March 26, 2019, 07:50:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
Author Topic: Transcripts - Kathleen & Stacy's Cases  (Read 6372 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« on: August 01, 2012, 10:16:15 PM »
Police Attacked in Drunken Brawl; Drew Peterson Trial Begins; Suspected Killer Still on the Run; Sadistic Attack on Tape?
Aired July 31, 2012 - 19:00   ET

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: We are going to have the very latest on the Drew Peterson trial.

Plus, Drew Peterson on trial for murder. Finally, the 58-year-old former cop, known for his bizarre antics, finally faces a jury. And fireworks erupt during opening statements. Prosecutors allege that Drew Peterson threatened to kill his now-dead wife. And the defense team demands a mistrial. Drew Peterson`s attorney joins me live to talk about his dramatic opening statements tonight.

Up next, speaking of bad behavior, opening statements in the Drew Peterson trial.



LARRY KING, FORMER CNN N: Where do you think Stacey might be?

DREW PETERSON, HUSBAND OF MISSING GIRL: Stacey Loves male attention. She could be...

KING: Ran off with a guy?

PETERSON: Ran off with a guy. And she could be dancing somewhere. I don`t know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After Stacey`s disappearance, police reopened the investigation into Savio`s death. Her body was exhumed, and medical examiners came to a different conclusion homicide.

KING: You begin to think that the public might say that, if it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it might be a duck?

PETERSON: Right, but they`re not getting all the duck`s information.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Fireworks on day one of Drew Peterson`s highly anticipated murder trial. The ex-cop has spent years proclaiming his innocence while mugging simultaneously for the cameras. Now a jury will decide if he`s a cold-blooded killer or one incredibly unlucky hubby.

Peterson`s on trial for murdering third wife Kathleen Savio. He was not charged until after fourth wife, Stacey, vanished.

We`ll hear about the emotional testimony today from Kathleen`s close friend, who sobbed as she described finding Kathleen`s body in the family tub.

The defense insists Kathleen`s death was an accidental drowning. Peterson`s attorney even trashed the victim, Kathleen, in his opening statement calling her a bossy liar with a nasty temper. Nice. And you won`t believe what Peterson`s legal team said about his four Stacey Peterson who vanished five years ago. Keep in mind Peterson is also a suspect in Stacey`s disappearance.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you make of the Stacey factor in this trial?





UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s on your witness list.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re hoping she shows up. Shows up, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe she`ll show up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she got the subpoena.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does anybody think she`s really alive?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. Absolutely she`s alive.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: By the way, in a second we`re going to talk to Joel Brodsky, Drew Peterson`s attorney, about that little comment in a second.

The defense and the prosecution fought bitterly over what they could and could not say today, forcing the judge to excuse the jurors more than once. And they haven`t even gotten to the most contentious piece of evidence, Kathleen`s ominous statements about her husband before she died.

As for the defendant, he says he`s just a nice guy whose third wife drowned and whose fourth wife walked out on him and her kids.


PETERSON: I kind of challenge anybody out there to find anybody that has ever even seen me mad. So...

KING: You don`t have a temper?


KING: Are you in love with Stacey?

PETERSON: Very much so.

KING: You think she might be alive?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to "In Session`s" Jean Casarez, who was in court today.

Jean, tell us about the biggest fireworks in court today.

JEAN CASAREZ, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": The biggest fireworks today, it was quite a day for the defense today.

Now, prosecution began with their opening statement, saying that Drew Peterson murdered his wife and tried to stage it like an accident. But after that, it was objection after objection. The prosecution wanted to try to get before the jury. And they did say in opening statements that Drew Peterson tried to hire somebody to kill his wife. Objection. And the judge had to tell the prosecution: "You knew this wasn`t coming in. You didn`t tell the defense you wanted to bring it in."

Prosecution also wanted to bring in the fact that Drew Peterson during appointed visitation with his two boys took Kathy Savio, got her to the ground, got her by her hands, and the defense said objection, not relevant. And the judge wouldn`t allow it in. Ruling after ruling for the defense today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I want to talk to you also in a second about witness No. 1, emotional.

But it was only after Drew Peterson`s fourth wife, Stacey, went missing, that cops finally decided, "Oops, we better take a look at second wife Kathleen Savio -- or third wife Kathleen Savio`s death." So that`s when they exhumed Kathleen`s body and they did a second autopsy. So listen to what Drew Peterson said about that.


PETERSON: For many years my children and I, we`ve been, you know, believing that she died in a household accident. I would imagine that the first autopsy, the fresh one, would be the most accurate. But powers that be are coming up with some new decisions on it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Critics said that this should never have been ruled an accident initially. And they point to the circumstances.

Cops had been called to the house about 18 times because of domestic disputes. Kathleen at one point had gotten a protection order against her -- Drew. They were currently fighting about money, lots of it, who got what in their divorce including, Jon Lieberman, their pension.

JON LIEBERMAN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Absolutely. I got to tell you, Jane, you know, I spent time with Kathleen Savio`s family back in 2007. They shared with me a suitcase in which they kept letters and cards from Kathleen Savio, telling her family members how she feared for her life. This is going to be a key in this case, because we don`t know yet if the judge is going to allow this hearsay evidence in.

You talked about the protective orders. I mean, I`ve had these for years, the protective orders where she says, you know, she alleges, "He restrained me. He knocked me into walls. He would come after me, rip my necklace off, leave marks all over my body, threaten to steal the kids and threaten to kill me."

We don`t yet know, though, from the grave what we`re actually going to be able to hear from Kathleen.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, it drives me crazy when there`s all this evidence and the jury never hears it because will they be able to speak from beyond the grave? That`s the big question.

MURPHY: Yes, and I think the answer is some of those statements will certainly come in. Maybe not all of them. And the judge has to make discretionary decisions.

But an appellate court has already said, as hearsay goes and the objection that everybody knows of the hearsay problem, because she`s not around. And he has a right to cross-examine, and that`s hearsay. Usually, it`s problematic. But there are exceptions.

And, you know, I wrote a piece for "The Daily Beast" some years ago called "Dead Wives Talking." And I made, I thought, you know, exactly the argument the court ultimately said would apply here. You have to let certain kinds of statements come in if you`re trying to prove intent or the state of mind of the victim.

And it`s going to be a particularly strong argument, because Peterson`s attorneys said it was an accident. Had they not affirmatively said it was an accident, the prosecution might not have as strong an argument back: "Hey, we have to disprove accident. Let us talk about her state of mind, her fear of him. It`s fair." And I think it`s mostly all going to come in.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, speaking of Drew Peterson`s attorney, we`re going to speak to Joel Brodsky, Drew Peterson`s attorney, on the other side of the break and ask him about his -- well, it`s becoming controversial his comments at court today.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you make of the Stacey factor in this trial?





UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s on your witness list.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re hoping she shows up. Shows up, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe she`ll show up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she got the subpoena.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does anybody think she`s really alive?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. Absolutely she`s alive.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely she`s alive. Ha, ha, ha.

Well, look, I want to go to Joel Brodsky. We thank you for joining us. You`re Drew Peterson`s attorney. And there you were with some other members of your defense team.

Some people thought that was quite insensitive, given the fact that Stacey Peterson has vanished five years ago. She`s got two children ages 9 and 7. Is that a laughing matter?

Certainly not. What you saw there was three lawyers who just spent, you know, two marathon sessions in court and just got out. We`re just trying to blow off some steam. And the local cameraman got it on tape, us blowing off steam.

And it`s certainly -- I`m not going to tell you it wasn`t insensitive to some extent, but once again, you know, it`s been ruled over and over again in this case that Stacey -- we`re talking about the Kathy Savio case, not the Stacey Peterson case. Stacey`s disappearance is irrelevant to the case we`re trying. Yet everybody keeps asking us over and over again what about Stacey? And we keep saying we`re not involved with Stacey. You know, this case involves Kathy Savio and what happened on the weekend of February 27, 2004, and really nothing else.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s talk a little bit about that case. You say there`s no evidence that links Drew Peterson to the death of Kathleen Savio. OK, here`s some things that pop up.

Her hair was soaked in blood, she had a cut on her scalp. She had small bruises on her body. A neuropathologist has said that those injuries are not consistent with a bathtub fall. And then the whole history: they`re fighting, the cops called all the time. They were arguing about money at the time. What say you?

BRODSKY: Well, I mean, all those things you pointed to other than the pathologist saying that the fall was insufficient to render unconscious, all really point to an accident. A slip and fall in the tub where somebody hits their head and drowns.

However, that pathologist, that`s just one person`s opinion. Two pathologists testified at that pretrial hearing we had. And both of them said that it`s impossible to tell the concussive effect of a fall from examining somebody`s head. A slight fall can knock somebody unconscious, and a heavy hit might not knock another person unconscious. You just can`t tell.

So just whatever the doctor that`s going to testify that the fall couldn`t have knocked her unconscious is certainly going to be -- you know, that opinion`s open to question. And I`m sure that doctor will admit it`s just a matter of his or her opinion, and another qualified pathologist could differ, certainly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Some people say Kathleen Savio should be able to speak from beyond the grave. What say you?

BRODSKY: Well, the problem with that is we`re talking about hearsay. It`s not Kathy Savio testifying. It`s people saying what Kathy Savio said. Sometimes people with an agenda. And hearsay`s been ruled unreliable for hundreds of years for a reason, because it is, in fact, unreliable. It can`t be cross-examined; it can`t be confronted.

The Founding fathers put the confrontation clause in the Constitution, and those are a pretty bunch of bright guys. It`s there for a purpose, so that everybody has the right to challenge the evidence that`s going -- the government`s going to use to try to convict them. We had...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Last question for you...

BRODSKY: The judge in that hearing said -- OK, I`m sorry.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Will Drew testify?

BRODSKY: I mean, I could -- will Drew testify? You never know. I mean, as I sit here today, I advise him not to. But as the trial goes on and things happen, that could obviously change.

And the ultimate extremity, it`s his decision. He decides whether or not he wants to testify or not. It`s his right. He can take it or he can take our advice or he can testify or not. It`s up to him.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we know he likes the spotlight. We`ll leave it right there, Joel Brodsky. Thank you so much, sir, for joining us. And we hope you come back soon.

On the other side, our panel of experts will analyze what Joel just said.





KING: What happened?

PETERSON: Don`t know. I don`t know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A tragic accident or first-degree murder?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He says he believes that he helped you dispose of your wife`s body. Can you at least respond to that?


Got information that she drowned in the bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, was reported missing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It didn`t take long for the fireworks to begin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you make of the Stacy factor?





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you see drew and his kids, you realize that there`s no way he could have ever hurt any of their mothers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The prosecution said Peterson`s third wife, Kathleen Savio, was murdered and that he staged the death to look like an accident.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Seen playing and joking around with reporters.

PETERSON: I`m going to come, camp myself in front of your house and see if you like it. Please go home. Please leave me alone. Please don`t get involved in my world.

What do you get when you cross the media with a pig? What do you get? You get nothing because there`s some things a pig won`t do.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Oh, boy. Will ex-cop Drew Peterson beat the murder charge against him? Or will prosecutors be able to prove he killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and staged it to look like an accident?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The state`s theory is simply implausible at best.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look, when Joe`s done with his opening statement, there`s going to be no question that she slipped in the tub and Drew was home when it happened. And that`s going to be it. The jurors are going to hear it. They`re going to understand it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Peterson charged with murdering Kathleen only after his fourth wife, Stacy, went missing. He is a suspect in Stacy`s disappearance. Which autopsy of Kathleen Savio`s body will the jurors believe? The one that declared her death an accident or the one that determined she was murdered?

Straight out to Jean Casarez from "In Session"; you were in court today. Look at this guy. We`re going to show you some video of him when he kind of messes with the media and photographs us as we`re photographing him. What was he like today? What was his behavior like?

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Completely different demeanor -- completely different. Doesn`t even look like himself. He was stoic. He was reserved. He was talking to his lawyers. He looked like he was one of the lawyers in the group. Completely different.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go to Judge Stephen White, HLN contributor, former Peterson trial judge. You saw the defense team for Drew Peterson including Joel Brodsky, whom we just talked to, make those comments about Stacy who disappeared five years ago who has two children, ages 9 and 7 saying, first of all, "Who?" It was like it was a big joke. And then sort of insisting that she`s alive -- is that appropriate behavior for defense attorneys in a high profile case? Does it disturb you or not?

JUDGE STEPHEN WHITE, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it disturbs me a little bit personally, but I think as Joel pointed out to you a little bit ago, you know, some things are done during the heat of battle. And he regretted that those statements were made. And I don`t think you`ll hear anything like that any further.

Somebody asked where Stacy was. I think you`ll get an appropriate response from the defense team at this particular juncture. I think he`s a little upset that those words came out.

Like I said, in the heat of battle some people say things that they later regret. And if they`re not given the opportunity to say, you know, we do regret saying that, then they`re left out there. But I think he covered that pretty well.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s almost like Drew Peterson`s personality, Jon Leiberman, is rubbing off on the defense team a little bit.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I mean, Joel knows those comments were uncalled for. But I`ll tell you what a concern for prosecutors in this case is, there`s a juror who loves the TV show "CSI" and that`s a problem for prosecutors. This is a case with no DNA, with no fingerprints, with very little physical evidence; this isn`t a CSI-type case. That juror, keep your eyes on that guy. He could be a problem for prosecutors.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, in fact, Wendy Murphy, I believe the prosecution in their opening statement said, "Hey, there`s no video of the crime," because we`ve gotten to this stage in our video-drenched society that we expect everything to be caught on tape. Well, if somebody was murdered, where`s the videotape? It`s not how it works.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And yet that`s what we`re sort of led to believe. Could he use that mentality to slip out of this?

MURPHY: There is a quote, unquote "CSI" problem in some cases. I think that`s not likely to be a big issue in this case because there`s no evidence really in either direction.

You know, you got one coroner saying it was an accident; the other saying it was homicide. I think jurors will easily dismiss both and use common sense. And a lot of common sense favors the prosecution.

I`m not saying it`s an easy case, but I don`t think CSI-type problems are likely to have too much negative effect for the prosecution compared to another case where you might have some forensic stuff. We`re not going to hear much of that --


LEIBERMAN: But prosecutors addressed it in their opening -- Wendy, didn`t prosecutors address it in their opening because they think it is going to be a problem?

MURPHY: Let me just finish. Let me just make one point.

Let me just make one point. Just as much as a particular juror might be an idiot and think too much of CSI which is unfortunate, that same type of problem affects Peterson when he doesn`t take the stand because he`s a cop. He was the one who responded to the scene. He`s the husband. He`s claiming total innocence. He`s saying it was an accident.

LEIBERMAN: But he`s under no obligation to take the stand.

MURPHY: He`s not going to testify -- I don`t care what the constitution says. Just like some jurors are going to over-think CSI, a bunch of them are going to think, this guy`s taking fifth, are you kidding me?

LEIBERMAN: Wendy, don`t you think prosecutors addressed the whole fact they don`t have any physical evidence in the opening because they are concerned about this CSI culture that jurors want to see physical evidence if indeed it was a murder?

MURPHY: Yes --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let me say this. Let me say this. This is why it makes it so much more outrageous that it was initially ruled nothing to see here, nothing to see here; eight and a half years ago ruled an accident even though there was all of this evidence -- circumstantial evidence that they were in the middle of a very ugly, ugly divorce battle.

And so my question is, Wendy, do you think because he was a cop that basically he got a pass on it? Because the lead investigator said an hour after they discovered her body, oh, it`s an accident.

MURPHY: Yes. I mean I think a couple of things about that. One is when they said they`re going to just use their common sense, that`s exactly what they`re going to be thinking about. Who was this guy? Did he have the power to distract law enforcement officials because they were all his buddies? In other words could he kill her with impunity because he was arrogant and correct in a sense enough to know that he could get away with crimes including murder?

And I think the jurors are going to see it potentially in a way that very much favors the prosecution in part because of his arrogance and his demeanor. That this is a guy --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go to the phone lines right now because Kevin, New York, you`ve been waiting a long time. Thank you for your patience. Your question or thought, Kevin -- I can hear myself talking. Kevin, are you there?

KEVIN, NEW YORK (via telephone): Yes, I`m here.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Your question or thought, Kevin.

KEVIN: Hi, Jane. How are you?


KEVIN: We love watching you. Jane, I just want to make a comment about this Drew Peterson. If the guy was being tried for being a despicable human being, I truly believe he`d be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. But with the lack of evidence that`s substantial in a murder conviction, I just can`t see why the prosecution brought this case to trial so early.

Being they`re only going to get --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Judge -- ok, Judge Stephen White, former Peterson --

WHITE: It`s not early. Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Your thoughts on that. Because a lot time has passed and the more time passes the harder it is to maintain evidence.

WHITE: Well, I mean yes. They did not bring this case to trial quickly. I mean, they could have brought it to trial, you know, two years ago. And they decided not to at that time.

But I think the lack of evidence -- if there`s a lack of physical evidence, I mean people are looking for it. They`re looking for it. What is there? They did bag the hands. What was under the nails? I mean I`m sure that`s going to come out one way or another either from the state or from the defense. And the lack of that physical evidence is going to raise issues with that jury.

Now, the one that watches CSI, they all watch these shows and I think the state is making an attempt with some of the video and the equipment with the 3D body view and everything else they`re trying to put on like this is a CSI-type of evidence that they`re presenting, if there is a lack of the other evidence that`s there. So they`re trying to put on an electronic show.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And speaking of show, Drew Peterson`s story didn`t just produce headlines, it became the most-watched movie on cable TV in two years starring heartthrob Rob Lowe. Watch this from Lifetime.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You plan on joining an associate to find her.

ROB LOWE, ACTOR: Wow, you are so hot. Isn`t she hot?



« Last Edit: September 11, 2012, 07:42:17 AM by MuffyBee » Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2012, 10:23:54 PM »
Drew Peterson Murder Trial Opens
Aired July 31, 2012 - 20:00:00   ET

RITA COSBY, GUEST HOST: And breaking news tonight. Drew Peterson, the man who claimed he`d be found innocent of killing his wife, finally faces the music, Peterson forced to have his day in court. He is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. You remember she was drowned in a dry bathtub. Peterson`s fourth wife, Stacy, also vanishes. She`s still missing. Peterson`s defense maintains she ran away, but she`s on Peterson`s witness list.

Tonight, despite Peterson changing his appearance, is this the beginning of the end for Drew Peterson?


DREW PETERSON, CHARGED WITH MURDER: I`m a suspect (INAUDIBLE) was a suspect from the beginning.

I can look right in your eye and say I had nothing to do with either of those incidents.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Authorities think Peterson knows exactly where Stacy is. They say he may have killed her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kathleen Savio was found dead in her bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s a (INAUDIBLE) accident, period. And that`s what happens, a household accident.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you there? No.

PETERSON: All this is happening to me for something I wasn`t responsible for or nothing that I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there a confession?


PETERSON: It`s just something I`m going to have to live with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was Peterson`s third wife.

PETERSON: I have no idea what (INAUDIBLE) like that.

I`m going to come camp (ph) myself (INAUDIBLE) your house and see if you like it.

We`ll go out and search. They`ve already been through my house a few times, so it`s, like, it`s not here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Allowing the victim of a violent crime to do is to testify from the grave.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just days away from divorce, Savio was found dead in her bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Found in her bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He told her he could kill her.

PETERSON: I have neighbors going through the house.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And make it look like an accident.


PETERSON: Please go home. Please leave me alone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And they found her dead in the bathtub.

PETERSON: Please don`t get involved in my world.



COSBY: And that was from NBC`s "Today" show. Good evening, everybody. I`m Rita Cosby, in for Nancy Grace. Thank you so much for being with us.

Many thought this day would never come, but tonight, Drew Peterson finally facing Lady Justice. For more, let`s go straight to Jean Casarez. She is the legal correspondent for "In Session." She is right outside the courthouse for the latest.

And Jean, sort of take us to how this moment came about for Drew Peterson finally after all these years, Jean.

JEAN CASAREZ, "IN SESSION": (INAUDIBLE) take it from the beginning. Well, this all began when Drew Peterson was married to Kathy Savio. They, according to opening statements, had an uneventful life until Stacy Peterson came into view. And that came before the jury today, that he started seeing another woman while still married to Kathy Savio.

But then they got a divorce and then it became contentious between the two of them. But then it settled down. And in 2004, Drew Peterson went back to the house to pick up his kids to take them back, and she wasn`t there and he didn`t understand why. He let a couple days pass, and finally, a locksmith went into the home. He with some neighbors went upstairs, and there she was in the bathtub.

Prosecutors said it took an investigator about an hour to determine it was an accident. In other words, it was a rash decision, and prosecutors said this is a man that staged the scene to look like an accident, but Drew Peterson is the killer.

COSBY: Michael Christian, senior field producer of "In Session" -- you know, Michael, again, it comes out to this conclusion that it`s an accident, but then several years go by, and what happens?

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, SR. FIELD PRODUCER, "IN SESSION" (via telephone): Well, Stacy Peterson disappears. That`s the big thing. His new wife disappears. And all of a sudden, people are looking at Drew Peterson who hadn`t paid any attention to him before, and they realize, you know, he`s not only got this missing wife, but there`s a previous wife who died. I wonder what that`s all about?

So Kathleen Savio Peterson`s body was exhumed. There was a second autopsy, and the result of the second autopsy, according to the state of Illinois, is no longer accidental death but homicide. So the state of Illinois says it was a mistake to originally say that Kathleen Savio`s death was an accident, that she was murdered and she was murdered by Drew Peterson.

COSBY: And Jean Casarez, legal correspondent with "In Session," again, there at the courthouse -- there were so many delays up until that moment. He gets, of course, arrested. He has been behind bars for a long time. But now there`s been all these hurdles until this moment, correct?

CASAREZ: There have been all these hurdles because there were all these hearsay statements, statements from Stacy Peterson, statements that allegedly Kathy Savio made. They`re not here to be cross-examined.

And so the defense mounted a vicious fight because they said that it was prejudicial to Drew Peterson to allow them in. But it went from court to court, and the prosecution is actually the one that appealed the trial judge`s decision to disallow these statements. And the prosecution gained a victory from the appellate court that it was admissible hearsay.

But the defense is still fighting to keep some of them out, if not all of them. And they may be victorious because the prosecution really only included one hearsay statement in their opening statement, and that was that Drew Peterson took his wife in the home, a knife to her throat, saying, You know what? I can kill you and nobody will ever know.

COSBY: Let`s go to Charles Doman. He is a nephew of Kathleen Savio. He`s joining us here on the show. Charles, first of all, I`m sure, in many ways, it`s wonderful, you feel, that maybe now justice will be served. On the other hand, I`m sure it`s difficult for you to relive this moment. Again, Drew Peterson still says he is not guilty in this case.

What`s your reaction as now the trial`s moving forward?

CHARLES DOMAN, KATHLEEN SAVIO`S NEPHEW: Well, we`ve always thought he was guilty. And my family`s made plenty of calls to the authorities or whatnot before all this happened, and nobody really wanted to listen to any of us, until it took Stacy to go missing, which is very unfortunate. She was a nice young lady.

But we think that the state has a great case, they wouldn`t be having him there, and we think they`re going to find him guilty. There`s 12 people sitting there right now who are looking at everything now meticulously.

COSBY: You know, Charles, walk us through, if you could, a little bit about what was going on in 2004 from the family`s perspective. She`s found dead in the bathtub. And of course, again, it was immediately ruled that it was an accident. Did the family buy that at that time?

DOMAN: No, not at all, not for one second. Not for one second. My mom called me. It was early, early in the morning, like, the middle of the night, and she said that she got a call from Drew that my aunt was gone.

And she said automatically, I think he did it because my aunt -- I don`t know if you guys have seen all the paperwork and documentation that my aunt was taking during the whole time. But she wrote notes. She took meticulous, you know, notes in her own handwriting on these documents, saying what was going on, what he said, what he did.

And I mean, it -- there was no evidence because they didn`t look at no evidence. They didn`t even think twice. You know, he was there at the crime scene when it happened.
COSBY: Did you just feel it was just a quick rush to judgment, let`s just -- it looks like an accident, that`s what -- and they didn`t kind of give it a once over?

DOMAN: Definitely. Definitely. Everybody thought that. Even at the coroner`s inquest, I believe my Aunt Sue stood up and said that there`s no way that it happened like this. And just because that there were these people there, they said, Well, that`s what they ruled, and that`s the way it is. Too bad.

COSBY: Let`s go to the callers. Let`s go to Nancy from Pennsylvania, who`s on the line. Nancy, what`s your question tonight?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I`m glad I got through to you, Rita. How are you?

COSBY: I`m doing great. What`s your question on this case that now is finally going into the courtroom -- amazing, Nancy, after all these years?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Well, the question I had (INAUDIBLE) things that he told people that would be entered into evidence. But I have another question. Are they looking into the possibility that other policemen at that time, since he had been a former policeman, if they had anything to do with the cover-up or they were just kind of taking care of their own and they looked the other way?

COSBY: That`s a great question. Let me go in to Michael Christian, senior field producer with "In Session." Michael, what about other people helping him at that time? I don`t remember any reports on cops, but I do remember there was this brother-in-law who came forward with some interesting information.

Tell us about the cops and the brother-in-law and the answer to Nancy`s question.

CHRISTIAN: Well, let me start with the brother-in-law. He attempted suicide, apparently, shortly after Stacy disappeared. And he has said that he helped Drew move a blue barrel from Drew Peterson`s bedroom, and that he came to conclude that that blue barrel contained the body of Stacy Peterson.

Now, that has never been proven. That blue barrel has never been found. But there`s a lot of people who...

COSBY: And Michael, weren`t there questions, too, about this brother- in-law`s character, too? Weren`t there some questions about drugs or maybe his mental state, whether he was a credible witness or not, if I recall?

CHRISTIAN: That`s exactly right, and that`s -- you know, that`s partly perhaps why this blue barrel has never been found. So we don`t know that Stacy Peterson was, indeed, in that barrel, but a lot of people think that she was.

Now as far as the cops go, it`s very interesting because he had been a police officer in Bolingbrook, Illinois, for almost 30 years, and there are a lot of people who believe that the Bolingbrook cops -- and this is not to disparage the department, but that a lot of the cops that he worked with maybe turned a blind eye to this, didn`t really want to believe that one of their own would do something like this.

Very quickly in this investigation, it was basically taken away from Bolingbrook and given to the Illinois State Police simply because of the fact that Drew Peterson was a cop and they didn`t want the appearance of a conflict of interest.

And I think a lot of Bolingbrook police officers (INAUDIBLE) were thrilled that actually it wasn`t their concern anymore. I think that they just would just prefer to believe that none of this happened. They don`t want to deal with it, and they just would like people to forget that Drew Peterson ever was a Bolingbrook police officer.

