Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

~n/t~ said:

In Session Steve Greenberg responds: “She [Savio] felt because of Drew’s ego he would want everything, and they would be unable to work anything out . . . I believe those are Savio’s perceptions of the divorce proceedings, not anything Drew told her, and therefore not relevant . . . I don’t think any of it’s relevant.”

Click to expand...

~n/t~ said:

Judge: “The defendant’s motion is denied in part, and granted in part. It’s granted at this time regarding whatever her sense or impression might be as to the property distribution. If you find something on that, you can approach the bench and I’ll revisit the ruling.”

Click to expand...

How does the defense get to assume what Kathleen meant? I think the witness should be allowed to say what Kathleen told her. The defense gets to make assumptions, why not anyone else? JK but this is frustrating!

In Session Everyone is heading back into the courtroom. The trial should be resuming momentarily.


In Session
about a minute ago.
Judge Burmila is back on the bench. “We’re back on the record.” He sends for the jurors.

In Session The jurors enter the courtroom, and the judge gives them an instruction: “Evidence will be received that the defendant has been involved in conduct other than that charged in the indictment . . . it is for you to determine if the defendant was involved in that conduct, and what weight should be given to that evidence on the matter of weight and motive.” The State then calls its first witness of the day: Mary Parks (questioned by prosecutor James Glasgow). She is a registered nurse, currently pursuing a degree as a family nurse practitioner. “Did you have occasion in the fall of 2002 to take courses in nursing at Joliet Junior College?” “Yes . .. I guess I’m what could be called a late bloomer.” “Did you have occasion to meet a fellow student, Kathleen Savio Peterson?” “Yes, I did.”


In Session The witness identifies a photograph of Savio. “That’s Kathleen Savio, or, as I knew her, Kathy Peterson.” “Did you take any classes with her?” “Yes, I did. The first class we took was the first nursing class, and that was in the fall of 2002.” “Did you subsequently take a pharmacology class with her?” “Yes, the next semester.” Objection/Sustained. “Did you have occasion to study with her?” “Frequently.” “Could you discuss briefly the nursing program?” That question leads to a sidebar.

All these delays and sidebars are ridiculous! :banghead:

In Session The sidebar ends. “Did you have occasion to work with her in a lab?” “Yes, I did.” “Did you see Kathy performing physical tasks in the laboratory?” “Yes, I did . . . the tasks involved learning how to perform blood pressure, moving a patient in a bed as you change the bed, raising and lowering hospital beds.” “Is that physically demanding?” “Yes.” Objection/Sustained. “Did you watch her perform those duties?” “Yes, I did.” “How did she perform them?” “Kathy was very competent at performing all of those things.”


In Session “Did you have an occasion in the fall of ’03 to meet with Kathleen Savio in the laboratory area of Joliet Junior College?” “Yes.” “Where she confided something in you?” “Yes . . . right before Thanksgiving.” “What year was this?” “2003 . . . she was wearing a long sleeve fleece-type top, with a collar . .. the collar was zipped, and the collar was up . . . she was . . . she was . . . she looked as if she was in shock.” “Did you have a conversation with her at that time?” “Yes, I did . . . during that conversation, before she said anything, she unzipped her top.” Objection/Overruled. “Did you see anything?” “Yes, I did. As I unzipped the top it opened, and I saw marks on her neck . .. a dark red color . . . there was a mark on either side of the neck, and one in the middle. So it was three marks on the neck.” ‘Did she tell you anything?” “Yes, she did.” Objection/Overruled.

In Session “She told me that the evening before she was coming down the stairs and her husband came in the house and he grabbed her by the neck and pinned her down.” “Did he say anything when he did that?:” “Yes, he did . . . Kathy told me, she said that her husband said, and I quote . .. she said her husband said to her, ‘Why don’t you just die?’” “Do you know her husband’s name?” “Drew Peterson.” The witness says she advised Savio to call the police, and also offered for her and her sons to come and stay at her house. “Did she take you up on that offer?” “No, she did not.”

In Session On occasion, the witness walked Savio to her car. “The time period would have been from October, further into the fall, after Thanksgiving . . . 2003.” “Do you recall her confiding with you a statement from her husband?” Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar.

~n/t~ said:

All these delays and sidebars are ridiculous! :banghead:

Click to expand...

She could have briefly described her training and been ready for cross by now. What gives????

In Session The sidebar ends. The jurors and the witness are excused from the courtroom.

:banghead:

In Session The jurors and the witness are now gone. Judge: “During the sidebar, the defense is alleging a discovery violation . . . that the information from the walks to the parking lot were disclosed.” Steve Greenberg addresses the court: “There’s no idea of when these things were said . . . and they were found unreliable under Judge White, because she couldn’t say when these things took place . . . it’s way too prejudicial . . . it’s not a discovery violation in the sense that the statements were in a report . . . but she couldn’t attribute the statements to any particular time.”


