People v. Drew Peterson Trial.

In Session facebook updates 8/10/2012 The first witness today is expected to be Steve Maniaci, Kathleen Savios boyfriend. Other potential witnesses are Susan Doman (Savios sister), Susan McCauley (a Suds Pub employee who worked for Peterson and had an affair with him although well probably not hear about the affair), Teresa Kernc (a Bolingbrook police officer her last name is pronounced Kurnk), and Dominick DeFrancesco (a Savio neighbor his last name is pronounced DeFranCHesko). Kathy Hoffmeyer, one of the media coordinators with the Will County Sheriffs Department, says that 50 people showed up at the courthouse this morning to try to get into the Peterson trial, a new record. I subsequently asked Spectator #1 what time she had to arrive to score that first seat, and she told me she got here at 4:45 this morning (the courthouse doesnt open until 8:30). The parties are gathering inside the courtroom. There is a long line of public spectators outside in the hallway, hoping to get into the trial if and when somebody else vacates his/her seat. The parties are gathering inside the courtroom. There is a long line of public spectators outside in the hallway, hoping to get into the trial if and when somebody else vacates his/her seat. Judge Burmila has just taken the stand. The news media will be happy to know that they have legions of followers in the Department of Corrections. I received two more letters from inmates . . . Abraham Lincoln is not involved in these. They want to share information they have with me. These letters will become part of the record. As I said yesterday, I will not be communicating with them, either. The prosecution confirms that its first witness is ready to go. The judge sends for the jury. The jurors are now in the courtroom. The Sate calls its first witness of the day: Steve Maniaci (questioned by prosecutor Koch). He is 52, and describes himself as a small business owner . . . light manufacturing. He currently has 11 employees. Have you ever been married? No. Do you know who Kathleen Savio is? Yes . . . I met her back in the early 80s; we worked together. He identifies a photograph of Savio. Thats Kathy. He believes he first met Savio in 1984. There were a bunch of us at the company that we worked at that used to get together after work and on weekend. She became part of that group. He kept in touch with her into the early 90s. At some point, he came to know that she married Drew Peterson, whom he met in the early 90s, at a company reunion. He identifies the defendant in the courtroom. Did you continue your acquaintance with her in the 90s? No . .. in late December, 2001, she got into contact with some friends we used to hang around with . . . we were going to a Christmas party, and she came to that party . . . she called a couple of my friends, and they called me and said, Guess whos coming to the party tonight? And it was Kathy. Were you glad to see Kathy? Certainly . . . it was December 22 . . . it just became sort of an anniversary date. Following the party, Maniaci, Savio, and some of their friends went out and went dancing. At the time of this party, Savio was still married. Did you come to learn the status of her marriage at that time? Objection/Overruled. Koch asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. We exchanged numbers at the end of the evening. We contacted each other maybe two weeks later. And I saw her maybe three weeks later. Was she still married? Yes. Was the defendant residing in the house? He was . . . he was staying in the basement. Based on meeting up with her, did you begin to see her more often? Yes. Did this continue into February and March of

2002? Yes. Did you continue to see her? Yes. And did there come a time when you learned the status of her marriage? Yes . . . not good . . . I dont remember if they had filed at that time, but I know that he was leaving the residence. Were divorce proceedings ever filed? Yes, they were. IN the early months of 2002, he was seeing Savio a couple of times a week. Did there come a time when the defendant moved out of the house? Yes, March or April, I believe, of 02. He met Tom and Kris, Savios children. I was introduced to them pretty early. They were around often. Would you do things with the children? Sure, we went out to dinner quite a few times. The witness identifies a photograph of Kathys house . . . Kathy and Drews house. Back in 2002, what did you do with regard to any kind of changes to the house? I dont understand. Did you do something with the garage door? Yes . . . I had changed the codes for the garage door openers . . . I cant recall exactly, but Im guess sometime in maybe February or March of 02. Would you see the children come and go from the house? Occasionally. Would you see them enter the house? Yes. When they came home, did you observe them? Yes. Objection. The parties approach for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. How many times would you say youd be over at the house during the month of March, 2002, on average? Im guessing an average of two times a week . . . I cant be positive, though. Where would you park your vehicle? In the driveway. How did you enter the house? Through the garage. Were there other doors you used to enter the house? Objection. The attorneys go to another sidebar. The sidebar ends. What door would you have to use if you couldnt access the garage? The front door . . . there was a front door and a storm door. They were both locked. I would have to ring the doorbell and waiting for somebody to answer. Do you know what type of car Kathy drove back in 2002? Yes. He is then shown a photograph. Thats a Mercury Mountaineer . . . thats Kathys. How long did you have a relationship with Kathy? Two and a quarter years. Did she sometimes spend the night at your house? Yes. And you would sometimes spend the night at her house? Yes. Did she wear any jewelry? Yes, she did. How often would you spend the night at her house? Maybe two times a month. And how many times did she spend the night at your house? Maybe two times a month. Based on your observations, what did she do with her jewelry at night? She would take it off, put it on the headboard or the dresser. Did you observe her take a shower? I did . . . half a dozen [times] . . . generally, she would take it [her jewelry] off . . . I cant say she did every time. Did you observe her take a bath? A few times. Did you ever take a bath with her? Yes. What did she generally do with her hair? Objection. The attorneys go to another sidebar. The sidebar ends. When you would be at her house, would you have occasion to use her bathroom? Yes. Can you tell me what youd see regarding any type of carpeting in the bathroom? Usually there was a floor mat . . . one in front of the vanity, and one in front of the bathtub. When you would spend the night at her house, where would you stay? In the bedroom . .. her bedroom. Would you have occasion to see her bedroom door? Yes. The witness is then shown a photograph of the master bedroom door. Did that door always appear the way it does? No. Objection/Overruled. How did the door appear? It didnt have that hole in it. Did there come an occasion that the doors physical condition changed? Yes. Approximately when that appearance changed? I think it was March or April of 02. Did anybody ever fix that door? No. Can you describe whats in that picture? A deadbolt, with a hold drilled above it . . . and a handle, with a lock. I want to ask you about the weekend of February 27 Did you have any plans with Kathy on that

