Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

In Session Deel continues to go over his history with the Illinois State Police. “You were actively involved in all these different kinds of crime investigations?” “Yes.” At one point, he was also assigned to the Marine Unit (on Lake Michigan). “You investigated a lot of drowning deaths?” “There were a few.” “About 50?” “That would be a good guess... I don’t know if any were a homicide; most of them were accidents... there were a few suicides, too.”

In Session The witness is now asked about the proficiency or competency tests he is regularly required to take. “You did pretty well on those tests, didn’t you?” Objection/Sustained. “You always were tested as proficient?” “Yes.”

In Session In August, 2002, he moved to the Crime Scene Investigations unit (at his request). “You would get actually mock crime scenes, and have to do the investigation and pass that test?” “Yes.” “And there were mock court scenes, so you’d know how to act in court?” “Yes.” “And you passed as proficient in all of that?” “Yes.”

In Session “You’ve processed over 500 crime scenes?” “Yes, Sir.” “You’re trained to looked for people who have tried to cover their tracks?” “That’s part of it, yes.” “You’re trained to try to pick out the signs that somebody tried to cover their tracks?” “Yes, Sir.” “And that’s something you’ve come across before?” “I have, yes... it’s one of the things you look for... at least to be aware it’s a possibility someone would try that, yes.” “Ever come across where somebody after death fires a gun?” “Yes.” “How does that happen?” Objection/Sustained.

In Session Deel describes a crime scene where it originally looked like a homicide, but it turned out to be a suicide (as rigor mortis set in, the corpse’s tightening muscles actually fired another round). “This is not something for amateurs?” “ No.”

In Session The witness repeats that he arrived at the Savio home around 1:30 on the early morning of March 2, 2004. “Did you see Drew Peterson then when you arrived?” “No.” “Had you ever met Drew Peterson before?” “No.” Michael VanOver (and others) were present when he arrived. “The first thing you did was take a survey of the house?” “Yes.” “As you’re walking around the house, you’re looking for anything out of order?” “Yes.” “You looked at the windows, the basement windows, from outside?” “Yes.” “And nothing was out of order?” “No.” “You didn’t see any footprints, or smudge marks?” “No.” “So everything looks secure?" “Yes.”

In Session Deel then went into the Savio house. “The first thing you did was go around the first floor of the house?” “Yes.” “To see if there was anything unusual?” “Yes.” Another trooper walked around with him. “Neither of you saw anything that was out of place?” “No.”


In Session The witness is shown a photograph that shows the orange juice in the kitchen. “Somebody asked... I don’t recall exactly who asked me to take that picture.” “That might be an indication as to what time of day the person in that house might be alive?” Objection/Sustained. “After going around the first floor, then you went upstairs to the bathroom?” “Yes.” “Deputy Coroner VanOver was up there?” “I believe he was already up there." “At some point, Investigator Collins showed up?” “I don’t remember when he showed up.” “But he was there?” “Yeah.”

In Session “One of the things they did was gather up any pharmaceuticals in the house?” “I believe they did, yes.” The witness tries to give a description of his duties as a crime scene investigator. “We use our training, our observations, our experiences to try to figure out the most logical scenario as to what happened at the scene.” He then contrasts that with the duties of the coroner’s investigators. “Our focus is on things that are there... the scene securement is to help me focus completely on what I’m doing.” “Your job isn’t to interview witnesses?” “No.” “And the deputy coroner’s job is as an investigator?” “They are an investigator, yes.” “And their responsibility is the body?” “Yes.” “VanOver collected the pharmaceuticals?” “I don’t know... those would be his responsibility, yes.”

In Session “In the bathroom, you saw nothing out of place?” “Correct.” “You pointed out that “Spot Out” there... know if that’s for animal stains?” “I don’t know.” “You have cats?” “I have two dogs.” Objection/Sustained.

