Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

Status
Not open for further replies.
FYI, Beth Karas has just interviewed one of the attorneys (didn't hear which one). She really grilled him but good! He said she was trying to be the next Nancy Grace.

She made some excellent points and he just spun and spun the evidence. I'm was getting tired of InSession having so many of these "spinterviews" with various and sundry member of the defense, but, since yesterday, they are going after the defense a lot more.

Jean Casarez, in an answer to a question about the supposed bias of the judge made the rather interesting response to the effect that the judge was good for the defense.

It was also mentioned yesterday that it was very likely the jury could pick up on both the attorney's tactics and the judge's attitude towards the prosecution.

BTW, I just found the link to NG's interview with Joel Brodsky yesterday. Even if you don't like NG, you'll want to see this.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/08/06/nancy-grace-grills-drew-petersons-attorney


Thank you, NT! Greenberg it is! I'm sure they will repeat the interview sometime soon!
JMHO about the change in tenor of those on IS. They must be reading here and at other sites that have the same opinions we've seen here at WS.


BBM. I have no sound. I want to catch up on the thread before reading the following, but here is the transcript for NG's show August 6, 2012.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1208/06/ng.01.html
 
In Session The witness now identifies a photograph “showing the overall location of her body as it was that day.” “Can you see what appears to be a redness or mark on her left buttocks?” “Yes.” “Do you recall seeing it that day?” “Not particularly. But it’s in the photo.” A second photo of the victim in the tub is shown to the witness. “Did you see a wine glass anywhere?” “I don’t recall one.” Another photo shows “her in the tub, taken at a slightly different angle... her head, and the location of items around the tub.”
 
if they ask a question that Mr. Peterson believes is inappropriate, I’m sure that he’ll object.”


WTH?

The use of Mr. Peterson is correct here. His attorneys represent him. They do what he says.

(I know that from that other case. Many documents state "Ms. A" indicated... meaning her attorneys did so in her name.)
 
In Session “When you observed the tub, and the body in the tub, what if any conclusions did you come to?” “That there was a dead person in the tub.” “Anything else?” “Not particularly.” "Did you want to talk to anyone about the body?” “I did not speak to paramedics,” "Did you contact them, to ask them any questions?” “No, I did not.” “Did you speak to any family members?” “There were none there.” "Did you talk to the police about her friends or family, any other information you might obtain?” “That was all outside my duty... I did not speak to anyone.” “You went to the room and saw the items and the tub and the body... did you process the tub for fingerprints?” Objection/Overruled. “I did not, no... it was unclear as to what had happened to her, whether she’d fallen in the tub, had committed suicide... so I made the decision that the best cause of action was to remove the body.” “At that time, you saw nothing that made you think it was a homicide?” “I did not think it was a homicide at that time... I can only look to see if things to me appear askew or in disarray... I could tell that nothing appeared to me to be disturbed or out of place.”



In Session “Did you think that she may have fallen?” “Yes.” “Did it concern you that nothing fell down, only one item in the tub?” “ No.”

In Session Judge Burmila: “This appears to be an appropriate place to take a break. The jurors’ lunch is here. We’ll reconvene at 1:15 [CT}.” The trial is in recess until 2:15 ET.
 
Peterson's attorney: My client wasn't abusive

Watch the video to see In Session correspondent Beth Karas interview Drew Peterson's defense attorney, Steve Greenberg, about evidence that may indicate that Peterson was abusive to the women in his life.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/08/07/steve-greenberg
 
If she were underwater why would the picture show blood running from the head to the drain. If she were to have drowned the blood flow would stop flowing the minute her heart stopped. With the stopper in water draining would take a long time to drain so why would there still be blood in the tub???? jmo


If she were under water and drowned, once the water drained from a closed drain stopper much much later, there should be no trail of blood from the wound to the drain.

The prosecution needs to pound away on the scientific impossibility of what blood was found, and why no ring around the tub!
 
They start new threads every now and then. The current thread is entitled:

WATCH THIS THREAD FOR LIVE UPDATES FROM THE DREW PETERSON MURDER TRIAL

The jurors are now seated, and the Prosecution calls its first witness of the day: Michael VanOver (questioned by prosecutor Kathy Patton). He is a deputy coroner for Will County, and goes over the training and experience that qualifies him for that position. He was working in that position on March 1, 2004, and was dispatched to the Savio home, arriving at approximately 11:14 am.



They might start a new one when the trial resumes. IDK for sure though. HTH


BBM. I think this 11:14 am is incorrect. I think it should read pm, not am, based on the testimony of this witness.
 
Because there was never any water in the tub ?


If there was never any water in the tub, how did they rule her death a drowning? I'd assume they would have checked her lungs for water. the obvious question, so I am wondering when that comes up in court. If the question isn't too prejudicial to the defendent.
 
if they ask a question that Mr. Peterson believes is inappropriate, I’m sure that he’ll object.”


WTH?


OMG, this judge being mesmerized with Drew is showing! I am rolling here, since when does Drew get to do the objecting? Or did Burmilla just give him permission to do so in his court room? ay yi yi!
 
In Session The jurors are now back in the courtroom, and the prosecution calls its next witness: Robert Deel (questioned by prosecutor Patton). “I’m a state police officer, with the Illinois State Police... seven years this December.” He briefly goes over his training and experience in law enforcement.


Ok, so was Deel a rookie cop when sent to investigate Kathleens death or did he have prior experience as an LEO before working for ISP?

still catching up, sorry, got a late start reading here today.
 
In Session He was not on duty when he received a call on March 2, 2004. Pursuant to that call, he was dispatched to the Savio house in Bolingbrook. “There was a death investigation, and I was asked to go and process the scene... I arrived around 1:30 in the morning.” As part of his investigation, he took photographs at the scene. He is then handed a lengthy series of photos, and asked to look at all of them (which takes quite a while). “Are these photographs you took at the scene and at the autopsy?” “Yes, they are.”



In Session When the witness arrived at the scene, it was explained to him “that the victim had been found dead in the bathtub... and that the victim was the ex-wife of a Bolingbrook police officer, and that Bolingbrook had requested that the State Police handle the investigation because of that fact.” The first thing he did was look for any signs of disturbance or break-in, “eventually working my way up to the bathroom.” He was looking for “anything that seemed unusual, anything that didn’t seem right... anything that just didn’t seem to be normal.” “Did you observe the escape windows leading to the basement?” “I remember walking around to see if there were windows there; they were closed.” “You didn’t check to see if they were locked or unlocked?” “I don’t believe so, no... my main focus inside the house was the area where she was found.” “Did you go through all the rooms?” “No.”


In Session The witness is shown a photograph, and notes a can “of something” in the bedroom that can be seen in it (“Spot Shot”). “Did you see that can?” “Yes.” “Feel it was of any evidentiary value?” “No.” “Did you process it?” “No, I did not.” After checking out the master bedroom, he moved to the master bathroom. “Had you ever been in that room before?” “No.” “So you wouldn’t really know if anything was out of place, would you?” Objection/Sustained. “The doorway leading into the bathroom was open; I could see that the tub was at the far end of the room. I could see a little of the body inside the tub.”


Did they say Spot Shot? was the can identified as Spot Shot? :thud: I've used that to get both red wine and blood out of carpet.

Wow, just wow.
 
BBM. I have no sound. I want to catch up on the thread before reading the following, but here is the transcript for NG's show August 6, 2012.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1208/06/ng.01.html



I got about 1/3rd through it and I can't.... I just can not stand Nancy Grace, I can't even stand to read her.

For those who saw the show or could stomach reading the entire transcript, was there anything new not previously reported? I got as far as the two talking over each other over the laceration/abrasion debate and couldn't read any further.
 
I got about 1/3rd through it and I can't.... I just can not stand Nancy Grace, I can't even stand to read her.

For those who saw the show or could stomach reading the entire transcript, was there anything new not previously reported? I got as far as the two talking over each other over the laceration/abrasion debate and couldn't read any further.

I just read through the whole thing. And I am sad to say that Brodsky seems to have an answer for everything. I am worried that DP is going to walk away from this a free man.
 
I just read through the whole thing. And I am sad to say that Brodsky seems to have an answer for everything. I am worried that DP is going to walk away from this a free man.