particular Friday night? Yes we were going out to dinner in Naperville, with another couple a restaurant in downtown Naperville Kathy and I met them there. Who drove? I did a Cadillac. Did you pick up Kathy? Yes from her home. How long did you stay at the Samba Room? A couple hours. What did you do after that? Went to a bar across the street, the Lantern [for] an hour and a half or two hours; it was late. Both he and Savio were drinking that evening; when they left the bar, Savio drove. Where did you end up going? Back to her home. Were you going to spend the night there? Yes. When you got back home, where did you go? I went into the living room; she went upstairs to change . . . I just waited for her in the living room. He describes the layout of the first floor of the Savio house. When Kathy came downstairs, she was wearing a robe. She took a piece of the fish from the to go bag, and came into the living room. Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The witness says that the living room lights were off, but the kitchen lights were on. Could you see Kathy from where you were sitting? Yes. What happened after that? Well, we started fooling around, and eventually had sex. When you had sexual intercourse with her, was she clothed or unclothed? Unclothed. Were you able to observe her body? Yes. Were you able to make any observations about her back? Yes ... it was perfectly normal. Able to make any observations about her buttocks? Yes, Sir ... perfectly normal. The witness is shown a photograph. On that Friday night, while you were having sexual intercourse with her, did you see any type of mark on her buttocks that appears [in this photo]? No. What did you observe about her arms? They were normal. The witness is shown another photograph. What do you see? Bruising. On February 27, that Friday night, when you were having sexual intercourse, did you see any mark on her thats depicted [in this photo]? I did not. The judge calls the attorneys to a sidebar. The witness and jury are back inside the courtroom. Prosecutor Koch resumes his direct examination, but once again showing the witness a photograph. You indicated this was her arm. How do you know thats her arm? I guess I wouldnt be able to tell you, other than the fact that I was told it was. The defense stipulates that the arm in the photograph is indeed Savios. Did you use any kind of protection when you had sexual relations with Kathleen Savio? Yes . . . a condom. Where did that condom end up? In the kitchen waste basket. After you finished having sexual relations, what did you and Kathy do? Went upstairs and went to bed. On Saturday morning, the 28th, they woke up, got dressed, and went to breakfast at Steak n Shake in Bolingbrook. After breakfast, he took her back home, and they discussed what they might do later that day. During the time you were with her on Friday and Saturday, did you ever see her fall down? NO. Ever see her bump into anything? No. She ever complain of any injuries? No, other than a little soreness from working out. The witness says he had a band practice Saturday afternoon (a rock band) and he said she might want to come over to his house. She said shed think about it. He subsequently went to band practice, which lasted about three hours. What happened after band practice? We quit, and right after we stopped she called me. Objection/Overruled. What did you say to her? I asked her if she was at my house, and she was not. Was there a discussion of whether you were going to see each other? Yes, she asked me if I was coming over, and I said no, I was too tired . . . I went home . . . I think it was roughly 9:30. What did you do the rest of Saturday night? I went to bed . . . I got a phone call at midnight . . . it was Kathy . . . it was almost straight up midnight. How

long was the conversation? Less than a minute . . . she was venting; she was upset with me for not coming over. I said Im sleeping, can we talk about it tomorrow?. Was she upset with you?: Yes, for not coming over. I asked, Please, can we talk about it tomorrow? . . . and I went back to sleep. On Sunday morning, Feb. 29, he woke up around 8:00. It was unusually warm . . . I went to my shop, got my motorcycle, and drove it to my fathers. We went out for lunch, or breakfast . . . I went for a little ride, took the motorcycle back to my shop, and went home. I dont remember what I did that Sunday night. He went to bed probably at 10:00 or 11:00, but isnt sure. Did you try to contact Kathy that day? No, I didnt . . . I thought Id give it a day. On Monday, March 1, he went to work. When he returned home, I discovered that somebody had broken into my house. Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar. The sidebar ends, and the comment about the witness home being broken into is stricken. Were you able to contact Kathy on Monday? No. On Monday evening, what did you do? Well, due to the situation, I had a couple of friends call me and say, Lets get you out of the house, for a couple of beers. He went to the Lunar Brewing Company for two hours, a couple of hours. While there, I got a phone call . . . from Mary Pontarelli. Did you have a cell phone? Yes. He gives the last four digits of his cell and house phones. You received a phone call from Mary Pontarelli? Yes . . . Kathys neighbor. Had you met her? Many times. Anybody else in her family? Everybody (he names them). She asked me if Kathy was with me. I said, No, shes not; Ive been trying to get a hold of her all day. The witness says he had tried to call Savio six times that day (both her cell and her home phone). Did you leave any messages? Yes, I did. After he left the bar, he went home. I said, Call me as soon as you find out whats going on. When he got home, I called Mary immediately. She told me Kathy was dead . . . I said, Ill be right over. How long does it take you to get from your house to Kathys house? At that time of night, about 25 minutes. He describes the route he drove that night. Did you get to Kathys house? Yes . . . there were squad cars in the driveway, in the street, and people gathered around between the Pontarellis and Kathys house . . . I believe Drew was there. He identifies that defendant in the courtroom. Where was he at? Underneath the street light. He seemed to be writing out a report . . . he was writing something. Where did you go? I went up and asked him what the hell happened . . .he said he didnt know. What did you say to him? Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar. The sidebar ends. What the next thing you said to him at the residence? First I said, Drew, I sure hope you didnt have anything to do with this. And he said that he did. There was a little bit of small talk, and I said, Boy, this sure worked out well for you. What was his response? She would have lost anyway. He describes Peterson as very calm that night. Later that night/morning, he was interviewed in Steve Carceranos basement by the Illinois State Police. He was the last one to be interviewed that morning. Did you ever speak to them again in the year 2004? Those particular men, I dont believe so; they may have called me to get a phone number. Did you ever give another interview in 2004 to the police? No. Did you have a key to Kathys house? No. Did you ever have a garage door opener? One time . . . she was working late . . . [afterwards] I gave it back. When you spent the nights, what would you guys do in the morning with regards to the bed? Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar. The sidebar ends. During the time you were dating Kathy, did the defendant ever contact you? There was one time . . . he called me at my house . . . I cant narrow it down, but it was sometime in

