PDA

View Full Version : Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Kimster
07-29-2012, 07:40 PM
CHICAGO -- One relative of Drew Peterson's long-missing fourth wife calls him a dog who deserves to be chained. The boorish, motorcycle-loving ex-police officer on trial in the death of his third wife makes unsavory comments about his alleged victims' families, calling some money-grubbers. He points out one relative's criminal history.

Opening statements are slated for Tuesday in the long-delayed trial of Peterson, a 58-year-old former suburban Chicago police sergeant who was charged in 2009 with murdering his 40-year-old third wife, Kathleen Savio.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/drew-peterson-murder-trial-wife-kathleen-savio_n_1715755.html

PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE UNTIL THE TRIAL BEGINS ON TUESDAY!

:tyou:

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 08:12 AM
Drew Peterson saga moves to the courtroom Tuesday

ight and a half years after his third wife was found dead in a bathtub, the murder trial of former Chicago-area police officer Drew Peterson is set to begin in earnest with opening statements Tuesday.
The 58-year-old Peterson is accused in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in a trial that has been postponed for two years. He also remains under investigation in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.
A jury of seven men and five women, chosen over two days last week, will weigh Drew Peterson's fate during a trial in Joliet, Illinois, that is expected to last about a month, according to his lawyer Joel Brodsky.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/justice/illinois-peterson-trial/index.html

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 08:14 AM
Two twitter accounts.

1) Beth Karas : I'm hoping she's covering it (??) https://twitter.com/bethkaras

2) #peterson: All others - pick and choose who you want to follow or follow all like I do. lol http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23peterson

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 08:18 AM
1m Robert J. Nebel ‏@bobnebel
Opening statements in #IL v. #Peterson. Live coverage 9a-3p ET on #truTV. http://bit.ly/KrB1yl #GetGlueHD #InSession

ACandyRose
07-31-2012, 08:41 AM
I have a new web page chart I created for quick reference to previous testimony of some people who may be called as witnesses at the trial. I've included references to those who testified at the Grand Jury, the Hearsay Hearing Trial, and have columns open for adding references for the murder trial as well as the future Savio vs Peterson civil case.

When viewing the web page chart for a particular name, if you click on the *date* for the Hearsay Hearing Trial column, that link will automatically jump you to the exact location where there are notes and references to that individual's prior testimony.

Who Testified Chart
http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_names.htm

Note: This is a work in progress so I will be updating the site as new information is available.

Hope this helps :-)
ACR

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 09:02 AM
How long have we been waiting for this day!!!

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 09:03 AM
Wow. Very impressive ACR.

ACandyRose
07-31-2012, 09:16 AM
Wow. Very impressive ACR.

Thank you :-)

If anybody wishes to print the web page to use as a check off reference, choose the "Landscape" option when printing, and it should print out five pages.

Been waiting 5 long years for this day, as are many of you also!:woohoo:

Praying for justice for Kathleen!

ACR

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 10:00 AM
Opening statements in the Drew Peterson trial are this morning. Cameras aren't allowed in the courtroom, but In Session has a crew at the courthouse to bring you all the news from the trial. Get caught up on the case here: http://www.hlntv.com/clusters/drew-peterson

Prosecutors in the Drew Peterson trial are expected to call Tom and Mary Pontarelli, Robert Akin, and Chris Wolzen as their first witnesses. Tom and Mary Pontrarelli are Peterson's neighbors who found Kathleen Savio's body in 2004. In Session will post some minor updates on the the trial in the thread below.

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

Kimster
07-31-2012, 10:20 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dXhGBxK7-zY/TBXVC3n8bkI/AAAAAAAACCU/PptRSb1LaeI/s400/kathleen_savio_grave.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dXhGBxK7-zY/TBXVC3n8bkI/AAAAAAAACCU/PptRSb1LaeI/s400/kathleen_savio_grave.jpg

:rose: May your day for justice be served, Kathleen :rose:

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 10:27 AM
46m diane pathieu ‏@dianepathieu
All of the public seats in the courtroom are gone. #peterson #abc7chicago

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 10:28 AM
13m ABC 7 Chicago ‏@abc7chicago
Prosecution's first witnesses to include neighbors and locksmiths in Drew #Peterson trial

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 10:33 AM
I hope it's ok to post tweets (??)


In Session Judge Burmilla has just taken the bench. "One housekeeping thing we need to do is there's one juror that was not sworn in. I took care of that this morning, so all the jurors are now sworn."

The judge says there is one motion that needs to be addressed this morning. Defense attorney Steve Greenberg says that one of his concerns is what can and can't be said during openings. "If either side starts saying things in their opening, and they aren't proven up later on, the jurors will hear that ... some of these things are of serious concern. If the State starts getting into the specifics of the hearsay statements, we have many objections to that ... all of Kathleen Savio's statements that 'Drew's going to kill me' are not admissible." He cites case law to back up his position.


In Session Greenberg continues to go over case law that he believes backs up his position regarding use of hearsay during the openings. "We're worried about that."

In Session Greenberg also mentions motive evidence. "When a person dies, and they're already divorced, the individual is considered as a living person under the statutes. For years, we've been hearing that Drew did this for financial reasons . . . But there's a divorce decree where a judge said this was a fair settlement. They have zero evidence to show . . . that if anything happened to her he was going to benefit. So I don't think they should be allowed to argue that he was in way benefitting from her death."

In Session Greenberg wraps up by arguing that the State should not be allowed to claim that "this was a staged crime scene... they shouldn't be able to get into this in their opening, because they have no evidence of it... they can't say Drew was at the house, because they have no evidence of it... how can they say these things in opening statement? Because they want to believe it's true."

In Session The prosecution responds by arguing that there is no pertinent law that limits what can be said during openings, and disputes the case law cited by the defense.

In Session Prosecutor Connor offers some case law to the Court. Greenberg complains, says the defense was not provided with this info prior to the hearing. The judge agrees, but lets Connor proceed, and says if the defense needs time later to look at this material, that can be arranged.

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 10:35 AM
57m Beth Karas ‏@BethKaras
Attorneys have assembled. Peterson entered in chains, wearing a suit. The judge should take the bench momentarily.

https://twitter.com/bethkaras

Kimster
07-31-2012, 10:54 AM
Beth Karas is covering? I love her! She was on the radio show and I was star struck. :giggle:

She is very kind and gracious.

passionflower
07-31-2012, 11:03 AM
any idea how long this trial will take?

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 11:05 AM
Beth Karas is covering? I love her! She was on the radio show and I was star struck. :giggle:

She is very kind and gracious.

She's the best!

JustJax
07-31-2012, 11:20 AM
any idea how long this trial will take?

Our local news had Brodsky looking all confident last night smoking a 6 inch long fat stoggie making the prediction that the trial will last about a month.

JustJax
07-31-2012, 11:23 AM
I have to head into Joliet, two blocks away from the courthouse this afternoon. My Mom said that the area is already crazy with media so I expect I will need to leave super early to make my appointment. If I get close enough I will try to get some pics.

auntiejoe
07-31-2012, 11:32 AM
Tried to get all my chores done and ...well have two sick grandchildren with me unexpectetly today. lol



:rose: Justice for Kathleen :rose:

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 11:33 AM
I met Beth Karas in person and chatted with her for about 20 min or so during verdict watch for the Jason Young trial. Very sweet woman, and down-to-earth. I was excited since I had watched her during the Scott Peterson trial. We talked curly hair versus straight hair. I told her I really liked her curly hairstyles; she said the network insists on a sleeker/straighter style. I think the original CourtTV brass was much less "corporate" than the current configuration of execs.

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 12:24 PM
Sounds like Brodsky is attacking Kathleen rather than discussing the lack of evidence, even saying that DP called Kathleen a "madwoman".

Talking heads are miffed by his opening.

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 12:27 PM
Saying DP alluded that they had been getting along just before her death....bleeehh

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 12:31 PM
I'm so torn between watching the Olympics and the updates of the trial. I had to get a crash course from DH on recording. I can't say how many events I have in the queue. lol

auntiejoe
07-31-2012, 12:35 PM
Yeah I knew he would attack Kathleen. :banghead:

Drew is a good person and wants to help people that is why he became a police officer. :pinocchio: :puke:

passionflower
07-31-2012, 12:38 PM
I already have a sinking feeling..............and it is just a few hours in..........

passionflower
07-31-2012, 12:39 PM
I'm so torn between watching the Olympics and the updates of the trial. I had to get a crash course from DH on recording. I can't say how many events I have in the queue. lol

we have 2 TV's going...LOL

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 12:40 PM
Beth Karas InSession
5 minutes ago via Mobile
So many objections during each side's opening statements. Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky, spent a lot of time trashing the victim, Kathleen Savio, as a hotheaded "madwoman."

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 12:41 PM
Prosecutor James Glasgow didn’t mince words in his opening statement Tuesday in the Drew Peterson murder trial. He told the jury that Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio and "staged" her death to make it look like an accident.

"Drew Peterson and Kathleen Savio married in 1992," Glasgow said. "The marriage was not very eventful until 2002, when Drew Peterson began an affair with Stacy Cales."

The prosecutor said Peterson ran into money troubles.

"The defendant's financial crisis consisted of two houses he had to maintain. There was a series of incidents related directly to financial setbacks and physical retaliation by the defendant." Glasgow said. "The evidence will show that on March 1, 2004, Kathleen Savio's lifeless body was found in her bathtub ... Kathleen Savio was murdered, and it was staged to look like an accident."

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07/31/prosecutor-peterson-made-it-look-accident?hpt=ts1

katydid23
07-31-2012, 12:44 PM
Beth Karas InSession
5 minutes ago via Mobile
So many objections during each side's opening statements. Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky, spent a lot of time trashing the victim, Kathleen Savio, as a hotheaded "madwoman."

Why would they have to portray her as a 'madwoman' if she just accidentally drowned in her bathtub?

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 12:51 PM
Beth Karas InSession
Brodsky explains that this was an accident. Period. She drowned. There's no evidence of murder.

auntiejoe
07-31-2012, 12:52 PM
Def-No weapon found. No evvidence Drew was inside. Kathy slipped and fell, hitting her head in a household accident and drowned. Case closed.

auntiejoe
07-31-2012, 12:56 PM
Why would they have to portray her as a 'madwoman' if she just accidentally drowned in her bathtub?



Exactly....

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 12:57 PM
Defense:

8 minutes ago via Mobile ·
In Session ‎"Like all divorces, this one came to an end… It was a bifurcated divorced… They were actually getting along… things are calmed down, coming toward an end." The divorce case is continued twice, to April 6, 2004. "Kathy is not saying anything about Drew threatening to kill her…it's just all about money. Drew wanted to keep as much money as possible, and Kathy wanted to get as much money as possible."

In Session Brodsky now moves to the weekend of Savio's death. He notes that Kathleen and her boyfriend had sex that weekend; despite earlier plans to get together Saturday night, her boyfriend begs off. "Kathy wants him to come over; she wants to discuss marriage. He's not ready to discuss marriage. The call ends about midnight, and that's the last time anybody hears from Kathy Savio."

In Session According to Brodsky, Drew Peterson is home on that Saturday, "surrounded by people" (including Stacy). He attempts to drop his sons off at Savio's house on Sunday night, but gets no answer. Because it's a holiday weekend, he keeps the kids on Monday, thinking he's supposed to. But when he tries to drop them off on Monday, there is again no answer. "Now he's getting worried."
24 minutes ago ·

In Session “Going into the house that Monday was not Drew's idea; it was Mary Pontarelli's idea." So Drew calls a locksmith. "Why call the police? Drew IS the police. He's just doing his job."

In Session Brodsky: Bolingbrook police are contacted, who defer to the Illinois State Police. They see no signs of foul play…just to be extra careful, they bagged her hands. There's a full and proper autopsy…the cause of death is undisputed; the cause of death is drowning.

17 minutes ago via Mobile ·
In Session The coroner's autopsy notes indicate that Savio may have fallen. A toxicology report came back negative. A coroner's jury found the manner of death was "accident . . . and the case was closed . . . nobody did or said anything to contest that finding. The reason is because it was an accident. There's no witness to foul play, no murder weapon, no crime scene, no sign of forced entry, no sign of a struggle. The bathroom was in perfect order . . . there is not one shred of evidence that Drew Peterson or anyone else was in that house. Why? Because this was a household accident."

11 minutes ago ·

In Session ‎"What happened in the bathtub? Nobody was there, so nobody can tell us. The State will say Drew Peterson snuck in there and drowned her. . . (but) she died in the middle of the morning; who's going to sneak around in
black at 10:00 Sunday morning?"

9 minutes ago ·
In Session Brodsky concedes that interest in the case revived after Stacy went missing. He notes that the body was exhumed, and ridiculed the autopsy conducted by Dr. Michael Baden on "FOX Entertainment News . . . of course Dr. Baden's going to say it's a homicide, because if it's an accident there's no story."

5 minutes ago via Mobile
In Session Brodsky now ridicules attorney Harry Smith, who he claims came forward "only after the media circus started . . . it was good for business, free advertising." He also dismisses Sue and Anna Doman, Kathy Savio's sisters, for not originally coming forward with the claims they later made.

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 01:01 PM
8 minutes ago ·
In Session ‎"There's another person, Neil Shori. He'll testify that Drew told Stacy to lie for him. Where does he tell that story? On the Greta Van Susteren Show." This prompts an objection, and leads to a brief sidebar.

In Session Finally, let's talk about the science here. Forensics are not an exact science . . . it's an art, not a science . . . Kathy Savio was not a healthy person." (He names a long list of afflictions he claims she suffered). "She also was treated for mental illnesses" (and lists medications she was taking). "She was not a healthy person . . .the State's theory that healthy people don't drown in the bathtub is not valid, because Kathleen Savio was not healthy."
2 minutes ago ·

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 01:04 PM
In Session Brodsky describes the three pathologists he claims the defense will call, and claims all three will say this death was accidental. "In conclusion, we're going to hear in this case what I call urban legend. . . nothing but myth, rumor, innuendo, and hearsay. But you have to deal in facts, and when you do, you'll see that my client is exactly what he is: not guilty."

