Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[Livingthedream]

judge says info state has given defense about Rosetto's conversation with Stacy "is shifting like the sand."

Glasgow says he told Greenberg today that Rossetto would testify about 10/25. "He didn't say anything, and so I proceeded."

Glasgow: "This all has to do with a date. Not the content."

Rossetto testimony may not continue today because of date discrepancy

If the judge refuses to let the testimony continue, he needs to be investigated.

 

[panthera]

Not AGAIN!

:maddening:

 

[Cappuccino]

But were Kathleen's prints on them ,in the pattern that would reflect her holding the glass to sip the juice,etc....?
Maybe Drew set it up because he knew he would have strong morning alibis.

It was initially ruled to be an accidental death so I doubt anything like that was looked at.

 

[panthera]

I am confused about these dates they are arguing about---10/22 vs. 10/25. What the heck are they talking about?

The date the witness went to Stacy's house and spoke with her.

 

[Patty G]

Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

#DrewPeterson judge obviously unhappy with prosecutors, left the bench shaking his head incredulously.

 

[Cubby]

In Session The witness is asked about the fact that Savio may have been taking fat blasters, or herbal supplements. “Those could theoretically interfere with any prescription medication given to Ms. Savio by you or any other doctor?” “Yes.” “Do you agree that 10 to 20 percent of all patients who take Zoloft suffer nervous system side effects?” “There are a lot of factors involved.” Objection. The prosecution asks for a sidebar.


In Session The sidebar ends. “One of the things you learned during your treatment of Miss Savio was she saw another neurologist…and he noted, and you noted, too, that she would occasionally drop objects?” “Yes . . . people drop things all the time.” “But she told the doctor that she drops objects . . . that could have something to do with her coordination? She could just be clumsy?” “Yes.” “You say she was careful, and was not predisposed to fall?” “Correct.” “Predisposition to fall is not a medical condition?” “Correct.” “And someone who’s in a bathtub without an anti-slip mechanism could just slip and fall?” “Could.”

When was the last time bathtubs were manufactured without some kind of anti-slip mechanism in the bottom of a tub? I'd guess in historical homes. Bolingbrook is too new of a community (mostly 1970's or after) to have a home built with a tub w/o an anti-slip mechanism.

anyone beside me think the jury is onto the let's throw everything against the wall and see what sticks defense?

Suggesting MS, seriously?

And if the pros could not ask this Dr. to testify as an expert, why the he77 is the defense asking questions as if he was sworn in as an expert and the judge is silent on the matter? I am positive that is making an impression on the jury.

 

[Patty G]

In Session The judge/prosecutor exchange continues. Judge: “Mr. Greenberg, are you prepared to go ahead with cross-examining this witness at this time?” Greenberg: “Judge, is there someone else they call?” Judge: “Well, to some degree, it’s unfair for me to tell the State to produce another witness . . . is there a witness?” Glasgow: “Jennifer Schoon.” “Judge: “We’ll take a minute here, to see if we can sort this out.” The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in a brief recess.

10 seconds ago

 

[MissJames]

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness and the jurors are excused from the courtroom. Greenberg: “I raised the issue of when this conversation took place . . . who am I now going to call if I have to impeach this? . . . they’re prepping their witnesses, and they told us before lunch that it was the 22nd; all of a sudden, he’s on the stand and he’s saying it’s the 25th.” Glasgow: “That was a misunderstanding.” Judge: “Did your office advise them that the conversation took place on the 22nd?” Glasgow: “I did not do that, Your Honor.” Judge: “But previous to that, Mr. Connor, you advised them that the conversation took place on the 22nd?” Connor acknowledges that he mistakenly told the defense just before lunch that the date was Oct. 22nd.” The judge says that the defense can call Connor as its impeachment witness, but that would end his role as a prosecutor in this case. Glasgow instead offers a stipulation, but the defense isn’t sure it wants to agree. The judge grills Connor on what exactly it was that was said to the defense. Judge to Glasgow: “I’m not saying you did it personally. But your office is responsible . . . you’re vouching for the credibility of this witness . . . are you going to stipulate that you advised the defense of false information about this witness? I didn’t create this situation. It’s as if the sand is shifting on a momentary basis.”

2 minutes ago

Now I want a mistrial. This judge doesn't even try to look unbiased. Time to start over .

 

[Cubby]

BBM
Best quote of the day! Love this doctor!

I love him too. It's pretty clear which witness's know the Def is full of caca.

 

[Cubby]

In Session The witness is asked about a drug that has been recalled because of cardio-vascular side effects. “The FDA specifically required the manufacturers to put a few more warnings on their labels?” “Yes.” Objection/Overruled. “There are many cardio-vascular risks to taking Celebrex?” “Well, there can’t have been too many, or they would have been taken off the market.” “You also knew that Miss Savio was taking Xanax?” “Yes.” “Another anti-anxiety medication?” ‘Yes.” And it can have significant side effects, like drowsiness?” “If you take too much of it.” “But it could slow reaction times, like if you were to accidentally fall the ability to catch yourself?” “Potentially.” The witness confirms that Savio suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, due to her increased adrenaline. “That adrenaline affects every organ of your body, and could have devastating effects?” “In a worse case scenario, yes.” That concludes the cross-examination of Dr. Neri, and the parties go to a sidebar.