2002. Did you have the same phone number then as you have now? Yes. Objection/Overruled. The witness is shown a document. See your phone number on that? Yes. That is your cell or home? Home. The witness is then shown another document. See your phone number on that? Yes . . . my home phone. Does that have a date on it? Yes . .. April 2 . . . oh, I see, its 2/28/04. And the duration? 41 seconds. The sidebar ends. Recognize the number that called you? I do now. And whose number is that? Kathys. Steve, on that particular weekend, were the children there when you went to pick up Kathy that Friday night? No . . . they were with their father. That concludes the direct examination. Kathleen Savio's boyfriend Steve Maniaci is on the witness stand being questioned by defense attorney Joseph Lopez. The jury and the witness are now in the courtroom. Attorney Joseph Lopez begins his crossexamination. You and I have never met? No, Sir. I want to call your attention back to 1984 . . . that was the first time you met Kathleen Savio? Yes. At that time, Kathy was living alone? I really dont remember what she was doing at that particular time. When they met, both he and Savio were working at a company called Die Masters. You ran into her again at a company reunion party? Yes. You always like Kathy? I did. You learned she got married, and you saw her at this party, with her husband, Drew Peterson? Yes. And then you didnt hear anything from her for a couple of years? Not directly, no. The witness repeats that he and Kathy reconnected in 2001 at a Christmas party. You were happy to see her, werent you? Sure. Youve never been married? Never have been. You spoke, and you learned that she and her husband were having problems? Yes. You learned that Drew was staying in the basement? Yes. You ever go to Kathys house when Drew was there? No . . . he was out of town. You didnt want to get too serious with her, because you didnt know if she was going to go back to Drew? Yes. When did you actually start dating as boyfriend and girlfriend? I would say the end of February, early March, 2002. One night, while he and Kathy were out, they ran into an attorney that Maniaci knew. He introduced that attorney to Kathy, and he began to represent her. But there was some kind of conflict, so the original attorneys partner, Harry Smith, took over. She would call him [Smith] a lot, wouldnt she? Yes. Harry was working hard on her case, wasnt he? I would think so. So from this point in 2002, we fast forward to where you have this relationship with her on a weekly basis? Yes. Youd go out together? Yes. Eventually there was a time when shed actually bring the children to your house and stay overnight? Yes. And there were occasions where the children would be with Drew, and theyd call her at your house? I dont remember that, but it wouldnt surprise me if the did. You adored this girl, didnt you? I really did. But you didnt want to talk about marriage when she called you? No. She hung up on you? Yes. You didnt call her back on Sunday? No. You didnt call her until Monday? Yes. In addition to his motorcycle and his Cadillac, the witness has a classic Corvette. You referred Kathy to a dermatologist that you knew? Yes. She had some kind of red blotches This was also your dermatologist, the brother of one of your band mates? Yes. Youd taken baths with Kathy? Yes. So both of you could fit in that tub? It was kind of tight, but yes. Youd sit there and enjoy each

others company? Yes. The witness agrees that there were a lot of children in the neighborhood where Savio lived. The kids would play at the house all the time? Yes. Kathy wore glasses, right? Yes, and contacts. Wire frame glasses? Sometimes . . . they were bent. Yes. You also have used spot carpet cleaner? Yes. You even suggested that Kathy get it, because she had a cat? Yes . . . its possible that she may have taken the one I had . . . I said it was very good. She had a cat? Yes. The cat lived downstairs? There was a room downstairs with a litter box, and some food . . . it was a gray cat, charcoal. Kathy had a lot of matching towels, correct? I dont remember if they were matching. She had different rugs she put on the bathroom floor, different colors? Yes. Sometimes thered be a rug there, sometimes there wouldnt? I think thats fair to say. She had a lot of shampoo bottles? She had a lot of shampoo. Those kinds of things were around the tub? Yes, decorative. Kathy also had a cabinet full of pills? I dont remember if it was full of pills, but she did take some medication . . . she did have pills, yes. You previously described that Kathy bruised easily? She told me that . . . I dont remember seeing them, but everybody has bruises occasionally . . . I cant tell you specific times. The picture you were shown with the hole in the door . . . that was never repaired, right? No. And that was there for a long time, at least a year? I believe longer than that . . . it was sometime in the beginning of 2002. The witness repeats and he, Kathy, and another couple went to the Samba Room in Naperville on the night of Friday, February 27, 2004. After dinner, they went to The Lantern Bar across the street. You got pretty drunk, didnt you? Its a relative term . . . it was best that Kathy drove, because she didnt drink as much. You were pretty hung over the next morning, werent you? I was pretty tired. You went to Steak n Shake because you had a hangover, and you wanted a burger? I dont remember saying that, but I wanted a burger. You were pretty tired when you got up on Saturday? I never slept all that well at her house. The witness repeats that he went to play in his five-man rock band on Saturday afternoon. You guys have known each other for a long period of time? Since high school, on and off. Did you play in the garage that day? No, in the basement. He had suggested that Kathy go over to his house while he practiced. And then Id bring some dinner home, and wed watch a movie. There was no firm plan to do that? No, right. So later on in the evening you spoke to her . . . she didnt want to go to your house, and you didnt want to go to your house? Yes. She was studying for finals? Yes. And you knew she liked to study in bed? Yes. After band practice, he went home; his subsequent phone conversation with Savio was around 8:00 or 8:30 pm.. This conversation you had with her about her coming to your house . . . she wasnt angry at this time? She was a little angry. Because you wouldnt come over? Yes. Then, around midnight, she called him again. She was just mad at me. She was kind of a fiery, feisty girl, wasnt she? She could be. She was half-Italian, wasnt she? Objection/Sustained. You thought she would call you the next day, didnt you? I did. And you resisted the urge to call her? Yes. He repeats that he met his father for breakfast or lunch, took a motorcycle ride, took the bike back to his shop, dropped it off, and then went home. So during the evening and into the night, no word from Kathy . . . just went to bed, woke up the next day, and went to work? Yes. The next day, remember that Monday being a holiday? Some people call it a holiday. Judge: Sir, I call it a

