Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[LambChop]

Does this judge need me to buy him a watch????

Make sure it has BIG numbers....

 

[atthelake]

Are the Jurors in this Court allowed to take notes during trial?

Yes..

 

[Patty G]

InSessions: Judge Burmila takes the bench. “Good morning, everyone... unfortunately, there was a delay this morning, a rather serious accident on the Interstate. That’s the reason for the delay.” With that, the judge sends for the witness and for the jury.

 

[Patty G]

In Session
“When someone falls, is there an involuntary movement of the arms?” “Yes. The body during fall will instinctively, reflexly extend the arms, in an attempt to reestablish balance and control. It’s something that you can’t help . . . I wou
ld characterize it as ‘when you fall, you sprawl’ . . . you sprawl out in an attempt to stop yourself. And is that why you were looking for bruising on the back of the arms?” “Yes.” “And you didn’t find any?” “No.”

 

[seattlechiquita]

Morning y'all :coffeecup:

 

[AbbieNormal]

Time of Death on a death cert or autopsy is often the date and time the body was found or pronounced dead even if that's not the exact day/time of the person's death. TOD is an estimate usually ranging about 12 hours give or take.

My brother was dead for up to 2 days or so before his body was found (heart attack, lived alone), but on his death cert. the date is the day he was found and the time is when the fire dept/paramedics saw him. And he had an autopsy too and the coroner said he had been deceased for 48 hours or so.

I understand, but Kathleen was not found at 11:17pm.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness next describes how the coroner’s system works in Illinois. “It would start with a death . . .” Objection/Sustained. “The coroner would call me upon the death of an individual within their jurisdiction that they deem requires an autopsy . . . then I would go do the autopsy for the coroner . . . as administrator of the coroner’s office, it’s their responsibility and duty to certify the death as to cause and manner.” “Your involvement with the coroner would only be for cause?” “Outside of Cook County, yes.” Objection/Sustained. “In the case involving Kathleen Savio, what were they looking for you to do?’ “They wanted my opinion on the cause and manner of her death . . . the cause of death is defined as the disease or injury responsible for initiating the chain of events that result in biochemical and physiological changes in the body that are incompatible with live.” “In this case, what did you determine the cause of death was?” “It was my opinion that Kathleen Savio died of drowning.” “By inhaling fluid?” “Yes.” ‘Is that the same cause of death that Dr. Mitchell had determined in his protocol?” “Yes.” “And Dr. Mitchell did not address the manner of death?” Objection. The State asks for a sidebar.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness says that Dr. Mitchell’s autopsy protocol did not contain a manner of death. He then describes what happens when someone drowns. “If the patient if conscious, there will be a voluntary breath holding . . . then the body will force them to take a breath. That causes the throat to spasm up and close off, because of the water hitting the back of the throat. That spasm will close off the airway until there’s not enough oxygen in the blood to maintain that reflex. The patient at this time is generally unconscious . . . and then the throat relaxes, a breath is taken, and water rushes into the lungs . . . it goes into the bloodstream, and causes problems. Unless that person has gotten out of the water within three or four minutes, the brain has been without oxygen for too long.” According to Dr. Blum, very few people can survive for more than five minutes under these circumstances. In Savio’s case, 2000 grams of water were found in her lungs, which is a very large amount.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Dr. Blum then moves to the subject of manner of death: natural, accidental, homicide, suicide, and undetermined. “Did you determine a manner of death in this case?” “Yes, I did . . . accidental drownings in bathtubs are associated with risk factors . . .” Objection/Sustained. “What are those risk factors for drowning?’ “The number one disease is epilepsy. Other diseases associated with drowning would include M.S. and other neuro-degenerative diseases . . . something like Alzheimer’s . . . to where a person in the bathtub might drown by accidentally slipping under the surface; they can’t control their muscles. Drugs are extremely important, as is alcohol, in accidental drownings of adults . . . it’s extremely rare [for an adult to drown] without risk factors . . . the evidence that led me against it being an accident were the absence of risk factors, the lack of certain injuries on her body, and her position in the bathtub.” “Could this have been a suicide?” “I read the literature on suicides in general that would apply to virtually any suicide, looking for risk factors or associated conditions . . . there was nothing in the history to suggest that she’d ever talked about suicide, or had any suicide ideation. There was no evidence of that . . . no past suicide attempts were noted . . . I ruled out suicide.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness next is asked about whether Savio’s death could be a homicide. “You assess an injury pattern, which tells us if it’s an accidental event or an inflicted series of injuries. Injuries of people falling down mountains or off their bicycle are certainly different from household activities.” “Did you come to a conclusion about whether or not the laceration to her head occurred in an accident fall?” “I did come to a conclusion . . . it’s my conclusion that it not occur in a fall . . . the laceration to the back of the head was posterior, or on the back side of the body’ all the bruises were on the front side . . . I just couldn’t see how that could happen.” “And the three bruises at the front of her hip . . . they were all deep?” “That’s correct.” “Was there any surface in the tub area that you observed that could have caused those three bruises?” “No, I did not . . . there were three of them there, not just one . . . there was nothing in the tub per se that would cause those three bruises in the pattern in which they were seen there.” “And the position her body was in, would she have come to rest naturally in that position?” “Yes, especially the feet . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Were you able to come to a conclusion as to the manner of death of Kathleen Savio?” “Yes, Sir.” “And what was that?” “Homicide.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness consulted with Dr. Blum during his own autopsy and also at the scene a week later. “Do you know the result from the lab of the sexual assault kit?” “I’m aware of it . . . basically negative, no findings.” “And do you know the result of the fingernail scrapings?” Objection. The attorneys go to a sidebar.

