Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[~n/t~]

In Session The parties are reassembling inside the courtroom. The trial should be resuming shortly.

3 minutes ago

 

[~n/t~]

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

I think you're right. Put him on the stand when it's his turn. For now, they should just STFU.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. “State, do you have your case law?” Prosecutor Connor replies that he has two cases for the judge to consider – one of which, coincidentally, is a case attorney Greenberg says the defense is also relying on. Copies of the case law are handed up to the judge, who reads them.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

In case there are new guests and people who have not seen it, there is a case archive for the murder trial, here:

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/... -IL-/Murder Trial - The Kathleen Savio Case/


The main Stacy//Kathleen archive is here:

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy Peterson - Kathleen Savio -IL-/


And--- from the main archive you can click on sub-sections. One is for the AR-15 illegal/legal weapon. One is for the Hearsay Hearings. One is for the Search for Stacy. And the most viewed currently is the murder trial, linked above.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “When you present hearsay evidence, you are then allowed to bring in hearsay to attack that testimony . . . we can attack it in any way, shape, or form that we want, basically, as long as it’s otherwise admissible evidence. They brought in the statements of Mr. Peterson through Miss Savio. We’re now trying to impeach that by bringing in what Mr. Peterson actually said . . . it’s not being offered for the truth; it’s being offered for impeachment purposes. So we should be able to do it.” Judge; “How does the defendant’s self-serving statements to the police officer impeach Miss Savio?” Greenberg: “He gives a written statement and speaks to the officer. It totally contradicts her description of what happened that day. It is one thousand percent consistent with what Miss Savio told her friends. She talks to Mary Pontarelli later that day, and tells her that she had Drew had “a nice conversation,” and never says anything about a confrontation or a knife. And that’s consistent with what Mr. Peterson said . . . it’s not hearsay; it’s impeachment.” Judge: “The defendant cannot normally use his self-serving statements to avoid taking the witness stand . . . is there a distinction between [another witness’] statement as impeachment, as opposed to using the defendant’s statement?” Greenberg: “We’re putting it in for impeachment, which is entirely different. It’s not a self-serving statement; it attacks the credibility of Ms. Savio. We should not be denied the opportunity to show that this did not happen . . . I don’t think they should be able to call a witness to testify to this kind of evidence and force the defendant to take the stand to rebut it.”

 

[Bravo]

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.

I hope the Jurors see it too.

 

[~n/t~]

The jury will be back in the court room only to be escorted back out for the lunch break.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Greenberg: “When you present hearsay evidence, you are then allowed to bring in hearsay to attack that testimony . . . we can attack it in any way, shape, or form that we want, basically, as long as it’s otherwise admissible evidence. They brought in the statements of Mr. Peterson through Miss Savio. We’re now trying to impeach that by bringing in what Mr. Peterson actually said . . . it’s not being offered for the truth; it’s being offered for impeachment purposes. So we should be able to do it.” Judge; “How does the defendant’s self-serving statements to the police officer impeach Miss Savio?” Greenberg: “He gives a written statement and speaks to the officer. It totally contradicts her description of what happened that day. It is one thousand percent consistent with what Miss Savio told her friends. She talks to Mary Pontarelli later that day, and tells her that she had Drew had “a nice conversation,” and never says anything about a confrontation or a knife. And that’s consistent with what Mr. Peterson said . . . it’s not hearsay; it’s impeachment.” Judge: “The defendant cannot normally use his self-serving statements to avoid taking the witness stand . . . is there a distinction between [another witness’] statement as impeachment, as opposed to using the defendant’s statement?” Greenberg: “We’re putting it in for impeachment, which is entirely different. It’s not a self-serving statement; it attacks the credibility of Ms. Savio. We should not be denied the opportunity to show that this did not happen . . . I don’t think they should be able to call a witness to testify to this kind of evidence and force the defendant to take the stand to rebut it.”

That is the whole point of the hearsay evidence imo. KS was prevented from giving the testimony herself by the defendant. He is not prevented from testifying by anyone. Go for it DP.

 

[Shelby1]

This is the slooooooooooowest trial I've ever "watched".

 

[~n/t~]