Yes, but were they logical answers? Because when he answered the question about why Stacy was on the Witness list he went into something about what the state was doing.
 
Court started about 45 min ago or so.

Going to try and pick up where ~n/t~ left off. I can not promise to be anywhere near as good as ~n/t~ with updates, but will try.
 
Never mind, I see ~n/t~ is back YEAH!
 
The parties have returned to the courtroom. Judge Burmila returns to the bench. He sends for the jury, and witness Robert Deel returns to the stand.


In Session The jurors are now back in the courtroom, and prosecutor Kathy Patton resumes her direct examination of Illinois State Police officer Robert Deel. “Do you recall when you observed the tub, did you observe anything about the drain?” “The drain was closed... there was no water in the tub.”



In Session The witness is now shown another photograph. “Is that one of the autopsy photos that you took?” “It is... it’s a close-up photograph that was taken of the back of the witness’ [sic] head.” ‘Did you see any injuries to her head?” “When we took her out of the tub, we knew that she was bleeding from the head, because we got blood all over our gloves. But I did not do an examination to see what kind of injury she had.. that’s beyond the scope of what I’m supposed to do.” Another autopsy photo is identified. “Did you see that injury that night?” “I don’t particularly recall... but I did note that she had various bruises and injuries about the body.” “Were those injuries important to you?” “Not at that time, no.”



In Session “Did you look at the surfaces of the bathroom?” “I examined the bathroom, yes.” “Did you take any evidence from that bathroom?” “Just the photographs that we collected as evidence.” “Was there a garbage can in that bathroom?” “I don’t remember.” “Did any investigator ask you to look at any evidence in the bathroom?” Objection/Sustained. Judge Burmila then asks the parties to approach the bench (“for a second”).

.




In Session The sidebar ends, and the direct examination continues. The witness says he has received forensic light source training. “It allows light to be used, with goggles; that will allow you to see things not often visible to the naked eye.” “Did you use any of those in the Savio residence that evening?” Objection/Sustain. “You looked around the house... did you go into all of the rooms on the second floor?” “I did not, no.” “On the first floor?” “Maybe, maybe not. I don’t remember all of the rooms I went into on the first floor.” In addition to the bedroom and bathroom, he took photos in other rooms as well (“in the garage, outside the house, and in the kitchen, I believe”). He identifies a photo that shows “a blister pack of pills and a glass of orange juice” that he saw in Savio’s kitchen. “After taking that photograph, did you do anything else in the kitchen?” “Not that I recall, no.”

In Session Prosecutor Patton asks for a sidebar.

In Session The sidebar ends. The judge asks the jury to be taken from the courtroom.



In Session The jurors are now gone. Judge Burmila: “Do you want to put your objection on the record?” Defense attorney Steve Greenberg: “There are a thousand different things an investigator can do at a scene... they want the jury to think his investigation was incomplete, and there’s something else out there blowing in the air. And they’re the prosecution; they can’t do that... they’re asking all these questions, ‘did you do this?, did you do that?’ that they know he didn’t do, because they want to plant the idea with the jury that the investigation was incomplete... they’re trying to create this inference that a poor investigation was done... and there’s no reason for the prosecution to try to put before a jury that the investigation was poorly done, no legal basis for them to ask these questions, because there’s no legal or factual inference that can be drawn that helps the prosecution... it’s just totally improper; it’s not evidence. It’s the absence of any evidence. And the prosecution can’t do that.”



In Session Prosecutor Patton responds: “There’s no argument to be made for what the defense believes our argument later is going to be... we believe it’s important at the end of the day for the jury to understand what was done and what was not done in this case... we are not asking why necessarily, we’re just asking him what he did and what he didn’t do.” Greenberg: “But just saying ‘we didn’t do this stuff’ means nothing... it’s not a fact; they’re not proving any fact, establishing any fact by this evidence.” Judge Burmila: “As I said before, the State is the captain of their own ship... asking the investigator the question, ‘Did you take any fingerprints?’ I don’t see how that’s objectionable, and it’s one they can ask the office. If the State thinks they’re going to argue that if they’d looked harder they would have found Mr. Peterson’s fingerprints, ask the jury to speculate, it’s not going to happen... if they can’t tie any of this stuff, it’s not going to come in under this guise. But if they want to ask the witness, I can’t stop them from doing that. And I don’t see how it prejudices Mr. Peterson.”

