Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part two

[Jackson44]

In Session
“Your position is that you saw hemorrhage or blood on the diaphragm of Ms. Savio’s body?” “Yes.” “You know that diaphragm was removed by Dr. Mitchell, and was placed along with other organs in a viscera bag?” “Yes.” “That muscle then ca
me into contact with other organs?” “Yes.” “When other organs are co-mingled in that viscera bag, there can be a transference of blood?” “It’s possible. Unlikely, but possible . . . by the time they’re place in a viscera bag, the blood has been drained out.” “It is not a remote possibility?” “It’s very small . . . and the blood I’m looking at is not lying on the diaphragm; it’s embedded in the muscle.” “You were the pathologist who first discovered the blood on the diaphragm?” “I believe so, yes.” “Dr. Mitchell missed it?” “He didn’t describe it.” “And Dr. Blum missed it, too?” “That’s correct.” “And Dr. Mitchell would have been in a better position to see that first than you?” “Yes. If he were looking for it.” “You knew he was a competent pathologist, with many years of experience?” “Yes.” “And to get to other organs, you have to remove the diaphragm?” “Well, they’re moved simultaneously.” “And a competent pathologist would be looking at something like that?” “They would see the diaphragm as they were removing it.” “And Dr. Blum missed it?” “Yeah . . . this is a very slight detail . . . as far as I know, he did not include it in his report. I did research on the diaphragm; I spend more time looking at diaphragms than other forensic pathologist. So I may have looked longer at it.”

 

[MissJames]

In Session The State calls its first rebuttal witness: Dr. Michael Baden (questioned by prosecutor Connor). “I’m in private practice . . . I’m a physician; my area of expertise is forensic pathology.” The defense offers to stipulate to Dr. Baden’s expertise, but the State rejects that offer. So the witness begins to go over his educational and professional background. He says that he has done special research into the human diaphragm. He worked for the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office (originally as Deputy Chief, and then as Chief Medical Examiner), then because the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the New York State Police (until last year).

[How is it NOT a direct rebuttal? He says I don't agree with this opinion..and I don't agree with that opinion....that is the definition of REBUTTAL witness.]

Eta neither of these was this the post I quoted . I blame my iphone
After the first day , second at the latest , this court should have figured out a way to have sidebars without the jury needing to leave the room every single time .
I honestly feel that the deck was stacked against the Prosecution deliberately .
I also imagine that the judge was pretty ticked off with the DT yesterday .After all he did to help them , they go and blow it ! JMO

 

[katydid23]

In Session
“Your position is that you saw hemorrhage or blood on the diaphragm of Ms. Savio’s body?” “Yes.” “You know that diaphragm was removed by Dr. Mitchell, and was placed along with other organs in a viscera bag?” “Yes.” “That muscle then ca
me into contact with other organs?” “Yes.” “When other organs are co-mingled in that viscera bag, there can be a transference of blood?” “It’s possible. Unlikely, but possible . . . by the time they’re place in a viscera bag, the blood has been drained out.” “It is not a remote possibility?” “It’s very small . . . and the blood I’m looking at is not lying on the diaphragm; it’s embedded in the muscle.” “You were the pathologist who first discovered the blood on the diaphragm?” “I believe so, yes.” “Dr. Mitchell missed it?” “He didn’t describe it.” “And Dr. Blum missed it, too?” “That’s correct.” “And Dr. Mitchell would have been in a better position to see that first than you?” “Yes. If he were looking for it.” “You knew he was a competent pathologist, with many years of experience?” “Yes.” “And to get to other organs, you have to remove the diaphragm?” “Well, they’re moved simultaneously.” “And a competent pathologist would be looking at something like that?” “They would see the diaphragm as they were removing it.” “And Dr. Blum missed it?” “Yeah . . . this is a very slight detail . . . as far as I know, he did not include it in his report. I did research on the diaphragm; I spend more time looking at diaphragms than other forensic pathologist. So I may have looked longer at it.”

VERY GOOD EXPLANATION ! well done Dr. Baden.

 

[fifteen89]

I watched that also, fifteen89, and just before Lopez said that they were talking about Stacey and Pastor Schori. Lopez had stated that the pastor brought someone to their meeting because he was afraid Stacey was going to seduce him (the pastor). It was also something about there was something between them. Beth asked how he was going to get that into his closing, and Lopez then said, "you haven't seen one of my closings."

'nother thing:

Apparently Lopez will be doing the closing argument. I would have bet Brodsky's ego wouldn't let anyone but himself do the closing. I guess we'll see!

BBM
Yeah. Now I'm remembering Lopez said Schori "brought a chaperone". Yeesh.

Did they ask about that during Schori's testimony? Did they ask "why did you bring someone along to sit at another table?" Or did they ask "do you always ask someone to sit at another table when you meet with someone in public?"

Did they ask about romantic/seduction crap? If not, how can they bring it up in their closing?

 

[Jackson44]

In Session “You saw evidence of hemorrhage in that diaphragm?” “I did.” “And you saw some red blood cells there?” “Yes.” “Indicating to you that it was a rather new or fresh wound?’ “At the time of death, in 2004.” “Yesterday, when we met, I asked you about the apparatus that slices the tissue very thinly . . . is it an artifact of the microtome, an old wound with some dragged out some red blood cells . . . sort of like slicing into a walnut cake, and the knife dragging out one of the walnuts. Isn’t that more than likely what happened here?” “If I agreed with you on that, then I didn’t understand the question . . . what if that happened with cancer cells? That would be medical malpractice.” “But isn’t it true that when I met with you you told us there’s a possibility that the microtone could drag out red blood cells?” “We spoke about microtome . . . if you have the impression from me that that’s what happened, then I misspoke.”

 

[Jackson44]

In Session Dr. Baden says that “more often than not” internal injury is accompanied by signs of external injury. “Miraculously, in this case, we have no evidence in that area of external injury?” “I agree with everything you say, Sir, except for the ‘miraculously.’” “If she had been clothed, there wouldn’t be an external or internal injuries?’ “It would be less likely.” “Are you opinion that you thought that this injury could have come from a bear hug?” “Yes.” “Sure about that?” “”Yes, from a squeezing injury.” “Not a blunt force injury?” “Well, it’s blunt . . .not a trauma from another object.” “It wouldn’t be from a punch or a kick?” “A bear hug would not be a punch or kick, no . . . the thing about the diaphragm is that it’s constantly moving. It would just depend on how it’s caught by the trauma.”

 

[Wishbone]

BBM
Yeah. Now I'm remembering Lopez said Schori "brought a chaperone". Yeesh.

Did they ask about that during Schori's testimony? Did they ask "why did you bring someone along to sit at another table?" Or did they ask "do you always ask someone to sit at another table when you meet with someone in public?"

Did they ask about romantic/seduction crap? If not, how can they bring it up in their closing?

On cross, Lopez asserted the witness was there because "You knew that she was trying to seduce you."

There's an audible gasp from the courtroom that later prompted admonishment from Judge Edward Burmila.

Schori denied Lopez's assertion, repeating that he didn't know what Peterson wanted to tell him but wanted a witness there to maintain propriety.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/33...on-coached-wife-to-lie-about-his-whereabouts-

 

[katydid23]

Defense makes the point that there weren't external injuries on the diaphragm or any damage to organs beneath...

Baden agrees he'd expect to see external injuries in area around Savio's diaphragm. Miraculously, Meczyk says, there are none.

Baden agrees with all but "miraculously." "It's not a miracle," he says. Up to jury, Meczyk responds. Objection sustained.

Baden tells #drewpeterson jury that diaphragm injury could have come from a bear hug. "Could be a bear hug, could be a blow. I can't tell."

Defense recalls Badin's earlier testimony from 2010 when he said there would "not necessarily" be external injuries...

 

[Jackson44]

In Session “Today, your opinion is that more likely this was a bear hug type injury?” “No, it could be a bear hug, could be a blow. I don’t know which one it is.” The witness is then asked about his Feb. 19, 2010 hearing testimony, and confronted with a copy of that transcript. In that testimony, the witness said that there would “not necessarily” be accompanying internal and external injuries. “You’re an honorable person, I accept what you say.” Objection. The parties go to a sidebar.

 

[Mama-cita]

BBM
Yeah. Now I'm remembering Lopez said Schori "brought a chaperone". Yeesh.

Did they ask about that during Schori's testimony? Did they ask "why did you bring someone along to sit at another table?" Or did they ask "do you always ask someone to sit at another table when you meet with someone in public?"

Did they ask about romantic/seduction crap? If not, how can they bring it up in their closing?

I'm guessing they are going to push the envelope as far as they can as they make their "last stand.". Also I think they have the latitude to say more because closing statements are not considered evidence. They are basically just going to try to poop in the water and muddle everything up for the jury.

