Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[ohiogirl]

Prosecution PIO Chuck Pelkie has just confirmed that Dr. Larry Blum should be the next prosecution witness

In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Greenberg: “I just want to clarify . . . I just want to make sure there won’t be some objection down the road if we, for example, call Mary Pontarelli.” Judge: “I don’t know what the State is going to do. I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.” With that, the judge sends for the jury and the witness

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness and the jurors are now back inside the courtroom. Prosecutor Patton says she has no questions for redirect, and so the witness is excused.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The next prosecution witness is Dr. Larry Blum (questioned by prosecutor Glasgow). “I’m a medical doctor, specializing in forensic pathology.” He briefly goes over his educational and professional background. During his residency, starting in 1976, he began to perform autopsies. He is board-certified in anatomic, clinical, and forensic pathology.

In Session After his training was completed in 1980, he began to practice as a pathologist. In 1984, he decided to go into forensic pathology full time. “So since 1984, I’ve been involved full time in the practice of forensic pathology.” Since becoming a doctor, he’s performed over 10,000 autopsies. “Not counting today,” he’s been qualified as an expert 587 times. The witness is now qualified as an expert, without defense objection.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness knew Dr. Bryan Mitchell, who passed away in 2010. “Were you asked to review a case that Dr. Mitchell had done the original autopsy on, in 2004 . . . the autopsy of Kathleen Savio?” “Yes.” ‘And did you review Dr. Mitchell’s autopsy protocol?” “Yes, I did.”

 

[seattlechiquita]

Have we got any inkling as to how is DP behaving in the courtroom? Is he being his usual arrogant prickly self or is he putting on a good act for the jury?

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness identifies Dr. Mitchell’s 3/20/04 autopsy protocol of Kathleen Savio’s autopsy. “Did Dr. Mitchell examine the gross body of Kathleen Savio?” “Yes, he began with an external examination, noting what she was wearing, a necklace about her neck . . . she weighed 154 pounds, 5’5” in length . . . “ “Did he make a notation as to the development of the body?” “Yes . . . normal development.” “Was she in good physical condition?” “Yes . . . adequately nourished and hydrated, which means well-fed and did not appear to be dehydrated.” “Did he make a note as to any fingerprint blanching?” “Yes . . . over the right medial breast, there were some markings on that that were consistent with her fingers being up against the body before she was found. This is a pattern that can be made with things pressing on the body. He did mention that in his report . . . he said the eyes were initially closed . . .they were brown, and the outer covering of the eyes was cloudy . . . the eyes, being cloudy, would be considered a defect. But it is a common post-mortem defect.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “The nose was intact . . . pulmonary edema fluid had collected at the nose, a small bubbly area . . . he noted that the lips and the frenulum were intact; neither were torn, and otherwise normal. The teeth were intact and in good repair. The tongue was partially clenched between the teeth.” “Did he examine her chest area?” “Yes, he noted the chest was symmetrical, and the breasts were of normal development, without tumors.” Savio’s ‘upper extremities, the arms, were symmetrical, with short, clean fingernails, with water wrinkling, like pruning on the surface of her left hand . . . he notes the external genitalia is that of a normal, adult female, with no signs of injury. The lower extremities were noted again to be symmetrical, with toenails being short and clean . . . the back and the buttocks area were described as being symmetrical, and free of significant injury.” “Did he note any injury on the left buttocks?” “Yes, he did . . . that injury was described as a three inch by one inch abrasion’ an abrasion is a scrape or scratch caused by surfaces rubbing together . . . medically, it’s a form of blunt trauma. Lay people call them scratches or scrapes . . . body cavities appeared to be normal; there were no adhesions.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Savio’s airway and vocal cords were free of injury. “The heart was a normal weight . . . there was a small amount of fat on the surface of the heart, and that’s perfectly normal . . . no signs of a previous heart attack, or any scarring in the heart . . . the valves were intact and unremarkable, except for a slight thickening of the mitral valve . . . often times, with wear and tear, you can start seeing these valves becoming a little more thickened than a younger valve would be . . . it was loose and floppy, where it would be functionally significant.” “Should that present a problem of any kind?” “No.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Dr. Blum continues to describe the results of Dr. Mitchell’s 2004 autopsy of Kathleen Savio. “”The inner lining of the aorta was very smooth . . . all smooth and normal.” “What did the examination of the respiratory system show?” “The trachea and bronchi were patent, which means open . . . the lungs were a little heavier than normal, a little on the heavy side.” The inner portion of the lung showed “mild congestion, and moderate edema.” The defense interrupts, and asks for a brief sidebar.

