Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session “Is it your testimony that the State Police never came to your house to follow up with you?” “That is correct . . . they ignored me . . . I was expecting for someone to call me back and question me more about this incident. And no one called . . . no one talked to me with regards to the Kathy Savio case. I believe I was put on hold, and then I left a message . . . no one ever called me back.” “Did you send a letter to anybody?” “No, Sir.” “Did you e-mail anybody?” “No, Sir.” “You didn’t do anything in 2005, send any letter in 2005?” “No, I didn’t.” “And you did nothing in 2006, either?” “No one came to talk to me, no.” “And you didn’t call at all in 2006, did you?” “In 2006, I did not call.”
 
In Session Finally, in 2007, she had a visit from two state police officers. “You didn’t tell them about the knife, did you?” “Yes, I did.” “You know the word ‘knife’ does not appear in that report?” “I do.” “Are you accusing the state police of suppressing evidence?” “I’m accusing them of not writing everything down that I shared.” “You testified in 2008?” “Yes.” “In 2008, you knew the word ‘knife’ wasn’t in there?” “Yes.” “Didn’t you want to make the record clear that they got this wrong?” “I didn’t know that that was my job, to correct them.” “Well, do you have a job in regards to this investigation?” “Not at all.” “Or an agenda?” “Not at all.” And at no time did you mention the SWAT uniform?” “I mentioned everything that I mentioned today. They did not write everything down. I do not know why . . . they did not include everything that I stated.” “You’d think that would be in their report, if you reported it?” The State then asks for a sidebar.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
In Session “There was only one incident that she described to you where he came into the house with this SWAT incident?” “That’s right.” “And only one incident where he made this threatening incident?” “Yes.”
Click to expand...

Oh well that makes it SO much better!! So he only stormed in and held a knife to her throat threatening to kill her and make Iook like an accident only ONE time. He only did it ONCE. He's a real prince! Not!!!!!
 
In Session The sidebar ends. “Did you know that on October 10, 2003 . . . were you living in Kathy’s house?:” “Yes.” “Did you know that she came to this building and the court entered a ruling ending her marriage on that day?” “No.”
 
In Session “During your preparation for the prior hearing and this hearing, you met with the State’s Attorney, and read the reports yourself?” “Correct.” “When you had this interview with these two agents from the state police, your husband wasn’t there?’ “He was there; they interviewed us independently.” “And they were taking notes?” “I saw them taking notes. There were two of them.” “And they asked what you knew about Kathleen Savio and her relationship with Drew Peterson?” “They were asking me questions.” “And you observed these two officers writing things down on notepads?” “Correct.”
 
In Session The witness is asked about a third interview she had with an ISP special agent. “I don’t remember her.” “On October 27, 2008, at approximately 10:00 am?” “I don’t remember her.” The witness is shown a copy of the report from third interview. “That looks familiar, but I don’t remember her . . . I can’t remember that date; I’m sorry.” She says she has not seen this report prior to today. “There’s nothing about a knife or SWAT or anything?” “That’s correct, in what I just read.”
 
In Session You also had another conversation on Dec. 7, 2008?” “I’m not familiar with that date.” “Remember coming to the State’s Attorney’s office, and meeting with John Connor and Mr. Glasgow?” “I do remember that.” “And you stated again about the knife?” “To the best of my knowledge, I did.” “This is the first time you see this in a document?” “I said it every time.” This ends the cross-examination of this witness.
 
I am happy that Stacy has been mentioned through the day. I know this is Kathleen's trial, but Stacy is present :grouphug:
 
In Session Prosecutor Glasgow begins his redirect. “With all these state police reports, you were never asked to sign off on them before they were published?” “No.” “And each and every time you told them that he was dressed in a SWAT uniform, and he said he could kill her and make it look like an accident?” “Yes, I did.” “What did they question you about on October 27, 2008?” “I don’t know.” The witness is then shown a document to refresh her recollection. “What was the purpose of this interview?” Objection/Overruled. “I don’t know what the purpose was.” Glasgow then asks for another sidebar.
 
In Session The sidebar ends, and the judge asks the jurors to leave the courtroom.
 
In Session The jurors are now gone. Prosecutor Glasgow says that he would like to ask the witness about why she didn’t call the police in 2007, and that she would say it was because Stacy Peterson was missing. “I believe they opened the door for that.” Greenberg says he doesn’t believe that the defense crossed that line. The judge asks the court reporter to check her notes to see what the defense actually asked. The judge then leaves the stand, to give the court reporter a chance to find this passage, and the court is in a brief recess.
 
@TheHerald News:


Glasgow wants to ask why Anderson came forward in 2007 — says #DrewPeterson attys opened the door. Reason, of course, was Stacy.
 
LambChop said:
They had no reason to suspect him....he was a "good old boy", one of them. This from the beginning was a problem and it should have been investigated because of who DP was. jmo
Click to expand...

I agree LambChop, this stinks of the "good ole boy" mode of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I feel sure that Drew knew enough on his "ole friends" that they wouldn't think of even mentioning a suspicion of murder here. "The old "Thin Blue Line" is alive and well".
 
In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. The witness is asked to return to the courtroom, and the jurors return as well. Glasgow states that he has no further questions for this witness.
 
In Session The defense also has no further questions for the witness, and she is excused. Judge Burmila tells the jurors that the trial is now finished for today, and they leave the courtroom.
 
So what now? Does the state get to redirect tomorrow morning? Or is this a-hole going to exclude this as well? The DT opened the door. jmho
 
CarolinaMoon said:
In Session Judge: “We’re in a situation again here where the State believes the court should take into account more than the law... the State has refused on multiple occasions to answer the Court’s questions as to whether or not Judge White’s rulings can be ignored; all they do is dance around that issue... Judge White made a series of rulings in this case that the State asked him to make. Now the consequences of those rulings are before this Court... the volume of their argument is unpersuasive. The defense, however, says that Judge White’s rulings are based in stone... Judge White made those findings during the hearsay ruling, using a lower standard of proof... and he made the decision that these statements should not be admissible... the application of the due process application is a higher standard, a higher burden for the defendant to meet. The questions becomes, do these rulings reach the level of a due process unreliability. While I recognize how unique this is... in this particular situation, I do not believe that I’m bound by Judge Whites’ rulings... it has not been demonstrated to me that the witness’ statements are unreliable, and the defense’s motion to deny them is denied.”
Click to expand...

:thud:
 
CarolinaMoon said:
In Session The witness continues to cry. Judge Burmila asks her to leave the courtroom, in order to compose herself. Once the witness reaches the hallway, I can hear her sobbing in the hall. In the meantime, the judge has left the bench, and the court is in a brief recess.
Click to expand...


Oh, this is heartbreaking.
 
thank you to ohiogirl & carolinamoon for posting the tweets here - makes it easy to follow along with all our fellow WS'ers

merci beaucoup!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 65 more.
Total: 3,978 (members: 66, guests: 3,912)

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
3,912
Total visitors
3,978
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,399
Messages
17,968,387
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top