Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[Noway]

Despite a judge's order to avoid all news about Peterson, several of the prospective jurors said they found it hard to avoid media reports about him. The 200-person jury pool has been waiting three years for the trial, which was put off because of appellate court battles over the hearsay statements.

Several potential jurors said they had watched a 2011 cable TV movie about the Savio case titled "Drew Peterson: Untouchable," in which actor Rob Lowe portrays the former Bolingbrook police officer.

Many insisted they understood the movie was Hollywood fiction. One potential juror who works as a plumber watched the movie and said it made Peterson look guilty of murder, but he said he could separate the movie from evidence presented during trial.

One man said that when he hears Peterson's name on the radio he switches it off or leaves the room. But the man said that just last week he saw Peterson's photograph splashed across the front page of a suburban Chicago newspaper.

One woman, asked what she thinks she's heard about the case, answered, "Something about a bathtub."

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=8745631

 

[Noway]

IIRC one jurut who has lived in Bolingbrook for 20 years had nrver hesrd of DP.

This must be someone who does not watch much TV.
imo

 

[MrsPC]

someone earlier requested a link to the photo of Savio in the tub

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2012/08/drew-petersons-late-wife-kathleen-savio.html

and I got a screen capture from a news video of the sketch of Savio's injuries front/back.

https://picasaweb.google.com/113834351157927335749/DrewPeterson#5778451500563659426

I thought about it all last night, and now I'm not so quick to rule out a possible toilet drowning.

 

[Tugela]

I understand about the hearsay part but this lady is dead and can't defend herself but that is not what infuriates me the most. My reason for being so upset js the judge and defense appear to be conspiring togather. The rcords that the judge allowed the defense to look at have been expunged and can no longer be veiwed by the public domain. This meeting was done in secracey (s) and I really do not believe anything of this sort would be offered to the PT. My goodness the PT can't even get in legit evidence in front of this judge imo. It just reeks of corruption to me. This is all JMO and not fact that I can prove but something is not right here...jmo...sweets

It wouldn't have been allowed if the hearsay had been inadmissable (as it normally is). When they changed the law to allow the hearsay, the flip side of that was to open the door for impeachment. You can't have one without the other. And since she is dead, the only way to do that would be to examine past statements. It is exactly the same as if the witness was alive, except in this case it would be limited to what statements made previously.

What the defence would be looking at is, if she told these people these things, did she in the past make other accusations that were either not true or were dubious, or were contested. In other words the question would be what sort of credibility should be given to these things she alledgedly said to these people (their credibility in claiming to have heard these things is unrelated).

If you have an issue with it, blame the law makers who changed the law for this case.

 

[Tugela]

They put a large pool of potential jurors 'on hold.' They were told they were in the potential jury pool, and so they should not read about or watch anything about Drew Peterson. But I am not sure that everyone heeded those warnings totally. Hopefully they absorbed some of the pertinent facts.

If they did accidently learn stuff about the case in the interim they are supposed to inform the Judge of that otherwise they are breaking the law and risking jail time. Once the judge knows what they have accidently learned, a decision would be made as to if they have been tainted or not.

 

[Tugela]

I haven't been posting a lot in this case, although I've been following it every day.

I have a theory about how Drew killed Kathleen based on all the testimony so far, but especially from Dr. Blum.

Looking at the facts.............Kathleen was found in a fetal position in a dry bathtub with her toes pressed up against the side at a 90 degree angle. Her hair was damp, there was a two-inch gash on the BACK of her head, a large bruise on her buttock, numerous bruises and abrasions on the front of her legs and arms and a bruise on her torso. Blood from the gash had trickled into the tub and pooled undiluted. Dr. Blum said the wound on the back of Kathleen's head was caused by an object with sharp edges as the wound had a clean edge. There was water in her lungs.

The bathroom was pristine, with bath items on the back side of the tub. There was no bath mat or towel. If she removed her clothing, there was no pile of clothing found in the bathroom or bedroom.

In the kitchen there was a glass of orange juice on the counter and a mug of water in the microwave. In the bedroom there was a can of Spotshot spot cleaner.

I believe there was a confrontation in the bedroom between Drew and Kathleen and there was a struggle. I believe he hit her on the back of the head with a heavy object rendering her either dazed or unconscious. He dragged her into the bathroom and put her head in the toilet and held her head under water. It's possible that if she were dazed she fought back and Drew may have hit her again.

