Drew Peterson Trial Discussion

The defense will get to argue against striking the testimony and still ask for mistrial?

kh

Who has Stacy's children while he's been in jail?

I am disturbed about the possibility of a mis-trial over the conduct of the Prosecution.

Even if the Judge declared a dismissal "without prejudice," I am concerned about the State being better prepared & having a more solid case. Both sides have performed badly imo, but the State should have known these shenagians wouldn't fly, I hold them to a higher standard of ethics than a bunch of scumbag defense attorney's. I know the defense is just doing their job, but I am outraged at their insulting the victim. DP is sitting there w/6 attorney's & they seem ready for the tricks the State has pulled.

More importantly, if dismissed, this is again going to be MORE pain for the Salvio family. In John Edwards case, even though it wasn't a murder case, CHOSE not to re-try John Edwards because their case was so weak & didn't think they could get a conviction, even the second time.

IF DP were to be re-tried, would it be a different Judge? would the evidence that was allowed or disallowed this time be the same for the next trial? This really sucks!

I switched over to HLN...just to keep track of the outcome of this debacle...

No decision has been made. Court is in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Prosecutor asked witness a question about feeling intimated by DP, which was objected to.

Prosecutor asked the question a different way, to which witness said that DP had talked to him and told him not to help out anymore (witness had put in new locks for Kathleen and was storing some of Drew's things at his house) and witness said "I got 'his' message" - then said "I found a .38 bullet in my driveway.

Defense objected and judge immediately sent out jury and witness. Then went after prosecutor: Do you have "any" proof that DP is the one who put that bullet in the driveway, yes or no? Prosecutor said "no". Judge had a couple more similar comments.

Seems in the Hearsay Hearing in 2010, this information came out.

Judge said he felt the prosecutor intentionally questioned the witness in the manner she did to get this information into the trial (it was not supposed to come into trial because there is no proof DP put the bullet there and the bullet has no link to Kathleen's death).

End result - after thinking about it for 1.5 hours, Judge decided not to declare a mistrial, but is considering striking all of the witness's testimony. Has given defense time to consider if this is satisfactory - wants to "get this right".

Court will resume 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Puzzler wrote:Prosecutor asked witness a question about feeling intimated by DP, which was objected to.

Prosecutor asked the question a different way, to which witness said that DP had talked to him and told him not to help out anymore (witness had put in new locks for Kathleen and was storing some of Drew's things at his house) and witness said "I got 'his' message" - then said "I found a .38 bullet in my driveway.

Defense objected and judge immediately sent out jury and witness. Then went after prosecutor: Do you have "any" proof that DP is the one who put that bullet in the driveway, yes or no? Prosecutor said "no". Judge had a couple more similar comments.

Seems in the Hearsay Hearing in 2010, this information came out.

Judge said he felt the prosecutor intentionally questioned the witness in the manner she did to get this information into the trial (it was not supposed to come into trial because there is no proof DP put the bullet there and the bullet has no link to Kathleen's death).

End result - after thinking about it for 1.5 hours, Judge decided not to declare a mistrial, but is considering striking all of the witness's testimony. Has given defense time to consider if this is satisfactory - wants to "get this right".
Court will resume 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Puzzler, I always find it strange when Judge's tell a jury to "disregard" a statement or testimony. I guess I only base that on what I would think if I sat on that jury, it would be difficult to forget the statement & more importantly, you can't unring a bell, imo. The seed has been planted. If the Judge tells the jury to disregard the entire testimony of the witness, that's a blow to the State.

imo, the Judge is being fair in allowing the Defense time to consider if this is right, but I guess they have to weigh having a mis-trial or having the testimony thrown out.

Yes, it's hard to unring the bell.

In this case, I think the judge is either going to have to strike all of the testimony by that witness or else strike a portion and explain to the jury it's being stricken because there's no proof to support the statement, which makes the witness look bad IMO.

First to qualify...that, personally, I hope the prosecution wins their case.

But..."if" I were the defense, I think I'd rather forego the mistrial (because the judge already said he's not in favor of that and IMO that means that even if the judge declares a mistrial that it won't be "with prejudice") and go with the striking the testimony....that makes a count against the prosecution in the jurors' eyes.

