Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

Angelonline said:

I know the narcissist DP, did keep the boys from them, but my point is to the jury they may wonder why didn't she at least try to fullfil the promise she made to Kathleen. I feel it would cause me personally as a juror to doubt her story.

All just MOO.

Click to expand...

I think as a juror, I would assume she was afraid and needed to protect her own family at the time. But w/out seeing and hearing everything, i don't know how the jury feels at this time. I hope they can see through this defense BS though.

Regardless of what happened after KS's death in how her sisters dealt with it, the jury still heard that KS talked about DP killing her, on more than one occasion and pleading with her sister to get that suitcase out of her car (which she did).

If judging the sister on how often she kept in touch with the boys or whether she sent cards as some kind of barometer of her truthfulness, well, that is bizarre. She's either telling the truth or she's committing perjury on the stand.

She has no reason to lie. Trying to get her nephews' father convicted of murder by lying on the stand would be terribly hurtful to them and would not honor her deceased sister.

I believe her. I believe KS did, in fact, tell her sister that she feared DP, that he would kill her before the divorce settlement and make it look like an accident. And, most especially, that's exactly what happened!

If the jury fails to notice the link between what KS said over and over and the result, then they would have to be complete idiots.

~n/t~ said:

I don't think it makes a difference. The money was in her purse. How in the world would he know who it belonged to? He just grabbed it and said it was for the kids whichever way anyone wants to word it. The end result was the same. He took money that did not belong to HIM.

Click to expand...

When she testified to that, all I could think of was Cindy Anthony taking Amy's money out of Casey's wallet that night.

As to Anna Doman, I have a feeling that after the neighbor let slip about the bullet, the prosecution reminded her of all that she couldn't say. I would be terrified on the stand of blowing the whole trial. I also have to wonder if she is still afraid of what Drew will do to her and her family should he get off.

Also, the defense knows very well what she can't say and are making the biggest issue of bringing her to the limits and trying to get her to slip up. When she is legally barred from testifying to the full array of information and pushed and pushed to make an irreversible error, it has to be a nightmare.

I'm still obsessing about the blue towel. I can't help it. I hope the jury is obsessing over it as well. I went to take a bath in my soaking tub yesterday. It is larger than the one in Kathleen's home, but just as deep. I never fill it up all the way.

Anyway, I keep a very small bath-mat hung over the side to put down when I bathe. It's an automatic reminder to put it down prior to drawing the bath. I wouldn't want it to accidentally get soaking wet if I draw a somewhat deeper bath.

Well, on InSession yesterday, they showed a masked photo of the tub with Kathleen's body in it and the towel hung over the side, well into the tub. I hadn't realized before seeing this, that the towel had to be placed there sometime between the paramedics leaving and Bolingbrook police arriving.

Anyhow, I want the CSI who (mis)processed the scene to tell us if the bottom of the towel was wet or dry. If, indeed, Kathleen drowned in the tub, it would have gotten wet. As most people know, a soaked towel will not completely dry if left in that position for a couple of days.

To me, it's the "Smoking Towel" that shows SOMEONE with an interest in making her death an accident would be the only one with a motive to add the towel to the scene.

IMO - DP went after women that were young, troubled, and vulnerable. These women didn't have the perfect families. I am NOT saying their families were terrible or bad, they just were a little dysfunctional (aren't most of ours?), and DP preyed on ALL of their weaknesses. Then and now, he exploits their shortcomings. He has to be the one in CONTROL. The Savio family did the best they knew how to do. Anyone in their situation wouldn't do anything "perfect". To this day, they are still trying to get justice for their loved one. I admire them for sticking it out after all these years. If my loved one was murdered, I would never know the "proper" way to act. To think that all of my actions/non-actions, statements/non-statements etc..during a horrible tragedy, would be used against me, in a court of law, to allow a murderer off, is unreal. It's shameful. JMO

DP WAS the police. The Savio family didn't have many options, then and now. The testimony of the witnesses regarding the towel, or lack thereof, speaks volumes, as to the cover up. DP was in control and this was staged. Hopefully, the jurors will see right through his "act", and see him for what he truly is, a murderer.

I am very disturbed about this judge. Clearly, he is pro defense, and his comments are inexcusable! He has tied the hands of the State, and I fear his actions alone, will deny justice for Kathleen. I hope that I am wrong, very wrong.

Thanks to everyone for keeping us up to date. I have followed this case from the very beginning, can barely stomach posting, but want to see DP in jail forever. :jail:

CarolinaMoon said:

When she testified to that, all I could think of was Cindy Anthony taking Amy's money out of Casey's wallet that night.

Click to expand...

That $100 bill was more important to DP than the mother of his children being dead. Pure control. Letting everyone know, he held the power. He was the cop who could do anything, and get away with it.

