Drew Peterson arrested/indicted for murder 3rd wife Kathleen Savio #1(GUILTY)

[Nut44x4]

Police lieutenant testifies about Savio death scene photos

February 3, 2010 4:43 PM | 1 Comment | UPDATED STORY

Police photos taken when Kathleen Savio was found drowned in a bathtub suggest that a hold often used by police to subdue prisoners may have been used on her, a Bolingbrook police lieutenant testified today.

Lt. Brian Hafner told Will County Judge Stephen White that the position of Savio's arm in scene photos he viewed appear consistent with the use of an "arm bar," which entails twisting an arm behind someone's back.

The positioning of her body did not indicate that she slipped and fell in the bathtub, Hafner said.

Drew Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police officer, is charged with killing Savio in 2004. Hafner testified at a hearing on what hearsay evidence may be allowed at this trial.

Hafner also testified about Peterson's training in police tactics, including 32 hours with nunchucks, and his employment with the department. The department used the martial arts weapons in the 1980s but no longer do, Hafner said.

Records showed that Peterson was appointed to a police evidence technician position in June of 1984, Hafner said.

Also testifying today was Kristin Anderson, whose family lived in Kathleen Savio's basement for two months in 2003.

She testified that Savio told her about her fears that Drew Peterson would kill her and said that Peterson had put a knife to her throat.

Savio also showed Anderson a briefcase with police reports and other documents about Peterson's abuse. Savio was creating a paper trial because "in case she was murdered, she wanted everybody to know who did it," Anderson said.

Anderson, 46, joined a growing list of witnesses who have testified to the same thing.

In Peterson's murder trial, prosecutors want witnesses to be able to testify about the alleged 2002 incident involving the knife when the case goes to trial, saying their participation will give Savio "a voice from the grave." White will decide whether 15 hearsay statements are permissible under a new state statute dubbed Drew's Law.

Savio's death initially was ruled an accidental drowning. She and Peterson were divorced at the time but had not yet settled their contentious property issue.

When Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, vanished in October 2007, authorities reopened Savio's case and eventually declared her death a homicide.

Anderson said that she and her family rented and lived in Savio's basement for about two months in 2003 while they were having a house built.

Anderson testified that Peterson had told Savio that he could kill her at anytime and make it look like an accident

"She was distraught, and also resigned," Anderson said. "She was so convinced that it was going to happen."

Savio also showed Anderson a briefcase with police reports and other documents about Peterson's abuse. Savio was creating a paper trial because "in case she was murdered, she wanted eveyrbody to know who did it," Anderson said.

"She tried with all of her might to prevent what took place. She went to all the higher authorities," Anderson said.

After Savio died, Anderson called state police twice to tell them about Peterson putting the knife to Savio's throat, but no one ever came out to interview her, she testified.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/more-testimony-that-peterson-threatened-to-kill-savio.html

[Nut44x4]

 
http://www.theolympian.com/nationworld/story/1127842.html

Pathologist: Peterson's ex-wife didn't die in fall
By DON BABWIN | Associated Press Writer • Published February 05, 2010

JOLIET, Ill. – A pathologist who concluded that the death of Drew Peterson's ex-wife was a homicide and not an accident as first determined testified Friday that her injuries weren't consistent with a fall in a bathtub.

Dr. Larry Blum, in his first public comments since the 2007 autopsy of Kathleen Savio, said he didn't think bruises on her body and a laceration to the back of her head came from a single fall. Savio's body was found slumped forward in a dry bathtub in 2004, and Blum said that her position wasn't consistent with a fall.

"There was no blood, hair or tissue on the tub," said Blum, who looked at photographs from the original autopsy and crime scene to help make his determination. "So the evidence doesn't bear that out."

Blum said Savio did drown but her death was not accidental, as another pathologist initially found.

"It was my opinion that it was a homicide," Blum said.

Blum's findings will be at the center of the courtroom battle between Will County prosecutors and Peterson's attorneys, who argue that Savio's death was accidental.

Blum testified at a hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson's upcoming trial. Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, usually isn't admissible in court. But Illinois judges can allow it in murder trials if prosecutors prove a defendant may have killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying.