"Puzzler" shared -Yes, it's hard to unring the bell.

In this case, I think the judge is either going to have to strike all of the testimony by that witness or else strike a portion and explain to the jury it's being stricken because there's no proof to support the statement, which makes the witness look bad IMO.

First to qualify...that, personally, I hope the prosecution wins their case.

But..."if" I were the defense, I think I'd rather forego the mistrial (because the judge already said he's not in favor of that and IMO that means that even if the judge declares a mistrial that it won't be "with prejudice") and go with the striking the testimony....that makes a count against the prosecution in the jurors' eyes.

Puzzler, I think we can all agree, although DP deserves a fair trial, we all want him held accountable & convicted. Unfortunately, the State, despite their best efforts & those of LE/investigator's, DP has done a pretty good job of covering up. imo, it would have been a nightmare to have been married to DP, but in Kathleen's case, a bigger nightmare to try to divorce DP & get his assets. Poor Stacy, trying to leave DP or threatening to leave him probably led to her death imo.

I believe stories shared by Kathleen's family & friends, I think DP could be terribly intimadating & threatening & I can too see him planting ideas amongst his co-workers that Kathleen was unstable. I wonder if they feel stupid now? If the original investigation had been handled correctly, possibly from another agency than LE that employed DP, could there have been a different outcome & the original determination of death? None of this matters now, it's too late, especially for Stacy.

I was curious about a Civil Suit in Kathleen's death, USUALLY children of a murder victim file a suit, but in this case, the children lived w/Drew & Stacy.

Kathleen Savio' biological parent's filed a Civil Suit against DP in 2009 & after Drew's arrest for the murder of Kathleen, they filed to have her estate re-opened & they won on that issue. I don't really know exactly what that means as Kathleen's estate, her assets, would have gone to Kathleen's 2 children she had w/Drew, NOT her parent's. imo, it is an attempt to keep DP from using/having any of Kathleen' assets, they rightfully belong to DP's children, not Drew. Kathleen's settlement of assets w/ DP, 1/2 of his retirment, part of the profit from the bar DP owned belong to the 2 children, not DP. I assume both of these cases are ongoing as I couldn't find a Judgement on the Civil Suit.

This has happened recently in the Susan Powell case, her parent's have filed a Civil Suit trying to get Insurance proceeds from Josh P's death, a 1.5 million dollar policy left to his siblings. The Coxes are fighting to prevent the Powell family from profiting off the murder of Susan, Braden, & Charlie.

Parent's of the murdered are victim's, but they too are advocates for their murdered loved one & still fight to have their estates rightfully go to those the murdered one intended, not, to the murderer that profited from the death.

Bmore wrote:Who has Stacy's children while he's been in jail?

Drew's oldest son has them.

Sherry wrote:

Bmore wrote:Who has Stacy's children while he's been in jail?

Drew's oldest son has them.

Sherry, I read awhile back that DP had a son that was also a policeman but lost his job for giving "misleading information" in a deposition about this case. I wonder if that is the son that has the childen.

Interesting tid bit about Kathleen's oldest son, from 2011,

The sandy-haired teen will graduate as valedictorian from Bolingbrook High School in June. He is first in a class of 817 students, with a 4.808 GPA, and has his sights set on Harvard, Boston University, UCLA and Northwestern — to name a few — to study neuroscience. His classmates voted him most likely to succeed.

His achievements are all the more remarkable considering his freshman year was just beginning when Stacy Peterson, his father's fourth wife, disappeared. (he had a younger sibling born to Kathleen now 17 yrs. old)

The article too said Stephen, 31, the oldest of DP's children takes care of them.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-19/news/ct-met-drew-peterson-son-valedictoria20110319_1_drew-peterson-bolingbrook-police-sergeant-stacy-peterson

That's the one, Art Tart.

One thing I gotta say: DP's kids are quite smart and studious considering all that is going on in their lives.

Sherry wrote:That's the one, Art Tart.

One thing I gotta say: DP's kids are quite smart and studious considering all that is going on in their lives.

Sherry, I agree, I'm glad to read, despite DP being the father, Kathleen's kids are doing well & have all been kept together & living in Stephen's home.