The defense’s opening statement ends. Judge Burmila calls the lunch recess at this time. The trial will resume at 2:15 ET.

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 01:05 PM
Talking heads all agree the Defense is on a slippery slope by trashing Kathleen so much.

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 01:08 PM
I hate that this trial is not being streamed at least online. Boo hiss!

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 01:13 PM
Beth Karas InSession
Brodsky dismisses several of the State's potential witnesses, including Savio's sisters for not coming forward with their claims that Savio feared Drew. (But Susan Doman did testify before the coroner's jury about her sister's fear.)


Beth Karas InSession
Brodsky makes fun of the State's contention that the motive for murder was money--the upcoming division of marital assets.


Beth Karas InSession
Brodsky concedes there was renewed interest in Savio's death after Stacy went missing.




Beth Karas InSession
Brodsky explains that this was an accident. Period. She drowned. There's no evidence of murder.



https://www.facebook.com/BethKarasInsession

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 01:16 PM
Update: Mistrial Nearly Declared in Peterson Murder Trial

Updated 11 a.m.

It looked like there was nearly a mistrial after Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow brought up the co-worker Drew Peterson allegedly offered $25,000 to orchestrate a hit on his third wife Kathleen Savio.

Glasgow failed to disclose to the defense he was going to use that evidence. This was a big part of the prosecution's case and they now can't use it at trial. Peterson's defense team moved for a mistrial.

There was a long argument, but the judge denied the motion. Prosecutors will still be hampered going forward.


http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-trial-begins-tuesday

ACandyRose
07-31-2012, 01:18 PM
Geeze, I'm surprised that Brodsky didn't suggest in his opening to say that "mad woman" Kathleen deserved to have an accident that killed her !!

Cubby
07-31-2012, 01:20 PM
Update: Mistrial Nearly Declared in Peterson Murder Trial

Updated 11 a.m.

It looked like there was nearly a mistrial after Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow brought up the co-worker Drew Peterson allegedly offered $25,000 to orchestrate a hit on his third wife Kathleen Savio.

Glasgow failed to disclose to the defense he was going to use that evidence. This was a big part of the prosecution's case and they now can't use it at trial. Peterson's defense team moved for a mistrial.

There was a long argument, but the judge denied the motion. Prosecutors will still be hampered going forward.


http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-trial-begins-tuesday


:thud:

Apparently Brodsky can clown around all he wishes because the prosecution is going to screw themselves with this case. *shakes head*

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 01:21 PM
So it will come down to dueling autopsy experts since all other avenues have been cut off by the judge.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 01:26 PM
So it will come down to dueling autopsy experts since all other avenues have been cut off by the judge.

Yup and "hearsay" statements. :sigh:

I'm not so confident about this case for some reason. Hope the jury sees right through the BS.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 01:33 PM
diane pathieu
@dianepathieu
Freelance reporter for ABC 7 Chicago

She's also another good reporter to follow on twitter for this case

http://twitter.com/dianepathieu

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 01:34 PM
Apparently Brodsky was READING notes during his opening, literally reading them lol.

Objections were flying from the Pros especially when Brodsky was trying to tell the Jurors DP's entire life story. HA

Needless to say it didn't flow very well,

According to JC the jurors are on to Brodsky's games.

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 01:41 PM
Pam Bosco (spokesperson for Stacy's family) held a presser a few mins ago confirming Cassandra will be called for the Prosecution.

Leila
07-31-2012, 01:43 PM
Why would they have to portray her as a 'madwoman' if she just accidentally drowned in her bathtub?

Excellent point!

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 01:44 PM
Brodsky and his cohorts talking to the media claiming they did not trash Kathleen. Just telling the Jurors what a "spitfire" she was.

IMO they look like a bunch of mobsters.

katydid23
07-31-2012, 01:45 PM
Apparently Brodsky was READING notes during his opening, literally reading them lol.

Objections were flying from the Pros especially when Brodsky was trying to tell the Jurors DP's entire life story. HA

Needless to say it didn't flow very well,

According to JC the jurors are on to Brodsky's games.

======================================

ThaT's what the talking heads all said about Baez too. And it turns out they were all wrong.

AbbieNormal
07-31-2012, 01:46 PM
His 3 mouthy lawyers out trashing KS at lunch break. She was mean, bossy, had to have her way, etc. GMAB.


Don't they realize how ridiculous they sound?

This trial is going to really get my blood pressure up, I can tell.

JMO

Kimster
07-31-2012, 01:48 PM
His 3 mouthy lawyers out trashing KS at lunch break. She was mean, bossy, had to have her way, etc. GMAB.

Gee, no wonder Drew killed her (sarcasm)

Don't they realize how ridiculous they sound?

This trial is going to really get my blood pressure up, I can tell.

Are you kidding me????????????????? They said "no wonder Drew killed her?" Are they sociopaths too????????????? I want them disbarred if they said that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :furious:

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 01:52 PM
NO the lawyers didn't say that. Everything after the first line is AbbieNormal's personal opinion.

AbbieNormal
07-31-2012, 01:55 PM
no no no, sorry I should have put JMO. I am editing it now. Sorry sorry sorry.
tHANK yOU mADELINE FOR CATCHING THAT BEFORE IT BECAME A HUGE MESS.

dog.gone.cute
07-31-2012, 02:13 PM
:tyou: Just want to Thank You all for the updates as I am following along here today ...

This morning, I saw a short clip on IS of those :silenced: "defense attorneys" and they made me absolutely :furious: :furious:

I hope the DT's "joking" and the "blasting" of the VICTIM KATHLEEN "backfires" in their faces :bang::bang:

:please: Justice for Kathleen ...

:moo:

Leila
07-31-2012, 02:32 PM
Defense opening statements are always frustrating to us as we know they're trying to paint a picture of their client's innocence. In some cases, like this one, they overreach, trashing the victim, and come off looking like fools. But, it's still frustrating!

I keep in mind that there is testimony that will come forward that will disprove much of what the defense states.

One thing that came to mind this morning, after reading that the defense claimed the coroners jury ruled Kathleen's death accidental, is that following the exhumation of Kathleen's remains and the autopsies done by the state and Michael Baden, some members of that coroners jury came forward with information on their deliberations. They were interviewed by the media.

I remember that one man said the forms they had to fill out only had "natural causes", "accidental", or "homicide" among the choices of the jury. He said the jury wasn't sure it was accidental, yet couldn't say it was homicide, and that if one of the choices had been "other", most of the jury would have opted for other, meaning the case should be further investigated.

I also remember one of the members of the coroners jury saying there was a Bolingbrook police officer on the coroners jury who knew DP and told the other members of the jury that DP was a nice guy and wouldn't have harmed Kathleen. If this is true - that a Bolingbrook police officer was on that coroners jury - he should have been disqualified as it could be claimed that officer had a conflict of interest.

I hope members of that coroners jury will testify for the prosecution.

trigger
07-31-2012, 02:44 PM
Jurors are back from their lunch break.


:please: :please:

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 02:53 PM
In Session Before the first witness can be called, the defense objects to a photo that the prosecution apparently intends to use. This is a photo of a hole the defendant allegedly cut through a wall in Kathleen Savio's home; the defense says that it should not be allowed, since the prior bad act to which it refers has previously been excluded by Judge White. The State argues it's important "to show what the defendant will do to get into that house."
14 minutes ago

In Session Ultimately, Judge Burmila rules in favor of the defense. "As far as I know, he had every right to go in there . . . you're drawing a number of conclusions from that (the hole in the wall) that I'm not sure are going to be substantiated by the evidence." Defense attorney Steve Greenbeerg charges "this is the second time today they've tried to sneak something in that was deemed improper by the preceding judge."
13 minutes ago

In Session All rise as the jurors enter the courtroom.
11 minutes ago

In Session Mary Pontarelli is called as the first prosecution witness. She lives in Bolingbrook, living next door to Drew and Kathy Peterson since 1997. She identifies a photo of herself with Kathleen Savio.
8 minutes ago

In Session The Petersons moved in next door in December, 1997. Pontarelli: "Our friendship started with our kids . . . they were great people." She and Kathleen became fast friends. "We’ve seen each other almost every day."
5 minutes ago ·

The witness says that Savio became very upset when she learned Drew was cheating on her, and the couple subsequently split up. He later moved into another home only a few blocks away.
5 minutes ago


In Session The witness went into the Savio/Peterson residence "frequently . . . at least three times a week." She says that in 2002, after the couple split up, Savio put a deadbolt lock on her bedroom door (it was installed by Tom Pontarelli, the witness' husband).

3 minutes ago
In Session Mrs. Pontarelli identifies a photo of the bedroom door. She points out the deadbolt, as well as a hole in the door itself. That hole was not there when the bolt was installed.
3 minutes ago

In Session The witness is asked about an incident in late May, 2002, when Savio was arrested in her front yard. Before she can answer, the defense objects, and the jury and the witness are both excused from the courtroom.
2 minutes ago

Lera213
07-31-2012, 02:55 PM
diane pathieu
@dianepathieu
Freelance reporter for ABC 7 Chicago

She's also another good reporter to follow on twitter for this case

http://twitter.com/dianepathieu

Thank you any way else to follow this trial and by the sound of the tweets on what the defense as tried to rebut makes them sound desperate and I believe the jury will be pissed off that the defense is trying to make the KS out to be a not so nice woman. With her sleeping with a bf having sex etc.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 02:58 PM
3 minutes ago ·
In Session Steve Greenberg argues that this incident is not relevant. But prosecutor Patton says it shows the degree of control that Drew had over Kathleen. "He took her down in the front yard, and made a citizen's arrest in front of her own children . . . this was to frighten Kathleen, to show her what he's capable of, and to help gain control of the children. We believe it is relevant"

passionflower
07-31-2012, 03:04 PM
In session done on True TV, now where can we go to follow today???

Lera213
07-31-2012, 03:05 PM
wish I knew Passion!

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:05 PM
6 minutes ago
In Session Judge Burmila questions the conclusions that might be drawn by this testimony. Greenberg: "This was specifically excluded by Judge White. This is now Number Three!" Patton: "If this isn't relevant, why did they bring it up during their opening statement?" Judge: "Why didn't you object?"

In Session Judge Burmila rules against the prosecution. "It isn't well-founded, and it isn't relevant." The witness and the jurors then return to the courtroom.


In Session Prosecutor Patton continues her direct examination by asking the witness about February 28, 2004. Mrs. Pontarelli says she saw Savio that afternoon (and then identifies Peterson in the courtroom). "Me and Kathy met up in front of my porch . . . she said that she had a great week at school, helped deliver a baby . . . she was studying to become a nurse." According to the witness, Savio said she was going to stay home and study that night (despite the witness' invitation to a party).


In Session The Pontarellis returned about midnight that night. "I made a comment to Tom, 'Wow, Kathy's still up.'. Because the light in her bedroom was on . . . I only remember the light in her bedroom."

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:08 PM
In Session ‎"I said, 'She's still studying up there.'" She then identifies a photo of Savio's house. "Recall seeing any vehicles in her driveway?" "No, I did not."

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:10 PM
In Session Prosecution: The following day, Sunday, Pontarelli asked her son, Nick, to contact Kathleen. But Kathleen responded to neither Nick's knock on the door nor to phone calls.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:11 PM
In Session On the evening of Monday, March 1, Peterson came to Pontarelli’s home. "He asked me if I'd heard from Kathleen that day . . . he said he'd tried to bring the kids back, but Kathleen still wasn't home."

Lera213
07-31-2012, 03:12 PM
This trial is not going well for the prosecution

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:13 PM
In Session ‎"He asked me if he got a locksmith if I would go in the house with him . . . I tried to contact Kathy; it went straight to voicemail." "Were you concerned?" "Yes, I did . . . I called Drew and said I'd go in with him. I went outside, and the locksmith was already working on the door."


In Session Pontarelli: "When we went in, all the lights were off . . . Steve Carcerano and I went up the stairs toward Kathy's bedroom. He (Drew) was still down by the bottom of the steps." She believes Drew turned the first light on, but isn't positive.

In Session The witness identifies photos of the stairway, and of the doorway to Savio's bedroom. She entered the bedroom, but Savio wasn't there. The room was originally dark. Pontarelli says "I turned the light on".

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:18 PM
In Session Mrs. Pontarelli now identifies a photograph of Savio's bedroom. "The first thing I noticed was the covers; it looked like someone was under the covers. I lifted them up, but there was no one there." At the same time, Steve Carcerano walked over to the bedroom, and then called her name.


In Session Mrs. Pontarelli identifies photos of Savio's bedroom and bed. She points out nursing books, which she says show Savio had been studying that night.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:24 PM
In Session The next photo shows the door to the bathroom. A second photo shows "the bathtub, where we found Kathy... when he called out my name, I went into the bathroom and seen Kathy in the tub. I ran out of the bathroom, threw myself down, and started screaming." The witness starts to cry as she identifies a photograph of Savio in the tub.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 03:25 PM
I have to leave folks....here is the link to InSession Updates from the courtroom

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

passionflower
07-31-2012, 03:25 PM
http://twitter.com/dianepathieu

witness crying on stand...shown pix of KS crime scene

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 04:18 PM
The trial is not going well for the state because the judge keeps ruling against them, declaring that everything is either not relevant or the state should have objected during opening statements.

If the judge refuses to allow the state to show a pattern of escalating behaviors culminating in Kathleen's death (murder) then yes, the state will probably not be able to get a conviction.

trigger
07-31-2012, 04:44 PM
CLTV will air nightly updates about the ongoing high-profile trial of accused wife murder Drew Peterson. Each night from 7:00pm-7:30pm, CLTV will air the nightly news special "The Drew Peterson Trial."

