Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[ohiogirl]

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.

Welcome back.

 

[ohiogirl]

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.

Rats, I was hoping it would be allowed. Is it obvious the judge was a defense attorney?

 

[katydid23]

I actually agree with the judge, in this specific case, about the general comment DP made, saying he learned enough as a cop to be able to kill someone and hide it, or whatever it was. I agree that any cop might be able to make that statement, and it was not in relation to Kathleen in any way.

BUT they should allow all of the times that he spoke specifically about Kathleen or Stacey, saying how he could kill them and make it look like an accident.

 

[TallCoolOne]

I have said this numerous times before, but I absolutely do not understand how when in a court setting, certain information can be too prejudicial towards the accused when the reason we are in a court room setting is to find the truth of the matter.

I will never never never never never understand how someone can appear too guilty. Makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

Sorry, didn't mean to disrupt the flow here, I just had to rant a tad.........

 

[ohiogirl]

I have said this numerous times before, but I absolutely do not understand how when in a court setting, certain information can be too prejudicial towards the accused when the reason we are in a court room setting is to find the truth of the matter.

I will never never never never never understand how someone can appear too guilty. Makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

Sorry, didn't mean to disrupt the flow here, I just had to rant a tad.........

And we certainly can't have them appear to be guilty of something like what they are on trial for! :jail:

 

[Kimster]

Here we go with week starting Tuesday August 14th, 2012. May justice prevail for Kathleen Savio!

raying:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dXhGBxK7-.../4eXEXsp9SsM/s1600/kathleen+savio+reports.jpg

Added visual to first post and wanted to share it.

Justice for Kathleen! :rocker:

 

[~n/t~]

Justice for Kathleen! :rose:

 

[~n/t~]

Welcome back.

I will have to leave again so please continue with the updates!! Thanks to you, Shelby and Katy for posing the updates! :tyou:

 

[Cubby]

If I was on the jury, this would annoy me. jmo Defense wasting time.

Wasting time and bringing up info non relative to the case. If I were on the jury, I'd notice both.

 

[Cappuccino]

I have said this numerous times before, but I absolutely do not understand how when in a court setting, certain information can be too prejudicial towards the accused when the reason we are in a court room setting is to find the truth of the matter.

I will never never never never never understand how someone can appear too guilty. Makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

Sorry, didn't mean to disrupt the flow here, I just had to rant a tad.........

If a piece of evidence is judged to have a prejudicial value which outweighs its probative value its usually inadmissable. The point is to stop prosecutors engaging in an irrelevant character assassination when they should be connecting the defendant to the crime.

 

[Cubby]

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

Is this for real? One of the attorneys went and blasted the witness when he mistook an abbreviation for a chemical compound as an abbv for an asst states atty. Now that is better than Michael Johnsons attorney (Phylicia Barnes case) miscalling the hyoid bone the highway bone in court/ or msm (direct quote) yesterday. :lol:

We need to start a thread with a list of these. too funny! still :lol:, literally.

 

[legalmania]

I don't understand why a trial of this magnitude is not being televised? The Supreme Court made a decision to try cameras in the courtroom in Illinois on an experimental basis? IMO this would be the trial to experiment on. It's very hard to read the scrolls and see the cartoon sketches. This is just so 1980's.

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/n...-courtroom-cameras-on-experimental-basis.html

 

[Cubby]

[/b]lmao!

I will be laughing about this for days! I got one, this is NSF for the defense! Let them blast me - it means knee slapping funny!

 

[21merc7]

I don't understand why a trial of this magnitude is not being televised? The Supreme Court made a decision to try cameras in the courtroom in Illinois on an experimental basis. IMO this would be the trial to experiment on. It's very hard to read the scrolls and see the cartoon sketches. This is just so 1980's.

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/n...-courtroom-cameras-on-experimental-basis.html

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!

 

[ohiogirl]

I am ok with no tv on this one. DP's attorneys burn me up and I can't watch them. jmo

 

[legalmania]

If a piece of evidence is judged to have a prejudicial value which outweighs its probative value its usually inadmissable. The point is to stop prosecutors engaging in an irrelevant character assassination when they should be connecting the defendant to the crime.

Are you saying that when witness after witness was told by the defendant that he could "Kill and make it look like an accident" is not relevant. Is this charter assassination or the defendant tightening the noose around his neck a little tighter?

 

[4Jacy]

Beth Karas was so on her game today with DP's defense attorney! Gotta love her, she is definately the best!!!!

 

[Cubby]

They must be feeling desperate. " Fat Blasting' pills. The defense wanted to pint out that she might have been talking fat blasters? So what. Do they make people pass out and die?

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.

 

[Cubby]

In Session Prosecutor Connor begins his redirect. ”You were asked a number of questions about embalming fluid. Was there any embalming fluid on the tissues that you tested in 2004?” Objection/Overruled. “No, Sir, there wasn’t.” “And when you did the 2007 testing, you were already aware of the 2004 results?” Oh, absolutely.”
In Session The witness explains how some of his lab machinery works. “It’s a very prolonged process . . . in doing the testing for aspirin, we know the decomposition will give us false positives. The 2004 was negative, in a fresh sample. So unless they started taking aspirin in the coffin, it ain’t gonna be there.” The attorneys then approach for a sidebar.

I'm just going to say again, I love this witness. Interesting how this witness apparently can't make this type of comment without a sidebar, when the locksmith and DT atty's can make all the snide arse comments they wish. I will bet my last dollar that will not go unnoticed by the jury.

 

[Cappuccino]

Are you saying that when witness after witness was told by the defendant that he could "Kill and make it look like an accident" is not relevant. Is this charter assassination or the defendant tightening the noose around his neck a little tighter?

No, I'm not. I was just explaining to another poster why a judge can throw things out on the grounds that its prejudicial. If, for example, someone is on trial for murder in 2012 it would be prejudicial to admit evidence that they were a useless druggie back in 1980. It would risk turning the jury against the defendant and has diddly squat to do with the crime.

This judge's decisions on the matter, I don't know whether I agree with alot of the time, I was just explaining the general rule.