Drew Peterson trial updates:


11:40 a.m. Judge: No gasps from gallery please
After Dr. Gene Neri’s testimony concluded, defense lawyer Joel Brodsky asked the judge to tell onlookers in the gallery not to react noticeably to testimony or questions by the attorneys.

"We don't want any demonstration or expression to influence the jury one way or the other," he said.

Brodsky's request was prompted by repeated gasps of outrage by a few court watchers who apparently object to certain questions posed by Drew Peterson’s attorneys.

The judge agreed, saying the he understands that there are times when something humorous is said, prompting laughter, but that the gallery must not appear to be taking sides.

"Yesterday, there was an audible gasp from the audience in response to a question Mr. (Ralph) Meczyk asked that they obviously disapproved of," Burmila said.

He said if it happened again, he may have offending onlookers barred from the courtroom.

"I understand people are emotional about this case, but you have to be able to keep your emotions in check," Burmila said.

Updated at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 3097.story

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Drew Peterson trial blog:

August 17, 1:48 p.m.A friend of Stacy Peterson, Scott Rosetto, has taken the stand. Rosetto is expected to testify that Stacy confided in him that Drew had killed Kathleen. This is one of just a handful of times Stacy's name has even come up in this trial. Judge Burmila has ruled that none of the witness can testify that she is presumed dead.

Updates at link
http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-drew-pe ... .htmlstory

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Drew Peterson trial updates:


2:05 p.m. Prosecutors frustrate judge again

Scott Rossetto testified he met Stacy Peterson at his home on Oct. 25, 2007, prompting an objection from the defense, which claimed they were told the conversation took place five days earlier and at a Denny's restaurant.

Prosecutors admitted confusion about the date of the conversation, but said the basic contents of what was said between Rossetto and Stacy Peterson was unchanged.

But a perturbed Judge Edward Burmila said the changing dates went to the believability of the witness and said either prosecutors would have to stipulate that they messed up on the dates, or allow the defense to call Assistant State's Attorney John Connor as a witness to talk about the mix-up, meaning Connor, one of the most senior prosecutors, would be barred from working on the trial.

Burmila gave the state a short recess to decide which option to pursue, shaking his head in apparent disgust as he left the bench.

Updated at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 3097.story[/quote]

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Jon Seidel@SeidelContent

#DrewPeterson pros Koch trying to explain problem to judge. Burmila says "Stop. I'm not asking you to spin it."

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Stacey St. Clair@StacyStClair

#DrewPeterson judge finds state knew Rossetto gave false info during pre-trial hearing and did not tell previous judge.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Jon Seidel@SeidelContent
Burmila: "Within a one-hour period today, the date changed twice." #DrewPeterson

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Jon Seidel@SeidelContent

#DrewPeterson judge bans Rossetto's testimony because it's unreliable, partly because of state's mistakes. Significant loss for prosecution.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Jon Seidel@SeidelContent

#DrewPeterson judge said common sense might suggest pros put Rossetto on the stand and let defense impeach but "it does not work that way."

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The prosecution in this case seem to be inept.

But I don't think they had enough evidence to start with..no matter how much popular opinion clamours about a person being guilty... it requires evidence that proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Drew Peterson trial updates:

2:55 p.m. Stacy's friend barred from testifying
Judge Edward Burmila barred Scott Rossetto's testimony, saying that the state's error regarding the dates, and the fact that Rossetto testified at the 2010 hearsay hearing that the conversation with Stacy Peterson took place on Oct. 26, 2007 — a day when he was at work and could not have spoken with her —made his testimony unreliable.

"Call your next witness," Burmila said and asked the court bailiff to bring in the jury.

A second later, he told the bailiff to wait, as the defense lodged a motion to bar the next witness, an insurance investigator, from testifying about Kathleen Savio's life insurance policy.

