Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part two

[~n/t~]

The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
Jury out again.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I've just thought about what has been bothering me about this case. Did Drew ever use his police connections to trace license plates and other such information during the "death period"? Did anyone ever find proof of his tracking his wives on GPS? Get my gist? This is not unusual in cases where a member of LE stalks someone.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends. The jurors are then excused from the courtroom. Glasgow puts his objection on the record, says that questions about a child’s brain are irrelevant and beyond the scope of direct. The judge overrules the objection, and says that he will allow the question. He sends for the jury.

 

[caligma]

Thank you

 

[~n/t~]

Ruth Ravve ‏@RuthRavve
#DrewPeterson Defense asks Case about paper she wrote in 2007 called "Mechanisms of injury"about primates,

Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
Jury's back. Goldberg continues his cross examination.

 

[~n/t~]

So children brains and primates.......alrighty then. The Judge allows this?

 

[~n/t~]

Ruth Ravve ‏@RuthRavve
#DrewPeterson Paperwork talks about brain injuries sustained thru soft falls causing unconsciousness. Case says this only refers to infants

 

[~n/t~]

Ruth Ravve ‏@RuthRavve
#DrewPeterson Defense points out that prosecutors got a discount for Dr Case services--she says she charges govt agencies less

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The witness and jurors are now back in the courtroom. “I want to talk about a paper you wrote, which was published in 2007?” “I remember it.” “You talk about a study you reference that involved adult primates?” “Adult primates, yes . . . you would have to kill an individual to study it.” Goldberg reads from this article. “According to your paper, primates have suffered DAI from hitting even soft surfaces?” “That statement was intended to reference injuries to an infant.” “Did I read it correctly, though, before?” “Yes, you did.” The witness is then asked about another article that she wrote. “Did I read that correctly, Doctor?” “Yes, you did.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The witness repeats that she lowers her rate for any governmental agency. “That’s a very small percentage of the cases that you do?” “That’s correct.” “But the State Attorney received a discount for your services?” “That’s correct.”

In Session The witness repeats that she disagrees with Dr. Jentzen’s opinion. “And you know that he vehemently disagrees with your opinion?” “I understand that. We obviously disagree with one another.” The cross-examination of Dr. Case is now concluded.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Once again, Dr. Case says that it takes roughly two hours to microscopically view signs of axonal injury. She saw no sign of that in this case.

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
Case tells #drewpeterson jury she and defense expert Dr. Jentzen, who have worked together, obviously disagree w/ each other in the case.

 

[~n/t~]

Ruth Ravve ‏@RuthRavve
#DrewPeterson Defense back asking Case about markers showing injury to the brain. "You would see a thin smear of blood" she says


(I guess after they concluded they had another question?)

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The redirect is over, and Goldberg begins his recross. Once again, the witness is challenged by something that she’s written before. “DAI is diffuse, so it’s not a local injury?” “Correct.” The witness says there may be “markers” of DAI on the brain. “I did not ever tell this jury that there would be large collections of blood.” “In all the publications you’ve written, you have not written one word about these kinds of markers?” “Every paper I’ve ever written about DAI talks about thin smears [of blood] . . . I’m not quite sure how else to say it.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The witness identifies some notes from a seminar she has given. “I don’t know if I say that [thin smears] in my notes . . . Sir, that is not a paper. That is a lecture note. I lecture, and then I say additional things, and I show photographs.” The witness is finished and excused, and leaves the bench. The prosecution asks for a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

Kara Oko ‏@KaraOko
State now addressing possible impeachment statements made yesterday by #DrewPeterson son Tom Peterson.

:what:

 

[~n/t~]

Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
#drewpeterson prosecutors will call no more rebuttal witnesses

Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
Pros wants stipulation about Thomas Peterson's testimony.

 

[~n/t~]

Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
State says Thomas Peterson didn't remember part of his grand jury testimony. Judge: "Are you impeaching his memory?"

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The sidebar ends. The jurors have been excused. There will be a stipulation pertaining to the testimony of Thomas Peterson, but that is likely the end of the State’s evidence. Greenberg objects to the proposed stipulation, says it’s not proper witness impeachment. It is confirmed that the prosecution will officially rest as soon as the jury comes back. The judge says that jury instructions will be hammered out later this afternoon and tomorrow; closing arguments will be Tuesday.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Well, then some lawyers will have to work during their Labor Day holiday, won't they? The defense can thank themselves for all of the delays and so forth.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Goldberg asks for a sur-rebuttal case, for the sole purpose of admitting a document. Koch objects to this sur-rebuttal, which pertains to “scarring” on Kathleen Savio’s buttocks. Judge: “The defendant’s request for sur-rebuttal is denied.”

:floorlaugh::woohoo::takeabow: