview every person in this case, and that other agents handled some of these interviews.

 

[ohiogirl]

Sorry, life interrupted.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Collins repeats that Peterson has “mannerisms” when he was being interviewed. “It was something that I noticed on several occasions.” “It was just you and him in that interview room?” “And Trooper Falat.” “This is a very significant part of your story, the interview and all of the mannerisms?” Objection/Sustained. “That mannerism was observed at another time, also. That’s what made me reflect on it.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session In 2008, when he testified at the grand jury, the witness acknowledges his memory was probably better than it is today.

 

[katydid23]

'mannerisms' ???? Does he mean like 'tells' which show you when you are lying?lol