Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part one

[katydid23]

Jentzen relied on "the deputy coroner, a pathologist and a state police investigator that Savio's death had been an accident"....

[ I hope the state does a good cross here...]

 

[lonetraveler]

RT @StacyStClair: #drewpeterson jury sitting in chromatic order: red clothing, white clothing, blue clothing, red, white, blue, red, white, blue.

[ Pretty soon they are going to be writing things out with letters on their shirts...]

LOL, I'm looking for them to do the "Wave" motion when they sit or stand!!:floorlaugh:

 

[katydid23]

Joliet_HN: Jentzen: The bruises along Savio's collarbone were not caused by a struggle, but are consistent with striking a solid surface...


[ what if she struck a solid surface ' during a struggle'?]

 

[katydid23]

In Session “Did you notice bruising in the area of Ms. Savio’s clavicle?” “Yes.” “Did you notice hemorrhage there?” “I did.” ‘Was there anything unusual?” “No.” “There were two bruises there?” “Yes . . .they appeared to be generally symmetrical.” The witness stands up, and demonstrates for the jury where he saw these injuries to Savio’s body. “Based on your training and experience, can you tell us whether or not those symmetrical bruises are indicative of a sign of an assault or a struggle?’ “In my opinion, their location is atypical for an assaultive injury. The fact they’re symmetrical indicates they’re most typical of striking a surface . . . it wouldn’t be an indication I would have for an assaultive injury.”

 

[katydid23]

[bjlutz: Jentzen says he didn't see active hemorrhaging to Savio's diaphragm. That's a contrast to Dr. Baden's, Case's result.]

Jentzen: Extremely uncommon for injuries to diaphragm. Really only seen in high-velocity accidents, falls.

witness discusses discrepencies b/w autopsy reports from Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Blum & Dr. Baden.

Meczyk now asking Jentzen about consiousness and unconsiousness, concussions.

 

[TallCoolOne]

DrewIsGuilty = 12 letters for 12 jurors
Should they scramble the letters or sit in order?!!

When they first enter the jury box they should be a scrambled up. Then when the judge asks them if they have reached a verdict they should say yes, they have. Then they should stand up and unscramble to spell it out. Yeah..... I like that.

 

[luvhockey]

Thought comes to mind. If the tub had water in it, wouldn't it cushion the fall? Why would she have deep bruising?

And, if she fell into a tub of water wouldn't there be a huge splash with water all over the floor? That amount of water wouldn't evaporate quickly from the floor.

ETA: oops, sorry I saw this was questioned on the previous page. At least we're all sensible!

 

[katydid23]

trial Pathologist on the stand says Savio could have struck her head, become disoriented, slipped and drowned in the bathtub...

witness Jentzen says it's possible to have concussion that doesn't cause brain trauma and still causes loss of consciousness.

Jentzen: Savio could have hit head, remained conscious but been dizzy, later slipping & falling and drowning.

witness says his findings contradict Dr. Baden's finding that there was active hemorrhaging in the diaghragm.

 

[TallCoolOne]

And, if she fell into a tub of water wouldn't there be a huge splash with water all over the floor? That amount of water wouldn't evaporate quickly from the floor.

Wishin' someone from the prosecution side was reading here right now to glean all these excellent questions and points that are coming up.

Someone call them and tell them!!!!!

 

[katydid23]

And, if she fell into a tub of water wouldn't there be a huge splash with water all over the floor? That amount of water wouldn't evaporate quickly from the floor.

And correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was also shampoos etc lined up that were not knocked over or disturbed.

 

[katydid23]

witness Jentzen says he "disagree(s) vehemently" with state expert's opinion and says he can't believe opinion was rendered.

Jentzen on Dr. Case's opinion that Savio's death was a homicide: "I disagree vehemently with that opinion."

 

[katydid23]

Dr Jentzen discounts testimony from prosecution witness Dr Case, saying she's confused and gave wrong info to jury...

 

[katydid23]

atty 2 wit. "could KS strike her head, not lost consciousness but become dazed?” “Yes” “Then fell underwater & drowned?” “Yes”

[That is ridiculous.]

 

[luvhockey]

Wishin' someone from the prosecution side was reading here right now to glean all these excellent questions and points that are coming up.

Someone call them and tell them!!!!!

Who tweets? Someone tweet them! They aren't cross examining until after the lunch recess correct?

 

[katydid23]

witness Jentzen says state expert is primarily a shaken baby syndrome expert

expert witness Jentzen says Case, whom he knows well, confused symptoms of severe head injury and concussion in her report....

