Peterson Trial Live Blog: State Could Rest Case Friday
Thursday, Aug 23, 2012
Updated 3:40 PM CDT

Prosecutors say they could be in a position to rest their case against Drew Peterson shortly after court resumes Friday morning.

The announcement came Thursday afternoon following a decision to not call Kathleen Savio's divorce attorney and after Judge Edward Burmila barred testimony from a crime scene investigator.

Divorce attorney Harry Smith was expected to testify about conversations he had with Drew Peterson's ex-wife before her 2004 drowning death. But calling Smith was a big gamble the prosecution ultimately decided not to take.

Back in June, Burmila said Smith must testify about "inculpatory" statements, leading the defense to believe Savio lied under oath.

"This is a home run for us," attorney Joe Lopez said at the time. "If this pans out it looks to us like she lied under oath and if that's so we will be free to argue she is a perjurer and a liar."

Prosecutors wanted state's attorney investigator Dave Margliano to tell jurors about a pair of receipts found in Peterson's home they say show the defendant was seeking an alibi for the weekend Savio died. Burmila ultimately barred that testimony.

...more at link
http://www.nbcchicago.com/feature/drew- ... z24S4qfcnn

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

Drew Peterson trial updates:

6:45 a.m. State expected to rest
Prosecutors are expected to rest their case at former Illinois police officer Drew Peterson's murder trial.

Friday will be the end of their fourth week presenting evidence against the 58-year-old Peterson. They've called around 30 witnesses and are expected to call no more than one or two Friday before resting.

Peterson has pleaded not guilty to killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004. He was charged only after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007.

Peterson's attorneys will have a chance to mount a defense. But they could decide to rest without calling any witnesses, then argue prosecutors didn't meet their burden of proof.

Prosecutors have faced multiple challenges. That's included a lack of physical evidence and a reliance on hearsay as they built their circumstantial case.

Updates at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 6083.story

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

Drew Peterson trial updates: Prosecution has three final witnesses

9:25 a.m. Witnesses: Phone employee, two officers

Today’s witnesses include a Sprint phone employee, a Bolingbrook police officer and a former Illinois State Police officer. They are expected to be the final witnesses in the prosecution case, which could end today.

After the prosecution rests, defense attorneys likely will ask the judge to find that prosecutors have failed to present enough evidence to support their two-count murder indictment against Drew Peterson.

If they are successful, the judge would dismiss the case before the defense calls any witnesses. Such motions are typically routine, but in this case, they are expected to include several hours of arguments.

Defense attorneys were vague Thursday about what kind of case they may present to jurors, saying only that they would call a pathologist to testify.

They would not say whether Peterson would take the stand.

"You'll have to wait and see," defense attorney Joseph Lopez said.

Updates at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 6083.story

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

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

In Session:
I have just been informed that the jury has been excused for the day.

It appears as though witness testimony is done for the day, and we are just going to hear stipulations. Harry Smith has left

Judge says Harry Smith has been ordered to return Monday -- as a defense witness

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

DrewPeterson defense team to call Savio divorce atty Harry Smith presumably to testify that Savio lied under oath about Drew/Stacy incident

Judge Burmila confirms that all of the State's stipulations will be presented at 9:00 Monday morning.

Judge Burmila and the attorneys are going over the documents that the State still hopes to admit into evidence.

InSession: The State confirms it doesn't plan to call any additional witnesses, & should be resting after they present the stipulations.

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

Drew Peterson trial updates: Prosecution expects to rest case Monday

3:15 p.m. Trial to resume Monday

Judge Edward Burmila has adjourned the trial for the day. Prosecutors are expected to rest on Monday. Burmila has run the trial from Tuesdays to Fridays but this week decided to add Mondays due to the slow pace of the trial.

3:05 p.m. Prosecutors expect to rest Monday

Prosecutors in the Drew Peterson case now expect to rest their case on Monday. Attorneys are working out which documents from Peterson’s divorce from Kathleen Savio can be admitted as evidence.

It’s still unclear whether prosecutors will call any witnesses Monday.

