Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session Judge Burmila has called a five minute break prior to the next witness.
 
In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. He sends for the jury.

Long 5 minutes!
 
In Session The exchange between Judge Burmila and prosecutor Colleen Griffin continues on and on. Judge: “I’m telling you... the judge made four rulings. You asked him to make the rulings. Can I completely ignore the findings you asked him to make?” Griffin: “Your Honor can ignore them under the due process rules.” Glasgow now joins the discussion” “This is an incredibly important ruling in this case... this evidence should have life. Judge White’s rulings are void in this proceeding.” The judge is very calm, but Glasgow sounds very excited, and quite worked up. “Judge White’s rulings on this are void...” Glasgow is now practically yelling, and honestly becoming somewhat shrill. Finally, he concludes his part of the argument. Glasgow: “Thank you.” Judge: “You’re welcome.”


Why did I just envision an argument between an umpire and baseball manager? Pierzynski getting punched just came to mind. A memorable dug out clearer.

barrett-pierzynski060526-getty.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2006/05/26/barrett-suspension.html


I don't know why the pros are pushing the envelope like they are. What is Burmila really supposed to do with something already ruled upon?
 
I think Burmila's last decision may have been the breakthrough the prosecution has been needing. The prosecution appealed to his ego by saying he wasn't bound by White's decisions. The defense kept saying White was like God and could not be denied.

Legally, the prosecution is correct.
 
In Session “We used to live in Bolingbrook. My son Christopher was in second grade when he met Tommy Peterson.” Through the boys, she met Kathleen Savio, and identifies her photo. “I did meet her occasionally, yes.” “You were planning on building a new house about this time?” “Yes.” “Did you have a conversation with Kathleen Savio about renting her basement?” “Yes, I did... in the summer of 2003, I kept bumping into her.” Greenberg interrupts, and asks for a sidebar..
 
In Session The sidebar ends. “You were caught in one of those situations between a contract to build and a contract to sell?” “Exactly.” “So you rented Kathleen’s finished basement?” “Yes, for two months... with my family. We had two cats, and a dog as well.” “How did you feed your family?” “I bought my own food, and we fixed our own meals. But many times we ate together at the kitchen table.” “Your family shared with hers?” “Yes, we shared it together.”
 
In Session “Did you ever meet Drew Peterson?” “Not while I was living there. I believe I met him once when I dropped Christopher off for a birthday party.” “Your husband, Steve, what was his work schedule?” “He was on a night schedule, from 8:00 at night until 8:00 in the morning. He would leave at 7:00 pm, and get home at 9:00, by which time we were all gone.” “So there was always someone in the house?” “Yes, there was always someone in the house.”
 
This INFURIATES me.

I have first hand knowledge of how a member of LE can abuse his privileges for his own gratification. It has been a good long time ago, and hopefully there are more rules in place now, but it's damn scary what they have access to and what that badge can get them. :moo:


After the trial is over, I am curious to see if these two ISP witnesses will be punished in any way. Protocal was clearly out the window with this investigation.... and this carelessness contributed to a second victim. That can not be ignored.
 
In Session During this time, she had an opportunity to watch Kathleen Savio. She said that Savio had no balance problems, and never bumped into anything. “Did you see her playing with her kids?” “Absolutely. She loved her kids.” “Did you observe her breathing?” “Yes.” “She have any problems breathing?” “Never.” Objection/Sustained. After the follow-up question also elicits a sustained objection, Glasgow asks for a sidebar.
 
In Session Judge: “We’re in a situation again here where the State believes the court should take into account more than the law... the State has refused on multiple occasions to answer the Court’s questions as to whether or not Judge White’s rulings can be ignored; all they do is dance around that issue... Judge White made a series of rulings in this case that the State asked him to make. Now the consequences of those rulings are before this Court... the volume of their argument is unpersuasive. The defense, however, says that Judge White’s rulings are based in stone... Judge White made those findings during the hearsay ruling, using a lower standard of proof... and he made the decision that these statements should not be admissible... the application of the due process application is a higher standard, a higher burden for the defendant to meet. The questions becomes, do these rulings reach the level of a due process unreliability. While I recognize how unique this is... in this particular situation, I do not believe that I’m bound by Judge Whites’ rulings... it has not been demonstrated to me that the witness’ statements are unreliable, and the defense’s motion to deny them is denied

Wow! That was a surprise! As you can see I am still a little behind here....
 
n Session The sidebar ends. “Can you briefly describes how you saw Kathy Savio physically interact with her kids?” “I observed her hugging her kids.” Objection/Sustained. “About midway through your stay there, did you have an occasion to meet with Kathleen Savio in her master bedroom?” “Yes, I did... Kathy seemed just down, her spirit was down.” Objection/Sustained. This was approximately in “the beginning of October, 2003.” “Was anyone else present in the bedroom besides Kathy and you?” “No... I observed Kathy was upset about something, and I felt concern about her. And my faith is of great importance to me.” Objection/Sustained. “Did she share something with you?” “Yes, she did...” Objection/Sustained. At this point, the witness begins to cry, and the judge asks to have the jury excused from the courtroom.
 
