Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[fifteen89]

Wow, that would really be confusing!:seeya:

Yeah, it would! Although I'm thinking the jurors have gotten such a disjointed presentation of testimony so far, they'll be lucky to piece things together. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

This morning on IS Judge White actually said he granted a DT request for a mistrial once and they immediately said 'we withdraw our motion'. I don't think he finished the story to say what happened next - was wondering if it was possible to un-grant a mistrial and go on with the trial. Anyone here know?

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “You talked to Ms. Savio, and took as long as you needed to talk to her?” “Yes.” “She wrote out this statement for you?” “Yes.” “Could have written as long or as much as she wanted?” “Yes.” “You got called out there on July 18th?” “Yes.” “You knew before you went out there that it was a call about something that happened on July 5th?” “Yes.” “Were you aware that Ms. Savio had had contact with the Bolingbrook Police for . . .” Objection/Overruled. “Where you aware that Ms. Savio had spoken to the police on July 11 about some visitation issues?’ “No . . . I did not know that.” “You did have the ability to run a search for other information?” “Absolutely.” “You guys just didn’t do that?” “I did not.”



In Session “When you talked to her, you didn’t observe any injuries?” “No.” “She didn’t tell you she had been injured at all?” “Correct.” “Did she tell you she didn’t want to file a police report?” “Yes.” “But she called the police, right?” “Yes . . . I told her ‘I have to file a police report.’” “Did you tell her you were going to investigate?” “Basically.” “Did you tell her these were serious allegations?” “I’m sure I did,.” “She was making allegations of very serious criminal conduct, right?” “Yes.” “A whole litany of felonies?” “Right.” “You can’t have a policeman or any citizen going around and doing this kind of conduct?” “No police department can.”

 

[seattlechiquita]

This is ridiculous. More taxpayers money in a trial that is likely to be lost. The pros are idiots.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session
Prior to her testimony, she spoke to prosecutor Patton. “Once before the hearing, once before this, and then one conversation on the phone.” “Did you have a chance to review any of your police reports?” “Yes.” “Have a chance to review t
he report the FBI prepared?’ “I may have heard about it when I sat down with the State’s Attorney, but I don’t have access to it.” The same is true for the Illinois State Police report. “When you spoke to the Illinois State Police, they made notes, didn’t they?” “Correct.” The witness is then shown a copy of this report. Objection/Sustained. “I asked you if you’d told the state police that you didn’t care for Mr. Peterson?” “Right.” “And you said you didn’t care for him?” “I considered him a co-worker; I didn’t consider him a friend.” The witness says that she doesn’t think she said that to the ISP. “You can show me the notes, but they may have misconstrued what I said at that time.” The witness is directed to a specific part of the state police report. “It says ‘teams were very competitive; each though they were best, and didn’t care for each other’ . . . I believe when they wrote that, it was about my early days at the police department, and sometimes they didn’t care for the opposite team.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “When you spoke to Ms. Savio, she told you that earlier that day she had been served with a summons?” “No . . . she did not specifically tell me that anything had occurred that day.” “You later found out that she had been served with a complaint that day?” “Drew Peterson told me that.” Objection/Overruled. “You then learned that she had been served with a criminal complaint that day?” “From Mr. Peterson.” “Are you telling me that Miss Savio didn’t tell you that she called the police ten or fifteen minutes after being served with that complaint?” “You are correct.” “When Mr. Peterson told you that, you didn’t go out and check it?” “You are correct.” “You just took him at his word?” “I wrote down what he reported to me.”

In Session “You forwarded your information to the State’s Attorney’s office?’ “Yes.” “And you indicated to them that you believed Mr. Peterson?” Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends. The jurors and the witness are then excused from the courtroom. Judge: “There are two issues with this witness, whether she’s believable and whether what she was told by Miss Savio was believable.” Greenberg: “She was not certain it actually happened.” Patton: “Your Honor, there are several statements . . .I’m looking at the FBI report . . . she talks about Savio wavering back and forth . . . but the reason she was vacillating was because she was concerned about Peterson losing his job. So she never said that she believed the defendant’s side of the story. She also said at the hearing that she didn’t know whether it happened or not.” Judge: “OK . . . the objection is sustained.” The judge then sends for the witness and the jury.