holiday (LAUGHTER IN THE COURTROOM) The witness repeats that he tried to call Kathy many times during the day on Monday. You didnt call Mary Pontarelli that day, and ask her to go check on Kathy? No. You didnt call any of the neighbors that day? No. You were just waiting for Kathy to call you? Yes. He repeats that he went out with some friends to the Lunar Brewing Company. He was still out when Mary Pontarelli called him about 10:00 that night. He had gone home after work that day, then went to the brewery when it was still light out . . . maybe 6:00. How long did you stay there? A couple of hours . . .I was there until Mary called . . . 9:00 or 10:00, I believe it was . . . it was a bad day. It was a bad day because you hadnt talked to her? Objection. The parties approach the bench for another sidebar. The sidebar ends. Both the objection and the question are subsequently withdrawn. Judge Burmila: Then I guess Ill take back my ruling. (LAUGHTER). The witness repeats that he told Mrs. Pontarelli that he would go home from the bar, and that she should call him as soon as she knew anything. Once he got home, I hadnt heard anything from Mary, so I called her back. And thats when you heard about Kathy? Yes . . . I freaked out. You loved the girl, right? Yes. You raced to her house? Yes. When he arrived, there were a lot of neighbors on the scene, as well as a lot of police and a paramedic vehicle. The first thing I said was, What the hell happened? . . . I believe that was directed toward Drew. And you asked Drew if he had anything to do with it, and he said he did not? Yes. You saw him writing something down? Yes. This weekend . . there were a lot of things going on in Kathys life at that time? Yes. You described it as a basket case? Yes. And she had chest pains? She had been working out. You told police she had been complaining of chest pains? If I did, I did. You also knew she was taking medication for a heart murmur? No, I did not know that. I want to come back to Friday night . . .you had sex? Yes. You had sex from behind? Yes. And Kathy was on her knees? Yes. That was downstairs? In the living room. It wasnt the first time you guys had sex? No. You wore a condom? Yes. Know what happened to that condom? It was in the kitchen waste basket . . . I dont know who put it there. Did you have sex on the stairs? No. The witness is asked if he knows that a condom was found upstairs, but I didnt get his answer. It was dark in the room, wasnt it? Not really . . . the kitchen lights were on [when they were having sex]. There is a brief pause, as Lopez looks for an exhibit. Do you recognize that as a sketch of the house where Kathy lived at? Yes. Can you show where it was that you and Kathy were enjoying one another? Using a laser pointer, the witness indicates on the projected sketch where they had sex. You were both on your knees? Most of the time. Where did you discard the condom? The waste baskets right there. In the kitchen, right next to the sliding door? Next to the sink . . . right there. Kathy also took birth control, but for another reason? Yes. She liked orange juice? Yes. She liked tea? Yes. She would use the microwave to make tea? Yes. Sometimes in the morning, you and she would have fruit and tea up in the bedroom? Occasionally. Sometimes shed go downstairs and make stuff, and then come back upstairs? Yes. And then you guys would get ready, and go back downstairs? Yes. You dont really know what times she would take her medications? No. You did tell police that its possible she had some bruises from having sex? Objection/Overruled. It wouldnt have been anything other than scuffs on her knees, or something like that. But that was nothing I did not see. When you woke up the next day, your head was a little banged up? I was tired. Well, you were also a little hung over, werent you? I guess you could

say that. The jurors are now gone. Prosecutor Connor announces that he learned some new information this morning from the next witness, Susan Doman (something that had never before been brought up). She indicated that her sister said Drew had asked her for the children on Monday, Casimir Pulaski Day, and she [Savio] had said no. I told her that she is not to discuss that . . . [but] I do not want any surprise from the defense. Joe Lopez: Well, I was taken by surprise. The surprise has worn off. Wed like to think about that over the lunch hour. Prosecutor Kathy Patton then addresses the court about another upcoming witness Susan McCauley. The Court didnt want to go into the fact that she was having an affair with the defendant . . . because of the prejudice it would bring in. Greenberg: I wont get into the affair . . . if they want to characterize them as good friends . . . Patton: Then Id like to get in to what he said about the divorce. Judge: I did not want there to be a situation where the defendant misled this witness about getting a divorce. Any questions you want to ask about that, theyre out. Patton continues, says while Peterson was married to Savio, he said to McCauley that Kathleen was not going to get any of his pension. Greenberg: Were talking about 1997, these conversations . . . the relationship ended in 1998. Patton continues, says that McCauley should be allowed to say that Peterson told her he would never leave. He would never get a divorce, because he didnt want Kathleen to get half of his pension. And in another statement, he said that Kathleen would never get his pension . . . it was the end of 1997, 1998 when he said these things. There was also another conversation between McCauley and Peterson at a bowling alley, at which Peterson told her that Savio was crazy. Finally, Patton moves to upcoming witness Teresa Kernc, a Bolingbrook police officer. She then decides to withdraw the motion for now. Judge: If we have to discuss it at 1:15, well do so then. The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET. According to Patton, McCauley told Peterson that you must have a horseshoe somewhere . . . nobody gets that lucky. And they laughed about it. She didnt understand how it happened, and he said that it was a newer type of bathtub, that after a while automatically drains. He said she was taking medication, and there was a wine glass. That was the sum and substance [of McCauleys testimony]. Greenberg: I think you already ruled that the bowling alley conversation was admissible. Judge: Right . . . all of the information at the bowling alley stands on its own . . . the portion of the conversation from 1998 that I struck is still stricken. But the conversation from the bowling alley comes in. Patton presses the judge as to why the other testimony cant come in, assuming the witness does not mention the affair. Greenberg objects, says its too remote in time, and it suggests that Peterson had a lifetime obsession with his pension. The Court ruled properly before. Patton: We continue to believe he had preconceived ideas about what would happen if he had to go into this settlement . . . Drew had in his mind that he was going to lose this. It goes to his knowledge and his intent. Judge: He formulated this desire to commit this murder in 1998? . . . the conversation is remote, and I dont see how its particularly relevant to the conversation from the bowling alley. I wont reverse my ruling, and the State will not be able to go into that. According to Patton, McCauley told Peterson that you must have a horseshoe somewhere . . . nobody gets that lucky. And they laughed about it. She didnt understand how it happened, and he said that it was a newer type of bathtub, that after a while automatically drains. He said she was taking medication, and there was a wine glass. That was the sum and substance [of McCauleys testimony]. Greenberg: I think you already ruled that the bowling alley conversation was admissible. Judge: Right . . . all of the information at the bowling alley stands on its own . . . the portion of the conversation from 1998

that I struck is still stricken. But the conversation from the bowling alley comes in. Patton presses the judge as to why the other testimony cant come in, assuming the witness does not mention the affair. Greenberg objects, says its too remote in time, and it suggests that Peterson had a lifetime obsession with his pension. The Court ruled properly before. Patton: We continue to believe he had preconceived ideas about what would happen if he had to go into this settlement . . . Drew had in his mind that he was going to lose this. It goes to his knowledge and his intent. Judge: He formulated this desire to commit this murder in 1998? . . . the conversation is remote, and I dont see how its particularly relevant to the conversation from the bowling alley. I wont reverse my ruling, and the State will not be able to go into that. Finally, Patton moves to upcoming witness Teresa Kernc, a Bolingbrook police officer. She then decides to withdraw the motion for now. Judge: If we have to discuss it at 1:15, well do so then. The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET. Both sets of attorneys are now inside the courtroom. Judge Burmila returns to the bench. Prosecutor Connor says that the next witness will be Susan Doman. After Doman, well hear from either Susan McCauley or Dominick DeFrancesco. The judge sends for the jurors. The jury has returned to the courtroom. New witness Susan Doman takes the stand (questioned by prosecutor Connor). How did you know Kathleen Savio? Shes my sister. Did you attend her wedding to Drew Peterson? No. Can you explain why? Objection/Sustained. How long did ago did you meet him? They were married for ten years . . . so a little more than ten years. She then identifies the defendant in the courtroom. Did you have an occasion to be with him at family gatherings? Yes, the holidays. And also camping trips . . . my sister and I and the boys would go camping, and he would come. Who would go on these trips? Objection/Overruled. It would be myself, and Kathleen and her boys, and Drew. Did your husband go, too? No. Did you have occasion to see the defendant when he was happy? Yes. And also when he was not happy? Yes. During the course of Savios divorce, she was in contact with her. On a couple of occasions, she spent the night at Savios house. Have any specific recollection of if your sister prepared for a bath? Objection/Overruled. Yes, I did. Can you describe on those specific occasions what you saw your sister do? Objection/Sustained. The first time you spent the night at your sisters residence, can you give us a rough idea of when that was? It was around Christmas; Im not sure what year. Could you describe what you saw? I was downstairs with the boys, near the fireplace, playing video games. She came down, and had a robe on, and had her hair up, with maybe a comb or something holding up her hair. When was the second time you spent the night at her residence? I cant give you a day or year; it was just a time we decided to get together . . . she was very frustrated that day, because . . . Objection/Sustained. What did you see that day as your sister got ready to take a bath; she was very frustrated . . . Objection/Sustained. Could you describe what you saw your sister do? She was walking past me in the kitchen area . . . she was talking to me as she was putting up her hair, and said she was going to take a bath; she had a hard day . . . it was in the evening. The prior incident she described was also in the evening. On either of those occasions, did you observe your sister when she was actually taking the bath? This was before she took a bath. I want to turn your attention to a conversation you had with your sister . . . can you tell the jury what she described? Objection/Overruled. She had told me that she was in the basement, and her husband Drew had a wife by her throat. And he said that he could kill her, and make it look like an accident . . . she was terrified. Can you tell the jury on how many occasions did your sister describe that incident to you? Several times. What were the circumstances under which she described that? I dont

remember. The witness is asked about the week prior to Savios death. Did she make a phone call to you? Yes. Can you describe what she asked you to do? Objection. The attorneys approach for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The judge asks the bailiff to remove the jury. The jurors are now gone. Attorney Greenberg objects to the statements the prosecution is trying to elicit from this witness. This witness, there were certain statements originally ruled inadmissible by Judge White . . . we took that to mean additional statements would not be admissible. Connor responds: I thought we had addressed this with Kristin Anderson . . . I thought at that point Your Honor had made a ruling, and we did not need to argue additionally. Judge: If the defendants arguments are the same, my ruling will be the same. Greenberg continues to object. Judge: We argued this just two days ago . . . youre making a different argument now? . . . you have me at a loss. There is a pause while both sides of attorneys scramble to find a transcript of the earlier occasion upon which this issue was discussed. Judge Burmila decides to call a brief recess, until the transcript can be located. But before anyone leaves the room, attorney Joe Lopez comes up with it. So the judge remains on the bench, and is handed the transcript. The judge has now finished reading the transcript. Judge: OK, Im familiar with this. Brodsky continues to argue against the admissibility of the statement in question. Judge: We had a hearing; it was in the context of the facial reliability. I made a ruling; I made a distinction . . . Ill note a continuing defense objection to each and every one of those, that I was incorrect when I said they were not the law of the case. So the record is clear on that. The judge then sends for the jury and the witness. The witness and the jurors return to the courtroom, and Connor continues his direct examination. Susan, I was asking you about a phone call you had with your sister about a week before her death? She said for me to take care of her boys. Did you also discuss getting together that weekend? Yes, we had plans . . . we were going to the movies, and possibly dinner afterwards. Did you discuss which day you were possibly going to do that? Saturday. Did those plans actually work out? No . . . she had to study. Did she have finals approaching? Yes, she did. Did she indicate whether she was planning on seeing the children on Monday? Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The objection is overruled. Did your sister indicate whether she was planning on seeing her children on Monday? Yes, she did. Can you please tell the jury how you found out about your sisters death? I got a call from my older sister, in the middle of the night, probably between 1:00 and 1:30. Later that day, did your family go anywhere as a group? We met at my older sisters house, and we went to the funeral home . . . [then] we went to my sister Kathys house: my brother, Henry, my sister, Anna, my son, Michael, my daughter, my uncle Mike. At some point, was there a pounding on the door? Yes . . . my Uncle Mike said we had to answer the door . . . he opened the door. Who did you see? Drew Peterson. After Drew came in, was there a time the family sat down with Drew at the table? Yes . . . it was my entire family. Did you ask the defendant a question? Yes, I did . . . Did you kill my sister? . . . I think he was very surprised; he kind of choked. And he said, I wouldnt kill the mother of my children. At the house, Drew was carrying a laundry basket. He said that he needed to gather things for the boys . . . he went upstairs. Did there come a time when you saw the defendant near the tub in the master

