Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[katydid23]

"pros. Connor asks def. only use slides that Dr. Blum has, but the judge says that he will not limit the defense in that way."



I love how the judge is so concerned about 'limiting' the defense, and yet he limits the state at every opportunity.

 

[katydid23]

So confusing!! So, this means a redactedcopy will go with the jury? Had anyone ever heard she had her rosaryin her hand when she was 1st seen? WOW! That seems like something a really twisted, vindictive, depravedmind would have seen to. It makes me very very ill...

NO> that is confusing but NO --- she was not found with a rosary in her hand.

When this autopsy was done she had been exhumed, and she had been buried with a rosary in her hand.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness and jurors are now in the courtroom. Attorney Meczyk resumes his cross-examination. “In the voluminous documents that you inspected before opinion today as well as yesterday, you also read a document that was prepared by an individual by the name of “VanOver, who is a deputy coroner?” “Yes.” “He was one of the first individuals to arrive at the scene where Ms. Savio died?” “Yes.” “And when he arrived, it was a pristine scene?” “Yes.” “When it came to the subject of bruises, deputy coroner VanOver made some very pointed observations regarding bruises?” “He did, but he didn’t describe any at the scene, as I recall.” “But he did discuss them, didn’t he?” “That I don’t recall . . . he did notice the abrasion to the left buttock.” “And he observed that they had started to heal?” Objection/Overruled. “Yes, that is correct; he made that statement.” “He said the wound appeared to be healing?” “Yes.”

 

[katydid23]

def. atty Meczyk resumes cross of witness Dr. Blum.

Blum says Dr. Mitchell noted that the buttocks "wound was not scabbed and appeared to be healing" #DrewPeterson

1st Forrest Gump reference at #DrewPeterson trial: Blum says "death is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get."

 

[katydid23]

Meczyk to Glasgow: "You don't have to scream at me."


[ I wonder what that is all about?]

 

[ohiogirl]

According to Twitter, there seems to be some hollering going on. InSession isn't updating.

 

[katydid23]

Glasgow upset Meczyk was about to go into other doctors' reports about Savio's death. #DrewPeterson

Burmila: "I don't think there's any doubt that that's what (Meczyk) was going to do." #DrewPeterson

Prosecution believes that defense was leading up to asking Blum if he believed that Dr. Mitchell lied in his autopsy report

jury out of courtroom again as Glasgow raises his voice when Meczyk talks over objection.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The late Dr. Bryan Mitchell had the first opportunity to grossly examine the body of Kathleen Savio?” “Yes.” “And then he performed the autopsy?” “Yes, internally.” “You’re fond of saying that death is like a box of chocolates?” “Yes.” “You never know what you’re going to get underneath that Whitman sampler?” “Exactly . . . often times you’re surprised.” “And Dr. Mitchell took samples?” “Yes.” “And he prepared an autopsy report?” “Yes, Sir.” “He didn’t put all his observations in that autopsy report?” “Yes.” “And he took photographs that you relied upon?” “Either he, or the state police person who was there.” “We’ve agreed that Dr. Mitchell was a competent and highly-respected pathologist?” “I would go that far, yes.” Objection/Sustained. “In three years, as far as you know, Dr. Mitchell never changed his opinion?” “To the best of my knowledge, he did not.” “He didn’t notify the person who was the coroner of this county that he had any reservations or doubts, correct?” Objection/Sustained.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “There came a time when you looked at the findings provided to you by the defense from the other forensic pathologists in this matter?” “Correct.” “Starting with Dr. Demaio, a very highly respected pathologist . . .” Objection/Sustained. “You did review the findings of Dr. Spitz?” “I did read his report.” “And you read it not just for curiosity? You wanted to know what your peers say, to?” “I was very interested in what he had to say about the case, yes.” “And you maintain manner of death to be homicide?” “Correct.” Glasgow then shouts out the word “OBJECTION!” The judge excuses the jury and the witness.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness and jurors are now gone. Glasgow objects to the defense attorney’s attempt to get in the testimony of the defense experts through his questions. Judge: “If he looked at their reports, he’s going to be able to get into those reports.” Glasgow: “Why should they be allowed to bring in these opinions of these experts without ever calling them?” Judge: “I’m not responsible for what Dr. Blum testified to . . . he said that he reviewed these reports of his peers . . . where this is going to lead us, I don’t know. But the doctor said what he said, and they can ask him about it if they want to. If it leads to redirect examination, it leads to redirect examination.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Greenberg joins the discussion. “If they want to get into Dr. Mitchell’s prior testimony, that’s a different issue, because he’s deceased.” Judge: “If they want to get into his grand jury testimony, we’ll keep that in mind. We’ll go from there.” With that, the judge sends for the jurors and the witness.

