Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[katydid23]

judge losing patience with prosecutor, tersely telling her to "concentrate" and explain what she wants admitted.

Next to testify: Teresa Kernc — Former BBPD officer, now mayor of Diamond, Illinois

State wants 2 include Savio's statement she didn't want DP to lose his job w/ police dept.after crossing out the word "knife."

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session According to Patton, Kernc will say that Savio claimed she didn’t want Peterson to lose his job (despite the fact that she filed a complaint against him). Judge: “Focus only on what Judge White didn’t let in after the word ‘knife’ is mentioned.” Patton: “She didn’t want him to lose his job.” Judge: “That’s the extent of it?” Patton: “We want her to be able to testify on the rest of their conversation as well.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge: “What is the other material you want to get out of this witness?” Patton: “Just what she told this officer prior to her writing this statement . . . she [Savio] will tell the officer what occurred on the 5th, starting with the fact that the defendant came in her home unannounced . . . he came into the foyer area, pushed her backwards on to the stairs, told her not to move . . . he made comments to her, told her that she was a mean *****, that he wanted to talk to her, and she should would have to listen . . . she finally said, ‘Do what you came for, kill me!’ . . . he took out a knife . . . he left . . . she called some people after . . . she didn’t’ call the police . . she didn’t want him to lose his job; she was conflicted about that . . . she had fear of losing her children and losing her job; she wanted a divorce . . .then she said things we cannot go into . . . I’ve instructed the witness not to say those things . . . basically, Judge, I think that’s the extent of it. But it’s very important to get in the information she told her, as well as the written statement.”

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Judge Burmila is clearly confused about exactly it is that the prosecution is trying to elicit through witness Teresa Kernc. The State and the defense can’t agree on what exactly Judge White said Kernc could testify to, and what White said was allowed. Patton: “She went to the residence and had a conversation with her [Savio]. We certainly do not wish to go into anything that would mention other acts.”

 

[Shelby1]

In Session According to Patton, Kernc will say that Savio claimed she didn’t want Peterson to lose his job (despite the fact that she filed a complaint against him). Judge: “Focus only on what Judge White didn’t let in after the word ‘knife’ is mentioned.” Patton: “She didn’t want him to lose his job.” Judge: “That’s the extent of it?” Patton: “We want her to be able to testify on the rest of their conversation as well.”

In Session Judge: “What is the other material you want to get out of this witness?” Patton: “Just what she told this officer prior to her writing this statement . . . she [Savio] will tell the officer what occurred on the 5th, starting with the fact that the defendant came in her home unannounced . . . he came into the foyer area, pushed her backwards on to the stairs, told her not to move . . . he made comments to her, told her that she was a mean *****, that he wanted to talk to her, and she should would have to listen . . . she finally said, ‘Do what you came for, kill me!’ . . . he took out a knife . . . he left . . . she called some people after . . . she didn’t’ call the police . . she didn’t want him to lose his job; she was conflicted about that . . . she had fear of losing her children and losing her job; she wanted a divorce . . .then she said things we cannot go into . . . I’ve instructed the witness not to say those things . . . basically, Judge, I think that’s the extent of it. But it’s very important to get in the information she told her, as well as the written statement.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Attorney Steve Greenberg responds and joins the discussion. Greenberg: “They now want to put in the July 5th incident twice, orally and in the hand-written statement . . . I think that’s much broader than what they said in the addendum that they recently filed.” Patton: “These are things we did not ask for in many cases at the hearing . . . if she [Savio] was here today, she would explain everything . . . there is additional information which the jury needs to hear of this entire incident.”

 

[Shelby1]

I'm gonna bow out

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Once again, Greenberg responds to Patton’s argument. Patton then defends the State’s position, saying that both Kernc’s testimony and her written statement are necessary to give the jury the full story of what happened. “We’re asking to allow the State to put out the reason she [Savio] crossed it out, along with things she told this police officer.” Judge: “If the written statement is admissible, it’s admissible . . . and then it would be subject to any cross-examination by the defendant . . . if the State can get the statement in, it comes in . . . if they’re both before the jury, they’re both before the jury.” Greenberg responds, argues that the prosecution should not be allowed to put in “both an oral statement and a written statement . . . they didn’t ask for that before. They want to put in her description of the interview, and then the written statement. I don’t think they should be able to do that.”

 

[LaLaw2000]

I'm gonna bow out

NO...........please don't!