Rosetto testified in 2010 that Stacy Peterson told him that Drew Peterson had coaxed her into providing a false alibi for the weekend of Savio’s death.

At the heart of the defense’s objection was an email prosecutors sent to the defense on Wednesday night that said Rossetto's testimony would be consistent with a police report and that his conversation took place on Oct. 22, 2007.

In prior testimony, Rossetto said it took place on Oct. 25 or 26, 2007.

Glasgow argued that it was nothing more than a transcriber’s error and that his assistant, John Connor, would have caught the mistake if he had not gone home earlier that day with a high fever.

But defense attorney Steve Greenberg countered that the different dates show Rossetto's testimony was unreliable and he should not be allowed to testify any further.

Updates at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 3097.story

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Drew Peterson trial blog: Jurors dismissed, attorneys arguing


August 17, 4:21 p.m. Testimony has finished early today since the prosecutors lost one entire witness, Scott Rossetto, who the judged barred from testimony. Jurors have been dismissed. Arguments happening now.

....updates at link
http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-drew-pe ... .htmlstory

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Still arguing about letting the "Hit Man" evidence in.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Drew Peterson trial blog:

August 17, 5:00 p.m. Prosecutors failed to file their request properly to get a witness in, and the judge against the defense's wishes is issuing them an extension. Witness Jeffrey Pachter who once worked with Drew Peterson is expected to testify that Peterson offered him 25,000 to hire a hit man to kill his wife Kathleen Savio. Judge Burmila said it is within the law for him to give the extension even though the prosecutors made another legal mistake.

...updates at link
http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-drew-pe ... .htmlstory

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I can't believe the number of 'errors' they are making either. And at this point I really would be surprised if the jury were to convict Drew, as much as I think he's guilty. There just doesn't seem to be anything so far that can directly tie him to being in Kathleen's house and killing her. Now the Judge is going to rule on the 'hit-man' again but I wonder how much of his testimony will come in if he actually does get to testify. And what baggage does he have the defense can shoot him down with?

I followed the news when Stacey went "missing" and became convinced myself that he killed her AND that he killed Kathleen.
I was really pleased they reopened the Kathleen Savio case, but.........

It seems they have not added much to the original investigation and that was insufficient to charge Drew P. at the time.

They needed MORE than to simply exhume KS's body and suggest it was not an accident...they needed evidence to build a case that Drew did it. AND... given that it is a "circumstantial" case, relying on building a case against DP.. the prosecution needed to be on their game and present it in a way to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt..... IMO the prosecution have been slack.

I THINK he did it.. but if I were on the jury I would still be voting not guilty.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

And I agree! I haven't seen anything, that if I was on the jury, to vote otherwise. There's a lot of stuff that we know that the jurors haven't had presented to them during the trial, and the way it's going, probably won't know about when it's over. Unfortunately for them, the one person who probably knew best that he'd snuck out of the house and killed Kathleen is now missing. And one of the people she had talked to was not allowed to continue testifying.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I'd probably have to vote not guilty but also think he may have done it. What was in that blue barrel they took out that night.

And looking at Kathleen's body in the tub it doesn't seem to me that a fall would leave her lying in that position but maybe on her side or back or over the side half way.

Her position in the tub doesn't look like an accidental drowning at all. Dr. Blum said her head injury wouldn't result in losing consciousness. Even if she had hit her head on the faucet, for example, she would notice it bleeding and try to get out of the tub and stop the bleeding. I'm sure she didn't accidentally drown, but I do think in order for the jury to convict him, they're going to need to know he's the only person who had motive, means and opportunity to have done it.

Dr Blum might well be seen to be biased... he went into the autopsy with expectations... that is NOT good science to say the least.
The initial autopsy saw it as an accident.. and that was before all the years of negative comments about Peterson ... especially the widespread belief that he had killed Stacy

.... and Brodsky and Greenberg confirmed (On Justice with Judge Jeanine) that they have 3 experts who will say accident.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light