There's little available forensic evidence in Savio's case, so prosecutors are expected to rely on statements Savio allegedly made to others saying she feared Peterson could kill her.

Blum, who said he laid down in Savio's tub as part of his investigation, testified the injury to the back of Savio's head may have been made shortly after her death and not as a result of a fall. He also pointed to a wound in the area of Savio's diaphragm as one that wouldn't have been caused in a fall.

"The bruise was deep, down to the bone," he said.

He said her injuries indicated that there was a struggle.

Blum also testified that Savio had no measurable drugs or alcohol in her system when she died - an effort to head off the argument defense attorneys have raised that perhaps Savio was in a condition that would have made a fall more likely.

Earlier in the day, Mary Parks, who studied nursing with Savio, testified about a day in late 2003 when Savio showed her red marks on her neck and told her Peterson made them.

"She told me her ex-husband had come into the house and had pinned her down," Parks testified.

Parks said Savio told her that during the incident Peterson told Savio, "Why don't you just die?"

She also said that Savio told her Peterson was intent on leaving her with nothing in the couple's divorce - but that even leaving her without any money, a share of the business the two owned, child support or custody of their two sons wouldn't have been enough for him.

"Kathy was very sure that if she gave up every cent ... that her ex-husband still would not leave her alone," Parks said.

Parks said she contacted prosecutors after Savio was found dead but was told there was no investigation into the case.

[Nut44x4]

State cop testifies at pretrial hearing that he was 'disgusted' with investigation into death of Drew Peterson's third wife
February 4, 2010

A state police crime scene investigator said Thursday that he gathered no evidence after Kathleen Savio was found drowned in her bathtub in 2004, and a state trooper there that night testified he was "disgusted" by how the investigation was handled.

Robert Deel said he had been handling crime scene investigations for about one year when he was called to Savio's Bolingbrook house in the overnight hours of March 1, 2004. He said he did not test for the presence of unseen blood in the bathroom, collect a blood sample from the tub, dust for fingerprints and did not take into evidence a glass of orange juice in the kitchen or a bottle of cleaning fluid on a dresser in Savio's bedroom.

"There wasn't really anything to look for," he said of evidence in the bathroom.

Savio's fingernail clippings — sometimes a source of crime scene DNA — were never tested, Deel said.

Deel said he also did not notice that night any of the documented injuries Savio suffered, but said it would not have changed his investigation.

"The bruises on the body are insignificant to me," he said.

He contradicted earlier testimony by head investigator Sgt. Patrick Collins, who said he decided after speaking with Deel within 40 minutes of being on the scene that Savio's death was accidental.

Deel said he believed her death was accidental but didn't reach that conclusion until after reviewing autopsy and toxicology results.

Deel also testified that after Stacy Peterson's disappearance in 2007, he was asked by Will County prosecutors to never again process a crime scene in their county.

Meanwhile, Master Sgt. Bryan Falat testified that Peterson and his new wife Stacy appeared to be lying in interviews with state police after Savio's death. But Falat said his concerns were ignored.

"Quite honestly, I was sort of disgusted with" how the investigation was handled, Falat said.

Despite Falat's objections, Collins interviewed Peterson in the lunchroom of the Bolingbrook Police Department, and Peterson was allowed to sit in on an interview with Stacy to check Peterson's alibi.

"I thought it was ridiculous," Falat said.

Stacy Peterson appeared "scripted" and often looked to Drew Peterson when she was unsure of an answer, Falat testified.

The couple gave a very detailed timeline of their activities that Sunday, the day before Savio's body was found, but they were more vague on what they did in the days just before and on March 1, 2004, Falat said. Peterson showed several signs of lying — volunteering information that wasn't asked for and becoming very still while giving an account of his activities that Sunday, Falat testified.

Falat said he wanted to re-question Peterson and his wife separately and suggested that Peterson's children also be interviewed. They never were, he said, and Falat was taken off the investigation March 10.

Authorities concluded Savio, 40, accidentally slipped in the bathtub and drowned.

But once Stacy Peterson vanished in October 2007, authorities reopened the investigation and reclassified Savio's death as a homicide. Peterson is the sole suspect but has not been charged in Stacy's disappearance.