I assume Kathleen's 2 children would have received Social Security benefits due to her death, that would surely help in raising them. Ironically, those benefits went to Drew before he was arrested.

Mistrial ‘mess’ could have huge impact on Drew Peterson trial

BY JON SEIDEL AND DAN ROZEK Sun-Times Media August 1, 2012 6:28AM



Updated: August 1, 2012 7:39PM

The jury’s in. The jury’s out.

Objection follows objection.

And now, for the second time in the first two days of this blockbuster murder trial three years in the making, the threat of a mistrial is hanging over the heads of Drew Peterson’s prosecutors.

They landed a “low blow” in court Wednesday, Will County Judge Edward Burmila said.

So with barely two witnesses questioned, the lawyers will return to Burmila’s courtroom Thursday anticipating one of at least three possible rulings: The judge could toss the entire testimony of one witness. He could also scrap the trial and start all over again. If he does, it’s not clear when they’d start again.

Or he could declare a “mistrial with prejudice.” That’s what Peterson’s lawyers sought Wednesday. And however unlikely that ruling might be, legal experts say if it happens the former Bolingbrook cop could walk free

Read more:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/14146062-460/judge-holds-off-on-declaring-mistrial-in-drew-peterson-murder-trial.html

Judge puts off ruling on mistrial in Peterson case

Drew Peterson is charged with first-degree murder

Updated: Wednesday, 01 Aug 2012, 5:31 PM EDT
Published : Wednesday, 01 Aug 2012, 9:14 AM EDT

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — The judge in the Drew Peterson murder trial has adjourned early and delayed a decision on declaring a mistrial.

A legal drama erupted Wednesday after a state witness let slip testimony that defense lawyers claim irreparably tainted jurors.

Instead of ruling immediately on the defense's mistrial motion, the judge granted a request to let Peterson's lawyers think through the matter until Thursday morning.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/national/midwest/drew-peterson-jury-to-hear-2nd-day-of-testimony-nt12-jgr_4274222

Drew Peterson’s defense wants client freed — or just let murder trial continue

By MICHAEL SNEED msneed@suntimes.com

August 1, 2012 9:36PM
Updated: August 1, 2012 9:39PM

The Peterson File ... It’s a long shot, and it’s all or nothing.

Sneed hears Drew Peterson’s defense team wants the case dismissed and their client freed.

But if the judge refuses to do so, let the show go on. No new trial. No new jury. No new judge, according to a top source.

Read more:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/14166939-452/drew-petersons-defense-wants-client-freed-or-just-let-murder-trial-continue.html

Peterson trial: Excerpt of prosecution's questioning that led to mistrial request from defense

Witness testified that he found a bullet on his driveway, felt intimidated by ex-cop

August 2, 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-trial-sidebar-0802-20120802,0,6208481.story

This is the kind of thing he'd enjoy blustering about though. It's kind of part of his reputation, or was.

I doubt that the defense is going to want a mistrial "without prejudice" (because it certainly wont be with prejudice if it does happen). This would give the prosecution a chance to fight to have everything brougt in for the next trial. The defense will probably go along with having all of the witness' statements removed.

Although I (myself) believe that they should be kept in. It just went to show what a dispicable man Drew Peterson is. This is a man that should be kept behind bars for the rest of his life. He murdered TWO wives. After the first one, the second one came even easier. He found a solution for wives leaving him.

He's a terrible, terrible person.

art tart wrote:I was curious about a Civil Suit in Kathleen's death, USUALLY children of a murder victim file a suit, but in this case, the children lived w/Drew & Stacy.

Kathleen Savio' biological parent's filed a Civil Suit against DP in 2009 & after Drew's arrest for the murder of Kathleen, they filed to have her estate re-opened & they won on that issue. I don't really know exactly what that means as Kathleen's estate, her assets, would have gone to Kathleen's 2 children she had w/Drew, NOT her parent's. imo, it is an attempt to keep DP from using/having any of Kathleen' assets, they rightfully belong to DP's children, not Drew. Kathleen's settlement of assets w/ DP, 1/2 of his retirment, part of the profit from the bar DP owned belong to the 2 children, not DP. I assume both of these cases are ongoing as I couldn't find a Judgement on the Civil Suit.
.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/14131848-452/kathleen-savios-sons-to-show-support-for-drew-peterson-at-dads-murder-trial.html

Kathleen Savio’s sons to show support for Drew Peterson at dad’s murder trial

They are the sons of accused wife murderer Drew Peterson, and they are in dad’s corner.