 

[Bravo]

I feel for these Jurors. I hope they all have good knees. If the D keeps this up they sure risk alienating them.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The witness and the jurors are now back inside the courtroom. “You said that you weren’t aware or don’t recall Ms. Savio mentioning she had been served with any papers that day?” “Not that particular day, no. I knew she had two batteries that were pending, but she did not say anything about that particular day.” ‘Did you interview her on other occasions, or just that particular day?” “Just that day.” The witness is presented with a transcript of her testimony at the hearsay hearing. “You had a chance to review this before you testified in court today?” “Not today . . . the Assistant State’s Attorney referred to it when she spoke to me, but I’ve never had an opportunity to read it.” “But you were sworn to tell the truth when you testified?” “Yes.” According to the witness’ earlier testimony, Savio had been served earlier that day. “I’m not going to dispute you . . .apparently, if that’s what the transcript says.” The transcript also indicates that Kernc testified that Savio was upset on the day she interviewed her.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Judge Burmila takes the bench. “Good morning, everyone . . . when last we were on the record, the defendant had made a motion for a mistrial.”



In Session
Joseph Lopez: “If it pleases the Court, the defendant wants this jury to decide this case, a jury of his peers. He does not want to hide beyond any legal technicality. But he requests that the State does not violate any more of the Court
’s orders . . . he does not want to start over . . . he wants to keep this jury, in this composition . . . however, we would ask, besides the curative instruction, we believe the only way to make sure the State will follow the orders of the Court is to strike all the hearsay testimony already entered . . . and to bar further hearsay testimony . . . it’s the third time that it’s happened,and we don’t want to see it again. So we are ready to proceed.” Judge Burmila then personally questions the defendant, who affirms that this is indeed his wish.

BBM... unless it's a mistrial WITH prejudice!

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg then asks Kernc about the report she completed on the July 18, 2002 incident. “It’s five pages, single spaced?” “Correct.” “It’s the report you prepared of this incident, summarizing all of your interviews, and from your notes?” “Yes.” “And you made sure it was accurate?” “Yes.” “And then you forwarded it to the State’s Attorney’s office?” “Yes.” The witness is directed to a specific paragraph of the report, and asked to read it silently to herself. “In fact, you wrote ‘she mentioned that he had filed complaints against her . . .she had a job opportunity at a hospital, but feels that due to her battery complaints she had lost that opportunity’?” “Correct.” “So she told you she had been served with battery complaints, and she was mad about it?” “Yes.” “And she had been served with those complaints that morning?” “Yes.” “And she called the police shortly afterward?” “Drew Peterson told me that she had been served that day . . . I did not know that day . . . I did not know that day that she had been served that day. And that is my error.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “She told you Drew Peterson was dressed in a SWAT uniform?” “Yes.” She describes what a SWAT uniform looks like (it’s mostly black). “Some officers carry knives?” “Some do.” “In fact, didn’t she tell you that Sgt. Peterson was in a black sweatshirt and blue jeans, not a SWAT uniform?” “No.” “Well, again, you testified previously?” “Yes.” “And didn’t you answer, ‘I think the pants she said were blue jeans, but black shoes . . . she said he had black gloves’ Didn’t you answer that under oath?” “Well, if it’s in that deposition, I obviously did . . .I’ll take your word for it that that’s what it says.” “And you were asked some follow-up questions about his clothing by Ms. Patton?” “Yes.” “And Mr. Peterson told you what he was wearing that day?” Objection/Sustained. “Well, you had a conversation about this with Mr. Peterson, didn’t you?” Objection/Sustained. The defense then asks for a sidebar. After a moment, the judge asks to have the jurors removed from the courtroom.

