Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session Once again, the witness is asked about the three dispatch call records in this case. “These are all from incidents that occurred in 2002?” “Yes.” “And when you interviewed Mr. Peterson, he said they were getting along much better in 2002?” “Yes.” “And that was confirmed by the Pontarellis, and Mr. Carcerano?” “Yes.”
 
In Session “Just to know, your report of the interview with Stacy Peterson... according to your report, Drew was present, correct?” “It’s not my report, it’s Trooper Falat’s report. I was present during the interview.” “You agree it’s not in the report of the interview of Stacy Peterson that Drew Peterson was present?’ “I’d have to look at it.” The witness is shown the report. “Again, this report was written by Trooper Falat, not myself... no, it’s not in there.” “You reviewed and initialed the report that leaves out that Drew was present when Stacy was interviewed?” “Yes.”
 
In Session “Did you check out Drew’s work schedule for Sunday, February 29, 2004?” “Did I personally? No.” “Did anybody?” “Not that I recall... what the schedule reflects, I can’t attest to. But that schedule was retained at a later date.” Brodsky attempts to show the defendant’s work records to the witness. The prosecution, however, objects, and asks for a sidebar.
 
I don't understand why the defense is stressing what the investigators "didn't" do.
They are just making the witness look like he just didn't investigate too much because DP was a cop. jmo
 
ohiogirl said:
In Session Once again, the witness is asked about the three dispatch call records in this case. “These are all from incidents that occurred in 2002?” “Yes.” “And when you interviewed Mr. Peterson, he said they were getting along much better in 2002?” “Yes.” “And that was confirmed by the Pontarellis, and Mr. Carcerano?” “Yes.”
Click to expand...

Of course they were 'getting along' better. DP had already made up his mind to kill her, so I bey he was being sweet as pie. No use having any recent squabbles or 911 calls too close to the murder.
 
In Session The sidebar ends. The witness is shown the defendant’s work records. “This was not attained during the Kathy Savio investigation.” “Did you ever learn that Mr. Peterson did not work on Sunday night, February 29, 2004?” “No.” “Even though your report states that does?” “The report reflects what he told me.” This ends the cross-examination of this witness. The judge then calls the attorneys to a sidebar.
 
In Session The prosecution has asked for a few minutes prior to the beginning of its redirect. The judge excuses the jury. Judge: “We’ll take a few minutes, everyone.” Judge Burmila leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess.
 
Just to say it again, the defense makes it sound like this investigator didn't do squat. imo
 
ohiogirl said:
In Session “When he said it was an accident, you were still investigating?” “Yes.” “So you still had an open mind?” “I didn’t close the door completely... I was still conducting the investigation, with that sixth sense you said I should have.” At this last comment, there is a chuckle throughout the courtroom.
Click to expand...


Brodsky thinks he has a sixth sense, I think he has no sense. There, I said it. Back to catching up.
 
In Session The witness is back on the stand, and the jurors have returned to the courtroom. Prosecutor Connor begins his redirect examination. “Opposing counsel asked you some questions about your pension...” Objection/Sustained. “Can you remember what the defendant told you about his pension?” Objection/Overruled. “He did not mention anything about his pension.” “Did he mention anything about his child support obligations?” “He did not mention that at all, either.” “What about maintenance payments?” “They were not mentioned at all.” Connor then asks for a sidebar.
 
The judge is back on the bench. Connor makes an argument that the defense has opened the door to additional records that the judge had previously ruled inadmissible. Brodsky disagrees. Judge: “I think the State’s observation is an acute one... but I think those records are prejudicial, and so I’m not going to let them in. But you want to be careful in the future where you tread, counsel.” With that, Judge Burmila sends for the jury.


Sorry, I missed this, it was when they were back from break a few minutes ago.
 
In Session The sidebar is now over. “Counsel asked you some questions about your conclusions you reached being on the scene on March 2, 2004. You indicated in your answer you didn’t close the door completely on the issue of homicide?” “Yes.” “But the conclusion of accident was reached rather quickly when you met up with Trooper Deel and Trooper Falat?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you ever reach a conclusion which you shared with someone?” “Yes.” Connor then tries to hand the witness a document. But Judge Burmila instead sends the jurors from the courtroom.
 
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. :(
 
ohiogirl said:
The judge is back on the bench. Connor makes an argument that the defense has opened the door to additional records that the judge had previously ruled inadmissible. Brodsky disagrees. Judge: “I think the State’s observation is an acute one... but I think those records are prejudicial, and so I’m not going to let them in. But you want to be careful in the future where you tread, counsel.” With that, Judge Burmila sends for the jury.


Sorry, I missed this, it was when they were back from break a few minutes ago.
Click to expand...

Now this judge is working for the defense, imo.:maddening:
 
In Session The jurors and the witness have now left the courtroom. Judge: “What’s the relevance of this document?” Connor says that this is just to confirm the witness’ conclusion. Judge: “Are you impeaching your own witness?” Brodksy jumps in: “It’s like a leading question... I think the manner should be dropped.” Judge Burmila says he doesn’t see the relevance of this question, and the witness and the jurors return to the courtroom.
 
In Session Connor continues his redirect: “Can you tell the jury the exact day you interviewed Stacy Peterson?” “No.” “Is there anything that would refresh your recollection?” “A copy of the report... she was interviewed on March 3, 2004.” “One day after you interviewed the defendant?” “Yes.”
 
In Session “You indicated the defendant told you the financial aspects of the divorce were still uncertain?” “Yes, he said they were still summarizing the financial part of the divorce.” “At that house that night, did you check the windows?” “No, not personally.” “Did you ever contact any of Kathleen Peterson’s family members?” “No.” “Did you ask him who Kathleen Peterson’s divorce attorney was, so you could talk to him?” “No” “Did you subsequently talk to Kathleen Peterson’s divorce attorney?” “I received a call from him, yes.”
 
In Session “Were the other interviews that were conducted, did anyone else ever sit in on those interviews?” “No.” “You were asked what the defendant explained to you what his reasons were for wanting to sit in on Stacy’s interview . . . did you ever attempt to verify the reasons he gave you for that?” “I didn’t have to verify it; she was shaken, upset. It was obvious.”
 
In Session “Do you have an independent recollection if whether the defendant was present during the interview of Stacy Peterson?” “Yes.” “And did he sit in on that interview?” “Yes.”
 
In Session “Were you aware that the initial people who were in the house did not notice a blue towel in the bathroom?” Objection/Sustained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 4,210 (members: 198, guests: 4,012)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
4,012
Total visitors
4,210
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,311
Messages
17,967,169
Members
228,740
Latest member
zorba347
Back
Top