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Greenberg: “They should be able to do one or the other. But not both . . . it’s speculation . . . we would ask that that still remain out.” Judge: “Well, the State’s argument that the appellate court decision in this case is a game-changer to a degree . . . I do believe that the statement that Kathleen Savio made to the police officer is admissible, as is the written statement that she made of the incident. The testimony with regards to an order of protection, because she was afraid he would lose his job, is inadmissible. And the reasons why she crossed out the ‘knife’ is totally speculative . . . so that portion of her testimony will not be allowed.” Patton: “Kathleen Savio did indeed tell her that was the reason [for crossing out ‘knife,’ so there should be no question about that.” The judge asks to see a transcript of the pre-trial hearing where Ofc. Kernc spoke of this action.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session According to Patton, Savio kept saying to Ofc. Kernc that she wanted to tell her what happened, but didn’t want Peterson to lose his job. “In her [Savio’s] mind, if it was in a report that would mean somehow that he would lose his job . . . she wanted something done; she was paralyzed . . this is a woman who is conflicted; she wants everyone to know what happened, but she doesn’t want him to lose his job . . . it’s the truth, Judge; we’re giving the jury the truth . . . we want them to have all of the information, all of the evidence, so that they can decide on that.” Greenberg interjects, says that Savio’s call to the police is shortly after she’s been served with a complaint of her own. Judge: “That’s for cross-examination.”

 

[ohiogirl]

I'm gonna bow out

If you want to keep updating, go ahead. I was looking for you and didn't see that you were still here. :seeya:

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge: “If she’s going to testify that that specific reason was given to her by Kathleen Savio, she’ll be allowed to testify. If she says it was her interpretation, that will be a different situation . . . she will be able to testify to the reasoning that Kathleen Savio told her.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Because of scheduling problems, there may be another witness or two who need to testify prior to Ofc. Kernc. The judge calls a two minute recess to sort out the witness issue. He leaves the bench, and the trial is in a short recess.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila is now back on the bench. Defense attorney Joel Brodsky addresses the court, argues against the upcoming testimony of Candace Aikin and Donna Badalamenti. “I do not see that there is anything relevant about these two ladies . . . what they could potentially testify to breaks down to four categories. They say that in 2007, in some general conversation, the defendant said that he had learned so much being a police officer that he could kill someone and get away with . . . not that he had killed somebody, but that he could . . . it’s not probative of what occurred in 2004; it’s not a confession. And the prejudicial impact of such a statement so outweighs the probative value; it is devastating if it’s allowed.” Prosecutor Glasgow responds, says that the Prosecution will only attempt to raise the issue just discussed, not other statements allegedly made by the defendant. Glasgow then cites case law which he believes supports the testimony in question. “In this particular case, Mr. Peterson stands unprompted before two women and says he’s learned so much as a policeman that he could kill someone and get away with it . . . we’ll be presenting to the jury his extensive training records, to show he has the training to do just that. But from his own mouth he’s told us that he can.”

 

[katydid23]

I like how today is going so far. I think the toxicology test was important. It showed she was not drunk and high. Maybe, she might have had a small amount of her prescription anti-depressants in her system, but nothing showed up that should have made her unable to take a bath without drowning.

 

[~n/t~]

#drewpeterson atty blasts expert for noting a prosecutor in report. Expert says ASA stood for chem compound, not asst state's atty. Oops.

:floorlaugh:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Glasgow continues; “Her [Savio’s] pre-death statements align with the 2007 statement. This WAS a murder, which makes his statement just about as probative as it could be.” Brodsky responds: “They already have in the pre-death statements, as to what Mr. Peterson is alleged to have said in the nature of threats . . . however it may have occurred, and whatever the variation of the statement, the word ‘accident’ doesn’t get added until much later… that doesn’t really tell us much. Probably all policemen, probably all State’s Attorneys who do criminal work could make similar statements . . . to take such a common or inconspicuous statement, something we dispute ever took place, and to try to put this spin strains credibility. It’s very prejudicial . . . I think the prejudicial value is so outweighed by any minimal value that I think it should be excluded . . . the State said they were going to attempt to put in Mr. Peterson’s training records . . . that evidence would be inadmissible; how could that possibly be probative? How can that put him in proximity to her? It can’t change anything. It asks this jury to speculate, to say because he has special training more likely than not it’s him. We cannot allow this jury to speculate.” Judge Burmila: That’s not anything I’m going to comment on right now. The State’s Attorney’s statement of law is generally correct . . . but just because it’s admissible, is it prejudicial? . . . it’s a rather nebulous statement, and it’s post-homicide, remote in time to the event. Balancing those things, I do find in this instance that it is too prejudicial. And the motion to deny the admissibility of that statement by the defendant is allowed.”



In Session With that, the judge decides to take the lunch recess at this point. He leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET.

 

[Cubby]

there could be something that will cause this trial to become derailed . I do feel strongly that this is about Kathleen now. That was my point. However, I completely disagree that the prosecution is in ANY way using Pam Bosco. I have wondered if the prosecution has similar concerns.
We are on the same team,Cubby (you and I)....I am just a worrier.

I'm kind of a worrier, too so understand. The following is just some thinking outloud. Using your post as a springboard, WCG'. I've been especially concerned about giving the defense too much game strategy since the Casey Anthony trial. (There were more than 1 million posts in the CA forum, here at WS alone... I followed the trial loosely). Everyone was convinced Casey would be convicted. I think many were surprised she was not.

Now, everyone is convinced Drew is going to walk, and I can't help how that might effect the DT. I wonder if it will work in the opposite way it did for Casey.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session With that, the judge decides to take the lunch recess at this point. He leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET.