Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session “He had mentioned to Mary that if he had not heard from Kathy by Tuesday, he would contact a locksmith. Then, at approximately 9:45 pm, Mary’s son had contacted Kathy’s boyfriend...“ Objection/Sustained. “When it was known that an individual had spoken to Kathy’s boyfriend, then Mary told Drew to call the locksmith... he contacted a locksmith, who arrived, gained entrance to the house, at which time the neighbors went into the house.” “Did the defendant tell you where he was?” “Drew indicated to me that he remained outside... Mary Pontarelli, Thomas Pontarelli, and Steve Carcerano entered the house. Several moments later, Drew said he heard a scream. He proceeded in the house, upstairs to the bathroom... he saw the body of his ex-wife, lifeless.”


Not exactly as Mary testified. jmo
 
In Session “Drew advised me that at that time he panicked.” “Did he indicate how long he remained on the scene, or what he did after that?” “No.” “Was there ever an occasion when you spoke to him again?” “Yes, I advised Drew that we would have to speak to his wife.” “After you spoke to him at Bolingbrook that morning?” “Can’t recall.” “What did he indicate?’ “He just said contact him and let him know.” “Did you subsequently make arrangements to speak to Stacy Peterson after that?” “Yes... I contacted Mr. Drew Peterson, asked him what would be a good time to talk to his wife. We agreed on a time, and I went to his residence.” “So that took place in a house, not in a police station?” “Yes, yes.” “When you went to that residence, could you describe what happened when you arrived?’ “I went to the residence, at 6 Pheasant Chase Drive, rang the bell. The door was opened by Mr. Drew Peterson... he knew what he was there for... then Drew instructed one of the older kids to take the kids, because he had to take care of some business. Drew directed us down to the basement. On our way down, Drew asked me personally, said Stacy was real nervous, and asked me if he could sit in on the interview, as a professional courtesy.” “He made that request to you. Was that in Trooper Falat’s presence?” “Trooper Falat should have been there... [but] that was more directed to me.”
 
In Session “His basement was finished; it was a pretty nice basement. He had set an area where four chairs were set up, to conduct the interview.” “What type of chairs were they?” “Card table chairs... myself and Trooper Falat were facing [the Petersons]; Stacy and Drew Peterson’s chairs were very close... he sat very close to Stacy as we proceeded to ask her questions.” “What did you observe of the defendant during the course of that interview?” “Drew was sitting very close to Stacy, as to be in a supportive mood... he had his hand on her leg, and his arm around her. I guessed that was to give her moral support.” “Did the defendant help answer any questions?” “There was one particular question when he did, when he had to refresh her memory... I asked the question...” Before Collins can continue, attorney Greenberg asks for a sidebar.
 
In Session The sidebar ends. Connor: “Can you describe how the defendant helped answer her question?” “He leaned over and said, ‘You remember what you cooked for breakfast that morning’... [and started naming] what was prepared for breakfast... Drew had a mannerism, when you ask him a question he would kind of lean and kind of rub his eyes.” “Were there any other things you observed that the defendant did during the interview of Stacy Peterson?” “No, not as much as leaning over to her, kind of supportive.” “Allowing one witness to sit in on the interview of another, was that something you’d ever done in an investigation before that?” “No.” “Ever do it after that?” “Initially, no.” “What happened at the end of that interview?” “As it was being conducted, she became very upset, very shaken, and started to cry... after we got the information we wanted, we kind of shut the interview down.” “The more upset she got, the closer you got to finishing?” “Right.”
 
In Session The sidebar ends. Connor: “Can you describe how the defendant helped answer her question?” “He leaned over and said, ‘You remember what you cooked for breakfast that morning’... [and started naming] what was prepared for breakfast... Drew had a mannerism, when you ask him a question he would kind of lean and kind of rub his eyes.” “Were there any other things you observed that the defendant did during the interview of Stacy Peterson?” “No, not as much as leaning over to her, kind of supportive.” “Allowing one witness to sit in on the interview of another, was that something you’d ever done in an investigation before that?” “No.” “Ever do it after that?” “Initially, no.” “What happened at the end of that interview?” “As it was being conducted, she became very upset, very shaken, and started to cry... after we got the information we wanted, we kind of shut the interview down.” “The more upset she got, the closer you got to finishing?” “Right.”

Very special treatment, imo.
 
In Session In 2004, the witness was appointed to be a grand jury investigator in this case. In that capacity, he requested some phone records. “Which individuals did you receive phone records back from?” “Kathy Savio, and I can’t recall all of them... we subpoenaed everyone’s records.” “Did you receive any records back from Drew Peterson?’ “Some records we received late, yes.” “But did you ever receive any calls just relating to Drew Peterson’s cell phone or land line?” “I can’t recall.”
 
In Session ISP special agent Herb Hardy (?) conducted follow-up interviews of Savio’s neighbors. “Did he have anything else to do with the investigation, other than that neighborhood canvas?”“No.”
 
Vinnie is interviewing a lady that has been in the courtroom 4 days to watch the trial. He asked who, in her opinion, was winning. She said "THE DEFENSE". She said the defense has an answer for everything.

