September 5, 2:46 p.m. Testimony of Kathleen Savio's divorce attorney Harry Smith now being read to the jury.

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

2:45 p.m. Divorce lawyer's testimony read to jury

The court reporter read a transcript of the testimony of Harry Smith, who was Savio's divorce attorney and another key hearsay witness who was actually called as a defense witness.

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

3 p.m. Defense objects to transcript reading

For the second time, the defense has objected and requested a sidebar during the reading of the Harry Smith transcript.

In both instances, Joel Brodsky complained that the court reporter skipped over a portion of the transcript.

In the second objection, Brodsky objected to court reporter leaving out one of his questions to Smith that the state objected to at the time because it was a compound question. Burmila sustained the objection.

Burmila wondered why a question that was stricken due to a sustained objection should be read again.

"You asked a question. The state objected, and I sustained the objection. Why would we read that to the jury?" Burmila said.

"I'm sorry. I know that question was asked. You just asked me to ask it a different way," Brodsky mumbled.

Burmila warned him to approach the court if he felt the court reporter misread something.

"Don't say in front of the jury again, 'That's wrong,'" Burmila said. "The proofs are closed. I'm not asking for a response, just don't say that again."

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

3:25 p.m. Deliberations resume

Transcripts have been read and jurors have resume their deliberations.

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

I'm not quite sure to make of the jury wanting these two transcripts read back to them.

Drew Peterson trial updates: Jury asks to go home

6:10 p.m. Jury asks to go home

Judge Edward Burmila told jurors they could go home or keep deliberating, and the jury has requested to go home. Burmila will bring them in to remind them to avoid any media coverage and dismiss them for the night.

6 p.m. Jurors ask about dinner

Judge Edward Burmila said that jurors have asked for dinner.

But Burmila said he is concerned about how long the day has been for the jury, noting a recent conviction in Will County was overturned after an appellate court found they were made to deliberate for an excessive length of time.

The defense suggested that the court simply let them know that they have the option to continue or resume deliberations tomorrow, but prosecutors said the jurors have made their intentions known.

"Clearly they have communicated their desire to continue," Assistant State's Atty. Chris Koch said.

Burmila sent jurors a note asking if they would like to continue deliberating or stop and resume in the morning.

Jurors sent a note back to Burmila asking, "If we want to resume deliberations tomorrow, will we go home or will we stay somewhere?"

Updates at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 8698.story

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

Hi Sunstar.... the fact that they are asking anything seems to indicate they are willing to accept it was murder at least?
But who knows...

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

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

Drew Peterson trial updates: 'Verdict must be signed by all'

1 p.m. 'Verdict must be signed by all'

Judge Edward Burmila is drafting this response to jurors: "The word unanimous has its common meaning. It indicates the agreement of all on the matter at hand. Your verdict must be unanimous and signed by all."

12:55 p.m. 'What does unanimous mean?'

The judge said the note from jurors reads, "Just to be clear, judge, what does unanimous mean?"

The judge proposes to respond that, "The word unanimous . . . indicates the agreement of all on the matter at hand."

12:50 p.m. Relatives gather to hear jurors' question

Kathleen Savio's sister, Sue Doman, and other relatives have returned to the courtroom.

The judge is not on the bench, and both the prosecution and defense teams are conferring separately about how to answer the question, which has not been revealed in court yet.

12:30 p.m. Question from jurors

Jurors have a question, and attorneys for both sides are returning to the courtroom.

11:50 a.m. Lunch is served

Lunch has arrived for jurors, who have been deliberating for more than 11 hours total so far.

9:45 a.m. People line up to watch ... nothing

A few die-hard court watchers are still lining up in the middle of the night at the Will County courthouse to get tickets to see the Drew Peterson murder trial — even though very little is happening in the courtroom.

The jury of seven men and five women is deliberating and nothing has happened in the courtroom today.

But three people lined up outside the Joliet courthouse about 1:30 a.m., three others at 3:30 a.m. and about seven others arrived later, according to a spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office.