In Session “In the bathroom, you saw no sign of a disturbance, nothing out of place?” “Other than the victim in the tub, yes... there was small items that looked where they belonged; nothing was broken. Things looked like they had been normally placed there... the position of the body was consistent with where it should be and how it would have been from the time of death. There was no indication the body had been moved, or anything along those lines... it looked to me as if it was a normal bathroom; nothing appeared to have been damaged, disturbed, or moved.”

In Session The witness is shown a photograph. “These items to the right... you’re referring to them as little items that were not out of place?” “Yes.” “The counter, those look like contact containers?” “Yes.” “And those little items in the back, all perfectly in place?” “Yes.”



In Session CORRECTION: This is actually Joel Brodsky, NOT Joe Lopez, who is conducting the cross-examination. “Does movement of the body cause blood to come out?” “Yes.” “And you saw blood on your gloves... that’s when you noticed the laceration in the scalp?” “I knew she had had to have some kind of injury to cause the bleeding.” “But you didn’t do a more thorough investigation, because that’s the job of the coroner?” “Yes.”

~n/t~ said:

In Session “One of the things they did was gather up any pharmaceuticals in the house?” “I believe they did, yes.” The witness tries to give a description of his duties as a crime scene investigator. “We use our training, our observations, our experiences to try to figure out the most logical scenario as to what happened at the scene.” He then contrasts that with the duties of the coroner’s investigators. “Our focus is on things that are there... the scene securement is to help me focus completely on what I’m doing.” “Your job isn’t to interview witnesses?” “No.” “And the deputy coroner’s job is as an investigator?” “They are an investigator, yes.” “And their responsibility is the body?” “Yes.” “VanOver collected the pharmaceuticals?” “I don’t know... those would be his responsibility, yes.”

In Session “In the bathroom, you saw nothing out of place?” “Correct.” “You pointed out that “Spot Out” there... know if that’s for animal stains?” “I don’t know.” “You have cats?” “I have two dogs.” Objection/Sustained.

In Session “In the bathroom, you saw no sign of a disturbance, nothing out of place?” “Other than the victim in the tub, yes... there was small items that looked where they belonged; nothing was broken. Things looked like they had been normally placed there... the position of the body was consistent with where it should be and how it would have been from the time of death. There was no indication the body had been moved, or anything along those lines... it looked to me as if it was a normal bathroom; nothing appeared to have been damaged, disturbed, or moved.”

Click to expand...

BBM. I wish they would clarify who is saying this. the position of the body was consistent with where it should be and how it would have been from the time of death. There was no indication the body had been moved, or anything along those lines...

Was the above said by the defense or by the witness? was all of it said by either or ???

Cubby said:

BBM. I wish they would clarify who is saying this. the position of the body was consistent with where it should be and how it would have been from the time of death. There was no indication the body had been moved, or anything along those lines...

Was the above said by the defense or by the witness? was all of it said by either or ???

Click to expand...

I think it's the attorney. Shouldn't the pros have objected? Leading?

~n/t~ said:

In Session “In the bathroom, you saw nothing out of place?” “Correct.” “You pointed out that “Spot Out” there... know if that’s for animal stains?” “I don’t know.” “You have cats?” “I have two dogs.” Objection/Sustained.

.”

Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped. Now that the defense opened the door, I hope this means the prosecution can name the correct name, Spot Shot (not spot out).

I hope this means the prosecution can read directly from the label. It specifically lists blood stains - in addition to pet stains- on the label.

If anyone wants, I will type off what is on the label with regards to what type of stains.

as of now, If i were on the jury I would have to say Not Guilty.

it seems as if the pros really do not have anything on him.

I have a feeling that this is going to end up like the Casey trial.

where members of the jury say the Pros. could not prove murder.

JMO

DP could very strongly walk

In Session Another photograph shows a towel. “This towel was there when you took this picture?” “Yes.” “That towel is folded up, correct?” “As we see it there, yes.” “Know if that towel might have been moved from the floor, where it was used as a ledge?” “I do not know.” “If there was a bath mat on the floor, and one of the investigators moved it, that would be wrong?” Objection/Sustained. “That would be wrong.” “Did you ever ask VanOver or Deputy (?) if they had moved that towel?” “I did not, no.”