Sneed is told the two sons of murder victim Kathleen Savio , Kristopher and Thomas, are planning to show up at the trial of their father, who is accused of drowning Savio in a bathtub. The two are also on the list of possible witnesses.

Although the timeline of their court appearance is unclear, Sneed is told they both believe in their father’s innocence.

Sneed has learned that Kristopher, who just graduated from Bolingbrook High School, plans to sever himself from the wrongful death suit filed on his behalf by Savio’s father and sister—next Wednesday, Aug. 8, the day he turns 18 and is no longer considered a minor.

Kristopher’s decision parrots that of his brother, Thomas, 19, who also took a legal stand in defense of his father in January, 2011, when he signed a document releasing his father from all financial claims arising from the death of his mother; specifically the wrongful death suit filed by his relatives.

Gizmo711 wrote:I doubt that the defense is going to want a mistrial "without prejudice" (because it certainly wont be with prejudice if it does happen). This would give the prosecution a chance to fight to have everything brougt in for the next trial. The defense will probably go along with having all of the witness' statements removed.

Although I (myself) believe that they should be kept in. It just went to show what a dispicable man Drew Peterson is. This is a man that should be kept behind bars for the rest of his life. He murdered TWO wives. After the first one, the second one came even easier. He found a solution for wives leaving him.

He's a terrible, terrible person.

(bold added)

Since Judge B seems to rule out all the important parts of wit testimony (jmo), I'm hoping that at least the bare facts will get to the jury via LE testimony. I'm assuming that after the crime discovery and family/friends wits are done, the next phases will involve LE and the medical evidence. A long wait, considering all the kerfluffle that's likely with hearsay in/out, but I am hopeful.

Alessandra_Deux wrote:Drew Peterson’s defense wants client freed — or just let murder trial continue

By MICHAEL SNEED msneed@suntimes.com

August 1, 2012 9:36PM
Updated: August 1, 2012 9:39PM

The Peterson File ... It’s a long shot, and it’s all or nothing.

Sneed hears Drew Peterson’s defense team wants the case dismissed and their client freed.

But if the judge refuses to do so, let the show go on. No new trial. No new jury. No new judge, according to a top source.

Read more:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/14166939-452/drew-petersons-defense-wants-client-freed-or-just-let-murder-trial-continue.html

Developments from this morning's session are going to be very compelling to say the least. Oh, for an audio feed. :)

I thought the arguments were yesterday and the decision was going to be this morning. I guess I misunderstood. If the defense pretty much knows that the ruling will not be what they are arguing for, then I think its pretty disingenuous to call the prosecution misleading and disingenuous. Sometimes, I get so annoyed with te gamesmanship. Just rule already.

Drew Peterson trial updates: Defense again callsfor mistrial

By Matthew Walberg, Steve Schmadeke and Andy Grimm
Tribune reporters
9:34 a.m. CDT, August 2, 2012


9:25 p.m. Defense renews call for mistrial

The trial resumes with defense attorneys renewing their call for a mistrial.

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

8:45 a.m. Peterson jokes about handcuffs

Drew Peterson arrived in court around 8:45 a.m., dressed in a gray suit, and joked with deputies that his pants were falling down.

When defense attorney Joel Brodsky asked how his handcuffs fit as they were being unlocked, Peterson smiled and said, "I asked for some fur ones."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial-updates-decision-expected-today-on-mistrial-20120802,0,1805576.story

The Judge has denied the motion for a mistrial.

It doesn't seem the Judge is going to strike Pontarelli's testimony in its entirety, according to In Session, he will give the jurors special instructions regarding the part of Pontarelli's testimony that caused the defense to call for a mistrial.

