Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

In Session The sidebar ends. Both the objection and the question are subsequently withdrawn. Judge Burmila: “Then I guess I’ll take back my ruling.” (LAUGHTER). The witness repeats that he told Mrs. Pontarelli that he would go home from the bar, and that she should call him as soon as she knew anything. Once he got home, “I hadn’t heard anything from Mary, so I called her back.” “And that’s when you heard about Kathy?” “Yes . . . I freaked out.” “You loved the girl, right?” “Yes.” “You raced to her house?” “Yes.” When he arrived, there were a lot of neighbors on the scene, as well as a lot of police and a paramedic vehicle. “The first thing I said was, ‘What the hell happened?” . . . I believe that was directed toward Drew.” “And you asked Drew if he had anything to do with it, and he said he did not?” “Yes.” “You saw him writing something down?” “Yes.”

In Session “This weekend . . there were a lot of things going on in Kathy’s life at that time?” “Yes.” “You described it as a basket case?” “Yes.” “And she had chest pains?” “She had been working out.” “You told police she had been complaining of chest pains?” “If I did, I did.” “You also knew she was taking medication for a heart murmur?” “No, I did not know that.”


In Session “I want to come back to Friday night . . .you had sex?” “Yes.” “You had sex from behind?” “Yes.” “And Kathy was on her knees?” “Yes.” “That was downstairs?” “In the living room.” “It wasn’t the first time you guys had sex?” “No.” “You wore a condom?” “Yes.” “Know what happened to that condom?” “It was in the kitchen waste basket . . . I don’t know who put it there.” “Did you have sex on the stairs?” “No.” The witness is asked if he knows that a condom was found upstairs, but I didn’t get his answer. “It was dark in the room, wasn’t it?’ “Not really . . . the kitchen lights were on” [when they were having sex].

In Session There is a brief pause, as Lopez looks for an exhibit. “Do you recognize that as a sketch of the house where Kathy lived at?” “Yes.” “Can you show where it was that you and Kathy were enjoying one another?” Using a laser pointer, the witness indicates on the projected sketch where they had sex. “You were both on your knees?” “Most of the time.” “Where did you discard the condom?” “The waste basket’s right there.” “In the kitchen, right next to the sliding door?” “Next to the sink . . . right there.”

You know... I'm with CarolinaMoon on this one. I am seriously thinking that once the prosecution is over and the defense asks for a mistrial for lack of evidence, Burmilla could possibly grant it. And I would not be surprised.

In Session “Kathy also took birth control, but for another reason?” “Yes.” “She liked orange juice?” “Yes.” “She liked tea?” “Yes.” “She would use the microwave to make tea?” “Yes.” “Sometimes in the morning, you and she would have fruit and tea up in the bedroom?” “Occasionally.” “Sometimes she’d go downstairs and make stuff, and then come back upstairs?’ “Yes.” “And then you guys would get ready, and go back downstairs?” “Yes.” “You don’t really know what times she would take her medications?” “No.” “You did tell police that it’s possible she had some bruises from having sex?” Objection/Overruled. “It wouldn’t have been anything other than scuffs on her knees, or something like that. But that was nothing I did not see.” “When you woke up the next day, your head was a little banged up?” “I was tired.” “Well, you were also a little hung over, weren’t you?” “I guess you could say that.’

In Session There is another pause, as Mr. Lopez consults with his colleagues. He then announces that he’s finished with his cross-examination.

In Session Prosecutor Koch says he has no further questions. The witness is excused. The jurors are then excused, as the attorneys announce that they need to put some things on the record.

Shelby1 said:

In Session After band practice, he went home; his subsequent phone conversation with Savio was around 8:00 or 8:30 pm.. “This conversation you had with her about her coming to your house . . . she wasn’t angry at this time?” “She was a little angry.” “Because you wouldn’t come over?” “Yes.” Then, around midnight, she called him again. “She was just mad at me.” “She was kind of a fiery, feisty girl, wasn’t she?” “She could be.” “She was half-Italian, wasn’t she?” Objection/Sustained.

Click to expand...

