SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Day Eight: Savio's boyfriend on the stand By Sun-Times on August 10, 2012 8:35 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks BY JOSEPH R. LOPEZ

Today we began with the testimony of Steve Maniaci. He told the jurors he knew Kathy Savio since they worked together in 1984. He saw her again at a company reunion and she was with Drew. In 2001 he learned through a mutual friend that Kathy would be attending a Christmas party. He and Kathy both talked at the party and he was told she was getting a divorce. The began social dating for a few months because he did not want to get serious because he did not know if she and Drew were going to reconcile.

He told the jurors about their relationship from 2002 until 2004. He was able to tell the jury what he and Kathy had done the Friday before her death. They went out for dinner and drinks and he was so intoxicated, Kathy had to drive home. Later that evening they had sex. After sex they went to bed and the next day they went out for hamburgers because he had a hangover.

He left Saturday morning and later talked to Kathy to make plans about the evening. Steve wanted Kathy to come over and study and watch a movie. She wanted him to come over. He went home to take a shower and went to bed. Kathy called around midnight and they had an argument over marriage and she hung up. He did not call her on Sunday and she did not call him. On Monday, he went out with his friends for drinks and tried to contact Kathy but to no avail. Later, a neighbor, Mary Pontarelli, called him and asked if Kathy was with him. She called back and said they were going into the house he drove over to her house and on the way was told Kathy was dead.

When he got there, he asked Drew what happened and Drew said he didn't know. He said to Drew, "This worked out for you." To which Drew replied, she was not going to win in the divorce anyway.

On cross examination he stated Kathy took Zoloft and had complained of chest pains. He told the jury that he and Kathy spent many weekends together at their respective residences. He said Kathy liked tea and juice and sometimes they would have breakfast in bed at Kathy's house. Kathy could be feisty and sometimes could be difficult. He said due to her school schedule and pending distribution of property she was a "basketcase" that weekend. He detailed their lovemaking and showed jurors on a plat where they made love. He told the jury Kathy would complain that she bruised easily. He said she may have had some bruises from sex. He was consistent with his direct.

Susan Doman testified next. She repeated the same theme, that Drew held a knife to her sister's neck and said "I can kill you and make it look like an accident." She asked Drew if he killed her sister and he said I would not kill the mother of my children. Drew told her they had to wait until the 's inquest to determine the cause of death. When she found out the coroner ruled it an accident, she called Drew and he was happy.

During my cross-examination, Doman admitted she had a movie deal which would allow the story to be told in a positive manner and that it would be colorful. It also could be fictional and cast in a positive manner. She would receive 1/3 of the net profits. I put the contract up on the screen. I went line by line through the agreement. I also confronted her with her statement in which she agreed Drew said he could kill Kathy and make it look like an accident rather than he was going to kill her. According to court observers, the jury was very interested in the movie contract she signed. Next up was Susan McCauley. She was a bartender who saw Drew after Kathy's death was ruled an accident. Drew looked happy and she said to Drew he was lucky and had a horseshoe in his posterior. Steve Greenberg cross-examined her and she admitted that both she and Drew were joking with each other.

Next up was Dominick DeFrancesco, the brother of Mary Pontarelli. The Saturday before Kathy was found dead, he saw her bedroom light was on at 2 a.m. Ralph Meczyk cross-examined him and noted that the witness did not give them information about what he observed.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Day 7: Scared to walk to car, but never called security By Chicago Sun-Times on August 9, 2012 11:01 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

The day kicked off with more legal haggling with various motions. More objections to evidence. The judge denied the motions. Mary Parks was next. She testified she was in classes with Kathy Savio. She saw marks on her neck she said Drew gave her in the Fall of 2003. She also said she felt that Drew would kill her and make it look like an accident.

On cross, she was impeached with her prior inconsistent statements. She was shown police reports which did not contain the statements. She attributed a conversation she had with Kathy about the printing business which Kathy and Drew owned. But it was pointed out that the business was sold in 1999. She and Drew split it 50/50.

She was fighting over mutual business, the printing business. She also testified that Kathy was afraid to walk to her car. But when asked if she or Kathy ever requested campus security to escort Kathy to her car, she said "no."

On redirect, she was consistent with her direct but on cross she said she did not attend the funeral because her class schedule was more important

More legal haggling over the next witness, Doctor Blum. An issue arose in which the parties could not reach an agreement so the jury was dismissed. The judge then took up arguments on motions. The first motion was to bar Kathy's divorce attorney to testify what was at stake in the divorce. Drew's pension was a big issue but Kathy agreed on October 10, 2003, that she may not be entitled to any portion of the pension. The court then ruled that there was other motive evidence in the record so he barred it.

The next motion was to bar a lock pick set which was recovered from his home in 2009. The judge ruled that state has to prove that the lock was picked, and until they can draw a string of circumstances to place Drew at the scene and produce some evidence the lock was picked they will not be allowed.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Day Six: Gasps from the gallery By Chicago Sun-Times on August 8, 2012 9:54 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks First up Wednesday was the motion argued by Drew Peterson defense team member Lisa Lopez to exclude the testimony of Bolingbrook Police Lt. James Coughlin. He testified that he had told the state's attorney that his previous statement to an FBI agent was false. This statement by Coughlin was not disclosed by the state to the defense. During arguments it was demonstrated that there was only one court date during the month of February 2004 and that the judge signed a court order continuing the case until April 6, 2004.

The court order stated that Drew, Kathy and her lawyer were not present. Based on the official court order, it was obvious that the testimony of Lt. Coughlin was suspect and probably false, regarding when he saw Drew in divorce court.

The judge did not grant the motion but admonished the state again, telling prosecutors that the defense could call the FBI agent to the stand to prove his report contained an accurate statement of what Coughlin told him during the interview.

The judge also remarked that he was hesitant in striking the testimony due to the cross-examination by the defense in which the court order and the FBI agent's report came to light -- which damaged the credibility of Coughlin.

Next up was State Police investigator Patrick Collins who told the jury he talked to Drew after the discovery of his ex-wife's remains. Collins described his interview with Stacy, and Drew was present. He also testified that the interview took place at the Bolingbrook police station. This contradicted his testimony at the grand jury, where he said the interview took place at Drew's home.

He told the jury that Drew gave him a detailed account of his whereabouts for the entire weekend. Also, Collins asked Drew questions about the divorce, but Collins did not follow up with any of Kathy's family members. Collins' account of the investigation included how he walked through the house and blamed Sgt. Deel for any mistakes he may have made. No signs of illicit entry were found. Collins also stated the state's attorney closed the case, and he did not disagree with that action.

The defense presented arguments regarding future hearsay statements which were ruled by a previous judge to be unreliable and not admissible. Judge Edward Burmila, after hearing the argument of the state and considering the appellate court decision, allowed the hearsay to be presented to the jury. This ruling did not take the defense by surprise.

Last up was Kristen Anderson, a friend of Kathy's, who testified that she and her family moved in with Kathy for two months while her house was being built. She stated Kathy told her that Drew, while wearing a black SWAT uniform, came into her house, threatened her with a knife and told Kathy he could kill her and make it look like an accident. It was my job to cross-examine her. I did not hold back and drew gasps from the crowd in the gallery. During my cross it was learned she called the state police and allegedly told them about the threats to Kathy. She did not move out when Kathy told her she was going to be killed and remained in the house for another month with her family.

She never reported the threats until after Kathy died. She called the state police in 2004, and they did not call back. Finally, in December 2007, she was interviewed and claimed she told state police officers about the threat and the knife but it was not detailed in their report.