bathroom? Yes, I did . . . I was afraid to go into the bathroom, and he went ahead, and said he would take care of it. He was just wiping the blood. Did you discover a locked box in your sisters house that day? Yes, I found a metal container under my sisters bed. Drew said if I wanted to open it he could open it. And he pulled out a key out of his pocket, and he opened it. And it was empty. At some point, this witness picked out clothes for Savio to wear for her burial. I went to Kathys home . .. at the time I arrived, no one was there. I waited in the driveway. Who arrived? Drew Peterson. Where did you go? In her bedroom. Did you ask the defendant anything as you were picking out the clothing for your sister? . . . Did you ask him if he knew what had happened to your sister? I did ask him that . . . Objection/Sustained. The defense asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The witness says her daughter and the daughters boyfriend were also present at the time. I said, What do you think happened to my sister? And he said he didnt know, he would have to wait for the coroners report. At some time after that conversation, did you have occasion to be back at that house, looking through your sisters items? Yes. Were you given any items of your sisters by the defendant? I was not given; I just went to the house and took things. What items did you take out of the residence that day? I took several garbage bags of clothing, pictures, things that were on the floor. He said to tell your sister Anna, Ha ha . . . I got the will. Objection. The parties go to a sidebar. The sidebar ends. As the witness took a photograph of Kathy from the house, Steve Maniaci was there with her (as was Drew). Drew told her that he found a will between the floor boards. What did he say about your family? We wouldnt get anything. Was your sister Anna present at that time? No. Did there come a time after the funeral where you drove to the defendants residence to see the children? Yes. Objection. This leads to another sidebar. The sidebar ends. The jurors have now left the courtroom. Judge: The defendant is objecting to the statement that the witness and her family wouldnt get anything under the will, and that the defendant went to visit the children. Mr. Connor, why would the family have to get anything out of the will? Connor: The statement of the defendant was about this will that was made in a tight time frame. Judge to Brodsky: Did they give you in discovery that the defendant said they wouldnt get anything out of the will? Brodsky: Just that they found a will. Connor takes a moment, searches the case file for proof that the defense was put on notice about this testimony. Connor: We found the transcript. Judge: OK, then that portion of the statement is allowed . . . its a statement of the defendant. Greenberg: But it paints him as a mean-spirited person . . . none of it should be allowed in; none of it has anything to do with anything . . . I think all of its irrelevant . . . it wouldnt do anything other than to paint him in a bad light; its inadmissible character evidence. Its prejudicial . . . and its just not fair. Connor responds, say this is not only appropriate but its already been litigated. Judge: This statement could be taken more than one way . . . I understand the defendants objection, but I believe that it is probative. The inferences that will be drawn from it will be determined by the jury. The defense asks that the jury be instructed that Peterson did not get anything in the will. The judge says that hell consider that if its brought up during the charge conference, but hes not going to give it now. Connor argues that Drew said that only Susan could see the children, because Anna Doman was involved in the probate fight. However, the judge decides that this portion of the defense objection will be sustained, and the Prosecution will not be allowed to go into the issue of whether or not Susan Doman was allowed to see the children. The final issue the State brings up is the witness would be testifying as to a May 7 phone call, with the defendant, after the inquest. The defense doesnt want this to be allowed in, but the judge says he will permit it. Shell be able to testify to that. The judge sends

for the witness and the jury. The witness and the jurors return to the courtroom. Connor continues his direct examination. Susan, I want to draw your attention back to when you and the family were at your sisters house, in the morning. Was there a situation involving your sisters purse? Yes. Objection. The attorneys approach for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. As far as youre aware, when you made plans with your sister for the movie on Saturday, did you play phone tag? Yes, we did. So you never did actually make contact with your sister that day? No. The witness identifies her home phone number on some records, as well as Kathys number. Calls were placed from Kathys phone to her phone shortly after 1:00 and shortly after 3:00 pm. Susan Doman, Savio's sister, is on the witness stand being questioned by defense attorney Joseph Lopez. Attorney Joseph Lopez begins his cross-examination of this witness. She agrees that she testified before the coroners inquest on May 7, 2004. Remember being there? Yes. And you were sworn to tell the truth? Yes. The witness is shown a copy of her testimony at that time, to refresh her recollection. After reviewing the transcript, she agrees that she said that her sister was on a lot of medication. You also testified before the grand jury? Yes. And you indicated to them that she was taking Zoloft, and also something for her heart murmur? Objection/Overruled. There is then another objection, and the Prosecution asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. Mr. Lopez reads from the grand jury transcript: Did your sister ever discuss any medications she was taking? Yes . . . Im not sure of the medications; it got to be tremendously hard for her . . . Zoloft, and something for a heart murmur. Did you say that before the grand jury? Yes. Nobody stopped you from telling the jurors at the inquest about these perceived threats? Yes. They heard that from your own mouth? Yes. And they still found that this was an accident? Yes. After you told your entire story to these jurors? Yes. Isnt it true that Drew never told your sister that he was going to kill her? That isnt true. Isnt it true that at the grand jury you said Drew said he COULD killer? I believe so. As far as Drew and Kathys legal status in February and March of 2004, they were officially divorced? I dont know the years or anything, but during that time it could be possible, yes. Did you know that on Oct. 3, 2003 the court entered an order ending their marriage? No, just from what my sister told me that it was settled; I dont know the dates. But you know that on the day your sister was found in the bathtub, she and Drew were divorced? Yes. You didnt attend any of the court hearings for your sisters divorce, did you? I attended a few of them. You also brought a wrongful death suit against Drew Peterson, on behalf of the children? Yes. The plaintiffs were the two children? Thomas and Kristopher? Objection/Overruled. They have since dropped that lawsuit, have they not? Objection. The attorneys approach the bench for another sidebar. The sidebar ends. The jurors and the witness have been excused from the courtroom. The judge notes that theres been no testimony to suggest that Susan Doman has ever been a party to the lawsuit in question. Judge: Is the suit still pending? Connor: It is still pending. But theres been no indication that shes a party. Judge: If the only issue for Mr. Peterson is that she might be a witness, that does not go to bias. And Ill rule for the State . . . the objection is going to be sustained. The judge sends for the jury.