Sigh.
 
In Session In 2004, the witness was appointed to be a grand jury investigator in this case. In that capacity, he requested some phone records. “Which individuals did you receive phone records back from?” “Kathy Savio, and I can’t recall all of them... we subpoenaed everyone’s records.” “Did you receive any records back from Drew Peterson?’ “Some records we received late, yes.” “But did you ever receive any calls just relating to Drew Peterson’s cell phone or land line?” “I can’t recall.”


what a horrible way to investigate
 
In Session “He had mentioned to Mary that if he had not heard from Kathy by Tuesday, he would contact a locksmith. Then, at approximately 9:45 pm, Mary’s son had contacted Kathy’s boyfriend...“ Objection/Sustained. “When it was known that an individual had spoken to Kathy’s boyfriend, then Mary told Drew to call the locksmith... he contacted a locksmith, who arrived, gained entrance to the house, at which time the neighbors went into the house.” “Did the defendant tell you where he was?” “Drew indicated to me that he remained outside... Mary Pontarelli, Thomas Pontarelli, and Steve Carcerano entered the house. Several moments later, Drew said he heard a scream. He proceeded in the house, upstairs to the bathroom... he saw the body of his ex-wife, lifeless.”


1st BBM: Now if I were on the jury, this would stick out like a big red flag -- and let's hope that the jury "gets this" : WHO calls a "locksmith" when the person is not answering their door, not answering their phone ? You call LE !

2nd BBM: No way did Mary tell Drew to call a locksmith !

And Thank You for the updates !

:moo:
 
Vinnie is interviewing a lady that has been in the courtroom 4 days to watch the trial. He asked who, in her opinion, was winning. She said "THE DEFENSE". She said the defense has an answer for everything.
Remember the Scott Peterson trial? Everyone said the prosecution team was doing a LOUSY job and no way would Scott Peterson be convicted...no way!

Asking anyone who is winning is like asking my cat to read tea leaves. Making pronouncements on day #4 of a murder trial is silly, if not irresponsible.
 
In Session “At some point during your investigation, was there a discussion of whether or not to speak to the defendant’s children?” “Yes... that discussion was brought up in the office.” Objection/Overruled. “That was a matter taken up with one of my supervisors, to inquire whether we should interview Drew Peterson’s kids. I was instructed to wait to see how the investigation was going before we had to get the kids involved.” “Did you obtain records from the Bolingbrook P.D. regarding dispatch calls?” “Yes.” “Did they reflect calls to the department from the defendant regarding visitation?” “I can’t remember every one that I reviewed.” The witness is shown the pertinent records to refresh his memory. “Do you recognize that document?” “Yes... it indicates a dispatch at 6:29 pm.” “And that refers to Kathleen Savio not releasing the children to him?” “Yes.” “What date is on that document, as to when the call was received?” “6/25/2002.”
 
In Session Another dispatch/call record is handed to the witness. “It was 7/11/2002, at 5:22 pm.” “And there’s an indication that it had to do with visitation?” “Yes.” Yet another record is given to the witness. “This call was received on 12/05/02, at 9:12 pm... ‘refused visitation,’ Kathy Peterson refused visitation. Drew Peterson is the caller.”
 
In Session “After the day you met with the defendant and Stacy Peterson, did you or Trooper Falat ever have occasion to interview Stacy Peterson again?” “No."
 
In Session The State apparently needs a minute before it can continue, so Judge Burmila decides to take “a quick break” at this time. He excuses the jurors from the courtroom.
 
I didn't think that their was going to be so much information about Stacey. Aren't the jurors going to wonder why she herself isn't being called to testify? The elephant in the room is going to get bigger and bigger
 
Vinnie is interviewing a lady that has been in the courtroom 4 days to watch the trial. He asked who, in her opinion, was winning. She said "THE DEFENSE". She said the defense has an answer for everything.

Sigh.


BBM: :maddening: I hope this is NOT what the jury is thinking ! :maddening:

And IF SO, there will be a "special place" for them along with the Pinellas 12 !

The defense :clown::clown: are so transparent ... they are a bunch of smartie pants !

And THANKS again to all of you for the updates !

:please: Let the Jury see through the defense :clown: :clown: bs and that there will be Justice for Kathleen !
 
BBM: :maddening: I hope this is NOT what the jury is thinking ! :maddening:

And IF SO, there will be a "special place" for them along with the Pinellas 12 !

The defense :clown::clown: are so transparent ... they are a bunch of smartie pants !

And THANKS again to all of you for the updates !

:please: Let the Jury see through the defense :clown: :clown: bs and that there will be Justice for Kathleen !


I've never felt this worried about an outcome before. I was totally confident during CA's trial that she wouldn't see the light of day--yeah, I was very wrong. So, hopefully I'm totally wrong about how I'm feeling now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
2,230
Total visitors
2,413

Forum statistics

Threads
589,968
Messages
17,928,464
Members
228,024
Latest member
anniegirl401
Back
Top