Even the locksmith, to this day, acts like he is star-stuck, in a court of law! :sick:

The deadbolt on Kathleen's bedroom door, MUST have had some impact on the jury. Praying.

:seeya: THANKS to everyone here for the updates ! I just got caught up reading yesterday and today's events from Court as I was unable to follow "live" so I greatly appreciate ALL the updates and posts !


JMO and :twocents:

- I am :furious: with this "judge" !

:waitasec: I am going to use one of my Grandmother's saying's regarding the "judge" : "His drawers are showing !"

His bias towards the defense is really showing, and I hope it is NOT lost on the jury !


- While I totally understand the "Constitutional right to a fair trial" ... appeal issues ... etc ... blah blah blah ...

I just do NOT understand AT ALL WHY the FACT that DP's 4th wife, Stacy -- who is STILL MISSING -- is NOT allowed at all to come into evidence ! IMO it is CRUCIAL ! It was Stacy's "disappearance" that prompted Kathleen's family to re-open Kathleen's death and have her body exhumed, which is clear Kathleen was murdered by DP.

I am wondering something here : What IF Stacy had not gone missing, would Kathleen's family have pushed to have her case re-opened ? Now, I do believe that Kathleen's family KNEW right away that Drew killed Kathleen, and no doubt, they expressed this ... but with DP being LE, who was going to listen to them ? I think Kathleen's family's early pleas fell on "deaf ears" !

Drew Peterson is a "serial killer" and that is WHY the info about Stacy should be allowed in evidence ... I know I know - he is on trial for Kathleen's murder ... but it all "ties together" !

And IF he is NOT convicted, he WILL kill again ... DP is one arrogant and vindictive :silenced:

lease: I sure hope the jury does know that DP's 4th wife is MISSING and has been missing for years now !

lease: And I sure hope this jury CONVICTS because if not, they will be letting a serial killer loose !

All JMO and :moo:

passionflower said:

need new judge IMOO

Click to expand...

:rocker: I totally agree ... he needs to goooooooooooo !!!

JMO but IF DP "walks," I will lay the blame on this judge : he has "tied the hands" of the prosecutors and has "catered" to the defense !

:furious::silenced::furious:

It is interesting reading everybody's comments on here. I am learning a lot that I either did not hear on TV, or your opinions give food for thought about different scenarios and ways of looking at testimony and evidence.

I wanted to comment about KS' sister and her testimony, which as you say, the judge admonished her about. I wish that under this kind of fire from the defense she could have said: "What is it you are trying to get me to say? I've been told so much what I am not allowed to say that I am afraid to say anything."

Because personally if I was under this kind of stress, I would not want to cause a mis-trial, I wouldn't want DP or his network of good old boys to harass me....but I'd try to make it clear to the jury that I was being intimidated in this legal circus.

Finally, this woman is a family member of the deceased, and is a "victim", too. It's unbelievable that the judge should have treated her that way. But there seems to be little or no respect given to the victims in this trial. Jean Casarez brought this up relative to the courtroom and even jurors erupting into laughter at the locksmith's witty remarks. There should be NO back and forth allowed between witnesses and defendants! HE should have been admonished by the judge. The sketch artist's rendering of the "ghost" of Kathleen Savio hovering behind the scene was a good reminder that a woman is dead because someone sitting in there killed her.

It seems to me that this judge is just as smarmy as drEWWW and his collective stooges. My sincere hope is that the jury will see beyond all their BS and find him guilty and there will be justice for Kathleen AND Stacy. Yeah, yeah, I know, he isn't on trial for Stacy, blah blah blah....... the thing here to me is that I think drEWWW made darn certain Stacy will never be found, therefore finding him guilty now will be the only hope of him ever paying the price for all the evil deeds he has done so I am going to lump all of his victims together whether it's politically correct or not. I think he has left more victims in his wake than what meets the eye plus I include the victims who are still living and breathing yet have been affected adversely by his actions.

I want him to pay for what he has done and it seems this is going to be our only shot at him living out the rest of his miserable life behind bars where he belongs. The only thing that would make me happier than that would be if he had to do so in General Population but we know that will never happen so I would settle.

I'm sorry but I personally feel that if this creeper is found not guilty and allowed to hunt again, there will be more victims to come. Oh maybe he won't kill again, but I think he will find ways to haunt those who have the audacity to speak against him and make their lives miserable, as if he hasn't already done so.....

Lady justice, please don't let us down on this one.

ChickenPants said:

It is interesting reading everybody's comments on here. I am learning a lot that I either did not hear on TV, or your opinions give food for thought about different scenarios and ways of looking at testimony and evidence.

I wanted to comment about KS' sister and her testimony, which as you say, the judge admonished her about. I wish that under this kind of fire from the defense she could have said: "What is it you are trying to get me to say? I've been told so much what I am not allowed to say that I am afraid to say anything."
Because personally if I was under this kind of stress, I would not want to cause a mis-trial, I wouldn't want DP or his network of good old boys to harass me....but I'd try to make it clear to the jury that I was being intimidated in this legal circus.

Finally, this woman is a family member of the deceased, and is a "victim", too. It's unbelievable that the judge should have treated her that way. But there seems to be little or no respect given to the victims in this trial. Jean Casarez brought this up relative to the courtroom and even jurors erupting into laughter at the locksmith's witty remarks. There should be NO back and forth allowed between witnesses and defendants! HE should have been admonished by the judge. The sketch artist's rendering of the "ghost" of Kathleen Savio hovering behind the scene was a good reminder that a woman is dead because someone sitting in there killed her.

Click to expand...

bbm....ohhhh that would've perfect but no doubt would've caused an uproar by the defence and the Judge. hehehe...I would've loved to see it up close and personal.

She has a lot more class than the clowns sitting at the D table and the ring leader.

Hearsay front and center in the Peterson trial

http://drbrianrussell.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/hearsay-front-and-center-in-the-peterson-trial/

Hello Fellow Websleuths! This is my very first post here to this wonderful community. I have been following the Drew Peterson case very carefully and even attended the trial this past week. I am baffled about the issue of the hit man testimony. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't have it on board at the beginning (or were they indeed trying to sneak it in as the defense accused them of doing?) and why it is included in other barred "bad acts" when it is so obviously pertinent and vital to this case? If anyone has any information on this, please let me know. From what I have read legal experts say it is unlikely that the judge will permit that testimony. They are setting the prosecution up for failure if they decide to do so and it is very discouraging.

I've concluded that one of the main problems in these trials is not allowing "prior bad acts" in. How can a jury establish criminal intent if they are not allowed to know that the defendant is a habitual perpetrator of inappropriate or illegal activities? In this case, the bullet in the neighbor's driveway (put there by DP or perhaps even a police friend - the elephant in the room), connected to the strange disappearance of the 4th wife, etc., and also connect that to Kathleen's sister being loathe to come forward because she may be terrified that a bullet in her driveway or WORSE could happen to her...

WindyCityGirl said:

Hello Fellow Websleuths! This is my very first post here to this wonderful community. I have been following the Drew Peterson case very carefully and even attended the trial this past week. I am baffled about the issue of the hit man testimony. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't have it on board at the beginning (or were they indeed trying to sneak it in as the defense accused them of doing?) and why it is included in other barred "bad acts" when it is so obviously pertinent and vital to this case? If anyone has any information on this, please let me know. From what I have read legal experts say it is unlikely that the judge will permit that testimony. They are setting the prosecution up for failure if they decide to do so and it is very discouraging.

Click to expand...

:welcome:
:wagon:

WindyCityGirl said:

Hello Fellow Websleuths! This is my very first post here to this wonderful community. I have been following the Drew Peterson case very carefully and even attended the trial this past week. I am baffled about the issue of the hit man testimony. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't have it on board at the beginning (or were they indeed trying to sneak it in as the defense accused them of doing?) and why it is included in other barred "bad acts" when it is so obviously pertinent and vital to this case? If anyone has any information on this, please let me know. From what I have read legal experts say it is unlikely that the judge will permit that testimony. They are setting the prosecution up for failure if they decide to do so and it is very discouraging.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this post and I have to say that most of us are concerned about these issues as well. There seems to be some political issue that is beneath this trial and it should be about Kathleen's early death and her kids not having a mother. It's difficult to read about the shenanigans going on. Have you heard that the judge might have some sour grapes regarding an election he didn't win?

Kimster said:

Thank you for this post and I have to say that most of us are concerned about these issues as well. There seems to be some political issue that is beneath this trial and it should be about Kathleen's early death and her kids not having a mother. It's difficult to read about the shenanigans going on. Have you heard that the judge might have some sour grapes regarding an election he didn't win?

Click to expand...

The obvious disdain that the judge has for Glasgow was palpable at the trial, but I wasn't certain what it was about until I read up on it. There is clearly a bias in this trial. While I applaud the judge for trying to do his job to uphold the law of everyone deserving a "fair trial" in no way is barring the testimony of the solicitation of a hit man and/or the request for a referral for another hit man not pertinent and necessary to a fair trial for the victim.

It was very hard to see Kathleen's father and step-mother at the trial. The first day I rode the elevator with them and their eyes were swollen, red and dark from crying. I think that the salacious insinuations about the neighbor boy and her alleged "rough sex" with the boyfriend were repulsive. It must have been torture to sit there and listen to that garbage.

