Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

Whoa...did the defense lie about a letter? Wasn't that a low blow, JUDGE?

Interesting no comment made about the letter by the Judge, eh? :furious:

~n/t~ said:

In Session Judge Burmila sustains the last objection. “The jury will disregard the question about the complaint.” Brodsky: “To this day, it’s still your opinion that Kathy Savio died in an accident?” “Yes, Sir.” That ends the cross-examination of Robert Deel.

Click to expand...

BBM. I take it to mean there was no letter. Brodsky should be careful :liar:

In Session
Prosecutor Patton begins her redirect. The witness says that it’s always been his training that “any un-witnessed drowning would be determined as unknown or unexplained.” "And it appeared to you that this person drowned?” “I didn’t know
how she died.” “You saw blood coming from her head, and you didn’t’ look to see what caused it?” “That is the job of the coroner.” “But you didn’t even look at her head?” Objection/Sustained. “I could tell the blood was coming from her head; she also had blood from her nose and mouth... but, again, all of those things are for a pathologist to determine.” “You’re not a trained medical person?” “No.” “So you don’t know what blood in the tub was purge and what might have come from her head?” “I know what I think it was . . . that purge was part of the natural decomposition.” “But you just saw blood in the tub? You didn’t run tests on that blood to see exactly where it came from?” Objection/Sustained.

~n/t~ said:

Whoa...did the defense lie about a letter? Wasn't that a low blow, JUDGE?

Interesting no comment made about the letter by the Judge, eh? :furious:

Click to expand...

Exactly, no letter but the judge doesn't acknowledge this low blow? :notgood:

In Session “You said the position of the body would be a position that she would have just floated into, and that made sense to you?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you say that position of the body looked like a position she would have been found in if she drowned?” “That’s not what I said... I said her body appeared not to have been moved, and in a position I would expect her to be in in that tub.” “With her feet pressed back?” “I didn’t have an issue with that.”


In Session “Did you notice that the contact lens case was open and upside down?” “Yes.” “Know if there were contact lenses in her eyes when the autopsy was performed?” “I do not know.” “Know if there were contacts in the tub?” “I wear contacts, and I know what they look like. If I had seen them in the tub, I would have noted them.” “You said you didn’t see a blood trail... did you look in every room for a blood trail?” Objection/Sustained. “You looked around the bathroom and didn’t see any blood there?” “Other than in the tub.” “Did you consider if blood could have been there and wiped away?” Objection/Sustained. “One of the things that could cover up a crime scene would be to wipe away blood that was there?” Objection/Sustained.

In Session “Dr. Mitchell told you he thought this was undetermined?” “He told me that once.” “It was at a later date that he told you that?” Objection/Overruled. “He told me that he thought the case should have been determined as an undetermined death.”

In Session
“When you did a diagram of the tub... the tub that you used wasn’t at all the same size or shape of the tub at the Savio residence, correct?” “I didn’t actually complete that diagram. I did a sketch at the scene, a rough sketch that was t
urned into a field sketch. Someone in Springfield actually did that finished sketch that’s in your hand... that finished diagram was done by somebody who was never at the scene.” “And it appears to be a long, rectangular bathtub?” “Well, you’re holding it, and I’m not.” “You didn’t make any change to that, to reflect the actual bathtub that was at the scene?” Objection/Overruled. “The body is correct, and the measurements are correct... the measurements and locations reflected on the diagram are correct.” “But it makes it appear that there’s a lot of bathtub on either side, doesn’t it?” “I wouldn’t argue with you there.”


In Session The witness repeats that he saw no signs of a struggle. “You don’t know what happened prior to that drowning, do you?” “No.” “Ever take into consideration that a person can be overcome without a struggle?” Objection/Sustained.

~n/t~ said:

In Session
Prosecutor Patton begins her redirect. The witness says that it’s always been his training that “any un-witnessed drowning would be determined as unknown or unexplained.” "And it appeared to you that this person drowned?” “I didn’t know
how she died.” “You saw blood coming from her head, and you didn’t’ look to see what caused it?” “That is the job of the coroner.” “But you didn’t even look at her head?” Objection/Sustained. “I could tell the blood was coming from her head; she also had blood from her nose and mouth... but, again, all of those things are for a pathologist to determine.” “You’re not a trained medical person?” “No.” “So you don’t know what blood in the tub was purge and what might have come from her head?” “I know what I think it was . . . that purge was part of the natural decomposition.” “But you just saw blood in the tub? You didn’t run tests on that blood to see exactly where it came from?” Objection/Sustained.

Click to expand...

Excellent redirect!

“But you didn’t even look at her head?” Objection/Sustained. I wonder how this could be sustained. Didn't the witness testify he knew there was a wound on the back of her head due to the blood on his gloves when they removed the body?

Anyone else recall what/who stated this? Seems weird the judge would sustain an objection about something the witness already stated, IIRC.