In Session The witness repeats that he took photos of the outside of the house. “That’s just something you thought you needed to do, to document the scene?” “Yes.”

In Session The witness is shown another photo. “See those little towels up there?” “Yes.” “They were there when you came into the bathroom?” “Yes.” “And this little terrycloth towel, and this blue robe beneath it?” “Yes.” “Those were all there when you came into the bathroom?” “Yes.”

~n/t~ said:

I think it's the attorney.

Click to expand...

And the prosecution didn't object when Brodsky stated the position of the body was consistent with where it should be?

ay yi yi. Smeone has some explaining to do. Even with how her hair covered her face. If she fell backwards how did her hair defy gravity and cover up her face?

In Session “When you came to take the body out of the tub, you had bagged the hands of Ms. Savio before she was removed from the tub?” “Before she was removed from the tub... the purpose is in the event there was any kind of a struggle, and the DNA or any other material under the fingernail would be preserved in that bag.” “So when you bagged those hands, you still had a open mind as to what had occurred?” “No.” “You didn’t see any sign of a struggle in that house?” “No... it’s just a procedure we go through, to make sure we don’t miss any evidence. We didn’t really know what had happened to her... so we just put the bags on there to ensure that that didn’t happen.”

Cubby said:

And the prosecution didn't object when Brodsky stated the position of the body was consistent with where it should be?

ay yi yi. Smeone has some explaining to do. Even with how her hair covered her face. If she fell backwards how did her hair defy gravity and cover up her face?

Click to expand...

Cubby, I found this tweet. It was the witness.



14m Kara Oko‏@KaraOko

Deel:"there was no idication that the body had been moved or anything along those lines

iluvmua said:

as of now, If i were on the jury I would have to say Not Guilty.

it seems as if the pros really do not have anything on him.

I have a feeling that this is going to end up like the Casey trial.

where members of the jury say the Pros. could not prove murder.

JMO

DP could very strongly walk

Click to expand...

Right now, if I were on the jury, I couldn't make a decision either way until ALL of the evidence is presented.

Kind of hard to predict which way this might go when we might only be 20-25% into the trial. It's expected to last about a month. We are on day 5 of testimony.

In Session “You’ve seen crime scenes before where people were fighting for their lives?” “Yes... someone fighting for their lives is a pretty intense thing.” “Nothing even close to that here?” “No.” “Ever hear of the concept ‘first blow free’?” “I know what you’re talking about.” “You were looking for a point where her head might have come into contact with the tub?” “No... when an object strikes your head, and opens the skin for bleeding, there’s no transfer... the first blow lays open the wound, and therefore there would be no blood transfer to that object.” “If there was a second blow, then there’d be blood spatter?” “Even if that is not a given... it takes a repeated blow to the same area.” “But Ms. Savio had only one injury to the head?” “Yes.” “In this case, there was no blood spatter that you found?” “No.” “And you looked for it?” “Yes.” “If that cut, that injury on her head had occurred elsewhere in the house, and she’d been moved to the tub, what would you have expected to find?” Objection/Sustained. “A head wound bleed pretty profusely?” “Yes.” “See any sign of a blood trail in this case?” “No.” “Is that something that could be easily hidden?” “Absolutely not.” “And you looked for it?” “I did... but it was contained to the bathroom. Once there was nothing there, there was no reason to continue.” “That led you to the conclusion that Kathy died in the bathroom, and in the bathtub, correct?” “Yes.”


In Session “After Kathy’s body had been removed, you measured the tub?” “Yes.” “And you made a drawing of the tub, from those measurements?” “I did.” “How long did you take to measure this tub, and make all your measurements and observations?” “At least a half an hour, maybe a little longer.” The witness is now shown this drawing. “This is something that you use in the investigation?” “Yes.” “How long did you spend in the house that night?” “At least two hours, maybe a little longer... I left around 3:30; I’d have to look at my report to be sure.” “You process all death scenes the same way?” “Yes.” “So in your mind, there’s no such thing as a suspicious death protocol, they’re all the same?” “I’ve never even heard of a suspicious death protocol.”