In Session Greenberg responds, argues with the judge’s ruling. “It’s not probative... it’s not establishing anything.” Judge: “We’re going to give the jurors a complete set of instructions to follow. If we need to give them an additional instruction, we’ll give them an additional instruction... you’ve made your record. They’re [the State] going to be allowed to ask the question. If they follow up with others, and you feel the need to make another objection, you go right ahead.” With that, Judge Burmila asks to have the witness and the jurors returned to the courtroom.
 
In Session Everyone is now back in the courtroom, and Ms. Patton continues her direct examination. “You are now looking at a photograph of the orange juice in the kitchen... did you take any fingerprints from any items on that counter?” “No.” “When you were finished walking through the house and taking photographs, what’s the next thing you did?” “I completed a sketch of the bathroom with the victim still there... and then she was transported to the coroner’s office.” “Who made that decision?” “I did, I guess... ultimately, I decided it was time to move the body.” “Did you know deputy coroner VanOver?” “I knew who he is, but we’re not friends.” “At some time, between the two of you, you decided it was time to move the body?” “Yes... I put on gloves, we lifted her from the tub, put in a body bag, put on a gurney, and put in the back of his van... we just got her out of the tub; it’s not a graceful or pretty sight.”



In Session “We do the best we can to lift her up... ultimately, she’s going to go into the body bag. I would imagine we probably had it on the floor, but I don’t really recall... I don’t remember where the body bag was, on the gurney or on the floor.” “But this all took place in the bathroom?” “Yes.” “What’s the next thing that happens?” “She would be placed on the gurney, strapped down, and then ultimately taken downstairs, placed in his van, and transferred to the coroner’s office.” “Did you do anything to her hands?’ “I placed paper bags over both of her hands, and sealed those with tape.” “And when you were handling the body you were wearing gloves?” “Yes.” “After you secured the body in the bag, did you go down the stairs to the first floor?” “Yes... I imagine there were probably quite a few people there... I know me and the deputy coroner were there; I don’t remember how many other people.” Once again, the witness says that Savio’s body was eventually placed in the back of VanOver’s van.



In Session “Once the body was out of the house, did you secure the scene?” “Once the body was out of the house, I was out of there... after the autopsy, we’d have some idea what had occurred. And if it was necessary to return to the house, we could go back there.” “Did you secure the scene?” “It’s not my responsibility to secure the scene.” “So when you left that residence, you had no idea if the scene was secured or not?” Objection/Sustained.

In Session Ofc. Peel attended the autopsy the next day, and took photograph there (“I believe we were still using film back then”). So you weren’t able to show the pathologist any photos that you had taken at the scene?” “No.”
 
In Session The direct examination is now finished, and defense attorney Joseph Lopez begins his cross. “The State started by asking you questions about your training... 27 years ago you were in the academy?” “Yes, Sir.” “You were once a regular patrol officer, and then moved to become an investigator?” “Yes.” His first investigative job was in Internal Affairs (“for about a year and a half”). “How many fellow officers did you investigate?” “Eight or ten, probably.” “Were some of them accused of serious crimes?” “The most serious, I think, was a battery.” “Did you give him a break because he was a fellow officer?” Objection/Sustained.



In Session “Most of the investigations were policy violations, that kind of thing. But there was a trooper accused of sexual assault, and one accused of battery... we were charged with investigating those.” “What did you do next?” “I went back to the patrol division... for another year or so. Then I was assigned to general criminal investigations... we conducted all types of criminal investigations... pretty much anything that came in. I was assistant squad supervisor... I was there for probably five years.” “How many serious crimes do you think you investigated?” “Probably a couple hundred.” “How many homicides?” “Maybe eight or ten.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
2,361
Total visitors
2,528

Forum statistics

Threads
589,981
Messages
17,928,625
Members
228,029
Latest member
Truthseeker158
Back
Top