Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,508
BBM. :what: Was this the witness that stated someone in Springfield finished the sketch?
Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*
- Thread starter CarolinaMoon
- Start date
- Status
BBM. :what: Was this the witness that stated someone in Springfield finished the sketch?
Later he says it was a computer generated sketch based on his measurements.
But still not a sketch of the actual oval shaped tub!! :banghead:
In Session In February, 2004, he was at the Will County Courthouse and saw the defendant there.. Objection/Sustained. “It was approximately mid-February.” “What floor are you talking about?” “The third floor . . . near the elevators . . . mid-day, just before the lunch break . . . Drew and a couple of other gentlemen approached us. We exchanged pleasantries, such as ‘Hey, Drew, what’s up?’ . . . the two gentlemen behind Drew were having a conversation with some laughter, and Ofc. Treece (?) said they appeared to be happy. “Drew said, ‘They should be, they’re getting all my money . . . my life would be easier if she was just dead or died . . . I don’t recall which word at this time. He was very irritated.” “How do you remember this?” “Because it was a couple of weeks later that Kathleen turned up deceased.” He reported the incident later, but never spoke to anyone about it again. “Was the defendant in uniform?” “Plain clothes that day.” This ends his direct examination.
In Session Before the defense starts its cross, the parties approach the bench for a sidebar.
ETA: Not sure who this witness was.
In Session Before the defense starts its cross, the parties approach the bench for a sidebar.
ETA: Not sure who this witness was.
Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,508
that's why I always type out Brodsky. JB is kind of exclusive to Baez these days. back to catching up.
Just to add to CA Lady's post, ^
This is whom is being questioned, and who is doing the questioning.
"The prosecution now calls its next witness: Lieutenant James Coughlin. He is a lieutenant with the Bolingbrook Police Department. He is being questioned by prosecutor Kathy Patton. “Did you know an officer named Drew Peterson?” “Yes, I did.” He identifies the defendant in the courtroom.
This is whom is being questioned, and who is doing the questioning.
"The prosecution now calls its next witness: Lieutenant James Coughlin. He is a lieutenant with the Bolingbrook Police Department. He is being questioned by prosecutor Kathy Patton. “Did you know an officer named Drew Peterson?” “Yes, I did.” He identifies the defendant in the courtroom.
In Session The sidebar ends, and attorney Joel Brodsky begins his cross. The witness says he’s known Peterson since 1978. He also knew Kathy Savio (“I only knew her as Kathy Peterson”
. On the day in question, he was at the courthouse because of a traffic court case (“I don’t know what case”. “You were on the third floor of this building?” “Most of my trials are on the third floor . . . it was the third floor.” “You remember seeing Drew by the elevators?” “Correct.” “He came up to by the elevators?” “Yes.” “These two people were behind him?” “Yes, two gentlemen.” “How close was Drew to these gentlemen?” “Four feet.” “And they were laughing?” “Having a good time.” “What’d you say to Drew?” “Officer Treese (?) said they appeared to be having a good conversation.” “Did you know if those two guys laughing had anything to do with Drew?” “No . . . I didn’t know who the gentlemen were.” “You still don’t know?” “Correct.” “And Drew’s response was, ‘Well, they’re happy because they’re getting all my money?” “Yes.” “Not Kathy, but ‘THEY”RE getting all my money’?” “Yes.”
In Session “Remember testifying before the grand jury, on July 17, 2008?” “If you say so.” “It was in 2008?” “Yes.” “You were sworn to tell the truth?” “Yes.” “Recall a long question and a long answer . . . ‘I’d like you to tell the story of coming to court that day and what you remember’ . . . you answered, ‘I believe we were on the second floor’ . . . remember that?” “Yes, the second floor was a misstatement.” “And there’s no mention of the elevator, either, is there?’ “We were by the elevator; he came out of a side room.” “You don’t say that here?:” “If it’s not in there, right.”
. On the day in question, he was at the courthouse because of a traffic court case (“I don’t know what case”. “You were on the third floor of this building?” “Most of my trials are on the third floor . . . it was the third floor.” “You remember seeing Drew by the elevators?” “Correct.” “He came up to by the elevators?” “Yes.” “These two people were behind him?” “Yes, two gentlemen.” “How close was Drew to these gentlemen?” “Four feet.” “And they were laughing?” “Having a good time.” “What’d you say to Drew?” “Officer Treese (?) said they appeared to be having a good conversation.” “Did you know if those two guys laughing had anything to do with Drew?” “No . . . I didn’t know who the gentlemen were.” “You still don’t know?” “Correct.” “And Drew’s response was, ‘Well, they’re happy because they’re getting all my money?” “Yes.” “Not Kathy, but ‘THEY”RE getting all my money’?” “Yes.”In Session “Remember testifying before the grand jury, on July 17, 2008?” “If you say so.” “It was in 2008?” “Yes.” “You were sworn to tell the truth?” “Yes.” “Recall a long question and a long answer . . . ‘I’d like you to tell the story of coming to court that day and what you remember’ . . . you answered, ‘I believe we were on the second floor’ . . . remember that?” “Yes, the second floor was a misstatement.” “And there’s no mention of the elevator, either, is there?’ “We were by the elevator; he came out of a side room.” “You don’t say that here?:” “If it’s not in there, right.”