Psychic Irene Lalagos testified that she read Stacy's cards at least twice and fielded a call from Peterson, who asked for help with the couple's marital problems.

Lalagos said Stacy Peterson told her in June 2007 that Drew Peterson "could kill her and hide her body where nobody would ever find it."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0205-drew-peterson-hearing-20100204,0,1115270.story

[Nut44x4]

Ex-Peterson co-worker says he was asked to kill Savio

February 9, 2010 11:31 AM | No Comments
A former co-worker of Drew Peterson testified today he had been approached by an intermediary with an offer to kill Kathleen Savio.

William Green said that cable contractor co-worker Jeff Pachter told him in July 2003 that "Drew would like me to ask you if you would kill his wife."

He said Pachter told him that Peterson said he wanted it to look like an accident and that Peterson wanted to be out of town when it happened.

Green said he didn't take the offer seriously.

Peterson moonlighted at the cable firm at the same time he was employed by the Bolingbrook Police Department.

Earlier, Pachter testified that Peterson offered $25,000 to help find a hit man to kill Savio. Pachter said he regarded it as a joke.  He said he never followed through.

Green said today he didn't remember how much he had been offered.  He also suggested he had been approached because of the Heavy Metal T-shirts he wore.

Today marked the 15th day of an evidentiary hearing being held in a Will County courtroom to decide which, if any, of 15 hearsay statements prosecutors may introduce as evidence at Peterson's upcoming murder trial for Savio's slaying.  When Savio's body was found in an empty bathtub in March 2004, her death was originally ruled accidental.  But after Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in October 2007, authorities reexamined Savio's death and ruled it a homicide.

Green testified that he didn't even know that Savio had died until he read news coverage following Stacy Peterson's disappearance.

At that point, he said, he called Lombard police and told them about the offer to kill Savio.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/ex-peterson-co-worker-says-he-was-asked-to-kill-savio.html

[CarolF]

I hope and pray the judge allows every bit of testimony from everyone at his trial. This man has got to go down where he belongs. Also hope they are able to bring charges against him for Stacy too. I am for once glad that he has a big mouth. He has sunk his own ship.

[Nut44x4]

Me too ... I despise him 

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) - Family members, investigators, clergy and even a psychic have spent weeks testifying in a northern Illinois courtroom - and Drew Peterson's murder trial hasn't even started.

Billed as a preliminary step in the case, an extraordinary hearing to determine what hearsay, or secondhand, evidence jurors will be allowed to hear during the former police officer's trial in his third wife's death has turned into a sort of legal dress rehearsal.

The testimony has exposed serious flaws in the police investigation of Kathleen Savio's death, Peterson's deteriorating relationship with his missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, and perhaps most important: a possible motive.

But none of it may matter if the judge doesn't allow at least some of the witnesses to testify during the real thing.

"If they don't get the hearsay stuff in, then they don't have a shot at this case," said Terry Sullivan, a Chicago attorney and former prosecutor.

The hearing is the result of a new Illinois law that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence - statements not based on a witness' direct knowledge - if prosecutors can prove a defendant may have killed a witness in order to prevent him or her from testifying. The law was so closely linked to the Peterson case that some have dubbed it "Drew's law."

That means for Judge Stephen White to allow hearsay evidence - such as witness testimony that Savio said she feared Peterson would kill her and make it look like an accident - he must believe Peterson not only killed her but did so to keep her from testifying. The same applies to similar comments that witnesses attributed Stacy Peterson before she disappeared.

"(White) is going to have to struggle with the intent here - if he murdered them with the intent to cause their unavailability,' said Herb Tanner of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan. "It doesn't have to be the sole intent, but it has to be in there."

snipped.....rest of it is stuff we have read a million times
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/10/ap/national/main6195513.shtml

[AmandaReckonwith]

All the prosecution's hearsay witnesses have been heard from, 68 of them.

The defense witness(es) shouldn't take much time to hear from, beginning Wed 2/17.

I have saved all the pics and vids I could find, will separate the "Hearsay Hearing" into a sub-album in a couple weeks since it has all become so huge...
but take a peek:

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio/

[CarolF]

Thanks Amanda this is really quite interesting! Still can't believe the scant coverage this was given so really glad you have all of this.