Adding--the defense team really looked like a bunch of gangsters wearing flashy suits and sunglasses. Apparently Joe Lopez "the shark" has a history of representing mobsters. He was very lacking in respect and decorum during the trial as he was cutting up with the other members of the defense team while Glasgow was presenting his opening arguments and other issues. I guess that is their schtick to try to minimize the seriousness of the prosecution's case by having a few yucks between themselves. His wife is a very attractive redhead who isn't a seasoned attorney but is nonetheless on the legal team (carrying a huge Prada tote bag) I think it was sexist and inappropriate when Brodsky introduced the legal team as from brains to beauty with her being last though. Just eww. /

I haven't read the over 700 posts in this thread but do have a question. Kathleen's body was laying in a near fetal position in that round bathtub. If she fell and stuck her head, how could she end up in a fetal position? If she had a natural sudden death, is it likely she would lay herself in a fetal position in water covering her mouth (she drowned)? Some say that nothing was knocked off the tub shelf indicating a stuggle. Those items could have been carefully replaced after her death by someone else. All signs of a stuggle could have been eliminated by a careful, knowledgeable person (cop). But it is the position of her body that stumps me the most. Almost too perfect.

ShadyLadySleuth said:

I haven't read the over 700 posts in this thread but do have a question. Kathleen's body was laying in a near fetal position in that round bathtub. If she fell and stuck her head, how could she end up in a fetal position? If she had a natural sudden death, is it likely she would lay herself in a fetal position in water covering her mouth (she drowned)? Some say that nothing was knocked off the tub shelf indicating a stuggle. Those items could have been carefully replaced after her death by someone else. All signs of a stuggle could have been eliminated by a careful, knowledgeable person (cop). But it is the position of her body that stumps me the most. Almost too perfect.

Click to expand...

If she had taken a bath, there would have been clothes either on the floor of the bathroom, on her bedroom floor or even in a hamper. Most people taking a bath/shower undress in the bathroom, IMO. A person doing this would also have clothes they were planning to put on afterward, even if a robe. You wouldn't strip down in the bedroom, get into the tub, wash, dry off with a skimpy towel and walk around in that or stark naked while looking around for something to wear. Who is going to testify that she was a nudist or even slept in the nude?

There would also be soap, soap residue or body wash. There would be towel(s), a mat on the floor, washcloth(s) or even a loofah...to prove it was an accident they would have to show that she died as soon as she stepped into the tub, before she could have filled it with water. How did she die? Did the autopsy show heart disease like Lena Kaufmann? Did she have a stroke, or throw a blood clot?

Also, if you fill a tub with water, you plug the tub. No way an entire tub filled with water would have drained completely even if there was a slow leak in the plug. If she took a shower, her hair would be wet or at least damp beyond the matted portion. I am incredulous that it was ruled an accident. I can only surmise that he staged it and others knew and it was covered up, meaning that anybody who suspected foul play kept their mouths shut. And what assumptions can we make about that?

Of course, we know through the testimony of his "missing" wife to her pastor that there was no bath. He killed KS and then took her bloody clothes home with him.

It has been stated elsewhere on these threads that if DP claims he did not kill her, then who did? If it was the boyfriend, it still would be strange that DP, as a police officer, did nothing at the scene in any investigative capacity, even if it was fake. This to me shows his arrogance and his presumption that nobody would bother to look into it. And why is that?

I would like to know anybody's opinions or theories about how he planned, perpetrated and covered up the killing, the whole scenario, including who he may have urged to say nothing and how he did that. I am looking forward to Dr. Baden's autopsy testimony, hope that he will explain thoroughly the cause and manner of death. Then let the defense try to explain away all of those bruises, how she could fall and lacerate the BACK of her head, then turn over and land in a fetal position.

Angelonline said:

I feel for Kathleen's sister, but if I had been in her shoes it would have been really hard for me to not try to make Kathleens last wish come true about making sure the boys were taken care of. It does strike me as odd that she never saw the boys or even sent them a card. Maybe she was intimidated by Drew or maybe he wouldnt allow it. If that is the case the prosecution needs to work that in somehow. Personally if I were on the jury that would give me pause. After her sister told her, I am afraid for my life please take care of my boys then why did she not try to do that after she was gone? Also today they made it seem like she put that briefcase on a shelf and did not even look to see what was in it for several years, if that is not true the pros also needs to make a point of that somewhere down the line. .. Just some thoughts I am having, trying to put myself in the mind of a juror.. I sure don't want the prosecution to lose this and DP to be back on the streets.

MOO

Click to expand...

Angelonline, I have had the same thoughts. I can speculate on answers being possibly because Aunts and Uncles don't have visitation rights and without the custodial parent agreeing it's a losing battle. As for the breif case, what might be in there that Kathleen's attorney wasn't already aware of? and maybe the papers would be best saved for the children when they became legal adults.

Though, I think answers from Anna herself would be beneficial to the jury, if they are not veering too far off track. I'm not part of this legal team, just really not sure....

raying: justice for Kathleen