COSBY: And joining us now on the show is Steve Greenberg. He is the attorney for the accused killer, Drew Peterson, who`s now charged with two counts of first-degree murder.

Mr. Greenberg, first of all, thank you for being with us. I know you`re in the middle of the trial, so thank you so much. I know, and I said this at the top, you know, Drew has always maintained his innocence. What is his mood now as it`s finally going to trial? And what`s your sense of where this case is headed?

STEVE GREENBERG, DREW PETERSON`S ATTORNEY: Well, his mood is fine because he`s been locked up for three-plus years waiting for this day. And just as the family, the Doman family and the Savio family, want this day, so does he because he has been locked up for what was an accident. The original coroner`s jury found it was an accident. The medical examiner found it was an accident. It is an accident. The evidence is it`s an accident. And so his mood is fine because he sees the light at the end of the tunnel, finally, after all this time.

COSBY: Mr. Greenberg, what does he make of the fact that these other medical examiners came back years later and they exhumed the body, gave it maybe, you know, as far as a lot of people are saying, a thorough look, a more thorough look than before, and then they said, Well, wait a minute, you know, this now looks like a homicide, this looks like X, and some of the things that came up from the prosecution today, too, in terms of some - - where the bruises were, the position of the feet.

Are you saying that sort of these medical examiners were bunk?

GREENBERG: Well, I`m not going to get into the specifics of the evidence because that will be played out in the courtroom. But I can tell you that they exhumed this body, and they learned basically nothing from exhuming the body.

The people who are going to testify primarily looked at photos from the original autopsy because by the time they exhumed the body, there were issues with the integrity of the body and some water in the casket, and so forth, and so they couldn`t really draw a conclusion from it -- and decomposition. But they looked back at the original photos.

Now the reason that there are so many medical examiners is because they get different opinions.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You forget that I know you`re not the kind of girl that lets a marriage stop (INAUDIBLE). You forget that I know what kind of whore you are.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God! Don`t ever hold me down again! You can`t do this anymore!


COSBY: And that is from the Lifetime television movie "Drew Peterson: Untouchable" starring Rob Lowe. It was a huge story, of course, when it happened. And we`re talking about -- there was also a disappearance of a fourth wife, but he`s on trial now for the murder of his third wife, who was found dead in a dry bathtub.

We are taking your calls, everybody. Let`s go to Crystal from Iowa. And everybody, we also want to take all your messages on Facebook, Twitter, so be sure to get ahold of us any which way you would like.

Let`s go to Crystal. What`s your question tonight, Crystal?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I have a question. (INAUDIBLE) Drew Peterson was an ex-cop. Do you think he`d know exactly how to make somebody disappear?

COSBY: Well, that is one of the allegations from the prosecutor. In fact, let`s go to Jean Casarez, legal correspondent, of course, with "In Session." Jean, that was one of the things that prosecutors sort of went right for, basically saying, This guy`s an expert, he knows how to kind of cover his tracks. He`s a cop. He investigates these kind of scenes. And he`s been a cop for decades, right, Jean?

CASAREZ: Thirty years. And in the defense opening today, Joel Brodsky really tried to give the life history of Drew Peterson, and he was stopped with numerous objections, so he didn`t get it all out. But he got some of it out.

But one of the hearsay statements that may be allowed in has to do with Drew Peterson saying, I can kill you and stage it to look like an accident. That`s going to be important to prosecutors to bring in because that will show why a coroner`s jury then determined it was an accident, that Drew Peterson was very good at what he did.

COSBY: Let`s go to Rosalia from Georgia, who`s on the line. Rosalia, what`s your question?

Let`s go to Crystal from Iowa -- actually, Rosalia from Georgia. Are you on the line, Rosalia?

Let`s go to Phyllis from New Mexico. Phyllis, are you on the line?


COSBY: Got a lot of callers tonight. Phyllis, thank you. What`s your question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have two. I want to know how he can be so egotistical and laugh about killing two women. And who`s got his six children?

COSBY: All great questions. Let`s go to Michael Christian, senior field producer of "In Session." Give us a sense of his demeanor because in the past, as she`s pointing out -- and I thought it was a very interesting observation, Phyllis -- you know, he came, did all these interviews. We saw him all over the place kind of mocking the press and having a good time and laughing and even saying his wife who`s missing -- Well, maybe she`s out dancing.

Wasn`t that one of the things he said, Michael?

CHRISTIAN: Yes. And you know, the defense says -- he`s a very jovial guy. I mean, I`ve spoken to him. He`s a very jovial guy. And people who even are disinclined to like him, I think, sometimes after meeting him or talking to him, kind of get swayed a little bit. He`s very charismatic.

The defense says that that is just part of who Drew Peterson is, Rita, that that`s his persona, that he doesn`t take things seriously on the surface, that he does -- he does make jokes, and that doesn`t make him a killer. That just makes him a guy who`s got a sense of humor that some people maybe don`t tap into, but that, you know, again, the defense...

COSBY: Michael, you also...


CHRISTIAN: That`s just Drew Peterson.

COSBY: And you spoke to him, Michael, too. I want to have you sort of talk because you actually talked to him recently in the courtroom, right? Give us a sense of your sort of one-on-one perception of him.

CHRISTIAN: I did. It was a very strange little situation. It was during one of the pretrial hearings. And I was in the courtroom. I had come back from a lunch break, and I just happened to be the first one in the courtroom. There was nobody there yet. And all of a sudden, these two bailiffs, two court deputies, bring in Drew Peterson. So the four of us were in the room together, himself, me, and these two deputies.

And he was talking to the deputies, and again, laughing, being Drew Peterson, and -- you know, but there are only three, four people in the room. So at one point, he turns and looks at me and said, Now, where do I know you from? And I reminded him who I was and that maybe he had seen me at a previous hearing.

And as soon as he heard that I was from "In Session," the first thing he wanted to know was, Are you guys going to be able to televise this trial because I want this trial televised. I want everyone to know what a joke the prosecution`s case against me is.

And then after that, for roughly 10 minutes, we just had this very nice, pleasant conversation. Sometimes the deputies were involved. Sometimes it was just Drew and myself.

And I kept thinking, where is everybody else? Why isn`t anybody else in on this? I couldn`t believe my good fortune that I got to talk to him for 10 minutes. But it just -- it just...


COSBY: And I`m Rita Cosby, in for Nancy Grace. Well, it has been eight years since his wife was found dead in a dry bathtub, and now Drew Peterson is facing two counts of murder, facing justice. The trial has begun, the very anticipated trial.

And one of the things we were hearing -- of course, along the way, we saw all these big interviews that he did over the years, you know, kind of mucking it up with the press. But today, a little bit of a different tone for Drew Peterson in court.

Let`s go to Jean Casarez, legal correspondent with "In Session." And Jean, when he was out there today, what I understand -- he shaved sort of the famous mustache, looked a lot more sort of serious, a lot more somber before the jury, is that right?

CASAREZ: I just wish you could see him! He`s totally different, not only different in looks, but different in demeanor. He is stoic. He is serious. He is demure. He talks with his lawyers, definitely aids the discrimination. But I saw no hand waving or big smile or any gestures at all that we saw for it seemed like years on the television camera -- totally different demeanor.

COSBY: Steve Greenberg, attorney for Drew Peterson, did you give your client some instructions, Hey, look, no mucking it up, you got to be more serious, you got to put on the best face to the jury?

GREENBERG: He`s a 30-year police officer. He knows what a jury trial is all about. But let me correct something that you keep saying and everyone keeps saying, that she drowned in a dry bathtub. A drowning means that you`ve got water in your lungs. There was water in that bathtub...

COSBY: Actually, Steve -- Steve, what we said was...


COSBY: We said she found -- we said she was found in a dry bathtub, and that is correct that she was found...


COSBY: ... and that`s one of the questions, and you know that.

GREENBERG: Right, she was -- she was found in a dry bathtub, but there`s no doubt that there was water in there at some point, and there`s no doubt that she drowned. And they keep saying staged. I`ll address that, too.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew Peterson, a former police sergeant, is on trial, charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew, you looking forward to your day in court?

PETERSON: (INAUDIBLE) three squares a day!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You would think that he would be more concerned about his missing wife and the children.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s on your witness list.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re hoping she shows up.

COSBY: And I`m Rita Cosby, in for Nancy Grace.

Well, that much anticipated trial is now underway for the Chicago area cop, Drew Peterson. Remember, his fourth wife goes missing and is still missing to this day. And meanwhile his third wife is found in a dry bathtub, she is dead. The defense says it`s an accident, prosecution says, huh-uh, they say it is murder.

Let`s go Michael Christian, senior field producer with "In Session."

Michael, bring us up to speed again real quick. What took us to get to this moment? When you think about it, eight years in the making, she is found in 2004, here it is, it`s 2012, and now he`s finally on trial.

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, SENIOR FIELD PRODUCER, "IN SESSION": That`s right, Rita. And the thing that triggered all of it is Stacy Peterson`s disappearance. Kathleen Savio Pete`son`s death was first ruled an accident. That was the end of it. She was buried. In the meantime, Drew Peterson`s second wife Stacy goes missing and all of a sudden people are saying, hey, wait a minute, what happened with his previous wife? Wasn`t there some story there?

Kathleen Savio was exhumed. A second autopsy was performed. And there was all second autopsy according to that pathologist was that it was a homicide, not an accident. So that`s what`s brought us here as you say eight years later to this trial.

COSBY: Beth Karas, legal correspondent with "In Session." You`re there at the courthouse as you always are. Beth, through all these trial. Beth, give us a sense of -- first of all the witness today, the first one who comes up after opening, you know, statements for both sides, then comes up the neighbor and she`s key as to what she sees when she walks into the house, correct?

BETH KARAS, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, IN SESSION: Yes, indeed. Mary Pontarelli is her name and she was Kathleen Savio`s friend for several years. She is one of the first people to enter the house. She wasn`t the first one, though, to enter the bathroom. Another neighbor still to testify, Steve Caserano (ph), saw Kathleen in the bathtub. Yelled for Mary Pontarelli. She went in there. She said that -- she ran out of the bathroom, fell to the floor and she was screaming. And it was her scream that Drew Peterson heard, he was outside the house and then he ran inside and all the events unfolded from there.

COSBY: Michael Christian, she also talked about this picture, and a couple of things that she saw, sort of the position of the feet, the way the blood was sort of, that there wasn`t sort of this blood ring in the water. Describe some of the evidence, sort of physical evidence that could be very relevant in this case.

CHRISTIAN: Well, she said that she saw blood in the hair, she saw a wound to the back of the head. She saw some bruising. Particularly on the buttocks, I know she mentioned. What`s fascinating from her testimony is how she described Drew acting in all of this. Drew was the one who wanted to get a locksmith and go into the house. Drew sent the rest of them in upstairs, once the door was open, because she said, you know, he didn`t really want to go in, he didn`t want to get into a fight with Kathleen Savio over being in the home or anything.

But she said as soon as she sees Kathleen Savio`s body and screams, he and some others go rushing up the stairs, he`s bringing up the tail end, but he`s a cop, he`s in his cop`s uniform because he`s about to go to work and he doesn`t have his gun drawn, which I think some people would find interesting in a situation like that.

COSBY: Yes, that is interesting. And Michael, the other thing, the position of the feet. I want to get you to describe that, because Kathleen Savio`s feet were sort of in an interesting position that the prosecution`s alleging shows it`s not someone who sort of slipped and fell in the bathtub.

CHRISTIAN: They said they`re kind of bunched up at the end, kind of twisted, trapped a little bit. She didn`t really talk about the feet, though, Mary Pontarelli. We will be hearing more about that, but she didn`t really describe that, she took a quick look at the body, screamed, running out of the room, said she threw herself on the floor, threw herself down and started crying.

She also then said, when she went back in the bathroom, she wanted to cover up the body, because she was embarrassed for her friend to be there and just be so naked and so vulnerable. And she said Drew Peterson was the one who said to her, don`t do that, you should don`t that because in theory that would have contaminated the crime scene. So it`s interesting he told her not to do that.

COSBY: That is an interesting point. Let`s go to Steve Greenberg, attorney for Drew Peterson, who joins us. He`s in the thick of the trial, so again we`re so glad you could be with us, Steve.

When you hear all these things, it is a little interesting he waits outside the day before when he goes over and she doesn`t answer the door and he`s just sort of waits and the next day he comes over again and then that`s when he gets the locksmith, he doesn`t go inside, and some people, the prosecution is saying, and you know this better than anyone, Steve, it`s sort of unusual behavior, he`s a cop, you find sort of -- you know, somebody`s dead, you`re not drawing he gun. You`re waiting outside. How do you explain that behavior?

STEVE GREENBERG, ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSED KILLER DREW PETERSON: Well, he wasn`t there as a cop, he was there as a father and an ex-husband. And so --

COSBY: Right, but --


GREENBERG: We have to look at it in that viewpoint which --

COSBY: At that point wouldn`t you -- wouldn`t you be worried, Steve? Wouldn`t you be worried if you were a cop or an ex-husband, going, a friend saying, wait a minute, this is someone, you know, I was married to, I`m worried about her, there`s something unusual the neighbor`s screaming.
GREENBERG: Right, and the neighbor`s screaming and maybe there was more to the screaming than they let on today. And he goes up, there is -- the fact that he didn`t pull his gun, how people react to situations, we can`t micromanage, but what she did say that was very important which he said he was visibly upset when he went in that bathroom and saw her there. He was visibly upset and he took special care to make sure the crime scene was not contaminated or the accident scene was not contaminated.

COSBY: One of the things that`s interesting, and we just turned also, Steve, the buttocks, the bruises on the buttocks, so there this cut on the head, I was also seeing some bruises on the wrists. Some places that people are saying that`s unusual. And we`re going to get the medical expert in a second.

But it`s a little unusual for someone who, that, you know, if you say OK, as you guys are alleging that it was an accident that she, you know, slipped and fell in the bathtub. How did she get these kind of unusual bruises, her feet are in a weird position, not sort of an uncomfortable position, or a weird position, than they might be if she fell. How do you describe especially these bruises?

GREENBERG: Well, the pathologists are going to describe the bruising and they`re going to tell you that they can`t date the bruising and some of the bruising comes from some stuff she was doing with her boyfriend. And as far as being in an unusual position --

COSBY: What kind of stuff -- wait, wait, wait. What kind of stuff with her boyfriend? Are you alleging some kinky stuff?


GREENBERG: You`ll have to wait for that evidence to come out. It`s not in dispute, I can tell you that. But as far as the effect of this whole thing --

COSBY: Wait, wait. Steve, Steve, Steve. wait, wait. Let me just get you to answer that. Do you believe that she -- are you trying to say that she like wanted these bruises in some crazy act that, you know, some sort of relationship she was having, that that was part of it and they -- she had the bruises before the bathtub is what you`re going to say?

GREENBERG: Some of the bruising predates that weekend, absolutely. And there is no dispute about that among the pathologists, the state or the defense. But if you`re going to make it, stage it, make it look like an accident, are you going to leave her in that position in the bathtub? You`re going to lay her down like she was taking a bath and fell on her back.

So again, just the evidence there, they can call it whatever they want. The question is, when we`re in the courtroom, are they going to have a witness? Are they going to have evidence? That`s really what it`s all about at this point.



JEAN CASAREZ, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Kathy Savio in a bathtub, dead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not even a homicide. It`s a freaking accident.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How is he behaving in court?

CASAREZ: No wild gestures.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See if you like it.

CASAREZ: No big smiles. Just a calm, serious, focused demeanor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m untouchable, bitch.


COSBY: And that`s from the Lifetime Television movie, "Drew Peterson: Untouchable" starring Rob Lowe. And today was day one of the trial with Drew Peterson. He is charged with two counts of first-degree murder, which could be 60 years in the state of Illinois.

Let`s go back to Beth Karas, legal correspondent. She`s right there at the courthouse.

And Beth, it`s so interesting, opening arguments start today, and get the shape of where they`re both going, two very different pictures and also the defense was sort of almost leading into sort of blame the victim, trashing, trashing also, from what I understand, you know, the character of, you know, of Kathleen Savio, saying that there was some questions here.

Let`s go to Michael Christian, actually on that one. Michael, give us some background on sort of the two different views, prosecution and defense as they were laying it out today.

CHRISTIAN: Well, you`re right, Rita. They are night and day, the prosecution says this was absolutely a murder, that he planned this, this ugly divorce, he was afraid he was going to lose some of his hard fought assets, his pension, and he wanted her out of the way, he killed her.

And the defense says it was an accident, pure and simple. It was an accident. The original coroner`s inquest got it right when they said that it was an accident.

So, again, just night and day here. And I was a little surprised that the defense took some pot shots at Kathleen Savio. They called her bossy, they called her tough. They painted her as someone who had to be in control and I was a little surprised by that because she`s a victim either way. She`s either a victim of divorce and she`s a victim of drowning. But if it`s an accident, I`m not sure you have to muddy those waters.

COSBY: I agree. I think it`s absolutely distasteful. And I don`t really understand the relevance of doing it. It`s sort of a bizarre way to do it and I just think it`s unseemly in every sense of the word.

Let`s go to the attorneys. Let`s go to Susan Moss, also Pilar Prinz.

Susan Moss, when you hear the story, here it is, opening arguments. The woman is dead, she`s found in the bathtub. You know, of course defense saying it`s an accident, prosecution saying, you know, it`s murder. His other wife is missing during all of this. And then guess what, they don`t go out there and say, here`s how the bathtub was designed, she could have slipped. No, they go out and go after her, Susan.

SUSAN MOSS, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY & CHILD ADVOCATE: Absolutely, but even O.J. thinks this guy is guilty, I bet. The reason why they did that is because when you look at the facts, one of the key facts in this case is the multi-year campaign of domestic violence that Peterson waged against this woman. There are 18 times that the police had to come to their household. He broke into her house, he threatened to kill her on multiple occasions.

They`re bringing up all of this because they want to say it is her fault, that all these years of domestic violence was waged against her. It`s not going to work, especially when you have the statements that are going to come in, how he threatened to kill her and the statement also by the fourth wife also which makes him look culpable and guilty. When you put all this circumstantial stuff together, that`s how you`re going to get the conviction.

COSBY: You know, and Pilar Prinz, bringing in and trashing the victim, which I just think is so shameful, especially at a time like this, this woman is dead, and it`s an accident by his account, and by the prosecution to this cold-blooded, calculated murder.

Why go out and trash her? If anything, I actually don`t think that helps the defense. First of all I think it`s distasteful and I think it`s terrible and I`m sick of it. But the other thing I also don`t think that helps the defense. It gives maybe a sense of well, maybe he did do it because they were in this horrible relationship.

How does that help in any sense of the word the defense, Pilar?

PILAR PRINZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Rita, I don`t know that it helps, and I`ll come back and answer your question more fully. But I want to bring up something that nobody`s talked about yet. And it acknowledged that the only reason that anybody even looked at Drew Peterson in relation to Kathleen Savio`s death in the first place was the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

But this judge has already ruled that the jury is not going to hear about Stacy Peterson`s presumed death or that Drew Peterson is believed to have murdered her. So that`s a very key piece. This case is going to be able to Kathleen Savio only. And that`s going to be a case that is built on circumstantial evidence.

Unusually, they actually have to prove that there was a murder in the first place, so they`ve got to get over the original pathology report. And you`ve got secondhand hearsay from witnesses who aren`t going to be there to testify. So there are some real difficulties in their case.


COSBY: And Pilar -- Pilar, I think it`s going to be -- I think it`s going to be a dueling of medical experts. I agree with you. I think it`s going to come down to a lot of that.

PRINZ: And the interesting thing, too, Rita, I have read both the first pathology report, which was in I think one day after her death, and you read the second one which was years later. The first one appears to have not only external, but a full internal examination and the second report is much shorter and even the pathologist acknowledges that the body was in poor condition.


COSBY: And I`m Rita Cosby in for Nancy Grace.

Let`s go to Dr. Bill Manion, New Jersey medical examiner. We were just saying, Doctor, you know, that I believe a lot of this is going to come down to different medical experts. And if we could put up that diagram again, this is sort of where these bruises were on her body. She`s got a gash on her head. This is when the third wife is found in the bathtub.

Now again there`s no water at this point, but you`ve got all these different bruises, you`ve got, you know, bruises on her buttocks, bruises on her wrist, allegations from the defense that it came from, you know, from somewhere else. How do they sort of put all of this together and determine homicide versus accident, Doctor?

DR. BILL MANION, M.D., MEDICAL EXAMINER, BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: It is a very difficult case. And I can see the first pathologist being given all the evidence and being told by the police, well, we had an investigation, there wasn`t a robbery here. The house was secure. The house was locked when we got there. And her husband is a policeman.

You know, I can just see how the first medical examiner just believed what was told to him by all the investigators and presumed that the police were there and investigated it. Then it could have been an accident. If this is a homicide, it was a very, very good homicide. Because there are really no significant injuries. I know there are some bruises here and some abrasions and there`s controversy over how old these bruises are.

But the key areas, if he put a sleeper hold on her, I would think there might be some pethechial hemorrhages in the eyes. No pethechial hemorrhages. There`s no injury to the neck. The thyroid, hyoid neck muscles, no injuries. So, it`s possible he could have knocked her out and drowned her but did he a great job if he did it like that. And I could have a very difficult time --

COSBY: Yes, no, I --


COSBY: It is going to be a very hard one, I agree. I would agree.

Let`s go to Patricia Saunders, clinical psychologist. This contentious relationship between him and his wife. How relevant is that going to be? How do you think that will affect the jury?

PATRICIA SAUNDERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I think it is very relevant. But I just want to back up a little bit, Rita. You know, my question was talking about, you know, how the jovial guy and how he mucked around with the press. I think it is a lot more than that. I think this is an arrogant guy who was disrespectful and kind of aggressive, taking his video camera and shoving it in the face of reporters.

Standing up, as he is going into jail, and saying what a spiffy outfit, my bling. This man is a police officer, where`s his respect for the law and the procedure? Psychopaths are noted for their charisma and noted for their bag chameleon. He knows how to behave. I think this was a very clever murder.


COSBY: I`m Rita Cosby in for Nancy Grace.

Let`s go back out to Beth Karas who was at the courthouse with the Drew Peterson trial, day number one.

Beth, the one thing that`s interesting, there`s a lot of ground rule sort of what can be said and what can`t be said. Nothing can be said sort of inferring that Stacy, his fourth wife, not related, you know, in this case. But you can`t say in this case that she`s presumed dead. There`s certainly language, right?

KARAS: Well, the jury know tat she disappeared and that she is missing, that`s all they`ll probably know the judge is likely to instruct them they will not speculate on anything beyond that the truth is you cannot tell the story about Kathleen Savio`s death and why this is being prosecuted as a homicide without mentioning Stacy Peterson and her disappearance because that was the catalyst for the petition to exhume Savio and do another autopsy.

COSBY: You know what I find interesting, Steve Greenberg, attorney for Drew Peterson, you have him on the witness list, you have Stacy on the witness list. She is missing. What`s the reason for that?

GREENBERG: Well, because, if she appears, we might call her as a witness. Wouldn`t that be --

COSBY: Do you think she is -- yes, look, it will be great. Do you think she will magically appear?

GREENBERG: I don`t think she will magically appear and I also don`t think she`s dead.

COSBY: All right. Well, I`m going to ask you two about this, blame the victim. Because a lot of people, you know, feel uncomfortable, sort of the the defense today, as you know better than anybody, goes after Stacy, but not talking about the third wife tied this case, sort of this, you know, going after her, you know, her character. What does that have to do with the third wife being found dead in the bathtub, going after her character?

GREENBERG: We weren`t going after her character, but there was a struggle, she was the kind of person that would have fought back and no physical evidence that she was in a struggle with anybody. So, that`s the point of that.

COSBY: Yes, because a lot of people took it, I tell you, Steve, here she is dead, she`s passed away, saying she is bossy, she`s tough, she is this. Seem like a little bit of mud slinging there. They`re -- let`s got Charles --

GREENBERG: She is a fighter. She is a fighter, Rita.
COSBY: All right. And that`s the reason. I -- now I understand why you`re saying it.

All right, Bill Manion, real quick, medical examiner, can you prove there is a struggle or not, two seconds?

MANION: No I can`t. It`s very difficult there is no breakage of her nails, no defensive wounds and just aren`t injuries we normally would see with a prolonged struggle. It is a very difficult case from that`s expect.

And we will be covering it closely, guys.

And tonight, let`s stop to remember Army Private First Class Brian Wolferton, just 21 years old, from Oak Park, California, he was killed in Afghanistan. He was award the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Combat Infantry Badge and also the Airborne Badge. He loved video games, the card game "Magic" and on the high school track team for four years. He leaves behind parents, Miriam and Christopher and his brother, Michael.

Brian Wolferton, a true American hero.

And I want to thank all of you for your very sweet words and e-mails about the recent passing of my hero, my father, Lieutenant Richard Cosby. My father fought against the Nazis in World War II and was saved by American troops and in his honor, we are raising money for the USO, helping wounded troops and their families.

To get information about how you can help, go to You`ve got to click on the words "Quiet Hero" or click on the USO box and be sure to say in memory of Richard Cosby.

Thank you so much for always helping our brave men and women, our troops. I`m Rita Cosby in for Nancy Grace and I am staying on to join Dr. Drew, who is next as he covers the Drew Peterson case from a very different angle.

Have a wonderful evening, everybody.


« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 10:28:34 PM by MuffyBee » Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 17903

« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2012, 12:59:06 AM »,0,1146145,full.story

Peterson trial: Excerpt of prosecution's questioning that led to mistrial request from defense
Witness testified that he found a bullet on his driveway, felt intimidated by ex-cop
August 2, 2012

Defense attorney Steven Greenberg on Wednesday asked for a "mistrial with prejudice" after the questioning of witness Thomas Pontarelli by Will County Assistant State's Attorney Kathleen Patton during redirect examination. The following is an excerpt of that exchange, which the court provided to the Tribune upon request:

Patton: "Mr. Pontarelli, your honor asked whether or not you wanted to be here. Do you recall that?"

Pontarelli: "Yes."

Patton: "The fact is that it's been nerve-wracking to be here; isn't it, to testify?"

Pontarelli: "Yes."

Patton: "Is that the primary reason that you don't want to be here, is because it's very nerve-wracking?"

Pontarelli: "Yes."

Patton: "It's not that you don't want to testify in this case, is it?"

Greenberg: "Objection to leading."

Judge Edward Burmila: "Sustained as to the leading question."

Patton: "You've been willing to come and testify in this case, haven't you?"

Greenberg: "Objection, Judge."

Burmila: "That will be overruled. You can answer that question, sir."