[trimmonthelake]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7277914
Report: Peterson may face dropped gun charge
Updated at 08:31 AM today
February 15, 2010 (WLS) -- Drew Peterson may have to face a charge of having an illegal gun after all.

The Tribune reported Monday morning that an appeals court panel has ruled that a judge erred in dismissing the charges against Peterson more than a year ago.

Peterson was originally accused of having an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, which is illegal in Illinois.

But a judge threw out the charge when Peterson's attorneys were not allowed access to certain prosecution documents. The appeals court now says that ruling was wrong.

Peterson is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He's pleaded not guilty. His fourth wife, Stacy, is also missing.

[trimmonthelake]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/gun-charges-reinstituted-against-drew-peterson.html

Gun charges reinstituted against Drew Peterson
February 15, 2010 5:18 AM | 2 Comments
An Illinois appeals court has shot down a Will County judge's decision that resulted in illegal gun charges being dropped against Drew Peterson.

Judge Richard Schoenstedt erred in ruling more than a year ago that Peterson's attorneys were to be allowed access to various prosecution documents in pursuit of their contention that the prosecution of Peterson on the gun charge was vindictive and selective, the court ruled.

When the Will County state's attorney's office refused to allow the discovery, arguing that would expose privileged and confidential documents in other aspects of investigations of Peterson, Schoenstedt dismissed the gun charges.
A three-judge panel of the Illinois Appellate Court Third District now has ruled there is no Illinois case law on the issue of where claims of selective or vindictive prosecution can be used to get pretrial discovery. It reversed Schoenstedt's decision and sent the case back to Will County court.

Peterson had been charged with possessing an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches as required under state law. That weapon had been seized by state police on a search warrant executed Nov. 1, 2007, just days after Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared.

Since then, Peterson has been charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. An evidentiary hearing is now under way in a Will County courtroom to determine which, if any, of 15 hearsay students prosecutors may introduce against Peterson at his upcoming trial.

[Nut44x4]

Prosecutors must show Peterson's wife was killed

Updated: Feb 16, 2010 05:28 PM EST

By DON BABWIN
Associated Press Writer
JOLIET, Ill. (AP) - The crime scene technician didn't think twice about the bottle of cleaning fluid near the bathroom where the body of Drew Peterson's ex-wife lay slumped in her bathtub - or whether it might have been used to wipe away evidence of a crime.

Six years later, as Peterson prepares to stand trial for murder in Kathleen Savio's death, the bottle underscores the huge challenge facing prosecutors: Before they ask jurors to convict Peterson of murder, they first must prove a homicide occurred in the first place.

Police were so sure Savio drowned accidentally that they didn't look twice at the cleaning fluid, and collected no forensic evidence. Even the coroner who conducted the autopsy in 2004 ruled the death an accident.

In most murder trials, the evidence of a slaying is as obvious as a bullet hole or a stab wound, and the only question is "whodunnit?" But in Peterson's case, nothing is obvious.

"This is a true circumstantial evidence case,'" said Vincent Bugliosi, who won a murder conviction of Charles Manson in the 1969 slayings of Sharon Tate and six others even though Manson was not at the scenes when the slayings occurred. "In circumstantial evidence cases you're putting one speck of evidence upon each other... You're putting on evidence showing the unlikelihood that this is an accidental death."

At a pretrial hearing to determine what hearsay - or secondhand - evidence a judge will allow a jury to hear at Peterson's trial, prosecutors have been trying to turn a bathroom into a crime scene. Defense attorneys say they'll call witnesses beginning Wednesday.

In a preview of what is sure to be repeated at Peterson's trial, prosecutors called witnesses to testify about Savio's medical history, her personal habits, even details about her house. They also questioned a pathologist who conducted a second autopsy on Savio's body, which was exhumed in 2007 after Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished.

Longtime pathologist Dr. Larry Blum, who ruled Savio's death a homicide, testified there were fresh bruises on her body that would not have come in a fall. And a gash on her head, which led investigators to the original conclusion that Savio slipped and fell, could have been made immediately after she died, he said.

Other witnesses talked about Peterson's training in subduing suspects, knowledge of choke holds and his background in martial arts - likely signaling that prosecutors will suggest the former Bolingbrook police officer overpowered Savio and put her in the tub.