Drew then placed her on the floor and removed her clothing. When a person dies their bowels and bladder often eliminate. So her clothing would be soiled in addition to any blood from the wound and perhaps torn. He placed the clothing and the object he used to hit her on the back of her head in a bag, which he took with him to be disposed of. Had he left Kathleen's clothing there, it would have been evident that she didn't die in the bathtub.

Then Drew dragged her body to the bathtub and place her in it. He then cleaned up any signs of a struggle. In the bedroom he cleaned up several spots with the carpet cleaner, Spotshot, that was found there. He cleaned the bathroom, leaving it spotless with nothing out of place.

If Pastor Neil Schori is allowed to testify, he will testify to what Stacy told him. She told him that she woke up one night to find Drew gone. He wasn't anywhere in the house. She called his cell phone numerous times, but he didn't answer. In the wee hours of the morning he came home and dumped woman's clothing in the washing machine. He told Stacy that if she was questioned, she was to say that he was there asleep beside her all night.

This theory would explain why Kathleen's hair was still damp. If there had been water in the bathtub and her head wound had trickled blood into the water, it would have become diluted and drained away with the rest of the water. I don't think there was ever any water in the tub that night. The blood trickled from the wound and pooled undiluted in a dry tub.

Dr. Blum examined the crime scene photos and I believe he visited the house and viewed the tub. He couldn't find any object that would have caused the gash on the back of Kathleen's head.

It goes against logic that someone hits the back of their head and then falls into a fetal position. It's more likely that they would fall backwards, sprawling and in the process knock items like bubble bath, shampoo, etc. off the side of the tub in the process.

Also, if a person is planning on taking a bath they normally will place a bath mat down and have a towel nearby in preparation.

This all adds up to a murder staged to look like a bathtub drowning. A good investigator on this case initially would have been able to note all the discrepancies.

The problem with that theory is that if he went to all that trouble, he would have put water in the bath tub and put the things you would expect there. Them not being there means it wasn't staged.

If she was alone then going to the bath naked is not a surprising thing to do. I do it all the time. If this happened to me you wouldn't find a pile of clothes in the bathroom.

Both of the bathtubs in my apartment slowly drain even when stopped. That will happen if the stopper is not perfectly watertight. It is not hard to think that could have happened with her bathtub, if there was enough time. There not being water in the bathtub is not as surprising as you seem to think.

You also don't know exactly what she was doing in the bathroom, you are assuming she was bathing but maybe she was not. It doesn't take much water to drown in.

You also don't know if she was drunk or hung over at the time, things which commonly result in people behaving in ways others don't expect them to.

 

[Noway]

I dont think she was drunk .... autopsy no drugs or alcohol in system.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/14/toxicologist-no-drugs-alcohol-in-savio-body/

 

[MissJames]

Ran for what? District Attorney? Then he must not have been a judge at the time. Most judges are appointed, not elected. So how could it be a conflict of interest just because they once ran against each other for DA? He has more power sitting up there on that bench than he ever would have had as DA.
I believe there are many, many judges and lawyers who do not get along, or have a personal dispute with, and not many of them get to pick which judge presides over any given trial. If he is biased and rules unfairly, then that may be an issue for appeal. They have to follow the law when they make any ruling. As long as he is doing that, it shouldn't be an issue. And quite possibly, the jury may be picking up on this and will make sure there is justice done. His bias may just the hammer that drives the nails home on Drew's casket.

It was the for State Attorney and Glasgow won.It was supposedly a nasty race .Now the judge ,who happened to lose to this Prosecutor,is showing his dislike and anger for that very Prosecutor ,in front of the jury.
So maybe you're right and it's just a coincidence that the judge is acting like Glasgow is STILL his opponent.Maybe he treats all cases this way.:waitasec:
JUST MY OPINION.

 

[SoBeCzar]

someone earlier requested a link to the photo of Savio in the tub

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2012/08/drew-petersons-late-wife-kathleen-savio.html

and I got a screen capture from a news video of the sketch of Savio's injuries front/back.

https://picasaweb.google.com/113834351157927335749/DrewPeterson#5778451500563659426

I thought about it all last night, and now I'm not so quick to rule out a possible toilet drowning.

I think these are very convincing evidence of guilt. TY for linking them.

 

[LambChop]

The problem with that theory is that if he went to all that trouble, he would have put water in the bath tub and put the things you would expect there. Them not being there means it wasn't staged.

If she was alone then going to the bath naked is not a surprising thing to do. I do it all the time. If this happened to me you wouldn't find a pile of clothes in the bathroom.