Divorce attorney Harry Smith has been ordered by Judge Edward Burmila to be available Monday as a possible witness for the defense.

...more at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 6083.story

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

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high standard.

I am reading a lot of people posting " Drew might have done this... or that..."

But "might have" is not good enough.

I don't see that the State has proved "Murder" rather than accident beyond reasonable doubt. And furthermore.... hearsay that Drew expressed some intent? to kill his wife is far from proof that he actually acted on it, and did it.

It seems to me that the Judge might well seriously consider the motion to dismiss? I realise that a motion to dismiss is a formality in trials after the Prosecution rests, but here I can see merit in it.

If there is reasonable doubt even before the defence respond, then the prosecution have failed to mount an adequate case against DP.

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

Drew Peterson judge notes potential holes in case
By Michael Tarm, Associated Press

JOLIET, Ill. –The judge at Drew Peterson's murder trial exposed potential holes in the state's case against the former suburban Chicago police officer, telling prosecutors Friday that they failed:

• To place Peterson in the bathroom where his third wife was found dead
• To illustrate exactly how he might have killed her.

The issue arose as the judge blocked a bid by prosecutors to introduce testimony that Peterson once received stranglehold training that would have given him special expertise in how to kill Kathleen Savio, 40, whose body was found in her dry bathtub. Peterson, 58, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in her 2004 drowning death.

Prosecutors told the judge — with jurors out of the courtroom — that they intended to introduce testimony about how the former Bolingbrook police sergeant might have gone about killing Savio by putting her in stranglehold. Judge Edward Burmila responded that it appeared they were trying to get jurors to speculate.

"You can't be serious," he balked. "You don't even have any evidence linking him to the scene. Now you want to say this is what he did there?"

Prosecutors did not appear poised to address that potential weakness, indicating Friday that they likely would not call any more witnesses before they rest their case Monday morning. They appear to hold out hope that their circumstantial case, which included witnesses who testified Peterson repeatedly threatened Savio, was strong enough.

Prosecutors had said earlier they expected to rest Friday after calling more than 30 witnesses over four weeks. But arguments over the admissibility of evidence caused repeated delays.

Peterson lawyer Joe Lopez told reporters Friday afternoon that the defense was prepared to start mounting its case Monday. The defense's witnesses will include three doctors and several officers who investigated Savio's death in a case that should take two days, he said.

"It'll go smoothly and it'll go quick," Lopez said.

The lead prosecutor, Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow, declined to comment about the testimony or evidence as he left the Joliet courthouse Friday.
....snip.....
Once prosecutors have rested, the defense is expected to ask Burmila to render a not guilty verdict before jurors even have a chance to deliberate. Such motions are common but rarely granted. But the uniqueness of the Savio case left experts wondering if Peterson's judge could plausibly grant it.

Prosecutors have no physical evidence or direct witnesses putting Peterson in Savio's house the day she died. They've had to rely on hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, from friends and relatives who testified that Savio told them Peterson warned her that he could kill her and make her death look accidental.

Such hearsay evidence is typically barred in American courts, but Illinois adopted a law in the wake of the Peterson case that allows it in certain circumstances. Defense attorneys have said that the law is unconstitutional and that they could appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

....more at link
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... csp=34news

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

As I have said... I would add that the prosecution have failed to show that Kathleen's death was "Homicide" as opposed to the initial assessment as "accident"

I know people WANT Drew to be guilty.... but the assessments of the trial I see posted are based more on wishful thinking than evidence. The Judge is being criticised as "biased in favour of the Defence".. but in fact the prosecution does not have the evidence to prove their case and/or they are not doing a good job of presenting what they do have.
The judge is right to exclude unsound "evidence". Such things as hearsay are normally excluded for very good reason..... the person whose statements are reported by a second person can not be cross examined or asked for clarification etc. For instance.... The pastor may well come across as a credible witness.. his testimony believed and given weight by the jury... he probably is being totally honest in his recollections of what Stacy said, BUT....... he can only report what Stacy told him.. and that can not in itself now be questioned or clarified.