In Session The sidebar ends. The jurors and the witness are excused from the courtroom. Judge: “We’re going to take a brief recess, to give the defense a look at their discovery.”

 

[Ruby]

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness says that Dr. Mitchell’s autopsy protocol did not contain a manner of death. He then describes what happens when someone drowns. “If the patient if conscious, there will be a voluntary breath holding . . . then the body will force them to take a breath. That causes the throat to spasm up and close off, because of the water hitting the back of the throat. That spasm will close off the airway until there’s not enough oxygen in the blood to maintain that reflex. The patient at this time is generally unconscious . . . and then the throat relaxes, a breath is taken, and water rushes into the lungs . . . it goes into the bloodstream, and causes problems. Unless that person has gotten out of the water within three or four minutes, the brain has been without oxygen for too long.” According to Dr. Blum, very few people can survive for more than five minutes under these circumstances. In Savio’s case, 2000 grams of water were found in her lungs, which is a very large amount.

So there was water in her lungs - obviously I do not know how to read an autopsy report :blushing:

ETA: so sorry about my other posts regarding no water found elsewhere, please ignore them

 

[ohiogirl]

So there was water in her lungs - obviously I do not know how to read an autopsy report :blushing:

I read it countless times, and never saw that. :waitasec:

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness next is asked about whether Savio’s death could be a homicide. “You assess an injury pattern, which tells us if it’s an accidental event or an inflicted series of injuries. Injuries of people falling down mountains or off their bicycle are certainly different from household activities.” “Did you come to a conclusion about whether or not the laceration to her head occurred in an accident fall?” “I did come to a conclusion . . . it’s my conclusion that it not occur in a fall . . . the laceration to the back of the head was posterior, or on the back side of the body’ all the bruises were on the front side . . . I just couldn’t see how that could happen.” “And the three bruises at the front of her hip . . . they were all deep?” “That’s correct.” “Was there any surface in the tub area that you observed that could have caused those three bruises?” “No, I did not . . . there were three of them there, not just one . . . there was nothing in the tub per se that would cause those three bruises in the pattern in which they were seen there.” “And the position her body was in, would she have come to rest naturally in that position?” “Yes, especially the feet . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Were you able to come to a conclusion as to the manner of death of Kathleen Savio?” “Yes, Sir.” “And what was that?” “Homicide.”

Now I am really confused. I thought the testimony yesterday was she would NOT have come to rest naturally in the position, especially her feet. :waitasec:

 

[Ruby]

I read it countless times, and never saw that. :waitasec:

The only "water" mentioned that I noticed was in the sinuses - I guess that's why I'm reading the internet and not on the stand, I'd really mess things up.

BTW - Thank you for all the updates, really appreciate them.

 

[ohiogirl]

Now I am really confused. I thought the testimony yesterday was she would NOT have come to rest naturally in the position, especially her feet. :waitasec:

Never mind, it wasn't yesterday, it was days ago, I'll have to find which witness it was. jmo:seeya:

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Attorney Greenberg withdraws his objection, and so the judge sends for the witness and the jury.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The jurors and the witness are now back in the courtroom. Prosecutor Glasgow continues his direct examination. “You testified to a general description of how drowning occurs. Could you apply those principles as to how Kathleen Savio drowned?’ “The lungs were very light for a drowning . . . there was water in the sinuses, in the head . . . this is not total proof of drowning, but it does assist in the diagnosis. Drowning is also a diagnosis of exclusion . . . between his autopsy and mine, I think we reasonably excluded other causes of death. During the first autopsy, a brain examination was performed; there was some swelling, which does go along with the findings”. “And it’s your opinion, to a degree of scientific certainty, that Kathleen Savio drowned?” “That’s correct.”

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Popping in and out today. Elderly aunt passed away and getting ready for out of town trip.

I eagerly await the cross of this witness. Let's see what the DT comes up with for him.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

the medicine cabinet or something like that and that the bruises in the front were here falling forward after having hit her head? This makes no sense to me. His statement : "I just didn't see how that could happen" isn't very compelling.....it isn't strong enough. We need to know WHY that wouldn't have happened. Thus far from what I am reading today I think that his testimony is weak and disappointing. There were a couple of statements made yesterday that were good.....the dried blood on her face comes to mind.
However, if DP drown her in the commode why would she have dried blood on her face. I thought that the whole point of the dried blood on her face ruled out a death by drowning.

I am all over the place with this, but I don't think that this testimony is cohesive and instructive enough.

In Session The witness next is asked about whether Savio’s death could be a homicide. “You assess an injury pattern, which tells us if it’s an accidental event or an inflicted series of injuries. Injuries of people falling down mountains or off their bicycle are certainly different from household activities.” “Did you come to a conclusion about whether or not the laceration to her head occurred in an accident fall?” “I did come to a conclusion . . . it’s my conclusion that it not occur in a fall . . . the laceration to the back of the head was posterior, or on the back side of the body’ all the bruises were on the front side . . . I just couldn’t see how that could happen.” “And the three bruises at the front of her hip . . . they were all deep?” “That’s correct.” “Was there any surface in the tub area that you observed that could have caused those three bruises?” “No, I did not . . . there were three of them there, not just one . . . there was nothing in the tub per se that would cause those three bruises in the pattern in which they were seen there.” “And the position her body was in, would she have come to rest naturally in that position?” “Yes, especially the feet . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Were you able to come to a conclusion as to the manner of death of Kathleen Savio?” “Yes, Sir.” “And what was that?” “Homicide.”