 

[Jackson44]

In Session “Did you notice bruising in the area of Ms. Savio’s clavicle?” “Yes.” “Did you notice hemorrhage there?” “I did.” ‘Was there anything unusual?” “No.” “There were two bruises there?” “Yes . . .they appeared to be generally symmetrical.” The witness stands up, and demonstrates for the jury where he saw these injuries to Savio’s body. “Based on your training and experience, can you tell us whether or not those symmetrical bruises are indicative of a sign of an assault or a struggle?’ “In my opinion, their location is atypical for an assaultive injury. The fact they’re symmetrical indicates they’re most typical of striking a surface . . . it wouldn’t be an indication I would have for an assaultive injury.”

 

[lonetraveler]

witness Jentzen says he "disagree(s) vehemently" with state expert's opinion and says he can't believe opinion was rendered.

Jentzen on Dr. Case's opinion that Savio's death was a homicide: "I disagree vehemently with that opinion."

Wow, wonder how much this witness was paid?

 

[Jackson44]

In Session The witness now moves to the subject of Kathleen Savio’s diaphragm. “Is it a muscle that has a lot of vasculature?” “No, it’s a very thin muscle, not as well supplied with blood as the scalp or other areas . . . it’s probably at maximum a quarter of an inch thick.” “Have you read Dr. Blum’s report?” “I did.” “Where he references Dr. Baden’s findings?” “Correct.” “Recall whether or not Dr. Baden discovered hemorrhages of the diaphragm?” “Dr. Bade describes a dark discoloration that he believes was hemorrhage in the area.” “Did Dr. Mitchell discover that dark area?” “He did not.” “Did you consider Dr. Mitchell to be a competent pathologist?” “Yes.” ‘Did Dr. Blum discover this dark area of discoloration?” “He did not.” “Did Dr. Baden take a tissue sample of what he claimed to be a dark area in that hemorrhage?” “Yes.” “Do you know if Dr. Baden himself sat down and examined that sample himself?” “I do not believe he did; it wasn’t referenced in any of his reports . . . he submitted it to Dr. Blum.” “Did you have an opportunity to look at the slide that Dr. Baden made?” “I did.” “Was that the slide that represented the diaphragm tissue?” “Yes . . . I didn’t see any hemorrhage in the tissue of the diaphragm that would indicate that there was real hemorrhage there. But there was a clump of red blood cells that I believe was an artifact . . . it does not indicate, in my opinion, any hemorrhage in the diaphragm.” “Do your findings contradict Dr. Baden?” “Yes . . . I didn’t see active hemorrhage in the diaphragm, no.” “Have any doubt about that?” “No . . . the hemorrhage was not observed by Dr. Mitchell, who had the best opportunity . . . it would have been a very unique area to have hemorrhage in; it would be very visible . . . it’s very unusual to have injury to the diaphragm . . . there’s very rarely hemorrhage into the muscle of the diaphragm.”

 

[Jackson44]

In Session “I want to now talk to you about consciousness and unconsciousness . . . that general topic area. How do you define a concussion?” “A trauma-inducted change in mental stats, or a change in your mentation, related to trauma . . . it’s graded from 1 to 5 . . . grades 5 is a loss of consciousness for over ten minutes . . . in a concussion, there is no structural or pathological finding in the brain tissue; there are no lesions that can be seen with even a CAT scan or an MRI . . . it’s more of a non-pathological change in mental status.” “Can that concussion cause a loss of consciousness, even momentarily?” “It can, in many occasions.” ‘Can it cause dizziness?” “Yes.” “A disorientation?” “Yes;” “In your opinion, could Kathleen Savio have struck her head, not lost consciousness, but become dazed?” “Yes.” “Then slipped underwater, and drowned?” “Yes.” “Dr. Mitchell didn’t see any physical injury whatsoever to the brain?” “That’s correct; he described no bruising or contusion to the brain, or around the brain substance.” “You have read the booklet containing your colleague Dr. Case’s opinion about loss of consciousness?” “Yes. “And you’re aware of her qualifications?” “Yes.” “And she’s a neuropathologist?” “Yes.” “Are you qualified to speak about neuropathology?” “Certainly. In every examination I do, I examine the brain tissue.”

 

[Jackson44]

In Session The witness is asked about Dr. Case’s opinion that this was a homicide. “I disagree vehemently with that opinion . . . a concussion without any identifiable pathology injuries can cause loss of consciousness . . . I believe that Dr. Case is confused with interpreting what a fatal brain injury would be.” “So you can have this type of a head injury, where there’s nothing at all, no physical damage to the naked eye, and still lose consciousness?” “Correct.” “Have you seen that as a forensic pathologist?” “I have