Peterson's attorneys will try to convince a jury that Savio's medical problems could have caused her to fall.

Savio had a heart murmur, periodontal disease and cervical vertigo. Although her neurologist testified that in his 30 years of practice, he'd never seen that kind of vertigo cause anyone to fall, he acknowledged Savio's medical records show she complained of dizziness and numbness.

"That opens the door for a defense attorney to bring in almost anything, drug use, drinking, whether she walked in her sleep or had dizzy spells," said Terry Sullivan, a prominent Chicago attorney and former prosecutor.

Which might explain why prosecutors asked so many questions about Savio's bathroom.

Witnesses said there were no towels, no robe and no other clothes near the tub, and toiletry items lining the tub's edge were undisturbed. Prosecutors likely want jurors to believe if Savio was taking a bath, she'd at least have laid out a towel and if she did fall, she would have knocked something over.

Then there was Savio's hair. It was down when her body was found, but a woman who had lived with Savio said Savio always put her hair up in a clip before taking a bath.

Some of those answers will resonate with jurors, said Marilyn Brenneman, a prosecutor in Seattle's King County, who's handling a similar case in which a man was charged with killing his 3 1/2-year-old stepdaughter after the death was originally ruled an accident.

"Women on the jury will understand putting hair up because they don't want to have to dry it again," she said.

To argue that Savio's death was a homicide, prosecutors have to overcome something else: There is no evidence of a break-in, and no obvious explanation for how anyone could have gotten inside, killed Savio and gotten out without anyone noticing.

Witnesses included a man who now lives in Savio's house who recounted how was able to climb in a window after locking himself out. Peterson's second wife told of seeing Peterson with locksmith tools. And Peterson friend Rick Mims testified he once followed Savio to work at the request of Peterson, who'd told him he was going to sneak into Savio's house to retrieve "papers." When Savio left work, Mims said he alerted Peterson.

But nobody testified to actually seeing or hearing Peterson - or anyone else - sneak inside Savio's house.

That means the original challenge remains: overcoming a lack of physical evidence, like fingerprints or DNA, to prove she didn't just drown.

"You have to pile a lot of suspicious circumstances on top of each other," Bugliosi said. "You have to get to the point where you can say (to a jury) 'Come onfolks.'"

http://www.kcautv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11993525

[trimmonthelake]

http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-peterson-drew-hearing-021710,0,1224531.story
Drew Peterson attorney calling two witnesses in hearing

Associated Press

10:53 AM CST, February 17, 2010
Joliet, Ill. - Drew Peterson's attorney says he plans to call two witnesses at a hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge might allow during the former Bolingbrook police sergeant's murder trial.

Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky says a pathologist will testify Wednesday that he believes the 2004 death of Peterson's third wife was an accident as originally determined before it was ruled a homicide. Brodsky also says a neighbor of Peterson's stepbrother will dispute some testimony from stepbrother Thomas Morphey.

Brodsky had originally said he'd call 20 witnesses. But he now says he believes that's no longer necessary. Brodsky says he expects closing arguments Wednesday afternoon.

[Nut44x4]

http://www.theolympian.com/nationworld/story/1127842.html

Pathologist: Peterson's ex-wife didn't die in fall
By DON BABWIN | Associated Press Writer • Published February 05, 2010

JOLIET, Ill. – A pathologist who concluded that the death of Drew Peterson's ex-wife was a homicide and not an accident as first determined testified Friday that her injuries weren't consistent with a fall in a bathtub.

Dr. Larry Blum, in his first public comments since the 2007 autopsy of Kathleen Savio, said he didn't think bruises on her body and a laceration to the back of her head came from a single fall. Savio's body was found slumped forward in a dry bathtub in 2004, and Blum said that her position wasn't consistent with a fall.

"There was no blood, hair or tissue on the tub," said Blum, who looked at photographs from the original autopsy and crime scene to help make his determination. "So the evidence doesn't bear that out."

Blum said Savio did drown but her death was not accidental, as another pathologist initially found.

"It was my opinion that it was a homicide," Blum said.

Blum's findings will be at the center of the courtroom battle between Will County prosecutors and Peterson's attorneys, who argue that Savio's death was accidental.