In Session
“Also, you testified that you talked to the Illinois State Police, after you found out that Kathy had passed away?” “Yes.” The witness is then asked again about his July 17, 2008 grand jury testimony. “You said you weren’t interviewed by
the Illinois State Police in 2004?’ “They did not interview me. I went and met with them in our investigations room . . . it was not a formal investigation . . . they didn’t ask me any questions; I offered them what happened.” “So were you misleading the grand jury?” Objection/Overruled. “No, Sir. I did not consider that an interview.” “So telling the police of your suspicions in a homicide, in a death investigation, was not an interview?” “It was a piece of information that, in light of the time frame, I believed they needed to know.”
In Session
Recall back in 2008 being interviewed by an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation about this case?” “Yes.” “You can’t lie to an FBI agent, right? It’s a crime?” Objection/Overruled. “Correct.” Brodsky then reads from the FBI
agent’s report. In the report, it says that the witness “peeked into the courtroom.” “So you’re telling the FBI it wasn’t by the elevator, and you peeked into the courtroom?” “That’s inaccurate.” “The FBI report is inaccurate?” “Yes.” “You’ve never told that to the FBI agent?” “No.” “But you know that’s what the report says?” “Yes, I do.”
“Also, you testified that you talked to the Illinois State Police, after you found out that Kathy had passed away?” “Yes.” The witness is then asked again about his July 17, 2008 grand jury testimony. “You said you weren’t interviewed by
the Illinois State Police in 2004?’ “They did not interview me. I went and met with them in our investigations room . . . it was not a formal investigation . . . they didn’t ask me any questions; I offered them what happened.” “So were you misleading the grand jury?” Objection/Overruled. “No, Sir. I did not consider that an interview.” “So telling the police of your suspicions in a homicide, in a death investigation, was not an interview?” “It was a piece of information that, in light of the time frame, I believed they needed to know.”
In Session
Recall back in 2008 being interviewed by an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation about this case?” “Yes.” “You can’t lie to an FBI agent, right? It’s a crime?” Objection/Overruled. “Correct.” Brodsky then reads from the FBI
agent’s report. In the report, it says that the witness “peeked into the courtroom.” “So you’re telling the FBI it wasn’t by the elevator, and you peeked into the courtroom?” “That’s inaccurate.” “The FBI report is inaccurate?” “Yes.” “You’ve never told that to the FBI agent?” “No.” “But you know that’s what the report says?” “Yes, I do.”
Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,508
Two questions. how long after the time of death would someone purge blood? and if the tub was full of water with the drain closed, why wouldn't the purged blood be diluted by the water in the tub? I'm still questioning the pattern in which the blood drained from the tub - especially if the tub was full of water when Kathleen allegedly fell.
Also, can he be asked about the footing position in other slip and fall injury deaths? Can he be asked how many slip and fall injury deaths he has been at the scene?
In Session “Assuming you heard this from Mr. Peterson, that he actually said that . . .” Objection/Sustained. “you didn’t think he was serious, did you?” “No.” “You wouldn’t think that he’d be serious about saying something like that?” “Correct.” “You never told the FBI that you spoke to the Illinois State Police?” “If it’s not in there, I didn’t discuss it with him.”
In Session The witness is shown two court orders pertaining to the Savio/Peterson report. The prosecution objects, and the defense asks for a sidebar.
In Session The witness is shown two court orders pertaining to the Savio/Peterson report. The prosecution objects, and the defense asks for a sidebar.
I don't now how long it would take for purging but I don't think very long. What it says to me is that there was no water in the tub or there would have been more signs of blood in the tub besides just the purge. Also with all the blood in the hair there should have been some evidence of that in the tub, like a ring or something.
I guess the prosecutor didn't want to push too many more questions since the defense was objecting to everything. It probably wasn't important enough in her mind.
Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,508
I'm a little confused here. Does this mean Drew now has no alibi for the night Kathleen was found deceased in the tub? If the evidence does not come in, then neither side can say Drew's where abouts were known? So the jury does not know if he had an alibi or not? Is that how this works?
In Session The sidebar ends. The judge asks the jurors to leave the room. Patton objects to the defense questioning regarding the court orders; Brodsky says the prosecution can address the matter in redirect. Judge Burmila: “If Mr. Peterson calls the FBI agent, the jury will have to decide for itself whether it believes the FBI agent or this witness [Lt. Coughlin] . . . the implication from the witness was that the defendant made this apparently damning statement, and they’ve cross-examined him with a statement he’s allegedly made to an FBI hearing. So the State’s objection is overruled, and the defense is going to be able to ask the officer about this. If the State chooses to redirect, they certainly will have a right to do that.” The judge then sends for the jury.