OT - They found Mickey Shunick ...

ETA- press is backpedaling now...don't know what the heck is going on...

In Session “If the wound to her head, which you didn’t check to see...” Objection/Sustained. “If the wound to her head was...” Objection/Sustained. “Are there certain types of wounds to the head that if you see them you would not want to move the body?” Objection/Overruled. “Not that I can think of, no.”

I have to go.....if anyone wants to post, here is the link. See you all later!

https://www.facebook.com/InSession#!/InSession

katydid23 said:

if they ask a question that Mr. Peterson believes is inappropriate, I’m sure that he’ll object.”


WTH?

Click to expand...

Guess we know now who is 'running the show'.

(Was there ever any doubt?)

Can't stand DP and his atty, who incidently has the same initials as Jose Baez.
Ugh.

In Session “If you look at the position of the body, and the feet of that person . . . are the feet you drew on that drawing the same position as you saw in that tub?” “I didn’t draw that drawing . . . somebody in Springfield did that, based on my measurements . . . it’s a computer-generated diagram, and I don’t have control over the icons or whatever you call them that can be placed into them . . . it’s merely to show the size of the room, and the placement of things in the room.” “So they didn’t depict what was really in the room?” Objection/Sustained.

In Session “You didn’t show Dr. Mitchell any photographs at the autopsy?” “There were no photographs at that time to show, no.” This concludes the redirect examination.

17 minutes ago · 2.

In Session Attorney Brodsky begins his recross. “I’m going to show you this diagram that was prepared in Springfield . . . see in the lower left hand corner . . . what does that say?” “That this diagram is not in scale . . . it was never intended as such.” “The dimensions are correct?” “Yes.”

17 minutes ago · 2.

In Session “Are you the one who did the test of water draining out of that tub?” “No, someone else did it.” “That floor was grouted?” “Yes.” “That would make blood very easy to see?” “Yes.” “You looked for blood, and you didn’t see any?” “No.” “You know the difference between blood and purge?” “Yes.” “Purged blood has a different texture, a different look?” “Yes.” “And the blood in the bottom of the tub when you got there was purged blood?” “Yes.”

.




In Session Deel didn’t do a full examination of the house “because that’s the job of investigators.” “This was the position you’d expect a body to be in this tub?” “Yes.” “Because of the interior of the tub?” “Knowing that the most common type of household accident is a slip and fall injury, and then to see the position of her body in that tub, I believe that’s consistent with somebody slipping and dropping down . . . there’s only so much room in the tub to land.” “Your friend, Dr. Mitchell . . . he said maybe this should be classified as undetermined?” “Yes.” “Did he also say at the same time that Kathy Savio’s death was still not a homicide?” “Yes.” That concludes the testimony of this witness, and he is excused

In Session Before the next witness can be called, the State has some issues it would like to discuss. The jurors are removed from the courtroom. Prosecutor Connor says the next witness will be Patrick Collins, and Connor wants to discuss possible hearsay issues regarding this issue. Attorney Greenberg jumps in, says the hearsay issue here involves Stacy Peterson, and is something that Judge White previously excluded. “Judge White ruled that there wasn’t going to be any false alibi testimony . . . I don’t know any evidence that has come in that would change the prior ruling on the motion in limine that we presented in 2010.”

In Session Connor also notes that there were computer dispatch calls made by Kathleen Savio in 2002 and 2003 regarding visitation problems. “Two of them in particular are calls from Kathleen Savio that she might be running a little late . . . some are from the defendant, saying he’d been refused to receive the children. The foundational elements have been stipulated to already. We’re offering them to show the state of mind of Kathleen Savio.” Greenberg: “I thought her state of mind was irrelevant.” Judge: “What is relevant about her state of mind?” Connor says the point is only that Savio documented these exchanges. Greenberg: “I still don’t see what the relevancy is . . . the first is a dispute as to when the children should be returned. The second is that he dropped the kids off 30 minutes late. And the third is that Stacy called her names when the children were dropped off . . . and then she calls the police department to say the kids are sick, and the police should notify Drew that he cannot have his visitation . . . she may be late for her 5:00 pick-up, that she sent Stacy Cales a certified letter warning her to stay away, that she is complaining about the physical condition of the children when they were returned. Then there’s a call that she refused to release the children to Drew at 5:00, and then Drew calling in a battery on her. They go up to November of 2003; most of them are in 2002. I don’t know what that has to do with anything in this case.” Judge: “The phone calls regarding the transportation of the children will be admissible. The phone calls regarding the name calling will not be admissible.” Greenberg: “These calls are her not returning the children, not Mr. Peterson . . . we didn’t think this was coming in because of the prior hearings . . . the last one is the only one dealing with visitation times, and on that one they apparently had a dispute about what time the children were to be returned.” Judge: “The State has to demonstrate whether this was a homicide, regardless of whether Mr. Peterson committed the homicide. So these phone calls are going to be admitted for that.” Connor wants to have a police dispatcher read summaries of what the calls were; Greenberg complains that the actual calls are not available.