She mentioned a few other interviews and told the jury she repeated the story to state police, but it was not in any of the state police investigation reports. She accused the state police of suppressing evidence and not getting her statement right. This is the second witness who has claimed the police were wrong in their reports. On Tuesday, Coughlin accused the FBI of a false report. So, now two witnesses are claiming the police ignored what they told them and did not include it or got it wrong.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Day Five: Testimony recap By Chicago Sun-Times on August 7, 2012 10:57 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks BY JOSEPH R. LOPEZ

Tuesday began with the testimony of Michael VanOver, the Will County deputy coroner. He never mentioned to anyone that the death of Drew Peterson's wife was suspicious. It was not until he was whistled into the Will County State's Attorney's office did he become suspicious. He also testified that Anna Doman, Kathy Savio's sister, never told him that she believed Drew Peterson killed her sister and made it look like an accident.

Next up to the witness stand was Robert Deel, a scene investigator for the . He was presented various photographs from the scene and he carefully examined each.

Deel talked about arriving at the scene with his camera and how he began snapping various photos of the scene. The state asked him about a can of carpet cleaner in a photo, which was previously admitted into evidence. This photo also depicts Kathy's black cat seated below the can of carpet cleaner.

Deel also stated the tub was dry and the drain was closed. A photo was shown of a gash mark on Kathy's head. He helped take Kathy out of the bathtub. Photographs of the kitchen, which depicted a glass of orange juice and some pills, was put into evidence.

On cross-examination, Deel testified he has investigated eight to 10 homicides. He had seen 50 drownings while assigned to a marine unit on Lake Michigan. He also told the jury that he did a survey of Kathy's house and did not see anything out of the ordinary. He was with ISP investigator Bryan Falat, and they did not see anything out of place. The body appeared to be in the correct position, and nothing was moved around. He also bagged her hands to preserve any evidence under the nails, in case there had been a struggle. There were no blood splatters, which indicated there was one blow to the head, not several. He was shown a few sketches from the scene, one to scale, another not to scale. He also looked for blood on the tile grout and did not see any. The most common injury out of all household accidents is the slip-and- fall, and her position was consistent with one slipping and falling in the tub.

Questions were asked concerning Dr. Bryan Mitchell, the pathologist who did the original on Kathy, stating Kathy's death may have been classified undetermined but was not classified as a homicide.

Next up was another investigator, Patrick Colllins. More legal haggling came into play because the state wanted to get into an alibi statement. Bolingbrook Police Lt. James Coughlin next testified that he was in the courthouse and saw Drew in divorce court.

He then stated Drew was mad because the lawyers were laughing about his case because they were taking all his money, and Drew said he would be better off if Kathy were dead. He was impeached with his prior inconsistent statement to the FBI.

Coughlin said the FBI report was wrong. He was also impeached with the divorce order, which stated Mr. Peterson, Ms. Savio and her lawyer were not present in court the day Coughlin said they were. The issue of the witness telling the state his statement to the FBI was false resurfaced, and the judge will decide tomorrow what remedy he will apply for the state's failure to disclose this information.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Drew Peterson: Day Four, Savio's sister on the stand By Chicago Sun-Times on August 3, 2012 4:27 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks BY JOSEPH R. LOPEZ

Today started off smoothly with no legal jousting. Anna Doman took the stand and described how her sister Kathy Savio told her Drew was going to kill her. Later, Kathy added Drew was going to make it look like an accident. The death certificate was displayed, which was current as of July 24, 2012. It stated Kathy died from drowning, and that it was an accident. Anna was admonished by the court on two occasions to answer the questions during cross-examination. At one point, Judge Burmila warned her not to look at the prosecutors for the answer during the cross.

Doman admitted she did not tell any police officers about the alleged threat the night that Kathy died, when the police came to her house. She also admitted she did not tell the coroner about the threat at the coroner's inquest. She claimed she did not tell any police officers of the threat until Nov. 27, 2007, but said she complained to the police for not listening to her. Her claim did not appear in the Nov. 27, 2007 police reports.