Drew Peterson trial updates: Mistrial motion denied

By Matthew Walberg, Steve Schmadeke and Andy Grimm
Tribune reporters
10:08 a.m. CDT, August 2, 2012


9:57 a.m. Judge denies motion for mistrial

Judge Edward Burmila denied a defense motion for a mistrial, saying he did not believe missteps by the prosecution warranted such action.

Instead, jurors will be instructed to disregard testimony from a neighbor,Thomas Pontarelli, about a bullet he found in his driveway. Under questioning by prosecutors Wednesday, Pontarelli said he felt intimidated.

But prosecutors admitted to Burmila that they could not prove Peterson left the bullet there

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial-updates-decision-expected-today-on-mistrial-20120802,0,1805576.story

Puzzling since the Judge said the defense "could say if it is enough" regarding throwing out part or all of the testimony or the decision for a possible mistrial.

From Alessandra's link:
Burmila also found that prosecutors did not elicit the testimony with the intent to cause a mistrial.
____________________
Since this evidence was clearly denied BEFORE trial, the prosecutor DID ELICIT the information on purpose for the reason of getting it in, it seems the State should have gotten more of a penalty or reprimand imo, like a fine, something biting as, this may come up on APPEAL, another big pain. imo, The State can & needs to do better than they have thus far, they too are zealous, we need a conviction, not a mistrial or even grounds for the scumbag to get an appeal.

Ironically a dishonet POS murderer of 2 imo sits there on trial, I hope the State doesn't give the Defense any more reasons to scream MISTRIAL! imo, DP needs to be locked up forever, hopefully after this trial we never have to hear from him again.

art tart wrote:Puzzling since the Judge said the defense "could say if it is enough" regarding throwing out part or all of the testimony or the decision for a possible mistrial.

During their arguments this morning, the defense "put the ball on the Judge's court" (so to speak), they basically let the decision to the Judge's discretion.

The defense asked the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice, it was an "all or nothing' gamble, instead, the judge denied the motion for a mistrial and instructed the jurors to disregard the part of Pontarelli's testimony about the bullet.

Did the pros. get a chance to bring out the conversation that Pontarelli had with Peterson in the bathroom about the no towel being present. The EMT guy said that he does not recall seing a towel that night. There is one present when crimescene took pictures. It is significant only if it is also mentioned by Pontarelli.

Didn't the neighbor get a towel and attempt to cover Kathleen's head and Drew told her no she could not fool with a crime scene?

Alessandra_Deux wrote:

art tart wrote:Puzzling since the Judge said the defense "could say if it is enough" regarding throwing out part or all of the testimony or the decision for a possible mistrial.

During their arguments this morning, the defense "put the ball on the Judge's court" (so to speak), they basically let the decision to the Judge's discretion.

The defense asked the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice, it was an "all or nothing' gamble, instead, the judge denied the motion for a mistrial and instructed the jurors to disregard the part of Pontarelli's testimony about the bullet.

Alessandra, You make a good point but the Judge did say, "if the defense thought it to be enough," imo, he has hardly taken any action againt the State. The Judge too mentioned that the "entire testimony could be thrown out," too in which he opted not to do, imo, it seems he has done very little, disallowed evidence has gotten to the jury which was the objective , even the Judge said more than once to the Proecutor yesterday angrily, "it didn't make sense, she wanted to give the jury the lingering impression that DP put that bullet in the driveway." The Prosecutor admitted they COULD NOT prove that DP did it, that's exactly why it wan't allowed in. It seems the Judge is singing a different tune today, my point is, more shenangans from the State might lead to a mistrial, something nobody wants EXCEPT DP's defense team.

Although the State's evidence is weak, the performance of the State yesterday reminded me of something that Baez might have tried to get away with. A lot is at stake, we all need the scumbag convicted, but I am suprised to see the State take such risk. I hope it doesn't backfire.

11:25 a.m. Paramedic testifies about scene of death

Under questioning from prosecutors, a paramedic called to the scene after Savio's body was discovered said he thought it was odd that there was no bath rug on the floor or large towels in the bathroom.

