Drew Peterson Trial Discussion

I hope they somehow convict him Art. It looks like the prosecution is already having trouble getting some things admitted like the photo of the hole that Drew cut through Kathleen's wall. Hopefully Stacy's hearsay statements to her priest will be allowed.

from link:

Defense attorney Joel Brodsky in his opening statement called Kathleen Savio "bonkers" and "crazy" and said "she lies and makes up stories to fit her purpose."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-courtroom-updates-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,4158433.story

imo, this is disrespectful & after all, Kathleen is dead & can't defend herself, if I sat on the jury, it would offend me. After all, he is basing his opinion on information gathered from a probable murderer.

art tart wrote:from link:

Defense attorney Joel Brodsky in his opening statement called Kathleen Savio "bonkers" and "crazy" and said "she lies and makes up stories to fit her purpose."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-courtroom-updates-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,4158433.story

imo, this is disrespectful & after all, Kathleen is dead & can't defend herself, if I sat on the jury, it would offend me. After all, he is basing his opinion on information gathered from a probable murderer.

ITA. The opening statement is no place to talk like that. During trial I could understand, but not in the OP. If I were a juror I would wonder wth is the man trying to cover up by besmirching his late wife.

Sherry wrote:

art tart wrote:from link:

Defense attorney Joel Brodsky in his opening statement called Kathleen Savio "bonkers" and "crazy" and said "she lies and makes up stories to fit her purpose."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-courtroom-updates-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,4158433.story

imo, this is disrespectful & after all, Kathleen is dead & can't defend herself, if I sat on the jury, it would offend me. After all, he is basing his opinion on information gathered from a probable murderer.

ITA. The opening statement is no place to talk like that. During trial I could understand, but not in the OP. If I were a juror I would wonder wth is the man trying to cover up by besmirching his late wife.

And the sad thing is that Kathleen had to contend with all that when she was divorcing him..He would tell all his buddies at the station that she was crazy etc..And then no one there would believe a thing she said..She had to try and get help from other outside agencies but sadly no one listened to her..

Justice4all wrote:I set up a page where you can see all the latest news and the latest tweets.

http://www.realitychatter.com/?pid=1

Thanks J4A! This is awesome -- everything is right before your eyes! I really appreciate all of the work you do on this site to make it so user-friendly, and the Peterson "collection" will be a real time saver ~~C

First day of Drew Peterson murder trial wraps up

BY JON SEIDEL AND DAN ROZEK
July 31, 2012

As the first witness in Drew Peterson’s murder trial testified Tuesday, prosecutors displayed on large screen in the Will County courtroom a photo of what Mary Pontarelli and Peterson found when they entered Kathleen Savio’s home on March 1, 2004.

Savio was dead, curled up on the left side of her bathtub with her knees bent and her hair covering her downturned face. Two streaks of blood ran down the tub from head to foot.

The sight made Pontarelli weep, and Judge Edward Burmila handed her a box of tissues.

Peterson, meanwhile, looked up expressionless each time prosecutors would display a new photo on the screen.

Read more: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/14100820-418/drew-peterson-murder-trial-finally-set-to-begin.html

Attorneys offer dueling explanations for Savio’s death

Article updated: 7/31/2012 5:24 PM


By Associated Press

The murder trial of former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson began Tuesday with dueling explanations of his third wife’s death, clashes over evidence and a teary witness’ description of finding her friend’s body.

Prosecutors gave jurors an account that could have come from a 1940s pulp novel, in which a man does whatever he must — including murder — to keep his ex-wife’s hands off his money.

On the other side, Peterson’s attorneys argued the former officer was a victim of something newer: a 24-hour news cycle and cable TV’s talking heads, which together created a media frenzy that did not subside until prosecutors had charged an innocent man.

Read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120731/news/707319855/

Emotional testimony at start of Drew Peterson trial

Sarah Schulte
July 31, 2012



~Snipped~

Using a low-keyed, softspoken manner, Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow opened by telling jurors "on March 1, 2004, Kathleen Savio's cold, lifeless body was found in a dry bathtub and it was staged to look like an accident."

Glasgow didn't get too far before case almost came to halt. The defense asked for a mistrial as Glasgow began to tell jurors about how Peterson offered a friend $25,000. The jury was asked to leave and the judge ruled prosecutors could not discuss an alleged hit to kill Savio.