Pontarelli: "Yes."
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2012, 05:08:37 AM »
Could Drew Peterson Walk?; Perfect Family`s Murder Mystery?; Cop Car Suicide or Murder
Aired August 1, 2012 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, could Drew Peterson walk? A wild day in court in the trial of the man accused of murdering wife No. 3. An uproar after a witness blurts out something that puts the entire case in jeopardy. Could there be a mistrial? And could it spring this accused murder, this ex-cop, from jail for good?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, did the prosecution in the Drew Peterson murder trial shoot itself in the foot with talk of a bullet? A witness blurts out an accusation involving the former cop and a bullet that explodes in controversy. An angry judge tells the jury, take a break. The defense says the trial`s tainted. So what happens next for the man accused of killing his third wife? We`ll talk to someone whose daughter was engaged to Drew Peterson.

Plus, on the outside they looked like the perfect family. Tonight, what were the toxic secrets that left these two young children and their mother shot dead? The dad says he was reading in another room. Are cops having second thoughts about their initial theory, that the mother killed her kids and then herself?

And another deadly mystery. How did a 21-year-old man who was cuffed with his hands behind his back inside a police car end up shot in the head? Cops believe he may have shot himself. But is that physically possible? We`ll take your calls live tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fireworks in the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The drama-filled day in the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defense has asked the judge for a mistrial.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A mistrial motion made by the defense in Illinois v. Drew Peterson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The judge is so upset. He`s taking the defense motion for a mistrial under advisement.



KING: What happened?

PETERSON: Don`t know. I don`t know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The prosecution wants the jury to believe that Peterson is a cold, abusive murderer.

PETERSON: I kind of challenge anybody out there to find anybody that has ever even seen me mad.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He says he believes that he helped you dispose of your wife`s body. Can you at least respond to that?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Initially ruled an accident but later reopened after Peterson`s fourth wife, Stacey, disappeared in 2007.

KING: Do you feel persecuted?

PETERSON: Very much so. Very much so.

Please go home. Please leave me alone. Please don`t get involved in my little...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Defense attorneys say Peterson is simply the victim of hearsay.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is a victim.

PETERSON: What do you get when you cross the media with a pig?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`ve taken an accident and tried to create a homicide.

PETERSON: You get nothing because there`s some things a pig won`t do.

The news and the media have done their best to keep me sinister. Sinister sells better.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good evening. Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live.

Could Drew Peterson walk? An explosive day in court that raised the possibility of a mistrial for the ex-cop accused of killing his third wife eight years ago.

Prosecutors may have shot themselves in the foot today after a witness blurts out a few words about a bullet that left the judge steaming mad and the jury sent home.

Prosecution witness Tom Pontarelli lived down the street from Drew Peterson and his wife, Kathleen Savio, when their marriage went sour. On the stand, the neighbor said he helped Kathleen change the locks on her doors and that Peterson told him, quote, "any friend of Kathleen`s is an enemy of mine."

The neighbor also testified he believed Peterson placed a bullet in his driveway as a way to intimidate him and send him a message. Well, that comment about the bullet created an uproar. The defense objected loudly, complaining the testimony would poison the jury against their client. The judge then dismissed the jurors and scolded the prosecutor, calling the testimony a low blow.

Now, what`s going to happen next? There`s various options on the table. Throw out all of that witness` testimony. But could they also declare a mistrial?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The mistrial could be with prejudice or without prejudice. The defense wants it with the former. With prejudice means double jeopardy`s attached. There won`t be a retrial. There`ll be no new trial. Case over, dismissed. He walks.

That is a really severe penalty, the most severe. It`s rare. It`s what defense thinks they`re entitled to because they say this was an intentional blunder on the part of the state.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. Waiting this long for justice and then a couple of days into the trial it could all be over? Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1- 877-586-7297.
Straight out to "In Session`s" Jean Casarez, who is at court in Illinois.

Why did this bullet comment, couple of words by a witness, cause such an uproar? And what could happen next, Jean?

JEAN CASAREZ, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": Well, anything can happen. The judge has adjourned court, because the defense said, "We need some time to think about this," because the judge is really trying to strike a compromise here. He`s saying, "We will strike all of the next-door neighbor`s testimony so the jury will disregard it."

But, Jane, the fact is I was sitting in court. And the witness is on the stand, and he is describing a conversation with Drew Peterson when Drew Peterson came to him and said, "Are you changing the locks on my ex-wife`s front door?"

"No. I`m not changing the locks."

And how did you feel?

"I felt really intimidated," he said, "because the next day I saw a bullet in my driveway." That`s when it all happened. And I saw Drew Peterson turn white as a ghost. He turned to his lawyer, stunned, shocked in disbelief. And the attorneys, I think all together they stood up: objection. I mean, it was a moment I`ll never forget.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But why is the prosecution being blamed? You don`t know what`s going to come out of a witness`s mouth. Do you feel -- did it look like the prosecutor led that witness to say something? And then what`s wrong with that? Was there no substantiating evidence?

CASAREZ: Kathy Patton admitted -- once the jury was let out of that courtroom, she admitted that that was where she intended the witness to go and that she was going to question him and say, "But you don`t know where that bullet came from. You don`t know if Drew Peterson put that bullet in your driveway."

And the defense said, you know, "Wait a minute, there was a hearing, a pretrial hearing where this witness testified about that bullet. And Kathy Patton listed the answer: "I don`t know where the bullet came from." So she knew the answer.

And the judge absolutely lit into her. He was so angry. And he wanted to know why did you bring this up when you knew you had no evidence to link it to Drew Peterson?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So Tanya Acker, on a scale of one to ten, you`re an attorney. How bad was this prosecution blunder?

TANYA ACKER, ATTORNEY: Well, you`ve got to remember, Jane, that, again, this was the witness who was describing all of the reasons why he felt intimidated by Drew Peterson. It was a blunder.

But I got to say, you know, with ten being worst, I give it only a four. The witness was trying to put together all of the reasons why he felt intimidated, why he felt scared, why he felt threatened by the defendant. Certainly, you know, perhaps he wasn`t well coached about what not to say, about the things that couldn`t come in. But I really think that to grant a mistrial on the basis of that testimony would be a huge miscarriage of justice.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, it`s so funny. What a difference a day makes, because just yesterday the defense team was on the hot seat. And we`re going to play you some comments they made about Stacey Peterson.

Now remember, Stacey Peterson is the woman that Drew Peterson married after divorcing Kathleen. And Stacey Peterson, who is wife No. 4, is still missing. And Drew Peterson is a suspect in her disappearance.

So listen to what his defense team said just yesterday about that.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you make of the Stacey factor in this trial?





UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s on your witness list.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re hoping she shows up.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe she`ll show up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she shows up -- we`ll have to call her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she got the subpoena.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does anybody think she`s really alive?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. Absolutely she`s alive.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Michael Christian, a lot of people -- you`re a senior field producer for "In Session" there also in Illinois covering this trial. There is Stacey. You see her. Beautiful young woman. She`s been missing five years now. And that`s why this case made headlines.

Wife No. 4 disappears. Wife No. 3 dies in the bathtub. Initially it`s made to look like an accident or it`s ruled an accident and then after wife No. 4 disappears they go back and exhume the body and check it out again. Then they say, "No, it`s a murder. Wife No. 3 is a murder."

What a difference a day makes. Those defense team members were on the hot seat yesterday for making what seemed like insensitive comments. Today, seems like everybody`s forgotten about that. And now they look like they`ve got the upper hand in this case.

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": There were some criticism of their appearance there, Jane. And the defense in this case has always been very jovial, kind of joking, as if they were taking this case lightly. I know they`re not. But that`s the appearance they sometimes give off. I think that is an attitude they have adapted from their client, Drew Peterson.

As we saw over and over before he was arrested, he would josh around with reporters outside his house. He would play with them. He would turn the camera on them. He would put a bandanna over his face. It was as if he wasn`t taking any of this seriously.

I think they`ve taken their cue from him to some extent. I think that may be a flaw on their part. I think they`re rethinking that approach and going to be a little more serious from here on in. I think that basically, all that comes from Drew Peterson.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Michael, what do you think the defense is going to ask for when they come back tomorrow? What is the defense going to ask for? CHRISTIAN: They`re going to ask again for a mistrial. I have no -- absolutely no doubt they`re going to ask for a mistrial with prejudice. I don`t think they`re going to get it. But I think they`re going to ask for this. This is a golden opportunity for them. The prosecution screwed up big time. And they`d be silly not to take as much advantage of it as they can.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go to Susan Constantine, jury consultant. What are the jurors going to make of this?

Now, there`s a possibility that there could be a mistrial. It seems like the defense is going to come in tomorrow. And if you believe Michael Christian, who`s a great reporter, ask for a mistrial.

But there`s also the possibility the judge could rule this one witness, all of his testimony, stricken. Pretend you never heard it. Of course it`s very hard to unring that bell. So could that also be devastating to prosecutors?

Our guests by the way, Jon Lieberman and Wendy Murphy, were arguing right here last night over the prosecution`s ability to get a conviction in this case because there`s very little "CSI"-style forensic evidence. Listen to this.


JON LIEBERMAN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: There`s a juror who loves the TV show "CSI," and that`s a problem for prosecutors. Because this is a case with no DNA, with no fingerprints, with very little physical evidence. This isn`t a "CSI"-type case.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I think that`s not likely to be a big issue in this case, because there`s no evidence really in either direction. You know, you got one coroner saying it was an accident, the other saying it was homicide. I think -- I think jurors will easily dismiss both and use common sense. And a lot of common sense favors the prosecution.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Susan Constantine, let`s say the trial continues. What are jurors going to think after this brouhaha?

CONSTANTINE: OK. First of all, at the very last statement that was spoken was about the bullet. And it also went into detail about the bullet .38-caliber bullet. When you do that, that`s an anchor. OK? That was also the last thing that those jurors heard. So when you anchor that message, it`s already embedded and mapped inside their brains. They`re going to mull that over and over and over again. So it`s there. And they`re going to be thinking about it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. On the other side, a man who says his daughter dated Drew Peterson.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How`s -- how`s your love life?

PETERSON (via phone): My love life? Well, I got a lot of buddies here that are real anxious to, you know, wash my back in the shower. But you know, what`s that all about? You know, hey, I got it. How are we doing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What stupid thing do you miss that we take for granted?

PETERSON: Grooming. Like being able to trim my mustache and nose hairs -- nose hairs. But then I`m thinking, you know, I don`t want to really look particularly attractive in this place.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Drew Peterson, joker and ladies` man.

Drew Peterson had already been married and divorced twice when he met and then married Kathleen Savio, who later was found dead and whose murder trial we`re talking about now.

They had two kids together. There she is. While he was still legally married to Kathleen, he started dating Stacey, then 17 years old.

Stacey and Drew -- there`s Stacey Peterson -- they got married the very same year Kathleen Savio died in the bathtub. Stacey later vanished. And Drew Peterson is also a suspect in Stacey`s disappearance.

Actor Rob Lowe, who portrayed Drew in the Lifetime movie, talked about Peterson`s ability to attract the opposite sex.


ROB LOWE, ACTOR: There was something about him, clearly, where these young, beautiful women are continually attracted to him. And so he clearly has some kind of swagger going.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to a man who says his daughter dated Drew Peterson and was even engaged to him. And this was after Peterson`s fourth wife, Stacey, had disappeared.

Ernie Raines, thank you for joining us. Now, tell us the back story. I understand you and your daughter, Christina, first met Drew when your daughter was just 14 and Drew was still with wife No. 4, Stacey. And then after Stacey vanished, how did your daughter end up hooking up with Drew? And how old was she?

ERNIE RAINES, DAUGHTER DATED DREW PETERSON (via phone): Well, she was 22 and was just at a nightclub out in Bolingbrook. And he just walked up to her and says, "You`ve grown up since I seen you last."

And she turned around and then my other daughter was there. And she says, "Hey, how`s your dad?"

And he goes he`s all right. He`s all right. And then he wanted to take her -- he wanted to take her out.

And then my other daughter goes, "No, you`re not taking her nowhere."

And then she turned around and he says, "Oh, she reminds me of somebody."

She goes, "Who?"

"Your dad."

But after that they started dating. I didn`t know nothing about until -- until somebody told me. And then I went to confront them, and she lied about it. And then a month later, there it was. So I said, "I`m going to do what I can to break this up." And that`s what I did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s talk -- let`s talk more about your daughter, Christina. She appeared with you in a CBS interview talking about her relationship with Drew Peterson. Listen to this.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you love him?

C. RAINES: I thought I did.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How did you become engaged to him? When did you become engaged to him?

C. RAINES: It was never an engagement really.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What was it then?

C. RAINES: It was more like a stunt.




C. RAINES: On Drew, so he could be in the media.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So I want to ask you, Ernie, why would your daughter participate in essentially what she described as a stunt, this engagement? How did she get sucked into his very sick world?

E. RAINES: Well, she didn`t want -- she wanted -- she didn`t want to go there to the interview anyway. And she said she didn`t want to do that to him, because she said she really loved him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why do you think -- Ernie, let me jump in here and ask you, why do you think he has a way with women? Your daughter`s a beautiful young lady. She could go out with anybody.

E. RAINES: I`ll tell you why. Because you have Kathy Savio, which is his age. He couldn`t fight with her, but she fought back. He didn`t like that.

So what he did, he goes after somebody a lot younger that could be his daughter, and he could manipulate her. There you go. Seventeen. OK. She woke up, said, "Hey, I`m getting out." No.

He comes after my daughter. Same age. I`m his age. I`m his age. And he has no business being with somebody that young. But he wants the control. And that`s the only way he can do it.

He can`t date a woman his own age. They won`t take his stuff. They`ll fight back. And he don`t like it. He gets one that`s 17, 18, maybe 21. He can manipulate them. Say, "Hey, do this, do that." And that`s how he does it. They`re a lot younger. They`re naive. And he says, "Hey, I get you this, I get you that."

So sooner or later they fall right into it. Oh, yes, this is nice. Until they see later on. Then it`s too late to get out.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Ernie, at what point did you realize that this man was a person whose fourth wife had disappeared under very mysterious and suspicious circumstances and whose third wife had died in very suspicious and mysterious circumstances? At what point did you realize, "Oh, my gosh, my daughter is dating somebody who is suspected by cops in -- in the death of one wife and the disappearance and -- of another"?

E. RAINES: Good question. And here`s my answer. The red flags went up after Stacey disappeared -- I knew Stacey. After she disappeared. And then he went right after my daughter. That`s when the red flags went up.

Why would you go after somebody else when you`re supposed to be looking for your wife? And I said this a thousand times. Why would you go after somebody else, move them in your house if you`re supposed to be grieving and looking for your wife? And reason why?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What did he say? What did he say?

E. RAINES: Oh, he didn`t say nothing. I was telling people that.

RAINES: But I asked him that several times, and he just didn`t say nothing. He slammed the door on me. I went after him, and he closed the door on me and he wouldn`t come out and talk to me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ernie, Ernie, if there`s a mistrial declared tomorrow, what is your reaction to that, if that occurs tomorrow? We`re at a crucial turning point in this case.

RAINES: Well, if there`s a mistrial, which I hope there ain`t, and if there is, I`m already on red alert. If he comes near my daughter, I find out about it, it`s just going to be me and him, personal. Me and him. Because I told my daughter, you know, my daughter`s trying to get her life together. And she`s going to school for nursing. And I`m backing her.


E. RAINES: And he needs to start looking for his wife he says he don`t know where she`s at. Well, if he gets out, then he should be focusing on that.


E. RAINES: He better stay away from my daughter. My words to him.

I don`t go to the courthouse. I don`t look for a circus. I want to go to him straight. And he comes at my daughter, then it`s going to be me and him. And I`m going to be watching.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ernie, thank you.

E. RAINES: He`s no good. He`s a killer. You know -- he`s hiding behind a badge.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, he`s -- right now, he`s accused. He`s not convicted. But let me say, Ernie, thank you for joining us. Tremendous insight into the character of this accused murderer.

Stay with us. On the other side, analysis.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)PETERSON: I have no idea why anybody`s talking like that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Warm to the touch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He says he believes that he helped you dispose of your wife`s body. Can you at least respond to that?



PETERSON: No response. Talk to my lawyer (ph). I got nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No truth to it whatsoever?

PETERSON: No. Nobody helped me do anything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: October 28, where were you on October 28? This gentleman says he helped you carry a container out of your home.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. That`s Drew Peterson reacting to his stepbrother`s claims that he helped Drew move a blue barrel that the relative suspected could have contained Stacey`s body, that he claimed was warm to the touch.

Jean Casarez, how could Drew Peterson get engaged when he claims Stacey is alive and just ran off with another man? That`s his claim.

CASAREZ: Well, after a certain amount of time, somebody can be declared dead if they`ve been missing, but that was 2008. So a year later, I don`t think that`s long enough. I think it has to be ten years or something.

So, you know, we heard Christina Raines say it was a publicity stunt. And maybe, in fact, it was.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Michael Christian, here`s what I got out of that interview with Ernie. There are people who are afraid that if there is a mistrial, this man`s going to be on the loose. And they`re worried.

CHRISTIAN: You know, one of those people who may be afraid, Jane, is Tom Pontarelli. I mean, he was very nervous in testifying today. He was very upfront about that, that he didn`t want to be there. He was not there voluntarily. He would rather be anywhere else but in that courtroom. He did not come forward voluntarily. He had to testify.

And if you think, well, gee, the story about him finding a bullet on his driveway, if Drew Peterson really did that -- and I`m certainly not saying that he did, because there`s no way to prove that he did -- but in his mind he may be absolutely nervous about this. There may be quite a few people out there like that, rightly or wrongly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tanya Acker, is the prosecutor in trouble tonight?

ACKER: The prosecution is certainly in some trouble. But there really is one fact, Jane, and I think it`s important not to overlook. I`ve served on juries. I`ve tried cases before juries. Juries will obey the law. They will follow an instruction.

So to the extent that the judge was really miffed -- and he was and properly so -- by the prosecution getting this evidence in there, there`s nothing to say that it could not be cured by an instruction to the jury. Juries follow court instructions. They generally typically do.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: One thing I will say about this case, it`s a mega trial. And as I`ve always said, mega trials do not follow a standard script. They always go off the rails. This is just an example.

What`s going to happen tomorrow? Come right here tomorrow. We`re going to tell you. What a shocker.


  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2012, 08:15:31 PM »

Drew Peterson Murder Trial; Savio`s Sister Testifies in Peterson Murder Trial

Aired August 6, 2012 - 20:00:00   ET


NANCY GRACE, HOST: Breaking news tonight. Twenty-three-year-old mom Stacy Peterson vanishes upscale Chicago suburbs, husband/cop Drew Peterson prime suspect in his fourth wife`s disappearance. Peterson finally charged in the 2004 drowning of wife number three, Kathleen Savio, Savio found covered in bruises, drowned to death in a bone-dry bathtub.

Bombshell tonight. As Peterson awaits trial, he`s on the prowl for women, asking one single mom of two`s measurements, begs for a photo of her in a bikini and says she can have all of wife number four`s clothes. I guess he knows she`s not coming back.

Former cop Peterson on trial for the murder of wife three, damning testimony from Kathleen Savio herself from beyond the grave. What does she reveal? Just before she`s found dead in the family bathtub, Savio predicts her own death, insisting Peterson would murder her and make it looks like an accident.

And how do bath towels prove murder one? Just hours after Savio`s dead, Peterson rushes to the home, scrubs the bathtub and cleans out Kathleen`s purse. Peterson in court cracking jokes in the last hours. But Peterson, to me, it looks like the joke`s on you.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She told me all the time, He`s going to kill me. It`s going to look like an accident. Take care of my kids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her sister testified that Kathleen Savio came to her about six weeks before her death, and she says that Savio said Peterson told her he was going to kill her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I never felt that it was an accident.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that`s a job you don`t want, digging up that corpse, been in the ground all this time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, yes. Thank God I just -- let her rest in peace, you know?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, this thing`s getting out of hand.

GRACE: Yes, it`s out of hand, all right, in a court of law.

Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us.

Bombshell tonight. Former cop Drew Peterson, on trial finally for the murder of wife number three -- that`s three out of four -- damning testimony from Kathleen Savio herself, the murder victim, from beyond the grave. But what does she reveal in a court of law?

We are taking your calls. Straight out to Daniel Rozek, reporter with "The Chicago Sun-Times." Daniel, thanks for being with us.

The last witness on the stand, damning testimony against Peterson. How did Peterson react? And please describe that last witness for us.

DANIEL ROZEK, "CHICAGO SUN-TIMES" (via telephone): Anna Doman was a powerful witness for the state. She`s Kathleen Savio`s older sister. She described a meeting with her sister six weeks before Savio was found dead, in which she said her sister told her that Peterson had threatened to kill her and said he could make it look like an accident. She said her sister was very upset.

Peterson was calm through the testimony. He`s been calm through all of the trial while the jury`s present, very sober and serious and professional.

GRACE: You know, Daniel Rozek, we were just showing a clip of the Lifetime movie starring Rob Lowe about Peterson. And when -- in the movie, anyway, when Peterson was told that the body of Kathleen Savio was going to be dug up out of the cemetery, exhumed, he basically had no reaction whatsoever.

What`s the truth of what happened when he was told that Kathleen`s body was going to be dug up?

ROZEK: As I recall, he was not that upset. He voiced some concern about it. But he`s been a cop his whole life, and once things started happening with his fourth wife disappearing, I don`t think he was really surprised that there was going to be a move to exhume Savio`s body.

GRACE: Hey, Dana, pull up that video of when we thought Stacy`s body had been discovered, his fourth wife.

To you, Ellie Jostad. We were live that night. I remember it like it was yesterday. It was not long after Stacy Peterson went missing, all of her clothes left hanging in the closet. Everything was there. It was as if she just vanished into thin air.

Joining me right now from Chicago is Joel Brodsky. This is the lawyer for accused wife killer Drew Peterson, former cop. Joel Brodsky, is it true that you put Stacy Peterson on the witness list for trial?

JOEL BRODSKY, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: Well, the witness list has to contain anybody that`s a potential witness. If you don`t have them on the list and later on they show up, you can`t call them. So there`s over - - we have a lot of people on our witness list. The state has over 250 people on their witness list, a lot of people that they maybe want to call but probably won`t. So witness lists include...

GRACE: Put Brodsky up, please!

BRODSKY: ... everybody.

GRACE: Brodsky, you`re just giving me a round-about about why you put Stacy Peterson on the witness list because just in case she happens to suddenly appear, you`re going to call her to testify? To what?

BRODSKY: Well, I mean, the whole thing -- this whole thing started when she disappeared. Everybody presumed that something untoward happened. If she just ran off, all these other presumptions about Drew Peterson kind of disappear into thin air? So...

GRACE: Really? Like all those cuts and bruises on Kathleen Savio`s body, they just disappear into thin air?

BRODSKY: Absolutely. Well, you know, looking at those -- the cuts and bruises -- for example, the one on the back of the head, that`s what she got when she fell in the bathtub. But the other matters, the other bruises that the state talks about are either older bruises -- we`ve had three pathologists -- three prominent pathologists examine...

GRACE: Oh, they were older bruises? But what, he beat her before he killed her, is that what you`re saying?

ROZEK: No because -- no because those bruises were taken in the regular course of living and working out and just, you know, rolling around and playing with your kids...

GRACE: Really?

BRODSKY: ... and doing everything else.

GRACE: Really? Because I don`t have any bruises on me, and I`ve got two 4-year-olds and I attempt to work out. I`m not covered in bruises. And I`m looking at...

BRODSKY: I`ll bet you -- I`ll bet you if there`s an examination, we`d find -- there are bruises. Everybody has some minor bruises.

GRACE: I`m looking right now, and she`s absolutely covered head to toe...

BRODSKY: Not at all.

GRACE: ... with bruises and lacerations. Now, how do you get...

BRODSKY: Not at all.

GRACE: ... lacerations from working out? I can`t wait to hear this.

BRODSKY: Well, there are no lacerations. The only laceration that`s on -- that`s on Kathy...

GRACE: Circular shaped...

BRODSKY: ... is the one on the back of the head.

GRACE: ... abrasion on her hand.


GRACE: That would be a scrape.


GRACE: That`s a laceration, abrasion. You`ve done a lot of...

BRODSKY: A scrape isn`t...

GRACE: ... autopsy reports. You know what abrasions are. You know what lacerations are.

BRODSKY: Abrasion`s not a laceration, it`s a cut. Abrasion is -- abrasion is rubbing, is a scrape on the skin. It`s not a -- it`s not a laceration.

GRACE: And what do you think a laceration is? What`s a laceration?


BRODSKY: A laceration -- cuts -- is a cut through the dermis. It`s...

GRACE: As opposed to...

BRODSKY: It`s all the way through.

GRACE: ... a cut on the skin? Let me see that one more time, please. I want to -- I want the viewers to see Kathleen Savio`s autopsy.

Now, there`s another one-inch blunt laceration on the back of the head. But what I`m interested in is how she would get red abrasion on the back of her elbow. And let`s see the front of the body, please. That`s what I really want to see, the front of Kathleen Savio`s body in the autopsy report.

How did she get bruises on her head from working out?

BRODSKY: What bruises on the head? The only bruise on her head was the one on the back of the head from the fall.


GRACE: Oh, so that`s from the fall?

BRODSKY: She falls, hit her head. When she fell and hit her back of her head and was knocked unconscious, there was a one-and-a-half-inch gash in her scalp that goes all the way through down to the bone. And that`s a serious cut and that`s from a very serious head -- when she slipped and hit her head on the side of the tub.

GRACE: Oh, OK. Then if she slipped backwards and hit her head in the back in the bathtub, how did she get bruises on the front of her knees, Joel Brodsky?

BRODSKY: On her knees? Well, I mean, I don`t really want to get into this on TV, but...

GRACE: Well, what you were just getting into, the other one, you said the one on the back of her head...

BRODSKY: Well, I mean -- I mean, look...

GRACE: ... was because she fell...

BRODSKY: She was with her...

GRACE: ... and hit the back of her head.

BRODSKY: Her boyfriend spent Friday night at her house, left Saturday morning, and that night they were intimate. And you know, there are certain marks...

GRACE: On her knees?

BRODSKY: ... from -- yes.

GRACE: All right. I`m glad you explained that. So she`s totally bruised up you first said from working out. Now you say the gash on the back of the head was from falling in the tub. And you`re now saying that after much humming and hawing about not wanting to say it on television, you`re now blaming the other bruises on sex with her boyfriend.

All right, have you told that the jury yet, Brodsky?

BRODSKY: The ones on the knees...


BRODSKY: Well, we had -- the scientific evidence hasn`t started yet, but it was mentioned in the opening statement. Absolutely.

GRACE: Opening statement was what I was referring to. So did you tell them that in opening statement?


GRACE: Good to know. Go ahead. I want to hear the rest.

BRODSKY: Well, I mean, we also -- you know, we have three pathologists have examined all these pictures, all the reports, everything, and all concur. So it`s just not me saying this.

GRACE: They all say bruises on the knee as a result of rough sex, is that what you`re saying, all three pathologists, all three male pathologists?

BRODSKY: They all -- they all say it`s consistent with -- they all say that there are -- these bruises are -- what you`re talking about are certain scraping, abrasions on the knee and the shin. You`re also talking about certain red marks on her -- the back.

These things are either from normal life, or she had -- we`re going to bring in her dermatologist, who`s going to testify regarding skin problems that she had that account for some of these blotches. I mean, every single bruise, every single scrape, everything...

GRACE: Well, wait a minute. Joel, how does a skin problem...

BRODSKY: ... is all going to be accounted for.

GRACE: ... account for bruises?

BRODSKY: Well, there`s something on her -- there`s a mark, red mark on her buttocks, and that is something that she had gone to see a dermatologist about. So there`s a lot here of evidence, scientific evidence that`s going to be brought forth that`s clearly going to show that there was nothing in any of these marks that show that she was a victim of any type of violent attack.

GRACE: Joel? Joel? Joel, why did your client offer to sell or to give away Stacy`s clothes, including bras, underwear, bikinis -- I believe a mink was included -- to some mother of two? Why was he giving Stacy`s clothing away if he thought, as you said at the beginning of this show, she could just suddenly reappear and walk into the courtroom to testify for Drew Peterson, the man many people think murdered her?

So if she -- if you really believe that she`s just missing, that she took off on her own, then why was he trying to give away all of her clothes, including her underwear and bras?

BRODSKY: I don`t know. You`d have to ask him that. I`m really unaware if he had said that or if he had...

GRACE: Well, I`m telling you right now.

BRODSKY: I haven`t seen anything about that. And you`d have to ask him why. I have no idea.

GRACE: OK, hold on. Out to Julie in Nebraska. Hi, Julie. What`s your question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Nancy. We love you here in Nebraska, love your show.

GRACE: Likewise. Go Cornhuskers!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anyway, my question is, do you think that there was a police cover-up?

GRACE: No, I really don`t. I think that within the police force, they may have been giving him more than the benefit of the doubt because they know him, they believe him, they trust him, as most people do with their co-workers.

But I don`t believe that there was any concerted effort to hide evidence, to get rid of evidence. And also, another thing on that, Julie in Nebraska. Look back over history. Whenever there`s a conspiracy, somebody cracks. You know, it`s really hard to keep two people quiet when it comes to murder.


GRACE: Welcome back. Former cop/husband Drew Peterson finally on trial for murder, but not of Stacy Peterson, his fourth wife who seemingly disappeared into thin air, leaving all of her belongings behind her. He`s on trial for the death of wife number three, Kathleen Savio, found dead in a bone-dry bathtub.

Joining me tonight, a special guest. Drew Peterson`s lawyer joining me out of Chicago. Joel Brodsky is here. Also there on the scene, Jean Casarez, legal correspondent, "In Session." She`s joining me there at the courthouse.

Jean, we`ve been going around and around with Brodsky about Kathleen Savio`s body. What did the jury see, Jean? What did the -- don`t show any photos of Kathleen Savio in death, Dana! Don`t put those up.

Jean, I`ll let you describe them instead, what the jury saw.

JEAN CASAREZ, "IN SESSION": You know, Nancy, I can`t tell you how many times on a great, big multi-media screen this photograph of Kathleen Savio in the bathtub, in the dry bathtub. She is curled up -- everybody says in a fetal position. I`m going to put it another way. She`s curled up like a snail in this circular bathtub.

So then you say to yourself, OK, somebody slipped and fell. It`s an amazing position to be in if you would slip and fall in a bathtub.

GRACE: You know what, Brodsky? She`s right. How do you go from slipping, knocking herself in the head, as you describe, on the back of your head...


GRACE: ... to curling up like a snail, in the fetal position?

BRODSKY: Well, it`s the shape of the bathtub that caused the body after she drowned, after she deceased, in order to settle into that position.
And as I said, we`re going to have -- and I`m not a scientist, just a lawyer. But we`re going to have three scientists, three very prominent people -- one is actually an MD and Ph.D. who teaches pathology who`s going to explain everything to the jury, explain the marks, explain the abrasions, and talk about the position of the body and explain how it all happened...

GRACE: Well, I don`t understand...

BRODSKY: ... and that it, in fact, was an accident.

GRACE: ... what you`re saying about the bathtub. What is the shape of the bathtub, Jean Casarez?

BRODSKY: I`s an oval, by the way.

CASAREZ: It is circular. It is very unusual.

BRODSKY: It`s oval.

GRACE: It`s circular, oval.

GRACE: So why would that...

BRODSKY: It`s more oval.

GRACE: ... make her go in a fetal position?

BRODSKY: You`re asking me?


BRODSKY: If it wouldn`t -- well, it`s oval, more than circular. It`s certainly -- it`s more oval than circular. And then at the bottom of it, there are certain ridges that are built into it that would be made to -- like, where one could put their arms to relax, so to speak, if you were soaking in the tub.

And because of the position of the body, it just -- it`s going to cause one not to settle straight but to go over. But that`s something, once again, that the scientists will explain when they get in there...

GRACE: OK, so Joel...

BRODSKY: ... and explain it to the jury.

GRACE: ... let me ask you a question. Joel Brodsky is with us. He and Jean are both there at the courthouse, waiting for court to resume. Joel, let me get this straight. Did you tell -- have you already committed to the jury with this? Have you told the jury that she`s in a fetal position because of the shape of the bathtub? Because I don`t want to give you any pointers. Far be it from me to try to tell you, Joel Brodsky, how to try a case. But I believe -- I don`t think I`d say that if I were you!

BRODSKY: Well, it`s not me, it`s the scientists. It`s the scientists that are going to explain this, the three, you know, MD pathologists that we have that are going to come in and testify on the part of the defense. And they`re going to explain everything to the jury and how this occurred and how the fact -- the position the body is laying in is now indicative of anything other than...


GRACE: Welcome back. We are at the courthouse, bringing you the latest in the trial of former cop turned murder defendant Drew Peterson. He is not on trial with anything to do in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

Let`s see that shot of him, Dana, where he has on his police outfit. It looks like maybe a Christmas photo.

He`s not on trial for her disappearance, although she was left -- all of her belongings were left hanging in her closet, in her closet drawers, everything gone. He`s actually on trial for the death, police say the homicide, of wife number three, Kathleen Savio.

Back to Jean Casarez, joining us there at the courthouse. Jean, the last witness on the stand extremely powerful. What happened?

CASAREZ: Well, this is the sister of Kathy Savio, and she testified. And this is the first hearsay statement allowed in. It`s six weeks before her sister was found dead in the bathtub, that she and her sister were alone. And her sister, Kathy Savio, said, You know, I think Drew`s going to kill me. He`s going to kill me. I`m not going to make it to the property hearing in April.

And he wants custody of the kids. You got to take care of the kids. If I`m found dead, take care of the kids. And I`ve got a briefcase. It`s going to be in my vehicle in a corner. It`s got all of my important papers. Take it. Get it if I`m found dead.

The jury heard that.
GRACE: Joel Brodsky, that`s pretty powerful evidence when her own sister says that she said, If I go missing, or I`m found dead, it was no accident. I think he`s going to murder me and set it up to look like an accident. That`s pretty powerful, Joel.

BRODSKY: Well, there`s no question about that, until -- until you go and look at the cross-examination and look at what she did. For example, she said that her sister made her pledge and repeat it over and over again that, I`ll take care of your kids, I`ll take care of your kids. I`ll make sure that everything`s OK with your kids.

And then what did she do? Nothing. She didn`t even send the kids for four years -- didn`t send them a birthday card, a Christmas present, not a phone call, nothing.

So that really leads me to believe, you know, that there`s some question with whether or not that was actually told to her and whether or not she`s -- she`s actually being truthful because if somebody -- in your own experience, if your sister had said that to you and then died, and you wouldn`t even contact your nieces and nephews?

GRACE: Says who, your client?

BRODSKY: No, common sense. Just put yourself in...

GRACE: No, no, no, no. Who says she didn`t contact them, your client?

BRODSKY: Oh, she admitted that on cross.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She told me all the time, He`s going to kill me, it`s going to look like an accident. Take care of my kids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her sister testified that Kathleen Savio came to her about six weeks before her death, and she says that Savio said Peterson told her he was going to kill her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never felt that it was an accident. She always told us that -- whether it was a premonition or not, she always said that it would be an accident and to take care of her children, he was going to kill her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bruises and a gash on the back of her head, and the coroner called it a homicide.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: First degree murder charges.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Me and my family always felt that this was foul play.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Many times she told family friends, anybody she could tell, I`m scared to death and then he`s going to kill me. It`s going to look like an accident and he`s going to get away with it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: State police got a court order to exhume Kathleen and do at another autopsy on her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that`s a job you don`t want, digging up that corpse, being in the ground all this time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think they ought to just let her rest in peace, you know?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This thing`s getting out of hand.


NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: You were seeing Lifetime`s movie "Untouchable" about Drew Peterson.

Joining me from the courthouse, Jean Casarez from "In Session." Also with us, Drew Peterson`s defense attorney, his long-time defense attorney, a trial lawyer, well-known in the Chicago area, and beyond, Joel Brodsky is with us.

Jean Casarez, just out of curiosity, has it come in yet that Drew Peterson was trying to give away Stacy Peterson`s clothes, detailing bra, underwear, I believe there was a mink in there, pocketbooks, shoes, the whole works? He`s trying to give away her clothes to some woman he was striking up a romance with?

JEAN CASAREZ, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": I don`t think it will come in. Because the judge has been very strong, this is not the trial of Stacy Peterson, it`s the trial of the third wife. Although the jurors saw a picture of Stacy Peterson last week, they were identifying Stacy Peterson in court.

GRACE: Jean, another question. Will evidence regarding Stacy Peterson`s disappearance come in at trial in the death, the murder trial regarding Kathleen Savio, wife number three?

CASAREZ: No. But for -- why didn`t you come forward for three years, it may come out, it wasn`t until Stacy went missing that I then came forward to law enforcement, so to explain why you waited so long, I think that`s a possibility.

GRACE: To Mr. Brodsky, Joel Brodsky, why is your client cracking jokes in the courtroom, and making light of the situation, the murder trial where the victim is his former wife, the mother of his children?

JOEL BRODSKY, ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSED KILLER DREW PETERSON: Well, he`s certainly not cracking any jokes while the jury is in there. He`s very business --


GRACE: So the jury can`t see it.

BRODSKY: But as far as, you know, when he`s -- when he`s among -- when the jury`s not in, and we`re having a break, you know, I mean, surely there`s an interaction among him and his lawyers and the interns. It`s -- I mean, Drew has been in isolation for almost three years. He really hasn`t had any contact with anybody, other than --

GRACE: Really?

BRODSKY: -- people who bring him his food for three year. So he`s --

GRACE: She had access to mail or the Internet?

BRODSKY: Well, certainly not the Internet. I know he -- I`m sure he`s had access to mail, even though his mails monitored and read by the prison. But you know, he`s enjoying his interaction with people, something he hasn`t had for three years. And --

GRACE: OK. Sir, I hate to put you on cross-examination, but if you`d just answer the question I ask you, Mr. Brodsky.


GRACE: Out to you, Robyn Walensky, anchor/reporter with "The Blaze."

Isn`t it true, Robyn, he`s had quite a little bit of interaction while he`s been behind bars with other women? Tried to spark up romantic relationships with one woman after the next from behind bars?

ROBYN WALENSKY, ANCHOR/REPORTER, THE BLAZE: Yes, he`s really a creepy guy, a creepy cop, Nancy. He is a womanizer. You know, married four times, two out of the four wives are gone, one dead, one missing, still flirting, trying to have communications with other women.

You know, with all due respect to Mr. Brodsky, the attorney, he spins a sensational story. And if I was ever in trouble I would definitely hire him to represent me. But I have to tell you, you know what, Nancy? How are they going to explain away the 18 calls from 2002 to 2004, domestic violence calls between Kathleen and Mr. Peterson, the flirt?

And by the way, when they were married, it`s reported that he was having an affair already with what became wife number four, Stacy. So yes, he is indeed a womanizer.

GRACE: OK. I want to write down the dates you were describing, Robyn Walensky, anchor with "The Blaze." How many times was domestic violence called while he was married?

WALENSKY: Eighteen times, Nancy, 18 times. The day that Stacy went missing.


GRACE: Brodsky, why are you -- why are you kicking around and saying no, no, no. It`s true, there were 18 calls.

WALENSKY: Eighteen -- absolutely, 18 -- yes, the cops were called. The Bolingbrook Police were called to that home. They had domestic issues between the two of them, threats, violence. You know, it reminds me, Nancy, of Nicole Brown Simpson. There`s a crescendo of violence that sometimes ends in murder. And in this case, it appears that that`s exactly what happened.

GRACE: OK. Robyn, which wife are we talking about, dare I ask?

WALENSKY: Kathleen -- we are talking about Kathleen. There were 18 calls to the Bolingbrook Police Department.

BRODSKY: Right. But they weren`t -- they weren`t violence calls. They weren`t domestic violence calls. The majority of the calls --

GRACE: What were they then?

BRODSKY: The majority of those calls were Kathy complaining that Drew was late bringing the children back from visitation. If the children were more than 10 minutes late, she`d call the police and make a report. So the majority of those calls had nothing to do with anything other than simple, you know, visitation being late --


GRACE: What about the others? You said the majority. What about the others?

BRODSKY: Yes, there was -- there was only really one call that I can think of or maybe two. But one call in particular.

GRACE: You don`t seem convincing. Maybe one, maybe two.

BRODSKY: One or two. Two at most. Two at most but --


BRODSKY: There was one in particular. And that regarded an alleged incident that took place on July 5th of 2002. But that wasn`t called in the until almost 14 days later. And --

GRACE: Unleash the lawyers. Kelly Saindon, Kirby Clements, Penny Douglass Furr.

Weigh in, Kelly.

KELLY SAINDON, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY: You know, domestic abuse is a history in this case, I believe that he did it. I think the prosecution has a rocky start, and that they need to get back on track in order to convict.

GRACE: Penny?

PENNY DOUGLASS FURR, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nancy, a domestic violence call, many people do those intentionally because they`re setting up a divorce and they do it to get a leg up in the divorce. My interest is after the call and after a hearing, was a restraining order issued? That means that it is based on some type of evidence. And it could be so clear --

GRACE: Kirby Clements, I want to hear your response to Penny`s suggestion that a lot of people, a lot of women call police just so they can prepare a divorce case.

Kirby, please do not wear your defense hat. All right? Remember the days when you prosecuted? Tell the truth, domestic violence --

KIRBY CLEMENTS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, I`m going to tell the truth.

GRACE: -- abuse is nothing to sneeze at, it`s nothing to twist around to your benefit.

CLEMENTS: No, you know, it is a horrible thing, but people do twist it around for their benefit. You have a lot of women, they call and make up charges of domestic abuse that are unsubstantiated --

GRACE: No, Kirby, I`m talking about you.


GRACE: Are you trying to say with a straight face that majority of women that called domestic hotlines or call police when they`re being beaten?

CLEMENTS: No, n, if --

GRACE: Or to set themselves up for a divorce?

CLEMENTS: If I said -- if I said a majority, I misspoke. What doesn`t happen, it absolutely does. As a prosecutor I uncovered it. I`ve confronted women who admitted to me that they made the call because they were mad at the guy, because he was having an affair. So I`m trying to tell you that does happen. Not the majority of those cases. But it does happen and that`s fact.

GRACE: Wendy Walsh, Wendy Walsh, that is why Kathleen Savio called police.

WENDY WALSH, PH.D., PSYCHOLOGIST AND CO-HOST OF "THE DOCTORS": Absolutely not. It appears that she was in that awful cycle of domestic violence and trapped and unable to get out. And as you know, Nancy, because we all covered the Nicole Brown Simpson murder trial, that most dangerous time for these women, these victims of domestic violence, is during the divorce.

It`s when they`re actually getting free that these guys often get really rageful and say, wow, you know, I`m going to -- I am losing control so I`m going to find a way to take control of this situation.



CASAREZ: The case against Drew Peterson started out with a bang.

DREW PETERSON, FORMER COP: Please don`t get involved in my world.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don`t everybody hold me down again.

CASAREZ: Marion Tom Pontarelli testified that they followed Drew Peterson`s lead when he said he needed to call a locksmith because he hasn`t heard from his ex-wife Kathy Savio.

PETERSON: I got neighbors go into the house and they found her dead in the bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: She was naked and the bathtub was dry.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Drew, you looking forward to your day in court?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Savio`s death an accidental drowning. Case closed.

CASAREZ: Stacy Peterson, reported missing, that is until the disappearance of yet another wife.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How it became homicide I don`t know, it`s a freaking accident.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You know, you say the media is bothering you, but don`t you think we`re helping in the search for Stacy?

PETERSON: We`re going out and search. You know, you`ve been through my house a few times so it`s like, it`s not here.


GRACE: We are back and taking your calls. Drew Peterson, former cop now on trial. Finally the body of his third wife exhumed, dug up from the cemetery. Later homicide charges were filed. Still, no word on missing wife number four, Stacy Peterson. Her presence looming large in that courtroom although the jury may never hear about Stacy Peterson`s disappearance.

We are taking your calls. With us tonight, attorney for Drew Peterson, Joel Brodsky.

Out to the lines, Susan in Missouri. Hi, Susan, what`s your questions?

SUSAN, CALLER FROM MISSOURI: Hi, Nancy. Thank you for taking my call. First I would like to say, wow, Drew Peterson is a manipulator and arrogant and he`s got a twisted manipulating lawyers working for him.

I also want to say this, the judge in this trial has a vendetta against the prosecutors. So if it was the defense against the judge, the judge (INAUDIBLE), they could appeal this. The prosecutor has no appeal if this judge is biased, which I -- I believe and has been mentioned several times. I want to know --

GRACE: Why do you believe the judge is biased in favor of the defense, Susan?

SUSAN: Why? Because I know they ran against each other in a -- for the seat and the prosecutor won and I believe that he is showing that in the way that he handled the witnesses, yelling at the sister, mistreating her the way he has. He apparently has a bias that he`s not allowing the information. If this guy killed -- if he hired --

GRACE: I`m losing Susan, but I get the gist of her question.

Let`s bring in Brodsky and Jean Casarez there at the courthouse.

Jean Casarez, you heard Susan in Missouri`s question, what do you make of it?

CASAREZ: I have sat in that courtroom and I have watched, and I`m right here. I think this is a great judge for the defense. I`m going to put it that way. There are a lot of rulings, for instance, the judge said in regard to the property hearing that was weeks away after Kathy was discovered dead where they would sort out the property. The judge said there`s no issue here. Everything said and done, she being dead or alive would not determine the property hearing or what would come out of it. I think a lot of people would disagree.

GRACE: Is it true, Jean, that the judge yelled at Kathleen Savio`s sister?

CASAREZ: She said at the end, because the sister reiterated the documents speak for itself and the judge said, don`t you mock in this court. He did.

GRACE: Why did he do that?

CASAREZ: Because she was repeating what the attorney had said. "Your Honor, the documents speaks for itself." But then she reiterated, "The document speaks for itself." And the just thought she was mocking by repeating the legal statement.

GRACE: You know, he better watch out with that because very often, jurors pick up on that and they start to identify with the victim of the bullying in the courtroom.

I want to go to Dr. Bill Manion -- Jean, don`t move.

Dr. Manion, joining us out of Philadelphia tonight. Dr. Manion, I want Jean to hear and Brodsky to hear your assessment of the autopsy report of Kathleen Savio.

Dr. Manion, go ahead.

DR. BILL MANION, M.D., MEDICAL EXAMINER, BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Yes, listen, Nancy, I usually agree with you on many things, you`re a very perceptive person, and I`m sure (INAUDIBLE) in this case, but in this case the -- the bruises and things are so nonspecific. There are no classic defensive wounds, there`s no broken nails, there`s no broken fingers, there`s no injuries to her neck if he put a chokehold on her.

There`s no petechiae in her eyes or conjunctiva. So it`s a very, very difficult case. If I just had this case cold, I would probably call it undetermined and hope that the police would do a -- you know, lie detector test and do more expensive investigation, but it really is a very tough case.

GRACE: Good to know. Jean Casarez, you heard what Manion said, what is the state`s response to the bruises all over Kathleen Savio`s body?

CASAREZ: Well, the second autopsy is sealed, but we believe it`s going to be that those injuries were pre-death, pre-mortem, and they were injuries that were involved in a struggle. And there were injury --

GRACE: I`m looking at it, Jean.

CASAREZ: -- all over her body, bruises, abrasions.

GRACE: You`ve got on the left scalp, blood laceration, left behind, bruises, left lower abdomen, anterior thigh, shins, wrist, dorsum, elbow, it goes on and on, Jean.

BRODSKY: Pre-mortem isn`t the issue.

CASAREZ: But here`s the problem. Here`s the problem. Those in -- that second autopsy was done three years later after water was in the coffin.

GRACE: Right.

CASAREZ: And they took her body out and they`re going to say that they were old injuries, they weren`t of the moment when she was being killed. They were old.

BRODSKY: Exactly.

CASAREZ: Because that`s what the first autopsy determined.



UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Investigating the disappearance of young mom, Stacy Peterson, and the bathtub drowning of Kathleen Savio.

PETERSON: I`m a suspect officially but I think I was a suspect from the beginning.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He thought all this was a joke in the very beginning. He probably thought he would never come to see this day.


GRACE: We are taking your calls, but first to John Lucich, former criminal investigation, president of E Forensics.

John, thanks for being with us. John, I know you heard what Jean said, that one of the autopsies we were referring to was done after she had been exhumed.

JOHN LUCICH, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR, PRESIDENT, E FORENSICS: Yes, absolutely. You know, that`s an unfortunate part. I think when they first looked at this case, number one, because he was a cop this is the kind of guy who could have taken steps to make it look like a -- an accident if, in fact, he is found guilty of this. And at the same time, the fact that he is one of their brothers, maybe they looked at it not in the whole light they should have been looking at it and now we have a woman who may have been killed and all of a sudden, all that evidence is going to sit dormant until the next wife shows up missing.

Now all this time has passed, they go back and redo an autopsy. And you know what, I`m an expert witness in court many times, Nancy, these experts come in and give their opinion. It is not always fact what they are saying, that it definitely happened. It is their opinion of what happened. Where in all these bruises could have been caused by a struggle also.

GRACE: To Robyn Walensky with "The Blaze." Robyn, what about the bath towels? Where do they fit in? Why was Drew Peterson cleaning the bathtub immediately after his third wife was dead?

WALENSKY: Apparently, Nancy, that he was cleaning the blood. So it never made any sense to me, if you -- if he -- he claims she drowned in a dry -- in a bathtub, why was her hair then matted with blood?



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We believe that Drew was involved with this -- the death of my sister. We always believed that. She told me all the time, he is going to kill me. It`s going to look like an accident. Take care of my kids.


GRACE: With me, Robyn Walensky and Joel Brodsky, Drew Peterson`s lawyer. Let`s see both of them please, Dana.

Robyn, the final cause of death on wife number three, Kathleen Savio, was what?

WALENSKY: Homicide. That she was murdered and that the entire situation was staged.

GRACE: So, Joel, if she really did, as you say, knock herself in the head, and I don`t know what the defense is claiming she knock herd head on, why didn`t she drown to death, Joel?

BRODSKY: She did. As a matter of the fact all three -- every one in the state`s experts also testified the cause of death is drowning. Cause of death is drowning that`s undisputed. The state`s experts agree and the defense experts agree.

GRACE: What do you claim she hit her head on?

BRODSKY: Well, actually, I wasn`t in the bathroom but the experts are saying that she hit her head on the -- on the bathtub, on the side of the bathtub and that the fall was sufficient force to cause unconsciousness and that she drowned.

GRACE: So where you`re saying she hit her head at that location, was there blood?

BRODSKY: There`s no transfer -- you know, from being a prosecutor, you know, there`s that concept, what they call first hit free, there`s no transfer on the initial hit. They only gets blood splatter or transfer on a subsequent hit. So --

GRACE: So was there blood? Was there blood spatter?

BRODSKY: No. There was only one strike.

GRACE: So you`re saying she hit her head --

BRODSKY: She hit her head --

GRACE: -- on the bathtub but there`s no blood there.


BRODSKY: Right. Because there`s only one hit. One time. She slipped, she hit her head hard, got unconscious and drowned.

GRACE: Everyone, trial resumes.

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2012, 03:19:14 PM »

Mom Hires Detective to Search for Missing Cheerleader, 15

Aired August 22, 2012 - 19:00   ET


Plus bombshells in the Drew Peterson trial. A witness says under oath that the one-time cop asked him to find a hit man to kill his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who later turned up dead in the bathtub. Peterson is on trial for murdering her while his fourth wife, Stacy, remains missing. Could this star prosecution witness put the former cop behind bars for life? We`ll take you inside the courtroom. And we`re taking your calls.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Big day in the Drew Peterson murder trial.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s the former police officer accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On March 1, 2004, Kathleen Savio was found dead in her bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Savio told them Peterson said he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew Peterson knew there was going to be a property fight, and he didn`t want to split any moneys, the house or his pension with anybody.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Five years later Peterson was indicted, accused of murdering her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her ex-husband, Drew Peterson, is on trial for her murder.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stacy Peterson allegedly said he killed Kathleen Savio.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today we`ve got a guy who says, hey, Drew Peterson told me he`d pay me 25 grand to kill his wife.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He had to kill Stacy Peterson, because she was going to talk.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, a husband and father accused of the unthinkable. Ex-cop Drew Peterson accused of trying to hire a hit man to kill his third wife. After she dies under very mysterious circumstances, his fourth wife then disappears.

Ex-police officer Drew Peterson now on trial for the murder of wife number three, Kathleen Savio; she was found dead in a dry bathtub. There was no water in it. Her hair was bloody. There was a gash in the back of her head. There were bruises on the front of her body.

Her family immediately suspected Drew Peterson, but despite their pleas at the time, cops decided it was an accidental death. It was only after Drew Peterson`s fourth wife Stacy vanished that police re-examined wife number three`s so-called accidental drowning and decided, well, yes, it`s no accident, she was murdered.

And in court just hours ago we heard dramatic testimony that months before she was found dead, Drew Peterson allegedly tried to hire a hit man to kill her. "He asked if I could find someone to take care of his third wife." That is what a witness told the court today. The defense attacked the character of the witness, but that might not make a difference. Listen to this.


JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": If you`re trying to find somebody who will help you to kill your wife, you`re not going to go for a choir boy. You`re going to go to somebody that takes risks. And also you`re going to go to somebody that needs money and he owed the IRS $25,000.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Peterson allegedly offered $25,000 to kill his wife, exactly the amount this guy owed to the IRS. He claims Peterson also told him "This is something you will take to your grave." Incredible testimony. Does it prove his guilt?

Call me 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Straight out to "In Session`s" Beth Karas, outside court; you were in court today. Tell us about this dramatic moment in court when all of a sudden the talk turns to a hit man?

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Yes, indeed. Actually, his name is Jeffrey Pachter. He says Drew Peterson asked him to find someone. So he was going to be the middleman. And he said, "I`ll give you $25,000. If you can find someone to do it for less, you can keep the extra money."

But Pachter said he never took any steps. He wasn`t even sure that Peterson was serious about it and it was some months later that Kathleen Savio was dead and he called a few months after that to see how the family was doing and Peterson said to him, "That favor I asked of you, I don`t need it anymore."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Interesting. There are no cameras in this courtroom, but I`ve been in many, many a courtroom for a dramatic trial and there are moments where you could tell it`s big because, oh, the gallery just kind of starts buzzing and you can tell from the reactions of the jurors.

So I want to go to Michael Christian, senior field producer. Was there any sense that this was a big, one of those big moments, a turning point in court?

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, HLN SENIOR FIELD PRODUCER: Well, certainly the prosecution hopes that it is, Jane. This was a witness that they had argued very hard and very long to get in. This is hearsay testimony. And there`s a lot of hearsay that`s not coming in to this trial. So certainly, the state fought very hard to get this in.

The problem with Jeff Pachter is that he`s maybe not the most reliable witness in the world. He`s got some problems. Now, the defense very painstakingly went over all of them. He owed a bookie $35,000. He had been a registered sex offender at one point because he had sex with his underage girlfriend, was ordered to stay away from her and didn`t.

There were a lot of problems like that. He`s been divorced. He`s had baggage. The defense went through all that. I have to say in Pachter`s defense he did go over and answered everything very matter of factually. He didn`t deny much of anything. But if the jury is inclined not to believe him, the defense gave them maybe some reasons not to.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go back to Stacy Peterson, drew`s fourth wife who disappeared about five years ago. She`s never turned up. Shortly after she vanished Drew`s stepbrother reported that he and Drew carried something very large and heavy from Drew`s house. Drew was asked about it. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He says he believes that he helped you dispose of your wife`s body. Can you at least respond to that?



PETERSON: No response. Talk to my lawyer. I got nothing to say about --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No truth to it whatsoever?

PETERSON: None. Nobody helped me with anything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On October 28, where were you on October 28th? This gentleman says he helped you carry a container out of your home.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: He was reportedly carrying a large 55 gallon bin or barrel that was big enough to hold a person. Stacy is now key to this current case because she reportedly told her pastor that Drew killed his previous wife Kathleen. That information you got to wonder if it`s going to be able to or it has made it in to evidence even though Stacy isn`t around to testify. If Stacy is indeed dead as everyone fears, will Stacy be able to testify from beyond the grave?

That`s such a legal issue. Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, what do you make of that issue, testifying from beyond the grave?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You know, I`ve written an article about this. I think I can see the judge going in either direction, letting it in because, in a sense one could argue that he got rid of her to keep her from testifying live in court. And when you do that, in a sense, you waive your cross-examination rights. You can`t complain about it being hearsay because you killed the witness and that`s why they`re not in court.

And you know, there`s a lot of hearsay exceptions. I think there`s like 25 or 30. The defense used gobs and gobs and gobs of outrageous hearsay that was totally unfair to the victim in its opening statement. So this notion that it`s hearsay and therefore is unfair I think is silly.

Today with the hit man testimony, I have to say, now the package is clear for the jury. They have motive, opportunity, intent with this guy even though there are problems with the case. And I think one of the reasons the prosecution is going to win is because they can turn to the jury and say, who else would have killed her? Who else had motive, opportunity, intent? She was going to win money.

And one of the witnesses testified she knew a, quote, unquote, "secret" about Drew Peterson. This also came out as evidence, that he said she was apparently trying to use in the divorce proceeding as leverage to get more money out of the guy and she was going to reveal that. He killed her because she knew something that he said would have gotten him fired as a police officer. That`s a strong case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Wendy, that`s why you were a prosecutor. I think you would do a very good closing argument in this case.

Let`s go out to the phone lines. Lisa, Nevada -- question or thought, Lisa?

LISA, NEVADA: I have a question. Opinion: guilty, guilty, guilty, number one. Number two, I`ve been watching this case for years and years and years and you know what; I can`t see him doing nothing but putting her in that bin and getting rid of her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Beth Karas, briefly does Stacy cast a pall over this entire trial?

KARAS: Well, she is the elephant in the middle of the courtroom. Jurors know about her existence. They`ve heard her name a few times. They are going to be instructed that they can`t speculate about why she`s not here. They know that she disappeared, that`s it.

Of course, the defense is not saying she`s dead. They say she took off with another man. But for the first time, perhaps as early as tomorrow, jurors will hear from Stacy when her pastor takes the stand. It could be tomorrow or Friday. Pastor Neil Shouri is expected to testify for the first time, the word of Stacy. Because the defense succeeded in getting a different witness -- a friend of Stacy`s who was going to say something similar barred last week and the state withdrew a third witness who would have said something similar.

So there`s just one that we`re aware of who is going to come forward in the next day or two to talk about what Stacy told him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, thank you, fantastic panel. And any fireworks that emanate, we will bring them to you right here.


  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2012, 10:48:19 AM »

New Heartache for Family of Isabel Celis; Shocking End to Drew Peterson Trial

Aired August 31, 2012 - 19:00   ET


ISHA SESAY, HLN ANCHOR Jim Moret is in for Jane Velez-Mitchell tonight. And that show starts right now.

Then bizarre twists and turns as Drew Peterson`s defense team rests their case. The former cop on trial for allegedly murdering his third wife did not take the stand in his own defense. But his son did, saying he never believed his father killed his mother.

With such gripping testimony, you won`t believe who else the defense team called to the stand and why the prosecution reportedly called it a gift from God.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A packed courtroom on pins and needles.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Long day. Long day.



KING: What happened?

PETERSON: Don`t know. I don`t know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

PETERSON: We got information that she drowned in the bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is morally certain that his dad had absolutely nothing to do with his mom`s demise.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Prosecutors say Peterson broke into Savio`s home and murdered her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How it became a homicide, I don`t know. It`s a freaking accident.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just took the one witness that they had, potentially, which was Stacy, and proved that she was just doing it to extort money.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson`s fourth wife, went missing.

PETERSON: The news and the media had done their best to keep me sinister. Sinister sells better.


MORET: Welcome back. I`m Jim Moret from "Inside Edition" filling in today for Jane.

The Drew Peterson trial ended with a bang. The defense rests, the prosecution gives its rebuttal and rests. But the question everyone is asking: did the defense`s own witness do major damage to their case?

Divorce attorney Harry Smith testified for the defense and told jurors that Peterson`s missing fourth wife, Stacy, told him, quote, "Drew killed Kathleen" just days before Stacy vanished in 2004. You heard me right.

Drew is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in her bathtub. The defense says she died from an accidental fall. Now many are wondering why on earth Drew`s team of lawyers would put missing Stacy front and center and put a witness on the stand to potentially prove the prosecution`s own case.

After court, Drew`s attorneys defended their decision, claiming they made one strong point. That is that Stacy wanted more money out of Drew in their divorce. So they say she lied about Kathleen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here`s what you found out today. You found out that Stacy was going to say anything to gain an advantage in the divorce she was going to file. We put it in there, because it`s not credible. Harry Smith was arrogant on the stand. And if the state believed it, they`d have put it in there, and they didn`t.

She had a motive to lie. She wanted the financial advantage in the divorce. And that`s why she did it. And the jury should know that.


MORET: Wow. OK. Straight out to John Manuelian, criminal defense attorney. John, I`m an attorney, and I don`t even understand this legal argument. I can`t even understand just discussing it. We were talking before we went on the air.


MORET: Why in the world would you want to do anything that hurts your client in such a profound way?

MANUELIAN: You wouldn`t. It was a big blunder. And Greenberg was very emotional. And I`m sure Greenberg went ballistic in court. I read a statement where he said, "I filed 74 motions to keep all this stuff out, and you undid it." It`s not a good day for the defense. And I know Greenberg is irate and upset, and he has a right to be.

MORET: You`ve got members of the defense team that are not in agreement. You have one attorney going rogue in a sense, right?


MORET: How devastating could something like this be?

MANUELIAN: Huge. I mean the jury -- that may be all that the jury needs to decide to tip the balance in the favor of the prosecution.

MORET: Are you shocked?

MANUELIAN: Yes, but I`ve seen shocking things done before.

MORET: But this is pretty big.

MANUELIAN: It`s pretty big, and it`s pretty bad.

MORET: Jon Leiberman, HLN contributor in New York -- what`s your reaction to this? This seems unbelievable to me?

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I`ll tell you, Jim, the shocking thing is that this is what the jury is left with in terms of defense witnesses. I mean the defense actually was riding a wave of momentum. They have Drew`s son saying that he doesn`t believe that Drew killed his mom, Drew`s ex-wife, Kathleen Savio. So they had that.

There were a number of missteps by the prosecution where mistrials were almost declared three different times. So then to do this, a guy that the other guest just pointed out, this is a witness that the defense fought to keep out of court. And then to put him up there and he essentially says that, look, Stacy told him that, yes, you know, Drew killed Kathleen. I mean, it is a huge blunder.

And, Jim, I remember being with the Savio family in Chicago when they came back with the Dr. Baden autopsy which showed that in his opinion, she was murdered. And I`ll never forget that moment standing with that family who is now keeping their fingers crossed for justice in this case. In their eyes the defense might have just done just that for them.

MORET: It`s a complicated case. I want to bring people back up to date. So let`s do a recap now.

Drew, you may recall, is a former cop. He`s accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Her body was found in her bathtub in 2004. Now, coroners first ruled that her death was an accidental drowning.

Then he remarried wife number four. That was Stacy. She disappeared in 2007. After she vanished, police re-opened the investigation into wife number three -- that`s Kathleen`s death. Her body was exhumed. Medical examiners then came to a different conclusion. They called it homicide.

Yesterday one of the prosecution`s most notable rebuttal witnesses, world-renowned forensic pathologist Michael Baden testified that all of Kathleen`s injuries are not indicative of a fall. There are too many, there are too many locations; that means there would have had to have been multiple falls.

So John Manuelian, criminal defense attorney, does the fact that this was initially ruled an accident then later ruled a homicide then you have this new testimony, all of that adds up. It`s the last thing the jurors hear, right?

MANUELIAN: It`s the last thing the jurors hear. And again, this is a completely circumstantial evidence. There`s no physical evidence connecting any of the murders to Drew Peterson. And now you get this huge blunder in court. And that`s what they`re left with.

MORET: And, Jon Leiberman, look, we talk about circumstantial evidence. We`ve covered a lot of cases where there`s only circumstantial evidence. It`s very rare, necessarily you can have an eyewitness and sometimes I`ve even covered a case where there`s no body and there`s been a conviction of first-degree murder.

You even said it a moment ago. The last thing the jurors hear is the idea that Drew admitted that he killed the wife. That may be all you need.

LEIBERMAN: Well, it`s a strong message. And, look, Jim, it`s going to come down to this. Is this a CSI jury that has to have physical evidence, DNA and fingerprints? Or is this a jury that likes to put together a puzzle and use common sense and put two and two together and get four? That`s what this is going to come down to.

MORET: But, John, when you`re talking about -- you hear about a CSI jury. You know, jurors every day have to put things together. And we expect things to be wrapped up in 60 minutes. That`s just not how it works.

But when you don`t have any evidence other than statements that are brought in like here and it`s circumstantial evidence, how powerful can it be in swaying a jury where they say, you know what, I think you`ve got proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

MANUELIAN: It could be powerful. But what makes this powerful for the prosecution is that you have a confession. There`s a confession that they`re going to think about during jury deliberations. So in my view you don`t need a CSI jury. With a confession you throw your hands up and say, well, he confessed.

And the lawyer said so -- his own lawyer admitted that his client confessed. So you have two lawyers assisting in the part of the conviction for the prosecution.

MORET: Jon Leiberman, are you surprised at all? It`s very rare you see a defendant take the stand in their own defense. Are you surprised that Drew Peterson decided he would not testify?

MANUELIAN: You know, I am surprised, Jim, just because of knowing Drew Peterson both publicly -- and I was one of the first that interviewed him back in 2007. I bet behind closed doors he really wanted to testify. And his attorneys said, look, it`s our advice, don`t testify. We`ve put on a good case. We don`t need to put you up there and get torn to shreds.

So I believe in my heart that he wanted to testify, but his attorneys said, "Please, Drew, don`t". And he heeded their advice.

MORET: Drew`s son, Thomas, told jurors -- he did take the stand -- he told jurors he believed his father was innocent. So, John, as a lawyer you put a man`s son on, he says I believe my father`s innocent. That`s great if that`s all you hear. But we didn`t just hear that.

We heard, oh, another witness said Drew said he killed her.

MANUELIAN: More of a reason to put Drew on the stand to undo that mistake that the other lawyer did. I mean Drew Peterson is the only one that could say look, I never said that to my lawyer. That`s incorrect and deny it.

And he goes on Larry King and he goes other shows, why isn`t he taking a stand now and fighting for his life?

MORET: Fascinating case.

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 17903

« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2012, 03:54:48 PM »

The Drew Peterson Trial
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2012, 08:08:43 PM »

Drew Peterson Found Guilty of Murder

Aired September 6, 2012 - 19:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Breaking news tonight: a verdict in the Drew Peterson murder trial. After nearly 14 hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously rules the ex-cop guilty of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Next, overwhelming emotional reaction. The very latest details straight from the courthouse. We are taking your calls for the entire hour. And we are talking to family members who have waited years for this day to come.

Plus, what does this mean for missing wife No. 4, Stacy Peterson`s case? Next.


VELEZ-MITCHELL (voice-over): Tonight, the verdict is in. There is justice in Joliet. Emotions spill over. Cheers and tears of relief as ex- cop Drew Peterson is found guilty of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Her death originally ruled an accident. But jurors have now determined she died at the hands of her then-husband.

Is the former cop going away for life? And what does this all mean for the Stacy Peterson case, Drew`s fourth wife, who vanished and cops suspect is dead? Did Stacy`s words help convict Drew in Kathleen`s murder? My expert panel, plus Stacy`s friends and family, weigh in tonight. And I`m taking your calls on this case for the hour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think happy jurors don`t convict.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We now have a verdict. It is guilty first- degree murder.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: First-degree murder, guilty. As soon as we got the word, hundreds of people out here started cheering.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any message for Drew Peterson?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Enjoy your time in the big house, bubba.

NICK SAVIO, KATHLEEN`S BROTHER: Here we are, eight years later. She`s suffering and now waiting for a decision; it`s very, very nerve- wracking. It`s hard on the family.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s relaxed, confident for whatever comes his way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As the search for Stacy intensified, investigators reopened the investigation into the death of Peterson`s third wife, Kathleen Savio.

LARRY KING, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: Were you surprised when the body was exhumed and they changed the determination of death?

PETERSON: Very surprised. Yes. For many years my children and I, you know, believed that, you know, she died in a household accident.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think happy jurors don`t convict. That`s my personal opinion.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A few days back I thought it might be a hung jury. I don`t any more. I believe it`s going to be guilty.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After the evidence that they asked for yesterday, I -- almost 100 percent sure it`s guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Those are again the most two profound statements made in this trial.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have the same criminal charge but different theories.




N. SAVIO: I`ll never have my sister again. I still have to go see her at the cemetery.

MARCIA SAVIO, KATHLEEN`S MOTHER: Finally somebody heard Kathleen`s cry. Twelve people did the right thing. Thank God.

N. SAVIO: At least I know that she got justice at the hands of the cold-blooded killer up there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Breaking news tonight: guilty. That`s right. Guilty, that is the verdict in the Drew Peterson trial. Seven men, five women found the former cop guilty of murder in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

She was found dead in her bathtub way back in 2004. At first cops said, "This is just an accident." Then Drew`s fourth wife, Stacy, suddenly disappeared about five years ago. That forced investigators to take a second look at Kathleen`s death. Her body was exhumed and then ruled a homicide.

Kathleen`s family has waited eight long years for justice. And just a little while ago they released raw emotion outside court after they heard the guilty verdict.


N. SAVIO: I`ll never have my sister again. I still have to go see her in the cemetery. But at least I know she got justice from the hands of that cold-blooded killer up there.

I have a speech. And this is from the family. Anyone can harm, hurt, break your heart or for that matter can take someone`s life from them, but that person has to live with themselves and their conscience for what they have done to another human being. You cannot harm others and justify yourself as a victim. It works strangely, but everyone gets a payback for what they have done to others. And this is always -- always a conviction we will stand by.

The Savio family are so thankful that this day has finally come and that Kathleen has finally received justice, and it has been for a very long time in coming.

M. SAVIO: Finally somebody heard Kathleen`s cry. Twelve people did the right thing. Thank, God. Now we`re going to go see Kitty and let her know how much we love her. And she won today. It`s her victory. And all those other lawyers can go smoke cigars downstairs with the red man in the suit and swish their tails.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Cheers, tears, such a long time coming for the Savios. But is their nightmare finally over?

Drew`s defense team announced their plans for an appeal just moments after they heard the verdict. And what about Stacy Peterson? We are covering this from every angle for the hour. And I want to hear from you at home. Call me. Did the jury get it right? What do you think? Call me: 1877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Straight out to my very special guest. We are honored to have Candace Aikin, Stacy Peterson`s aunt. Stacy, missing or presumed dead, wife No. 4.

Candace, you were inside court today. You have been waiting for this moment for your niece, Drew`s fourth wife, who has been missing for five long years. Tell us what it was like inside court. So many people, it was such a small courtroom. We all wanted to be inside. What was it like at the moment that the verdict came down?

CANDACE AIKIN, STACY PETERSON`S AUNT: It was pretty shocking. Even so that`s what I was looking for, the guilty verdict. But it was pretty shocking. We couldn`t respond until we got outside of the courtroom. And then I just broke down and cried. But it was good news because for justice to be done for Kathleen.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you see Drew Peterson`s expression or -- I`ve been in so many courtrooms, even the back of somebody`s head can tell a lot if their head falls down. What did you notice?

AIKIN: I tried to look over at him. And I just could see the side of his face. And I saw no emotion. No change. No emotion.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You weren`t allowed to testify. But had you been able to take the stand, what would you have said?

AIKIN: I was going to say that he had said in front of me that he can kill and make it look like an accident.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh. There were so many statements, so many statements.

It would seem that this was one of the most overwhelming cases in terms of circumstantial evidence. But the CSI evidence wasn`t there because, frankly, the cops didn`t do their job initially. They looked at this case, they saw a former cop. And I think they put their blinders on.

You know, cops had been called, Candace, 18 times to the Savio home because of domestic violence incidents. There was obvious motive. They were dividing up the marital assets. The list goes on and on. She had too many injuries for a simple slip.

Do you feel that this ultimately is a case of police putting on their blinders to protect someone who was one of their own? And had they acted the way many believed they should have acted, to call this a homicide eight years ago, do you think that your niece, Stacy Peterson, would be alive today?

AIKIN: Well, I have wondered and asked myself that question many times if the police were putting on blinders. Because I really don`t understand how they could call a homicide an accident. And, yes, I believe that, if it was handled correctly the first time, as was found out today that it was a homicide, I believe that we would have Stacy today. It`s so sad that two women had to die.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The crowd outside court -- they didn`t just cheer when the verdict was announced. They sang. It was so emotional. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): The lady killer won`t be getting out of jail. Who`d thought a few weeks ago that justice would prevail? Once (UNINTELLIGIBLE) policeman swore to protect and serve will be in jail for 20 plus. He got what he deserved!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, we got it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I understand that, Candace, your brother, Keith, is also there. Keith, I want to get your reaction. This is breaking news. So tell us, what -- what is your reaction to this extraordinary verdict?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Kyle, go ahead, Kyle.

TOUTGES: I`m very pleased with...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: My apologies.

TOUTGES: That`s all right. I`ve been called worse. Hey, I`m very excited for the verdict, that -- I`m glad that he got what he deserved. He said -- I would have testified what he told -- what I heard him say was let them prove it. Well, they proved it. They proved it today. And I`m just glad he got what he deserved.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What do you want to see happen now for Stacy? Your sister just said that...

TOUTGES: I would like for him...


TOUTGES: Yes. If something was overlooked somewhere and if they would have done their job, then Stacy wouldn`t be missing. And Drew just needs to come clean and tell us what he did with her.

Now, there`s no way we believe that she ran off with another man. Because he would have known that man. He would have known everything about that man. So his story doesn`t fit at all.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, in fact, just moments ago we got a bombshell. And Beth Karas got this piece of information. Let`s listen to it. And then we`re going to analyze. Stay right there. Listen to this.


BETH KARAS, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": Do you think he should be prosecuted for your sister`s death? If it`s indeed a death. I know she hasn`t been declared dead but many believe she is.

CASSANDRA CALES, STACY PETERSON`S SISTER: Yes, she`s -- he`ll be prosecuted.

KARAS: Do you believe that?

CALES: Yes. Sooner than later. Yes.

KARAS: Really? Have they told you that, the authorities?

CALES: I can`t answer that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So, Kyle, we`re hearing indications that an indictment could be coming down soon in the case of Stacy, Stacy who is missing and presumed dead but whose body has never been found. What`s your reaction to that?

TOUTGES: Right. He needs to be prosecuted for that one, too. I mean, he did them both. Today just proved it. It was proven today. There is no doubt in my mind that he killed Stacy, too.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go to Pam...

TOUTGES: Because she would have never left her children. She would have never left her family.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go to Pam Bosco, Stacy Peterson`s family friend. Here`s the thing that I think has created the rage, the rage at Drew Peterson is his arrogance. The fact that not only was he running around with a video camera making a mockery of all this, but the fact that he did things like he went on a radio show and did a "Dating with Drew" segment. Was his arrogance and his cruelty really what pushed this into the national spotlight, Pam?

PAM BOSCO, FAMILY FRIEND: You know, he turned himself into a coldhearted killer way back when, when Stacy disappeared. So yes, I think that hit home to a lot of people. A lot of people did think he was guilty from day one. He showed no emotion when Stacy disappeared.

So the world can`t be wrong. The defense team said, you know, the world judged him a long time ago. But he did it to himself.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, speaking from beyond the grave, statements from Kathleen and Stacy who is missing and presumed dead were the game- changers in this case. Listen to this from Drew Peterson`s attorney. And I want to get the family`s reaction.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a dark day in America when you can convict somebody on hearsay evidence.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A very dark day in America when you let this in. Who knows what the next victim of this hearsay is going to be and who it`s going to be?

Just goes to show that when somebody`s unpopular and going through a divorce and you have people manufacturing statements and coming out of the woodwork to put in and then they`re allowing it in manufactured as hearsay or manufactured as evidence, hearsay that -- disguised as evidence, what are you going to do?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Pam Bosco, I want to get your reaction. The defense claiming, well, the deck was stacked against them. They weren`t able to counteract the hearsay evidence, because they can`t confront the person who said the hearsay evidence. What are your thoughts on that, Pam?

BOSCO: First of all, the deck was stacked against Kathy a long time ago. But that being said, there`s a lot -- a whole lot more evidence in this case than just the hearsay.

Yes, the hearsay was strong. It was powerful. It was profound. But, you know, there`s a lot of evidence. I think the picture of Kathleen alone in the bathtub spoke tons to the jury.

So you just -- they can`t just point the finger at the hearsay evidence. There was a lot more in this case than just that. Circumstantial evidence was very strong.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re just getting started. On the other side, more from the family and your calls.



M. SAVIO: Finally, somebody heard Kathleen`s cry. Twelve people did the right thing. Oh, thank God. Now we`re going to go see Kitty and let her know how much we love her. And she won today. It`s her victory. And all those other lawyers can go smoke cigars downstairs with the red man in the suit and swish their tails.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Kathleen Savio`s mother. Emotion pouring out. There were cheers. There were tears. People were singing. Joy in Joliet because Drew Peterson has been found guilty of murder. But remember that`s murder of wife No. 3. Wife No. 4, Stacy Peterson, is missing and presumed dead. He has not been prosecuted for that case.

I want to go back to missing Stacy`s uncle, Kyle Toutges. And Kyle, I understand that Drew Peterson said something very shocking to you right after Kathleen was found dead in the tub. Tell us about that.

TOUTGES: I was out in his garage. It was my father`s 80th birthday party that we had to postpone because Kathleen, they had to bury her the week before on his birthday. So we threw the party a week later. And we were in the garage. And some other friends and neighbors out there. And they were talking how convenient it was for his wife, Kathleen, to die at this time in the middle of the divorce and how bad it really looked for him. And he just put on that arrogant face and said, "Let them prove it." That was his close-knit words.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Unbelievable.

TOUTGES: That`s what he had said.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Unbelievable.

TOUTGES: Sends chills down your spine.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Holly Hughes, criminal defense attorney, we`re hearing now that an indictment could be coming down, at least that`s a prediction by some family members. No body, no case, that`s an old saying. What do you say about the likelihood or the possibility of Drew Peterson being prosecuted for missing wife No. 4, Stacy?

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, before we had, you know, a lot of forensic evidence, it used to be no body, no case. But now that we have the forensic evidence and now people have learned to trust circumstantial evidence, Jane. And this is a victory for women who are battered and eventually killed. Because these kinds of cases weren`t prosecuted.

And I think people sat up and took notice when Josh Powell, who was suspected of killing his wife, was never arrested. And the end result is that he ended up murdering his two boys and then killing himself. I think a lot of people were shaken. And they realize we do need to look at these cases. And even if there is no body, we still need to put up a circumstantial case. And we still need to let a jury decide if, in fact, this person is guilty.

So I think the likelihood of an indictment is very strong. This jury was very brave. And they have proven to the community that they are not afraid to convict on circumstantial evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Michael Christian, senior field producer, "In Session," you were there. Usually this case boils down to a star witness. Was it the pastor? The pastor?

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, SENIOR FIELD PRODUCER, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": You know, it`s funny. There were two star prosecution witnesses here, except one of them was called by the defense, Jane.

I think Neil Schori was definitely a star witness for the prosecution as a prosecution witness. But Harry Smith being called by the defense in this case, that was a huge blunder on the part of the defense. He was an excellent witness for the prosecution. They basically snatched that one from, you know, the mouth of the angels. That was -- Harry Smith was a pivotal witness for the prosecution, and the defense called him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Beth Karas, you`ve done an extraordinary job covering this. Give us a very short summary of what the defense attorney and what the reverend said that was such a bombshell.

