Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

Thanks for filling in CA Lady.

So Brodsky seems to be trying to make the jury believe that nobody said anything about these threats against her until years later. Like he wants the jurors to believe that people are just saying this now because he is on trial, but there is no proof that she ever said this to anyone.

Is there any evidence that she told anyone these threats back then? I hope so.

What's with the defense and all of their sidebars???? Heck, just move the defense table up by the judge since they are all so friendly with each other.

Oh, how I wish there was a more aggressive prosecution team. They are missing the opportunity to ask so many questions. I don't have a good feeling about the outcome of this trial. I wish I did.

Thanks for all the great updates!!!

~n/t~ said:

They let this in.....


Drew said, ‘They should be, they’re getting all my money . . . my life would be easier if she was just dead or died . . .



Another witness testifying about his wishes to have Kathleen dead!

Click to expand...

I don't know how I missed that..... I missed the second half: "... my life would be easier if she was just dead or died".

~n/t~ said:

Peterson's attorney: My client wasn't abusive

Click to expand...

~n/t~ said:

Watch the video to see In Session correspondent Beth Karas interview Drew Peterson's defense attorney, Steve Greenberg, about evidence that may indicate that Peterson was abusive to the women in his life.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/08/07/steve-greenberg

Click to expand...

1st Line Response: Nope, they just ended up dead/missing :maddening: :banghead: :shutup:

Good Morning,

I won't be around until much later today so hopefully someone can help with posting the updates while I'm gone. :seeya:

~n/t~ said:

In Session “If the wound to her head, which you didn’t check to see...” Objection/Sustained. “If the wound to her head was...” Objection/Sustained. “Are there certain types of wounds to the head that if you see them you would not want to move the body?” Objection/Overruled. “Not that I can think of, no.”

Click to expand...

Just got home from work so I'm way behind, so sorry if this has already been discussed, but say what? If there were, say a gunshot wound, you really wouldn't want to move the body, would you? I mean, wouldn't CSI want to see the crime scene before anything was moved, wouldn't they? And this is a seasoned veteran? Really????

I don't know if there vouch for his whereabouts will be able to cover at all times during the weekend. l

Cubby said:

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?

Click to expand...

The Sun-Times reports this morning that Judge Burmila is expected to rule today on whether to toss out the officer's testimony about Drew saying that he would be better off with Kathleen dead.....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/...-tossing-damning-evidence-against-ex-cop.html

The jury has already heard this now though. This is really a shoddy trial. While it isn't surprising that the defense is going to continue to object to anything remotely condemning of Drew Peterson, it doesn't make sense that such issues haven't already been ironed out enough after 3 stinking years of pre-trial motions. What have they been doing? This should be much smoother. It is pathetic

In Session ‏@InSession RT @bethkaras: Day 6 of Drew Peterson's trial starts in about 45 minutes. The scene investigator, Pat Collins, is among the next witnesses.

Beth Karas InSession · 16,208 like this
about a minute ago via mobile ·

Peterson just came into the courtroom. He's putting on his tie and belt in court, as he does every day--since he's not allowed to have these items in jail. Among today's witnesses are two hearsay witnesses: a fellow nursing student of Savio's, Mary Parks, and a former tenant, Kristen Anderson, who lived in Savio's basement after Peterson moved out.

In Session The defendant is in the courtroom, but most of his attorneys are still missing. The prosecutors, in contrast, are all at their counsel table. Judge Burmila briefly stuck his head into the courtroom (apparently looking for something), but then withdrew

Don't know what the holdup is. jmo

In Session Judge Burmila has just taken the bench. “We have one matter we need to address before we address Mr. Peterson.” The judge takes care of another brief matter, then returns to the Peterson case. “We have one matter that we have to address from yesterday, the defense request to strike the testimony of Ofc. James Coughlin.” The judge notes he received some e-mailed material from the defense last night, but nothing from the State. Defense attorney Lisa Lopez: ‘We’re asking the court to strict the testimony of Ofc. Coughlin, based on a Brady violation. The State must disclose any exculpatory evidence to the defendant that can be used to impeach a witness.” Ms Lopez then goes on to cite case law that the defense believes supports their position. “We have two different versions of Ofc. Coughlin’s story; I suppose there’s a third version, if you accept the court order... we come to learn that Drew wasn’t there, and he states the FBI report wasn’t accurate. He’s making this extreme allegation that the FBI agent is lying, and he told the State two and a half years ago that he disagreed with what the FBI reported... clearly the State knew that Mr. Coughlin disagreed with the FBI’s testimony, the FBI’s report. At that point in time, the defense had a duty to write a letter, advising that Mr. Coughlin disagrees with what was reported by the FBI special agent. They had many opportunities to bring it out to us in the last two and a half years... that’s pretty significant impeachment, to point your fingers at an FBI agent and say they’re lying... it certainly resulted in prejudicing the defendant. The fact that the jury has heard this has resulted in prejudice toward the defendant.”