If I'm on the jury, I know from previous testimony the tox reports were negative. I'd be asking myself why the defense is bringing up stuff completely irrelevant to this case.

 

[Patty G]

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness and the jurors are excused from the courtroom. Greenberg: “I raised the issue of when this conversation took place . . . who am I now going to call if I have to impeach this? . . . they’re prepping their witnesses, and they told us before lunch that it was the 22nd; all of a sudden, he’s on the stand and he’s saying it’s the 25th.” Glasgow: “That was a misunderstanding.” Judge: “Did your office advise them that the conversation took place on the 22nd?” Glasgow: “I did not do that, Your Honor.” Judge: “But previous to that, Mr. Connor, you advised them that the conversation took place on the 22nd?” Connor acknowledges that he mistakenly told the defense just before lunch that the date was Oct. 22nd.” The judge says that the defense can call Connor as its impeachment witness, but that would end his role as a prosecutor in this case. Glasgow instead offers a stipulation, but the defense isn’t sure it wants to agree. The judge grills Connor on what exactly it was that was said to the defense. Judge to Glasgow: “I’m not saying you did it personally. But your office is responsible . . . you’re vouching for the credibility of this witness . . . are you going to stipulate that you advised the defense of false information about this witness? I didn’t create this situation. It’s as if the sand is shifting on a momentary basis.”

2 minutes ago

BBM

When I read the bolded sentence above, it reminded me of:

"Like sands through the hourglass... so are the Days of Our Lives

 

[Livingthedream]

The defense team is slimey. During lunch Brodsky says he is not concerned with Rossetto's testimony. Sooo, if you're not concerned, why is Greenberg asking the witness to be removed from giving testimony because of a date error?

They're pathetic! But I must also say that the prosecutution has had far too many blunders this entire case.

 

[katydid23]

Connor acknowledges that he mistakenly told the defense just before lunch that the date was Oct. 22nd =============================

So the defense didn't have any discovery showing the correct date? Surely this is not the first they are hearing about this witness? And surely they already read his previous statements and were given the proper date? Why would they rely upon an oral statement, by memory, just before lunchtime?

 

[Cubby]

Exactly. Also, in my opinion, a slip and fall would not result in the position Kathleen was found in. No way. It appears she was curled up in a fetal position. That is not a slip and fall.

Exactly! Physics plays into this as well. Scientifically a fall is not possible with the position KS was found.

 

[MissJames]

It was initially ruled to be an accidental death so I doubt anything like that was looked at.

I'm sure you are right ,but that's the kind of evidence that was needed to see if it WAS and accident or if it was staged.

 

[MissJames]

This judge wants Glasgow to look bad so he won't win again . JMO I'm gobsmacked at his behavior.

 

[Cubby]

In Session “The last time you saw her, you actually increased her Zoloft dosage to 100 mgs?” “Yes.” “You have no idea about Miss Savio’s condition unless she tells you?” “Right.” “You said your personality doesn’t change?” “Right.” “But depending on who you talk to, your personality may be different?” Objection/Overruled. “Not if they want to be treated.” “So they may not present their true personality?” “I suppose . . . we’re pretty used to sorting that out . . . personality doesn’t change. If they want something, they may attempt to get it . . . your normal personality is what you return to when your chemicals are balanced again.”

So now it's the 'she hid her true personality theory'.

:floorlaugh: They are desperate, joe "desperado" lopez and team, desperate with a capital D!

 

[Cappuccino]

I'm sure you are right ,but that's the kind of evidence that was needed to see if it WAS and accident or if it was staged.

It would have been great if it had been treated as a crime scene straight away, who knows what evidence they'd have? Look on the bright side though - the jury know that this wasn't judged to be murder until some years after her death, and that her body was exhumed for re-examination. Therefore, assuming the jury has an ounce of common sense, they won't draw exculpatory conclusions from the lack of physical evidence to the same extent as they would in a case where its known to be a murder from the outset.

And DP is unlikely to have left any physical evidence, I'm sure he knows all about cleaning crime scenes. So the fact that there's an obvious explanation for no physical evidence may work in the prosecution's favour.

 

[MissJames]

The defense team is slimey. During lunch Brodsky says he is not concerned with Rossetto's testimony. Sooo, if you're not concerned, why is Greenberg asking the witness to be removed from giving testimony because of a date error?

They're pathetic! But I must also say that the prosecutution has had far too many blunders this entire case.

Beth Karas has really called them out about the way they phrase things in their news conferences. They are totally misleading and devoid of the facts.
You know the saying about eyes being the window to the soul? Well they all wear dark sunglasses for a reason .

 

[Patty G]

In Session‏@InSession

Judge: Defense, are you prepared to go ahead with cross-examining this witness at this time?” Greenberg asks pros. to call another witness.