Both of the bathtubs in my apartment slowly drain even when stopped. That will happen if the stopper is not perfectly watertight. It is not hard to think that could have happened with her bathtub, if there was enough time. There not being water in the bathtub is not as surprising as you seem to think.

You also don't know exactly what she was doing in the bathroom, you are assuming she was bathing but maybe she was not. It doesn't take much water to drown in.

You also don't know if she was drunk or hung over at the time, things which commonly result in people behaving in ways others don't expect them to.

I think the problem was there were no signs of her having just taken off clothes anywhere. Did she take off her clothes and just hang them up???? Plus ME said there was nothing there for her to get that type of injury to her head. Why would she lock her front door and not put on the deadbolt? Why would she prepare a bath and not lock her bedroom door? DP is not a genuis by any means so I doubt if he thought this entirely through. If she had clothes on and they had gotten blood on them he would have gathered them up with him when he left and cleaned up the mess. I don't think he would have given her having clothes on a second thought because she was suppose to be in the tub. He was thinking like a male not a female. Myself, I'd be more inclined to believe an ME before DP. jmo

 

[MissJames]

They put a large pool of potential jurors 'on hold.' They were told they were in the potential jury pool, and so they should not read about or watch anything about Drew Peterson. But I am not sure that everyone heeded those warnings totally. Hopefully they absorbed some of the pertinent facts.

I know In Session keeps mentioning that one of the PJ's watched the Drew Peterson movie with Rob Lowe. I don't know if that juror is still on this jury. Nothing about this trial surprises me anymore.
Well,if Drew said he was guilty ,that would surprise me.

 

[Noway]

Perhaps the scene was staged to look like someone else did it --- not a cop with years of experience at crime scenes. JMO

 

[MissJames]

someone earlier requested a link to the photo of Savio in the tub

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2012/08/drew-petersons-late-wife-kathleen-savio.html

and I got a screen capture from a news video of the sketch of Savio's injuries front/back.

https://picasaweb.google.com/113834351157927335749/DrewPeterson#5778451500563659426

I thought about it all last night, and now I'm not so quick to rule out a possible toilet drowning.

That's one of the saddest things I've ever seen. She looks like she's someone who knew the fight was over,laid down and gave up. Of course that couldn't be,due to the fluid in her lungs,but that's the sense I get from looking at the picture.
It certainly doesn't look like someone who fell into that position.Last night on Judge Jenine's show (FOX News Channel) the DT lawyers said she "settled" into that position after going through rigamortis.

 

[panthera]

I think the problem was there were no signs of her having just taken off clothes anywhere. Did she take off her clothes and just hang them up???? Plus ME said there was nothing there for her to get that type of injury to her head. Why would she lock her front door and not put on the deadbolt? Why would she prepare a bath and not lock her bedroom door? DP is not a genuis by any means so I doubt if he thought this entirely through. If she had clothes on and they had gotten blood on them he would have gathered them up with him when he left and cleaned up the mess. I don't think he would have given her having clothes on a second thought because she was suppose to be in the tub. He was thinking like a male not a female. Myself, I'd be more inclined to believe an ME before DP. jmo

Noticeably missing from the bathroom was a towel, robe or bathmat for her to step on when exiting the tub. And yes, the deadbolt to the front door wasn't engaged, despite her supposedly having gone downstairs to start to prepare her tea and orange juice.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

If they did accidently learn stuff about the case in the interim they are supposed to inform the Judge of that otherwise they are breaking the law and risking jail time. Once the judge knows what they have accidently learned, a decision would be made as to if they have been tainted or not.

How are they risking jail time? I am sure that plenty of them know more than they are supposed to know, but there aren't going to be witnesses to that. How many times were they driving to work and a snippet of news came on the radio discussing the DP case? If they did not turn it off in time, nobody else is going to know. If they happened to come upon something on the net or in the newspaper, nobody else is going to know. If they overheard a conversation in restaurant, nobody is going to know. I don't see 'jail time' as being that big of a risk here. Maybe if they watched "Untouchable" and then discussed it during jury deliberations, then the might be at risk. Otherwise, not so much, imo.

I think that a lot of them know that Stacy is missing. JMO

 

[Cubby]

Strange how the injury to her head matches the complaint she filed against DP about him threatening to kill her. Maybe he thought he was doing her a favor. I think there is enough evidence against him. I also think his smug attitude would tell me something if I were a juror. To get rid of two wives, first one looks like an accident and the second just disappeared. Seems to me a very well thought out plan. jmo

forgive me, but I don't remember the description of the injury in the complaint, only that she said she wanted it in the head. (and I am too lazy to go back and look for the exact complaint.)