In Session Ms. Lopez continues to argue the defense argument that the State committed a discovery violation. “It was a Brady violation, because the State has countless opportunities to expose it to us over the last two years... we are asking that the testimony of Ofc. Coughlin be stricken from the record. And we ask for the same jury instruction as will be used in striking Mr. Pontarelli’s testimony. And because it’s the second violation, we’re asking for a stronger instruction.” Prosecutor Koch responds: “I think the first thing we want to make clear for the record is what exactly are we talking about? What is it that we didn’t turn over? The FBI report is almost verbatim with the testimony Ofc. Coughlin provided... the ONLY difference is one sentence regarding whether Lt. Coughlin peeked into the courtroom. That’s it; everything else is substantially the same. What we did turn over to them was a sworn statement by Lt. Coughlin from the grand jury, something that was in addition to what the FBI report said. What is the real material difference between seeing them in a courtroom and seeing them coming out from a courtroom or a conference room? They have to show there’s some kind of material prejudicial effect here." Judge: “Did you have a copy of Judge O’Leary’s order prior to yesterday?” “Yes.” “So you knew that the statement said no one was present?” “The defense attorneys also had the court order. We had a duty to disclose. We disclosed... we gave them the grand jury transcript; they were here for the hearing. Mr. Brodsky has been here for this case since Day One. So to say they did not know there was this statement, I think that’s disingenuous... they knew that there was an inconsistent statement. They were impeaching the witness; we gave them the information to impeach... we complied.” Koch then cites some case law that he believes supports the prosecution position.

FWIW, I agree with the pros. This is not a big deal. jmo

In Session Koch continues: “They’ve had this material for over two years. They had the opportunity to investigate, to go out and question the FBI agent. So we did not withhold that particular information... they had the statement, the court order, everything they needed to properly impeach this witness...Your Honor said yesterday you believed this was a 180 degree turn; I would submit the defendant’s statement never changed in the FBI and the testimony here. It’s always been the statement that he provided, that ‘I’d be better off if she was dead.’ The testimony about the two men, about being in the courthouse has never wavered. Everything is consistent, except for the one statement about where it was he saw him. They had that information; they saw it coming... they already knew that; they knew it. We also have a second officer who provided information, Ofc. Treese (?), who would corroborate Ofc. Coughlin. The question then becomes, what is the prejudice that was given to the defendant yesterday? What was the prejudice? They got to impeach him.” So where was the prejudice against the defendant yesterday? I submit that there was none... I would submit to you that there was no prejudice, and the State did comply.”

In Session Lisa Lopez makes a final argument: “In regard to the surprise, the surprise was what Lt. Coughlin told us on the stand. The FBI was lying; that was the surprise... it is a Brady violation, it is material, it is prejudicial... they did have a duty to disclose... how is Ofc. Treese (?) possibly going to corroborate what Coughlin was saying, because we know that Coughlin was lying... we ask that the testimony of Ofc. Coughlin be stricken.” Judge: “The argument Mr. Koch made has to be corrected; he said I said the statement was 180 degree from the officer’s testimony; I didn’t... if he had actually seen Mr. Peterson in a courtroom, in front of a judge, there would be a record of that, and it would be proven. If it was an inadvertent meeting in front of an elevator, there would be no proof . . . so it is a Brady violation . . . now, I asked Ms. Lopez if this team took the opportunity to interview Ofc. Coughlin, and they did not; they had the reports, knew they were at odds, and did not interview him. The Court, in the face of a discovery violation, has several options with regards to sanctions . . . in this case, striking the officer’s testimony is not the appropriate sanction . . . I think the appropriate sanction is if they have any trouble calling the FBI agent a brief continuance to secure that presence would be the sanction imposed. The request to strike the testimony and issue another instruction to the jury is denied.”

Testimony may only last 3 weeks, but with the defense fighting every utterance by every witness...this could drag on for months. Yes of course everything is prejudicial to Peterson...because he murdered his ex-wife. It's a murder trial. It's not a Friar's Roast.

In Session Prosecutor Connor says there’s another issue that might be addressed at this time. But since it doesn’t affect the next witness, the judge decides to proceed with the witness at this time. Connor notes that the witness has been instructed not to mention any of Stacy Peterson’s statements in his testimony. Attorney Greenberg says that he has an issue with that plan, but the judge sides with the prosecution on this one. Connor: “And there was some discussion about alibi documents; we’d be asking this witness if these documents were turned over during this investigation, prior to the search warrant in 2007.” Judge: “OK.” Greenberg: “That would be the false alibi.” Judge: “I don’t know. But if they seized the documents, they’re allowed to show them to a witness.”