I think that Judge Burmila should GRANT the motion to dismiss.. it would be a brave move.

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

TRIAL DAY 17 (8-27-12)

STATE OF IL. VS. DREW PETERSON


Trial Day Starts in Joliet Il. - Monay, August 27, 2012 9:00AM CT

Days will be ....MONDAY through Friday, every week until it goes to jury!!!

There will be no camera's in courtroom unfortunately so we will have to rely on twitter for information as to what is going on in courtroom & also Updates from several outlets.

TRIAL UPDATES: Chicago Tribune Breaking News
(Link to Daily Update Story)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... g&lpos=Sub

LIVESTREAMING FOR TRU TV
http://superusvox.com/index.php/specialty/trutv
or
http://livetvcafe.net/video/7Y78YR9H9DKB/Tru-TV

WGN TV - Drew Peterson trial (links to daily blogs)
http://www.wgntv.com/news/drewpeterson/

5 nbcchicago - Peterson Trial Live Blog
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/dr ... 60506.html

InSession on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/InSession




TWITTER LINKS:

IN SESSIONS.
http://twitter.com/InSession

Joseph Hosey (reporter)
Joseph Hosey@ShorewdILPatch
http://twitter.com/ShorewdILPatch

Tweets for Drew Peterson case
https://twitter.com/#!/search/drew%20...+peterson+case

Jon Seidel
Jon Seidel@SeidelContent
https://twitter.com/seidelcontent

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

At trial, Drew Peterson's defense is expected to start Monday

Team will reinforce argument that death of former Bolingbrook police sergeant's wife was accidental

By Stacy St. Clair, Steve Schmadeke and Ryan Haggerty,
Chicago Tribune reporters
9:40 p.m. CDT, August 26, 2012



Assuming the Drew Peterson prosecution rests Monday and the judge refuses to dismiss the murder charge — two highly likely, but not guaranteed, scenarios in this legal circus — the former Bolingbrook police sergeant's attorneys will launch a defense.

Over the next few days, they are expected to call pathologists and law enforcement officials to help bolster their assertion that Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, died after accidentally falling in her bathtub and drowning in 2004. Prosecutors contend he killed her after a bitter divorce in which they battled over his pension and child support payments.

Before Peterson's lawyers call their first witness, they will ask Judge Edward Burmila to issue a directed verdict, a rare judiciary order in which the court would drop the charges against Peterson and set him free for the first time since his 2009 arrest because the state failed to prove its case. Peterson's attorneys, however, did not seem to be banking on such a reprieve as they discussed potential testimony during the coming week.
....snip....
Prosecutors, however, haven't yet explicitly presented their theory of the case — that Peterson put Savio in a police chokehold until she passed out and then drowned her in her Bolingbrook bathtub. He then allegedly struck her in the back of the head, perhaps with a police baton, to make it look like an accident, according to their theory.
...snip....
But one crucial witness, the Rev. Neil Schori, testified that Stacy Peterson told him she had lied to police to cover up Peterson's murder of Savio. She also confided to her pastor that Peterson disappeared on the weekend of his ex-wife's death, returning later that night to wash women's clothing that didn't belong to her.

Experts contend the defense needs to poke holes in Schori's testimony in order to bolster their case. Peterson's attorneys won't necessarily argue that Schori lied to the court about Stacy Peterson's comments, but instead will likely point out that there is no way to determine if she was telling Schori the truth, experts said.

"The only thing that puts Drew in that house is what Stacy said," said criminal defense attorney Sam Adam Jr., who has attended the trial and is close with many members of Peterson's team. "If you can put doubt on that, you win."
...snip....

...more at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 6941.story

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

So nothing puts him in the house except for what Stacy supposedly said. I really hate that they can use hearsay evidence and as they say how do we know Stacy was telling the truth. Since they called it an accident originally they don't have DNA and anyway his would have been there since he was in that bathroom that night.

