Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[Cubby]

This is one jury who I really want to see interviewed after the trial!

You and me both!

 

[Cubby]

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.

thank you. I do not have TV (aside from for dvd and wii) and do not have working sound on my computer.

the two photo's you linked above really help explain things with a better visual. Seeing where the bruises are really look like they are a combination of defense wounds and wounds she may have obtained from Drew putting her into the tub while she was unconscious.


The injuries do not match the position she was found.

I am praying that is enough for the jury.

 

[Wishbone]

"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?

I have my doubts about the bathtub drowning accident but then I'm not an expert. From what I've heard the defense is sticking with the accident theory and has several bought and paid for expert witnesses to say the same. But, if it wasn't an accident(I'm thinking its murder)what else proves it was DP besides hearsay and his lousy arrogant attitude? Aren't there other people that could be suspect?

 

[panthera]

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.

If the jury were to dwell on this alone, they should be inclined to believe it was not an accident. Inserting too much information is another sign of 'guilt'.

MOO

 

[Cubby]

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.

Two things..... If the bathtub drained slowly due to the stopper not being engaged properly, then the blood found on the bottom of the tub and on her face would have washed down the drain with the water. Apparently, the blood found on her face was not diluted with water. I think the blood found on the bottom of the tub was not diluted with water.

She could not have been drunk or hung over if the tox reports came up negative. There has already been testimony the tox reports were negative.

 

[katydid23]

I have my doubts about the bathtub drowning accident but then I'm not an expert. From what I've heard the defense is sticking with the accident theory and has several bought and paid for expert witnesses to say the same. But, if it wasn't an accident(I'm thinking its murder)what else proves it was DP besides hearsay and his lousy arrogant attitude? Aren't there other people that could be suspect?

One of the biggest pieces of evidence against Drew is what he supposedly told his missing wife, Stacy. She told Rosetto that her husband came home at 3 am, and told her threateningly, " If anyone asks, I was home all night." And he did laundry in the middle of the night as well.

But that info was tossed out on Friday, so who knows if the jury will ever get to hear any of that from anyone else.

 

[Cubby]

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.

That election was 20 years ago. Very very hard to believe a grudge would last 20 years. On the other hand, It's possible the bias is due to the current election and Burmila's choice being Glasgow's opponent in the upcoming election.

 

[Cubby]

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

Very much so. I hope the jury can see them side by side.

 

[MrsPC]

Maybe she's reading WS.

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

there was however bruising to both the right & left clavicle ...

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...F0xULDoJYrF2QWA8oHABw&ved=0CF4Q9QEwAg&dur=400

I can picture her being pressed into the toilet with these bones coming into contact with the toilet bowl.

 

[Cubby]

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

Oh wow, good point! The clothes she was wearing were never found! I wonder if the pros can get that in. Not that Drew took them, just that they were never recovered. The clothing did not walk out of the house by itself....

 

[panthera]

there was however bruising to both the right & left clavicle ...

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...F0xULDoJYrF2QWA8oHABw&ved=0CF4Q9QEwAg&dur=400

I can picture her being pressed into the toilet with these bones coming into contact with the toilet bowl.

My thoughts exactly. Perhaps he was straddling her from behind as he was submerging her head into the water, which would add even more pressure to her chest against the bowl?

MOO

 

[Wishbone]

One of the biggest pieces of evidence against Drew is what he supposedly told his missing wife, Stacy. She told Rosetto that her husband came home at 3 am, and told her threateningly, " If anyone asks, I was home all night." And he did laundry in the middle of the night as well.

But that info was tossed out on Friday, so who knows if the jury will ever get to hear any of that from anyone else.

Right, thats hearsay and it wasn't even admitted. With hearsay, jurors are able to pick and choose who they find believable and who they don't. I know when I'm on a jury I tend to balance out the credible witnesses to help make my decision. I'm worried that there is no physical evidence mainly due to lousy police work when it first happened. Between all this and then the mistrial issues I just don't see a conviction if the trial even makes it that far.

 

[lonetraveler]

OMG!!!!