The half-hour live news program begins on July 31st and will run daily through the duration of the trial, as long as the court trial was in session for that day. Each show will look at the latest developments in the trial from earlier in that particular day, as well as taking a look ahead to the next day's courtroom proceedings.

"The Drew Peterson Trial" will be hosted by WGN-TV news anchor/reporter Lourdes Duarte (pictured below). Joining her each day will be in-studio legal experts to help analyze the events of this potentially important trial. Additionally, phone lines will be opened so viewers will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and ask questions of the experts.

Airings of "The Drew Peterson Trial" will preempt the 7:00pm-7:30pm airing of "CLTV Evening Edition." After the end of the Peterson trial, "CLTV Evening Edition" newscasts will return.


http://chicagoradioandmedia.com/news/2658-cltv-to-launch-nightly-news-special-the-drew-peterson-trial

dog.gone.cute
07-31-2012, 04:46 PM
The trial is not going well for the state because the judge keeps ruling against them, declaring that everything is either not relevant or the state should have objected during opening statements.

If the judge refuses to allow the state to show a pattern of escalating behaviors culminating in Kathleen's death (murder) then yes, the state will probably not be able to get a conviction.


:seeya: Thank You for this update, which does not sound very good right now ...

:waitasec: What is wrong with this judge and his decisions ? :banghead:

I really wish there were LIVE cameras in the courtroom ... :waitasec: On second thought, I don't know if I could watch after hearing this ...

:moo:

passionflower
07-31-2012, 04:48 PM
This trial is not going well for the prosecution

I am afraid, very afraid...............the devil may win ...........

AbbieNormal
07-31-2012, 05:22 PM
The first day is over and I tell you, I am NOT working this hard to follow it...IS till 3pm, then trying to catch up on the rest of the day by following tweets....we DO need a new channel to follow nothing but court cases ALL DAY LONG, not just till 3pm. Holy canole.

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 05:22 PM
I don't know if there is anything wrong with the judge's decisions and rulings, aside from the fact that we don't like them. Are they legally correct? That's the salient question.

passionflower
07-31-2012, 05:23 PM
While watching InSession I did see a representative for the Stacy Peterson family.
Do we know if Kathleen's family is at the trial?
Are Kathleen's sons there?
Are DP adult children there? from 1st wife?
Thanks

AbbieNormal
07-31-2012, 05:25 PM
The trial is not going well for the state because the judge keeps ruling against them, declaring that everything is either not relevant or the state should have objected during opening statements.

If the judge refuses to allow the state to show a pattern of escalating behaviors culminating in Kathleen's death (murder) then yes, the state will probably not be able to get a conviction.

The old Baez trick- "baffle them with BS", the defense will lose the jurors interest, perhaps, with all the in/out, objections, etc.

AbbieNormal
07-31-2012, 05:27 PM
While watching InSession I did see a representative for the Stacy Peterson family.
Do we know if Kathleen's family is at the trial?
Are Kathleen's sons there?
Are DP adult children there? from 1st wife?
Thanks

One of his sons is said to have cut all ties w/ Drew. Doubt he will be there unless he's on witness list.

ETA: Its his son, Eric.

seattlechiquita
07-31-2012, 05:30 PM
I can't follow a trial via tweets. It gets on my last nerve.

passionflower
07-31-2012, 05:33 PM
my tweets are not coming through, maybe I did something wrong and maybe I am lucky not getting them!

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 05:43 PM
There will be articles posted on a variety of news sites each day, I imagine. Check the Chicagoland area newspapers. Some reporters will do a more thorough job than others. Outside of being able to watch a trial either live or via video feed, there's not much else left.

AbbieNormal
07-31-2012, 05:43 PM
I can't follow a trial via tweets. It gets on my last nerve.

Me either. And no live-stream, even!! Even a live stream of Beth Karras would be better than nothing. IS needs to get a GRIP!!!! Are those of us that follow trials all day such a small amount of people that the people who want to watch "Dumbest Criminals", etc on IS outnumber us???????

ohiogirl
07-31-2012, 05:58 PM
I'm sure if the judge would allow tv in the courtroom that they would be there.
I'm ok with tweets as long as they give you the questions and answers instead of just saying, for instance, that there is a sidebar, but not telling you why. IS is doing a good job. jmo

ohiogirl
07-31-2012, 05:58 PM
The witness recalls an interview she had with the IL State Police. "You never told them anythuing about a bath mat or a towel?" "I don't remember exactly." She denies telling Drew that he should call a locksmith. "It wasn't my idea to call a locksmith to begin with."

ohiogirl
07-31-2012, 05:59 PM
In Session: We will continue our live coverage of the Drew Peterson trial tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. ET.58 minutes ago ·

Last from IS for today.

ohiogirl
07-31-2012, 06:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/video/chicagocbs2-15750637/drama-in-courtroom-as-drew-peterson-trial-begins-30145090.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fchicagocbs2-15750637%252Fdrama-in-courtroom-as-drew-peterson-trial-begins-30145090.html
video recap of the day

ohiogirl
07-31-2012, 06:06 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/drew-peterson-murder-trial-under-way-illinois-150003714.html

another recap

ohiogirl
07-31-2012, 06:10 PM
see you tomorrow

TallCoolOne
07-31-2012, 06:26 PM
*sigh*...

I really hate to say this but it is beginning to seem as if the state is going to botch this one up and if that is the case, I think I will stop following trials. I can't take another Anthony outcome, I really can't. It isn't as if they haven't had adequate time to prepare for this either. I'm sure not liking what has occurred so far.......

I absolutely hate DP with all my being and I know if he escapes justice he will be even more of an Ahole than what we have witnessed prior and I can't take that.

Please get your act together prosecution team, I beg of you.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 06:35 PM
Anonymous letter to Savio informing her that Drew Peterson was cheating on her.


http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/letter-to-kathleen-savio.pdf

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07/25/glimpe-some-drew-peterson-evidence

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 06:35 PM
I think it's unfair to judge the prosecution team based on one day of trial. First of all, the way a trial goes is largely due to the judge's rulings. A team can only discuss what is allowed by the judge. If the judge says NO then that's that, unless you take a motion up the chain to an appeal court.

What mistakes has the prosecution team made so far?

If they did something wrong in the months, weeks and days leading up to the trial, then that's a whole other matter. I don't know the history of the state on prepping this case.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 06:40 PM
The defense begins its cross-examination of Maria Pontarelli. Follow this thread for continuing updates on the Drew Peterson trial.

In Session The defense begins its cross-examination of Mary Pontarelli. The witness describes the subdivision in which she lives ("Pheasant Run"). She acknowledges that her family is close to the Carcerano family. Defense: "When Kathy and Drew lived there, the neighbors were friendly with one another?" Pontarelli: "Yes.". When asked if she felt safe having a police officer next door, Mrs. Pontarelli responds, "Absolutely."

In Session Mrs. Pontarelli agress that Kathleen Savio could be "tough . . . I wouldn't call her bossy . . . she had strong passions."

In Session The witness says she and Savio used to "chit-chat" about their lives. Defense: "Sometimes she woule over-exagerate about things." Pontarelli: "No."


In Session The attorney starts to ask the witness about her earlier testimony in 2008. But he can't find the passage he's looking for, so he decides to move on. When she first saw Savio on February 28, it appeared Kathleen had just returned from grocery shopping. Pontarelli: "She said she had finals in two weeks. That's what she was studying for."

In Session Pontarelli describes the Pheasant Chase subdivision where she lives. She repeats she thought nothing of it when she saw Savio's bedroom light on that Saturday night.

In Session The witness acknowledges that Savio hoped to marry her boyfriend, Steve, and move away. "Drew had started over, and she could, too." She knew that Savio knew that Drew had had girlfriends, and wasn't happy about it. She says "the first hint she (Savio) got of what was going on" with Stacy and Drew was when she received an anonymous letter in 2002

In Session The first time she saw Drew that weekend was on Monday. Her only conversation with Savio that weekend was Saturday afternoon.


In Session Mrs. Pontarelli recalls that Peterson came to her house Monday night, March 1, 2004. He was wearing his police sergeant's uniform, and was looking for Kathleen.


In Session After speaking to Steve,Savio's boyfriend, she learned that he had last seen Kathleen Saturday evening. Pontarelli: "That's when I called Drew and said,'OK. I'll go in the house with you.'"


In Session Judge Burmila decides this is a good time to take the afternoon break. Court is in recess until 3:10 CT.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 06:45 PM
Beth Karas InSession

2 hours ago via Mobile.


During the direct of the first witness, a photo of Savio in the bathtub was displayed. Savio was in a fetal position on her left side. Her feet were flexed with her toes bent against the tub. There was a trail of blood--not too much--under her. There was no ring of dried blood around the tub and the tub was dry. Her head was at the opposite end from the spigot. Savio was 5'5". The tub was too small for her to stretch out in it. There was a folded towel on the shelf/lip of the tub. The witness said there was no towel when she entered nor was there a rug in front of the tub.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 06:46 PM
Me either. And no live-stream, even!! Even a live stream of Beth Karras would be better than nothing. IS needs to get a GRIP!!!! Are those of us that follow trials all day such a small amount of people that the people who want to watch "Dumbest Criminals", etc on IS outnumber us???????

No fault of InSession. The Judge ruled no cameras in the court room. I'm just grateful we have tweeters and we can follow along best we can.

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 06:48 PM
Anonymous letter to Savio informing her that Drew Peterson was cheating on her.


http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/letter-to-kathleen-savio.pdf

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07/25/glimpe-some-drew-peterson-evidence

Thank you n/t and all for keeping us updated!

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 06:55 PM
Wife-Killer Suspect Drew Peterson Is All Smiles On First Day Of Murder Trial

By Debbie Emery - Radar Reporter

The prospect of life in prison didn't stop murder suspect Drew Peterson from joking and casually chatting with his attorneys as he walked into court on Tuesday for the first day of his long-awaited trial.

Within minutes of the former Chicago police sergeant entering the Joliet, Illinois courtroom, his lawyers had already interrupted the proceedings and asked for a mistrial over the ongoing argument that most of the crucial testimony will be hearsay evidence recounting words from both his third wife, Kathleen Savio, whom he is accused of murdering in 2004, and his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who vanished in 2007.



http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/07/drew-peterson-murder-trial-smiles

katydid23
07-31-2012, 07:04 PM
*sigh*...

I really hate to say this but it is beginning to seem as if the state is going to botch this one up and if that is the case, I think I will stop following trials. I can't take another Anthony outcome, I really can't. It isn't as if they haven't had adequate time to prepare for this either. I'm sure not liking what has occurred so far.......

I absolutely hate DP with all my being and I know if he escapes justice he will be even more of an Ahole than what we have witnessed prior and I can't take that.

Please get your act together prosecution team, I beg of you.

I don't think the state is botching it. They were just unlucky enough to get a pro-defense judge. They came to the trial with some great ammo, but none of it is being allowed in.

It feels to me like the judge is worried that if the state wins, the case will be turned around on appeals later on. He wants to protect his reputation and his percentages. imo. So he is nixing any possible thing the defense could appeal the verdict with. And since the prosecution cannot appeal a verdict, he is safe. :mad:

TallCoolOne
07-31-2012, 07:07 PM
I think it's unfair to judge the prosecution team based on one day of trial. First of all, the way a trial goes is largely due to the judge's rulings. A team can only discuss what is allowed by the judge. If the judge says NO then that's that, unless you take a motion up the chain to an appeal court.

What mistakes has the prosecution team made so far?

If they did something wrong in the months, weeks and days leading up to the trial, then that's a whole other matter. I don't know the history of the state on prepping this case.

Oh honey, I know what you say is true, I think I am just disheartened that the prosecution didn't start out with making a few points. The updates seem as if all they did was keep hitting walls.

I am letting my emotions get in the way and I know it. I just want to see justice for Kathleen.

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 07:10 PM
diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
States Attorney not making any comments today. #DrewPeterson


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Judge: 'that concludes evidence for today, we'll resume at 9am tomorrow' #DrewPeterson



diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
To recap: Assistant State's Attrny Kathy Patton questioning Peterson/Savio neighbor & good friend Mary #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
In rebuttal, Pros. asking about towels in bathroom again. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli called back to stand. #DrewPetersondiane pathieu‏@dianepathieu

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Cross-examination over. Jury asked to step out AGAIN. This makes 4 times.


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli didn't allow son Nick - who was one of the last people to see Savio alive- speak to police that night #DrewPeterson


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
'so you don't remember talking to Bolingbrook Police that night' -defense

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli says she can't remember parts of what she told Bolingbrook Police- now says she can't recall all of the interviews w/detectives.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli confirms #DrewPeterson was visibly upset when they found Savio: said 'what am I going to tell my kids'

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense asking again about scene, specifically about a blue towel she claims was not there. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli says she never saw basket of towels in bathroom when she found her friend- defense shows pic of crime scene w/basket of towels.


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
They are taking moments, short moments off, then asking about what was in the bathroom where Savio was found. #DrewPeterson


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli still on stand saying Savio always put her hair in a clip before bathing and her hair was found down when she was found, no clip.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
We are back, 15mins in, discussing room around Savios body. Closets, space, etc. #DrewPeterson
diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli recalling last moments & phone calls made before discovering Savio in the tub. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense to witness:' You saw nothing unusual that night' "right" #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
@Tammybaby65 Saw light night before, midnight- the next day- same light was off.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense says Pontarelli's son Nick was "a little too close" to kathleen savios
diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu

As far as Pontarelli knows, her son Nick saw Kathleen Savio alive last. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli saw a light on at Savios home but taught she must have been studing. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense: "kathy was no pushover... she would fight back, right?" Witness: yes #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense asking witness about 'arguing' between Drew & Kathleen.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense asking about Italian connection among neighbors & how friendly neighbors were. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Cross examination started. #DrewPeterson




Read bottom up http://twitter.com/dianepathieu

~n/t~
07-31-2012, 07:20 PM
This is a very tough case and the pros do have an uphill battle because a lot of it is based on hearsay and autopsy reports (5 years later!) I think they will prevail in the end and Kathleen will get justice and in a way so will Stacy.