The whole "Drew's Law" thing worries me. As I have said above... HEARSAY is excluded for good reason normally.
I do take the point that if a witness is prevented from testifying (killed) by the defendant then some consideration to that applies.
Drew came across as an arrogant and guilty guy after Stacy went missing... and it made sense to reinvestigate Kathleen's death, but it was unfortunately a bit late to be finding conclusive evidence.

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

Drew Peterson trial blog: Prosecutors expected to rest

August 27, 9:34 a.m.Court is in progress. Attorney’s going over stipulations. Prosecutors expected to rest this morning.

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

In Session
Judge Burmila takes the bench (the jury is not present). Prosecutor Connor confirms that the State is ready to offer some stipulations, as well as move into evidence some exhibits (including two transcripts from television interviews of the defendant). The defense objects to the transcripts, but the judge overrules the objection and allows them into evidence.

In Session The defense argues that Dr. Bryan Mitchell’s autopsy report should be read into the record. The State says that is not necessary, since Dr. Larry Blum quoted from it extensively. But according to the defense, if it’s not going to be read into the record then there’s no reason to admit Dr. Mitchell’s report into evidence in the first place. Judge Burmila: “Well, there certainly was testimony about a vast majority of the information present in this report from Dr. Mitchell . . . I don’t see the need to read it specifically to the jury, and the defendant’s request that I read it in its entirety is denied.”

In Session Judge Burmila notes some passages in both Dr. Mitchell’s and Dr. Blum’s reports that he is striking before they go into evidence. “State, do you have any additional live testimony to present?” Prosecutor Connor: “No, Your Honor.”

In Session Attorney Brodsky addresses the Court. He asks that another passage be stricken, to which the State has no objection.

In Session Brodsky notes his objections to some of the items that the State hopes to enter into evidence. The judge grants the parties “a very brief recess” so that they can confer about these proposed exhibits.

In Session The judge has left the bench. The trial is in “a very brief recess.”

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

Drew Peterson trial blog: Prosecutors rest their case

August 27, 10:54 a.m. Prosecutors have just rested their case in the Drew Peterson trial.

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

In Session
Attorney Greenberg begins the defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. “They have not offered any evidence as to how she died . . . certainly no evidence that her injuries were inflicted in a criminal manner . . . they have not provided any evidence as to the when, how, or who with respect to this particular incident, or disproved that it was an accident. All they have shown, if anything, is that there was a contentious divorce for a period of time. And that’s it. So we would ask that you grant our motion.”

In Session
Prosecutor Koch responds: “Evidence of the defendant’s motive, opportunity, and conduct before and after the death is relevant evidence . . . you have the evidence of what Stacy Peterson relayed to Neil Schori . . . there’s reasonable inference that he was in that home that night . . . he came back with a bag of clothes, women’s clothing that was not his wife’s . . . he told Stacy Peterson that the police would want to interview her, and he worked with her for hours. According to Neil Schori, she did lie to the police . . . the cause of death is drowning, which comports with the bill of indictment in this case . . . both doctors did opine that this was a homicide, Dr. Blum . . . [and] Dr. Case . . . this was a homicide . . . you have the defendant’s comments as to how she died . . . all those different statements made by him . . . we believe those circumstances show this defendant did, in fact, perform the acts of drowning her, with the intent to kill her. We ask that you deny the motion for a directed finding.”

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

In Session
Greenberg responds, charges that the State is trying to convict Peterson “based on the idiosyncrasies of his past life . . . the State claims they’ve made a circumstantial case . . . [but] they have to establish that Drew Peterson committed this offense. Their doctors say there was a laceration . . . I have no idea what caused the laceration. Do you, Judge? . . . whatever caused the laceration, how is that proving that Mr. Peterson had anything to do with the laceration . . . whatever caused that laceration didn’t cause her to die, didn’t cause her to pass out, that’s what they say. OK, when is the theory, then, Judge . . . we didn’t’ hear anyone say that there were marks on her from being held underwater . . . was she attacked in the bedroom, attacked downstairs? I don’t know . . . we have no theory as to what happened to this lady . . . we know she drowned, undisputed. If a laceration to the head did not make her pass out, then she would be fighting . . . not a single defense wound on her body, not a single scratch on Mr. Peterson . . . nothing about that at all. Her fingernails were tested for DNA; none of his DNA was found. There is absolutely nothing in this record to explain that somebody drowned her; not a single witness said that she was involuntarily drowned . . . where was a witness saying she was held underwater and drowned? No one said that, Judge . . . are we to assume she was held underwater and drowned? They say it wasn’t an accident; it was a staged scene made to look like an accident. They say that because they don’t want to accept that it was an accident.”