In Session Judge: “So the statements were revealed . . . the issue is where they were made?” Brodsky confirms that the statements were revealed to the defense, just not where they took place. Connor responds for the State. “This report was tendered three years ago.” Glasgow: “Judge White did not exclude this statement; he admitted this statement.” Judge: “Whether or not the foundation was laid in the past, there was an objection this morning, and the State followed up . . . I don’t find that there was a discovery violation. I don’t think the statement is unreliable, and the objection to the statement being admitted is overruled.” With that, Judge Burmila sends for the witness and the jury.

In Session The witness is back on the stand, and the jurors have returned to the courtroom. Prosecutor Glasgow continues his direct examination. “During those walks to the car, did she ever tell you anything that her husband had said to her?” “Yes, she did . . . Kathy told me that her husband, Drew Peterson, had told her that he could kill her and make her disappear.” “Is that the only statement?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you have occasion to ever discuss her divorce proceedings with her?” “Yes, the one time I specifically recall was in October of 2003.” “What did she tell you?” Objection/Sustained. Glasgow then asks for a sidebar.

In Session The sidebar ends. The jury is excused, and there will now be an offer of proof with this witness. Glasgow: “I asked you if Kathy Savio had confided some additional information to you regarding the divorce?” “Yes.” “I asked you what she had related to her . . . do you remember what her husband, Drew Peterson, said to her?” Objection/Overruled. “”Do you recall what Kathy Savio said to you about her husband’s statement to her about the divorce proceedings?” “In October of 2003 . . . she told me that he said that he wants it all; he wants the children, he wants the house, he wants the businesses. He wants everything.” That completes the direct portion of the offer of proof. Greenberg then begins the cross. “When did she say this to you?” “October of 2003.” Greenberg then asks for a moment.


In Session Greenberg continues. “You spoke to the state police three times?” “I don’t remember how many times I spoke to the state police.” “You spoke to the State’s Attorneys prior to your testimony?” “Yes.” “Remember how many times you talked to the State’s Attorneys?” “No.” “You first spoke to the police in August, 2008?” “Yes.” “During that interview, you never told them that Kathleen Savio told you . . . what was the statement again?” “That Drew Peterson told him he wanted it all.” “She told you that she wanted what was due her, and Drew wanted all the money?” “I don’t know what the state police said that I said . . . I don’t know how to answer that question.” Greenberg then asks for a sidebar.

Good grief. Maybe the attorney doing the questioning should add the word 'objection' at the end of every question to save time.

These jurors must be going nuts - in out objection in out sidebar. For cases like this they should have walls that rise out of the floor (sound proof of course) to enclose the jurors so they don't have to leave the courtroom every 4.7 minutes.

In Session The sidebar ends. “You testified at a prior hearing in this case?” “Yes.” “Did you review the transcript of your testimony?” “Yes . . . once.” “How many times did you skim it?” “I don’t even know . . . it’s been months.” “You didn’t look at it recently?” “No.” ‘Did you see in that hearing where you testified that ‘Kathleen said very clearly that her ex-husband wanted everything’ . . . that’s what you testified to at the hearsay hearing?” “I believe so.” “You didn’t say that it was a statement her husband had made?” “I didn’t say it wasn’t . . . that’s how I phrased it at the time.” Glasgow then decides to withdraw the question (“in the interest of fairness&#8221. Judge Burmila subsequently sends for the jury.



In Session The offer of proof is over, and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Glasgow resumes his direct examination. “When did the semester end for you in 2003?” “In the middle of December, around December 13.” ‘Did you see Kathy Savio after that?” “No, I did not . . . I don’t recall talking to her on the phone.” “Do you recall in March learning of her passing?” Objection/Sustained. “In the middle of March, 2004, did you have occasion to call the State’s Attorneys’ office?’ “Yes, I did.” Objection/Overruled. “Why did you make the call?” “I was trying to determine if there was an investigation into Kathy’s death.” “And what were you told?” Objection/Sustained. Once again, Glasgow asks for a sidebar.

:thud:

In Session The sidebar ends. “Did you ever meet with anybody at the State’s Attorney’s office after that call?” Objection/Overruled. “No, I did not.” That ends the direct examination of this witness.

In Session Attorney Greenberg begins his cross-examination of Mary Parks, a nursing student with Kathleen Savio.

~n/t~ said:

In Session Judge Burmila has taken the bench. “Good morning, everyone . . . I received a letter yesterday from an inmate in the IL Dept. of Corrections that he has information linking this case with Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and the Zimmerman case. I won’t be communicating with him.”

Click to expand...

BBM:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: OMG ... I can't stop laughing at this one !

As usual, there is always one :crazy::crazy: that shows up during a high profile case for their 15 minutes ...

Okay ... back to the trial ...