BBM: This was totally uncalled for ! :banghead:

This judge needs to tell these defense :clown::clown: to STOP the prejudicial remarks !

These kind of remarks are totally inappropriate, unprofessional ... and somewhat racist, IMO !

Could you just imagine what would happen if the Prosecutors referred to Drew's ethnicity or race or whatever ? The defense :clown: :clown: would be screaming for a sidebar, or possibly a mistrial !

:moo:

isn't it fortunate for DP, there is always someone else to dirty up to get that
not guilty vote? :banghead:

graphic salacious testimony about his daughters intimacy. I also feel sorry for Kathleen herself having this broadcast.....I realize that it has a purpose in this trial for the defense, but I still find it very offensive and revolting.

tsitra01 said:

isn't it fortunate for DP, there is always someone else to dirty up to get that
not guilty vote? :banghead:

Click to expand...

In Session The jurors are now gone. Prosecutor Connor announces that he learned some new information this morning from the next witness, Susan Doman (“something that had never before been brought up&#8221. “She indicated that her sister said Drew had asked her for the children on Monday, Casimir Pulaski Day, and she [Savio] had said no. I told her that she is not to discuss that . . . [but] I do not want any surprise from the defense.” Joe Lopez: “Well, I was taken by surprise. The surprise has worn off. We’d like to think about that over the lunch hour.”

In Session Prosecutor Kathy Patton then addresses the court about another upcoming witness Susan McCauley. “The Court didn’t want to go into the fact that she was having an affair with the defendant . . . because of the prejudice it would bring in.” Greenberg: “I won’t get into the affair . . . if they want to characterize them as ‘good friends’ . . .” Patton: “Then I’d like to get in to what he said about the divorce.” Judge: “I did not want there to be a situation where the defendant misled this witness about getting a divorce. Any questions you want to ask about that, they’re out.” Patton continues, says while Peterson was married to Savio, he said to McCauley that Kathleen was not going to get any of his pension. Greenberg: “We’re talking about 1997, these conversations . . . the relationship ended in 1998.” Patton continues, says that McCauley should be allowed to say that Peterson told her “he would never leave. He would never get a divorce, because he didn’t want Kathleen to get half of his pension. And in another statement, he said that Kathleen would never get his pension . . . it was the end of 1997, 1998 when he said these things.” There was also another conversation between McCauley and Peterson at a bowling alley, at which Peterson told her that Savio “was crazy.”

What is Casimir Pulaski Day?

In Session According to Patton, McCauley told Peterson that “you must have a horseshoe somewhere . . . nobody gets that lucky.’ And they laughed about it. She didn’t understand how it happened, and he said that it was a newer type of bathtub, that after a while automatically drains. He said she was taking medication, and there was a wine glass. That was the sum and substance [of McCauley’s testimony].” Greenberg: “I think you already ruled that the bowling alley conversation was admissible.” Judge: “Right . . . all of the information at the bowling alley stands on its own . . . the portion of the conversation from 1998 that I struck is still stricken. But the conversation from the bowling alley comes in.” Patton presses the judge as to why the other testimony can’t come in, assuming the witness does not mention the affair. Greenberg objects, says it’s too remote in time, and it suggests that Peterson had a lifetime obsession with his pension. “The Court ruled properly before.’ Patton: “We continue to believe he had preconceived ideas about what would happen if he had to go into this settlement . . . Drew had in his mind that he was going to lose this. It goes to his knowledge and his intent.” Judge: “He formulated this desire to commit this murder in 1998? . . . the conversation is remote, and I don’t see how it’s particularly relevant to the conversation from the bowling alley. I won’t reverse my ruling, and the State will not be able to go into that.”

In Session Finally, Patton moves to upcoming witness Teresa Kernc, a Bolingbrook police officer. She then decides to withdraw the motion for now. Judge: “If we have to discuss it at 1:15, we’ll do so then.” The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET.

Thanks Shelby for the updates. The more I read, the more I am convinced this pr1ckazoid is going to walk.

seattlechiquita said:

Thanks Shelby for the updates. The more I read, the more I am convinced this pr1ckazoid is going to walk.