Fingers crossed!

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 07:26 PM
Oh honey, I know what you say is true, I think I am just disheartened that the prosecution didn't start out with making a few points. The updates seem as if all they did was keep hitting walls.

I am letting my emotions get in the way and I know it. I just want to see justice for Kathleen.

The state tried to make several points and bring in some evidence, the defense objected and the judge sustained the objections. What would you have the state's team do in that situation?

Kimster
07-31-2012, 08:14 PM
Anonymous letter to Savio informing her that Drew Peterson was cheating on her.


http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/letter-to-kathleen-savio.pdf

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/07/25/glimpe-some-drew-peterson-evidence

Don't you wish you could turn back time and warn women about these sociopaths? :tears:

TallCoolOne
07-31-2012, 08:33 PM
The state tried to make several points and bring in some evidence, the defense objected and the judge sustained the objections. What would you have the state's team do in that situation?

I guess if I had said I would have done differently I might understand your asking me that, but I only stated that I wished the prosecution had made a few points instead of hitting walls. Sorry if you took that otherwise than intended.

Madeleine74
07-31-2012, 08:36 PM
I wish the judge had allowed the prosecution to put in some of the evidence that would have made a few points and connections, instead of the team having their hands tied.

Coldpizza
07-31-2012, 09:20 PM
Since we are wishing...

I wish Stacy to be found and DP to go down.

See you all in the am.

Leila
07-31-2012, 09:56 PM
I watched part of Nancy Grace with Rita Cosby filling in for Nancy, but no new info than what's been shared here.

Dr. Drew came on and he had Mark Garagoes on and of course Mark says the prosecution has no case. Peterson attorney, Steve Greenberg, was also on and agreed. There was a prosecution attorney (didn't catch his name) who argued that there's a lot of evidence that will come in and it's the accumulation of all this evidence, when put together, that will convict Drew Peterson.

One thing about today's court proceedings that caught me by surprise is the mention that Drew offered a co-worker $25,000 to kill Kathleen. I don't remember ever hearing about that before. Is this something that's just now being released publicly? Are we to assume the co-worker would be a Bolingbrook police officer? I would think this would be extremely relevant, but I guess it goes to "prior bad acts."

mitzi
07-31-2012, 10:21 PM
His 3 mouthy lawyers out trashing KS at lunch break. She was mean, bossy, had to have her way, etc. GMAB.


Don't they realize how ridiculous they sound?

This trial is going to really get my blood pressure up, I can tell.

JMO

After watching every moment of the Anthony trial and it's disgusting outcome, I really am worried about Peterson's trial. And I totally agree with you about blood pressure...mine is way up right now. I may get to the point where I cannot read any more, and just wait for the verdict. The darn judge keeps taking away everything the prosecution has.

If DP walks, maybe Bolingbrook can elect him mayor....after all, DP is such a wonderful, conscientious, former policeman who has never done anything wrong. *sarcasm intended* At least that is how he is coming off to the jury since Burmilla won't let anything negative about him in. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

mitzi
07-31-2012, 10:38 PM
I don't think the state is botching it. They were just unlucky enough to get a pro-defense judge. They came to the trial with some great ammo, but none of it is being allowed in.

It feels to me like the judge is worried that if the state wins, the case will be turned around on appeals later on. He wants to protect his reputation and his percentages. imo. So he is nixing any possible thing the defense could appeal the verdict with. And since the prosecution cannot appeal a verdict, he is safe. :mad:

Bold mine.

Can we say Judge Perry? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

mitzi
07-31-2012, 10:42 PM
diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
States Attorney not making any comments today. #DrewPeterson


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Judge: 'that concludes evidence for today, we'll resume at 9am tomorrow' #DrewPeterson



diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
To recap: Assistant State's Attrny Kathy Patton questioning Peterson/Savio neighbor & good friend Mary #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
In rebuttal, Pros. asking about towels in bathroom again. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli called back to stand. #DrewPetersondiane pathieu‏@dianepathieu

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Cross-examination over. Jury asked to step out AGAIN. This makes 4 times.


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli didn't allow son Nick - who was one of the last people to see Savio alive- speak to police that night #DrewPeterson


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
'so you don't remember talking to Bolingbrook Police that night' -defense

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli says she can't remember parts of what she told Bolingbrook Police- now says she can't recall all of the interviews w/detectives.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli confirms #DrewPeterson was visibly upset when they found Savio: said 'what am I going to tell my kids'

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense asking again about scene, specifically about a blue towel she claims was not there. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli says she never saw basket of towels in bathroom when she found her friend- defense shows pic of crime scene w/basket of towels.


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
They are taking moments, short moments off, then asking about what was in the bathroom where Savio was found. #DrewPeterson


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli still on stand saying Savio always put her hair in a clip before bathing and her hair was found down when she was found, no clip.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
We are back, 15mins in, discussing room around Savios body. Closets, space, etc. #DrewPeterson
diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu


diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli recalling last moments & phone calls made before discovering Savio in the tub. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense to witness:' You saw nothing unusual that night' "right" #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
@Tammybaby65 Saw light night before, midnight- the next day- same light was off.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense says Pontarelli's son Nick was "a little too close" to kathleen savios
diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu

As far as Pontarelli knows, her son Nick saw Kathleen Savio alive last. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Pontarelli saw a light on at Savios home but taught she must have been studing. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense: "kathy was no pushover... she would fight back, right?" Witness: yes #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense asking witness about 'arguing' between Drew & Kathleen.

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Defense asking about Italian connection among neighbors & how friendly neighbors were. #DrewPeterson

diane pathieu‏@dianepathieu
Cross examination started. #DrewPeterson




Read bottom up http://twitter.com/dianepathieu

Bold red mine.

Is the defense trying to imply that 14 yr. old Nick P. was having a sexual relationship with Kathleen? Good GAWD! :maddening:

AbbieNormal
08-01-2012, 12:56 AM
Defense implying or outright saying that the bruising on KS body was from rough sex w/ her boyfriend. HTH would THEY know that? Also, how is saying she had sex that w/e with
her boyfriend relevant to the case, except to establish the boyfriend was with her?

AmandaReckonwith
08-01-2012, 01:11 AM
We will try to keep the case archive updated each day. Day 1 is in.

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Murder%20Trial%20-%20The%20Kathleen%20Savio%20Case/

AmandaReckonwith
08-01-2012, 01:18 AM
<snipped>

One thing about today's court proceedings that caught me by surprise is the mention that Drew offered a co-worker $25,000 to kill Kathleen. I don't remember ever hearing about that before. Is this something that's just now being released publicly? Are we to assume the co-worker would be a Bolingbrook police officer? I would think this would be extremely relevant, but I guess it goes to "prior bad acts."

It isn't new. The hitman was revealed during the Hearsay Hearings.

The guys name is Jeff Patcher. 1/28/10 he testified that Drew asked him to find someone who could take care of his wife (because iirc, Jeff said he wasn't able to kill anyone).
Anyways, here is one of the captures:
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Hearsay%20Hearing%20-%20The%20Savio%20Murder%20Case/?action=view&current=008-3.jpg

ETA- Here's a vid that explains what happened:
Hearsay Hearing - The Savio Murder Case :: 1/28/10 video by crankycrankerson - Photobucket@@AMEPARAM@@http://vid296.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Hearsay%20Hearing%20-%20The%20Savio%20Murder%20Case/018-2.mp4@@AMEPARAM@@vid296@@AMEPARAM@@296@@AMEPARAM@@ mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Hearsay%20Hearing%20-%20The%20Savio%20Murder%20Case/018-2@@AMEPARAM@@mp4



And-- there is a wealth of info in the Hearsay Hearings archive, here:
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Hearsay%20Hearing%20-%20The%20Savio%20Murder%20Case/

Leila
08-01-2012, 03:40 AM
It isn't new. The hitman was revealed during the Hearsay Hearings.

The guys name is Jeff Patcher. 1/28/10 he testified that Drew asked him to find someone who could take care of his wife (because iirc, Jeff said he wasn't able to kill anyone).
Anyways, here is one of the captures:
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Hearsay%20Hearing%20-%20The%20Savio%20Murder%20Case/?action=view&current=008-3.jpg

ETA- Here's a vid that explains what happened:
Hearsay Hearing - The Savio Murder Case :: 1/28/10 video by crankycrankerson - Photobucket (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Hearsay%20Hearing%20-%20The%20Savio%20Murder%20Case/?action=view&current=018-2.mp4)



And-- there is a wealth of info in the Hearsay Hearings archive, here:
http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Hearsay%20Hearing%20-%20The%20Savio%20Murder%20Case/

Thanks AmandaReckonwith! I was here for the hearsay hearings and I guess I must have forgotten completely about the money offer. I do wish this evidence could come in.................but know that it likely does fall under the "prior bad acts."

Sooner Fan#1
08-01-2012, 04:32 AM
I have followed this from the beginning and I just have to believe this country has learned something from the Anthony case.

I have faith in the jury, I just have to. I think they will see Drew for the person he is and we will have justice.

LaLaw2000
08-01-2012, 05:54 AM
Thanks so much for the updates, everyone. I have been very busy for the last several days. I have been on pins and needles waiting for this trial to begin!

I have just got to believe that this jury does not want to become another Pinellas 12. This jury will at least review the evidence, IMO, and try very hard to do the right thing.

The most powerful thing in the trial is going to be Kathleen's own words as said to others and her words on paper. It ain't over 'till it's over!

MOO

Nonnie
08-01-2012, 06:02 AM
I can understand why " prior bad acts " are not admissible because their not relevant to the case, but isn't this particular "bad act" relevant to this case?

ACandyRose
08-01-2012, 08:56 AM
We will try to keep the case archive updated each day. Day 1 is in.

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio%20%20-IL-/Murder%20Trial%20-%20The%20Kathleen%20Savio%20Case/

Thank you Amanda, your site is a wonderful resource on a LOT of cases!!

I remember when I first met you online, way back in 2007 when Stacy first when missing and we were trying to figure out who Michael Robinson was, and you sent me a news clipping from the Chicago Tribune with a photo showing Robinson outside Peterson's house. Thank you then and thank you now.

ACR

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:18 AM
In Session When court reconvenes at 10a ET, the State's next witnesses are expected to be Tom Pontarelli, Kathleen Savio's neighbor and husband of witness Mary Pontarelli, and two locksmiths who were involved in opening Savio's door @ Peterson's request.
8 minutes ago

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:34 AM
19m In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson : after Pontarelli, State is expected to call 2 locksmiths that DP contacted about opening #KathleenSavio's front door.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:37 AM
This is a live blog.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/drew-peterson-murder-trial-164360506.html

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:38 AM
In Session
2 minutes ago
Tom Pontarelli, Kathleen Savio's neighbor and the husband of yesterday's witness, Mary Pontarelli, is expected to be the next witness in Day 2 of the Drew Peterson trial. Court is expected to resume shortly. Follow this thread for live updates on the events in court.

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:44 AM
about a minute ago

In Session here is some info on the prosecution's first witness, Mary Pontarelli who testified yesterday: Prosecution Witness #1) MARY PONTARELLI (next-door neighbor and close friend of drowning victim Kathleen Savio)
* Became friends with Drew and Kathleen Savio Peterson when the Petersons moved next door in 1997. She was especially close to Kathleen. “We seen [sic] each other almost every day.”
* Recalled how the Petersons split up after Kathleen learned that Drew was having an affair with Stacy Cales.
* After Drew Peterson moved out, Kathleen had a deadbolt lock installed on her bedroom door.
* Last saw Savio on the afternoon of Saturday, February 28, 2004. “She said that she had a great week at school . . . she was studying to become a nurse.” Said that Savio told her she was going to stay home that night and study.
* Saw Savio’s bedroom light was still on when she and her husband returned home from a party that night around midnight.
* On Monday, evening (March 1), she received a call from Drew Peterson. “He said he’d tried to bring the kids back, but Kathleen still wasn’t home . . . he asked me if he got a locksmith if I would go in the house with him.”
* After unsuccessfully trying to reach Savio by phone, Mrs. Pontarelli agreed to go along with Drew Peterson’s plan. “I went outside; the locksmith was already working on the door.”
* Once the front door was open, Pontarelli went upstairs with another neighbor, Steve Cancerano. “He [Peterson] was still down by the bottom of the steps.”
* After she and Cancerano entered Savio’s bedroom, Cancerano headed toward the master bathroom. “He called out my name, I went into the bathroom, and seen [sic] Kathy in the tub. I ran out of the bathroom, threw myself down, and started screaming.”
* Described injuries she noted on Savio’s body. “She had a cut in her head . . . there was dried blood in her hair . . . then I noticed some bruising on her wrists and on her buttocks. She also had some blood coming out of her nose.”
* After she screamed, her husband, her son, and Peterson came running up to the bathroom. “Drew did take her pulse. I said, ‘Is the dead?’ And he said, ‘Yes, Mary, she is.’”
* Pontarelli’s first impulse was to drape something over Savio’s body. But Peterson told that she shouldn’t.
* Described the Peterson/Savio divorce as “bitter” . . . but acknowledged that as time went on “it seemed that they were getting along better.”
* Agreed that Kathleen Savio could be “tough . . . I wouldn’t call her bossy . . . she had strong passions.”
* Doesn’t recall seeing a robe or any clothing near Savio’s bathtub. However, she acknowledged that a photo of the scene seems to show a blue robe inside the room.
* Peterson was in uniform on the night in question. But when he rushed up the stairs and into the bathroom as a result of Pontarelli’s scream, he did not have his gun drawn.

ohiogirl
08-01-2012, 09:45 AM
I can understand why " prior bad acts " are not admissible because their not relevant to the case, but isn't this particular "bad act" relevant to this case?

