Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the prosecution had made a snide comment to a defense witness, you can bet Judge B would scold them or threaten a mistrial. The defense does it and it's like nothing happened.

There is something clearly wrong with this judge.
 
In Session “I see lots of people who bump into tables. They bump into things all the time. They do not have those kind of bruises on their body, those deep bruises . . . we all bump into things. That is not a common experience, for someone to walk around with bruises like that.” “You have no idea whatsoever where that bruise came from, or where it came from?” “In my opinion, it’s an inflicted injury.” “Do you know with 100 % certainty, with your crystal ball?” Objection/Sustained.

In Session “When you section a brain, there’s wet cutting and dry cutting?” “I know what you mean, but that’s not terminology that I use.” “Wet cutting is when you cut it when it’s not fixed?” “I have never used that technology, but I understand what you’re talking about.” Attorney Goldberg asks for a moment.

In Session “If I understand it, you can slice or section a brain at the time of autopsy, or you can fix it, put it in a formaldehyde solution, to keep the structure?” “Yes . . . that’s my preference, if I’m going to do a very detailed examination.” “And you can section a spine?” “Yes.” “And that wasn’t done in this case?” “It wasn’t done until the third autopsy.”
 
From everything we've been told/read, it her SHINS!! I hope all of these false inuendos aren't lost on the jury!

Thank you so much. That is exactly what I thought. However, I have been known to think wrong.
 
attorney Darryl Goldberg asks if Case, a pathologist, is familiar with bruises sustained by live people.

trial witness Dr. Case replied: "all of my people were alive before they got to me."

We've moved on from brain dissection without much of a question. Goldberg asking Dr. Case about bruising of Savio's diaphragm.

One pathologist didn't find bruising on diaphragm. Case: they didn't examine it the way Dr. Baden and I did.

Goldberg ends cross-examination of Case

I love this witness! She is refusing their constant intimidation!
 
In Session “One of the things you talked about an injury on the diaphragm . . . there was no injury whatsoever around the surrounding area?” “That’s correct.” “And Dr. Blum did not identify any injury in that area?” “He did not examine that area, like Dr. Baden did.” Objection/Sustained. “You’d expect to see injury around the diaphragm, the area surrounding the diaphragm?” “If you’re asking me if I’d expect to see it on the outside of the body, that answer would be no.” “Isn’t it just an artifact from an autopsy?” “Not in my opinion, no.” “There were no injuries whatsoever to the areas immediately adjacent to that diaphragm?” “There were none.” That concludes the cross-examination of this witness, and the prosecution asks for a sidebar.
 
Epic Fail for the defense in their cross, imo. :great::great:
 
If the prosecution had made a snide comment to a defense witness, you can bet Judge B would scold them or threaten a mistrial. The defense does it and it's like nothing happened.

There is something clearly wrong with this judge.

And why doesn't the PT ever object to their hateful comments?! They're allowed to, right?
 
And why doesn't the PT ever object to their hateful comments?! They're allowed to, right?

I was wondering the same thing. Yes, they are allowed to object. I thought maybe they were on their own break or just trying to be polite. lol
 
And why doesn't the PT ever object to their hateful comments?! They're allowed to, right?

I don't think the PT wants to do anything else to make the judge angry. Sad, but they need to sit on their hands.

But I think the jury will be put off by the snide, rude arrogant DT comments, imo. So maybe the state is right to just let them be as obnoxious as they want to be.
 
Case will be last witness today at #drewpeterson trial. Waiting for re-direct to start.
 
I don't think the PT wants to do anything else to make the judge angry. Sad, but they need to sit on their hands.

But I think the jury will be put off by the snide, rude arrogant DT comments, imo. So maybe the state is right to just let them be as obnoxious as they want to be.

JMHO but mature men and women do not need to snicker when sex is discussed.
 
Glasgow begins a redirect examination of Case

jury now hearing re-direct of Case. State's Attorney Glasgow trying to dispel notion Case only lectures to law enforcement

Glasgow asks Case who she has given lectures to. Case: mainly death investigators and other doctors.
 
The colors worn by the jurors seem to follow the course of color changing in bruises -
red at first, then black/blue, then green. If this is what they're doing, we should expect to see yellow tomorrow, followed by brown on Thursday. What would this mean?
 
prosecutor Glasgow now talking about rough sex and types of injuries one may sustain during it. This day has gotten so weird.

On redirect, Glasgow asks Case about abrasion on Savio's buttocks. She confirms it was pre-death. Defense attorney Goldberg following up.

Now Goldberg is re-cross-examining Case.

For the record, no witness at the #DrewPeterson trial has testified about Savio having rough sex. Just the attorneys.

trial adjourned for the day.
 
testimony ending for day. Judge says he's going to start holding court on Mondays now.

[ Guess it was going too slow. Glad he noticed. ]
 
Goldberg: accuses Case of having a "cozy association with law enforcement."

...Goldberg going over a list of groups to whom she's lectured. Defense attorneys groups aren't among them. Case: I would if I were asked.


RBBM: OFGS ... isn't that "like the pot calling the kettle black" ?

:maddening: What about Goldberg and the DT's "cozy association" with the judge ?

:moo:
 
The colors worn by the jurors seem to follow the course of color changing in bruises -
red at first, then black/blue, then green. If this is what they're doing, we should expect to see yellow tomorrow, followed by brown on Thursday. What would this mean?

Let hope not. That may be that they have already formed an opinion and they are not suppose to do that. jmo
 
Whoops, almost forgot. Thank you Shelby1 for your updates this morning!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
2,247
Total visitors
2,348

Forum statistics

Threads
601,751
Messages
18,129,252
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top