 

[katydid23]

Glasgow upset Meczyk was about to go into other doctors' reports about Savio's death. #DrewPeterson

Burmila: "I don't think there's any doubt that that's what (Meczyk) was going to do." #DrewPeterson

Prosecution believes that defense was leading up to asking Blum if he believed that Dr. Mitchell lied in his autopsy report

jury out of courtroom again as Glasgow raises his voice when Meczyk talks over objection.

atty Meczyk begins arguing after jury leaves. Atty. Goldberg grabs him by coat, pulls him away from bench. Def. wins ruling.

 

[ohiogirl]

Sorry, got bumped.

 

[katydid23]

jury is back in the courtroom. For now.

Meczyk: "You are to be commended for attending lectures." Blum: "We're required."

Meczyk says he's going to approach his "adversary's" table. Glasgow objects. Burmila tells them again to stop sparring.

prosecutor objects to Meczyk calling the state "adversaries." "What are we friends?" Meczyk asks.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The jury is now back in the jury box, and Dr. Blum has returned to the stand. After a brief sidebar, attorney Meczyk resumes his cross-examination. “Using as you said peer review of these world-renowned pathologist, despite what Dr. Jentzen wrote in his report, you differ?” “If he wrote anything other than homicide, then we differ.” “You reviewed Dr. Spitz’ report?” “That’s correct.” “You’ve heard of Dr. Spitz?” “I actually attended one of his classes about three years ago . . . I got to listen to one of his lectures . . . it was very good.” “You have to be commended for attending lecture.” “We’re required.” (LAUGHTER). “Dr. Spitz also had a conclusion about manner of death?” “I would assume he did . .. I don’t recollect that portion.” The witness is then shown a copy of Dr. Spitz’ report. “His opinion is different than yours, correct?’ “Correct.” “180 degrees different? . . . it’s the opposite of your opinion?” “It’s quite different, yes.” “He says accident, you say homicide?” “Yes.” “We’re not talking about toMAto and toMAHto?” Objection/Sustained. “No matter what he says, you still say homicide?” “Yes.” “You also reviewed Dr. Demaio’s report?” Yes.” “You wanted to see what they wanted to opine?” “Yes.” “Sort of a check on what you were doing, a peer review?” “I would say so.” “And Dr. Demaio comes to a different opinion than you?” “I believe he calls it an accident as well.” “So now we have three eminent pathologists that say it was an accident . . . despite their opinion, you still say homicide?” “Well, I haven’t changed my opinion; that’s correct.”

 

[katydid23]

judge reprimands Meczyk for interacting with Glasgow. But overrules Glasgow's objection.

[ so what's new?]

 

[Patty G]

fftopic:

If the forum is acting whacky and you want to know if it is you or the website, here is a link to check :"if it's me or everyone".

Just put in websleuths.com
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

 

[wishinuall]

In Session “There came a time when you looked at the findings provided to you by the defense from the other forensic pathologists in this matter?” “Correct.” “Starting with Dr. Demaio, a very highly respected pathologist . . .” Objection/Sustained. “You did review the findings of Dr. Spitz?” “I did read his report.” “And you read it not just for curiosity? You wanted to know what your peers say, to?” “I was very interested in what he had to say about the case, yes.” “And you maintain manner of death to be homicide?” “Correct.” Glasgow then shouts out the word “OBJECTION!” The judge excuses the jury and the witness.

OMG!! Our poor "pop tarts" are getting plenty more excersize today, again!:rollercoaster:

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The jury is now back in the jury box, and Dr. Blum has returned to the stand. After a brief sidebar, attorney Meczyk resumes his cross-examination. “Using as you said peer review of these world-renowned pathologist, despite what Dr. Jentzen wrote in his report, you differ?” “If he wrote anything other than homicide, then we differ.” “You reviewed Dr. Spitz’ report?” “That’s correct.” “You’ve heard of Dr. Spitz?” “I actually attended one of his classes about three years ago . . . I got to listen to one of his lectures . . . it was very good.” “You have to be commended for attending lecture.” “We’re required.” (LAUGHTER). “Dr. Spitz also had a conclusion about manner of death?” “I would assume he did . .. I don’t recollect that portion.” The witness is then shown a copy of Dr. Spitz’ report. “His opinion is different than yours, correct?’ “Correct.” “180 degrees different? . . . it’s the opposite of your opinion?” “It’s quite different, yes.” “He says accident, you say homicide?” “Yes.” “We’re not talking about toMAto and toMAHto?” Objection/Sustained. “No matter what he says, you still say homicide?” “Yes.” “You also reviewed Dr. Demaio’s report?” Yes.” “You wanted to see what they wanted to opine?” “Yes.” “Sort of a check on what you were doing, a peer review?” “I would say so.” “And Dr. Demaio comes to a different opinion than you?” “I believe he calls it an accident as well.” “So now we have three eminent pathologists that say it was an accident . . . despite their opinion, you still say homicide?” “Well, I haven’t changed my opinion; that’s correct.”

Who is Dr. Jentzen and when did these other guys do autopsies?

 

[wishinuall]

Exercise!!