In Session The jurors and the witness are now gone. Judge: “We’re in a brief recess, while the State needs to locate some case law. As soon as you find that, let me know.” With that, Judge Burmila leaves the bench, and the trial is in a brief recess.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

blaming the victim to deflect from you bad behavior, Drew.
So this is where the "feisty hot tempered Italian woman who could take care of herself" comes in..... Puh-leaze!!!!!!!!!!!! inocchio:

In Session Greenberg then asks Kernc about the report she completed on the July 18, 2002 incident. “It’s five pages, single spaced?” “Correct.” “It’s the report you prepared of this incident, summarizing all of your interviews, and from your notes?” “Yes.” “And you made sure it was accurate?” “Yes.” “And then you forwarded it to the State’s Attorney’s office?” “Yes.” The witness is directed to a specific paragraph of the report, and asked to read it silently to herself. “In fact, you wrote ‘she mentioned that he had filed complaints against her . . .she had a job opportunity at a hospital, but feels that due to her battery complaints she had lost that opportunity’?” “Correct.” “So she told you she had been served with battery complaints, and she was mad about it?” “Yes.” “And she had been served with those complaints that morning?” “Yes.” “And she called the police shortly afterward?” “Drew Peterson told me that she had been served that day . . . I did not know that day . . . I did not know that day that she had been served that day. And that is my error.”

 

[~n/t~]

I'm very confused. Maybe that's the defense strategy. If the report says Kathleen said SWAT uniform what difference does it make? This officer didn't see DP. DP says he wasn't. DP says she was served with complaint papers that day. Kathleen did not tell this officer.

ullhair:



Anybody need a coffee refill?

 

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News‏@Joliet_HN
Lopez in overflow room: "Their case is spiraling into the toilet."

:trout:

 

[WindyCityGirl]

It doesn't make any sense to me. I am very, very confused. :what:

I'm very confused. Maybe that's the defense strategy. If the report says Kathleen said SWAT uniform what difference does it make? This officer didn't see DP. DP says he wasn't. DP says she was served with complaint papers that day. Kathleen did not tell this officer.

ullhair:



Anybody need a coffee refill?

 

[Bravo]

I guess this questioning is to show KS lied and made the whole thing up due to being served :banghead:

 

[ohiogirl]

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.

So, she tells him she would wait a few days to report this so they could talk, and in the meantime he files a battery complaint against her? Wow, what a douchebag!

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “When you spoke to Ms. Savio, she told you that earlier that day she had been served with a summons?” “No . . . she did not specifically tell me that anything had occurred that day.” “You later found out that she had been served with a complaint that day?” “Drew Peterson told me that.” Objection/Overruled. “You then learned that she had been served with a criminal complaint that day?” “From Mr. Peterson.” “Are you telling me that Miss Savio didn’t tell you that she called the police ten or fifteen minutes after being served with that complaint?” “You are correct.” “When Mr. Peterson told you that, you didn’t go out and check it?” “You are correct.” “You just took him at his word?” “I wrote down what he reported to me.”
In Session “You forwarded your information to the State’s Attorney’s office?’ “Yes.” “And you indicated to them that you believed Mr. Peterson?” Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar.

If they want to get in that DP told this witness stuff, they are going to have to put him on the stand. jmo I don't think the hearsay rulings apply to what DP said. JK

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

A total douchebag, but he is a very smart and crafty one. Years and years of being a cop, undercover, etc. He knows how to act and how to lie and do it WELL.

He knows the system. He used it well.

Now his lawyers are doing the same. They have and will seek to discredit each and every witness.



I really hate to say this, but I don't see a conviction on this hearsay.

 

[~n/t~]

I guess this questioning is to show KS lied and made the whole thing up due to being served :banghead:

But that's up to the jury to decide. It has nothing to do with this witness. She was told what she was told and wrote it down in her report. She said she didn't know she was served that day. What difference does it make if he was blue, black, orange, or green pants? She did not see it. Kathleen said he was in SWAT with gloves.

Hope the jury is seeing right through the BS.