The defense wants to impeach a dead victim. She's not here to defend herself or be put on the stand. Nice try. Move it along please. I'm getting hungry and very impatient. I'm guessing the jury must be totally fed up.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecutor Patton responds: “The defendant cannot bring in his statement through someone else . . . I think it’s important to remember that in the hearsay hearing, that hearing is allowed because it is to benefit, to allow the State to put on hearsay testimony because the defendant forfeited his rights to do so.” Judge: “If there were nine or ten people that Ms. Savio testified to, and she told one person the defendant said he was going to kill her, and she told the other nine that she made it up to get even, are you saying that those other nine people could not be called to testify?” Patton: “It sounds like the defense wants to challenge Kathleen Savio’s statement by putting in Mary Pontarelli’s hearsay statement. They want to do something that’s never allowed: to bring in the hearsay statement of another to impeach.” Greenberg: “These are not defendant’s statements about the crime he is charged with. I think that’s a very big distinction . . . it’s not hearsay, because we’re trying to bring it to attack her credibility.” Judge: “This case the State has just given me, from Colorado, seems to say exactly what counsel has just said . . . this is a case that you gave me, isn’t it exactly what they said? Is there a distinction?” Patton: “I’m not familiar with the case you’re referring to; I’ll have to talk to Mr. Connor. I beg the Court’s indulgence in that . . . the State believes, as I said, that neither the federal rules nor our rules allow for this procedure . . . and we have a reliability issue.” Judge: “I said it was self-serving.” Greenberg: “We can do it. The rules say we can do it. And I should be able to do it.” Judge: “If Kathleen Savio was here testifying, and said those things, how would it impeach her testimony if you said, ‘Didn’t the defendant deny saying these things?’ How does that impeach her testimony?” Greenberg: “I would like to go through his statement of what he said, that contradicts what Miss Savio said.” Judge: “Even if it’s admissible, it has to be impeaching in some manner. You want to impeach what Kathleen Savio told this officer. And you say the defendant’s self-serving statement accomplishes that?”

 

[fifteen89]

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.

Good point. Even when the witness DOES include all the information in her report, the DT has a problem with it.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge: “I don’t know how it is that that statement impeaches Kathleen Savio’s statement to the officer. I understand the argument the defendant is making . . . but I don’t find the defendant’s statement to be relevant, because I don’t think it impeaches the statement.” Greenberg mentions another statement he’d also like to bring in, which prosecutor Patton objects to. Judge: “I think the State’s objection will be sustained; you won’t be able to go into that with the defendant’s statement, either. The fact that he made a statement, you can ask her that.” With that, the judge sends for the jury and the witness.

 

[fifteen89]

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?

It's only noon but I'll take a margarita, please and thank you very much.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The jurors and the witness are now back in the courtroom, and Greenberg continues his cross-examination. “You went over there that day, and took this statement from Miss Savio-Peterson?” “Yes.” “The statement that she hand wrote is three pages?” “Yes.” “You talked to her orally also for about an hour?” “Yes.” “She was upset with being served with papers that day for battery?” “She was upset that she had been arrested for batteries.” “She told you that she was upset that Mr. Peterson, the whole time he was in the house, never spoke about their property?” “No.” “His pension?” “No . . .she did not tell me that they discussed those issues.” “She said he told her that she was behaving awfully?” “Yes . . . that she didn’t talk to him.” “And that she should just admit that it was all her fault?” “Yes.” “You’ve been through some divorces; that’s not unusual behavior?” Objection/Sustained.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “He wasn’t angry; he was tired and upset?” “According to what she said, yes.” “Did you ever contact [divorce attorney] Harry Smith?” “No.” “Are you aware that Mr. Smith’s records do not reflect speaking to her?” Objection/Sustained. “She told you that Mr. Peterson said he would deny being there?’ “He said that if she called he would deny it . . . yes.” “And when he left, he actually left the garage door opener there?” “Yes.” “And you then spoke to Sgt. Peterson, that same day?” “Yes.” “And he did not deny going over to the house . . .?” Objection. The parties approach the bench for a sidebar.

 

[mysteriew]

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.

I agree with everything you said. But it is more than that. He knew the LE system. He knew how to present KS as unstable. How and who to kiss butt. And how and who he could talk to without repercussions. And how to exploit that LE systems weaknesses.

If he had been an average citizen going around talking about how he would be better off if KS died, then when KS died a lot more attention would have been paid to the circumstances of the death. Instead he talked freely (as a joke of course) and when she died, no one seemed to even suspect him. Just another alleged accidental death, and those pesky questions, well there must be some other reasons for those.

DrewP is smart. But he didn't do this alone. His system helped.

 

[~n/t~]

It's only noon but I'll take a margarita, please and thank you very much.

pffft. it's almost one o'clock here. One for you, 2 for me. It'll be a long day. If you start noticing slurring in my posts, you'll know why. lol

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness and the jurors are then excused from the courtroom. Patton: “The defendant is not allowed to impeach the statement of Ms. Savio by bringing in a self-serving statement. I thought that’s what you just ruled.” Judge: “If Kathleen Savio were on the witness stand and were here, she said the defendant said, ‘If you tell the police about this, I’m going to deny it.’ And he didn’t’ deny it. And this particular statement does impeach Kathleen Savio’s statement, and you [the State] presented it.” Patton: “It would impeach, but it would be improper impeachment.” Judge: The State’s objection is overruled . . . I’ve made a ruling, Mr. Glasgow. You can have a seat.” The judge then sends for the witness and the jury.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

on the report about Drew holding Kathleen at knife point. They couldn't say "knife"? and he referred to her as *****y......I didn't think that the B word was offensive enough to black out. I am guessing it may have been the C word or possibly something else sexually degrading. Did they strike that word from the record because it is "too prejudicial" (eye roll) that he was calling a woman a vile repulsive word?