"It did not appear that she was getting ready to take a bath," said Bolingbrook paramedic Louis Oleskiewicz said. "At home, if I don't put that stuff down on the floor and my wife's socks get wet, she gets mad."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial-updates-decision-expected-today-on-mistrial-20120802,0,1805576.story

Drew Peterson trial updates: Key testimony expected from divorce lawyer

By Matthew Walberg, Steve Schmadeke and Andy Grimm Tribune reporters
4:59 p.m. CDT, August 2, 2012

4:30 p.m. Key testimony expected from divorce lawyer

Outside the courthouse Thursday afternoon, State's Atty. James Glasgow praised Judge Edward Burmila's decision not to declare a mistrial and said he expected the prosecution would be able to get key testimony from Savio's divorce attorney, Harry Smith.

Prosecutors also filed a motion Thursday seeking to admit evidence about Peterson allegedly offering a co-worker $25,000 to hire someone to kill Savio -- something Glasgow had been barred from mentioning during his opening statement.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial-updates-decision-expected-today-on-mistrial-20120802,0,1805576.story

Peterson jury hears paramedic tell of cold, waxy body

By Joseph Hosey
JOLIET, Illinois | Thu Aug 2, 2012 9:10pm EDT

(Reuters) - A paramedic who testified on Thursday at the murder trial of Drew Peterson, a former police officer accused of killing his third wife, said her body was cold and waxy in the bathtub where he found her.

~Snipped~

Like Savio's next-door neighbor, Thomas Pontarelli, who testified on Wednesday, Oleszkiewicz said he does not remember a blue towel that appears in photos of the crime scene being there when he first arrived at the home.

Three other Bolingbrook firefighters also testified Thursday that they never saw the towel when Savio's body was discovered. Prosecutors are expected to argue that the towel was planted to make the scene look more like an accident.

Oleszkiewicz also said there was no "sediment ring" in the bathtub and that only officers from the Chicago suburban Bolingbrook Police Department -- not state troopers or investigators -- were at the house when he was arrived. Peterson is a former Bolingbrook policeman.

Read more:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/03/us-usa-crime-peterson-idUSBRE87201T20120803

art tart wrote:I am disturbed about the possibility of a mis-trial over the conduct of the Prosecution.

Even if the Judge declared a dismissal "without prejudice," I am concerned about the State being better prepared & having a more solid case. Both sides have performed badly imo, but the State should have known these shenagians wouldn't fly, I hold them to a higher standard of ethics than a bunch of scumbag defense attorney's. I know the defense is just doing their job, but I am outraged at their insulting the victim. DP is sitting there w/6 attorney's & they seem ready for the tricks the State has pulled.

More importantly, if dismissed, this is again going to be MORE pain for the Salvio family. In John Edwards case, even though it wasn't a murder case, CHOSE not to re-try John Edwards because their case was so weak & didn't think they could get a conviction, even the second time.

IF DP were to be re-tried, would it be a different Judge? would the evidence that was allowed or disallowed this time be the same for the next trial? This really sucks!

I don't understand how he can afford 6 attorneys. Is he paying for them himself?

He solicited for legal help very quickly after Stacy 'went missing' via television interviews and Brodsky took the bait. I don't know if the others are doing it for grins or not, but Brodsky snapped it up as a vehicle for self promotion.

It would be interesting to know what the jury really thinks. I would suspect that most if not all know about DP but proving it is something else altogether. I hope the prosecution gives them something to hang their hats on. I understand being on the jury, you can only consider what is presented, but still I would like to know what they think in their hearts.

Why wouldn't a judge allow the $25,000 solicitation for murder. It would be up to the jury to decide if it deserves merit or not. At least I would think so. That seems extremely damning to me. On what grounds was it not admitted?

Anna Doman, Kathleen Savio's sister, is the first witness that will testify today, Peterson's lawyer is saying that he is vigorously going to object to her testimony because it is allegedly hearsay. At a hearing in 2010, Anna Doman testified that Kathleen was afraid of Drew Peterson.

agrimm34 - Doman: Savio made sister promise to take care of her boys "if anything happened." #DrewPeterson 6 wks later told her "Kitty drowned in tub"

agrimm34 - Doman talk w/ Savio 6 wks before death: "DrewPeterson told her he was going to kill her. She wasn't going to make it to divorce settlement"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-twitter-20120731,0,5381027.htmlstory

Anna Doman saw Peterson cleaning, rubbing, the bathtub, she asked him, "what are you doing?", Peterson said that he was cleaning the tub because he didn't want the kids to see the blood, Doman said, "I didn't know there was blood in the tub.
________

Why was Peterson cleaning the crime scene?