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

In Session
Greenberg continues: “What is undisputed in this case? It’s undisputed Monday night that Mr. Peterson went over there and they got a locksmith . . . we know that Mr. Peterson didn’t want to go in that house; he didn’t want to be accused of anything . . . he was afraid there’d be problems. That’s undisputed . . . they go in there and they find a body in the tub, and they scream. And he goes running up the stairs to that bathroom, and he checks that body. And when he checks that body, he says, ‘She’s dead. And what am I going to tell my kids?’ Not a single witness said that he seemed anything less than genuinely upset by that . . . they go into this song and dance about this blue towel; no witness says that Mr. Peterson put that blue towel there . . . Peterson wasn’t there. How is it a staged scene; what’s staged in the scene? . . . don’t you think that if Ms. Savio had these habits to put her hair up and take her jewelry off that Mr. Peterson would know these things? . . . where is any evidence in this record from which someone could conclude that she did not die in the morning? Where is any evidence to contract that? Where is the evidence to conclude that it happened at night, as they want to say? They’ll say, ‘Well, there’s the statement from Neil Schori’ . . . when you evaluate that statement, it’s not specific as to date . . . and look at Rev. Schori; he brought a prover with him to that meeting. I’m Jewish . . . if I want to talk to the rabbi, he does not bring the cantor with him!”

In Session
Greenberg: “They say there are all these other incidents . . . this supposed July 5 knife incident . . . it’s two years almost before she dies, and the evidence of that is rather incredible . . . she doesn’t make any prompt report of the incident; she changes her story multiple times . . . we know that she lies; we know that Kathleen Savio lies about things that happened . . . these things could not have happened in the manner in which they say they happened. Because the events in this record aren’t consistent . . . we know that Kathleen Savio and Mary Pontarelli were together every day, or almost every day; they were best friends. Mary Pontarelli didn’t say anything about this supposed knife incident, because nobody said anything to her about it.”

In Session
Greenberg: “If he was going to kill her so they didn’t’ have to get to trial, why didn’t he kill her before the January trial date? Why didn’t he kill her before the February trial date? . . . what evidence can you point to in this case to say that Drew Peterson committed this crime? You can say they had a storm relationship, a stormy divorce . . . you can say pathologists differ on the conclusions to be drawn from her injuries . . . but none of that puts Drew Peterson in that house, committing a crime that weekend . . . they get up here, and they regurgitate the same stuff.”

In Session
Greenberg: “There’s nothing here! NOTHING here! . . . did they ever say to you, ‘This is the piece of evidence that puts Drew Peterson at the house this weekend’ . . . did they ever say that they had a theory about how it was done? No, because they don’t . . . they just hope that this jury dislikes Mr. Peterson . . . ‘we can’t tell you that it wasn’t an accident . . . but presume he did it; years later, we want you to presume he did it’ . . . they have said that he drowned her in the bathtub. They have said that he drowned her. That is what the indictment reads. And where is the evidence that he drowned her? Even their own doctors say she drowned . . . how did he drown her? Did he hold her down? How did she get the injury to the back of her head? I have never seen a murder case where they do not ask the pathology how that injury was inflicted? . . . how did it get there? . . . nobody said that; nobody said it because they have no theory as to how this happened. It’s as if they’re trying to nail a clump of Jell-O to a tree, and have it stick there.”

In Session
Greenberg: “Where is the evidence, Judge? Where can they say to you, ‘This is what happened in that house, this is how it was done, and this is how this individual did it?’ They didn’t do it. Because they can’t do it.”

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