Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[fifteen89]

<snipped and BBM>
“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.”

What's the reason they can't ask him about the position of her feet????

 

[Cubby]

OK, I really don't get why the 2007 autopsy report is allowed to be admitted into evidence, but the jury can't look at it. What, what?

Hopefully a redacted copy will be allowed. It should be. It's likely to be something the jury may ask for while deliberating, if the trial makes it that far.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Meczyk shows the witness a document. “While you were in this very courthouse, the subject came up about when you were contacted to handle, to revisit the Savio matter?” “Yes.” In that previous testimony, the witness said that he was contacted by the coroner and the State’s Attorney. “Did I read that correctly?” “Correct.” “Those are your words, and not mine?” “Why would you testify to two different things under oath?” Objection/Sustained. “Mr. Glasgow asked you to review everything, correct?” “I don’t recall any specific, because of the time lapse. I don’t recall what Mr. Glasgow said or didn’t say prior to the examination. It was the coroner, however, who called me to do this autopsy, not the State’s Attorney.” “Mr. Glasgow told you he wanted you to examine everything, and come to an unbiased opinion?” “Yes . . . that is correct.” “Because Mr. Glasgow knew that in the past you’d given him biased opinions, what he wanted to hear, isn’t that true?” “I cannot read his mind.” “You have, in fact, assisted Mr. Glasgow in the past?” “I have.” “You’re assisting Mr. Glasgow right now, in another trial?” “If you’re referring to the [Christopher] Vaughn case, yes . . . he did request me to assist in that case, yes.” Objection/Sustained.

Why didn't the pros object to this? Does the defense have some proof of biased opinions?

 

[fifteen89]

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.

So sorry for your loss. Safe travels.

 

[Cubby]

What always has baffled me, is that he called a locksmith and his neighbors to do a wellness check, when the average person would call 911 and let the cops do the wellness check. Very big red flag for me.

While he should have called for another cop, I'm sure in his mind, he was
-the- cop there to do the wellness check.

I agree, huge red flag.

 

[ohiogirl]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-trial-0816-20120816,0,1214073.story

some jurors irritated with the pace of the trial

 

[ohiogirl]

Sorry guys, no updates from InSession.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

that it doesn't necessarily mean that.......I still stand by my point that they are looking to eliminate anything that would present her in a more positive light.
I didn't think that my comment would incite a debate. I was thinking out loud about why the defense wouldn't want that mentioned and I believe that I am right.

Just b/c she had a rosary in her hand as she lay in the coffin doesn't necessairly convey a devotedly religious person. I have had tons of patients who were catholic "in name only"...and a rosary was placed in their hands in the casket. In fact, many funeral directors will ask a family of a catholic person if they want a rosary. So if the family wants it, it's put in with the deceased. So I don't think an accurate assessment can be drawn from the fact that she did have a rosary in her hands after death, in the casket. She could still be catholic and a hell cat. She could have been non-religious and NOT been a hell cat. Depends on whether you really believe the DT to be honest when they say she was a "hell cat".

So lets say you think she might have been a 'hell cat' as the DT says. The fact that she had a fear of Drew (yet was supposedly a hell cat) shows that Drew must have been a REAL SOB to have scared a woman who was a hell cat and 'feisty'.

All JMO

 

[fifteen89]

In Session The media has just been informed that Judge Burmila is on his way back to the courtroom from his chambers. So we should be resuming momentarily.

In Session According to defense attorney Steve Greenberg, the piece of equipment the defense has been installing in the courtroom is a “projection microscope.”

BBM
Thank goodness. I was having flashbacks to Jose's big board.

 

[ohiogirl]

After objection Meczyk asks for "a little guidence from the court" judge breaks jury for lunch until 1:15 #DrewPeterson

 

[ohiogirl]

See you all after lunch.

 

[Wishbone]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-trial-0816-20120816,0,1214073.story

some jurors irritated with the pace of the trial

And that is a real shame because I firmly believe that irritation with the slowness of the trial for casey anthony is partially what led to her acquittal by that poor excuse of a jury.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session &#8220;Would you say that Dr. Mitchell was an esteemed colleague?&#8221; &#8220;You could say that . . . yes.&#8221; &#8220;He was trusted among the profession of forensic pathology?&#8221; &#8220;Yes, Sir.&#8221; &#8220;You&#8217;d also agree that when Dr. Mitchell performed the first autopsy upon the remains of Miss Savio, he was in a better position . . . at some point, he did perform the first autopsy?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;You&#8217;d agree the pathologist looking grossly, eyeballing . . . at the time he examined grossly her remains, those remains were fresh?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And any bruises or contusions would be nice and fresh?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And you examined the remains three years later, when the remains were not nice and fresh?&#8221; &#8220;That is correct.&#8221; &#8220;And you, of course, are familiar with the late Dr. Mitchell&#8217;s protocol, his autopsy report?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;You read his pathological findings?&#8221; &#8220;I did read his report . . . I had access to all the records in the coroner&#8217;s report, and his report was among them.&#8221; &#8220;You did read his autopsy report?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;You agree he did a sound job?&#8221; &#8220;Under the circumstances.&#8221; &#8220;Thorough?&#8221; &#8220;For the most part.&#8221; &#8220;He did a orthodox, professional autopsy, in your opinion?&#8221; Objection/Overruled. &#8220;Yes, Sir.&#8221; &#8220;And you&#8217;re acquainted with his autopsy report?&#8221; &#8220;Yes, I am.&#8221; &#8220;And you know that Dr. Mitchell had a clear opportunity to look at the bruises on the body of Kathleen Savio?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And he documented the bruises that he saw?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And he enumerates all the bruises or contusions he saw during the first autopsy?:&#8221; &#8220;They&#8217;re in the photographs. There are ones he didn&#8217;t enumerate in his report.&#8221;