Blum testified at a hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson's upcoming trial. Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, usually isn't admissible in court. But Illinois judges can allow it in murder trials if prosecutors prove a defendant may have killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying.

There's little available forensic evidence in Savio's case, so prosecutors are expected to rely on statements Savio allegedly made to others saying she feared Peterson could kill her.

Blum, who said he laid down in Savio's tub as part of his investigation, testified the injury to the back of Savio's head may have been made shortly after her death and not as a result of a fall. He also pointed to a wound in the area of Savio's diaphragm as one that wouldn't have been caused in a fall.

"The bruise was deep, down to the bone," he said.

He said her injuries indicated that there was a struggle.

Blum also testified that Savio had no measurable drugs or alcohol in her system when she died - an effort to head off the argument defense attorneys have raised that perhaps Savio was in a condition that would have made a fall more likely.

Earlier in the day, Mary Parks, who studied nursing with Savio, testified about a day in late 2003 when Savio showed her red marks on her neck and told her Peterson made them.

"She told me her ex-husband had come into the house and had pinned her down," Parks testified.

Parks said Savio told her that during the incident Peterson told Savio, "Why don't you just die?"

She also said that Savio told her Peterson was intent on leaving her with nothing in the couple's divorce - but that even leaving her without any money, a share of the business the two owned, child support or custody of their two sons wouldn't have been enough for him.

"Kathy was very sure that if she gave up every cent ... that her ex-husband still would not leave her alone," Parks said.

Parks said she contacted prosecutors after Savio was found dead but was told there was no investigation into the case.

Quoting the above with this post to show difference of opinion and source there of .... 

Pathologist: Peterson's ex-wife's death accidental

February 17, 2010

A pathologist hired by Drew Peterson's attorneys says the death of Peterson's ex-wife was accidental, as originally determined, and not a homicide as ruled three years later after her body was exhumed.

Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen testified Wednesday at a hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge might allow during the former Bolingbrook police sergeant's murder trial. Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Jentzen is a former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee who now teaches at the University of Michigan. He says evidence clearly points to an accident in Savio's death.

Savio's body was found in a dry bathtub in 2004. Jentzen says he believes the death was an accidental drowning.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2054488,drew-peterson-trial-murder-021710.article

I want to know how much he was paid to say that 
(in bold above)

[Nut44x4]

Closing arguments in Peterson hearing Friday

Associated Press - February 17, 2010 3:44 PM ET

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) - Closing arguments are expected Friday in a pretrial hearing for Drew Peterson, a former suburban Chicago police officer accused of killing his third wife.

Prosecutors say they'll call a third pathologist on Friday and closing arguments will follow.

The hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge might allow during Peterson's murder trial has gone on for weeks.

Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in a bathtub in 2004. Her death was initially deemed accidental. After Peterson's fourth wife went missing in 2007, Savio's body was exhumed and her death reclassified as a homicide.

Peterson is a suspect in Stacy Peterson's disappearance but hasn't been charged.

http://www.wrex.com/Global/story.asp?S=12000084

[AmandaReckonwith]

Nut, you know how Dr Baden was paid a huge amount to say KS was murdered? Well, I wondered how the defense with so little money could get such a heavy-hitter forensic pathologist. Dr Jentzen handled the Dahmer case, he was Chief ME in Milwaukee for a long time before going to head up the forensics/autopsy dept at U of M.

Through an obit, I found the connection.

A poster at another forum (harmony) gave me the how-it-fits.

Camille Abood was Andrew Abood's uncle, who was in practice with Andrew's father at his law firm. So, Andrew's cousin Dr. Chris Abood was married to Ruth Otto Abood, and her sister is married to Jeff Jentzen.

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio/?action=view&current=aboodJentzen.jpg


Here's a good article about Dr Jentzen:
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/03/um_pathologist_handled_jeffrey.html

[CarolF]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0217-drew-peterson-hearing-resumes20100216,0,4425394.story

By Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporter
4:09 p.m. CST, February 17, 2010

Drew Peterson hearsay ruling might be kept secret
Judge expected to issue decision under seal to avoid influencing jury pool

More than 80 hours of testimony from 68 witnesses along with at least 155 pieces of evidence have given the
public a fascinating preview of the murder case against Drew Peterson, but the actual results of the hearing
might be kept secret.

