Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

[Shelby1]

Sidebar. Again.

 

[Lera213]

DP killed KS in the tub, he washed down all the blood and scrubbed her body. MOO

 

[Shelby1]

Defense is doing a pretty good job

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “You gave Anna Doman the preliminary results of the autopsy, that Ms. Savio drowned?” Objection/Sustained. “I had a conversation with Anna Doman; I don’t recall when it was.” “Would it refresh your recollection if I showed you a report?” “Yes.” The report in question is handed to the witness. “Do you recognize that as an official report from the Will County Coroner’s Office?” “Yes.” “Does that refresh your recollection about when a conversation occurred with Anna Doman?” “No, it does not.” “So you have no recollection of speaking to Anna Doman on March 2, 2004?” “No, I don’t.” However, the witness recalls speaking to Doman at one time. “She never told you that Drew told her [Savio] she’d never make it to the divorce settlement?” “I don’t remember the conversation.” “You’d remember if she told that to you, correct?” “Correct.” “She never told you that Drew was going to murder her, and make it look like an accident?” “I don’t recall that conversation.” “You’d remember that, wouldn’t you?” “Yes, I would.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “I want to know if you recall Trooper Deel arriving at the homed at 1:45 am on March 2?” “I do.” “That’s when those pictures were taken by Trooper Deel?” “I observed him take pictures, yes.” “And that’s when you took your picture, right?” “No.” “Well, that’s when you told the State Police, that you took them together” “I took the picture when I got there, with my Polaroid camera, when I went up with Ofc. Sutton (?).” “But you told the State Police in 2007 that you took it with Trooper Deel?” “I don’t recall that… in this case, I took my picture when I went up with Ofc. Sutton (?).” Once again, the witness acknowledges that he didn’t say anything at the time to Trooper Deel that he felt the death was suspicious. “You never did that?” “No, I didn’t.” “You never went up to Dr. Mitchell after the autopsy and said, ‘Hey, Doc, you got it wrong,’ did you?” “Dr. Mitchell never told me what the manner of death was.” Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends, and the jurors and witness are excused. Judge Burmila: “I think we should put this issue on the record, in open court. This is the second time the defense has tried to go into the results of the inquest… the State interjected into its opening statement this entire subject.” Prosecutor Patton: “This witness was not there; it’s not appropriate for this witness.” Judge Burmila then asks the witness to return to the stand, and the jurors come back to the courtroom.



In Session Goldberg continues his cross. “Did there time you learned an inquest was done in regard to Ms. Savio’s death?’ “Yes.” “And you learned the inquest jury found the cause of death was an accident?” “Yes.” “You didn’t dispute that with anyone, did you?” “I did not.” This ends the cross-examination.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Kathy Patton begins her redirect examination. The witness says he felt Savio’s death appeared suspicious. “What made you feel that way?” “The fact that there were no obvious signs of a fall in the bathroom. I don’t know how she would have drowned otherwise... it was clean, there was like nothing in it [the tub].”



In Session He dictated his report over the telephone to a secretary at the coroner’s office. “It gets typed up and gets there before the pathologist does the autopsy.” “What do you with the photograph, after you take it?’ “I leave it at the morgue.” “Is that what you did in this case?’ “Yes.” “So it’s part of your report?” “Yes.” Objection/Overruled. “Did you tell the State Police when you talked to them that you were suspicious of this incident?” Objection/Overruled. “Yes.” “Did you detail the reasons you were suspicious?” “I don’t recall the total conversation… but, yes.”

In Session ”Did you indicate in your dictation in any way that you thought this was a suspicious incident?” “They told me no.” “When you say no into the dictation machine, are you intending to transmit or communicate..." Objection/Sustained. “When you looked at your report, is ‘no’ observed in any way different than other words?” “Yes, it’s capitalized... that they did not feel that it was, but... I felt that it was.” “Is that what you meant by that remark, ‘No’?” “Yes.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session “Was there anything about the position of the body that was suspicious to you?” Objection/Overruled. “Is there anything else that caused you to be suspicious?” “The way the body was positioned in the tub... it was a fairly small tub, and it seemed as if a person would have fell I don’t believe they would have came to rest that way.”



In Session “Is it your job when you write your report to make a decision as far as the investigation?” Objection/Sustained. “Ultimately, what is your job at the scene?” “My job is to be with the body... I investigate the body itself until it goes to the morgue. And from there it goes to the pathologist.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The redirect examination is now concluded, and Goldberg begins his recross. “You thought there were no signs of foul play or trauma, that’s what you put in your official report?” “Yes.” “You didn’t tell a single person in 2004 that you thought Ms. Savio’s death was suspicious?” “I don’t remember telling anyone.” The same is true for 2005 and 2006. “Her death suddenly became suspicious in 2007 after you were called in to the State’s Attorney’s office?” Objection/Overruled. “I told them what I felt back then.” “Before you were called in, you didn’t tell a single person whatsoever that you thought Ms. Savio’s death was suspicious, did you?” “No.” That ends VanOver’s testimony, and he leaves the stand.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prior to the next witness, the attorneys approach the bench for a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The jury has now left the courtroom. The State confirms that Robert Deel will be the next witness. Attorney Steve Greenberg: “This gets into areas I think the State should not be allowed to get into... my understanding with Sgt. Deel and also Investigator Collins is that they want to get into the investigation was possibly not done probably... the problem I have with this argument is the State doing almost what the defense is supposed to do... raising reasonable doubt, trying to raise questions about the investigation. I don’t think the State can do that. The inference the State wants to draw is, ‘Had they done more, there might be evidence.’ The problem with that is they didn’t do more, and it’s totally irrelevant that they didn’t do things... their failure to do anything doesn’t lead to any conclusion that makes it more likely than not that a crime was committed, or that Mr. Peterson committed a crime... it’s burden-shifting... it’s very troubling to me... so we’re asking that you restrict them from getting into that.”