9:05 a.m. Deliberations resume

Jurors began deliberating in the Drew Peterson murder case at 9:05 a.m. They were not brought into the courtroom but instead escorted directly to the jury room to begin deliberating.

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

Jury asking what "Unanimous" means? *sigh*

The jury system sure has it's limitations.

To be fair... I hope their concern is over agreement on all aspects, perhaps there is some dissension on some things, but agreement on others?

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

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

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

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

Drew Peterson trial updates: Peterson arrives to hear verdict

2:35 p.m. Peterson arrives to hear verdict

Drew Peterson is seated at the defense table. State's Attorney James Glasgow has just arrived at the courthouse. Some members of the defense team have not yet arrived. There are seven sheriff's deputies in the courtroom, more than the usual two. Spectators have filled the gallery and overflow room.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 2366.story

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

2:47 p.m. Peterson shows no emotion

Drew Peterson showed no emotion when the verdict was announced.

2:45 p.m. Jurors being polled

Judge Edward Burmila is polling the jury on their verdict.

2:44 p.m. Peterson has been found guilty
There was an audible gasp in the courtroom when the verdict was announced.

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

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

Mob justice has been served... and few will have any sympathy for Drew Peterson.

But I do wonder about the wider ramifications. A special law passed "Drews Law" after the fact.. to allow hearsay....just to get him?

And even so the evidence IMO was flimsy.

An autopsy performed when the body was fresh, by a well respected pathologist, with no biases we know of, decided that the death was as a result of an accident.

After the outcry and hysteria over Stacy "missing", Savio's body was exhumed, and examined with a preconceived notion that the death was not an accident. The body obviously had deteriorated after 3 years buried in a (wet) grave.
I would give far far more weight to an autopsy on a "fresh" corpse than I would to an autopsy performed on remains after 3 years of decay. And I would give far more weight to the opinion of a examiner not likely to have any biases, than I would to any examiner who had been subject to all that had been written and broadcast about the case.

There are any number of examples of the mob getting things wrong. The Zimmerman case at the moment is a glaring example... but in my experience it is very common for the mob to get things wrong.

There is more to justice that GETTING the person that everyone is sure did it. EVEN if the mob is right.... does the end justify the means?

I wonder if Justice really has been served.

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

I wonder too.

Unbelievable that they passed "Drews Law" and took away the right to confront an accusor. Get in line to see who's next to get sent up on such flimsy evidence and underhanded laws.

Actually I think he's guilty but couldn't have voted that way based on what we've heard.

Thanks Packy.... it really is encouraging that somebody else can see it too.

Yes.. I don't like Drew and I think he is guilty... easy enough to say that... click any forum poll about it... but what about the next case?

The Zimmerman case is again a good example.

Media coverage and some sort of political agenda has distorted the facts in that case.. and whipped up a mob hysteria.


With the increase in live news TV and all the online coverage and social media, forums... it is even MORE important than it ever was, to stick to the rule of law.

It is now virtually impossible to seat a jury that is untainted by news coverage.. often very sensationalised news coverage.

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

FWIW My summary of events.....

Drew Peterson is an evil man, a bully for sure.. He threatened, and eventually killed Kathleen, over the divorce... a solution whereby he retained financial assets, without sharing with her at all and retained custody of the children. There was also the bonus of insurance on her life.
I don't think it helps to "diagnose" him as a "sociopath" or any "...path"... in fact, a psychological label, in part, justifies an act as part of some condition.. rather than what it is.... simply an act of evil.
I don't think DrewP has any condition where he needs to murder people.. he did it for a reason, albeit a selfish reason. The reason he did it a second time, was really part of the same act.. having murdered Kathleen he killed Stacy to stop her revealing that crime.
So I have no problem with him being locked up for life, but I don't think he is a "serial wife killer" or any sort of class of psychological deviant.. just an evil guy who thought he could get away with murder for his own financial gain reasons.

So... it may seem strange to say.... I don't think he would be a risk to others.. not likely to kill again, as some have suggested.

As I say.. no problem Peterson being locked away, but I do have a problem with the precedent set by how the conviction was achieved.

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