She also denied knowing who Fox television host Greta Van Susteren was, despite being on her show. She also testified that six weeks before her death, Kathy showed her a briefcase filled with paperwork and told her if anything happened, Anna should not look for anything else but the briefcase. After Kathy died, Anna and her family went to Kathy's house to look for papers. Anna testified she found the briefcase when she arrived but was confronted with a prior statement in which she said she found the briefcase on her way out of the house. She also testified she did nothing with the briefcase for four years, and it sat on a shelf and collected dust in her garage.

Anna said she gave documents inside the briefcase to a producer from Susteren's show before she gave them to anyone from law enforcement. She also said Fox was going to get Dr. Baden to do an autopsy on her sister, and he was doing it for free. On cross, she said did not know that Dr. Baden was paid $50,000 for the autopsy. A juror was ill, so a break was called in the until Tuesday.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Drew Peterson: Day Three, EMTs and Legal Jousting By Chicago Sun-Times on August 2, 2012 9:29 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks Three EMTs were called as witnesses by the state. The state is claiming that Drew planted a towel in the bathroom to make it appear as if Kathy was taking a bath. No one saw the towel, but Drew was not in the bathroom. Testimony indicated that Drew was upset and wanted professionally courtesy extended since it was his ex-wife. The last EMT was confronted with his grand jury transcript and inconsistencies between his trial testimony and grand jury testimony. He said the towel was placed there after he left the residence and that he met Drew downstairs. He admitted his report was inaccurate.

Legal jousting also continued on the issues which Kathy's divorce lawyer would be allowed to tell the jury. It was noted by the court that an order was entered in the divorce case at the time of the dissolution of the marriage. The order stated the end closing date for the pension was extended to the date until all issues were resolved. The court stated that the witness would not be allowed to give any predictions on what Kathy would have received if she had been alive. In other testimony, cross examination Thursday by defense team member Joel Brodsky showed that Drew helped a locksmith who opened the door to the home the night Drew's wife, Kathy, was found in the tub. Drew held the screen door and a flashlight.

During our lunch break, my wife and defense team member, Lisa Lopez, and I made our daily trip to Starbuck's and encountered many photographers outside snapping photos. We also thank McBrody's for their prompt delivery of our lunch to the defense team's office. Yesterday, I tweeted we were going to Hi Fi Gym which is at Chicago and Orleans. To our surprise a gaggle of reporters and cameras where waiting for us to exit for an interview.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Drew Peterson: Day Two, Mistrial Requested By Chicago Sun-Times on August 1, 2012 6:08 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks BY JOSEPH R. LOPEZ

The state on Wednesday called one of Drew Peterson's neighbors, Thomas Pontarelli, as a witness. He testified about his relationship with Drew and Drew's wife, Kathy. He was one of the people who found Kathy in the bathtub.

He also mentioned that Drew told him he was no longer his friend if he helped Kathy change the locks on the marital residence. On cross examination he admitted he did not want to be in court and that he was put in the middle of the divorce.

He also said he had been to Drew's new house on a few occasions. He was prodded regarding some inconsistent statements concerning what he observed the evening Kathy was found. On redirect the state asked him about a bullet on his driveway. The defense objected and moved for a mistrial. Judge Burmila was clearly concerned about the state's actions and ruled that it was purposeful. He called it "a low blow."

The judge asked us to come back at 1:15 p.m. for his decision on the motion for mistrial. The judge, though, did not immediately rule on the mistrial motion but stated he would sanction the state if the defense so desired. The court suggested that it would strike the testimony of Pontarelli, and the defense called a time out.

The defense team then had a meeting with each lawyer providing input. Lisa Lopez was assigned to quickly research the issue. The issue of striking the testimony of a witness and an instruction to the jury is a drastic step. Court was reconvened, and the judge mentioned he was not sure why prosecutors had taken the road on which they had traveled at their peril. Both sides agreed to adjourn for the day to research the issue.