Yes, but they reported yesterday that the Pros. didn't notify the defense they would be bringing this in, so it wasn't allowed. Doh!:seeya:

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:46 AM
Glenn Marshall
‏@GMarshall_Jr


"We're supporting the family" Stacy Peterson's family spokesperson #DrewPeterson @nbcchicago pic.twitter.com/nQsaYXrz

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:57 AM
8m agrimm34 ‏@agrimm34
#DrewPeterson lawyer Joel Brodsky enters courthouse, talks to press. SA Glasgow walks past cameras

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:58 AM
16s Jill Bastian ‏@jillbastian5
Drew thinks court is going well, according to his Atty Joel Brodsky. #DrewPeterson


1m Dan Rozek ‏@DanRozek1
#DrewPeterson prosecution witness Mary Pontarelli bolstered Peterson's defense, attorney Joel Brodsky said.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 09:59 AM
1m In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson : State is expected to file motion so defense can't ask about prior DUI from a potential witness who may testify this morning.


:banghead:

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:02 AM
In Session Cameras aren't allowed in the courtroom, but we have producer Michael Christian sending up to second updates from court. We will post those updates on Facebook and Twitter as soon as we get them.
43 seconds ago

In Session The parties are gathering in the vicinity of the Peterson courtroom, but it doesn’t look as if they’re ready to start within the next few minutes. Some of the defense attorneys are milling in the hallway, while a couple of the prosecutors are inside the courtroom. But much of each team is still missing.

Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 10:03 AM
This isn't going too well for prosecution so far. Just my impression....

LaLaw2000
08-01-2012, 10:04 AM
I can understand why " prior bad acts " are not admissible because their not relevant to the case, but isn't this particular "bad act" relevant to this case?

This prior bad act involved the victim of the case, so I'm having the same problem understanding as you are. Events that happened toward the end of the marriage would be relevant I would think because they all led to the final outcome - murder.

*I just read the why. Sigh. Excuse my stupid comment, please.

MOO

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:09 AM
In Session Prosecution PIO Chuck Pelkie has just given us the expected lineup of today’s witnesses. In addition to Tom Pontarelli, Robert Akin, and Chris Wolzen, we may hear from Louis Oleszkiewicz, a paramedic or EMT who responded to the house after Kathleen Savio’s body was discovered.


2m agrimm34 ‏@agrimm34
#DrewPeterson Witnesses today: Savio neighbor Tom Pontarelli, paramedic Louis Oleszkiewicz, locksmiths Chris Wolzen and Robt Akin

Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 10:09 AM
The prosecution didn't stick to the rules with disclosure, rookie error. That's why its not admissable.

I've a horrible feeling this guy is going to walk.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:10 AM
In Session Judge Burmila has just taken the bench. The prosecution asks for a few more minutes, “to plug in,” which the judge grants.
57 seconds ago

In Session Both sides are now ready to go. Judge Burmila sends for the jury.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:15 AM
In Session All rise as the jurors enter the courtroom. The prosecution calls Thomas Pontarelli as its next witness. The direct examination will be by prosecutor Kathy Patton.
about a minute ago

In Session Thomas Pontarelli takes the stand. He lives at 396 Pheasant Chase Drive in Bolingbrook (with his wife, his son, Nick, and other family members). Prosecution: “Do you know Drew Peterson?” Pontarelli: “Yes, I do.” He identifies the defendant inside the courtroom.
11 seconds ago

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:25 AM
In Session Pontarelli says Drew and Kathleen Savio Peterson moved in next door “in approximately 1999.” He identifies a photograph of Kathleen Savio.
6 minutes ago

In Session Prosecution: “Did you become friends with the Petersons?” Pontarelli: “Yes, we did.” Prosecution: “Did your wife also become friends with them?” Pontarelli: “Yes . . . we had neighbor barbeques, we went to Lake Geneva together, and a camping trip, out to dinner, things like that, holidays.” Prosecution: “You knew that he was a police officer?” Pontarelli: “Yes.”

At some point, he came to realize that the Petersons were undergoing divorce proceedings. Pontarelli: “She [Kathleen] was attending school to become a nurse.” Prosecution: “Are you aware that the first portion of the divorce was final before Kathleen’s death?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “Who were the children living with at that time?” Pontarelli: “They were living with Kathy.”
He says Drew moved to a new home “down the block and around the corner…a block and a half [away], or two blocks.” At this time, Drew was married to Stacy Peterson. He now identifies a photograph of Stacy Peterson.
about a minute ago

In Session Pontarelli says his house and the Savio house were “about 15 feet apart.” Using a laser pointer he notes on a projected photograph the two homes.
A few seconds ago

3 minutes ago · Like


In Session Prosecution: “In early 2002, about the time the marriage began to break up, did Kathleen ask you to do anything with a lock in her house?” The witness starts to answer, “Yes, she did” … but before he can go any further, the defense objects. The attorneys are now all at a sidebar.
about a minute ago

In Session The sidebar ends, and Pontarelli confirms that Kathleen Savio asked him to install a lock “on her bedroom door.” He identifies a photograph of the door and lock in question. The photo shows a hole in the door, but the witness says he had nothing to do with that.

In Session Mr. Pontarelli is shown another photograph. Pontarelli: “That looks like the door we just seen; that’s the inside of the door.” Once again, the photograph shows a hole that the witness said he didn’t have anything to do with. Prosecution: “There are scratches on the inside of the latch lock.” “And also there are scratches around the hole?” Pontarelli: “Yes. There are scratches on the lock.” Prosecution: “Was that like that the day you installed it?” Pontarelli: “No.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:28 AM
In Session Prosecution: “Did the defendant call you about a new lock on the front door at any time?” Pontarelli: “We had a conversation about that, yes…it was on the phone…he called me.” Prosecution: “What, if anything, did he tell you?” There is a defense objection to this, which is sustained. Prosecution: “What did he say to you?” Pontarelli: “That he didn’t want me helping her change the locks…I said that I got his message…this was about the front door, and he told me not to be changing the locks on the front door. And I told him I didn’t do it.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:33 AM
In Session At one point (he can’t remember the date), the witness helped Savio move some things from her home into his garage. Drew showed up while this was going on. Pontarelli: “He told me he didn’t want anyone moving my stuff, and ‘any friend of hers was an enemy of mine.’”


In Session The witness last saw Savio alive on the afternoon of Saturday, February 28, 2004. They had a conversation when the Pontarellis returned from a vacation; they spoke briefly outside her home. Prosecution: “Did you ever see Kathleen Savio alive again?” Pontarelli: “No.”



In Session On Saturday evening, the Pontarelli family went to a party, returning approximately 12:20 am. When they returned, he noticed “her bedroom light was on.” Prosecution: “Is that the only light you saw on?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Using a photo and a laser pointer, the witness points out this bedroom window. Prosecution: “Did you say anything about that?” Pontarelli: “Just that she must have been up studying.” Prosecution: “Did you see any other lights on in the house?” Pontarelli: “No.” Prosecution: “Any outdoor lights on?” Pontarelli: “No.”

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 10:34 AM
about a minute ago

In Session here is some info on the prosecution's first witness, Mary Pontarelli who testified yesterday: Prosecution Witness #1) MARY PONTARELLI (next-door neighbor and close friend of drowning victim Kathleen Savio)
* Became friends with Drew and Kathleen Savio Peterson when the Petersons moved next door in 1997. She was especially close to Kathleen. “We seen [sic] each other almost every day.”
* Recalled how the Petersons split up after Kathleen learned that Drew was having an affair with Stacy Cales.
* After Drew Peterson moved out, Kathleen had a deadbolt lock installed on her bedroom door.
* Last saw Savio on the afternoon of Saturday, February 28, 2004. “She said that she had a great week at school . . . she was studying to become a nurse.” Said that Savio told her she was going to stay home that night and study.
* Saw Savio’s bedroom light was still on when she and her husband returned home from a party that night around midnight.
* On Monday, evening (March 1), she received a call from Drew Peterson. “He said he’d tried to bring the kids back, but Kathleen still wasn’t home . . . he asked me if he got a locksmith if I would go in the house with him.”
* After unsuccessfully trying to reach Savio by phone, Mrs. Pontarelli agreed to go along with Drew Peterson’s plan. “I went outside; the locksmith was already working on the door.”
* Once the front door was open, Pontarelli went upstairs with another neighbor, Steve Cancerano. “He [Peterson] was still down by the bottom of the steps.”
* After she and Cancerano entered Savio’s bedroom, Cancerano headed toward the master bathroom. “He called out my name, I went into the bathroom, and seen [sic] Kathy in the tub. I ran out of the bathroom, threw myself down, and started screaming.”
* Described injuries she noted on Savio’s body. “She had a cut in her head . . . there was dried blood in her hair . . . then I noticed some bruising on her wrists and on her buttocks. She also had some blood coming out of her nose.”
* After she screamed, her husband, her son, and Peterson came running up to the bathroom. “Drew did take her pulse. I said, ‘Is the dead?’ And he said, ‘Yes, Mary, she is.’”
* Pontarelli’s first impulse was to drape something over Savio’s body. But Peterson told that she shouldn’t.
* Described the Peterson/Savio divorce as “bitter” . . . but acknowledged that as time went on “it seemed that they were getting along better.”
* Agreed that Kathleen Savio could be “tough . . . I wouldn’t call her bossy . . . she had strong passions.”
* Doesn’t recall seeing a robe or any clothing near Savio’s bathtub. However, she acknowledged that a photo of the scene seems to show a blue robe inside the room.
* Peterson was in uniform on the night in question. But when he rushed up the stairs and into the bathroom as a result of Pontarelli’s scream, he did not have his gun drawn.


I hope the jury picked up on this point.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:35 AM
In Session Around 10:00 pm on Monday, March 1, “my wife got a call from Drew.” Peterson reported that he couldn’t get a hold of Kathleen, and he was getting a locksmith. Mr. and Mrs. Pontarelli, their son (Nick), and neighbor Steve Carcerano came over. Pontarelli: “He [the locksmith] was already working on the front door…the locksmith left, and we walked in…Steve, Mary, Nick, and myself.” Prosecution: “Was the light on inside the house?” Pontarelli: “We had to turn the light on; I don’t know who turned it on.” Prosecution: “Where did you go?” Pontarelli: “I went down the hallway, through the kitchen, and to the service door entrance to the garage. I opened the service door to see if the car was there…then I heard screaming…I went up the stairs.” At this time, Drew “was standing in the voyeur, right next to the front door.”



In Session Pontarelli ran by Drew and started up the stairs. Prosecution: “Did he follow you?” Pontarelli: “Yes.”

passionflower
08-01-2012, 10:41 AM
Yes, but they reported yesterday that the Pros. didn't notify the defense they would be bringing this in, so it wasn't allowed. Doh!:seeya:

Pros making bad mistakes IMO:rocker:

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:43 AM
In Session Using a laser pointer, the witness points out on a home diagram where Peterson was standing. He then identifies a photo of “the entrance to her bedroom, Kathleen’s bedroom.” When he came in, there was a light turned on. Prosecution: “What did you do?” Pontarelli: “Went into the bathroom.” He now identifies a photograph of the bathroom door. Prosecution: “Is that the entrance from the bedroom?” Pontarelli: “Yes …I seen Kathy laying in the tub.” He now identifies a photograph of Savio lying in the tub. Prosecution: “What did you observe about her body in the tub?” Pontarelli: “I didn’t observe nothing, except there was no towel there…it was clean, pristine, no ring around the tub, no soap scum. It was clean.” Prosecution: “Did you see water in the tub?” Pontarellli: “No…I made a comment, ‘Where was her clothes that she had on, that she was going to put on?’ There was no rug, there was no towel.”
Prosecution: “Where was the defendant at that time?” Pontarelli: “Standing next to me.” Prosecution: “What did the defendant do when he entered the bathroom?” Pontarelli: “He checked her pulse, her wrist…he said, ‘What am I going to tell my children?’…Mary and Steve left, and I stayed up there with Drew. Then we walked out to the landing right outside the bedroom door …he made a phone call; I believe it was his cell phone…he says to the person that he just found his wife dead in the bathtub, and people are going to think he did it.”

In Session At this point, Pontarelli left Drew there and went home. He later went to Steve Carcerano’s home. Prosecution: “When you said you didn’t know when Nick left after he’d been upstairs, did he remain upstairs?” Pontarelli: “No.” Prosecution: “So Nick left the area of the second floor while you were still up there, and your wife also?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “You and the defendant were the only ones up there at the time?” Pontarelli: “Yes.”

In Session “No other questions.” This ends the direct examination.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:46 AM
Defense begins cross-examination of Kathleen Savio's neighbor Tom Pontarelli in the Drew Peterson trial.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:52 AM
In Session Defense attorney Joseph Lopez begins his cross-examination. Defense: “You’re married to Mary Pontarelli, and have a son named Nick?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “The house Drew moved into was some time in 1999 or 2000?” Pontarelli: “’99.” Defense: “They lived right next door to you, and you spent time with them, right?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Drew was a fun person, a nice guy to you?’ Pontarelli: “Yes, he was.” Defense: “You were friends?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “He was mad you and Steve had moved his stuff out of the house and into the garage?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “He felt that was a violation?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “That men shouldn’t do that to one another?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “And your wife was best friends with Kathy?” Pontarelli: “Yes…I was in the middle.” Defense: “You really wanted to stay out of it?” Pontarelli: “Right…I just tried to help each other out, remain neutral…it wasn’t easy.” Defense: “You would hear things from your wife about Drew?” Pontarelli: “Right.” Defense: “You didn’t know if they were true or not?” Pontarelli: “None of my business.”