In Session The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Brodsky continues his cross-examination of Lt. Coughlin. “You were in the Will County Courthouse that February day . . . Drew was there because of his divorce?” “That was my perception, based on what Drew had told me.” “And these were lawyers?” “From what he said to Ofc. Treese (?), I assume so.” “The two lawyers were laughing . . . in one version, you see them coming out of a side room?” “I don’t remember if it was a side room or a courtroom.” “Well, according to the FBI report, you peeked into a courtroom.” “That’s not accurate.”
In Session The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Brodsky continues his cross-examination of Lt. Coughlin. “You were in the Will County Courthouse that February day . . . Drew was there because of his divorce?” “That was my perception, based on what Drew had told me.” “And these were lawyers?” “From what he said to Ofc. Treese (?), I assume so.” “The two lawyers were laughing . . . in one version, you see them coming out of a side room?” “I don’t remember if it was a side room or a courtroom.” “Well, according to the FBI report, you peeked into a courtroom.” “That’s not accurate.”
In Session
Brodsky asks the witness to look at the two court orders. Those are court orders in the case of Drew Peterson v. Kathleen Peterson? Yes. Objection/Overruled. The first court order is projected, and says the case is continued until F
eb. 9, 2004. The second order is also projected, and says the case is continued from Feb. 9 to April 6, 2009. So the only time the case is up in February is Feb. 9, 2004? Yes. The parts of the order that say Plaintiff Present and Defendant Present are checked No. This ends the ctross-examination of Lt. Coughlin.
In Session
The witness acknowledges that he told the grand jury that he was in the courthouse hallway. And there are elevators in the hallway? A bank of them. You just went into that room [with the State Police] to give them some information?
Yes. They didnt ask you any questions? Correct. You assumed thats why Drew Peterson was in the courthouse [for the divorce]? Yes. And thats why you assumed he answered Ofc. Treeses question that way? Yes.
In Session The prosecution has ended its redirect. The defense asks for a brief sidebar.
Brodsky asks the witness to look at the two court orders. Those are court orders in the case of Drew Peterson v. Kathleen Peterson? Yes. Objection/Overruled. The first court order is projected, and says the case is continued until F
eb. 9, 2004. The second order is also projected, and says the case is continued from Feb. 9 to April 6, 2009. So the only time the case is up in February is Feb. 9, 2004? Yes. The parts of the order that say Plaintiff Present and Defendant Present are checked No. This ends the ctross-examination of Lt. Coughlin.
In Session
The witness acknowledges that he told the grand jury that he was in the courthouse hallway. And there are elevators in the hallway? A bank of them. You just went into that room [with the State Police] to give them some information?
Yes. They didnt ask you any questions? Correct. You assumed thats why Drew Peterson was in the courthouse [for the divorce]? Yes. And thats why you assumed he answered Ofc. Treeses question that way? Yes.
In Session The prosecution has ended its redirect. The defense asks for a brief sidebar.
In Session
The sidebar ends. Brodsky: “Lieutenant, is it true that you told the FBI that you peeked into the courtroom . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Isn’t it true you never told the FBI agent . . .” Objection/Sustained. “You always said that when
Mr. Peterson told you this he was joking?” Objection/Sustained. Brodsky: “Then I guess I have nothing . . . when did you tell the State’s Attorney that the FBI report was inaccurate?” “The first time we reviewed it, before the hearsay hearing.” “More than two years ago?” “Yes.” “Who did you tell it to?” “I believe it was Miss Patton.” “Where?” Objection/Sustained. “How many times did you tell her that?” Objection/Sustained. That ends the testimony of this witness, and he is excused.
The sidebar ends. Brodsky: “Lieutenant, is it true that you told the FBI that you peeked into the courtroom . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Isn’t it true you never told the FBI agent . . .” Objection/Sustained. “You always said that when
Mr. Peterson told you this he was joking?” Objection/Sustained. Brodsky: “Then I guess I have nothing . . . when did you tell the State’s Attorney that the FBI report was inaccurate?” “The first time we reviewed it, before the hearsay hearing.” “More than two years ago?” “Yes.” “Who did you tell it to?” “I believe it was Miss Patton.” “Where?” Objection/Sustained. “How many times did you tell her that?” Objection/Sustained. That ends the testimony of this witness, and he is excused.
Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,508
TallCoolOne
Illinois ~ Our Governors make our license plates
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 513
Well if he does, I just hope we'd be so lucky that he'd walk directly in front of that big ole bus Cindy Anthony was driving.......
Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,508
Was anyone besides me a little lost on the purpose of the BB (abbv for Bolingbrook) lieutenants testimony?
It didn't really impress upon me one way or another, other than there were parts of Drew and Kathleen's divorce not yet complete.
It didn't really impress upon me one way or another, other than there were parts of Drew and Kathleen's divorce not yet complete.
jevipo74
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,385
- Reaction score
- 11
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 68
They let this in.....
Another witness testifying about his wishes to have Kathleen dead!
- Status