Some team members reached out to other attorneys for their input due to such a novel issue. No one had a quick answer. This issue has never been addressed by me or any of my colleagues. Some lawyers have commented that something weird always happens in my cases, and here is the proof they are right.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez Drew Peterson: Day One By Chicago Sun-Times on July 31, 2012 2:36 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks BY JOSEPH R. LOPEZ

The case got off to an interesting start Tuesday morning. Like any trial, legal jousting continued even before the jury was brought out. Both sides presented arguments regarding motive evidence. The state contends that Drew Peterson killed his wife Kathy to avoid chopping up the assets of the marital estate. The defense noted that after his wife's death, the divorce proceedings continued and it was settled anyway. There is not one witness who can say that Drew got any advantage due to Kathy's death. Her estate was awarded her share of the marital assets.

The judge stated he could not rule on the objections because prosecutors can say what they want, but they have to back it up with evidence. The state began its arguments and to everyone's surprise, mentioned evidence which indicated Drew offered to pay someone $25,000. The defense objected, and the judge sustained it and ordered the jury out. One of Drew's defense team lawyers, Steven Greenberg, informed the court that this was other bad act evidence which had not been ruled upon nor presented in a motion for prior bad acts. The judge ruled the state could not use the evidence at trial, which was a break for the defendant.

The state presented its theory about the divorce and the assests which included the marital residence and a portion of his police pension. The state talked about the investigation of the death of Kathy and how it was ruled an accident based on a limited investigation. The state had Kathy's body exhumed, and her death was later ruled a homicide.

Joel Brodsky kicked off for the defense.

He gave a history of Drew and his life with Kathy. The state made many objections, some overruled, some sustained. He covered the marriage and how they split up. Kathy was discovered dead in her bathtub. It was ruled an accident, and it still is an accident. Joel told jurors the experts are in disagreement, including one state expert who used our expert's textbook.

The first prosecution witness was a neighbor, Mary Pontarelli, who found Kathy in the tub.

On cross examination, Mary testified about her relationship with Drew and Kathy. At first the divorce was bitter, but as time passed Drew and Kathy were peaceful and happy. When Kathy was found dead, Drew was upset. Mary talked about a blue towel on the tub. She said there was no bathrobe but she was confronted with a police report where it was reported she said Kathy would hang a robe on the back of a door. A photo was shown to her where a robe is seen on the back of the door. She testified Kathy would put her hair up with a clip. She was confronted with another police report where it was reported she told the investigator Kathy put her hair up in a towel. The jury appeared to be very attentive to her testimony. On Wednesday we expect to hear testimony from Mary's husband, Tom, and her son Nick who is believed to the be last person to see Kathy alive.

SWIMMING WITH THE SHARK Insight from Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joseph R. Lopez What to expect during Day One of the Drew Peterson trial By Chicago Sun-Times on July 30, 2012 5:15 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks BY JOSEPH R. LOPEZ

The first part of any trial is the opening statement. It is to give the jury a preview of what each party expects during the course of the trial. An opening statement is not evidence. In a criminal trial the state will present their opening first. It is expected that Mr. Glasgow will present the opening for the State. Mr. Brodsky will present the opening for the defense.

Each opening statement will highlight the significant points which the parties expect will be proved or not proved. The State has set forth the theory that this was a staged crime scene and that Ms. Savio was killed by Mr. Peterson because he did not want to share his pension. The State will also attempt to find flaws in the initial autopsy report which ruled it was an accident. After a few years, there was an exhumation of Ms. Savio, and the State's experts are expected to testify it was homicide.

The defense will be expected to adopt the findings of the first autopsy and argue it was an accident and there is no evidence of a homicide -- and after such a passage of time it would be impossible for the state's experts to conclude it was a homicide.

After each side presents its opening statements, the State will call its first witness.

In a trial the first witness is usually a life-and-death witness. The state will ask the person to identify a photo and ask when the witness last saw the person alive and then present evidence -- usually a family photo -- and ask the witness to identify the person. After this witness, the State starts the rest of its case. It must be remembered that opening statements are not evidence and cannot be considered evidence by a jury, so whatever the lawyers say does not matter -- it's what the witnesses say and what the jury believes.