:)

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:54 AM
In Session Defense: “You understood why he was mad, right?” Pontarelli: “Sure.” Defense: “He really didn’t want you to have anything to do with Kathy?” Pontarelli: “Nothing…he didn’t want me to help her.” Defense: “In the beginning, when Drew moved out, that was sometime in 2002?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Drew got remarried?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Kathy got a boyfriend, Steve?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “You and Mary and Kathy and Steve go out?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Things settled down eventually between Drew and Kathy?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “In fact, he lived down the street, a few blocks...you’d see him in the neighborhood?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “You’d wave?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “He wouldn’t give you the finger or anything like that?” Pontarelli: “No.”

In Session Defense: “During the divorce, in the beginning, Drew and Kathy would play goofy games against each other?” Pontarelli: “They each had their own tactics, I guess you could say.” Defense: “Each one trying to get the upper hand?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “You don’t’ really want to be here testifying today, do you?” Pontarelli: “Not really, no.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:56 AM
In Session The witness denies that he has any animosity toward Peterson (“we were friends . . . we talked”). Defense: “When Drew moved out, there was a big interruption between you and Drew?” Pontarelli: “We didn’t see each other as much …one time I had a clogged drain, and I had to go to Drew’s house; he had a power router…he was cordial.” Defense: “So after Drew moved out, you’d been to the new house?” Pontarelli: “Yes, I was there…three or four times.” Defense: “When you knew Drew and Kathy, Drew worked nights?” Pontarelli: “Correct.” Defense: “That caused friction?” Pontarelli: “I don’t know.” Defense: “Drew lived in the basement?” Pontarelli: “He had an apartment down there, yes.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 10:58 AM
In Session Defense: “Do you remember when it was that Kathy started her relationship with Steve?” Pontarelli: “Not off hand, no.” Defense: “In February, 2004 you took your family to Orlando?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “You came back on a Friday, do you remember that?” Pontarelli: “I don’t remember the date, but we came home…I believe it was a Friday.” Defense: “You saw Kathy the next day?” Pontarelli: “I saw Kathy.” Defense: “It was a Saturday?” Pontarelli: “I don’t remember…I remember her in our driveway, so she came up to us.” Defense: “You had plans to go out that evening?” Pontarelli: “Yes…some type of get together.” Defense: “You invited Kathy to come with you?” Pontarelli: “Not me personally…I believe it was Mary…she didn’t’ come.” Defense: “There was an invitation, and she declined the invitation?” Pontarelli: “You’re correct about that.”

In Session The Pontarellis left for the party around 6:00 pm. When they returned shortly after midnight, they saw a light on in Savio’s bedroom. With the use of a photograph, Mr. Pontarelli describes the view of the Savio home that he would have seen when he returned that night. Pontarelli: “I would say it was about 12:20.” Defense: “Then you went into your house?” Pontarelli: “Right.” Defense: “You rose the next morning?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Do you remember if you saw any vehicles in the [Savio] driveway?” Pontarelli: “That night? There were no cars in the driveway.” Defense: “That night, you didn’t hear anything unusual?” Pontarelli: “No.” Defense: “No doors slamming, screaming, scuffles, motor noise from a car, banging or crying?” Pontarelli: “No.”

In Session Sunday morning he got up about 8:00. Pontarelli: “We would have Sunday dinners; every once in a while we would invite [Savio] over.” Defense: “Did Mary call her, or did you call her?” Pontarelli: “I believe my wife sent Nick over there to invite her over for dinner.” Defense: “And Nick came back and said there was no response?” Pontarelli: “Correct.”

In Session He was home Monday, March 1, but didn’t see or hear from Kathy. That evening, Drew called Mary, to see if she’d heard from Kathy. Pontrelli: “It was 9:30ish, something like that, in the evening.” Defense: “Did Mary go over to the house and knock on the door?” Pontarelli: “I don’t recall.” Defense: “Did you so anything to see if Kathy was home at that time?” Pontarelli: “No, I did not…all I know is that Mary received a call from Drew, stating he’d been trying to drop the kids off, wasn’t able to get a hold of Kathy, and had a locksmith coming over…he wanted Mary there, just in case of anything…when I showed up on the front porch, the locksmith was already working on the front door.”

In Session Defense: “Remember Drew saying that he didn’t want to go in there, in case something was wrong?” Pontarelli: “I don’t remember hearing that, but that was why.” Once again, Mr. Pontarelli describes how they entered the house. Pontarelli: “I believe Steve and Mary went in first; Nick was with me.” Defense: “Know who turned the light on?” Pontarelli: “No, I do not.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:12 AM
In Session When he entered the house, Drew remained in the foyer. Pontarelli: “My intention was to go right to the garage…I went through the kitchen without seeing anything.” Defense: “There was a deadbolt on the garage?” Pontarelli: “Yes…it’s a latch lock… from the garage, there’s a key.” Defense: “Did you install that?” Pontarelli: “No.” Defense: “That door was locked, wasn’t it?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “And you saw her vehicle there?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Did you open the door to see if she was in there?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “And you didn’t see her, did you?” Pontarelli: “No.” He says that his son, Nick, was with him at this time, adjacent to the mud room/laundry room. Defense: “You told us you heard a scream?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “That was your wife screaming?” Pontarelli: “Yes…I don’t remember what she said; I heard screaming.” Defense: “At the time you heard this, you were on your way to go up the stairs to the second floor?” Pontarelli: “I was still in the laundry area.” Defense: “You ran past Drew, and you, Drew, and Nick went up the stairs?” Pontarelli: “We ran up the stairway past Drew, and Drew came up behind us, like two or three steps.”

In Session Pontarelli: “As soon I went in to the master bedroom, Mary was there.” Defense: “And you made observation of Kathy in the tub?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Drew appeared upset and shocked?” Pontarelli: “Seemed upset, yes.”

In Session Defense: “After the discovery of Kathy in the tub, you and Steve and Drew waited for the paramedics?” Pontarelli: “No…I stayed up there with Drew…they [the others] left.” He repeats that he heard Drew ask, ‘What am I gonna tell my kids?’”


In Session Defense: “Drew made a phone call?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “And he said, ‘They just found my ex-wife dead in the bathroom, and people are going to think I did it?’” Pontarelli: “Yes…he didn’t want to go into the house alone.” Defense: “Because he thought he’d be blamed if something was amiss?” Pontarelli: “Probably.”

In Session Defense: “Safe to say that you were a bit concerned about Kathy, too, before you went in the house?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Because that was a bit unusual?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” The witness is then asked about a November, 2007 interview he had with two Illinois State Police troopers. Defense: “Remember telling them that you waited with Drew and Carcerano in the master bedroom until the paramedic arrived?” Pontarelli: “No, I do not remember that.” Defense: “Do you remember the paramedics coming?” Pontarelli: “I was already out of the house by then, but they came right after I left.” Defense: “Remember telling the troops that once the paramedics arrived you left the residence with Carcerano?” Pontarelli: “No, I don’t.”

In Session Defense: “During your conversation, you never mentioned to these troopers anything about any missing towels?” Pontarelli: “Not that I recall.” Defense: “You noticed there were no clothes on the floor?” Pontarelli: “Right.” Defense: “You don’t know what Kathy was doing before she went into that bathroom?” Pontarelli: “That’s right…don’t know.” Defense: “All you notice is there weren’t any clothes on the floor?” Pontarelli: “That’s right.” Defense: “You didn’t mention anything to them about a bath mat, either, like a rug?” Pontarelli: “I don’t recall what I said to them.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:17 AM
In Session Defense: “The night it happened, you, Mary, and Steve went to Steve’s house?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “You went to his basement?” Pontarelli: “Right” Defense: “Everybody was upset and shocked?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “Before you left, you also spoke to the Bolingbrook police?” Pontarelli: “Did not.” Defense: “Did there come a time you spoke to the Bolingbrook police?” Pontarelli: “Did not.” Defense: “Remember an Ofc. Sud (?) from Bolingbrook being there that night?” Pontarelli: “No.” Defense: “Remember a Bolingbrook police car at Kathy’s house, before the state police arrived?” Pontarelli: “I think so, yes.” Defense: “Remember speaking to this Ofc. Sud (?) in the kitchen area of the house?” Pontarelli: “I don’t.”


In Session The witness repeats that he has no memory of speaking to a Bolingbrook police officer on the night in question (“I don’t remember”). Despite a lengthy series of questions about things he allegedly said that night, nothing jogs his memory. Prosecutor Patton objects, and the parties go to a sidebar.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:19 AM
In Session The sidebar ends. Once again, attorney Lopez asks Mr. Pontarelli about things he might have said to a Bolingbrook police officer on the night in question; again, Pontarelli says he has no memory of ever speaking to any such officer that night. “I don’t remember telling a Bolingbrook policeman anything; I don’t remember ever speaking to a Bolingbrook police officer.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:27 AM
In Session Pontarelli acknowledges that in late November, 2007 he spoke to some Illinois State Police troopers. Defense: “The evening that Kathy was found, while you were in Steve’s basement, it was you, Steve, your wife, and Steve’s wife?” Pontarelli: “Yes… but they spoke to us separately… I remember two guys, but I don’t remember their names.” Defense: “And they asked you questions about Drew and Kathy?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “And you told them about the history of the divorce?” Pontarelli: “I’m sure I did…I’m not sure what they asked me.” Defense: “But you do remember these two detectives asking you numerous questions about the relationship between Kathy and Drew?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Defense: “And they were focusing on Drew?” Pontarelli: “No.” Defense: “And you were answering their questions?” Pontarelli: “To the best of my ability.”

In Session Defense: “You didn’t mention anything about the towel, about the soap scum, about not seeing any clothes?” Pontarelli: “I don’t know…whatever they put in their notes…I don’t remember; whatever their notes say.” Defense: “Would you like to see the notes, to refresh your memory?” Pontarelli: “Sure.” Pontarelli is given a copy of the police report in question.


In Session At this time, Judge Burmila decides to call the morning recess. Court is in recess for ten minutes, until 10:30 CT.

Madeleine74
08-01-2012, 11:37 AM
The hinky parts so far (to me):

1. Drew insisting on getting a locksmith. If you think there's something wrong/an emergency, you'd want to get in stat, which would mean breaking down the door.

2. Drew staying in the foyer and letting the 2 neighbors go upstairs to look for Kathleen. That just seems so obvious. He wanted/needed other people to find KS in the tub.

3. The state of the bathroom, the tub, no water, etc, etc.

4. Drew saying right away to someone that people would think he has something to do with KS's death. If you're innocent, why would your mind even go *there?* You'd be thinking drowning, not homicide!

I swear some of these guilty husbands are the ones who shine the red light of suspicion on themselves right from the get-go. They make comments and do things that normal innocent people just wouldn't!

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:42 AM
The hinky parts so far (to me):

1. Drew insisting on getting a locksmith. If you think there's something wrong/an emergency, you'd want to get in stat, which would mean breaking down the door.

2. Drew staying in the foyer and letting the 2 neighbors go upstairs to look for Kathleen. That just seems so obvious. He wanted/needed other people to find KS in the tub.

3. The state of the bathroom, the tub, no water, etc, etc.

4. Drew saying right away to someone that people would think he has something to do with KS's death. If you're innocent, why would your mind even go *there?* You'd be thinking drowning, not homicide!

I swear some of these guilty husbands are the ones who shine the red light of suspicion on themselves right from the get-go. They make comments and do things that normal innocent people just wouldn't!


I agree. Also, I don't buy the "He was a cop so he didn't have to call the cop BS". Sounds like the defence in the Dr. Murray trial. He was a Doctor so he didn't have to call 911. He was 911.

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

CarolinaMoon
08-01-2012, 11:44 AM
I wish InSession would pair a prosecuting attorney with the defense lady attorney they have on. All she is doing is spinning all the testimony to favor the defense. I need some balance here.

Perhaps that's why I feel so negative about the outcome of this trial.

dog.gone.cute
08-01-2012, 11:47 AM
8m agrimm34 ‏@agrimm34
#DrewPeterson lawyer Joel Brodsky enters courthouse, talks to press. SA Glasgow walks past cameras


:seeya:

BBM: JMO and MOO, but I wish the judge would put a big GAG :silenced: order on him and the rest of the def team ...

:waitasec: Their smart a$$ remarks make me :furious::sick::furious::sick::furious:

:moo:

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:48 AM
I wish InSession would pair a prosecuting attorney with the defense lady attorney they have on. All she is doing is spinning all the testimony to favor the defense. I need some balance here.

Perhaps that's why I feel so negative about the outcome of this trial.

I guess there is a positive side to not having access to a tv and relying on tweets. lol

Who are the 2 covering the case on InSession? Where's Vinnie?:waitasec:

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:49 AM
In Session Judge Burmila has just returned to the bench. He sends for the jury and the witness.

CarolinaMoon
08-01-2012, 11:51 AM
They have the judge, Christy, and the lady defense attorney. Sorry, don't have their names because I'm in and out on the coverage.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 11:52 AM
In Session Defense attorney Joseph Lopez resumes his cross-examination of witness Thomas Pontarelli. Defense: “When you were speaking to police that evening, you didn’t mention that Drew was on the phone and said that people would think he did it?” Pontarelli: “I don’t remember.” The witness is then shown a copy of the police report in question (which he reads silently to himself). Defense: “You didn’t see any of those things in there?” Pontarelli: “Correct.”