Click to expand...

I know


I wish we had a complete witness list so we'd know who else is coming up.

Shelby1 said:

What is Casimir Pulaski Day?

Click to expand...

snipped from : [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski_Day"]Casimir Pulaski Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Casimir Pulaski Day is a holiday observed in Illinois on the first Monday of every March in memory of Casimir Pulaski (March 6, 1745[1] – October 11, 1779), a Revolutionary War cavalry officer born in Poland as Kazimierz Pułaski. He is known for his contributions to the U.S. military in the American Revolution by training its soldiers and cavalry.

The day is celebrated mainly in areas that have large Polish populations, such as Chicago. The focus of official commemorations of Casimir Pulaski Day in Chicago is at the Polish Museum of America where various city and state officials congregate to pay tribute to Chicago's Polish Community.

This is a separate holiday from the federal observance, General Pulaski Memorial Day, which commemorates Pulaski's death from wounds suffered at the Siege of Savannah on October 9, 1779.


I hope this helps ...

:seeya:

Are there bathtubs that drain on their own these days? I have a really old house and a really old bathtub.

dog.gone.cute said:

snipped from : Casimir Pulaski Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Casimir Pulaski Day is a holiday observed in Illinois on the first Monday of every March in memory of Casimir Pulaski (March 6, 1745[1] – October 11, 1779), a Revolutionary War cavalry officer born in Poland as Kazimierz Pułaski. He is known for his contributions to the U.S. military in the American Revolution by training its soldiers and cavalry.

The day is celebrated mainly in areas that have large Polish populations, such as Chicago. The focus of official commemorations of Casimir Pulaski Day in Chicago is at the Polish Museum of America where various city and state officials congregate to pay tribute to Chicago's Polish Community.

This is a separate holiday from the federal observance, General Pulaski Memorial Day, which commemorates Pulaski's death from wounds suffered at the Siege of Savannah on October 9, 1779.


I hope this helps ...

:seeya:

Click to expand...

Thanks!

I'm 37 years old and I've never heard of this holiday. :blushing::blushing:

Shelby1 said:

Thanks!

I'm 37 years old and I've never heard of this holiday. :blushing::blushing:

Click to expand...

:seeya: You're Welcome !

LOL ... the things we learn here at WS ... LOL ...

:cheers:

In Session is trying to answer some questions on Facebook. I'll copy any that seem interesting.


In Session ‎@Teresa The location of the blue towel is a mystery. There's conflicting reports. Here is some more info on the towel. THE BLUE TOWEL:

Witnesses who saw it:

Michael VanOver/Deputy coroner; arrived @ Savio home approx 11:14 pm (took 1 polaroid of the bathroom) –DAY 5
Robert Deel arrived @ Savio home @ 1:30 am, took photographs at the scene the scene that show the towel, but he was NOT specifically questioned about seeing the towel –DAY 5

Witnesses who didn’t see it:

Mary Ponterelli—DAY 1
Tom Ponterelli//-DAY 2testified not seeing towel on direct/ testified the tub as clean, pristine, no ring around the tub, no soap scum. It was clean.
NOTE: Ponterelli’s redirect was stricken (doesn’t impact testimony about the towel)

Louis Olezkiewicz/EMT @ Savio home between 10:49 and 11:12 pm (scene cleared) –DAY 3 (Saw Peterson upstairs later)

Witnesses who say they didn’t see the towel but denied placing it in the bathroom

Michael Newton/Bolingbrook Fire Department –DAY 3 –didn’t “place” towel in bathroom/Saw Drew in the bedroom
Michael Johnson/Bolingbrook Fire Department – DAY 3 –didn’t “place” towel in bathroom
Timothy Berkery/Bolingbrook Fire Department— DAY 3 –didn’t “place” towel in bathroom

Collins on the blue towel:

Patrick Collins/Illinois State Police investigator –DAY 6 was asked about the towel on re-direct
“Were you aware that the initial people who were in the house did not notice a blue towel in the bathroom?” Objection/Sustained.