Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love how the defense is so obsessed with people NOT sending cards. LOL
If they try to attack every witness for NOT sending cards it is going to sound silly.

I would think that if you suspected she were murdered by her ex the last place you would go is her funeral if you did not know her too well. And you probably would not want him to know who you were and where you lived.... jmo
 
I watched the video of Judge Jeanine from Saturday night, then she was interviewed on Fox this morning. Both the video and the interview from this morning was great! She certainly has this judge's number, and is furious. I agree with her opinions.

She said that it was a really strong day for the prosecution yesterday with Bermilla allowing a witness' hearsay in. She was in the courtroom yesterday and stated that the defense' faces were somber after that ruling and so was Drew P. In fact, Judge Jeanine stated that the defense seemed shocked at the judge's ruling on the hearsay. (end of comment on what Judge Jeanine stated this morning.)
Good!! The defense needs a few more shocks, IMO. I want to see the defense team and Drew P. knocked off their proverbial high horses and their little jovial attitudes.

Man! I am going to be completely devastated if DP walks! I cannot bear the thought that he could get away with Kathleen's murder. DP left Kathleen naked and dead in a bathtub and humiliated her even in death. He knew LE and the coroner would be traipsing in and out (doing their job) staring at naked Kathleen and having to take many pictures of her that way. I am so disgusted with this animal DP and his defense team.

Please God, let this jury not be a repeat of the Pinellas 12! Please let there be justice for Kathleen Savio and her family!

I have company who is still asleep, so I am taking advantage of it and really appreciating everyone who has posted updates for us!!!

Have a great day!

I agree that yesterday was a strong day for the prosecution and I hope the prosecution continues to get the crucial testimony in and wrap it all up in closing arguments to convince the jury of DP's guilt. I too saw Judge Jeanine's program on Saturday night and her very strong statement at the end, directed at Judge Burmila and her disgust with the defense team.

I too will be devastated if DP is acquitted. If acquitted, DP will re-marry and that wife will disappear. It's only a matter of time.
 
It sounds like the defense is going towards the boy next door did it? What's up with the photo taken by the neighbour ? Anybody know why he took a photo of Savio sitting on a tub? Not same tub right? Why didn't the prosecution re re direct?
 
I love how the defense is so obsessed with people NOT sending cards. LOL
If they try to attack every witness for NOT sending cards it is going to sound silly.

If I was a juror, that would have no effect on me, other than to think defense is being a jerk. The witness did not know the family, why send a card?

I would not send a card, wouldn't go to the funeral either. It's just who I am. (So, don't expect me to send cards or go to your funeral if you are my friend, I'm not that kind of person, lol.)

What difference does it make whom KS made friends with? How close they were? Do you have to send a card to strangers? Go to see strangers grieving? Can't you grieve on your own and not upset the family further? Eh, I'm ranting pointlessly.
 
It sounds like the defense is going towards the boy next door did it? What's up with the photo taken by the neighbour ? Anybody know why he took a photo of Savio sitting on a tub? Not same tub right? Why didn't the prosecution re re direct?

What photo taken by the neighbor. :what: I am lost?
 
Seeing a lot of posts about the P 12. I'm not concerned with that. I think these jurors have a bit more, erm, maturity about them. Doubt they take this with a grain and want to get home to party and make some quick $$.
 
In Session During this recess, the prosecutors have remained inside the courtroom, and are huddled together at their table. The defendant has also remained inside the courtroom, and talks to attorney Joseph Lopez. The other defense attorneys have all left, and are milling around in the hallway.


Is WS wacky for anyone else? Twice now I get a "no response" message.
 
What photo taken by the neighbor. :what: I am lost?

In Session The witness is shown a photograph of Kathleen Savio. “Did you know this is her sitting on the tub?” “She’s on a tub.” ‘Did you know that picture was taken by the 14-year-old boy who lived next door?” Objection/Sustained. That ends the testimony of this witness, and she is excused from the stand.
 
In Session The witness is shown a photograph of Kathleen Savio. “Did you know this is her sitting on the tub?” “She’s on a tub.” ‘Did you know that picture was taken by the 14-year-old boy who lived next door?” Objection/Sustained. That ends the testimony of this witness, and she is excused from the stand.


RBBM: OMG ... this line of questioning is outrageous ! :maddening:

Can you imagine IF the prosecutors would have asked such a question ?

:moo:
 
Here's one Amanda

Az4X41FCcAAirI-.jpg



Isabel Morales‏@isabelmorales0

#DrewPeterson tells his son happy birthday. Kris Peterson turned 18 yesterday. pic.twitter.com/37GJo7uT
 
It sounds like the defense is going towards the boy next door did it? What's up with the photo taken by the neighbour ? Anybody know why he took a photo of Savio sitting on a tub? Not same tub right? Why didn't the prosecution re re direct?

Don't know about this picture, but maybe the pros. dropped it because their objection was sustained? imo
 
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.”

Holy Moses. Talk about hypocrisy. DP, a cop, reports the drowning 'accident' in a waterless bathtub of his ex-wife and receives special services because he's a cop. Instead of calling another cop to the scene to assist him from the getgo, he calls his vulnerable neighbors over in case his ex is found dead inside the house. And, guess what?, she was found dead! From the start, no investigation is conducted into his ex-wife's suspicious death. Now, a witness who knew the deceased, is supposedly playing the jury because she comes from a family of lawyers.

Let's pass a law that any witness who is called to testify in a trial can't have anything beyond a high school education and no professional relatives are allowed! We can call it the dumber the better witness protection program.

This is a sad joke.
 
In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. “Where are we at?” Connor: “Your Honor, we have not been able to reach an agreement.” The judge confirms that there will be no further witnesses today. The bailiff is instructed to discharge the jurors for the day.


:banghead:
 
If I was a juror, that would have no effect on me, other than to think defense is being a jerk. The witness did not know the family, why send a card?

I would not send a card, wouldn't go to the funeral either. It's just who I am. (So, don't expect me to send cards or go to your funeral if you are my friend, I'm not that kind of person, lol.)

What difference does it make whom KS made friends with? How close they were? Do you have to send a card to strangers? Go to see strangers grieving? Can't you grieve on your own and not upset the family further? Eh, I'm ranting pointlessly.

People handle death differently and have different sets of behavior on how they handle them. Most people will not attend a funeral unless it's a family member or close, close friend. Some people cannot handle it. Nothing wrong to not attending nor not sending a card. Defense is making an issue where there is none. jmo
 
It sounds like the defense is going towards the boy next door did it? What's up with the photo taken by the neighbour ? Anybody know why he took a photo of Savio sitting on a tub? Not same tub right? Why didn't the prosecution re re direct?


BBM: Yep ... and it is sounds likes "desperation" IMO !

:waitasec: Didn't "the boy next door" come up earlier ? :waitasec:

:moo:
 
1m ABC 7 Chicago ‏@abc7chicago

No more witnesses today, jury dismissed, court resumes Friday at 9 a.m. #DrewPeterson
 
I knew ABC would get it wrong. Court has NOT ended. Jurors are gone but attorneys and Judge still in court

==========


In Session Attorney Greenberg addresses the Court. “The other day, when the State addressed the issue of [attorney] Harry Smith, they started to go into all these areas they want him to testify to. Just to the divorce issues, we don’t think any of it’s relevant, because the divorce case went on, as if nothing had happened. And they have no evidence that Mr. Peterson believed he had anything to gain by Ms. Savio’s death.” Connor responds: “At the time we first addressed this argument, Your Honor had not heard any statements attributed to the defendant . . . it is, in fact, the belief of the defendant that is in issue in this case . . in their filing, the defense has conceded that the defendant’s pension might be in a separate category than other issues in the divorce case . . . the defendant made statements about that particular asset, that he did not want Kathleen Savio to receive any portion of that. Because of her death, that pension has not been divided.”



In Session Judge Burmila questions prosecutor Connor about the relevance of the fact that the original executor of Savio’s will was a relative of the defendant’s. Connor: “That means that the defendant understood that the individual was going to be a relative of his.” Judge: “Well, how did he know that he wasn’t going to die first?”
 
:tyou: :gthanks: Thanks to all of you for the updates !

It has been a tremendous help for me as this is the only way I am able to follow this trial since it is not being showing on TV :waitasec: which may be a good thing !

:seeya:
 
In Session Greenberg responds: “The reason we raised this was in the context of motive, and the context of Mr. Smith testifying. The appellate court has already ruled that what might have happened in the divorce court was not a subject for expert testimony . . . the fact is that in this case, whether they like it or they don’t, under the law she was considered a living, breathing person under the divorce law. And they can’t now come and say if she was actually living the divorce would have been different . . . there was an executor of her estate who stepped in to control things . . . there was a valid will, and that executor was an executor that she picked . . . Judge O’Leary found it was a fair and just settlement. And now they want to have this jury retry this divorce case . . . where are they connecting the dots here?”


In Session Greenberg cites “the Davis case” as case law that he believes supports the defense position. Because the parties were getting divorced is automatically a reason to murder your spouse?” Attorney Brodsky jumps in, notes that the divorce judge “made a finding that everything was above board and nothing untoward.”
 
In Session Brodsky: “I can tell you there are legions of appellate court decision that determine what weight is given to what factor . . . to give that list to the jury is nothing but to confuse them and mislead them. To have Mr. Smith up and there and testifying makes it no less confusing, because he’s putting his twist on it. I don’t see any relevance in giving that laundry list of factors to the jury . . . it’s just there to confuse the jury, to throw smoke and mirrors.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
906
Total visitors
1,066

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,844
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top