The witness and the jurors have now returned to the courtroom. The judge then calls the parties to a sidebar. The sidebar ends. When your sister had this phone conversation with you, that was the Thursday before she passed away? Yes. And you dont know if her and Drew were arguing? No, I dont think he was there. But I dont know . . . I know they werent arguing, because she would have said that to me right at the beginning . . . I believed everything my sister told me. Well, people say things they dont mean? People do. You previously said you wanted to hold a gun to the head of the appellate court? Objection/Sustained. You entered into a book and movie deal in this case? I did. Its our understanding that if Drew is successfully prosecuted a movie will be made? Yes. So you have a motive for a conviction? No. You would get one third of a portion of it, is that right? According to the contract, yes. You would make a minimum of $30,000? Yes . . . And that you and Kathleen Savio would be portrayed in a positive manner? Yes. So the more dirt they throw at Drew, the more positive you look? Objection/Overruled. This book is about domestic violence. Well, you dont want anything negative coming out about your sister? I want the truth to come out . . . positive and truth are the same to me. Well, if Drew were found not guilty, that wouldnt be a very good movie, would it? To me, it would. Its about domestic violence. Its about my sisters story. To make the book more colorful, youd have to put more details in it? I wouldnt be writing it. Well, youd be giving them facts, wouldnt you? Some, yes. This is a movie about domestic violence? No. It was going to be about my sister . . . my sister was involved in a domestic violence satiation. Well, the words domestic violence dont appear anywhere in this contract do they? No. And you get to control all the publicity for this book, dont you? I dont think so. The witness is shown a copy of the Oct. 9, 2009 contract for her book deal. It is then moved into evidence. Doesnt it allow you to control the publicity in this book deal, this film deal? I see Miss Doman will not do any publicity without the permission of the parties . . . whats its saying is that to protect the best interests of Susan Doman, I will not do any publicity without the permission of these people. And it has your initials? Yes. The book contract is projected. This was signed in October of 2009? Thats right. Do you remember . . . this was approximately five years after the inquest? Correct. Know what back end percentages of profits means? No. Did anybody explain that to you? No. Did you have an attorney with you when you signed this contract? No. What was your understanding of the proposal? A little summary of what the book is about. The witness continues to be asked about the contract. You signed a contract, and you didnt understand what it meant? Or wasnt it explained to you? No, it wasnt explained to me. If theres a need to fictionalize this story, to make either you or Kathy more colorful, youve given them permission to do that? Yes. What does colorful mean? I think to be positive . . . whatever the story was, I wanted it to be true. But you agreed they could fictionalize the story? You agreed to this? Yes . . . I did sign that . . . but I believe I have the final say on that. The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Prosecutor Connor begins his redirect examination. You were asked a number of questions about this rights agreement . . . did you have an

attorney with you when you signed this? No. Have you ever dealt with the entertainment industry before? No. Have you made any money off this contract? No. And when you signed this contract in 2009, it was supposed to last for two years? Yes. If there was an advance of any sort, how much of that went to you? Nothing. So only if something is sold and produced successfully . . . Objection/Sustained. At the time in 2009 when you signed this contract, had you already spoken to the state police and gone before the grand jury? I believe so. So what you told the jury today are the same things you told long before this contract? Objection/Overruled. Yes. Recall how long the coroners inquest happened? About two hours, I believe. How long did you actually speak to them? Objection/Sustained. You were asked questions about the word colorful in the contract. What did that mean to you? Objection/Overruled. The truth, the positive side, I thought. When you signed this contract giving the other party the right to portray you and your sister in a positive light, what were you trying to do? I was trying to give my sister a voice. When your sister spoke to you about the day that the defendant had broken in and held her at knifepoint, what was it that he said? Objection/Sustained. That ends the redirect examination. The jurors are excused from the courtroom. Attorney Greenberg addresses the court, asks once again for a mistrial, based on the Prosecutions questioning of Susan Doman. There is a pause while the court reporter attempts to locate a portion of the court record that is in contention. Judge: The mistrial motion is denied. The objection regarding the scope of the cross-examination . . .why should the State be allowed to be go into this again? Connor: Her credibility was questioned. Judge: Well, it is beyond the scope of the cross. He sends for the jury. The witness and jurors return to the courtroom. Attorney Joe Lopez begins his recross. When the State asked you about this word colorful, you said it would be positive and the truth? Yes. Didnt you mean it would be entertaining, and they would embellish the facts? No. Theyd only tell Kathys story, and not Drews? It is a domestic violence issue. Its about her life . . . thats what I told him that I wanted it to be. Objection/Sustained. This contract, when you read it, you didnt tell him, Hey, theres nothing about domestic violence in here? No. They can make this story more colorful? Yeah, they could . . . but I would have the last say; I wouldnt let them do that . . . elaborate on lies. In this contract, you waived your rights, didnt you? Yes. So they can write pretty much whatever they want? Pretty much. They can fictionalize the story to protect you, protect your sister, or make it more colorful? Objection/Sustained. Susan McCauley, Peterson's former employee, is on the witness stand. Prosecutor Kathy Patton calls the next witness: Susan McCauley. Do you know Drew Peterson? Yes. She identifies the defendant. Did you ever work for the defendant? Yes, between 1997 and 1990, at Suds Pub in Montgomery. On March 20, 2004, did you see the defendant that night? Yes, at the bowling alley in Bolingbrook . . . he was in uniform . . . sometime between 11:00 and 11:30 pm. I went up to him, gave him a hug, and said I had heard what happened. I asked how were the boys, and he said, Oh, theyll be fine. She was crazy . . . meaning Kathleen Savio. I was taken aback by his response, and said, I still dont understand how she died in a dry bathtub. He said it was a newer type of tub that drains after a while . . . and that she was on medication, anti-depressants, and that there was a wine glass by the tub. I said to him, basically, Well, you must have a lucky horseshoe place somewhere . . . I could have used another word . . . now you dont have to pay child support, you get the house, you get your pension. He laughed it off, and made a couple jokes. That ends the direct examination of this witness.