Read more: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8756745

Drew Peterson accused of murder, but ex-wife also on trial

BY JON SEIDEL AND DAN ROZEK Sun-Times Media July 31, 2012 6:08AM



Updated: July 31, 2012 9:01PM

Ex-cop Drew Peterson is the one charged with murder, but it was Kathleen Savio -- the former wife he’s accused of drowning -- who seemed to be on trial Tuesday.

When Peterson’s long-awaited trial opened, his attorneys immediately went on the attack, describing Savio as “bonkers” and contending she concocted claims Peterson threatened to kill her so she could win a more lucrative divorce settlement from him.

Read more:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/14100820-418/drew-peterson-murder-trial-finally-set-to-begin.html

Peterson Trial Updtes: Stacey Peterson family pleased with testimony



Drew Peterson attends the first day of testimony in his murder trial at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Ill. (Cheryl A. Cook, sketch for the Chicago Tribune / July 31, 2012)

By Andy Grimm, Steve Schmadeke and Matthew Walberg

Tribune reporters

5:34 p.m. CDT, July 31, 2012

Continual coverage of the trial of Drew Peterson for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5:25 p.m. Stacy Peterson family pleased with first day's testimony

The spokeswoman for the family of Stacy Peterson said she was pleased with the first day of testimony, even though Stacy's disappearance was little more than a footnote.

"I think we had a really amazing witness today," said Pamela Bosco, who came to know Drew Peterson's missing fourth wife while serving as legal guardian for Stacy's sister, Cassandra Cales.

"What she told us was that Kathy (Savio) was a passionate person and she felt threatened because she had all these locks on her door."

But most important was the photo of Savio's body wedged face down in the bathtub.

"You felt the horror of that night," Bosco said. "It shows you it was not an accident."

-- Matthew Walberg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-courtroom-updates-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,4158433.story

Peterson Trial: Neighbor Weeps While Testifying About Finding Savio’s Body

July 31, 2012 5:31 AM

(VIDEO)

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/31/opening-statements-to-begin-in-drew-peterson-trial/

Prosecutor's first challenge in Peterson trial: Prove 3rd wife was murdered

Britain's 'Brides in the Bath' slayings a century ago offer a glimpse at state's strategy

By Steve Schmadeke, Chicago Tribune reporter

July 31, 2012

Former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson placed his third wife into a sleeper hold until she lost consciousness, lifted her into the bathtub in her master bathroom and held her head underwater until she drowned, Will County's top prosecutor has alleged in court.

After she was dead, Peterson allegedly struck Kathleen Savio, 40, on the back of the head, perhaps with his police baton, to make her death appear accidental, prosecutors have said.

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-forensics-0731-20120731,0,2181038.story

Drew Peterson Trial: An Easy Case for the Prosecution?

Dan Abrams discusses the case against the man charged with murdering his third wife.

01:34 | 07/31/2012



http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/drew-peterson-trial-easy-case-prosecution-16893420

Published on Jul 31, 2012 by AssociatedPress

Prosecutors have begun delivering their opening statements in the murder trial of former Illinois police officer Drew Peterson. Lawyers for Peterson say they are well prepared to defend him. (July 31)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODGUi1k2eaQ

VIDEO:News

Dueling Explanations in Peterson Murder Trial

http://www.aol.com/video/dueling-explanations-in-peterson-murder-trial/517431110/

Rocky start for prosecutors in Drew Peterson trial

State loses several fights over evidence, narrowly avoids potential mistrial

By Steve Schmadeke, Andy Grimm and Matthew Walberg, Chicago Tribune reporters

10:06 p.m. CDT, July 31, 2012

Kathleen Savio's stepmother sobbed quietly in the courtroom gallery when prosecutors showed pictures for jurors of Savio's curled body in her bathtub, blood trickling from her head toward the drain.

It was one of the most dramatic moments on the contentious first day of the murder trial of former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson, who was painted in opening statements Tuesday as an abusive killer by prosecutors and the victim of rumor and hearsay by the defense.

It was a tension-filled beginning for the long-awaited trial, and a rocky start for prosecutors, who lost battles to include what they said were essential parts of their first day's evidence and narrowly avoided a potential mistrial.......

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-openings-0801-20120801,0,2551253.story

Cubs Fan wrote:Defense asked for mistrail due to Pros. reference to 'hitman' in opening statements, Judge upheld the objection. But no mistrail granted even though jury heard the word hitman the statement was not completed - whew!

Based on the trail for Caylee's murder, I thought pros & def could say whatever they wanted in opening statements & didn't have to prove any of it - maybe the rules are different in Illinois? Can anyone explain?