In Session Greenberg insists that the original phone conversations with police dispatch have been destroyed, and all that are left are summaries. Connor: “Again, it’s not offered for the truth of the matter asserted . . .the issue is what was her state of mind when she made her calls? As Your Honor has previously ruled on habit testimony, specific acts of conduct are admissible . . . we’re offering it to show she is documenting return and drop-off issues with the Bolingbrook Police Department.” Greenberg: “Again, I just don’t understand . . . they have no authority. Do they have a case that says they can do this? . . . how can we cross-examine about what was said? It totally violates everything.” Judge Burmila goes over some of the reports, decides that most are inadmissible. For three, however, he will allow the State to ask dispatchers if calls were made, but not go into details about them.

In Session The judge and attorneys return to the first issue. “You want to use the actual words that she told the police?” “Connor: “Correct, Your Honor . . . basically, his ruling was that we had to approach before we put this on.” Greenberg: “Yes, that they had to approach the explain the reason for it.” Judge: “And now you want to use the actual alibi?” Connor: “Yes.” Judge: “What is the relevance of what she actually told the police?” Connor: “Her statement mirrors the defendant’s almost exactly. And there will be testimony about the defendant’s presence during her statement.” Judge: “Why is this actual statement relevant?’ Connor: “Well, she’s been instructed to lie . . . obviously, if she were to come in and tell the truth and the story she tells is basically unrelated to anything the defendant says, that would be a significant issue.” Judge: “But is it relevant whether she followed through or not?” Connor: “As the defendant is sitting with her in this interview, helping her to come up with answers, what those answers are obviously becomes relevant.”

In Session Greenberg: “They have no evidence that this is a false alibi. Absolutely none.” Judge: “That’s what troubles me.” Connor: “It’s not just the defendant or Neil Shori, or the defendant’s statement the day before . . . receipts maintained for three years. That was a time frame he wanted an alibi for.” Greenberg: “Because he has evidence of his alibi it must be false? That’s what I’m hearing. How can you put in a false alibi that’s the truth?”

Thank you n/t for all your hard work. CA Lady, thanks for taking over. For some reason, the IS comments aren't coming up, just the other responses!

In Session Judge Burmila makes his ruling: “I’m with you [the State] about 95% .. . I agree it’s admissible that the defendant asked for a professional courtesy and wanted to sit in with his wife . . we don’t know if she subsequently lied, just that he asked her to lie. Her statement to the police at this point is inadmissible. If the defendant testifies and it becomes relevant, we’ll revisit it.” Connor then asks the defense to look at some phone records he’d like to introduce through the next witness. Judge: “How long will this next witness be?” Connor: “At least 45 minutes on direct.” The judge suggests that everyone stay late tonight to finish the direct of Pat Collins . . . but after a conference with the other prosecutors, Connor reports that “we have a shorter witness we could put on.” With that, the judge sends for the jurors.

~n/t~ said:

In Session “You said the position of the body would be a position that she would have just floated into, and that made sense to you?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you say that position of the body looked like a position she would have been found in if she drowned?” “That’s not what I said... I said her body appeared not to have been moved, and in a position I would expect her to be in in that tub.” “With her feet pressed back?” “I didn’t have an issue with that.”


In Session “Did you notice that the contact lens case was open and upside down?” “Yes.” “Know if there were contact lenses in her eyes when the autopsy was performed?” “I do not know.” “Know if there were contacts in the tub?” “I wear contacts, and I know what they look like. If I had seen them in the tub, I would have noted them.” “You said you didn’t see a blood trail... did you look in every room for a blood trail?” Objection/Sustained. “You looked around the bathroom and didn’t see any blood there?” “Other than in the tub.” “Did you consider if blood could have been there and wiped away?” Objection/Sustained. “One of the things that could cover up a crime scene would be to wipe away blood that was there?” Objection/Sustained.

In Session “Dr. Mitchell told you he thought this was undetermined?” “He told me that once.” “It was at a later date that he told you that?” Objection/Overruled. “He told me that he thought the case should have been determined as an undetermined death.”

Click to expand...

BBM. The Spot Shot was in the photo's. I wonder why she didn't try to get it in that way.

Also, for those of you who have never used spot shot. It is not a foaming carpet cleaner. It's a clear aerosal sprayed directly onto the stain causing it to fade. Actually almost disappear before your eyes. The label reads no scrubbing necessary and for most stains that is correct.

Ages ago I knocked a full glass of red wine onto 1 month old carpet. I used spot shot to get it out and it worked so well I could no longer tell where the wine stain once was. When my former roommate cut his foot on the bannister/stair rail and tracked it through the living room the spot shot cleaned that up too.