In Session The witness continues to cry. Judge Burmila asks her to leave the courtroom, in order to compose herself. Once the witness reaches the hallway, I can hear her sobbing in the hall. In the meantime, the judge has left the bench, and the court is in a brief recess.
 
A huge thanks to Ohiogirl and CarolinaMoon for posting the trial info today! :gthanks::tyou:
 
After the trial is over, I am curious to see if these two ISP witnesses will be punished in any way. Protocal was clearly out the window with this investigation.... and this carelessness contributed to a second victim. That can not be ignored.

Probably will not happen internally. Personal experience here too. :sigh: Besides, the real problem is putting his tie on in the Court room in the mornings.
 
I missed this introduction to this witness:

Somehow, I missed the first posting about this witness:

InSession:
The jurors are now back in the courtroom. The prosecution calls its next witness: Kristin Anderson (to be questioned by Prosecutor Glasgow). She went to North Park University in Chicago, and currently lives in Minooka, Illinois. She is married (for 23 years), and has three children. “Have you had an opportunity to work with the developmentally disabled?” Objection/Sustained. She works in an elementary school, as a reading teacher.
 
In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Attorney Greenberg: “There are some things this witness says, like that Kathleen showed her a knife under her pillow, but she doesn’t say that was because of Drew . . . that Drew came into the house and stole jewelry, or Tommy’s confirmation money . . . I just want to make sure we’re not going to get into that.” Glasgow responds, says he does intend to elicit testimony about the knife. Greenberg objects. Judge: “If she confided in this individual that she kept a knife under her pillow, I’m going to let it in . . . I’m going to let them ask the question.”
 
In Session The witness and the jurors return to the courtroom. Prosecutor Glasgow continues his direct examination: “When you were in Kathleen’s bedroom, did she confide in you an incident that had occurred to you?” “Yes . . . she told me that prior to us moving there, Drew had broken into her house, dressed in swat uniform, held her at knifepoint, and said, ‘I could kill you, and make it look like an accident.” “Did she show you something else in her bedroom?” “Yes . .. she showed me a knife she kept in between her mattresses, for protection.” “Did you see Kathy Savio every day?” “Yes, I did.” “Ever see her under the influence of alcohol?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you ever meet her boyfriend, Steve Maniaci?” “Yes, twice.” “Can you tell us what you observed about their interaction?” Objection. Glasgow asks for a sidebar.
 
In Session The sidebar ends. “Did it take you very long to move?” “It did not; we had most of our things in storage.” “What did you have to move?” “Just our clothing. That’s it.” “So you were out during the daytime?” “We were out, yes.” “After you left on the 25th of November, did you have any contact with Kathy Savio?” “Only one time, I ran into her at the school where I was working . . . probably two months after I closed on my house . . . that’s the last time I saw her.” “Recall learning of her death?” “Yes, I remember hearing about it on the news. And a friend of my son’s, his mother also called me to tell me what happened to Kathy.” “Did you attend any services?” Objection/Sustained. Glasgow then asks for another sidebar.
 
Poor Stacy did not stand a chance, out of ALL the men in the Chicago area and surrounding suburbs she just happens to meet Drew Peterson. :(

You said it, iluvmua -- what a despicable, arrogant, selfish & cruel man. I do wonder, in her deepest heart, how soon she actually realized this and just put it out of her mind?
icon9.gif
She was young, but she had seen a lot of bad things in her short lifetime already, so she was no fool. She was just looking for someone to take care of & be good to her. So horribly, horribly sad. And not one bone of hers may ever be found...

The Good Guys have this chance and this chance only, IMO. Grrrrrr.
 
In Session The sidebar ends. “Did you have occasion on March 7, 2004 to make a phone call to Mary Pontarelli?” “Yes . .. to let he know my concern.” Objection/Overruled. “I shared with her some of the things Kathy had shared with me. I also shared with her my concern about Kathy’s death, and how it happened.” Objection/Overruled. “Did you have occasion on March 9 to make two phone calls to the Illinois State Police?” “Yes, I did.” “And one call the following day?” “Yes, I did.” “After making those three contacts and informing them you had information about the break-in and the threat, you heard nothing back?” “I heard nothing back.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,365
Total visitors
2,480

Forum statistics

Threads
590,015
Messages
17,929,011
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top