Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[ohiogirl]

Whew! I wonder if we will get to hear the stipulation.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session‏@InSession

#drewpeterson Judge "The defendant’s request that I strike all the hearsay testimony, that’s denied"

 

[~n/t~]

Where is all of the InSession dialog from the courtroom coming from so I can follow it? TIA

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

 

[Patty G]

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

Thank you. :blowkiss:

 

[fifteen89]

I hope the DT are on notice that the next time they ask for a mistrial, Burmila might just say "Granted. We're outta here."

Once the Judge declares a mistrial, can they take back their motion and can the Judge reverse the granting of the mistrial and continue with the trial?

 

[ohiogirl]

I hope the DT are on notice that the next time they ask for a mistrial, Burmila might just say "Granted. We're outta here."

Once the Judge declares a mistrial, can they take back their motion and can the Judge reverse the granting of the mistrial and continue with the trial?

Wow, that would really be confusing!:seeya:

 

[~n/t~]

1m In Session‏@InSession

#drewpeterson Judge Burmila is back on the stand and calls for the jury.

 

[-MD-]

Still curious what this clowns, errm judges decision would've been.

Not taking anything away from Patton and her terrible error, but the way this trial has gone so far is a joke. Judge has let stuff go on that shouldn't, to many sidebars, intimidation towards witnesses, meh that is just a few things.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The jurors are now in the courtroom. Judge Burmila: “Good morning, everyone. Before we proceed, I have two matters that I need to bring to your attention. The first is an instruction: ‘You are now going to hear the continued direct examination of Ms. Kernc. But you cannot consider any issue pertaining to an order of protection . . . the State’s Attorney violated an order of the Court . . . you are not to consider, confer, or ponder an order of protection . . . it remains your duty to give dispassionate consideration to the proof in the record, within the confines of my instructions.” Then the judge moves to the matter of stipulation: “Kathleen Savio did not seek an order of protection regarding the July 5, 2002 incident.”

 

[WindyCityGirl]

It really is inexcusable.

In Session The jurors are now in the courtroom. Judge Burmila: “Good morning, everyone. Before we proceed, I have two matters that I need to bring to your attention. The first is an instruction: ‘You are now going to hear the continued direct examination of Ms. Kernc. But you cannot consider any issue pertaining to an order of protection . . . the State’s Attorney violated an order of the Court . . . you are not to consider, confer, or ponder an order of protection . . . it remains your duty to give dispassionate consideration to the proof in the record, within the confines of my instructions.” Then the judge moves to the matter of stipulation: “Kathleen Savio did not seek an order of protection regarding the July 5, 2002 incident.”

 

[ohiogirl]

It really is inexcusable.

But if it is the truth, it's the truth. Right?

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecutor Kathy Patton resumes her direct examination of retired Bolingbrook police lieutenant Teresa Kernc. “Did you ask Kathleen Savio to make a written statement?” “Yes, I did . . . this is the written statement that she provided me.” “Is this a true and accurate copy?” “Yes.” “Did anyone sign that report?” “Yes . . . Kathleen Savio . . . .[and] I did on the bottom, and also put my badge number.” “After that report was written, did you read the statement?” “Yes.” “And after reading the statement, did you ask her to add anything?” “I realized that she had neglected to put something in, and I brought that to her attention. She did, as a result of that, put it into the report . . . the knife.” “What, if anything, did she do?” “I watched her write it . . . and a short time later, she actually scribbled the portion about the knife out . . . it mentioned the knife; it said he pulled the knife out.” “Did you ask her why she did?” Objection/Sustained. The prosecutor asks for a sidebar.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

shut, right? They did the defense a huge favor by mentioning something that wasn't supposed to be. Grrrr.

But if it is the truth, it's the truth. Right?

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends. “Did Kathleen Savio Peterson tell you why she crossed out the word ‘knife’?” “After she crossed it out, she said quite a bit . . . she said specifically that she did not want him to lose his job; she did not want him to be arrested.”

 

[iluvmua]

I don't know if i'd be able to convict if I was on the jury.

The Pros. need to get their act together........

I would not blame the jury if they decided a "not guilty" verdict.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

Kathleen didn't seek an order of protection?

shut, right? They did the defense a huge favor by mentioning something that wasn't supposed to be. Grrrr.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecutor Patton asks for a moment. The jurors are then excused from the courtroom. The judge instructs the witness not to refer to any part of the document being missing (or redacted) – she previously mentioned that something was missing when she identified the report. Kenrc: “I understand completely.” With that, the jurors reenter the courtroom.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Kernc’s report is admitted into evidence, and published for the jury. The witness is then asked to read the report out loud. “On July 5, I left my home at 8:45 to take my children to day camp. At 9:00 I went to pick up some items I needed from the market, and arrived home around 9:45 am . . . I walked upstairs . . . my room, to collect my dirty laundry. I started down the stair, only to be knocked down by my husband, Drew Peterson. At that time, Drew demanded that I sit down on the stairs and not get up . . . he proceeded to go over how awful and *****y I was, and I should stop being so terrible to him. I don’t talk to him over the phone, or I never talk at the door when I pick up the kids. He made a statement how he did nothing wrong, and how he had to leave me. He wanted to be my friend . . . he wanted me to admit that it was all my fault . . . he looked very tired and upset, so I thought I would be wise not to make angry . . . I got very tired of the abuse, and not being able to go anywhere, and told him to go home or do what he came to do. If he wanted to kill me, to do it. He was dressed in his SWAT uniform, and he had black leather gloves on . . . I got up and told him to leave; he said that he’d go when he wanted . . . he looked out the window, took out his ear piece, and threw down my garage opener on the stairs. He waited until no one was around, and then left. I called my attorney . . . and Steve Maniaci . . . and my sister . . . and Mary Pontarelli. I was afraid to file anything; he was very unstable . . . and I thought he would deny it . . . I told him I’d wait a few days until we could talk. Hopefully, by then, he’d get help . . . so that we could get the divorce quicker . . . I said, ‘Go ahead, just kill me.’ He said where do you want it, and I said in the head. He said, ‘OK, then turn our head,’ and I did it. And then he said that he would never be able to hurt me. And then he left.” This concludes the direct examination of this witness.

 

[Kimster]

I don't know if i'd be able to convict if I was on the jury.

The Pros. need to get their act together........

I would not blame the jury if they decided a "not guilty" verdict.

:sigh:

I keep thinking how we need to find Stacy in order to keep DP behind bars because Kathleen isn't getting HER day in court. :tears:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session
Attorney Greenberg begins his cross. The witness acknowledges that she personally has been through three divorces (it may have been two divorces at the time she interviewed Savio). She started at the Bolingbrook P.D. in 1983 (but can’t re
member when Drew started.) “You led the day team, and he led the night team?” “Yes.” “It was very competitive, wasn’t it?” “No.” “You talked to the State Police at some point, and to the FBI?” “Yes.” “I would imagine you weren’t interviewed as a witness by the FBI too often?” “When they spoke to me, I considered it an interview, not ‘talking.’” “Were you interviewed by the FBI and the State Police?” “Yes.” “And did you tell either of those agencies that it was very competitive? Ever tell them that?” “If I may speak more than a yes or no . . . I believe when I spoke to them it was in relation to when I originally started. At that time, we were very competitive . . . I don’t think I ever told them that my day shift was competitive with his night shift . . . it would be a fair statement that we never were friends, but were co-workers.”