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

I watched Judge Jeanine's show last night and her theory really makes sense to me. This would defnitely explain the two bruises on each side over the collar bone (lines up with each side of the toilet)

 

[Wishbone]

Oh wow, good point! The clothes she was wearing were never found! I wonder if the pros can get that in. Not that Drew took them, just that they were never recovered. The clothing did not walk out of the house by itself....

How do we know what she might have been wearing? I'm not even sure when the last time she was seen by someone. Anybody know? Plus, the last one to see her is always suspect......

 

[Cubby]

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?

And if one says they are going to allow the 'possibility' of something they haven't made a decision. Why even say the possibility, it's either yes, no or I have not made a decision. To say I ruled on the possibility of, sounds like baiting (by the judge) to me.

jmo

 

[lonetraveler]

thank you. I do not have TV (aside from for dvd and wii) and do not have working sound on my computer.

the two photo's you linked above really help explain things with a better visual. Seeing where the bruises are really look like they are a combination of defense wounds and wounds she may have obtained from Drew putting her into the tub while she was unconscious.


The injuries do not match the position she was found.

I am praying that is enough for the jury.

I'm trying to play catch up. I've watched the tweets and discussions and of course Judge jeanine's show. Have there been any theories about the bruises on her shins? I know about the ridiculous story from the defense about her being on her knees during sex with her boyfriend, but these bruises are not on her knees, any thoughts on this?

 

[WindyCityGirl]

history:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-06-20/news/9706200125_1_oakbrook-center-82nd-theft

"Oak Brook — An employee of Nordstrom, 10 Oakbrook Center, was arrested Saturday after being accused of crediting her credit card account for $2,527, police said. Lisa M. Chlebos, 19, of 4342 W. 82nd Pl., Chicago, was charged with felony theft, police said."

This was some time ago......I didn't think that she would have been only 19 back in 97 though so I wonder if the person cited is the same one.

In any event though, the "Dream Team" of legal "rock stars" is really quite sleazy in many ways. However in her defense,(that is to say something positive),Lisa is quite lovely looking.....even more so in person. I think that she is window dressing for them and I was repulsed at Brodsky pointing out her beauty when introducing his legal team....yes, she is a good looking woman but she is an attorney. It isn't the time of place for such commentary --unprofessional and sexist.

MOO

Thought I would bring this here for everyone to see (if it should not be here please delete mods). I thought since the defense team wants to display everything they can find on the witnesses as well as KS it is only fair that we see some of their past behaviors. I just don't understand how they can continue to practice law with some of their convictions.

http://jafovoice.blogspot.com/

So far there are 3 lawyers on Drew Peterson's defense team that are thieves.
Joel A Brodsky - Forged a dead clients signature so he could steal the dead mans money..
Lisa "Chlebos" M Lopez - Acted like Nordstrom's in Oakbrook was her personal ATM.
Ralph E Meczyk - Filed fraudulent tax returns for his law firm and his personal taxes.

you can read the full article at address posted..jmo..sweets

 

[fifteen89]

Why was her hair still matted/wet with blood? Because she was, IMO, killed about an hour or two before she was found.
<snipped by me>

It would be interesting if the children someday give a different timeline from what DP has said about their activities/time with Dad that weekend.

 

[katydid23]

I'm trying to play catch up. I've watched the tweets and discussions and of course Judge jeanine's show. Have there been any theories about the bruises on her shins? I know about the ridiculous story from the defense about her being on her knees during sex with her boyfriend, but these bruises are not on her knees, any thoughts on this?

A few people have wondered if she was possibly attacked downstairs and then dragged up the stairs, perhaps by her shins, or her shins may have hit each step on the way up.

 

[fifteen89]

And if one says they are going to allow the 'possibility' of something they haven't made a decision. Why even say the possibility, it's either yes, no or I have not made a decision. To say I ruled on the possibility of, sounds like baiting to me.

jmo

To me it doesn't make sense to say he needs something other than a PT mistake to let in the testimony. ???? Why would a PT error + ANYthing make it admissible?

I'm trying to catch up here and have a headache after reading all this weeks' crap.