KARAS: Well, both of them testified to what Stacy Peterson told them about the night Kathleen Savio died: what she observed and heard her husband say before she even knew Savio was dead. And how he`d coached her for hours to lie to the police, telling her, "The police are going to want to talk to you. You`re going to lie to them about my whereabouts tonight."

She saw him come home in the middle of the night. They had gone to bed together. She woke up; he wasn`t there. She tried calling him, couldn`t reach him. He comes home in the early morning hours dressed in black, carrying a bag. He empties the bag of women`s clothes into the washer. Puts his own clothes -- he takes them off, puts them in the washer. She looks in the washer, and those women`s clothes are not hers.

And then he told her, "The police are going to want to talk to you, and let`s talk about what you`re going to say."

Then she learns that Kathleen Savio died. When she talked to the police two days later, she was crying by the end of it, and Drew Peterson stood -- sat right next to her 12 inches away. The police let him be in on that interview. And you have to wonder whether or not this woman, who had a little baby at that time and was now going to adopt Kathleen Savio`s boys, who are 11 and 9 at the time, was thinking. She was maybe 20 years old. She was 19 -- 19, 20 years old at the time. She was a child herself. And now she had three children to raise.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Outrageous that police would allow Drew Peterson to sit in as they are interviewing his wife, a wife who later vanished and is presumed dead. And who may have spoken from beyond the grave.

On the other hand, Lisa, Indiana, Lynn Ann, Arkansas, we`re taking your calls.



N. SAVIO: We wish and pray that Kathleen`s sons never forget their mom. And that, with all the tragedy they have had to face at such young ages, that they live healthy, fruitful and successful lives.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What would you tell Anthony and Lacy?

CALES: I love them. And I miss them dearly. I don`t know what they`ve been told for the past years. I haven`t been able to see the children.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the youngest victims in this case, Drew Peterson`s children. Four out of the six kids have lost both their mothers and their father. What a horror for them. Our hearts go out to them.

And we`re going out to the phone lines now. Lynn Anne, Arkansas, you`ve been waiting so patiently. Your question or thought, Lynn Anne.

CALLER: Thank you, Jane, for taking my call. Finally, justice is being served for a woman that was murdered at the hands of a man. You know what? He can`t hide behind his badge with that smug look any more. Way to go, jurors. Way to go.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we want to go out again to the phone lines and talk to Lisa from Indiana. You`re also waiting a long time. Lisa, Indiana, your question or thought.

CALLER: Yes. Hi, Jane. Love your show. Watch every night.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you. Thank you.

CALLER: And my comment is yay, I`m glad they`re investigating. And my question is are they still investigating the blue barrel that was in Drew`s house? And will he be prosecuted for her disappearance?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Mike Brooks, HLN law enforcement analyst, thank you for your patience, as well. We were getting a lot of family members who showed up to speak to us, and we wanted to get them.

But it was this infamous blue barrel. A relative said, "Oh, right around the time Stacy went missing I helped Drew move a blue barrel that was warm to the touch." What do you know about the investigation into her disappearance?

MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: That was Mr. Morphey. That was Drew Peterson`s stepbrother. And he wouldn`t give him any credence: "Oh, no, he`s not telling the truth; he`s got drug problems. He`s got this and that." You know, and then he attempted -- Mr. Morphey attempted suicide shortly thereafter.

You know, but I think, you know, they are -- this is not a closed case. When I was out there in Joliet, Jane, I asked Bolingbrook Police about it: "Nope, it`s all being investigated by Illinois State Police."

And I tell you, Jane, when I was out there, there`s a lot of people -- and we just heard it tonight from -- from one of Stacy`s relatives, Stacy`s sister, that there could be an indictment. There`s a lot of people that think there will be. So time will tell. And I would love to see them indict him for that.

But I would really like to find where Stacy is. And the blue barrel, they looked for that blue barrel in the canal just not too far from Joliet between Romeoville and Bolingbrook. They looked for that blue barrel. They had Tim Millard, Texas EquuSearch. And, you know, they never found her body, Jane. And that`s the problem. Where is she? And hopefully, we`ll be able to -- we`ll be able to find out where she is.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I remember, Mike, that they had aerial shots where they actually saw a blue barrel in some river. And everybody got excited. And of course, it was a false sighting.

BROOKS: That was in Chicago`s sanitary canal. Yes, they did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Yes. So they still haven`t gotten the big break they need.

On the other side of our break, we`re going to talk about what`s next for Drew Peterson`s sentencing. Where is he going to go? How many years? Stay with us.



NICK SAVIO, BROTHER OF KATHLEEN SAVIO: I`ll never have my sister again. I still have to go see her at a cemetery. But at least I know she got justice at the hands of the cold-blooded killer up there. The Savio family are so thankful that this day has finally come and that Kathleen has finally received justice. It has been for a very long time coming.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: The brother of the murder victim -- so much emotion, tears, cheers, singing even, because Drew Peterson, the ex- cop, has been found guilty in the murder of wife number three, Kathleen Savio. You just heard her brother`s emotional reaction to the verdict. Listen to what happened outside court. Extraordinary.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lady killer won`t be getting out jail. Who`d have thought a few weeks ago that justice would prevail? Once a respected policeman swore to protect and serve will be in jail for 20 plus. He got what he deserved.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: He got what he deserved. That was what they were literally singing outside court as this man was found guilty of murder.

And I want to go to one of his attorneys, Daryl Goldberg. Thank you for joining us. It`s a difficult day. It`s hard to talk. And I appreciate you taking the time to talk when you lost in this case. The rage and the joy at your client, many feel it`s because of his arrogance. Look at him running around with a video camera, videotaping the media. He was on a game show "Win a Date with Drew" when wife number three is dead, wife number four is missing. Do you think his outrageous conduct contributed to the joy we`re seeing here today?

DARYL GOLDBERG, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: Perhaps. I think that the community has an obvious sense of what`s appropriate. And I think that it may have only stemmed from the intense media coverage at the very beginning of all this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A lot of people are saying that the defense dropped the ball by calling a witness who is a defense attorney who said that Stacy Peterson basically approached him and said, "Hey, my husband killed his last wife." That came out as part of the defense case. Was that like the interception of the century?

GOLDBERG: Well, we won`t know, I guess, until we hear from the jurors. But I stand by the decision of the team in this case. I wasn`t even there for it. I was down the hall speaking to Dr. Baden, preparing for part of my role in the case. I think there was a reason for it. And I`ll stand behind it.

Whether it`s the right call or not --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me bring in Holly Hughes, criminal defense attorney. I got to bring in Holly Hughes because there are very tiny moments that can change the course of a trial. One or two words can be bombshells.

This was the jaw-dropper. Basically the prosecution already presented their case. A lot of people thought, well, they don`t have the forensics, they don`t have the CSI. They don`t have the hairs and the DNA and the fingerprints. But, boom, all of a sudden in the defense case this attorney gets up and says, yes, Stacy Peterson, she came up to me and she was talking. She was very upset and said yes, my husband killed his last wife. I mean wasn`t that just a bungling by the defense?

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Not necessarily, Jane. It comes across that way.

But here`s what happened. You have an entire team of good competent lawyers on the defense side. They sat down. They had a strategy discussion. And what they did was a balancing test. They said, look, it`s a possibility that this bombshell`s going to come out. But there`s something else that we need from him that we think is equally or more important.

And a lot of times -- and I know this sounds crazy to people, but you can prepare a witness. You can interview a witness, Jane, four or five times; put them through the paces. What is it you can testify to? They will get on the stand, even an attorney, and say something that you have never heard before. The genius here is when the prosecution turned that witness, went after them on cross and really sort of re-stated the obvious for the jury and re-rang that bell as it were.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I got to bring in Beth Karas. I heard there was a whole bunch of argument amongst the members of the defense team -- don`t do it, don`t put this guy on, you`re risking exactly what happened.

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Well, we don`t have the details of whether there was real dissension except what the "Chicago Tribune" printed the day after because they overheard Steve Greenberg and Joel Brodsky having a heated discussion in the hall. And what the paper reported was that Steve Greenberg said to Joel I filed 74 or we filed 74 and there`s an expletive, motions to keep this stuff out and you`re going to undo it all now. Don`t do it. Something like that.

But Joel Brodsky was the lead attorney. He`s been Drew Peterson`s attorney for a very long time. He`s the one who assembled this team. And ultimately it looks like it was Joel`s decision. And maybe he told Drew what the risks were and Peterson was like, well, you`re the lawyer, go ahead. I`m assuming that part.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I do believe that these trials are so, so difficult. And again, I`m not trying to stick it to the defense. They did as good a job as they could. It`s very, very hard to do a story -- to do a case like this because these mega-trials are runaway freight trains. You never know what`s going to happen from one minute to the next. Always, everyday there is a bombshell, there`s a huge battle inside court.

On the other side of the break we`re going to talk to a man who interviewed Drew Peterson at length. And he`s going to tell us what Drew Peterson is likely feeling right now as he sits behind bars.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Former cop, Drew Peterson, guilty; and the reaction extraordinary provoked singing outside court. That`s how happy the people are -- joy in Joliet. He`s going to be sentenced right around Thanksgiving.

And on the other side we`re going to talk to a man who interviewed Drew Peterson. What is Drew going through right now behind bars?



SUE DOMAN, SISTER OF KATHLEEN SAVIO: My sister cried out for help and she spoke from the grave. And, I mean she -- I mean there`s just so much that they didn`t know. The pain that she went through, the black eye; you know, it got to be at the point where she was lying to me, wasn`t telling me things. And the marks on her; and she was always, always had a mark on her.

When that black eye came, I knew it was coming. Something was going to happen. She had to get out of there or something.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why didn`t she leave him sooner?

DOMAN: Because she wanted to take care of the children. He threatened her and said that wherever she went he would find her. And he would give her enough that she would be poor on the streets and her children would be taken away.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: At the end of the day this is about domestic violence. Police were called to the Savio home 18 times because of domestic incidents involving Drew and Kathleen who was ultimately murdered. And, tonight, Drew Peterson convicted of that murder.

I want to go to Jon Leiberman, HLN contributor -- you interviewed Drew Peterson in 2007. His arrogance and his immaturity has really sort of sparked so much of the rage that people experience and the frustration. You know him. What do you think he`s going through tonight after he lost in court and is looking at perhaps the rest of his natural life behind bars?

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: I`ll tell you, Jane, two things about this whole case stick out to me. One was when I called him on his cell phone in 2007 -- a source gave me the number -- and he just acted so nonchalant. He wasn`t charged with anything at that point. But he basically told me, oh, Stacy`s going to come home when she`s ready.

We talked for about eight to ten minutes. And I could just tell during that phone call that something was off about this guy. Now he`s been in jail for three years or so in solitary confinement and this is a guy who loves attention. He loves doing whatever he can to grab a headline.

So he must be going through torture in there. Not to mention the fact that he`s looking at 20 to 60 years behind bars at his sentencing later on in November. And I need to tell you this Jane -- it appears that prosecutors at the sentencing will bring up Stacy Peterson`s disappearance.

So once again ironically Stacy Peterson will actually be able to speak and have something to do with Drew Peterson`s sentence just like she spoke through hearsay witnesses during the trial and had a major part of getting him convicted.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go to Judge Stephen White, former Peterson trial judge and HLN contributor -- again, my apologies, sir. We`ve had a lot of family members who wanted to speak. We of course put them first.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The sentencing is November 26th. He faces 60 years in prison. He`s 58 years old. So essentially it would be a life sentence on a practical matter. But so many times we see 60 years become a lot less. What do you think is going to happen?

WHITE: Well, they`ll have a hearing. And the state does have the opportunity to put on evidence as to Stacy`s murder. If they do that and use that in aggravation, that could enhance the penalty because the judge can consider anything in aggravation or mitigation on behalf of Drew Peterson for the sentence.

There`s a minimum of 20, a maximum of 60. There is no day-for-day good time so it`s 100 percent. Say he got sentenced for 30 years, he must serve the full 30 years. And it could be anywhere in between.

The fact that this was committed while he was a police officer is going to be -- you know, that will be held against him. That`s probably going to cost him his pension and his kids` livelihood for that because he was an officer at the time of the murder. So the defense may try to bring that in as mitigation, but the fact that he committed the murder while he was a police officer, that certainly can be used in aggravation to get a higher sentence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. I always wonder why it has to take so long for sentencing. I mean why does it have to be November 26th? It`s frustrating to me that the wheels of justice don`t turn a little faster.

Let`s go out to the phone lines. Lakisha, Indiana -- again, patient - - your question or thought, Lakisha?

LAKISHA, INDIANA (via telephone): Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hi. What`s your question or thought?

LAKISHA: Can you hear me?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I can. Go for it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I can hear you. Give us your thought.

LAKISHA: Ok, yes. I got a comment and a question. My comment is that I thank God and Kathleen`s family thank God and Stacy too, that they finally got justice. We know Stacy isn`t coming back. And Kathleen deserved justice.

And this is my question. What do you think that they`re going to charge him with? How many years? Like 20 years? 30 years? Or 60 years? Since the guy said that on the panel.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we`re going to explore --

LAKISHA: Do you think he`ll be eligible for parole or not?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to continue to explore how much time. But he faces up to 60 years in prison. He`s 58 years old, so it could essentially be a life sentence; never to see the light of day again.

More on the other side.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Drew Peterson guilty in the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Now, even though they didn`t have a lot of forensics, no CSI -- the circumstantial evidence, the motive, the history of domestic violence, overwhelming.



MARCIA SAVIO, KATHLEEN SAVIO`S MOTHER: Finally, somebody heard Kathleen`s cry -- 12 people did the right thing, thank God. Now we`re going to see her and let her know we love her and she won today in our victory. And all the lawyers can smoke cigars downstairs with the red man in the red suit. (inaudible)


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ex-cop Drew Peterson guilty in the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. That was the victim`s -- Kathleen Savio`s mother; joyous outside court, victorious.

But what about Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson`s fourth wife who vanished and is presumed dead? Jeff Gold, criminal defense attorney, we`re hearing rumbles now that an indictment could be coming down in her disappearance. How do they deal with that if there`s no body?

JEFF GOLD, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, right. We call it the corpus delicti. It could be something other than the body itself, like somebody seeing the body being pushed over, you know, into the canal or something. But you know what? I don`t think they`re going to do that any time soon.

What I think may happen now is Drew is locked up and he had a way of controlling people like Tom Morphey; like Pachek in this case. These people that he could control, it may be that now that he`s locked up forever, somebody is going to come out of the woodwork that will give a little extra push to Stacy`s case. But without that I don`t think they need it.

I think you hit it on the head before. They`re going to use this as an aggravating factor at the sentence. They`re going to give him his due. He`s going to be in prison for the rest of his life. They don`t need to do Stacy`s case unless there`s a little bit more evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they do it for Stacy Peterson`s family. That family needs closure and it`s not just about keeping him behind bars. It`s about justice, and being told that, "Hey, we got justice." So there`s still work to do.

More on the other side.



NICK SAVIO: I`ll never have my sister again. I still have to go see her at the cemetery. But, at least I know that she got justice at the hands of that cold-blooded killer up there. The Savio family is so thankful that this day has finally come. And that Kathleen has finally received justice. It has been for a very long time in coming.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Family members of victim Kathleen Savio, joyous, emotional, crying. People are singing outside court. Boy, we have waited so long. I was talking to somebody yesterday who said "I was in high school when Kathleen Savio slipped in the tub."

Mike Brooks, HLN law enforcement analyst, again patient for -- sitting through all this. What`s the take away here?

MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: The take away is there was justice for Kathleen Savio today. You saw her baby brother Nick there, just full of emotion. They were very, very measured during the whole trial. But now just a flood of emotion of what these people have been going through for years, Jane.

There`s justice for Kathleen Savio. We hope to get justice for Stacy Peterson.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Holly Hughes, for me it boils down to domestic violence. If you`re called 18 times to somebody`s home, there`s a big problem.

We are out of time, but I have to say that this is a victory for all women, all women, particularly who have suffered domestic violence. You are being taken seriously and you will ultimately get justice, too.

Nancy`s next.


  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2012, 07:31:05 AM »

Drew Peterson Guilty

Aired September 6, 2012 - 20:00   ET




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew Peterson guilty in the first degree murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Finally, somebody heard Kathleen`s cry!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kathy and Stacy and the likes of them who are constantly under the hands of abusers like Drew Peterson, have had their day today.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Falsely accused of a homicide that didn`t happen (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I don`t see you laughing now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Twelve people did the right thing! Oh, thank God!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) rotting in jail for the rest of your damn life!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) sister again (ph). I still have to go see her at the cemetery, but at least I know that she got justice.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was found dead in the bathtub in her home, with almost no water.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to have faith in the jury system.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) a murder from day one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You had neighbors go into the house and they found her dead in the bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was naked and the bathtub was dry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drew, you looking forward to your day in court?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have no idea what anybody`s talking about like that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Warm to the touch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We realize that Kathleen and Stacy had one common denominator. That was Drew Peterson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His second, third, fourth wives all said he was controlling, abusive, feared for their lives.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This can only be designed for -- to send me some sort of a message.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it`s designed just to harass me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do not believe that Sergeant Peterson can receive a fair trial anywhere in the United States.



NANCY GRACE, HOST: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us.

Breaking news. In the last hours, the jury hands down a verdict in the trial of husband/cop Drew Peterson in the drowning death of wife number three, Kathleen Savio found brutally beaten, drowned to death in a bone-dry bathtub. Drew Peterson guilty!

We are live at the courthouse and taking your calls. Straight out to Michael Christian, senior field producer, "In Session," there at the courthouse from the get-go. Michael Christian, what happened in the courtroom when that verdict was read? Was the jury looking at Peterson? Was he looking at them? What happened?

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, SENIOR FIELD PRODUCER, "IN SESSION": That`s exactly right, Nancy. This jury was out for just under 14 hours. They knocked on the door, sent out a note saying they had a verdict. They were brought into the courtroom. Drew Peterson stood as the verdict was read.

Now, he did not show any emotion at that time. One of the other reporters I was with referred to him as stone-faced. But as the jurors were polled, he looked at each of them as they affirmed that, yes, indeed, he was guilty of murdering Kathleen Savio.

GRACE: When the verdict was read, number one, did the jury. the foreperson read the verdict, or did the clerk or somebody else read the verdict? And when the verdict was read, was Peterson looking that jury in the eye? Were they looking at him, or were they kind of, like, looking down and shuffling and looking away? What happened?

CHRISTIAN: I believe they were looking at him. The judge actually read the verdict. The foreperson came in, handed a note to the bailiff. The note was handed up to the judge, and the judge, Judge Edward Burmila, is actually the one who read this verdict.

GRACE: We are taking your calls. We are live at the courthouse. Joining me there, Michael Christian, Beth Karas and Michelle Sigona (ph).

Out to the lines. Rachel, New York. Hi, Rachel. What`s your question?


GRACE: What`s your question, dear?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was just wondering if they`re able to get Drew Peterson`s cell phone records from 2007, and maybe we can follow the cell phone pings to Stacy (INAUDIBLE) at least narrow down a search.

GRACE: You know what? Good question. Michael Christian, let`s talk for a moment about Stacy Peterson because that`s what Rachel in New York is talking about, the pings from cells phone in 2007. She`s talking about wife number four, who went missing, who has never been seen again, wife number four, who the defense actually put on their witness list. And we`re going to be joined tonight by Joe Lopez, the defense attorney for Drew Peterson. They actually put her on the witness list. We all know she`s dead and we all know he killed her, number one.

But number two, she played prominently in this case. Michelle Sigona, Michael Christian, Beth Karas with us. Michael, why is it that wife number, who`s never been seen again, played so prominently in this trial?

CHRISTIAN: Well, her hearsay testimony was so important in this trial, Nancy, as you say. The investigation into her death is ongoing. That certainly has not been closed, and it is possible at some point that there could be an indictment against Drew Peterson for murdering Stacy.

But it`s fascinating because in real life, these women were certainly not friends. They -- I don`t know if you`d use the word "enemies," but there was jealousy there. I mean, Stacy took Drew`s husband (SIC) away from Kathy. They did not like each other.

And yet they united, in a sense, in this trial. I don`t think that Drew Peterson could have been convicted without evidence from both of those women.

GRACE: Wait. Hold on. Christian, what do you mean they united?

CHRISTIAN: So his two wives...

GRACE: They`re both dead.

CHRISTIAN: ... are the ones who put him...

GRACE: How did they unite?

CHRISTIAN: They both...

GRACE: They`re both dead.

CHRISTIAN: ... had half of the evidence -- because half of the evidence that convicted him came from Kathleen and half of the evidence, the hearsay, came from Stacy. So in a way, those women have united to convict this man, this husband.

GRACE: You are taking a look at shots of Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio. In the last hours, a jury brings home a verdict in the trial against husband/cop Drew Peterson, Drew Peterson famously playing "Get a date with Drew," blaming everyone around him. The big defense was everybody was lying but him.

And the reality -- joining me, special guest Joe Lopez, defense attorney for Drew Peterson. He delivered the closing argument. The fact that you guys claimed throughout that everybody else was lying -- and I`m referring to Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson -- why do you say those two ladies were lying? What`s in it for them to lie?

JOE LOPEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: Well, we have to remember one thing, that Kathy was saying whatever she could about Drew to people besides her best friend and the man that she was in love with. She told things to all these other people, but never mentioned anything to the man that she just about lived with and to her next-door neighbor, who she talked to every day.

So it was our position -- we maintained the position that she was out there trying to dirty up Drew as much as she could. She hated Drew because of the split, with Stacy. They had all kinds of domestic issues for a number of years. You know, in these divorce cases, people say all kinds of things...

GRACE: Well, hold on.

LOPEZ: ... and they`ll talk to whoever will listen.

GRACE: You just opened up a can of worms right there, Joe Lopez. As a matter of fact, when you say they had all sorts of domestic issues, the reality is, is there were incidents where the police were called to the home by Kathleen Savio.

LOPEZ: That`s right. And that`s because Drew brought the kids home late. All she did was complain. She made eight complaints that he brought the children home late. That`s why the police were called to the house, not because of anything he did to her. In fact, the time that she claimed that he did something to her, she waited 13 days to call the police.

So when you say the police came there -- yes, the police did come there, but that was in relation to child visitation issues, not to any domestic issues.

GRACE: You know, Joe Lopez, I asked you the question, What was in it for them, these two dead women, God rest their soul -- what was in it for them to lie about Drew Peterson? What did it -- how did it help them? How did they benefit by these lies you`re accusing them of?

LOPEZ: Well, we can talk about Stacy, number one. Stacy called her divorce attorney, or a divorce attorney, actually, being Kathy`s former divorce attorney, and said, You know, I have this information. I want to use it to extort Drew out of money. So we know that she had a financial...

GRACE: Wa-wait! Wa-wait!

LOPEZ: ... motive in this case...

GRACE: I don`t think...

LOPEZ: ... and Kathy also had...

GRACE: ... that was the testimony, was it?

LOPEZ: ... another motive in this case...

GRACE: No! That was not...

LOPEZ: Well, that was the testimony.

GRACE: ... the testimony!

LOPEZ: It absolutely was.

GRACE: The testimony was...

LOPEZ: Were you there?

GRACE: ... she said, I have...

LOPEZ: I was there. I heard the testimony.

GRACE: ... evidence about...

LOPEZ: No, absolutely wrong.

GRACE: ... Kathleen`s death.

LOPEZ: Wrong.

GRACE: Can I get...

LOPEZ: Wrong.

GRACE: ... a better deal?

LOPEZ: Can I get a better deal, a financial deal. She wanted money, M-O-N-E-Y. She wanted money, and that`s why she was doing it. As far as...

GRACE: OK, hold on.

LOPEZ: ... Ms. Savio is concerned...

GRACE: Wait a minute. Just stop.

LOPEZ: ... she was trying to...

GRACE: Stop.

LOPEZ: ... get an edge up...

GRACE: Stop.

LOPEZ: ... in the divorce itself.

GRACE: Let`s get -- see, I asked you a question, and you go all the way around it. You portrayed her as saying, God rest her soul, Stacy Peterson, how can I extort Drew Peterson? I don`t think those words...

LOPEZ: You have evidence she`s dead? Do you have evidence she`s dead?

GRACE: ... were ever said...

LOPEZ: Why do people keep saying she`s dead?

GRACE: ... in the courtroom. So to you, Ellie Jostad...

LOPEZ: Nobody said she was dead in the courtroom.

GRACE: ... did it ever come out on the stand that Stacy Peterson ever said the words, "I want to extort Drew Peterson"?

ELLIE JOSTAD, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER: Well, Nancy, that actually -- what came out in testimony is the attorney, Harry Smith, was asked, You warned Stacy Peterson she needed to be careful. Was it because you thought she would be arrested for extortion? And he said, No, I thought she would be arrested for concealing a homicide.

GRACE: So what Lopez, the -- can I see Joe Lopez, Liz? That`s who we`re talking about!

LOPEZ: I`m right here.

GRACE: As you were talking...

LOPEZ: I`m right here.

GRACE: Let`s put Ellie up. She`s recounting...

LOPEZ: Harry Smith was wrong. He doesn`t even...

GRACE: ... the evidence...

LOPEZ: ... know the elements of concealment of a homicide. He was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect.

GRACE: Joe Lopez...

LOPEZ: There was no way...

GRACE: Joe...

LOPEZ: ... she was concealing a homicide.

GRACE: OK, I guess I`m going to have to...


GRACE: ... cut his mike. Joe, I asked you what benefit was it for these ladies to lie? And you just said -- I can play it back -- that Stacy Peterson said she wanted to extort Drew Peterson. That was never said in court. Those words were never said!

LOPEZ: I didn`t say those were the words. You asked me why...

GRACE: Yes, you did!

LOPEZ: ... and that was to extort Drew Peterson. She wanted to...

GRACE: Yes, you -- you just said that!

LOPEZ: I did not. You are -- you are mischaracterizing the evidence. What she said to him, Can I use this information to get financial money out of him? And that`s the same thing as extortion. It`s the same thing as, I will say this unless he pays me. That`s extortion.

GRACE: Let`s go out to Beth Karas...

LOPEZ: And as far as Kathy`s concerned...

GRACE: ... joining me from "In Session."

LOPEZ: ... you have to remember...

GRACE: Beth...

LOPEZ: Nancy, you have to remember...

GRACE: ... what was the testimony?

LOPEZ: ... one thing...

BETH KARAS, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": OK, so Nancy, actually, Harry Smith, the divorce testimony, gave testimony a few times. At trial, he admitted that the word "extortion" was never used. It was for leverage. She wanted to use it for leverage. Can I get more out of Drew, basically, if I tell how he killed Kathy? That`s how he said it in the past.

But at trial, he said, Drew told me he killed Kathy, how can I use it against him? So different versions of it. But he said absolutely the point was she wanted to extort money. And so when Joel Brodsky said, You, you know, cautioned her about this because she could be arrested for extortion, he said, No, she`d be arrested for concealing a homicide. So Stacy didn`t utter the word "extortion," but that`s what it was about.

GRACE: OK, Beth Karas, let me ask you another question. Since we have now established Stacy Peterson never said the words, How can I extort money out of Drew Peterson -- Beth Karas, how long was it after she told her divorce lawyer, How can I get a better settlement if I bring up or I give the details of Kathleen Savio`s murder -- how long was it after that that Stacy Peterson went missing, never seen again?

KARAS: Well, I talked to Harry Smith. He said two days because he said she left him a message four days before she disappeared. She disappeared October 28th. She called the lawyer October 24th. He said he talked to her a day or two after.

After his testimony, after the evidence was closed, I saw Harry Smith in the all and I said, When was it? And he said, I think it was the 26th. It was two days before she disappeared. That was it.

GRACE: OK, Lopez, as you know, in criminal law, there is no such thing as coincidence. So she says, Can I use the fact of Kathleen Savio`s murder, that my husband, Drew Peterson, murdered his third wife -- can I use that to get a better divorce deal? In two days, she`s gone. You think that`s a coincidence?

LOPEZ: Maybe she left him. Maybe she left him. There`s no evidence she`s dead. Who has evidence that she`s dead? Nobody.

GRACE: Your client. Your client.

LOPEZ: Well, I don`t know what my client has. I don`t ask my clients to confess...

GRACE: Hey, why did you guys...

LOPEZ: ... like all these other paid (ph) lawyers do.

GRACE: Why did the defense bring in her divorce lawyer? Because that`s how all the evidence came in, is through her divorce lawyer. Why did you put him on the stand?

LOPEZ: Well, the divorce lawyer was only one part of it. You have to remember...

GRACE: Yes, why did you...

LOPEZ: ... Reverend Shorey (ph)...

GRACE: ... put him on the stand?

LOPEZ: ... said the same thing...

GRACE: That`s my question.

LOPEZ: Well, I`ll answer it to you. If you let me answer it, I`ll tell you right now -- to bring out the fact that she wanted to use what she claimed this information was to get leverage in the divorce, not because she wanted to help the Savio family, because she wanted to line her own purse. That`s why it was brought out because you have to remember this is a hearsay case.

We drafted the first instruction in the state of Illinois on hearsay that`s ever been given. And in the hearsay instruction itself, it said that you have to look at the credibility of the certer (ph). You know what that means. You know what that means. So in order to argue that she is not a credible person...

GRACE: Well, apparently, a jury disagreed. In the last hours, this man, husband/cop Drew Peterson, found guilty in the murder of wife number three. Wife number four, she`s still missing.



GRACE: What do you claim she hit her head on?

JOEL BRODSKY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: Well, I -- actually, I wasn`t in the bathroom, but the experts are saying she hit her head on the bathtub, on the side of the bathtub, and that the fall was sufficient force to cause unconsciousness.

GRACE: So where you`re saying...

BRODSKY: And that she drowned.

GRACE: ... she hit her head at that location, was there blood?

BRODSKY: There`s no transfer -- as you know from being a prosecutor, you know, that concept, what they call first hit free (ph) -- there`s no transfer on the initial hit. It only gets blood splatter at transfer on a subsequent hit. So...

GRACE: So was there blood -- was there blood spatter?

BRODSKY: No. There was only one...

GRACE: So you`re saying...

BRODSKY: ... strike (ph), one...

GRACE: ... she hit her head on the bathtub...


GRACE: ... but there`s no blood there.

BRODSKY: Right, because there was only one hit, one time. She slipped, she hit her head hard, got unconscious and drowned.


GRACE: In the last hours, the jury brings home a verdict. They didn`t buy that story any more than I did when I was questioning defense attorney Joel Brodsky.

With me tonight, Drew Peterson, husband/cop Drew Peterson, now convicted felon -- his other lawyer, Joe Lopez, is with us. He delivered the closing arguments to that jury. Again, In the last hours, the jury hands down a verdict of guilty.

Joe Lopez, let me ask you to clarify. A lot of our viewers didn`t understand what Brodsky was saying about the death of Savio, how she died, how she managed to hit an object -- what was it, a soap dish? What was it the defense claimed she hit her head on?

LOPEZ: Well, Dr. Dimaio (ph) testified that when she stood up in the tub, she slipped, she fell back, and because of the curvature of the tub, her head impacted on the back of the -- on -- on the part of the tub there. She lost consciousness momentarily. She slipped under the water. She inhaled the water and she passed away.

GRACE: I`m asking you about where she hit her head. So you`re saying she actually hit her head...

LOPEZ: I just told you.

GRACE: ... on the side of the tub?

LOPEZ: On the -- on the -- on the surface itself. There were books and treatises that were brought to court and used by the experts that talk about hard surfaces...

GRACE: Did she hit her head on the tub?

LOPEZ: ... when you hit a hard surface...

GRACE: That`s what I`m asking you, on the side of the tub.

LOPEZ: On the tub. I just told you, on the curvature...

GRACE: And there was...

LOPEZ: No, on the curvature of the tub.

GRACE: ... no blood on that spot?

LOPEZ: There is no blood on that spot. You heard Mr. Brodsky said -- even the prosecution experts agreed with that, that the -- she only hit her head one time, so there would be no blood splatter. They found her hair was matted with the blood because when she hit, the impact -- it -- it was kind of, like, explained, like, when you cut your finger and it doesn`t bleed for about 10, 15 seconds, that that`s what happened in this case. And any blood that came out...

GRACE: OK, got it.

LOPEZ: ... there would be no transfer. There was no opportunity...

GRACE: I understand.

LOPEZ: ... for transfer.

GRACE: I understand. All I asked you was what surface did she hit her head on, according to the defense.

Debbie in New York. Hi, Debbie. What`s your question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Nancy. It`s so great to talk to you.

GRACE: Likewise, friend.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nancy, 14 months ago, I was so disheartened with the judicial system. Today I am elated. But I have something to say. Everybody wants to know where Stacy Peterson is. I`ve heard mention that he had access to a plane or has a plane. So the blue bucket that she`s in, the blue barrel, is in the bottom of the ocean.


GRACE: We are taking your calls. In the last hours, a jury hands down a verdict. Drew Peterson is guilty in the death of his third wife.

And joining me right now, Kathleen Savio`s sister, special guest Sue Savio Doman. Sue, thank you for being with us.


GRACE: As you are hearing even now, the defense attorney still spouting off the same BS he had in his closing argument. Does it make your blood boil, or are you now satisfied with the verdict?

DOMAN: You know, Nancy, I`m very satisfied with the verdict. But I`m also very angry that the defense keeps going on with the lies that they are continuing. You know, at the closing arguments, Mr. Lopez had said, Look at the briefcase, there`s nothing in it.

Well, Nancy, there was a whole lot of stuff in there that my sister kept of the abuse that was going on with Drew. She has hospital reports. The doctor says clearly on there that she says that she was hit by her husband. She didn`t go to the emergency room for nothing.

GRACE: You know...

DOMAN: So they`re lying again.

GRACE: ... what`s amazing to me, Sue, is even now, his defenders still say that never happened, when there`s clear evidence she was beaten by him in the past.

DOMAN: Exactly. Exactly. And you know, it angers me. I believe that there is a defense attorney and there is a defense attorney. And this defense team is full of garbage because they couldn`t even get theirself together.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew Peterson guilty in the first degree murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Finally, somebody heard Kathleen`s cry!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kathy and Stacy and the likes of them who are constantly under the hands of abusers like Drew Peterson, have had their day today.


NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: We are live and taking your calls. Joining us, our reporters there at the courthouse, Beth Karas, Michael Christian, Michelle Sigona, as well as members of the family of Kathleen Savio, and one of the lead defense attorneys who defended him and delivered the closing argument, Joe Lopez.

With me right now, a special guest, Kyle Toutges. This is Stacy`s uncle. He was barred from testifying.

Sir, thank you for being with us. If you could have testified, what would you have told the jury?

KYLE TOUTGES, STATE PETERSON`S UNCLE: That I witnessed Drew saying that, "Let them prove it." There was a conversation in the garage where some friends were telling him that it really looked bad for him, for his ex-wife to die at this specific time when they were going through this divorce and that it really looked suspicious. His comment was, "Let them prove it." Was his comment.

GRACE: And how did that strike you, sir?

TOUTGES: Very chilling. I mean, it really was chilling to hear him say that. And later on that evening, he told me that Kathleen was a drug addict, alcoholic, and that`s why she slipped and fell and drowned in a bathtub. And later to find out she was totally drug and alcohol free, you know, after Stacy went missing that we find this out.

GRACE: To Michelle Sigona, joining us, reporting for "In Session" there at the courthouse.

Michelle, thanks for being was. Michelle, a lot of controversy surrounding hearsay evidence that was brought in, that played a big role in convicting Drew Peterson. I think the pastor`s testimony was the strongest testimony, that and her divorce attorney, and the defense is the one that brought in the divorce attorney. Ouch. But give me a nutshell of the pastor`s testimony, Michelle.

MICHELLE SIGONA, REPORTING FOR IN SESSION: Well, between the pastor and also Harry Smith, who was the attorney for Kathleen, when they came in, those things were really described as game changers. I was not here on the ground at that time, back to the city, left to Michael what they would hear on those days so they could probably answer it a lot better.

But they were described as game changers as really it went into the prosecution`s favor from what was coming out of the testimony and out of their mouths and into the courtroom.

GRACE: Beth Karas, you were in the courtroom. What was the testimony of the preacher?

BETH KARAS, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, IN SESSION: He described a conversation with Stacy two months before Stacy went missing. She said she wanted to talk to him. Oh, I have stuff that hasn`t been reported either, at least at this trial, of that conversation. They were at a Starbucks, outdoors. He met outdoors with her. She was upset. He described how she pulled her knee up and was crying and told him what happened the night Savio died.

They went to bed together, she and Drew, she woke up in the middle of the night. He wasn`t there. She called him, she couldn`t find him. He comes home in the wee morning hours dressed in black, carrying a bag that had women`s clothes in it. He puts the clothes from that bag in the washing machine, takes his own clothes off, put them in the washing machine. She looked in the washer, there are women`s clothes not her own.

This is the night Savio died. She did not know at the time Kathleen Savio was dead. And Drew Peterson then told her that the police were going to want to talk to her and he coached her for hours and she admitted that she lied to the police about his whereabouts that night.

Here`s what the jury doesn`t know, but it came out at a hearing because I did confirm this with the prosecutors after. During that meeting at Starbucks, which was on August 31st, 2007, two months before she went missing, a Bowling Brook patrol car was circling Starbucks. That was on all likelihood Drew Peterson.

Drew Peterson knew Pastor Schori because they had gone to counseling with him in the past. Right after the meeting and after the patrol car circling Starbucks, Drew Peterson calls Schori and says, oh, I see. I know you`ve met my wife, or I see you`ve met my wife. He then invited Schori to take a ride with him in his light aircraft. He has a -- like a little airplane that wasn`t really a plane kind of like a glide or a light aircraft.

Pastor Schori respectfully declined. And it only makes one wonder, I mean things are closing in on Drew Peterson. Stacy wants a divorce. She`s got the biggest hammer to hit him with, knowing what he did to Kathleen and the details. She`s now telling a pastor. We know she tells the divorce lawyer because two days before she disappears, he sees the meeting, he immediately invites Pastor Schori up in his airplane. What was he going to do? Unfasten him and drop him to the ground?

GRACE: You know, Michael Christian, also joining me along with Sigona and Karas. We just heard the defense attorney Joe Lopez -- and Lopez, I`m coming back to you -- saying the only reason that Stacy Peterson said all of the stuff about Kathleen Savio`s murder at the hands of her husband, Drew Peterson, was for her own financial gain.

But Michael, what was in it for her to tell her preacher? How was that going to line her pocket?

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, SENIOR FIELD PRODUCER, IN SESSION: Yes. Well, you know, she supposedly was so upset when she talked to him, as he testified. And you know he talked a little while ago here, Nancy, and he said that he was honored to testify in this trial because he was honored to let Stacy Peterson speak through him. He said he was very happy with this verdict. He said he does own a television, now he followed it on Twitter, but he was honored to let Stacy Peterson speak through him at this trial.

GRACE: Unleash the lawyers. Also joining us tonight, Eleanor Odom, death penalty qualified prosecutor, and out of Atlanta, Peter Odom, defense attorney.

You know, Eleanor Odom, there`s nothing like bringing a preacher and putting them on the stand, is there?

ELEANOR ODOM, FELONY PROSECUTOR, DEATH PENALTY QUALIFIED: No. That`s one of the best witnesses you can bring on, Nancy, because people tend to believe the preachers. And besides, what reason would he have to lie in this case? He`s getting nothing out of it.

And Nancy, think about this hearsay. You know why it -- why it came in? It`s called forfeiture by wrongdoing. Drew Peterson`s wrongdoing by killing the person so that she couldn`t come to court and testify. That`s why it`s important.

GRACE: Peter Odom?

PETER ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The problem is, Nancy, that they never established he killed Stacy Peterson. I know that`s mere speculation. The problem with this verdict is that while everyone is so happy about it, and for good reason, it`s vulnerable. Most of the evidence came in through hearsay. There are very strict rules about hearsay an appellate court is going to have a problem with this in my opinion. I think that judge went way out on a limb in letting some of this stuff and I think that judge knows it.

GRACE: Well, as you know, Peter Odom, as you and Eleanor know, there was legislation passed in that jurisdiction that allows this type of hearsay in. We all know that there are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay rule. This is just another one of them.

P. ODOM: But Nancy --

GRACE: The Supreme Court, as I was saying, has OK`d multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule and this is going to be another one.

P. ODOM: But, Nancy, the state can`t pass rules that trump the Constitution of the United States.

GRACE: It`s legislation.

P. ODOM: And this is -- no.

GRACE: And just like all the other exceptions, this is going to withstand a review all the way to the Supreme -- but before I get into the legality of it, Lopez, explain to me, you said Stacy Peterson lied about Drew Peterson to profit. How was telling her preacher this going to line her pocket?

I`m just glad the preacher did not go up in that plane with Drew Peterson. But how is this going to make Stacy Peterson any money to sit in a Starbucks and outline the night that Savio was murdered?

JOE LOPEZ, DREW PETERSON`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY, GAVE CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Well, it was really just started the campaign of rumors to get it going as soon as she could get it going, she told the preacher --


GRACE: You know the pastor couldn`t repeat that.

LOPEZ: She kept the campaign of rumors. Repeat what? He did repeat what he repeated. And she went to the pastor, hoping he would do something about it. He did nothing about it, so she reached out and called Kathy`s old attorney. And that`s exactly what happened. That`s the reality --

GRACE: But why -- how did it -- how did she benefit by telling the preacher? Your whole theory is blown to bits. I torpedoed it in about 45 seconds. It doesn`t even make any sense, Lopez.


GRACE: We are back and taking your calls. In the last hours, the jury hands down a verdict in the case of husband/cop Drew Peterson. In the drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. His fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, yet to be found.

We are taking your calls. Heidi in Ohio, hi, Heidi, what`s your question?

HEIDI, CALLER FROM OHIO: Hi, Heidi. This is Heidi from Ohio. Thank you. How are you doing?

GRACE: I`m good, dear.

HEIDI: OK, I was wondering, since he committed this crime and has been convicted, can they pull his pension?

GRACE: Oh, good question. Joe Lopez, what is going to happen to his police pension?

LOPEZ: Well, you know, I don`t really know, Nancy. I`m not a pension attorney. So I really can`t say.


LOPEZ: I have no idea.

GRACE: All right. That`s all I wanted to hear. All I want to hear.

Beth Karas, what do you know?

KARAS: Well, Judge White commented on that earlier today and he thinks that he may very well lose his pension because it was committed while he was a police officer. That is what his son, Steven, is living on right now, raising Stacy`s two children.

GRACE: You know what? That`s what I was just going to ask you, where are Stacy`s two children and you answered it, Beth. Thank you.

Sherry in Illinois, hi, Sherry, what`s your question?

SHERRY, CALLER FROM ILLINOIS: Hi, Nancy, thank you for taking my call and all you do. I just have two very quick questions and two very quick comments for you. I still believe that this blue barrel is about -- in the story. And my question, my first question is, did they ever seize that vehicle which the barrel was transported in, have the cadaver dogs go through it?

And I know this might sound very -- very disturbing and everything, but did they ever check any crematories like, you know, pet cemetery crematories? Maybe he did something with the body with that. And last comment I have for you is, I hope somebody will come forward now that he`s locked up, because I think they feared that he might have killed them also for opening their mouth.

GRACE: You know what? I couldn`t agree with you more on that last point.

Beth Karas, do we have answers to any of those questions?

KARAS: I don`t know about the -- whether to check any crematories. I have heard people say he had a friend who had a crematory, but I don`t know that they checked those. They are continuing the search for the blue barrel and they did seize the car. They did -- they did search it. I don`t know the results of any cadaver dogs. I think if they had something, we`d probably would have known about it. But they did look at the car. And gave it back to him eventually. Because when I went to his house, I knocked on his door and talked to his son Steven for half an hour before the trial started. Stacy`s car was still in the driveway and Drew`s.

GRACE: Michelle Sigona reporting for "In Session," back to the courtroom. In the last hours that verdict handed down against Drew Peterson. Describe to me exactly what happened.

SIGONA: Well, I can tell you that I was actually right outside the courtroom. Michael was in the overflow room. Beth was inside. And right as the verdict was coming down, people were cheering, they were chanting, they were singing. They made up songs. There were cameraman all over the grass area. It really became a lot of chaos, but positive chaos. There wasn`t a lot of negative until the defense attorneys came outside and they were shouting, "losers, losers," on and on and on.

But other than that, it was -- it was a lot of positiveness. There was a lot of feeling that justice had been served. That this was domestic violence at its worst and justice at its best.

GRACE: To Dr. Bethany Marshal, psychoanalyst and author. Weigh in, Bethany.

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST, AUTHOR OF "DEALBREAKERS": Well, I think the fact that Stacy Peterson asked the divorce attorney if she could get money if she spoke up about Kathleen Savio`s murder is extremely valuable when we look at this through the lens of domestic violence.

One of the reasons women who are abuse victims do not leave their husbands and lovers is because they`ve been victims of financial abuse and they cannot support themselves out in the world. And we know that women are at the greatest risk of homicide as they`re about to leave the relationship. Of course she needed money. She needed to support her children.

GRACE: Everybody, we`re taking your calls. We`re live at the courthouse. In the last hours, a verdict has been handed down in a case we`ve been watching from the get-go. A lot of people have wondered will this guilty verdict now lead Drew Peterson to use the only trump card he`s got left, the location of the body of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson?

But what`s in it for him? There is no death penalty in that jurisdiction. So what is there to bargain about?

Back to you, Beth, Michael, Michelle.

Michael, what`s the potential sentence in the murder of Kathleen?

CHRISTIAN: It`s 20 to 60 years, Nancy. And unlike some jurisdictions where that literally is a range and someone is sentenced to the range, in Illinois, you are sentenced to a specific sentence. So it will be somewhere between 20 years and 60 years. It could be 42 years, it could be 53 years. The judge will decide on a sentence. There is no parole in Illinois. It`s day for day time served. So at age 58, pretty much any sentence that Drew Peterson gets is going to be a life sentence.


GRACE: A verdict, guilty, Drew Peterson sent to the slammer.

With me, one of his lead defense lawyers, Joe Lopez, he delivered the closing arguments.

Hey, Joe, so does your client have a girlfriend?

LOPEZ: Yes. Well, I don`t know if he`s got a girlfriend, I mean he`s locked up in jail. If he has any girlfriends he`s communicating by mail. They won`t let him see any girls in there that`s for sure.

GRACE: Kyle Toutges is with us. Toutges, excuse me. That`s Stacy Peterson`s uncle, barred from testifying.

Kyle, we all know that he has been communicating with women by letters, before that by the Internet. Saying that there are a lot of women that wanted to marry him. How much does that make you sick?

TOUTGES: It makes me sick that there`s women out there that are that sick. That they can`t see --

GRACE: That`s a good way of putting it.

TOUTGES: -- what a murderer he is now.

GRACE: You know, another thing, Kyle, and I know how it feels when that guilty verdict is announced. What was your immediate reaction?

TOUTGES: I went through like all the emotions at once. I went through it like almost every single one of them. It was happy. There was joy, there was sadness. There was anger and it just -- they just all just flooded so much. It is still like a total shock. It`s really hard to believe that --

GRACE: What did you think when the jury --

TOUTGES: That it finally came true.

GRACE: -- sent out the question that they wanted the definition for unanimous?

TOUTGES: I didn`t recall that. I didn`t -- I was -- I had physical therapy today and I didn`t --

GRACE: You know what I`m so glad you missed that. I`m so glad you missed that. Well, apparently, they understood it at some point because they reached a unanimous verdict of guilty.


GRACE: Ellie Jostad, I just asked his lawyer did he have girlfriends, did his client have girlfriends, and he says no.

But, Ellie, isn`t it true, he was trying to give away Stacy Peterson`s clothes, her underwear, her bras, her lingerie, her fur coat to some chick he meets behind bars and the woman came forward?

ELLIE JOSTAD, NANCY GRACE CHIEF EDITORIAL PRODUCER: Right. He was writing a woman while he was in jail.

GRACE: All right, Lopez, you know, I hate to be the one to tell you all this.

Hey, Beth Karas, everyone was talking about prosecution blunders. Just because the defense makes an objection, starts screaming in court, that doesn`t mean the prosecution made a blunder. What was everybody talking about?

KARAS: Well, you know, but there were times when, you know, one can argue that both sides maid some errors. And there were times when the judge did chastise the prosecution. This is a long trial and I can`t give you any specific example. But they might have gone into territory -- or a witness started to talk about something that the witness wasn`t supposed to talk about, stuff like that.

GRACE: Well, you know what, just because the defense stands on their heads and screams, that does not a blunder make, according to an appellate court.

Beverly in New York, what`s your question, dear?

BEVERLY, CALLER FROM NEW YORK: Hi, Nancy, I wanted to know if they do take Drew Peterson to trial, can they do it without a body?

GRACE: They absolutely can, Beverly in New York. Good question and believe you me, he has gotten rid of that body.

May she rest in peace, Kathleen Savio. But I`ve got a feeling that she won`t until the murder of wife number four, Stacy Peterson, has been vindicated tonight.

A jury brings home a true verdict.


  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
Offline Offline

Posts: 44702

« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2012, 12:33:07 PM »

New Search in Stacy Peterson Case; Powerful Nor`easter Smacks Hurricane Sandy-Ravaged Northeast

Aired November 7, 2012 - 20:00   ET


NANCY GRACE, HOST: Breaking news tonight. Twenty-three-year-old mom Stacy Peterson vanishes, upscale Chicago suburbs, husband/cop Drew Peterson the prime suspect in his fourth wife`s disappearance, Peterson finally charged in the 2004 drowning of wife number three, Kathleen Savio, Savio found covered in bruises, drowned to death in a bone-dry bathtub.

Bombshell tonight. As we go to air, we confirm that at this hour, FBI and state police searching a heavily wooded forest preserve just 15 miles from Peterson`s home, searching for the body of fourth wife Stacy Peterson.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A new search for Drew Peterson`s fourth wife, Stacy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Illinois State Police, with help from the FBI, searched the Hammel Woods forest preserve.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ll go out and search.

DREW PETERSON, HUSBAND OF MISSING STACY PETERSON: You know, they`ve been through my house a few times, so it`s, like, It`s not here!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Authorities think Peterson knows exactly where Stacy is.

PETERSON: I`m a suspect. (INAUDIBLE) suspect from the beginning.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police and the FBI are searching a wooded area where her cell phone showed activity before she disappeared.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stacy called him the night she left and told him she was leaving.

PETERSON: (INAUDIBLE) I had nothing to do with either of those incidents.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have no evidence that any crime occurred because no crime occurred.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have a boat to help on water and a dog to help track scent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re not going to find her in some bush or some pond or stream. They`re going to have to look elsewhere.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew Peterson is considered a suspect in the case, but he`s never been charged.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It happens. Wives sometimes run off. Sometimes it happens.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) You`re not the kind of girl who lets marriage stop you. (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don`t ever hold me down again!


GRACE: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us.

Bombshell tonight. As we go to air, we confirm at this hour, FBI and state police searching a heavily wooded forest preserve just 15 miles from Peterson`s home for the wife of -- for the body of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

Now, as you all recall, Drew Peterson recently convicted in the death of wife number three, Kathleen Savio. She`s found covered in bruises head to toe, drowned to death in a bone-dry bathtub.

We are live and talking your calls. But first, I want to go out to Joe Hosey, author of "Fatal Vows." He has been to the Stacy Peterson search site. You know him better than anybody else. What is Peterson`s reaction, in your mind, to the search that`s going on at this hour for wife number four?

JOE HOSEY, AUTHOR, "FATAL VOWS": You know, if she`s there, he can`t be feeling too good about it. And I don`t know if she`s in that spot, but I know the police have thought she might be in that area, that area, Shorewood (ph), Illinois. There was a man living there, Scott Rosetto (ph). He`s now in Germany. He`s in the Army. He`s a nurse in the Army. But Stacy visited him right before she disappeared, and there`s been a theory that Drew was going to frame him for Stacy`s murder.
GRACE: Yes, and all of this is in very close proximity. Matt Zarrell, what`s happening right now? I understand that there are dogs on the scene, there are shovels on the scene. Police are chalking it off to knowledge they`ve had for some time, but they`ve been out there for a couple of days, and they are searching into the night, Matt Zarrell.

MATT ZARRELL, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER (via telephone): Yes, Nancy, you`re right. You`ve got local authorities, as well as the FBI, including an FBI mobile command center truck was there. There are also reports about a white and black dog searching the area. Helicopters, boats are also out. Two people, a man and a woman, were seen standing on a walking path, holding shovels. There are reports they`re looking for any evidence that Stacy`s body may have been buried in that wooded area.

GRACE: C.W. Jensen, retired police captain -- C.W., they`re keeping it tight, close to the vest, but cops are not going to spend this amount of time, hundreds of hours and all of these police out there in the elements, searching. Think about it. They`re out in the woods right now with shovels and dogs. It`s nighttime. It`s cold. They`ve got to have a lead, Jensen.

C.W. JENSEN, RETIRED POLICE CAPTAIN: I`m just going to throw this out. And obviously, I know -- I don`t know anything more than anyone else does. But many times -- remember, he has been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife. If I was the investigator, I would go to him and say, Look, you have nothing to lose, except if we charge you again, Nancy -- and you know this as a prosecutor -- and we can get a death penalty on this case, so why don`t you just tell us where your wife is?

