1165 users online (240 members and 925 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 112 1 2 3 11 51 101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1672
  1. #1

    Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

    Here we go with week starting Tuesday August 21st, 2012. May justice prevail for Kathleen Savio!




    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dXhGBxK7-z...io+reports.jpg
    Last edited by Kimster; 08-20-2012 at 09:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    10,608
    Originally Posted by WindyCityGirl [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8283172#post8283172"][/ame]
    It really was illuminating the extent to which this debacle was one oversight and failure after another.
    Being a WS newbie, I really value how much I learn from all of you.
    BornDem, thank you very much for sharing this....there should be a big investigation into the Will County police here as well as a review of policies and procedures overall.



    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, WindyCityGirl a belated



    to our little gang of crime watchers, solvers, and learners of how to catch'em!



    You really jumped into one, didn't you!? But it appears that you may be from er, um, maybe Chicago?!! Local folks are so helpful, especially to those of us who "ain't from around here." So glad you're helping us with this. We all discover & learn together. Different thoughts, even if we don't all agree, make for good all-around crime solving and learning more every time we come on a forum here.

    And you remarks to me are most appreciated.

    Hang with us, and think positive thoughts for justice for Kathleen.


    All posts, unless attributed, are "just my humble opinion," and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you.
    _________________


    This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
    William Shakespeare, King Richard II



    The Angel of the Waters, Bethesda Terrace, Central Park, New York City

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    12,317
    Good morning, everyone! Cannot wait to see what today brings in this trial.

    Justice for Kathleen Savio!
    Thoughts and prayers for the people of Paris and all of France!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,696
    The fourth week of Drew Peterson’s murder trial was expected to resume Tuesday with testimony from another doctor who will say she doesn’t believe Kathleen Savio’s 2004 drowning death was an accident.

    Mary Case is expected to testify that an inch-long cut discovered on the back of Savio’s head after her death wasn’t severe enough to have caused the 40-year-old Bolingbrook woman to lose consciousness.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/1462986...urth-week.html
    As for presumption of innocence until proven guilty….
    Since I am not a member of a jury and this is only a discussion board I do not have to abide by the rules of the court in order to express an opinion. If we were to assume that all defendants on this board were innocent, then there really wouldn't be much to discuss.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,160
    I also find it interesting that DP took $100 from Kathy's purse and when he was caught doing it he claimed it was money for the boys. He is a police officer and at the time it was not proved 100% that it was an accident. Is it possible she had no money in her wallet and he put some in so LE would not think she was killed and money was removed from her purse so he felt comfortable taking the money back? It not as if he needed the money and it was a potential crime scene. Why was he so confident that this would be decided as an accident that he was willing to tamper with potential evidence? How could be possibly know, himself, that she was not killed by someone else who had gotten into the house????? jmo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,160
    Are we waiting for the judge again?????

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    498

    Is InSession going to give us updates? I am on pins and needles

    wanting to know if the hit man testimony is going to be allowed. Judge Burmila only said that he would grant the "possibility" of the hitman testimony. sigh.
    The head trauma expert today, Dr. Mary Case sounds like a promising witness.....I hope that she presents STRONG testimony.

    Here's to justice for Kathleen Savio!!!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    4,193
    In Session ‏@InSession Lawyers and Judge are going over proposed testimony from Jeff Pachter. Patcher said #DrewPeterson offered him $25,000 to kill Savio.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    4,193
    In Session “Before we bring in the jury, we have the 404(b) hearing with regards to Mr. [Jeff] Pachter’s testimony.” Prosecutor Koch: “What we’re suggesting to the Court is we intend to introduce this testimony to prove intent, motive, and identity . . . it’s clear that when he [the defendant] is out speaking to Mr. Pachter, offering Mr. Pachter $25,000 to take care of his wife, it’s very clear as far as intent . . . as far as motive, he tells Mr. Pachter that his wife has information on him, he doesn’t want her to go to the police . . . and identity is also at issue in this case, as to who committed this crime. This evidence helps prove that the defendant is the one who killed Kathleen Savio . . . that is the defendant . . . and we believe it happened in the later months of 2003 . . .because of that, I think that if you take his testimony you certainly have a situation that is close in time to her death, very close in time, in fact.”

    In Session Prosecutor Koch: “We do believe it is relevant; it is close in time . . . one witness is sufficient, if found to be credible, to prove that an act was committed . . . obviously, any type of other act is prejudicial; there’s no question of that. But just because it’s prejudicial doesn’t meant that it’s not probative . . . in this case, it is highly relative, highly probative; it goes directly to the intent of the defendant to commit this crime, to his identity, to his motive. So, we ask that you allow this 404(b) evidence to be admitted into this trial.”