~n/t~ said:

In Session Another photograph shows a towel. “This towel was there when you took this picture?” “Yes.” “That towel is folded up, correct?” “As we see it there, yes.” “Know if that towel might have been moved from the floor, where it was used as a ledge?” “I do not know.” “If there was a bath mat on the floor, and one of the investigators moved it, that would be wrong?” Objection/Sustained. “That would be wrong.” “Did you ever ask VanOver or Deputy (?) if they had moved that towel?” “I did not, no.”


In Session The witness repeats that he took photos of the outside of the house. “That’s just something you thought you needed to do, to document the scene?” “Yes.”

In Session The witness is shown another photo. “See those little towels up there?” “Yes.” “They were there when you came into the bathroom?” “Yes.” “And this little terrycloth towel, and this blue robe beneath it?” “Yes.” “Those were all there when you came into the bathroom?” “Yes.”

Click to expand...

BBM. I like this line of questioning. I think it helps the pros. Clearly those first on the scene did NOT see a towel, robe, etc... the more this comes up, the more it indicates Drew planted those items between the time the body was found and the early am when the coroner deputy and ISP arrived. No doubt imo this is going to backfire on the defense.

In Session Savio was wrapped in a white sheet, and then placed in a body bag. “And you then attended the autopsy, performed by Dr. Mitchell, and took photographs?” “Yes.” “And you’ve attended 400 autopsies?” “More than that.” “You also said previously that at the death scene you didn’t see any bruises that raised any suspicions to you?” “Correct.” “You did see some bruises on the body, though?” “For the most part, it appeared to be typical bruising people have on their bodies from daily life, not from trauma.” “And you didn’t see any signs of beating on Kathleen Savio’s body?” “Correct.” Objection/Overruled.

iluvmua said:

as of now, If i were on the jury I would have to say Not Guilty.

it seems as if the pros really do not have anything on him.

I have a feeling that this is going to end up like the Casey trial.

where members of the jury say the Pros. could not prove murder.
JMO

DP could very strongly walk

Click to expand...

BBM: lease: I hope NOT ! :banghead: Then they would be letting a "serial killer" on the loose !

lease: I am going to try to remain hopeful that he will be convicted and there will be Justice for Kathleen !

JMO and MOO !

In Session The witness is shown a photograph of Savio’s body. “Would you call this an injury?” “No.” “It’s not indicative of any beating or anything?” “No.” “Nothing was hidden during the autopsy?” “No.” “Who was at the autopsy?” “Me, Dr. Mitchell, a technician, the deputy coroner might have been there.” “Was there a discussion about what they felt the nature of Kathy Savio’s death was?” “Yes.” “Did Dr. Mitchell express any opinion as to what the manner of death was?” “He did... he told me that her death was not a homicide.” “You knew Dr. Mitchell?” “Very well.” “He passed away about two years ago?” “Yes.” “Did he ever waver in his opinion that Kathy Savio’s death was not a homicide?” “No.”

In Session Brodsky is now trying to get the witness to acknowledge that the State’s Attorney’s office is “not happy” with his handling of this case. That prompts a prosecution objection, and Judge Burmila calls the parties to a sidebar.

In Session The jurors have just been taken from the courtroom. Judge Burmila asks the State if it ever filed a complaint about the witness’ performance in this case. Brodsky says that was a letter about this, and the judge asks to see it. “We’ll take a brief recess.”

~n/t~ said:

Cubby, I found this tweet. It was the witness.



14m Kara Oko‏@KaraOko

Deel:"there was no idication that the body had been moved or anything along those lines

Click to expand...

Thank you, ~n/t~. Who said the following? "the position of the body was consistent with where it should be and how it would have been from the time of death." Was that said by Brodsky or the witness?

I hope the pros go back to this statement. Because I don't think this witness can state, scientifically - say due to physics - that the body was found in the position it was at the time of death. Or that the body was consistent with where it should be based on the time and cause of death.