Goood morning, and happy Trial Day 2. :)

This trial has been very difficult to follow b/c of the often contradictory or incomplete accounts. Everyone in the media and on the boards is trying like heck to keep up and round out the info but it's so difficult without video footage. It also seems that although the media in the overflow room has audio feed, they may not be allowed to record or transmit it. (DANG!)

But some media folks are taking really good notes in addition to tweeting. One of them is Joe Hosey, a journalist at Patch and author of Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson. His article from yesterday is very informative.

Key Evidence in the Drew Peterson Murder Case Blocked by Judge
Joseph Hosey July 31, 2012

Prosecutors lost out on some key evidence they want to use in their bid to convict disgraced Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Prosecutors failed to notify Peterson's defense team that they planned to use the hit man story as evidence. Braidwood man Jeffrey Pachter, who worked at a cable installation company with Peterson, was expected to testify that Peterson offfered him $25,000 to find a hit man to kill Savio.

http://joliet.patch.com/articles/key-evidence-blocked-in-drew-peterson-case

Not to put too fine a point on it: State screwed up. I don't know if they'll get another chance to use this wit by filing some kind of motion, but I have a feeling that the opportunity will not arise again. Moreover, any such motion would prolly be torpedoed by the judge/Defense team. <--I dunno, really.

Sherry wrote:

art tart wrote:from link:

Defense attorney Joel Brodsky in his opening statement called Kathleen Savio "bonkers" and "crazy" and said "she lies and makes up stories to fit her purpose."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-courtroom-updates-drew-peterson-trial-20120731,0,4158433.story

imo, this is disrespectful & after all, Kathleen is dead & can't defend herself, if I sat on the jury, it would offend me. After all, he is basing his opinion on information gathered from a probable murderer.

ITA. The opening statement is no place to talk like that. During trial I could understand, but not in the OP. If I were a juror I would wonder wth is the man trying to cover up by besmirching his late wife.

lol! Even then, the only place I could see SOME of it being appropriate is if KS were on the stand and the atty was trying to bust her alibi or something. Seriously, the Defense Team's treatment of KS skeeved me; I had to take a half hour walk to get some fresh air--away from the DT odor. ;) I also understand that Brodsky went one further on the Jane Velez Mitchell show yesterday and stated that KS was into kinky sex and he could prove it. Consider this: why is the DT doing this outside the presence of jurors and the courtroom? Because they enjoy being pigs (yeah, I said it). I'm considering dishing back some of their own treatment. To wit: the well-known slut Brodsky, mouthy Joe Lopez, etc. Hopefully a cooler head will prevail. :)

Justice4all wrote:I hope they somehow convict him Art. It looks like the prosecution is already having trouble getting some things admitted like the photo of the hole that Drew cut through Kathleen's wall. Hopefully Stacy's hearsay statements to her priest will be allowed.

:) Not Art, of course.

The rulings seem so disparate, it's very confusing. Not saying anything against Judge Burmila. It's simply unclear to me is all. Example: There is photographic evidence of two holes cut in the home by Drew. The one in the wall is out because Drew was still on the deed as an owner, apparently, and therefore can customize the house anyway he likes. On the other hand, the one cut in the bedroom door is admissible. I thought it might have to do with the time when the second hole was cut in relation to the divorce proceedings/house ownership, but I dunno.

Another example: KS's 2002 arrest on the front yard and the fight beforehand is not admissible. I can't figure out why neighbor Mary Pontarelli was not allowed to testify to a fact, one which is surely part of a police record. And yet it was okey-dokey for Defense to put this in their OS. Maybe State can get in the testimony they want by having the responding officer on the stand or by cross-x of whoever Defense is calling to support their OS claim. I'm baffled.

Source:
http://joliet.patch.com/articles/key-evidence-blocked-in-drew-peterson-case

The hearsay arguments should be interesting. Ahem. :)

Six of One wrote:

Sherry wrote:

ITA. The opening statement is no place to talk like that. During trial I could understand, but not in the OP. If I were a juror I would wonder wth is the man trying to cover up by besmirching his late wife.

lol! Even then, the only place I could see SOME of it being appropriate is if KS were on the stand and the atty was trying to bust her alibi or something. Seriously, the Defense Team's treatment of KS skeeved me; I had to take a half hour walk to get some fresh air--away from the DT odor. ;) I also understand that Brodsky went one further on the Jane Velez Mitchell show yesterday and stated that KS was into kinky sex and he could prove it. Consider this: why is the DT doing this outside the presence of jurors and the courtroom? Because they enjoy being pigs (yeah, I said it). I'm considering dishing back some of their own treatment. To wit: the well-known slut Brodsky, mouthy Joe Lopez, etc. Hopefully a cooler head will prevail. :)

True that and LOL! You go, girl! The DT idiots deserve it richly.