Drew Peterson trial updates: 'Drew told her he was going to kill her'

By Matthew Walberg, Steve Schmadeke and Andy Grimm
Tribune reporters
9:35 a.m. CDT, August 3, 2012

9:30 a.m. 'Drew told her he was going to kill her'

Today's first witness is Anna Marie Doman, Kathleen Savio's older sister.

Doman testified that just weeks before her sister's death, Savio came over to her home to visit and was visibly upset.

"I asked her what was wrong, and she said Drew had told her he was going to kill her, she wasn't going to make it to the (divorce settlement) trial and she wasn't going to get his pension or the kids," Doman said.

Savio repeatedly pleaded with Doman to care for her children, Doman testified.

"She said, 'I want you to say it - take care of my kids,' " Doman testified.

Doman's voice grew strained when she was shown a photo of her sister's body in the bathtub. "That's my sister Kitty," she said, using the family's nickname for Savio.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial-updates-kathleen-savio-stacey-mistrial-20120803,0,1019573.story

Interesting that the briefcase was stashed exactly where KS told her sister it would be. "All her important papers" were in the briefcase. That is pretty damning. I am very close with my sister and I couldn't tell her for a fact just where all my important papers are. There are files, but not all together. To gather them all together and put them in a place where one wouldn't look first, lends credibility to her.

Cross examination now, trying to discredit Ms. Doman. States she didn't give the documents to police and made copies to give to Greta Vansusteran's producer in 2008. They were stored in her garage.
Ok, now I'm confused. Why would she do that?

Drew Peterson trial updates: 'Kitty's dead, she drowned'

By Matthew Walberg, Steve Schmadeke and Andy Grimm
Tribune reporters
9:45 a.m. CDT, August 3, 2012

9:45 a.m. 'Kitty's dead, she drowned'

Savio's sister, Anna Marie Doman, testified that Drew Peterson called her around 1 a.m. on the night Savio's body was found in 2004.

"He said, 'Kitty's dead, she drowned in the tub,'" Doman said. "I kept saying, 'what?' and I got a little hysterical. I said, 'I'm going to come over.' He said, 'Don't bother because she'll be gone by the time you get here.'"

Doman said she and other family members went to Savio's home the following day to look for her will and insurance information when Peterson arrived and began pounding on the front door, demanding that they let him in so that he could retrieve clothing for his children.

Doman said he took a laundry basket and went into the closet in Savio's room where he took papers and clothing, and then went into the bathroom, where she saw him leaning into the tub.

"I asked him what he was doing, and he said, 'I'm cleaning the tub because I don't want the kids to see the blood,'" Doman said. "I was like, why is there blood in the tub? She drowned."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial-updates-kathleen-savio-stacey-mistrial-20120803,0,1019573.story

agrimm34
Doman: Savio put will, insurance docs in briefcase in her car, told Doman where to find after #DrewPeterson threat 6 weeks before Savio died

agrimm34
#DrewPeterson Lopez: You gave documents to producer for Greta VanSustren b4 you gave them to state police? Doman: I gave some copies, yes

agrimm34
Doman cross by #DrewPeterson atty Joe Lopez: You turned over Savio papers to investigators "4 or 5 years later"? Doman: It was much later

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-twitter-20120731,0,5381027.htmlstory

tesstruhart wrote:Interesting that the briefcase was stashed exactly where KS told her sister it would be. "All her important papers" were in the briefcase. That is pretty damning. I am very close with my sister and I couldn't tell her for a fact just where all my important papers are. There are files, but not all together. To gather them all together and put them in a place where one wouldn't look first, lends credibility to her.

I believe that she made copies of the documents and gave some copies to Greta Van Susteren after Stacey Peterson "disappeared".

Stacy Peterson - family of Kathleen Savio Speaks Out



More videos about the case:

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