Attorney Greenberg begins his cross. The witness admits that she had a few beers on the night in question. Did you know that he had actually been divorced? I do not recall. Know hed already been out of the house for a couple of years? Yes. You dont know if she was crazy, or what kind of medications she might have been taking? No. You found his answer cold? Yes. So you told him that he must have a horseshoe up his ass? Yes. Did you ever say before that he said the kids would be fine because she was crazy? I dont remember how I phrased it . . . but thats what he said . . . he joked around, and laughed about it . . . I cant remember his exact words after that. You were asked about this by state police, at the grand jury, and at an earlier hearing? Yes. And youve never told anyone what his jokes were, or that his jokes were agreeing with you? Well, obviously he was agreeing with me . . . if youre joking back with somebody, thats implied. But you cant tell us what the jokes were, or anything he said? No. And you were drinking that night? I probably had two or three beers. He said she had been drinking, and there was a wine glass? Yes. Did you ask him how he knew that? He was a police officer in Bolingbrook . .. whether he was there or saw the report, he was somebody who would know that. What does laugh off mean? He was making light of it. You were joking about it, werent you? I was trying to get more, like information. You said, You must have a horseshoe up you ass? Yeah. You were joking, right? Yeah. You didnt really think he had a horseshoe there? No. That is the end of the cross examination. There is no redirect, and the witness is excused. The next witness is Dominick DeFrancesco (questioned by Kathy Patton). He moved to Pheasant Chase Drive in 1997 (with his extended family). Did you know Kathleen Savio Peterson? Yes. Mary Pontarelli is his sister. How did you know the Petersons? They moved next door to us . . . December, 1999, I believe, or 2000. He says the Peterson home was directly next door to the home where he lived. Did you come to know the Petersons when they moved to that residence? Yes. Do you know if the defendant was living in that house in 2004? He was not . . . I believe he was living down the block, on Pheasant Chase Street. Did you see Kathleen frequently? Yes. What was the last time you saw Kathleen Savio Peterson? That Saturday, Feb. 29 . .. I had just gotten back from the grocery store with my sister. We pulled into the driveway, and she pulled up to her house, too. Objection/Sustained. We met midway on the sidewalk, after we had both pulled into the driveway . . . 11:30 [am]. Did you have a conversation with her at that time? Yes, it was a short conversation; we had just gotten back from vacation in Florida the night before, and she asked how the trip was. That night, he drove his parents to a family party, leaving around 5:00 pm and returning about 2:00 am. He parked outside, in the driveway. I pulled straight in, facing the garage . . . I noticed that her bedroom light was on, and I remarked to my parents that it was kind of odd that her lights were still on at that hour of the morning. Did you see any exterior lights on? No, that was the only light that was on. Was there a car in Kathleens driveway? No. Did you see or speak to Kathleen Savio on Sunday? No . . . that evening, around 6:00, I went back to my vehicle to retrieve something from my glove compartment. And I noticed that none of her lights were on. It was completely dark. This ends the direct examination of this witness. The defense begins its cross-examination (I cant tell who this attorney is). Fair to say that youve driven away from your home hundreds of times? Yes. Shades are up, shades are down; light are on, lights are off? Yes. And you literally came from your home back and forth, winter, summer, thousands of times? Yes. Lights are on some times, and lights are off some times in the neighborhood? Yes. Did there come a time when police officers came to your home, in 2007? Yes. Two officers, a male and a female, from the Illinois State Police? Yes. They came to your

home? I had just driven into the driveway, and they were outside. And they approached me, to come in and talk to my parents. This was approximately three years after you claim you saw the light on in Savios bedroom? Yes. While you speaking, they were taking notes? Yes. Contemporaneously? Yes. As you were in your driveway, you told them you saw the light on? Yes. And this afternoon, you told His Honor and the jurors that you thought it was unusual for the light to be on? Yes. But back when you talked to the officers, you said it was your mother who thought it was unusual, didnt you? I dont remember. The witness is asked if looking at the police report would help, and he responds that it would. The witness is handed the report, and reads it silently to himself. Is your memory now refreshed, independent of what I just showed you? Yes. You told the police that it was your mother who thought it was unusual that she was still awake at the time? I remember that we both basically made the comment at the same time. True you told them that your mother made the comment and not you? I dont recall. Once again, the witness is shown the document in question. This is a document prepared by the police that says your mother made the comment, and not you . . . its true you told them that your mother said it was unusual, and not you? Yes. When the police came to your home on Dec. 10, 2004, they were interviewing you and your mother and father? Objection/Sustained. There came a time on Dec. 10, 2007, they came to your home and your parents home? Yes. They asked you to do your best to remember what happened three years earlier? Yes. You grew up in a very, very traditional Italian home? Yes. Your extended family lived there? Yes. The police asked the family if they could remember anything at all? Yes. And everyone was part of that discussion? Yes. It was part of a group discussion? Yes. And people were having a hard time remembering? I dont remember people having a hard time remembering. Growing up in a traditional Italian household, if your mother was wrong about something, you wouldnt correct her in front of strangers, because it would be disrespectful? Yes. You would not have corrected her? Objection/Overruled The police came to your home three years after you saw the light on in Ms. Savios window? Yes. And you told the police she was like an older sister to her? Yes. And you said today that you thought it was unusual for her to have the light on? At that hour. And her porch light was off, and you were concerned and troubled by that? At that time, no. But after she was found dead, you didnt tell anyone in law enforcement, did you? No. Objection/Sustained. You were interviewed a second time the next day, at state police headquarters, a second time? Yes. And they asked you what you saw? Yes. And they asked you why you didnt tell anyone for three years? Yes. And you told them that you didnt want to interfere with a police investigation? Yes. This was a person you considered to be like an older sister, like family? Yes. For three years, you knew about this claim . . . but you didnt say anything for three years? No. You didnt contact any law enforcement agency, did you? No. Its only when they came to you in December of 2007 that you said anything? Yes. And they kept pressing you about what you saw? No, I wouldnt say that. They wanted to know if you had a sexual relationship with Ms. Savio, didnt they? Yes. And they even asked you to take a lie detector test, didnt they? Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar. The sidebar has now ended. The witness and the jurors are excused from the courtroom. Prosecutor Patton objects to the question about the lie detector. Judge: This is cross-examination . . . its appropriate cross-examination . . . a device for testing truthfulness. The judge then sends for the witness and the jury. The witness and the jurors have returned to the courtroom. You were at the state police station, alone in a room with the officers? Yes. And they asked about a relationship they thought you might have had with Ms. Savio? Yes. And that interrogation lasted several hours, didnt it? I dont recall it

lasting several hours. You didnt have a lawyer present, did you? No. At some point, they asked you for fingerprints? I dont remember that. Objection. The attorneys had to yet another sidebar. The sidebar ends. The witness is shown a copy of the police report in question. Is your memory now jogged? Yes. They did ask you to provide fingerprints, didnt they? Yes. And they asked you to take a polygraph test? Yes. And at that point, you were so sick and tired of them that you would just about say anything to get out of there? No. Objection/Sustained. When the police came to you three years later, a light suddenly came on in your head, pun intended? No, I always remembered that that happened. But you didnt say anything for 1095 days? Objection/Sustained. That ends the cross-examination of this witness. FYI the attorney doing the cross was Ralph Meczyk. Patton begins her redirect. The witness denies again that he had a sexual relationship with Kathleen Savio. When you went to the police department, you freely cooperated and answered all their questions? Yes. And you offered to provide the police with fingerprints, polygraph, and everything they asked? Yes. You told the police you were reluctant to come forward because you were afraid to contradict the police? Yes. That ends the redirect. There is no recross, and the witness is excused. Testimony for Drew Peterson trial is finished for the today. Judge: Everyone have a very good weekend. Well see you Tuesday. The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 9:00 CT/10:00 ET Tuesday morning.