Drew Peterson's ex-neighbor on stand Wednesday

Updated at 10:29 AM today



By Jessica D'Onofrio

August 1, 2012 (JOLIET, Ill.) (WLS) -- A former neighbor of Drew Peterson took the stand Wednesday when testimony resumed in Peterson's murder trial.

Read more:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8757466

Neighbor testifies at Drew Peterson trial

August 1, 2012

CHICAGO (AP) — Prosecutors have called a former neighbor of Drew Peterson to testify on the second day of the former suburban Chicago police officer's murder trial.

Thomas Pontarelli took the witness stand Wednesday. He and his wife, Mary, were neighbors of Drew Peterson and his third wife, Kathleen Savio, when she drowned in 2004. Mary Pontarelli testified Tuesday that she screamed when she saw Savio lying lifeless in a bathtub.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/peterson-jury-to-hear-2nd-day-of-testimony/article/feed/2018335

Ah, big shot Brosky has his scret service men watching over him. He must fear the public, eh?

WGN News

10:30 a.m. CDT, August 1, 2012

CHICAGO - WGN News has the latest updates right here from the Drew Peterson murder trial.

August 1, 10:24 a.m.- Neither Tom Pontarelli nor his wife Mary recall being interviewed by the Bolingbrook police the night of Savio's death. Defense attorney asked Pontarelli today if he recalled numerous statements allegedly made to the Bolingbrook police including Peterson storming by his house Sunday, February 29th looking for Kathleen and asking the Pontarelli's to call a locksmith on Monday. Pontarelli told Lopez, "I never had a conversation with the Bolingbrook Police."

August 1, 10:07 a.m.- Pontarelli told prosecutors that the bathtub was dry, pristine and lacking soap scum when he saw Savio's body. He said he made a comment to Drew wondering where her clothing and towel were. Under cross examination, Joe Lopez asked Pontarelli if he recalled telling state police investigators in November 2007 anything about towels, Pontarelli said he couldn't recall.

August 1, 9:44 a.m.-Tom Pontarelli testified that shortly after discovering Kathleen Savio's body, Peterson made a phone call. Pontarelli told prosecutors that Peterson stated to the person on the phone that he, ' just found my wife dead in the tub and people are gonna think I did it.'

Read more:

http://www.cltv.com/news/wgntv-drew-peterson-blog-day-2-20120801,0,11487.htmlstory

Uh Oh, during testimony of Pontarelli, he was asked if at anytime he felt intimidated by Peterson. He said yes and as a matter of fact he found a 38 bullet in his driveway. The defense got up and objected, the judge cleared the courtroom, the defense asked for a mistrial. The judge left the bench and took a break. Defense team walking back into courtroom now. This is classified as a prior bad act and they are not allowed. Judge is pissd at prosecution because they cannot prove that Peterson did this or did this purposefully. Everyone on break now. Beth Karas says it is possible that Judge could grant mistrial and if double jeopardy applies, case over. Big argument that this was extremely prejudicial to Peterson. this is the argument.

OMG, the prosecution seems so unprepared and keep trying to sneak in things and we do not want a mistrial! I'm in live chat if anyone wants to join me.

Jean Casareaz says Peterson had an absolutely stunned look on his face when witness blurted the bullet story out. The Pros. did ask any question to elicit this info, the witness just blurted it out. Prevailing thought is that defense is researching case law as we speak.

tesstruhart wrote:Uh Oh, during testimony of Pontarelli, he was asked if at anytime he felt intimidated by Peterson. He said yes and as a matter of fact he found a 38 bullet in his driveway. The defense got up and objected, the judge cleared the courtroom, the defense asked for a mistrial. The judge left the bench and took a break. Defense team walking back into courtroom now. This is classified as a prior bad act and they are not allowed. Judge is pissd at prosecution because they cannot prove that Peterson did this or did this purposefully. Everyone on break now. Beth Karas says it is possible that Judge could grant mistrial and if double jeopardy applies, case over. Big argument that this was extremely prejudicial to Peterson. this is the argument.

tesstruhart, I am catching up this morning, thanks for sharing. This is interesting, I assume the neighbor thought the bullet belonged to Drew, is that a fact or assumption?