 

[katydid23]

WHAT? The defense wants the state not to question the initial investigation into her death??????

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecutor Coleen Griffin responds, denies that this is burden-shifting in any way. She says that witness Deel should be able to testify about this issue. Greenberg then responds. “That’s speculation... the whole thing is just irrelevant speculation... it’s burden-shifting, because they’re leaving it to us to fill in the blanks... what is the relevancy of what he didn’t do? It’s got no relevancy.” Judge Burmila: “I can’t tell the State what to argue... as far as the officer’s role in the investigation, he’s entitled to tell what he did in this particular case, and I believe he’s entitled to tell what he would ordinarily do... but I don’t believe any of those questions would lead to burden-shifting... the State is not going to be allowed to infer that there were fingerprints or blood and they missed it, and if they had only found it it it would have proved the defendant was there... they can’t ask the jury to speculate as to what they would have found if they’d done more... if they ask a question that Mr. Peterson believes is inappropriate, I’m sure that he’ll object.”

 

[katydid23]

if they ask a question that Mr. Peterson believes is inappropriate, I’m sure that he’ll object.”


WTH?

 

[~n/t~]

In Session

40 seconds ago.
The judge sends for the jurors. Once they’re back inside the courtroom, the prosecution will call its new witness, Robert Deel, the Illinois state police evidence technician who gathered evidence in Savio’s bathroom where she was found dead in her bathtub.

 

[~n/t~]

if they ask a question that Mr. Peterson believes is inappropriate, I’m sure that he’ll object.”


WTH?

Ya I didn't get that either. Is it an error by the Judge or did IS get it wrong. :waitasec:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The jurors are now back in the courtroom, and the prosecution calls its next witness: Robert Deel (questioned by prosecutor Patton). “I’m a state police officer, with the Illinois State Police... seven years this December.” He briefly goes over his training and experience in law enforcement.

 

[~n/t~]

10 minutes since last update from IS. :shrug:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session He was not on duty when he received a call on March 2, 2004. Pursuant to that call, he was dispatched to the Savio house in Bolingbrook. “There was a death investigation, and I was asked to go and process the scene... I arrived around 1:30 in the morning.” As part of his investigation, he took photographs at the scene. He is then handed a lengthy series of photos, and asked to look at all of them (which takes quite a while). “Are these photographs you took at the scene and at the autopsy?” “Yes, they are.”



In Session When the witness arrived at the scene, it was explained to him “that the victim had been found dead in the bathtub... and that the victim was the ex-wife of a Bolingbrook police officer, and that Bolingbrook had requested that the State Police handle the investigation because of that fact.” The first thing he did was look for any signs of disturbance or break-in, “eventually working my way up to the bathroom.” He was looking for “anything that seemed unusual, anything that didn’t seem right... anything that just didn’t seem to be normal.” “Did you observe the escape windows leading to the basement?” “I remember walking around to see if there were windows there; they were closed.” “You didn’t check to see if they were locked or unlocked?” “I don’t believe so, no... my main focus inside the house was the area where she was found.” “Did you go through all the rooms?” “No.”


In Session The witness is shown a photograph, and notes a can “of something” in the bedroom that can be seen in it (“Spot Shot&#8221. “Did you see that can?” “Yes.” “Feel it was of any evidentiary value?” “No.” “Did you process it?” “No, I did not.” After checking out the master bedroom, he moved to the master bathroom. “Had you ever been in that room before?” “No.” “So you wouldn’t really know if anything was out of place, would you?” Objection/Sustained. “The doorway leading into the bathroom was open; I could see that the tub was at the far end of the room. I could see a little of the body inside the tub.”

 

[Cubby]

Head wounds typically bleed very heavily.....it is stunning the amount of blood that one can lose when your head is hurt. From what I have read the only blood that has been discussed has been the dried blood that was matted in her hair. I think it is very strange that there wasn't any blood found elsewhere in the bathroom--or elsewhere in the house. The place would have had to have been sanitized for there not be be blood stains even if it was an accident and she was all by herself. It would be very interesting to read the initial crime scene report....if they tested the floor, etc it probably would have been heavily bleached and there would have been trace--even very tiny traces of blood left on the tile or grout A thorough investigation was never done because of his clout as a police officer and an assumption that this *had* to have been an accident.

BBM. You're definately right. My 9 yr old had a head wound (top) this spring which needed 5 staples. The amount of blood was ridiculous scary. I hope the prosecution bring into evidence an expert who can indicate what amount of blood would be expected from the type of wound Kathleen had and what type of stains it was expected to leave.


I'm also wondering about the type of stopper in the tub and why the tub appeard to have drained? Depending on the type of stopper, a tub can stay full for days. Personally, it is pretty apparent, imo, there was probably never any water in the tub when Drew placed her there.