 

[Patty G]

Beth Karas just stated on InSessions that it was 900 grams of liquid in Kathy's lungs.

ETA: Took out of liquid.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session &#8220;He describes what he sees upon gross examination?&#8221; &#8220;That&#8217;s correct.&#8221; &#8220;And at the very end, he examined her back and buttocks, and said, &#8216;the back and buttocks are symmetrical and free of significant injury&#8217;?&#8221; &#8220;I remember that.&#8221; &#8220;He used the phrase &#8217;free of significant injury&#8217;?&#8221; &#8220;Yes, he did.&#8221;

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Attorney Meczyk continues to read from Dr. Mitchell&#8217;s report. &#8220;Findings made by a respected colleague, stated in that pathological protocol, stated &#8216;no significant trauma&#8217;?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And that would include bruises, trauma, even a laceration?&#8221; &#8220;Yes, Sir.&#8221;

In Session The attorney prepares to project the witness&#8217; C.V. The State objects, and the parties approach for a sidebar.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The sidebar ends, and Dr. Blum&#8217;s C.V. is projected. The witness points out a few changes between the time it was compiled and his current status. &#8220;It was accurate in 2010.&#8221; &#8220;No significant changes?&#8221; &#8220;Right.&#8221; &#8220;You&#8217;re familiar with Dr. Mitchell&#8217;s background?&#8221; &#8220;Only briefly . . . not to any degree.&#8221; Dr. Bryan Mitchell&#8217;s C.V. is then projected side-by-side with Dr. Blum&#8217;s. &#8220;The late Dr. Bryan Mitchell also opined at the very, very end of his detailed autopsy report: &#8216;The laceration to posterior scalp may be related to a fall in which she struck her head&#8217;?&#8221; &#8220;Correct.&#8221; &#8220;And his opinion was that her death was related to a fall?&#8221; Objection/Overruled. &#8220;His cause of death was drowning.&#8221; The witness is handed Dr. Mitchell&#8217;s four-page autopsy report. &#8220;&#8217;The laceration to posterior scalp may have been related to a fall in which she struck her head&#8217; . . . those were his words?&#8221; &#8220;Absolutely.&#8221;

 

[mysteriew]

What always has baffled me, is that he called a locksmith and his neighbors to do a wellness check, when the average person would call 911 and let the cops do the wellness check. Very big red flag for me.

Good point. Normal procedure would be for someone to call 911, and then maybe go to the scene to see what was found.

But if DrewP didn't know that something was up, wouldn't your first impulse (as a police officer) be to check in with LE to see if there were any reports of KS being involved in an accident somewhere? Or that maybe some of her family took seriously ill or was injured and that she may have been at the hospital with them and forgot to call him? After all, calling about the boys in that situation may not have been a top priority as the boys were with their father.

But DrewP didn't address any of those issues, he went right from she was unavailable to recieve the boys...... to calling a locksmith.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness confirms that he had access to police reports and other documents in this case. &#8220;You have your own examination, and you have to put context as to why the body was the way it was?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And it&#8217;s fair to say that you got thousands of police reports, things of that nature?&#8221; &#8220;There were a lot.&#8221; &#8220;And part of the burden you had was that you also had opportunity read the defense reports, prepared by Mr. Peterson&#8217;s forensic pathologists?&#8217; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And one of those . . .&#8221; Objection/Sustained. Attorney Meczyk asks for a little guidance in this area. But the judge decides this is a good time for the lunch recess, and excuses the witness and the jury.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The jurors and witness are now gone. Meczyk questions the judge about what exactly was improper about his last question. &#8220;I think it&#8217;s certainly fair to inquire from this witness if he disagrees with their findings . . . it might help him form his opinion . . . I think that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s relevant.&#8221; Judge: &#8220;The judge did not say he relied on any of those materials that you named. If he says he did rely on them, then I&#8217;m going to let you go into it.&#8221; Meczyk: &#8220;Very good.&#8221;