I keep going back to there was nothing, no place, that could have inflicted that head injury in a fall. It's almost as if the drowning accident would have been believable without the head gash. And Drew just had to add that head gash to eliminate any doubt about an 'accident'.

 

[Cubby]

It should be. The injury to her head doesn't even appear to be serious enough to have rendered her unconscious in the first place. It would take a pretty forceful hit to render one totally unable to even try to get themselves out of the bathtub. Yet there is absolutely no evidence of anything occurring in the bathtub....nothing is disturbed and her head is at the opposite end of the tub from the only thing that could have caused a head injury, the faucet.

Then, take into consideration DP's statement to the insurance adjuster, where he assumes Kathleen died from a drug-related drowning, then moves on in another conversation to explaining why he wouldn't be called to investigate her death and mentions the word murder. A slip of the tongue, or bragging that he is LE? And remember there were no drugs in her system so why would he insert "drug-related" into it, unless he wanted it to be presumed that way?

And finally, what is the protocol for an on-duty LE officer when he suspects there may be an emergency inside a dwelling? Is it normal to call a locksmith and a neighbor to enter the house with that LE officer remaining outside? Even though this was his ex-wife, if it was possible there was something "wrong" inside the house, why send a civilian in and not call for other LE?

:waitasec:

MOO

All of the above is important. Especially the added explanation given to the insurance agency. No normal person would add why they weren't being investigated for a murder if the death was truly an accident.

I mean don't we all go into the why this isn't attempted murder explanation when we encounter accidents? Seriously, I have to ask myself if we are making this way more complicated than necessary. I'm sure this is not a stupid jury.

 

[Cubby]

OMG!!!!

Judge Jeanine Piro just said that she thinks Drew P. killed his ex wife by drowning her in the toilet!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe she's reading WS.

I really can't go with the toilet theory due to no marks on her face or forehead.

 

[katydid23]

The problem with that theory is that if he went to all that trouble, he would have put water in the bath tub and put the things you would expect there. Them not being there means it wasn't staged.

If she was alone then going to the bath naked is not a surprising thing to do. I do it all the time. If this happened to me you wouldn't find a pile of clothes in the bathroom.

Both of the bathtubs in my apartment slowly drain even when stopped. That will happen if the stopper is not perfectly watertight. It is not hard to think that could have happened with her bathtub, if there was enough time. There not being water in the bathtub is not as surprising as you seem to think.

You also don't know exactly what she was doing in the bathroom, you are assuming she was bathing but maybe she was not. It doesn't take much water to drown in.

You also don't know if she was drunk or hung over at the time, things which commonly result in people behaving in ways others don't expect them to.

"Them not being there means it wasn't staged."

No, it just means that it wasn't staged correctly. Maybe he got sidetracked or spooked by something. Or he just overlooked it.

If this happened to me you wouldn't find a pile of clothes in the bathroom.

But you would find them somewhere. Maybe in the laundry pile or in her bedroom. And you would likely find a robe or a big t-shirt nearby.

There not being water in the bathtub is not as surprising as you seem to think.


I agree about the water possibly leaking out. My tub leaks out if I try to leave something soaking for awhile. But I think the problem with the tub has more to do with the way she was laying and the way the blood was found.

It doesn't take much water to drown in.

Okay, what? She was putting in a little water so she could just shave her legs, and she fell and bumped her head and drowned? That's even worse than the bath story.

You also don't know if she was drunk or hung over at the time, things which commonly result in people behaving in ways others don't expect them to.

We know she wasn't drunk because we got the tox results back. No alcohol in her system. She was sober. As for a hangover, since when does a hangover make somebody drown in a half full bathtub?

I always appreciate your posts Tugela, because you are very questioning and perhaps a little cynical, like myself. So I have to ask you this. How many healthy, sober grown women have you ever heard of that drown in the tub?

 

[fifteen89]

@Stacy Sinclair


#drewpeterson judge allows the possibility of the hitman testimony based on the prosecution's misunderstanding of the law

What am I missing here? I keep seeing the same wording on this and it's not making any sense to me.

The Judge is saying he needs another reason besides the PT error to ADMIT the hitman testimony? Huh? Or is he asking for another reason besides the PT error to NOT admit the testimony?