 

[Jackson44]

n Session The sidebar ends. Attorney Meczyk continues to read from Dr. Baden’s hearsay hearing testimony, “Nowhere did you opine that this was caused by a bear hug?” “I will accept what you said.”

 

[fifteen89]

After the disaster of Smith's testimony yesterday, I bet the other defense lawyers don't want to let Brodsky open his mouth. :seeya:

When IS played the tape of the DT after court yesterday, I did notice it was Greenberg walking away first saying something like "let's wrap" to get the others to go with him. He had to say it a few times before the other stooglasses stopped talking.

 

[borndem]

Baden talks about hemorrhaging in the upper chest & clavicle area. This is fresh hemorrhage in the areas of the chest . . .”

KaraOko: Defense objects, Dr. Baden's testimony is not rebutting specifically to Dr. DiMaio's testimony; sidebar, jury's pulled out,

bbm

I predict that tomorrow the jury will be dressed in in-line skates and little skating skirts & shorts. They should have been wearing these all along. That way, they would be doing their part to speed up the trial.

Dayam.

 

[AbbieNormal]

BBM
Don't want this to get lost after seeing Brodsky and Lopez on IS this morning and the press conference with the entire DT after court yesterday was shown this morning. Just more proof that the DT will lie through any orifice. They certainly are a collective piece of work. And that's about the nicest thing I can say about that.

I sat thru that 'press conference' this morning too, ended up yelling at the tv.
You are right, they are a collective piece of work. Interrupting, saying the stupidest things. One of them was complaining that someone had come out of the courthouse yesterday and was surrounded by reporters, etc. He was jealous! You could tell by the way he said it. I thought he has room to talk, as often and the 3 of them have been in front of the camera, even solicited reporters to talk to them. Disgusting. GRRRRRRRRRRR

I have a question. What purpose does Lopez' wife serve? She never speaks, she stands behind them looking stupid, always trailing along with them. She's an atty, right? Does she have any part in the trial?

I just can't stand them I think they have slimey tactics and I don't like it at all. When I see them on TV I actually dread having to listen to what they are going to say.

Is anyone else as skeeved out as I am over these :clown:. And I don't mean funny haha clowns, because they have the worst sense of humor, just like Drew.

abbie:moo:

 

[Jackson44]

In Session According to Dr. Baden, the two injuries to the clavicle were “pretty much” symmetrical. “You disagree with Drs. Jentzen and DiMaio as to their opinions whether there was a struggle or not?” “Yes.” “But you’d agree they’re eminent forensic pathologist, and have many, many years of experience, just like you?” “Yes.” “And in the pathology community, pathologists will come to different opinions?” “Yes. Most of the times, we agree. But sometimes we disagree.” “You do respect Dr. Jentzen?” “I don’t really know him, but I respect him. I know the book that he wrote . . . [and] I’ve known Dr. DiMaio since he was a medical student; his father was my boss.” “And you no doubt respect his opinion?” “Yes.”

 

[borndem]

{ Baden has already done a lot of damage to the DT's experts, imo. Even if they gag him now, the jury heard a lot of damaging testimony in rebuttal.]

Oh, yes, katydid, I agree -- and this testimony isn't coming from some new guy who has done 10--20 autopsies.... I hope, hope, hope that that carries weight with the jury.

 

[Jackson44]

n/t are you ready to get started again?

 

[Jackson44]

In Session “You did not perform this autopsy pro bono, did you?” “I did.” “But you were paid by FOX News?” “I had a contract with FOX News that was irrelevant to the autopsy . . . I’m a consultant to speak, to educate people about forensic pathology . . . I heard the family may be have been referred to me by somebody at FOX. But my autopsy had nothing to do with FOX.” “Would you tell us who your assistant was at that autopsy?” “Yes . . . the family asked me to do the autopsy, and they asked that Steph Watts, a producer for FOX, be present.” “Steph Watts is a producer for FOX News?’ “Was a producer for the Greta Van Susterin show.” “Does he have any medical training?” “No.” “He does have experience as one of the producers of Girls Gone Wild?” Objection/Overruled. “I Have no knowledge of that.” “You journeyed to Chicago for this particular case, isn’t that true?” “No . . .” Objection. The question is withdrawn, but the State asks for a sidebar.

 

[~n/t~]

n/t are you ready to get started again?

If you want me to I will. If you want to continue, I'm good. Let me know.

 

[Jackson44]

If you want me to I will. If you want to continue, I'm good. Let me know.

I ready for a break so go for it.