Attorneys for both sides say the public likely won't hear which, if any, of the 15 hearsay statements will be
allowed at trial in the 2004 drowning death of Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio.

As part of his ruling on the monthlong hearing, Will County Judge Stephen White must essentially find
Peterson guilty or not of killing his third or fourth wife before deciding to allow any of the submitted
hearsay to be used at trial. Attorneys on both sides expect White will issue his ruling under seal to
avoid influencing the jury pool.

Colin Miller, an associate professor at John Marshall Law School, said it could create a
"significant problem" if White releases his rulings publicly.

"It's weird because you're saying in the defendant's trial for murder the statements can come in because
he's guilty of murder," Miller said.

White has asked both sides to make closing arguments Wednesday, but prosecutors late Tuesday were
still working to determine whether other witnesses needed to be called. Attorneys for Peterson, a former
Bolingbrook police sergeant, still plan to call one of their expert pathologists to testify.

The hearing, a first of its kind in Illinois, was required under a new state law allowing judges to admit
certain hearsay statements.

Prosecutors were required to show by a "preponderance of the evidence" that Peterson killed Savio or his
 fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who disappeared in 2007, to prevent them from testifying against him.

Peterson is the sole suspect in Stacy's disappearance but has not been charged.

Many legal experts believe that any decision under the new law to admit the submitted hearsay statements
 likely will be overturned.
But former federal prosecutor Steven Miller said he thought prosecutors would get much of their submitted
hearsay into evidence.

"It's the sheer volume of evidence, the multiple dead women connected with (Peterson)," he said. "The dozens
 of witnesses is a witch's brew of problems for a defendant."

White already has found that perhaps the most damning statement — from Pastor Neil Schori, who told the
media that Stacy told him Peterson had killed Savio — won't be allowed.

Lacking any physical evidence that ties Peterson to Savio's death, prosecutors have argued Peterson had a
 financial motive to kill Savio.

Defense attorneys will argue Savio's death was an accident — as a coroner's jury found in 2004. State police
have testified that they gathered no evidence from Savio's home when she was found dead in a dry bathtub.

"That's one of the points that will be brought out — there is no evidence," said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky.

[CarolF]

Here is another article I found about Jeffrey Jentzen testimony.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100218/UPDATES01/100217077/Pathologist++Drew+Peterson+s+3rd+wife+died+accidentally+

DON BABWIN • Associated Press Writer • February 18, 2010

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — A pathologist hired by a former suburban Chicago police sergeant's attorneys testified Wednesday that the death of Drew Peterson's third wife was accidental and not a homicide as ruled three years later after her body was exhumed.

In the clearest signal yet of the battle attorneys will engage in over the death of Kathleen Savio, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen said "it is my opinion that it was an accident."

Jentzen, a former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee who teaches at the University of Michigan, said he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio's body but relied on previous autopsies, crime scene photographs, police reports and other information. Savio's death was ruled accidental after her body was found in a dry bathtub in 2004.

Jentzen said the evidence clearly points to an accident — from the absence of any defensive wounds on Savio's body to the condition of the bathroom when her body was found. He said the bathroom appeared normal, saying Savio's glasses were folded and there was no sign of an intruder.

The pathologist said he believes Savio may have simply slipped or fainted in the tub. He also pointed to medical records that show she had a heart murmur, suggesting her heart may have stopped and caused her to slam the back of her head against a hard object and then fall into the tub and drown.

Whatever happened, "she suffered a blunt force injury and that could have rendered her unconscious," Jentzen said.

Other witnesses have testified that Savio would never have bathed wearing jewelry. Jentzen said the fact that she was wearing what he called a "delicate" necklace strongly suggested to him that she didn't struggle with an attacker.

Jentzen, who has conducted thousands of autopsies, said he would have expected such a necklace to have somehow been damaged in an attack.
"I've seen it numerous times," he said.

Jentzen also said he believes many of the other bruises on Savio's body could have happened when she fell.