In Session Defense: “On November 27, 2007, you didn’t mention about the towel, the bath mat, or any soap scum that day?” Pontarelli: “I don’t remember, but it’s hard to believe that I didn’t.” Defense: “Would you like to see a police report from that day?” Pontarelli: “Sure.” Once again, Mr. Pontarelli is handed a police report pertaining to the interview in question, which he starts reading silently. But to save time, both sides stipulate that the information at issue is indeed not mentioned in this particular police report.

passionflower
08-01-2012, 11:59 AM
Poor 14 year old.......an officer DP should NEVER of allowed a child in a possible dangerous situation! JMOO

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:01 PM
In Session The witness identifies a photograph of a lock, says that he installed it. Defense: “That’s from the inside of the master bedroom?” Pontarelli: “Right.” Defense: “You didn’t make those marks on the door?” Pontarelli: “I did not.” Defense: “What was in that hole before?” Pontarelli: “Nothing, it was a solid door.” Defense: “You don’t know when that hole was made?” Pontarelli: “I don’t remember.” Defense: “You don’t know who made it, or when it was made?” Pontarelli: “Right.” Defense: “All you know is you didn’t make that hole?” PontarellI: “Correct.”

In Session In another photo, the witness is asked to point out a cat. “That was Kathy’s cat?” “I don’t know.”

In Session The witness is shown still another photograph. Defense: “Did you know that your son, Nick, took that photograph?” Pontarelli: “I have heard that.” The witness acknowledges that he’s met with police “a couple of times” prior to his testimony.


In Session Defense: “In Mr. Carcerano’s basement, they didn’t ask you anything about that hole [in Savio’s bedroom door]?” Pontarelli: “No.” Defense: “Is this the first time you’ve been asked about the hole?” Pontarelli: “Other than the hearsay trial, yes.” Defense: “Did any investigators ever come to your house and ask you about that hole?” Pontarelli: “I can’t remember.”

In Session In October, 2008, the witness was apparently questioned by an investigator about “the installation of a deadbolt on the bedroom door.” Pontarelli: “I do not remember.” Defense: “Remember you telling her that you were asked to install a deadbolt lock on the bedroom?” Pontarelli: “No.” Defense: “When was the first time you saw that photograph of the door, with the hole?” Pontarelli: “I don’t remember.” Defense: “Was it two or three years after she was discovered in the bathtub?” Pontarelli: “No…when did I discover the hole was there? That was prior to her passing, so it had to be 2003.” Defense: “So before you entered in 2004, that hole had to have been there before?’ Pontarelli: “Oh, yes, that hole was there already…it was [there] before, yes.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:09 PM
In Session There are no more questions on cross-examination. So, after a pause, Kathy Patton begins her redirect. Prosecution: “It’s very nerve-racking to be here, isn’t it?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “That’s the reason you don’t want to be here?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “You have been willing to come and testify in this case, haven’t you?” Pontarelli: “Yes.”

In Session The witness repeats that he and Drew Peterson generally got along. Prosecution: “But there was a time, wasn’t there, when you were questioned by the defendant about changing the locks that you felt he was intimidating you?” Objection sustained. Defense: “Did there come a time when you felt intimidated by him?” Pontarelli: “Yes…we had a conversation; he accused me of changing the locks on the front door. I says I didn’t, but I got his message…I found a .38 bullet out on the driveway.” Attorney Greenberg objects, and the judge asks the jurors and witness to leave the courtroom.

Madeleine74
08-01-2012, 12:10 PM
Listening to talking heads on IS type shows is really a crapshoot. Of course they do a spin! It's all about keeping viewers and ratings. I learned they get more things incorrect than correct. Those of you watching IS or HLN have my sympathy.

The only way to get an accurate sense of the case is either watching it live/streaming or reading the court transcript. A distant second is following a live blog from the courtroom. But even then the info is filtered and it may not convey everything accurately.

Talking heads would be a distant third. Way down the list, IMO.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:11 PM
In Session The witness/jurors are now gone. Attorney Greenberg says this is a prior bad act that is not admissible in trial. Judge Burmila to prosecutor: “Are you going to be able to prove that the defendant left that bullet in that driveway?” Patton: “No.” “What is the purpose of trying to let this jury think this defendant put a bullet in this driveway to send a message to this witness? Why would you do that?” Greenberg: “Judge, I think we’re going to have to ask for a mistrial.” Judge: “All right, we’ll take a break so you can discuss this.” The judge leave the bench.

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:12 PM
In Session There are no more questions on cross-examination. So, after a pause, Kathy Patton begins her redirect. Prosecution: “It’s very nerve-racking to be here, isn’t it?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “That’s the reason you don’t want to be here?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “You have been willing to come and testify in this case, haven’t you?” Pontarelli: “Yes.”

In Session The witness repeats that he and Drew Peterson generally got along. Prosecution: “But there was a time, wasn’t there, when you were questioned by the defendant about changing the locks that you felt he was intimidating you?” Objection sustained. Defense: “Did there come a time when you felt intimidated by him?” Pontarelli: “Yes…we had a conversation; he accused me of changing the locks on the front door. I says I didn’t, but I got his message…I found a .38 bullet out on the driveway.” Attorney Greenberg objects, and the judge asks the jurors and witness to leave the courtroom.

Wow.

Now, (as N/T knows) we live out in the country and my husband has tons of guns and hunts every single day during hunting season, so it wouldn't be unusual to find an unspent bullet or shell in the drive way, but, I assume in a neighborhood such as DP's, that would be highly unusual.

auntiejoe
08-01-2012, 12:14 PM
OMG possible mistrial??

CarolinaMoon
08-01-2012, 12:14 PM
OMG! Witness blurted out about the bellet on his driveway. Will the defense ask for a mistrial?

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:17 PM
IS just said that DP was stunned after the witness said that about the bullet in his driveway.

passionflower
08-01-2012, 12:17 PM
oh no a mistrial request! and where will that leave things? another trial and another jury?
as long as DP stays in JAIL!

Madeleine74
08-01-2012, 12:20 PM
If the defense is asking for a mistrial at THIS point, that tells me they are NOT confident about their case, the judge, the jury, or any of it.

A witness mentioning a bullet outside on a driveway is easily impeached upon x-exam by the defense.

Courtroom tactics often resemble a poker game. Lots of bluffing. The defense just tipped their hand--this is the 2nd time in 2 days they have brought up the word mistrial.

Where there's smoke...

We need to ask ourselves, why does the defense want this particular trial to end right now?

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:22 PM
Where did the Judge go? WTH? The defence asks for a mistrial and he leaves the bench? :what:

passionflower
08-01-2012, 12:22 PM
ok if mistrial do they get new pros? and can the mistakes by pros be fixed next time?
Could this be good for pros?

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:23 PM
Jean C. on IS said DP "turned white as a ghost" after the bullet statement.

passionflower
08-01-2012, 12:23 PM
IS banner said the defense has asked for the mistrial!

auntiejoe
08-01-2012, 12:26 PM
IS just said that DP was stunned after the witness said that about the bullet in his driveway.


Drew turned white as a ghost.....:what: GOOD :moo:


(if there is a mistrial does he go back to jail)

Coldpizza
08-01-2012, 12:26 PM
Even if a mistrial isn't declared this time I just don't see it not happening down the road. So much testimony is being smothered and for someone not to blurt something out seems close to impossible.

imo

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:26 PM
In Session ‏@InSession (https://twitter.com/InSession) #drewpeterson (https://twitter.com/search/%23drewpeterson) : author Joe Hosey tells IS's Beth Karas that bullet is not new information. It was allegedly left in driveway, facing up.

passionflower
08-01-2012, 12:29 PM
anyone remember how old DP is now?

katydid23
08-01-2012, 12:29 PM
Maybe a mistrial is the best way to go for the state too. I think starting over would be helpful.

outofstatelawyer
08-01-2012, 12:31 PM
Where did the Judge go? WTH? The defence asks for a mistrial and he leaves the bench? :what:

Well, he's probably in his chambers, looking at case law to see if this warrants a mistrial. Judges don't like to call mistrials, and will try remedial measures if they can to save the case.

Madeleine74
08-01-2012, 12:32 PM
This is getting very interesting. Why would DP turn "white" upon hearing about a bullet in someone else's driveway? Unless he left it, that is. I say DP is not a good poker player! And the bullet was sitting up? Yeah, that's so not random.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:34 PM
1m In Session ‏@InSession
RT @facsmiley: Pontarelli testified about .38 bullet intimidation from #drewpeterson at hearsay hearings 2 years ago. http://wp.me/p93nv-1db

Lera213
08-01-2012, 12:35 PM
wonder if he turned white because maybe he thinks that the bullet is still around and ballistic's can verify it.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:36 PM
In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Greenberg: “On behalf of Mr. Peterson, we’re asking for a mistrial…with jeopardy attached…it was mentioned at the prior hearsay hearing, a question was asked, there was an objection, there was no follow-up. There’s no way of showing that Mr. Peterson did this///this is not negligence, inadvertence, or overzealous advocacy; this is intentionally bringing before the jury evidence the court had excluded…evidence that everyone knows is improper in a criminal trial. It’s intentional…the only reasonable sanction is for you to find a mistrial with prejudice, and that’s what we’re asking for.”

audie
08-01-2012, 12:36 PM
IS just said that DP was stunned after the witness said that about the bullet in his driveway.Quite the actor IMO.

Coldpizza
08-01-2012, 12:37 PM
There's a chance he could walk on this one. A slim chance but a chance.

katydid23
08-01-2012, 12:37 PM
'with prejudice..' Does that mean with no future trial ?????????

Lera213
08-01-2012, 12:38 PM
how can they prove it was intentionally done?

Lera213
08-01-2012, 12:38 PM
'with prejudice..' Does that mean with no future trial ?????????

YEP double jeopardy meaning he can never get a fair trial so cannot be retried.

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:39 PM
According to Beth K. on IS the Defense asked for mistrial with prejudice meaning DP would never be tried for this murder again.

PLEASE don't let this happen.

katydid23
08-01-2012, 12:40 PM
OMG. This cannot happen.

outofstatelawyer
08-01-2012, 12:41 PM
Personally, I don't think this was egregious enough to grant a mistrial, and certainly not warranting a dismissal with prejudice.

Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 12:42 PM
I hope they do declare a mistrial without prejudice, so he CAN be tried again. This prosecution has messed up, they'd be better off starting over with a new jury.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:42 PM
2 minutes ago

In Session Prosecutor Kathy Patton responds. “To say that we were somehow trying to lead the jury…clearly, we were not ever going to suggest to this jury that that door was cored that evening. So I don’t know how you can lump that in with this. We wish to show her [Savio’s] fear, that’s why she had the door done. And counsel brings up the hit man…we are preparing a motion; we believe we had good reason to bring that evidence into this case. We certainly have a good argument to make to get that evidence in. In regard to what happened this morning, I was just asking questions about what happened…we did not deliberately try to put that in. But counsel continues to impress upon the jury how close these people [Peterson and Pontarelli] were, how he held nothing against him…at the end of the day, you’d think they were so close…this witness told them in this report that he was intimidated by the defendant, because of this incident that occurred. He said he had a conversation with Drew, and he told him he didn’t change the lock. ‘I got your message last night’…he would not have been intimidated if he completely trusted Drew, if he had this wonderful relationship with him. But because he did not, the first thing that came to his mind was that it was Drew. That’s how he responded to something that he saw.”

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:43 PM
about a minute ago

In Session Patton denies that “a bell has been rung that can’t be un-rung.” She says that an instruction from the judge to the jury can take care of this situation. “We would ask the Court find this is not reason for a mistrial in this case, that this can be cured either by allowing the State to finish the examination, to show that this witness did see something and thought Drew did it, even though he had no idea if he did. Or the Court can ask the jury to disregard that statement; it was in no way intended for any other reason than to rehabilitate this witness and his relationship with the defendant.”

CarolinaMoon
08-01-2012, 12:43 PM
The witness should have been reminded NOT to mention the bullet as it was declared too prejudicial at a previous hearing. This is the second time the prosecution has had this happen. Once, in the opening with the mention of $25,000 hit man and this. Sloppy, sloppy prosecution.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:45 PM
In Session Greenberg responds to Patton’s comments. “What is the relevancy of the scratches around the door? If the State knew it was there since 2003, why are they bringing it up? Had Mr. Lopez not asked that one question, this jury would be back there thinking she was locked in that bedroom and someone came in…that hole in the door had absolutely nothing to do with this case. They want to benefit from this…there’s been rulings; they shouldn’t be able to benefit by goading us into asking for a mistrial.”

In Session Greenberg repeats that the State has “absolutely no evidence” that any bullet in Tom Pontarelli’s driveway was placed there by Drew Peterson. “We’re asking for a mistrial with prejudice, that they not be allowed to benefit from their own actions…it’s absurd, and we’re asking for a mistrial.” Patton responds, insists “there is no intent here.”

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:45 PM
anyone remember how old DP is now?


Wiki says he was born January 5, 1954, so 58.

outofstatelawyer
08-01-2012, 12:47 PM
The witness should have been reminded NOT to mention the bullet as it was declared too prejudicial at a previous hearing. This is the second time the prosecution has had this happen. Once, in the opening with the mention of $25,000 hit man and this. Sloppy, sloppy prosecution.

There are times, no matter how much time you spend preparing a witness, that they just say stuff. Being up on that witness stand is a very anxiety producing experience, and the lawyer cannot always control what even their own witness is going to say. Been there.

passionflower
08-01-2012, 12:49 PM
What a nightmare since the start!!!

katydid23
08-01-2012, 12:50 PM
It's a nightmare because the judge will not let ANYTHING in. So the witnesses can barely say anything without getting the state in trouble.

passionflower
08-01-2012, 12:50 PM
hmmm he is 58.........lookin alot older in drawings JMOO

Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 12:52 PM
It's a nightmare because the judge will not let ANYTHING in. So the witnesses can barely say anything without getting the state in trouble.