I just, personally, as a homicide detective, find this very interesting that they would go to this specific location.

GRACE: Joining me right now to answer that and other questions, Steve Greenberg. This is the attorney -- the current attorney for Drew Peterson, his client suspected in the disappearance of fourth wife Stacy Peterson. Now, this on the heels after his conviction in the murder of Kathleen Savio, wife number three.

Steve Greenberg, were you advised that police are conducting a search at this hour?

STEVE GREENBERG, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON (via telephone): We weren`t advised of anything. But let me correct the last gentleman. There is no death penalty in Illinois. There`s nothing to be gained by going to talk to Drew and they would learn nothing by talking to Drew because Drew has nothing to do with Stacy Peterson`s disappearance.

GRACE: So in your mind, Steve Greenberg, after hundreds of hours you`ve spent with Drew Peterson, you think it`s just a coincidence that one wife drops dead in the bathtub and a jury convicts him, and the other wife, a 23-year-old young woman, a mother, just leaves her children, up and leaves and is never heard from again, right?

GREENBERG: I don`t think it`s a coincidence, Nancy. But if you listen to what the jurors said who convicted him, but for a certain witness testifying who never should have testified, they not have convicted him because they had no evidence that he had anything to do with it. They had no evidence that he was even in the house that evening, just as they have no evidence that he has anything to do with Stacy Peterson`s disappearance.

GRACE: Well, I know the witness you`re talking about. You`re talking about Stacy Peterson`s divorce lawyer that the defense team called to the stand. And on the stand, Stacy`s divorce lawyer said Stacy told him, Hey, do you think I`d get a better divorce settlement if I threatened to tell what I know about Kathleen Savio`s murder? I`m sure that`s the witness you`re talking about.

But Matt Zarrell, there`s a lot more evidence in the Stacy Peterson case. Let`s start, for instance -- everybody, the search is going on at this hour. There are dogs out in this 400-acre forest preserve, 15 miles north of Drew Peterson`s home. Are they on the verge of discovering the body of wife number four, Stacy Peterson, a young mother.?

Matt Zarrell, let just talk about the evidence in the Stacy Peterson murder case. She didn`t just leave, Matt. She didn`t just leave her children behind. She didn`t leave all her clothing, her furs, her phone, her cell phone, her pocketbook. No, it didn`t happen that way.

Let`s talk about Drew Peterson`s brother-in-law, Matt Zarrell. He`s got immunity. And what does he have to say?

ZARRELL: Yes, Nancy. The guy`s name is Thomas Morphey (ph). He is Drew Peterson`s stepbrother. He says that he helped Peterson remove a warm and heavy blue barrel from the Peterson bedroom around...

GRACE: Did you say warm, warm...

ZARRELL: ... the time Stacy was reported missing.

GRACE: ... W-A-R-M, as in mother, warm?

ZARRELL: Correct.


ZARRELL: Now, Morphey says that, actually, the night before Stacy went missing, Peterson takes him to what he thinks is a job interview. However, they instead go to a local park. Peterson complains about Stacy cheating on him, says he had to take care of the problem. Peterson also asked Morphey if he loved him enough to kill for him.

Morphey said Peterson then drove him to a storage facility where they rented -- they tried to rent a unit.

Then the next day is when they plan (ph) with the cell phone. Apparently, what Morphey claims is that Peterson picked up Morphey the day Stacy went missing. The two men went to a park, where Peterson handed Morphey a cell phone, told him, Don`t answer it. Then Peterson leaves.

Morphey says about 45 minutes later, the phone rings, then it rings again, and both times, the caller ID showed it was Stacy`s cell phone. Peterson then returned to the park within an hour of the phone calls to pick Morphey up.

GRACE: So to you, Steve Greenberg. You`re the attorney for Drew Peterson. And what his own brother-in-law has to say is damning. He says that he comes into the house that night, that all the children`s doors are shut, that Drew Peterson tells him, the brother-in-law, (SIC) Steve Morphey, (SIC) to be quiet, don`t bother the children.

And he gets him to lug this warm blue container, like an ice chest of sorts, all the way down, load it up, he said a plastic bag was sticking out, that he then gets him to stage phone calls from Stacy Peterson`s cell phone to Drew Peterson`s cell phone.

Now, you know, Steve Greenberg, true, it`s not a murder weapon. True, it`s not a dead body. But that`s pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

GREENBERG: You know, Nancy, they went into that house and they ripped out everything. And they had, by the time Stacy disappeared, the latest and greatest scientific techniques, and they came up with not one shred of evidence, nothing at all. Now, if you think that someone can slice and dice somebody up...

GRACE: I don`t.

GREENBERG: ... and shove them into a small ice chest...

GRACE: But they can absolutely strangle them.

GREENBERG: ... and leave nothing...

GRACE: They can absolutely strangle them or smother them, asphyxiate them with a pillow, strangle them manually or by ligature, and there won`t be any DNA left.

GREENBERG: And shove them into an ice chest...

GRACE: Hey, look! Hey, this is not...

GREENBERG: ... like a contortionist?

GRACE: ... my first time at the rodeo, all right? There are plenty of ways to commit a murder where the perpetrator is the size of Drew Peterson and the victim is the size of Stacy Peterson, and there`s absolutely no DNA evidence whatsoever, all right?

GREENBERG: No blood, no fiber...


GREENBERG: ... no nothing.

GRACE: Yes, especially if the murder...

GREENBERG: No nothing!

GRACE: ... is committed in her own bedroom, where her own DNA would be naturally found.

OK, with me tonight is Steve Greenberg. Everybody, at this hour, police are out searching, state police and the FBI, a 400-acre wooded forest preserve 15 miles near Drew Peterson`s home. Are we set to crack the mystery in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson wide open?

As we go to break, as you all know by now, on the heels of superstorm Sandy -- more than half a million people still no power, temperatures plunging -- the Northeast corridor now bracing for another storm.

Very quickly, before we go back to the search for Stacy Peterson`s body, Bernie Rayno is joining me, senior meteorologist,

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The search resumed for Stacy Peterson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re not going to find Stacy there. Stacy ran off with another man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re done, Drew. It`s over!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know you`re not going anywhere!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: State police have told me they`ve known from day one Stacy didn`t leave willingly, and so they have evidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ll go out and search. You know, they`ve been through my house a few times. It`s, like, It`s not here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`ve told me what to look for in the searches. So basically, we`re out there looking for a body.


GRACE: We are live and taking your calls. Straight out to the lines. Crystal in Iowa. Hi, Crystal. What`s your question, dear?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. My question is, why didn`t they search this area before? And I also have a comment. He`s a cop, so he would know exactly how to make a person disappear.

GRACE: You know what, Crystal? You are exactly correct. And another thing, Crystal. As I was just duking it out with his current lawyer, Steve Greenberg, there`s a lot of ways to commit murder and the body is never found and DNA is not found.

Back to searching this particular site. To Robyn Walensky, anchor/reporter with TheBlaze. They have searched around this spot before, have they not, Robyn?

ROBYN WALENSKY, THEBLAZE: They have, Nancy. And you know, I was on this story five years ago on day one, when she disappeared. And what strikes me about this is the location of this 400-acre forest.

Yes, they were there the last time. But it is a huge, huge area. But it`s about a 15, maybe 20-minute drive max from the Peterson home.

And keep in mind this is a 30-year veteran of the Bolingbrook Police Department. He is 58 years old, Nancy. He knows the terrain. This is the I-5 south. It goes directly from the home to this area, if one was driving.

And Nancy, I have to tell you that there was a theory five years ago that -- there is a regional airport that is right next to this forest area. There`s also another regional airport that is within a mile of the Bolingbrook home. And there was a theory at the time that he or someone else could have gone up in a plane and dumped the barrel with the body in it into a lake or into a forest.

It has never been proven. Obviously, this blue barrel has never been found. But boy, wouldn`t it be interesting if someone has spotted this plastic blue substance? As you know, Nancy, a water bottle -- you know, these things, or any kind of plastic material just doesn`t disappear. So to my ear, this is an extremely significant development tonight.

GRACE: Steve Greenberg, does your client, Drew Peterson -- does he know how to fly a plane?

GREENBERG: I`m sorry. I didn`t hear you, Nancy. Does he what?

GRACE: Does Drew Peterson know how to fly a plane?

GREENBERG: Drew Peterson flew a plane. But all of these theories are just absurd because people say...

GRACE: So that`s yes?

GREENBERG: Yes, he knows how to fly a plane. But he doesn`t fly it over the local forest preserve and drop bodies down there.

GRACE: Really? Well, a jury seemed to think that he killed his third wife. So what`s stopping him from killing his fourth wife, too, Steve Greenberg?

GREENBERG: Well, A jury found that he killed his third wife because somebody put in statements that were unreliable...

GRACE: No...

GREENBERG: ... and should have never come in.

GRACE: ... they found that he killed his third wife because the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

GREENBERG: Well, that`s what the jury thought, and we`re going to challenge that because I don`t think that there was any evidence.

They had the same theory there. He`s an experienced police officer. If you think about that. Experienced, can cover up the evidence, all those things that all your guests keep saying are exactly why if he did (INAUDIBLE) and he didn`t -- but if he did, they wouldn`t have any evidence.

You can`t say, Well, he`s so good, we`d have no evidence, but he`s so bad, we have evidence.

GRACE: The evidence that they have tonight is circumstantial, but many a case has been proven without a body.

Unleash the lawyers, Peter Odom, defense attorney, Brian Claypool, defense attorney, LA, Eleanor Odom, prosecutor, formerly with the National District Attorneys Association.

What about it, Claypool?

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Nancy, I`ll tell you what. I have to agree with Steve Greenberg and I disagree with you. There wasn`t really any evidence at all in the trial of Kathleen Savio. Exhibit A would have been enough reasonable doubt. That was the medical examiner`s report. He concluded that this was an accident.

GRACE: Whoo!

CLAYPOOL: That in and of itself...

GRACE: You must not have been...

CLAYPOOL: ... would have been reasonable...

GRACE: ... in that courtroom because...

CLAYPOOL: That`s right.

GRACE: ... the jury absolutely did not agree with you. They came out with a big fat guilty, Eleanor.

ELEANOR ODOM, PROSECUTOR: I know they did, Nancy. And I love it how they`re trying to make this all about the third wife. This is about what`s going on now in the search for Stacy Peterson. And clearly, they have some type of new evidence or tip that`s leading them to really conduct a very serious search.

GRACE: Peter Odom?

PETER ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The strongest evidence that they have in this case is this person, Brophy (ph). And that statement is so incredibly unreliable, Nancy. First of all, it took him years to come out with this blue barrel story. And who would ever help someone move a warm blue barrel without saying, Hey, what, is there a body in there? Come on.

GRACE: Maybe somebody that was afraid.


GRACE: Helicopters, search dogs, shovels -- and they`re all being employed at this hour 15 miles north of former husband/cop Drew Peterson in the search for the body of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

We are taking your calls. Larry Fishelson, telecommunications expert and co-founder of Dynalink Communications -- Larry, thank you for being with us. You heard the scenario that Matt Zarrell described, and this is coming from Peterson`s own stepbrother, Morphey, all right?

Now, how can that show me where the body is? What`s the significance of that setup phone call from Stacy Peterson?

LARRY FISHELSON, TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPERT (via telephone): Nancy, thank you for having me. What`s very interesting with the setup call is he was a savvy police officer, so he understands that through phone pings, you could tell the location of where the calls were made within a three-mile radius. So by setting up those calls, I believe he was trying to take the search possibly somewhere else.
Now, I also had seen that he had a GPS tracker on her phone as a jealous husband, let`s say. So it is very possible, by where they`re looking now, that that GPS tracker was in the phone and they know the possible location. And even with it turned...



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drew Peterson believes that my sister left.

PETERSON: It`s just something I`m going to have to live with.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My sister did not leave willingly. She was taken.

PETERSON: I guess I`m a suspect.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s a suspect of Stacy`s disappearance, which I don`t understand because disappearing is not a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Police and the FBI searching a wooded area where her cell phone showed activity before she disappeared.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The week before she disappeared she told him to get out. I don`t want you here. I want a divorce. He absolutely refused to go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We know that he was very controlling of Stacey.


GRACE: We are live at this hour. Police, state police and the FBI searching a heavily wooded 400-acre forest preserve. It`s about 15 miles away from former cop Drew Peterson`s home. They are searching for the body of his fourth wife, Stacey Peterson. This on the heels of his conviction in the murder of wife number three, Kathleen Savio.

Robyn Walensky, anchor/reporter with "The Blaze." Robyn, they`re not saying what led them to this spot, but I want to go through again those setup phone calls and what we know about the stepbrother, Morphy.
ROBYN WALENSKY, ANCHOR/REPORTER, THE BLAZE: OK. Well, the stepbrother has claimed that he helped Drew Peterson out of the Peterson home in Bowling Brock with a warm, blue barrel. Warm to the touch, that he estimates weighed about 120 pounds, Nancy.

Now Stacey was 5`2" and she weighed 100 pounds. So it is quite possible that it was her body inside that blue barrel. And it is quite possible that -- I`m sorry. We`re having a bad connection. I just want to make one point, Nancy. And that is, is that Stacey Peterson was the mother of four. She had two biological children, ages 4 and 2, and she was also caring for his two older sons, ages 12 and 14.

She would never have left four children. This is not about an affair, Nancy. The motive here is that she believed that her husband killed his third wife and she told at least two other people about it.

GRACE: Liz, do we still have Steve Greenberg with us?

Steve Greenberg, we were just talking to Larry Fishelson, telecommunications expert, and he reminded me that your client set a GPS tracking device -- she had a GPS tracking device on her phone. Drew Peterson was trying everything he could to prove his wife was having an affair, but he never could prove it.

STEVE GREENBERG, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON, SUSPECT IN STACEY`S DISAPPEARANCE: Well, I think it`s clear when we looked at the evidence in the other case that she probably was. But how does that establish that he had anything to do with her disappearance? If anything, the fact she was having an affair shows that she wanted to get away from him and she ran away.

GRACE: Well, do you think that -- doesn`t it seem odd to you that she ran away to have the affair, but the guy she was allegedly having an affair with is still right there?

GREENBERG: Well, the guy she was allegedly having the affair with was found by the judge in the Savio case to be so dishonest and so unreliable that he barred his testimony. Something I`ve never seen in my 26-plus years of practicing law.

GRACE: Well, representing Drew Peterson, I`m sure you`ve seen a lot, Steve Greenberg.

We are taking your calls. To Dr. Bill Manion, medical examiner joining me tonight out of Philly.

Hi, Dr. Manion. Dr. Manion, if her body had been in, for instance, an ice chest all this time, what condition would it be in now?

DR. BILL MANION, M.D., MEDICAL EXAMINER, BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Well, if that chest was sealed, that would +++++ the decomposition. There still would be some decomposition. And I`m wondering if the police are concerned that maybe some gases are breaking through the plastic and perhaps cadaver dogs might be able to detect something now.

Also, oftentimes people in prison will be bragging about their crimes and maybe he told another prisoner, yes, I dumped her out in the woods there, where they were looking before, and then that prisoner has come forward to try to get favor by saying, oh, Drew Peterson told me where the body is. That may be one reason they`re looking there.

GRACE: Out to Joe Hosey, the author of "Fatal Vows." He literally wrote the book on Drew Peterson. There`s no way that I see him talking behind bars, Joe. I just don`t see it.

JOE HOSEY, AUTHOR, "FALSE VOWS": No, I don`t see that either.

GRACE: He`s to smart.

HOSEY: And he`s not talking. And, you know, there`s no deal being made, like Steve said. He`s not facing the death penalty. There`s a good chance she might be in this area because this man that Steve brought up who -- whose testimony was barred, Drew went there. He tried to frame him. Some of the stuff being talked about tonight, I mean -- I don`t know. Throwing her out of a plane? That doesn`t make any sense at all.

I don`t -- I don`t know where that`s coming from. If you`ve ever seen Drew`s plane it`s like a hand glider with a lawnmower engine on it. I don`t know. But there`s a possibility she`s there. There is. And they`ve been looking hard, they spent three days now with an awful lot of people, a few dozen FBI agents, you got state police, you got dogs, you got helicopter, you got boats.

They must think they`ve got something going on there.

GRACE: Well, let me ask you this, Joe. What do we know about the day Stacy Peterson disappeared?

HOSEY: We know that -- we know what Drew told us basically. And he`s told conflicting stories. One story he told me was she woke him up after he worked the night shift, you know, because he was nightshift police offer, and told him she was going to paint the house of her brother whose parole was revoked and was going back to prison. They had to repaint the house to get out of the lease, and then she never showed up.

He`s also told people, though, that she went to visit her grandfather in the retirement home where he lived. So I mean in the very first few days of her disappearance, he`s already tripping himself up.

Also in the very first few days of this, Tom Morphy told the police about helping to carry this blue barrel out of the house. He didn`t wait years like that other person said. He said this in the first few days after it happened. After he tried to kill himself. Yes. Yes. So, I mean, there`s evidence, there`s a lot of direct -- but that not hearsay either. That`s direct evidence from Tom Morphy.

GRACE: And you know, Eleanor --

HOSEY: The cell phone pings are physical evidence.

GRACE: Following up on what Joe Hosey is saying, you`ve got the stepbrother, who, when this starts falling apart, tries to kill himself. And within the first days after Stacy Peterson`s disappearance, after he tries to kill himself, he gets a deal and tells police everything he knows.

ELEANOR ODOM, FELONY PROSECUTOR, DEATH PENALTY QUALIFIED: That`s exactly right, Nancy. You kind of look at him and think well, what does he have to gain or lose by giving this statement? You know, when you`re looking at judging credibility of someone`s statements to police or to a jury, in fact.

GRACE: Right.

ODOM: So that`s what we`re looking at.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Always saying you should be out helping to search.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: New search for Drew Peterson`s fourth wife, Stacey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why am I going out searching for somebody I don`t believe is there? You know, it`s a waste of my time.


GRACE: That search is happening right now, 15 miles north of Drew Peterson`s home, as he sits behind bars in the death of wife number three, Kathleen Savio, found covered in bruises, drowned to death in a bone dry bathtub.

The search is on at this hour with state police and the FBI, joining in together. Helicopters, dogs, shovels, the works. A mobile crime unit there on the scene.

Is the body of Stacy Peterson about to be revealed 15 miles north of the home of Drew Peterson?

Taking your calls. Out to -- I believe this is Ann in Louisiana. Hi, Ann.

ANN, CALLER FROM LOUISIANA: Hi, Nancy. I`ve got a big fat hug for you from your Cajun friends down here.

GRACE: Thank you to all my Cajun friends. Thank you very much, Ann. What`s your question, love?

ANN: I have two quick questions, the second hinges on the first. I remember that after his conviction, he fired the lawyer and got a new lawyer and filed an appeal, or was that someone else? Or -- is the attorney not representing him well?

GRACE: I think he had Brodsky for a really long time but just recently, now that you bring it up, Ann in Louisiana, Brodsky`s off the case, they`re claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, among other things on their appeal.

So Brodsky is off the case. OK. What`s your second question?
ANN: The second one, if that`s true then if they find Stacy and bring charges on -- you know, would they go ahead and prosecute him since he`s already spending life in jail or do you think they would go ahead and prosecute him in case some kind of when he out on the appeal?

GRACE: I think that no matter what, at some point he is going to be prosecuted in the disappearance and death of wife number four, Stacey Peterson, regardless of what happens on the Kathleen Savio case. And I predict it`s not going to be reversed on appeal. That`s what I`m -- that`s what I`m saying tonight.

Out to clinical psychologist, Dr. Seth Meyers, joining me from L.A.

You know, I keep wondering what this is doing to her family. She`s been gone all this time. They`ve probably reconciled with it. And every time a new search begins, they have to relive it all over again.

DR. SETH MEYERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Right. Well, I think this really brings up two primary feelings. And one is relief. Relief that there could be some sort of justice that is served, that there could be some answers, some closures. But at the same time it also really must bring up a tremendous amount of anxiety, re-awakening all those negative feelings, the anger, the rage, the frustration that were there the first time around.

GRACE: Unleash the lawyers. Eleanor Odom, Brian Claypool, Peter Odom.

Guys, I want you to take a listen to what Larry Fishelson, telecommunications expert, is going to say. You were saying about the pings and GPS tracking. Then I`m going to follow that up with questions to the lawyers.

Go ahead, Larry.

LARRY FISHELSON, TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPERT: Yes. What`s very interesting here is that he had a GPS tracker on her phone. Now what that is, it`s an application in the phone which he could remotely track. Now what`s possible here is that, you know, after something occurred here -- if it did occur, he could have went ahead and just stopped the GPS tracker. But all that information, no matter when it stopped, is all stored out there in what we call the Cloud, which is data servers, networks that store all this information.

So they could have gone back. He could have opened his mouth and mentioned something about hey, I had GPS tracking her phone and gone back and through the GPS they`ll be able to see every single location of that phone down to the minute little area.

GRACE: You know, Eleanor Odom, why is it? We`ve heard all this business about him putting a tracker on her phone that he could look at remote and see where she was at that exact moment. Why do guys always claim the wife is having an affair? And vice versa when it`s them? They`re the one having an affair. And when you hear his current lawyer, Steve Greenberg explain it, it`s like listening to a snake charmer.

If you listen long enough, you kind of like go with it. It`s completely wrong, he`s got it completely bass-akwards. They`re claiming, hey, because she had an affair, that claim she ran away. Well, the guy she`s having an affair with is still there in town, all right? I mean their argument doesn`t make any sense.

ODOM: Well, no. But, Nancy, it`s so typical. Defendants all over, they just want to put the spotlight on somebody else. They`re the victim, not the person who has actually disappeared and is more than likely dead. So that`s why they do it, Nancy. Remember, it`s power and control on the defendant`s part.

GRACE: Peter Odom?

PETER ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, he might not have been the world`s greatest husband. He might have been a jealous husband. But --

GRACE: Which time?

P. ODOM: That doesn`t make him a killer, Nancy. And if police have evidence --

GRACE: Second verse, same as the first.

P. ODOM: If the police have evidence that he was a killer -- pardon me, if I could finish that sentence, if the police had evidence he was a killer, then they should arrest him. If they don`t have enough evidence, they should leave him alone.

GRACE: You mean leave him alone in his jail cell?

P. ODOM: Leave him alone about this case. They`ve never had enough evidence, and by the way --

GRACE: Yes, leave the poor guy alone.

P. ODOM: If they prosecute him, if they prosecute him for this second -- for the second crime and that first crime comes in as evidence and it gets overturned, then this one will be overturned as well.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You forget that I know you`re not the kind of girl who lets marriage stop you. You forget that I know what kind of whore you are.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My god. Don`t ever hold me down again. I can`t do this anymore. We`re done, Drew. It`s over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know you`re not going anywhere.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You`re right. I`m not going anywhere. You are. You`re moving out.


GRACE: At this hour, the search is on for the body of Drew Peterson`s fourth wife, Stacey Peterson. This, as he cools -- as he cools his heels behind bars after a jury convicts him of murder of wife number three.

We`re taking your calls. Lisa in Michigan, hi, Lisa. What`s your question? I think I`ve got Lisa. Lisa, are you there, dear? OK. How about my other Lisa?

Lisa, are you with me?

LISA, CALLER FROM CANADA: Hello, but I`m actually from Canada. Sorry.

GRACE: Hi, dear. What`s your question?

LISA: Hi, Nancy. Can I please first say quickly, I`ve been watching your show for 10, 11 years every night.

GRACE: Thank you.

LISA: And I love what you do for victims and their families. It`s so sweet.

GRACE: Thank you.

LISA: OK? Now my question about the Drew Peterson case is when his third wife was found dead, how come they didn`t do a thorough investigation and put him in prison to save the fourth wife at least from missing now?

GRACE: Absolutely, Lisa. You`re so right. You know, we`ll never know the truth of why the police department -- remember, he was a member of the local police force -- did not thoroughly investigate the death of Kathleen Savio. Of course, now he has been convicted. But because of that, he was walking free and had the opportunity and the motive and the means to kill wife number four.

Joe Hosey, author of "Fatal Vows," weigh in.

HOSEY: Weigh in? You`re right. We`ll never know the full story. We know what they said in court. We know what the state police said when they were up on a witness stand. And it sounds like incompetence. You know? I mean, people have asked me, is this a conspiracy? I`m like, well it`s a conspiracy of errors. They -- I don`t know how they could look at this case with this woman who is going through a violent, tumultuous divorce with her police officer husband and then she`s dead in a tub.

And if you`ve seen those death scene photographs, they`re grizzly. There`s no water in the tub, there`s blood all over the tub. She`s jammed down there with her toes bent backwards. I mean, at the very least, one of these detectives should have said, this doesn`t look right. We better do some investigating. And instead, they`re like, well, no, it`s an accident. Let`s go home.

Within a half hour they decided it was an accident, they closed the book on that case and no one would have ever heard of her if Stacey Peterson didn`t disappear. No one would even know -- Kathleen Savio would be dead and no one would care.

GRACE: You know, Joe Hosey, author of "Fatal Vows," you have been to the scene where they are searching right now. Describe it.

HOSEY: You know, there`s a lot of -- there`s a lot of agents, federal agents. You`ve got state police. You`ve got their dog, it looks like a spring spaniel or something. They got a huge mobile command center. There were helicopters up in the air.

You know, I mean, this is a lot of manpower and a lot of hours. And you know they tried -- the state police told the forest preserve officials -- it`s a forest preserve district where this park is. They told them we`re just practicing our search techniques. They lied to the forest preserve officials about why they`re there. I don`t know why. I mean -- and this is like a pretty heavily traveled area. You know, you`re not going to -- you`re not going to flood into the radar with this with helicopters, and dog, and a huge bus and FBI on the side.

I mean I don`t know who they think they`re fooling. And I don`t know why they`d want to fool anyone. Go out there and look for this person. If you`re looking for Stacey Peterson, look for her. Why would you try to keep that a secret? Who are you keeping that a secret from?

GRACE: Well, you know, Eleanor, a lot of people are saying you can prove the case with circumstantial evidence, you need a body, but hey, we`re not in a rush. Drew Peterson is behind bars for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

So police can take their time. It`s not he`s going anywhere. And there`s no statute of limitations on murder. If they find her remains 15 years from now, if they don`t find him tonight -- they`re out digging right now, everybody. If they don`t find them tonight he`s not going anywhere. It`s not like he`s hopping a plane to Prague.

ODOM: Well, no, he`s not, Nancy. And they`ve got to be -- but they also have to get the evidence that they can as fast as they can before it deteriorates.



  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Pages: 1   Go Up
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 6.551 seconds with 21 queries.