Defense attorneys had planned to call 20 witnesses in the pretrial hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge might allow during Peterson's murder trial. Defense attorney Joel Brodsky said Wednesday that was not necessary because testimony from those witnesses, including police officers, was already in reports accepted by prosecutors.

Prosecutors plan to call a third pathologist Friday, then closing arguments will follow.

Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio's death. Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007. Peterson has not been charged in the disappearance but police say he is a suspect. It was after Stacy Peterson went missing that investigators exhumed Savio's body and determined her death was a homicide.

Before the hearing began Wednesday, Brodsky said he didn't know exactly when Judge Stephen White would decide if any of the prosecution's 15 hearsay statements would be allowed. Brodsky said the judge plans to seal his decision to protect the jury pool from pretrial publicity.
Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, is usually not admissible in court. Illinois judges can however allow it in murder trials if prosecutors prove a defendant may have killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying.

There's little available forensic evidence in Savio's case, so prosecutors are expected to rely on statements Savio allegedly made to others saying she feared Peterson could kill her.


Wow they must have lots of money to hire not one but three pathologists.

[CarolF]

I think I have stayed up too late.  I read that wrong. It says the "Prosecutors plan to call a third pathologist Friday" not the defense.
 

[klaasend]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586961,00.html?test=latestnews

Pathologist Testifies Peterson's Ex-Wife's Death was Homicide

Friday , February 19, 2010

AP
ADVERTISEMENT

JOLIET, Ill. —
A renowned pathologist testified Friday that former police officer Drew Peterson's ex-wife drowned in her bathtub in 2004 after being beaten and intentionally held under water, not after an accidental fall.

Dr. Michael Baden, the former chief medical examiner of New York City, said there were bruises on Kathleen Savio's body consistent with a struggle but no physical signs that she'd slipped and fallen, such as marks or blood on her bathroom wall.

"In my opinion, this is a homicide in which she drowned and was beaten up," Baden said.

Baden was the last of more than 70 witnesses called in a hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge will allow at Peterson's upcoming murder trial.

Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, usually isn't admissible in court. But Illinois judges can allow it in murder trials if prosecutors prove a defendant may have killed a witness to prevent them from testifying. There's little available forensic evidence in Savio's case, so prosecutors are expected to rely on statements Savio allegedly made to others saying she feared Peterson could kill her.

Attorneys said they expect a decision on the hearsay issue in the next few weeks.

The former Bolingbrook police officer has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio's death. She was found dead in a dry bathtub with a laceration to the back of her head.

Savio's family asked Baden to conduct an autopsy in 2007 after the disappearance of Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. Savio's death was originally classified as an accident, but was reclassified a homicide after her body was exhumed. Peterson has not been charged in Stacy Peterson's disappearance and denies wrongdoing.

While Baden and another pathologist called by Will County prosecutors testified that Savio's death was a homicide, a pathologist called by the defense said he believes it was an accident and that Savio drowned after falling.

Baden said it's "extremely rare" for a healthy adult such as Savio to drown accidentally in a bathtub, noting that most people who drown in tubs are babies or the elderly. Savio's toes were pressed against the side of the bathtub, as if she was struggling, not relaxed as if she'd fallen and knocked herself out, Baden said.

He also refuted claims by the defense pathologist that a heart murmur may have caused Savio's heart to stop, saying her heart condition "did not cause or contribute in any way to her death."

Closing arguments in the hearing were also set for Friday.

[Nut44x4]

Feb. 22, 2010
Will Drew Peterson Be Condemned From the Grave?

Judge to Decide if Hearsay Evidence About Peterson's Two Wives Can Be Used in Trial

Drew Peterson is facing words from the grave that could send him to jail for the rest of his life.   

Peterson, the 56-year-old ex-cop who loved to talk, has been silent for the last year -- locked up -- charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in a bathtub in 2004.

The prosecution's case against Peterson is being constructed around Savio -- in an unprecedented attempt to use hearsay evidence from the dead.

"It is being built on the words, the alleged words, the unproven words of a dead person being conveyed through her friends, relatives and acquaintances," said Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky.

Watch the full story on "Nightline" tonight at 11:35 p.m. ET



oops......got carried away and 4got the link
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Law/drew-peterson-murder-trial-hearsay-evidence-determine-guilt/story?id=9908667