That's the prosecution's fault, not the judge's. All the judge can do is apply the law, if the prosecution hasn't disclosed evidence to the defense, the judge can't allow it. That's the law and always has been.

What a mess.

Coldpizza
08-01-2012, 12:52 PM
We have to wait 1 1/2 hrs for the Judge to rule.

from IS

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:53 PM
IS said the judge is "very upset" with the pros. team. He said there was "absolutely no reason for bringing this up and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever".

Per IS--Judge absolutely rejected the argument by pros regarding all of this.

IS also said that there is a good chance of mistrial and we will know in 1 1/2 hours.

Are they on a lunch now then?

SIGH.

I'm nervous.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:53 PM
52 seconds ago

In Session Judge Burmila first addresses the issue of the hole in the door. “I don’t see the problems the defendant claims exist with regards to the question about the hole in the door…in regards to the question about the hit man, the State is always able to ask the Court to reconsider its rulings…that leads us, however, to the incident that just occurred, which is completely troubling to the Court. I have to say that their [the State’s] argument makes absolutely no sense to the Court whatsoever…it makes no sense whatsoever, the argument the State just put forward…I’m going to take the motion under advisement, and I’ll have a ruling for you at 1:15.”



I have to go for about 45 minutes.......

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 12:54 PM
Not sounding good. This Judge is going to rule a mistrial. :(

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

katydid23
08-01-2012, 12:55 PM
OMG. If this freak walks away a free man... I cannot even imagine. :furious:

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 12:55 PM
Not sounding good. This Judge is going to rule a mistrial. :(

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:


I know :(


HURRY UP and get back here.

Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 01:00 PM
It might be a good thing if the judge rules a mistrial and makes them start again. I just hope he doesn't throw it out altogether.

~n/t~
08-01-2012, 01:03 PM
That's the prosecution's fault, not the judge's. All the judge can do is apply the law, if the prosecution hasn't disclosed evidence to the defense, the judge can't allow it. That's the law and always has been.

What a mess.

I don't think that was this issue today. The witness blurted out about the bullet. Reading the tweet, it didn't sound like the prosecution expected him to say it. Was the witness warned beforehand? Maybe that is the issue. They should've warned him.

D@mn! :(

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 01:06 PM
Jean C. said that "in a rare moment" the defense team left without making a statement. Also the team seemed relieved and happy.

She says she doesn't think it looks good for the pros.

----

Question:

Can the judge grant mistrial WITHOUT prejudice?

Madeleine74
08-01-2012, 01:07 PM
A bullet left "facing up" (whatever that means) in a neighbor's driveway around the time or immediately after KS's death, and the neighbor is frightened and sees this as some kind of sign (regardless of WHO left the bullet) is relevant. It's relevant to the witness' state of mind, to his intimidation, and the witness himself connected this odd occurrence to what happened to KS.

I think the judge is wrong. True, it may not have been left by DP, but finding such a thing was indeed unusual and caused the witness to react. How is that not relevant? If DP did leave the bullet then it's entirely relevant.

This is circumstantial evidence. The jury should be deciding if it's connected to KS or not. The judge is overstepping, IMHO.

Alternatively, if the witness should not be mentioning this one piece of evidence (or non-evidence) then the judge should allow and instruct the DA to lead the witness testimony in such a way that the witness does not say anything about it. And the witness should be instructed to only answer the exact questions put forth by the prosecution. No open ended questions.

katydid23
08-01-2012, 01:08 PM
Beth Karas: The judge is so upset. he is taking the defense motion under advisement...he could walk free today if the judge grants that. or he could grant it w/out prejudice.

"I think he is going to sanction the state. "

katydid23
08-01-2012, 01:10 PM
If this jury was told everything, ALL of the evidence and circumstances, then DP would be locked up forever.

But the state has it's hands tied here. they cannot discuss anything.

Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 01:11 PM
I don't think that was this issue today. The witness blurted out about the bullet. Reading the tweet, it didn't sound like the prosecution expected him to say it. Was the witness warned beforehand? Maybe that is the issue. They should've warned him.

D@mn! :(

I know its not the issue today, I was responding to the post above mine about the judge ruling other things inadmissable.

Fingers crossed that the judge will grant a mistrial without prejudice.

seattlechiquita
08-01-2012, 01:12 PM
Beth Karas: The judge is so upset. he is taking the defense motion under advisement...he could walk free today if the judge grants that. or he could grant it w/out prejudice.

"I think he is going to sanction the state. "


Oh maaaaan... this is not looking good. I cannot believe the pros are effing up this badly. This man is a pig, and is about to walk.

Kimster
08-01-2012, 01:12 PM
If this jury was told everything, ALL of the evidence and circumstances, then DP would be locked up forever.

But the state has it's hands tied here. they cannot discuss anything.

This is one of the main reasons crime is rampant in this country, IMO!

:moo:

auntiejoe
08-01-2012, 01:14 PM
OMG I think he is going to walk.....IMO

IMO Casey and Drew should get together...

redkatrampant
08-01-2012, 01:14 PM
This is one of the main reasons crime is rampant in this country, IMO!

:moo:

Yes Great Alien One, this country is so worried about protecting the rights of the accused that the victim's rights and justice go right out the window.

Madeleine74
08-01-2012, 01:16 PM
I'd like to hear a fact-based recitation of exactly what the state's team did at each point along the way during the lead-up to the trial that has created these issues with the judge. Something is going on with this judge. I don't trust him. Then again, I'm not informed and maybe the judge has legitimate issues.

But from just watching 1.3 days of testimony, or rather hearing about it, the judge has ruled against the state almost every time. That tells me something is up...something with the judge.

Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 01:18 PM
This is one of the main reasons crime is rampant in this country, IMO!

:moo:

I have to disagree, I'm afraid. The state doesn't have its hands tied at all, the state made unforced errors with its own case. If the prosecution had stuck to the rules of disclosure all that evidence would have been admissable.

Its the prosecution's own fault.

Lera213
08-01-2012, 01:18 PM
Where is the "Seeking of truth" Lady Justice Scales are not balanced"

dog.gone.cute
08-01-2012, 01:23 PM
wonder if he turned white because maybe he thinks that the bullet is still around and ballistic's can verify it.


:rocker: I was thinking the same thing ! Oh I hope so !

:please::please::please:

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 01:28 PM
OMG I think he is going to walk.....IMO

IMO Casey and Drew should get together...


That would be highly explosive. *shiver*

fifteen89
08-01-2012, 01:31 PM
Has Drew or any of his idiot attorneys ever answered why Kathleen would want/need/ask to have a deadbolt put on her bedroom door?

Tulessa
08-01-2012, 01:38 PM
Has Drew or any of his idiot attorneys ever answered why Kathleen would want/need/ask to have a deadbolt put on her bedroom door?

Not that I have heard...

audie
08-01-2012, 01:44 PM
A bullet left "facing up" (whatever that means)Standing up "on end" vs. laying on it's side. Suggesting that it was purposely placed vs accidently dropped. JMO

dog.gone.cute
08-01-2012, 01:48 PM
It's a nightmare because the judge will not let ANYTHING in. So the witnesses can barely say anything without getting the state in trouble.


:seeya: I totally agree !

BBM: Jumping in and adding my :twocents:

JMO and MOO ... but it is becoming more and more obvious to me WHY this Judge did NOT want CAMERAS in the courtroom !

JMO and MOO ... but what does he NOT want the public to see !

:maddening::banghead::maddening:

:moo::moo::moo:

audie
08-01-2012, 01:51 PM
Do any of y'all know where I can see a timeline of this case?

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 01:54 PM
Do any of y'all know where I can see a timeline of this case?


ACandyRose made this awesome site. You can click on the timelines located near the top of the page.

http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_names.htm

audie
08-01-2012, 01:58 PM
ACandyRose made this awesome site. You can click on the timelines located near the top of the page.

http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_names.htmThanks Shelby! I see there is a book I can buy also according to IS.

auntiejoe
08-01-2012, 02:00 PM
The DP Lifetime movie is on again tonight at 10pm.

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 02:01 PM
Thanks Shelby! I see there is a book I can buy also according to IS.


I have it on my Kindle, but I haven't started reading it yet.

dog.gone.cute
08-01-2012, 02:04 PM
Checking the tweets and just saw this :

https://twitter.com/bethkaras

Beth Karas ‏@BethKaras 5m

The judge is expected to rule in 15 minutes on the defense's motion for a mistrial. Peterson could be freed. Defense attorneys just arrived.


:please::please::please: NO mistrial !

borndem
08-01-2012, 02:06 PM
OMG I think he is going to walk.....IMO

IMO Casey and Drew should get together...

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww, auntiejoe, ewwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

As long as they don't get too, too close.... Horrors!!!!http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

But as long as they're in a cell with no key, sounds good!

redkatrampant
08-01-2012, 02:07 PM
:banghead::banghead:

dog.gone.cute
08-01-2012, 02:12 PM
http://twitter.com/dianepathieu

Freelance reporter for ABC 7 Chicago (WLS), former Anchor/Reporter on Todays TMJ4 in Milwaukee.


diane pathieu ‏@dianepathieu

A visibly upset Judge Burmila dismissed the court to think about mistrial motion-- court resumes at 1:15pm.


2h ABC 7 Chicago ‏@abc7chicago

Drew #Peterson defense moving for mistrial over question about intimidation of a neighbor with a .38 bullet found in neighbor's driveway

borndem
08-01-2012, 02:13 PM
I'd like to hear a fact-based recitation of exactly what the state's team did at each point along the way during the lead-up to the trial that has created these issues with the judge. Something is going on with this judge. I don't trust him. Then again, I'm not informed and maybe the judge has legitimate issues.

But from just watching 1.3 days of testimony, or rather hearing about it, the judge has ruled against the state almost every time. That tells me something is up...something with the judge.

ITA, Madeleine -- Thanks for having the gutz to say what I was thinking -- I just haven't liked or understood his attitude (can't think of a better word, but there probably is one) from way near the beginning of this thing. He must have been a defense lawyer in a past legal life -- which is okay as long as the Jurist is fair, but something is starting to nag at me, too. Does he have a problem with one or more of the PT? Or what? It just doesn't feel right to me...http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon9.gif

ohiogirl
08-01-2012, 02:14 PM
In Session There are no more questions on cross-examination. So, after a pause, Kathy Patton begins her redirect. Prosecution: “It’s very nerve-racking to be here, isn’t it?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “That’s the reason you don’t want to be here?” Pontarelli: “Yes.” Prosecution: “You have been willing to come and testify in this case, haven’t you?” Pontarelli: “Yes.”

In Session The witness repeats that he and Drew Peterson generally got along. Prosecution: “But there was a time, wasn’t there, when you were questioned by the defendant about changing the locks that you felt he was intimidating you?” Objection sustained. Defense: “Did there come a time when you felt intimidated by him?” Pontarelli: “Yes…we had a conversation; he accused me of changing the locks on the front door. I says I didn’t, but I got his message…I found a .38 bullet out on the driveway.” Attorney Greenberg objects, and the judge asks the jurors and witness to leave the courtroom.


I think this was asked by the Pros. not the Defense, and they had to know that this was a taboo subject, imo. They needed to ask this very carefully so that the answer didn't include the .38, if this info had already been excluded by the judge, which it sounds like it has. Pros. bad.

inthedark14
08-01-2012, 02:15 PM
Judge is now expected back in court at 1:30 p.m. CST to give ruling...

Read more...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-trial-updates-prosecution-to-call-savio-neighbor-20120801,0,1978497.story

JaimeInLA
08-01-2012, 02:17 PM
1:15 is now, right? (Sorry, it is 11:15 here, so I'm not sure.)

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 02:17 PM
In Session ‏@InSession (https://twitter.com/InSession) #drewpeterson (https://twitter.com/search/%23drewpeterson) : IS field producer Michael Christian says prosecutors "looked pretty glum."

Shelby1
08-01-2012, 02:17 PM
1:15 is now, right? (Sorry, it is 11:15 here, so I'm not sure.)


Yes, it's 1:17 now.

inthedark14
08-01-2012, 02:17 PM
1:15 is now, right? (Sorry, it is 11:15 here, so I'm not sure.)

You're exactly right! :):rocker:

STEADFAST
08-01-2012, 02:18 PM
ITA, Madeleine -- Thanks for having the gutz to say what I was thinking -- I just haven't like his attitude (can't think of a better word, but there probably is one) from way near the beginning of this thing. He must have been a defense lawyer in a past legal life -- which is okay as long as the Jurist is fair, but something is starting to nag at me, too. Does he have a problem with one or more of the PT? Or what? It just doesn't feel right to me...http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon9.gif

Could this explain it?

A Chicago native, Burmila was the Will County State's Attorney from 1988 to 1992. He was defeated by current Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow, who is the lead prosecutor in the Peterson case. http://joliet.patch.com/local_facts/edward-burmila

LaLaw2000
08-01-2012, 02:20 PM
I was over reading the arrest DP thread and savoring it when the proverbial chit hit the fan. My mouth dropped open. WTH is with this prosecution team and this flipping judge? I do not normally curse, but come on!

If DP walks, I am going to have to call the rescue squad to take me to the hospital! I should never get as into these trials as I do, but I cannot help it. I want justice for the victims so badly and it seems the system leans more toward the rights of the accused than the victim.

What about Kathleen????

JMO

dog.gone.cute
08-01-2012, 02:21 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-trial-updates-prosecution-to-call-savio-neighbor-20120801,0,1978497.story


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2864/chinocommentatthistime2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/chinocommentatthistime2.jpg/)

Attorney Joel Brodsky tells reporters he has "No comment at this time!" as he leaves for lunch on the second day of the Drew Peterson trial at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet. (Zbigniew Bzdak, Chicago Tribune / August 1, 2012)



BBM: Now that's unusual ... this :silenced: is never at a loss for words ...

:maddening: