Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

katydid23 said:

There is NO WAY that DP was going to ever let any of Kathleen's family have anything to do with those boys.

What the sister was probably afraid to say, for fear of getting into trouble, was that she was secure in knowing that Stacey was watching and caring for the boys. And it was not until she went missing, that the family became more worried about their welfare.

Click to expand...

Get out of my head! Ditto!

CarolinaMoon said:

When she testified to that, all I could think of was Cindy Anthony taking Amy's money out of Casey's wallet that night.

As to Anna Doman, I have a feeling that after the neighbor let slip about the bullet, the prosecution reminded her of all that she couldn't say. I would be terrified on the stand of blowing the whole trial. I also have to wonder if she is still afraid of what Drew will do to her and her family should he get off.

Also, the defense knows very well what she can't say and are making the biggest issue of bringing her to the limits and trying to get her to slip up. When she is legally barred from testifying to the full array of information and pushed and pushed to make an irreversible error, it has to be a nightmare.

I'm still obsessing about the blue towel. I can't help it. I hope the jury is obsessing over it as well. I went to take a bath in my soaking tub yesterday. It is larger than the one in Kathleen's home, but just as deep. I never fill it up all the way.

Anyway, I keep a very small bath-mat hung over the side to put down when I bathe. It's an automatic reminder to put it down prior to drawing the bath. I wouldn't want it to accidentally get soaking wet if I draw a somewhat deeper bath.

Well, on InSession yesterday, they showed a masked photo of the tub with Kathleen's body in it and the towel hung over the side, well into the tub. I hadn't realized before seeing this, that the towel had to be placed there sometime between the paramedics leaving and Bolingbrook police arriving.

Anyhow, I want the CSI who (mis)processed the scene to tell us if the bottom of the towel was wet or dry. If, indeed, Kathleen drowned in the tub, it would have gotten wet. As most people know, a soaked towel will not completely dry if left in that position for a couple of days.

To me, it's the "Smoking Towel" that shows SOMEONE with an interest in making her death an accident would be the only one with a motive to add the towel to the scene.

Click to expand...

Excellent post. I agree with all of it. Do we know who the CSI is who (mis)processed the scene and if he or she is on the witness list?

Kind of interesting to think it might be a blue towel instead of a blue barrel which finally breaks this wide open and put's DP where he belongs-permanently. :jail:

Welcome to WS WindyCityGirl!

:welcome:

WindyCityGirl said:

Adding--the defense team really looked like a bunch of gangsters wearing flashy suits and sunglasses. Apparently Joe Lopez "the shark" has a history of representing mobsters. He was very lacking in respect and decorum during the trial as he was cutting up with the other members of the defense team while Glasgow was presenting his opening arguments and other issues. I guess that is their schtick to try to minimize the seriousness of the prosecution's case by having a few yucks between themselves. His wife is a very attractive redhead who isn't a seasoned attorney but is nonetheless on the legal team (carrying a huge Prada tote bag) I think it was sexist and inappropriate when Brodsky introduced the legal team as from brains to beauty with her being last though. Just eww. /

Click to expand...

First of all :welcome: to WS.


Did you get a chance to see the jurors reactions at all? I am wondering what they are thinking of the Defense team and their antics?

I am hoping they are having the same emotional reaction as you did tho their shtick.

ChickenPants said:

If she had taken a bath, there would have been clothes either on the floor of the bathroom, on her bedroom floor or even in a hamper. Most people taking a bath/shower undress in the bathroom, IMO. A person doing this would also have clothes they were planning to put on afterward, even if a robe. You wouldn't strip down in the bedroom, get into the tub, wash, dry off with a skimpy towel and walk around in that or stark naked while looking around for something to wear. Who is going to testify that she was a nudist or even slept in the nude?

There would also be soap, soap residue or body wash. There would be towel(s), a mat on the floor, washcloth(s) or even a loofah...to prove it was an accident they would have to show that she died as soon as she stepped into the tub, before she could have filled it with water. How did she die? Did the autopsy show heart disease like Lena Kaufmann? Did she have a stroke, or throw a blood clot?

Also, if you fill a tub with water, you plug the tub. No way an entire tub filled with water would have drained completely even if there was a slow leak in the plug. If she took a shower, her hair would be wet or at least damp beyond the matted portion. I am incredulous that it was ruled an accident. I can only surmise that he staged it and others knew and it was covered up, meaning that anybody who suspected foul play kept their mouths shut. And what assumptions can we make about that?

Of course, we know through the testimony of his "missing" wife to her pastor that there was no bath. He killed KS and then took her bloody clothes home with him.

It has been stated elsewhere on these threads that if DP claims he did not kill her, then who did? If it was the boyfriend, it still would be strange that DP, as a police officer, did nothing at the scene in any investigative capacity, even if it was fake. This to me shows his arrogance and his presumption that nobody would bother to look into it. And why is that?

I would like to know anybody's opinions or theories about how he planned, perpetrated and covered up the killing, the whole scenario, including who he may have urged to say nothing and how he did that. I am looking forward to Dr. Baden's autopsy testimony, hope that he will explain thoroughly the cause and manner of death. Then let the defense try to explain away all of those bruises, how she could fall and lacerate the BACK of her head, then turn over and land in a fetal position.

Click to expand...

I'll add the lack of blood from a head wound. IF the judge doesn't rule Dr. Baden's testimony as being too prejudicial. I didn't think it was possible I could dislike this judge more than I dislike the defense team, but I do. This judge is clearly letting the defense run his court room and run this trial and it is :censored: outrageous. :steamed:

Cubby said:

Excellent post. I agree with all of it. Do we know who the CSI is who (mis)processed the scene and if he or she is on the witness list?

Kind of interesting to think it might be a blue towel instead of a blue barrel which finally breaks this wide open and put's DP where he belongs-permanently. :jail:

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that I heard on IS that the pros is calling the first medical examiner to the stand.

However, after some research, I think his name is Dr. Bryan Mitchell and I don't see him on the list that ACR has.......


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

On March 20, Dr. Bryan Mitchell from the Will County coroner's office said in an autopsy report that the cause of Savio's death was drowning, her hair was soaked in blood from a cut on her scalp, and she had small bruises on her body.


ACR's list

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

ChickenPants said:

I've concluded that one of the main problems in these trials is not allowing "prior bad acts" in. How can a jury establish criminal intent if they are not allowed to know that the defendant is a habitual perpetrator of inappropriate or illegal activities? In this case, the bullet in the neighbor's driveway (put there by DP or perhaps even a police friend - the elephant in the room), connected to the strange disappearance of the 4th wife, etc., and also connect that to Kathleen's sister being loathe to come forward because she may be terrified that a bullet in her driveway or WORSE could happen to her...

Click to expand...

I always thought that 'prior bad acts' was something like- before the defendant did the crime he had other arrests, not related to this crime but important to see who the defendant REALLY is. I know prior bad acts aren't allowed, but for Pete's sake, information he had talked to someone about whacking Kathleen, and even had a dollar amount attached to it! Information from other witnesses (Sharon, and Kathleen's best friends testimony) should be allowed in. WHY the heck did this judge decide to not ALLOW THIS TESTIMONY??? In Florida, Casey Anthony's escapades with the gas cans, breaking the lock on the shed, etc were allowed in...is that not 'prior bad acts'? I am not liking this judge, immensely!!!! I am afraid Kathleen won't get a chance at Justice.

Why no testimony about the bullet? It's so important!!!! I only hope those Jurors, at least one of them, has knowledge of Drew's behavior and past and will 'spread the word' among the other jurors. Oops, bet that's not allowed either. He was the Intimidator.

If I ever commit a crime I hope my defense team, the judge, the good ole boy network and whoever else is involved panders to me and I win my case, guilty or not. That's how the justice system seems to work these days.

They let all kinds of trash be known to the jury about Kathleen. I doubt most of it is true. But the judge let Brodsky and his 'crew' trash Kathleen to no end. On the FIRST day of the trial, no less!! How is it the information that she had sex that weekend with her boyfriend related to this case? Get the BF on the stand, ask him if they had rough sex ever, and that would tell if the bruising was from him or Drew. Get those ex wives on the stand and let the 2nd wife tell how controlling Drew was...(If she is 'Allowed") Lets let the jury know about the 18 domestic violence calls to 911 by Kathleen!!! In any other police department in this country, 18 domestic violence episodes would get him kicked off the force, suspended, or at least earn him some disiciplinary action. But, no...

When did that pastor release the information? Just starting to follow this trial, TIA? if somone can answer or share a link. I am wondering if that all was well publisized and considered fact, or was it tabloid?

Tulessa said:

Interesting. Very interesting...

JOEL BRODSKY- Police calls, suspension of law license uncovered - Crimeshots© True Crime Forums

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Looks like Brodsky is no better- in fact on paper he is worse- than Jose Baez. Brodsky is so cocky I really can't stomach him. He is JUST LIKE DREW.
I wish the state had requested a change of venue so DP could be tried somewhere other than Joilet. Seems all are corrupted there, JMO.

Judging from the way the Judge is behaving, he's coddling the defense soooooo obviously. I was hoping on day 2 or 3 the judge would turn away from defense and just let the trial be fair. But no.

atthelake said:

When did that pastor release the information? Just starting to follow this trial, TIA? if somone can answer or share a link. I am wondering if that all was well publisized and considered fact, or was it tabloid?

Click to expand...

Wasn't tabloid. Stacey really did talk to her pastor and really did tell him she thought DP had killed his first wife and she was afraid she was next. She was making plans to leave Drew.

JMO

atthelake said:

When did that pastor release the information? Just starting to follow this trial, TIA? if somone can answer or share a link. I am wondering if that all was well publisized and considered fact, or was it tabloid?

Click to expand...

The pastor's name is Neil Schori. Here's a link from ACR (a billion thanks again for all of the hard work, ACR!) that has several stories.

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

AbbieNormal said:

I always thought that 'prior bad acts' was something like- before the defendant did the crime he had other arrests, not related to this crime but important to see who the defendant REALLY is. I know prior bad acts aren't allowed, but for Pete's sake, information he had talked to someone about whacking Kathleen, and even had a dollar amount attached to it! Information from other witnesses (Sharon, and Kathleen's best friends testimony) should be allowed in. WHY the heck did this judge decide to not ALLOW THIS TESTIMONY??? In Florida, Casey Anthony's escapades with the gas cans, breaking the lock on the shed, etc were allowed in...is that not 'prior bad acts'? I am not liking this judge, immensely!!!! I am afraid Kathleen won't get a chance at Justice.

Why no testimony about the bullet? It's so important!!!! I only hope those Jurors, at least one of them, has knowledge of Drew's behavior and past and will 'spread the word' among the other jurors. Oops, bet that's not allowed either. He was the Intimidator.

If I ever commit a crime I hope my defense team, the judge, the good ole boy network and whoever else is involved panders to me and I win my case, guilty or not. That's how the justice system seems to work these days.

They let all kinds of trash be known to the jury about Kathleen. I doubt most of it is true. But the judge let Brodsky and his 'crew' trash Kathleen to no end. On the FIRST day of the trial, no less!! How is it the information that she had sex that weekend with her boyfriend related to this case? Get the BF on the stand, ask him if they had rough sex ever, and that would tell if the bruising was from him or Drew. Get those ex wives on the stand and let the 2nd wife tell how controlling Drew was...(If she is 'Allowed") Lets let the jury know about the 18 domestic violence calls to 911 by Kathleen!!! In any other police department in this country, 18 domestic violence episodes would get him kicked off the force, suspended, or at least earn him some disiciplinary action. But, no...

Click to expand...

Just wish some of the "blue wall" that protected him before would grow a conscience and spill the truth about DP. He is such a disgusting pig.

Shelby1 said:

I am pretty sure that I heard on IS that the pros is calling the first medical examiner to the stand.

However, after some research, I think his name is Dr. Bryan Mitchell and I don't see him on the list that ACR has.......


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

On March 20, Dr. Bryan Mitchell from the Will County coroner's office said in an autopsy report that the cause of Savio's death was drowning, her hair was soaked in blood from a cut on her scalp, and she had small bruises on her body.


ACR's list

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

Click to expand...

BBM.
Head wounds bleed a lot which makes most of them look worse than they really are. I am wondering how she could have drowned under water and not have that blood from the head wound bleed into the water. The description of her head was matted and wet. Hair still wet yet the tub was dry? My hair dries faster than that, and it's down my back past my bra strap. Kathleen's hair looked thick. I think maybe there was a little blood in the tub when her body was removed. It's appalling that they did not do a thorough CSI on her and the scene, even if it was supposed to be "an accident".

The fact that DP was gone that night, that Stacey tried to get ahold of him by phone and could not, and the fact that he was in the basement later, stripping down out of his ALL BLACK clothes, plus a woman clothes, all need to be told to the jury. Good Lord. I have never seen a case like this where the defendant and his lawyers make things up, say them in interviews or to the media, and then when its found to be untrue, they are just 'meh'. Its a big deal when lawyers say untrue things- once it's left their mouth it's too late. People hear it and it does stick in their minds. Results in unfair, false portrayal. Why is the court allowing the atty's to be so down and dirty?

Is this how our system of justice works now? Should we all just throw up our hands and allow lawyers to act this way, allow Judges to just throw out testimony about Kathleen that would work in her favor, but oh no we can't muddy Drew's reputation... I am just soooo frustrated.

Whew... :woot: finally! caught up on this thread and trial!! A few comments...

Leila said:

A good prosecuting attorney could raise these questions during closing arguments. Just based on these first few witnesses, he or she could state these unanswered questions............"why was there no bath mat or towels set out by Kathleen if she was intending to take a bath?" "Where were the clothes she removed to take a bath?" "Why was the dead bolt not locked from the inside?" "If he was concerned about his ex-wife, why did DP casually chit-chat with the locksmith after the door was opened?" When he responded to Mary Pontarelli's screaming, why didn't he think there was danger and draw his pistol?"

These can all be brought up in summarizing the state's case during closing arguments.

Click to expand...

Let's HOPE the Proscutors reads here!! They would get some VERY good ideas for their closing! I too think Drew "staged" that blue towel after the body was discovered and before the official cops showed up. From what I recall the neighbor Tony P. said he left Drew by himself up there in the bathroom after the body was discovered, and fire chief (supervisor) said Drew was upstairs when he came up. I'm sure he was looking for a chance to put that towel there - plus the bath mat (?) don't know about that, as I haven't seen the picture of the bathroom setting. And what's with the picture frame face down??!!
Also they should have asked the locksmith guy how many times has he seen the cops let civilians in first for a wellness check, as Drew did?

respectfully snipped...

Cubby said:

Back to reading to catch up.... thanks to everyone, including acandyrose, who pitched in when ~n/t~ had to leave for a bit.

Click to expand...

and OhioGirl = you guys are GREAT!! :yourock:

:gthanks:

ChickenPants said:

I've concluded that one of the main problems in these trials is not allowing "prior bad acts" in. How can a jury establish criminal intent if they are not allowed to know that the defendant is a habitual perpetrator of inappropriate or illegal activities? In this case, the bullet in the neighbor's driveway (put there by DP or perhaps even a police friend - the elephant in the room), connected to the strange disappearance of the 4th wife, etc., and also connect that to Kathleen's sister being loathe to come forward because she may be terrified that a bullet in her driveway or WORSE could happen to her...

Click to expand...

Totally agree with these "prior bad acts"! :maddening: I really have a problem with that in this case, as they (bad acts) ALL seem related to this case and not something else (Stacy's disappearance!) So frustrating!! :banghead:

katydid23 said:

First of all :welcome: to WS.


Did you get a chance to see the jurors reactions at all? I am wondering what they are thinking of the Defense team and their antics?

I am hoping they are having the same emotional reaction as you did tho their shtick.

Click to expand...

I too was wondering about that (bold)??!! Glad to have someone here that's in the court room! We need your input on here about the reactions of the jury!! :dance:

needed to edit and say:

:welcome4: WindyCityGirl!!

AbbieNormal said:

I always thought that 'prior bad acts' was something like- before the defendant did the crime he had other arrests, not related to this crime but important to see who the defendant REALLY is. I know prior bad acts aren't allowed, but for Pete's sake, information he had talked to someone about whacking Kathleen, and even had a dollar amount attached to it! Information from other witnesses (Sharon, and Kathleen's best friends testimony) should be allowed in. WHY the heck did this judge decide to not ALLOW THIS TESTIMONY??? In Florida, Casey Anthony's escapades with the gas cans, breaking the lock on the shed, etc were allowed in...is that not 'prior bad acts'? I am not liking this judge, immensely!!!! I am afraid Kathleen won't get a chance at Justice.

Why no testimony about the bullet? It's so important!!!! I only hope those Jurors, at least one of them, has knowledge of Drew's behavior and past and will 'spread the word' among the other jurors. Oops, bet that's not allowed either. He was the Intimidator.

If I ever commit a crime I hope my defense team, the judge, the good ole boy network and whoever else is involved panders to me and I win my case, guilty or not. That's how the justice system seems to work these days.

They let all kinds of trash be known to the jury about Kathleen. I doubt most of it is true. But the judge let Brodsky and his 'crew' trash Kathleen to no end. On the FIRST day of the trial, no less!! How is it the information that she had sex that weekend with her boyfriend related to this case? Get the BF on the stand, ask him if they had rough sex ever, and that would tell if the bruising was from him or Drew. Get those ex wives on the stand and let the 2nd wife tell how controlling Drew was...(If she is 'Allowed") Lets let the jury know about the 18 domestic violence calls to 911 by Kathleen!!! In any other police department in this country, 18 domestic violence episodes would get him kicked off the force, suspended, or at least earn him some disiciplinary action. But, no...

Click to expand...

GREAT POST...the judge allows in "prejudicial" information about the victim, but not the defendant. Too bad the "State", whose case it is, can't stand up more for the victim. In otherwords it should be The State AND Kathleen Savio, deceased vs. Drew Peterson. Then an attorney could go to bat using statements Kathleen made and/or others made on her behalf. MOO. Our justice system is screwed up in that all of the rights seem to go toward the defendants. I understand that there are many people wrongly incarcerated and things need to be fair, but I maintain that prior bad acts and inappropriate behaviors of WHATEVER kind and wherever perpetrated - illegal or not, convicted or not, would give the real facts needed to make an informed decision about whether or not an alleged perpetrator would be deemed to be a danger to society. How else can that be determined????

I wasn't able to gage the jurors reaction to Lopez except to say that he has an extraordinarily commanding presence. He holds the attention of each and everyone in the courtroom when he is questioning.....he is tough but still engaging. Greenberg is very aggressive and gives quick, intelligent objections. (which is not to say that I agree with him, but he does make a case for each of his points)
I was disappointed with the demeanor of the prosecution. Glasgow started off with a solid flow of detail about DP that was compelling but the interruptions by the defense were disruptive and distracting. (deliberate move on their part of course) The soft and quiet approach of the female prosecutor seemed almost like she was trying not to ruffle the feathers of the judge....it was simply not the centered, confident approach that I would expect from an attorney. Maybe their style is going to build and grow stronger and they didn't want to peek the first day, nor appear as if they came out with both barrels loaded, but still it almost seemed timid of the judge which I can't imagine that jury isn't picking up on as well. She seems bright, so I concluded that her method is probably smart--best not to win any sympathy for DP by appearing overly condemning in their style......but they definitely were walking on eggshells with this judge which is a real concern. That is not a fair court.

The judge was so disturbed about the bullet being mentioned but really let a lot of extraneous and possibly hurtful drivel be presented about Kathleen...even stooping so low as to try to stir up a negative Italian stereotype of the hot headed fiery woman....with undercurrents of negative implications about their families knowing each other --Lopez tried to imply that they went back to the "old country", but in fact Mary asserted that they met her in the US at work. She would have none of his attempts at putting her or Kathleen down--she stated that she was "full blood Italian" and Lopez said that was something that "she had in common with Kathleen." What bearing does that have on this trial? Why is he inquiring about their Sunday pasta dinners and the menu items? It was inquiry that lacked a purpose or foundation but it slid--hopefully the jury will see it for the nonsense that it is, but he did seem to score some points and the jury (as well as the gallery) enjoyed his bantering with Mary--which doesn't mean that they will buy their argument--just that the presentation was entertaining and powerful all at once.

Angelonline said:

I feel for Kathleen's sister, but if I had been in her shoes it would have been really hard for me to not try to make Kathleens last wish come true about making sure the boys were taken care of. It does strike me as odd that she never saw the boys or even sent them a card. Maybe she was intimidated by Drew or maybe he wouldnt allow it. If that is the case the prosecution needs to work that in somehow. Personally if I were on the jury that would give me pause. After her sister told her, I am afraid for my life please take care of my boys then why did she not try to do that after she was gone? Also today they made it seem like she put that briefcase on a shelf and did not even look to see what was in it for several years, if that is not true the pros also needs to make a point of that somewhere down the line. .. Just some thoughts I am having, trying to put myself in the mind of a juror.. I sure don't want the prosecution to lose this and DP to be back on the streets.

MOO

Click to expand...

A parent trumps aunts and uncles when it comes to custody, and in most if not all states, there aren't any rights that extend to aunts and uncles. The only exceptions are if the parent can be proven to be an unfit parent. Drug or alcohol addiction, or physical/mental abuse are the usual factors for removing children from a parent. The custodial parent has no obligations to provide visitation to any extended family.

Anna had no legal recourse to try to obtain custody of her nephews, and Drew Peterson wouldn't allow the two boys to see their mother's family.

The same thing happened after Stacy disappeared. Drew Peterson hasn't allowed Stacy's family to visit Stacy's two children, Anthony and Lacy. I think that Stacy's aunt, Canadice, has been allowed to see them once in Drew's presence in the almost 5 years since Stacy disappeared.

It's a very sad situation for all the children.

Where are Stacy's children now? Obviously not with their murdering father...

Madeleine74 said:

Where are Stacy's children now? Obviously not with their murdering father...

Click to expand...

Kathleens' boys grew up fine because DP was in jail. imo If he walks... worried about Laci and Anthony. jmo

IIRC they are living with one of Drew's older sons (is the the one who is a cop?) and his wife and have been with the older son since Drew was locked up. Dunno his name. Hope the apple fell FAR from the tree with this offspring of Drew's or another generation of Drew's kid could turn out to be JUST LIKE HIM. God Forbid.

Stacy's family never fought for them, maybe they were intimidated back then too. I wonder if birthday/ Christmas cards are being sent to them NOW, since there is no Drew around to intercept mail.

Maybe cards are not such a big deal to some families/ people. Our family is really big on sending cards for birthdays and holidays, even Easter and Halloween and some years I even send out St Patrick's cards to my grandkids. I just can't imagine not seeing my nephew and niece, and then not sending cards at least so they know I still love them and care about them.