Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[ohiogirl]

I agree. The DT appears desperate and the more I read the more I love this witness!

If I were on the jury, and the defense brought up the possibility of Kathleen telling her doctor she was taking fat blaster pills, I would expect to hear from Kathleen's doctor she did in fact make that statement.

Don't count on it. jmo

 

[legalmania]

Lol, you're right it is so 1980's. One good thing about it is - we don't have to see DP's snarky unattractive mug. If I ever see a pic of him again it will be too soon!

IMO I agree it's not an attractive mug, but to see his reaction to certain statements or photographs is what I would like to see.

 

[ohiogirl]

Why should this trial ever start on time?

 

[legalmania]

Why should this trial ever start on time?

Unfortunately, that's just the way of the court system ,Hurry up and wait.

 

[legalmania]

Is it just me or is the defense team acting a little like Baez?

 

[Cappuccino]

Is it just me or is the defense team acting a little like Baez?

Well, I can see why they would...

As long as the jury don't follow the same precedent, I don't care what the defense lawyer does.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Greenberg addresses the Court, calling it “cumulative and prejudicial” to allow the State to go into her testimony. “It’s going to become a mini-trial whether this actually took place . . . we would seek to exclude it.” Prosecutor Patton responds: “We did go through all this with Judge White. He did make a ruling . . . it goes to motive intent . . . in the ruling, he said the report was coming in. I don’t know how much more clear that could be.” Greenberg: “I do not believe that’s correct.: Patton responds with a transcript of the hearsay hearing in question. Judge; “I might be mistaken, but I thought I already ruled on this, right before we went to lunch.” Greenberg: “Our understanding is that it was not admitted as a prior bad act . . . all that was discussed was the knife . . . there was no ruling admitting it as a bad act.” Judge: “The ruling I had made prior to the lunch hour today was not exclusive only to that issue . . . it is admissible. Judge White made the ruling regarding the written statement; the oral statement is a corollary to that. Mr. Peterson’s motion is overruled.”

 

[ohiogirl]

I also was under the impression that this was ruled on before lunch.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Attorney Greenberg says that he believes the defendant is entitled to a contemporary jury instruction regarding this testimony. There is a long pause while the defense attempts to locate the pertinent law regarding this issue.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila. “I’ve been handed a copy of the comments. They say it’s discretionary with the Court . . . the appellate court has spoken that the better action is to give the instruction prior to the testimony. So I will exercise my discretion by reading the instruction prior to the testimony.” Prosecutor Patton: “One more thing . . . she also took a statement from the defendant. And we will also ask her about that statement.” The judge then sends for the jury.

 

[ohiogirl]

Sorry guys, missed this. Judge Burmila is back on the bench. The next witness will apparently be Ofc. Teresa Kernc.

 

[Cubby]

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."

Kind of OT. I'm a life long Illinoisan native to the chicagoland area and have never heard of Diamond, IL. Apparently it is a tiny incorporated area not far from Bolingbrook with a population of less than 3,000. That does not mean it is rural. It just means, we have these small in (size/square miles) area's which might be a few square mile total that have not been incorporated/annexed into the larger surrounding towns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond,_Illinois

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The jurors are now back inside the courtroom, and the judge reads the instruction to the jury (they’ve heard it before, about other conduct the defendant may have been involved in). The State calls its next witness: Teresa Kernc (questioned by prosecutor Kathy Patton). She is currently the mayor of the village of Diamond; prior to that, she worked as a Bolingbrook police officer for 22 years. “What was your rank when you retired?” “Lieutenant.” “Was an officer named Drew Peterson working there while you were an officer?’ “Yes.” She then identifies Peterson in the courtroom. On July 18, 2002, she was asked to take a “delayed domestic abuse report” (the original incident took place on July 5, 2002). To do so, she headed to Kathleen Savio Peterson’s home. She then identifies a photograph of Kathleen Savio.

 

[Cubby]

I'm gonna bow out

Thank you for your help Shelby1! :blowkiss:

 

[legalmania]

Well, I can see why they would...

As long as the jury don't follow the same precedent, I don't care what the defense lawyer does.

I just think they are disrespecting Kathleen, I hope if it continues the judge orders a gag. This behavior has to hurt Kathleen's family. They are showing no respect for the dead, just as their client did.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila. “I’ve been handed a copy of the comments. They say it’s discretionary with the Court . . . the appellate court has spoken that the better action is to give the instruction prior to the testimony. So I will exercise my discretion by reading the instruction prior to the testimony.” Prosecutor Patton: “One more thing . . . she also took a statement from the defendant. And we will also ask her about that statement.” The judge then sends for the jury.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “She [Savio] was there, Lt. Malloy was there, and I took a report from her” She says that Lt. Malloy is now deceased. “I believe her two sons were at day camp.” “Did you establish who she was married to?” “Yes, I knew who she was married to . . . Drew Peterson.” “What did you ask her?” “I asked her tell me why she had called, and she proceeded to tell me.” Objection/Overruled. “She said that on July 5th, she had taken her two sons to day camp, in the morning. And gone to the market. And when she returned from the market, she entered her home and went upstairs to collect her laundry. As she came down the stairs, she saw the defendant in his SWAT uniform, wearing black leather gloves . . . he pushed her back onto the stairs, and when she tried to rise he pushed her back again. And he told her she was a mean *****, that she wouldn’t speak to him when he called, when he brought the boys to the door, and he wanted to speak to her now. And she said he spent the next three and a half hours talking about their lives, and he wanted her to say that what had happened was her fault.” Objection/Sustained. “He asked if she was afraid of him, and she said, yes, she was . . . she said she got tired of sitting there on that stair, and she told him, ‘Go, or do what you came to do: kill me.’ She said he said, ‘Where do you want it?’ and she said ‘in the head.’ He took his knife out, and told her to turn her head. She did turn her head, and waited. And then he said, ‘I can’t hurt you.’”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “She said that he was very tired and upset that day. And he asked her, ‘Are you going to call the Bolingbrook police?’” Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar.

In Session The sidebar ends. The jurors and the witness are excused from the courtroom.

 

[Cappuccino]

The jury must be getting sick of this - they're up and down like yo yos.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness and jurors are now gone. The judge notes that the defense is objecting to this questioning, based on the fact that it claims the State disclosed this information. Prosecutor Patton reads from Kearnc’s earlier statement. “It is in the written statement.” Judge Burmila: “Let me see the statement . . . anything else?” Greenberg: “There’s a different statement; we’re talking about two different things . . . that was not something that we were given.” Judge: I find that discrepancy to be insignificant; there’s no discovery violation.” Greenberg: “There’s two different things they’ve now asked you to admit . . .it’s not reflected in the report of the interview; it’s not in her summary that the defendant said these things; it’s in the separate document . . . they’re putting in two totally separate things here.” Judge: “The State has the obligation to advise the defendant of every statement they have of his. They did that . . . there’s no discovery violation.” With that, the judge asks that the witness and jurors be brought back to the courtroom.