:seeya:

fifteen89 said:

For cases like this they should have walls that rise out of the floor (sound proof of course) to enclose the jurors so they don't have to leave the courtroom every 4.7 minutes.

Click to expand...

We must be sharing a brain! I swear I was just thinking this exact thing either yesterday or the day before. Soundproof walls that enclose the jury. Only in my version they came down from the ceiling.

~n/t~ said:

In Session The sidebar ends. “You testified at a prior hearing in this case?” “Yes.” “Did you review the transcript of your testimony?” “Yes . . . once.” “How many times did you skim it?” “I don’t even know . . . it’s been months.” “You didn’t look at it recently?” “No.” ‘Did you see in that hearing where you testified that ‘Kathleen said very clearly that her ex-husband wanted everything’ . . . that’s what you testified to at the hearsay hearing?” “I believe so.” “You didn’t say that it was a statement her husband had made?” “I didn’t say it wasn’t . . . that’s how I phrased it at the time.” Glasgow then decides to withdraw the question (“in the interest of fairness”). Judge Burmila subsequently sends for the jury.



In Session The offer of proof is over, and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Glasgow resumes his direct examination. “When did the semester end for you in 2003?” “In the middle of December, around December 13.” ‘Did you see Kathy Savio after that?” “No, I did not . . . I don’t recall talking to her on the phone.” “Do you recall in March learning of her passing?” Objection/Sustained. “In the middle of March, 2004, did you have occasion to call the State’s Attorneys’ office?’ “Yes, I did.” Objection/Overruled. “Why did you make the call?” “I was trying to determine if there was an investigation into Kathy’s death.” “And what were you told?” Objection/Sustained. Once again, :thud:

Click to expand...

I don't get why he can't ask her if she recalls learning of her passing, but he can ask about the investigation into her death? This is confusing me.

Madeleine74 said:

We must be sharing a brain! I swear I was just thinking this exact thing either yesterday or the day before. Soundproof walls that enclose the jury. Only in my version they came down from the ceiling.

Click to expand...

Like the Get Smart Cone of Silence!:seeya:

In Session
Attorney Greenberg begins his cross-examination. “In 2004, you didn’t meet with anyone from the State’s Attorney’s office?” “No.” “How many times have you met with the current State’s Attorney’s office before testifying today?” “I don’t
know . . . maybe three times.” “They went over what you’d be testifying about?” “Yes.” “They talked about what you’d told the police?” “I don’t know if that would be exactly accurate . .. I don’t if it was specifically what I told the police; they talked about what Kathy told me. And what I saw.” “What you’ve told the police over the years has not been the same each time, fair statement?” “No.” “You testified at a hearing in this case, and what you’re telling us today is not the same, is it?” “No, I don’t believe that’s true.” “Do you have a transcript of that grand jury testimony?” “No, I do not.” Greenberg then asks for a sidebar.

In Session
The sidebar ends. The witness says that she believes she’s once read her grand jury testimony. She’s also read her hearsay hearing testimony “perhaps once . . . it would have been months ago.” “Did anyone bring you into the courtroom, an
d show you where you’d be sitting?” “No.” “I notice you keep looking over at the jury . . . has anyone ever told you to do that?” “No.” “Don’t you come from a family of lawyers?” “I have some lawyers in my family.” “Didn’t you say you felt comfortable testifying because you come from a family of lawyers?” “I don’t think anybody’s comfortable testifying . . . perhaps I’m more comfortable than some because of my knowledge of the legal process.” Greenberg then reads from her grand jury testimony, in which she says she comes from a family of a lot of lawyers. Judge Burmila to the witness; “Ma’am, don’t fence with the attorney.” “So you’re comfortable in testifying?” “Yes, somewhat.” “In fact, you’re smiling now, aren’t you?” “It’s not about that.”

~n/t~ said:

In Session
The sidebar ends. The witness says that she believes she’s once read her grand jury testimony. She’s also read her hearsay hearing testimony “perhaps once . . . it would have been months ago.” “Did anyone bring you into the courtroom, an
d show you where you’d be sitting?” “No.” “I notice you keep looking over at the jury . . . has anyone ever told you to do that?” “No.” “Don’t you come from a family of lawyers?” “I have some lawyers in my family.” “Didn’t you say you felt comfortable testifying because you come from a family of lawyers?” “I don’t think anybody’s comfortable testifying . . . perhaps I’m more comfortable than some because of my knowledge of the legal process.” Greenberg then reads from her grand jury testimony, in which she says she comes from a family of a lot of lawyers. Judge Burmila to the witness; “Ma’am, don’t fence with the attorney.” “So you’re comfortable in testifying?” “Yes, somewhat.” “In fact, you’re smiling now, aren’t you?” “It’s not about that.”

Click to expand...

This judge needs to leave the witnesses alone, imo.