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    4,193
    In Session Defense attorney Steve Greenberg responds. “This doesn’t go to motive . . . it doesn’t establish a motive . . . identity is not really an issue, and intent is not really an issue. We’re not saying that Drew was there but it was an accident; we’re saying he wasn’t there. So the State doesn’t really need this extra evidence of intent.” Greenberg cites case law to support the defense’s position. “What they want to do is bring in highly, highly prejudicial evidence, which is suspicious anyway. Mr. Pachter said he didn’t really believe anyone . . . they don’t need it for intent; all of the cases say that intent is not an issue when we’re presenting this kind of a defense. So it’s irrelevant, it’s prejudicial, and it’s not relevant of anything in the case. Our defense is it’s an accident . . . so what does a hit man have to do with anything? They don’t say he hired a hit man; they say he [Peterson] went over there and did this . . . if they can’t find an Illinois case; we’re in Illinois, Judge . . . they keep sending me [case] law from Massachusetts . . . to come here now and argue that Massachusetts and New Jersey say that it’s OK is just preposterous when there’s Illinois law right on the issue that says if our defense is it’s an accident and he wasn’t involved then it doesn’t come in.”


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,673
    Good Morning, I will be unable to post updates this week. I'm back at work after 2 weeks off and well....it seems nothing gets done here when I'm away so I'm swamped.

    Hopefully someone can take over the updates for the week.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    4,193
    Quote Originally Posted by ~n/t~ View Post
    Good Morning, I will be unable to post updates this week. I'm back at work after 2 weeks off and well....it seems nothing gets done here when I'm away so I'm swamped.

    Hopefully someone can take over the updates for the week.

    I wondered where you were. Dang work

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    4,193
    In Session Koch responds: “Intent goes to the state of mind of the defendant. His state of mind is clearly relevant in this case . . . I’d ask you to take that into consideration when you’re making your ruling.” Greenberg then jumps in, disputes the case law that the State has just cited. “It appears to be a consent defense, which is different from what we’re talking about here.” Judge Burmila: “Counsel was correct when he said that the precedent that the State provided to the Court was non-jurisdictional in its nature . . . however, that leaves us with the issue of intent. What is the purpose of this evidence? . . . the issue is, did the defendant intend to kill his wife?, and this testimony goes to that issue. So the jury will be able to consider that, and this evidence will be admissible.”

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Land of Oz
    Posts
    4,193
    In Session The judge sends for the jury. He also asks the State to produce its next witness.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    498

    This makes no sense to me.....Greenberg is saying that since there defense is

    that Drew wasn't there that this has nothing to do with motive. Oh, so just because evidence and testimony doesn't fit with your defense therefore it isn't pertinent? What is wrong with this picture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby1 View Post
    In Session Defense attorney Steve Greenberg responds. “This doesn’t go to motive . . . it doesn’t establish a motive . . . identity is not really an issue, and intent is not really an issue. We’re not saying that Drew was there but it was an accident; we’re saying he wasn’t there. So the State doesn’t really need this extra evidence of intent.” Greenberg cites case law to support the defense’s position. “What they want to do is bring in highly, highly prejudicial evidence, which is suspicious anyway. Mr. Pachter said he didn’t really believe anyone . . . they don’t need it for intent; all of the cases say that intent is not an issue when we’re presenting this kind of a defense. So it’s irrelevant, it’s prejudicial, and it’s not relevant of anything in the case. Our defense is it’s an accident . . . so what does a hit man have to do with anything? They don’t say he hired a hit man; they say he [Peterson] went over there and did this . . . if they can’t find an Illinois case; we’re in Illinois, Judge . . . they keep sending me [case] law from Massachusetts . . . to come here now and argue that Massachusetts and New Jersey say that it’s OK is just preposterous when there’s Illinois law right on the issue that says if our defense is it’s an accident and he wasn’t involved then it doesn’t come in.”

Page 1 of 112 1 2 3 11 51 101 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part two
    By Kimster in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 486
    Last Post: 09-01-2012, 01:37 AM
  2. Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one
    By Shelby1 in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 1321
    Last Post: 08-30-2012, 01:33 AM
  3. Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*
    By Kimster in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 1683
    Last Post: 08-21-2012, 12:38 AM
  4. Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*
    By CarolinaMoon in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 1059
    Last Post: 08-14-2012, 09:56 AM
  5. Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*
    By Kimster in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 812
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 12:28 AM

Tags for this Thread