I am disappointed that the State's case is so thin, I hope they convict the POS, but continuing to push the Judge is not a good thing. BUT! The obnoxious verbal assault on Kathleen's character is embarassing & purile from the defense & imo, unacceptable on any level. This too, imo, is not going to be lost on this jury.

The defense has now officially asked for a mistrial and the arguments are going on now.

Judge is very upset with prosecution, judge will return at 2:15 with a ruling. If he gives the mistrial with prejudice this dirtbag will walk. Forever.
The pros. was saying there was no intent and the neighbor just blurted this info out. The defense says it was intentional. It looks like the judge is leaning toward the intentions as well.
This is unblieveable, after so many years of waiting for this trial to blow it all out of the water on day 2 of trial boggles the mind.

:/

I knew this case wasn't gonna well for the state. :/

Art, not sure if its Drew's bullet. No way to prove it. The context of this is when the locks were changed in Kathleen's house Drew accused neighbor of doing it. He didn't, he told Drew that "I got your message" because that was when he found the 38 bullet standing upright on his driveway. The defense went nuts because it was very prejudicial to their client. Jean Casarez said Drew was stunned when that came out of the neighbor's mouth. What a mess.

It looks like another killer might get to walk. Where's the justice? The blood of Drew's next victim will be on Judge Burmila's hands if he declares a mistrial.

I sure hope this doesn't cause a dismissal (with pregudice no less), that could mean that DP can walk out of that court room a free man.

I sure hope the judge just directs the jury todisregard the statement.

Although I do believe that Peterson did put that bullit there to intimidate the guy, he's low like that.

Defense team is close-mouthed. Left the courthouse. judge deciding if the comment was intentional misrepresentation of facts. Jean Casarez says she thinks it doesn't look good for the prosecution. Looked like the judge was leaning toward defense.

Justice4all wrote:It looks like another killer might get to walk. Where's the justice? The blood of Drew's next victim will be on Judge Burmila's hands if he declares a mistrial.

Yup. It makes me sick. It really does. This guy is such scum but he covered it up real well. :/ But he will kill again. He's a smug, cocky guy who knows he got away with two murders and probably thinks he can get away with another. :/

Interesting point by Judge White on IS. Says if judge grants mistrial but without prejudice it might be in the favor of the pros. In that case they could put witnesses on their list that they forgot to put on this time. Sometimes you don't want a mistrial for those reasons. Asking for mistrial with prejudice is rare, according to judge White.

back2back19 wrote:

Justice4all wrote:It looks like another killer might get to walk. Where's the justice? The blood of Drew's next victim will be on Judge Burmila's hands if he declares a mistrial.

Yup. It makes me sick. It really does. This guy is such scum but he covered it up real well. :/ But he will kill again. He's a smug, cocky guy who knows he got away with two murders and probably thinks he can get away with another. :/

I am in shock and I agree totally. What the heck is goin on down there??? kh

I fully expect a mistrial with prejudice.

Just a little while ago, In Session was interviewing the courtroom sketch artist, Christine Somethingoranother. She said that Drew was very happy and looking relieved. She also said that Drew liked her artwork, but would like it even more if she would take up his chin a bit.

Blech!

kh

Oh, how I loathe him. :/

What an a$$hole... He makes me feel dirty...

I can't imagine what Kathleen and Stacey's family must feel when they see him...........

kh

Me either. To think his face was the very last one they saw. :/ Ugh.

Glenn Marshall‏@GMarshall_Jr

"I hope he rules that trial must go on" Stacy Peterson's family spokesperson #DrewPeterson pic.twitter.com/DvvFzUBo

In Session‏@InSession

RT @bethkaras: The judge is expected to rule in 15 minutes on the defense's motion for a mistrial. Peterson could be freed. Defense

I hope so too but honestly, I think this case is done. :/

I hope we will have an answer before In Session is over...I'm praying that this trial will continue...To see him get off with this would be a shame...Bet he will file a lawsuit against the state if he does...He's just that arrogant...

https://twitter.com/SeidelContent/status/230731082092384256

#DrewPeterson judge considering whether to strike all of Pontarelli testimony instead of mistrial.

2:25 PM - 1 Aug 12

Estee wrote:I hope we will have an answer before In Session is over...I'm praying that this trial will continue...To see him get off with this would be a shame...Bet he will file a lawsuit against the state if he does...He's just that arrogant...

He'd probably win too. :/

Justice4all wrote:https://twitter.com/SeidelContent/status/230731082092384256

#DrewPeterson judge considering whether to strike all of Pontarelli testimony instead of mistrial.

2:25 PM - 1 Aug 12

So, he hasn't made up his mind then?