 

[katydid23]

Prosecution PIO Chuck Pelkie has just confirmed that Dr. Larry Blum should be the next prosecution witness

In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Greenberg: “I just want to clarify . . . I just want to make sure there won’t be some objection down the road if we, for example, call Mary Pontarelli.” Judge: “I don’t know what the State is going to do. I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.” With that, the judge sends for the jury and the witness

Oh noooooo. How horrible would that be for Mary. Being forced to say things that MIGHT help DP beat these murder charges?

Since the state cannot tell the whole truth, these partial truths make it look like something else entirely.

Maybe KS didn't tell Mary what happened right after the knife incident. That would not be unusual for DV victims.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The sidebar ends. “Did he continue his examination of the respiratory system?” “Yes, areas of pneumonia were looked for . . . or fibrosis or scarring. All of those were negative; there was no lung damage.” “Finally, did he find any thromboid emboli?” “No, he did . . . those can cause sudden death; he found none . . . the esophagus is without special note; the lining of it was gray-white, which is normal.” “Did he look at the stomach?” “Yes, less than a teaspoon of fluid was present in her stomach at the time of autopsy . . . the stomach’s inner lining has folds; nothing remarkable was found . . . normal stomach.” Savio’s bowel and colon were also described as “normal.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “The appendix?” “We’ve all heard of the appendix. She had hers, and it was normal.”

In Session Savio’s endocrine and adrenal glands were also normal. Her skeletal system and her kidneys were also found to be normal. “No chronic diseases . . . again, a normal finding.”

 

[AngelWings444]

The SWAT incident was reported to others right after it occured. The pros has to tie that in and then show the battery reports were a result of DO using the system for his gain. He served her for spite..AFTER the threatened to kill her with a knife. I haven't lost all hope.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Savio’s bladder was also normal, as was her spleen. Her lymph nodes throughout the body were also normal. And Savio’s bone marrow was described as normal, as was her reproductive system. “No sign of pregnancy.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Savio’s brain showed some “mild swelling . . . there were no hemorrhages, or other pathological abnormalities of the brain, other than the swelling . . . the brain has a very limited capacity or options when it comes to reacting to any kind of injury. One of the most common things it does is swell . . . it’s fairly common. It’s a non-specific symptom . . . it can, however, be seen with drownings . . . the skull is intact.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “Could you review what diagnosis Dr. Mitchell made?’ “The diagnosis included cerebral edema; that’s the brain swelling we just talked about . . . some moderate pulmonary edema . . . water in the sinuses . . .” Objection/Overruled. “Congestion is seen in virtually all deaths . . . again, a very non-specific, general finding . . . the laceration to the scalp, the back of the head . . . the mild mitral valve thickening . . . and toxicology is negative.” The witness notes that the toxicology screening was done at St. Louis University, by Christopher Long.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “Could you go through the drugs listed by Dr. Long’s toxicology report?” Yes, Sir . . . the first paragraph is an examination of the vitreous . . . all the alcohols were negative; none were found. The second test was of the liver . . . all negative.” “There’s no indicated of any unknown drugs?” “Correct.” “Dr. Mitchell . . . you had an opportunity to examine some of his other autopsy reports?” “Yes . . . because Dr. Mitchell passed away.” “He was a board-certified forensic pathologist?” “Yes.” “You were hired by the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office to review this case . . . remember when that was?” “2007 . . . there was an exhumation.” “Of whom?” “Kathleen Savio.” “And did you have occasion to perform a second autopsy?” “Yes, Sir . . . that was at the Will Country Coroner’s facility.” “Also present was coroner Pat O’Neil, and your assistants?” “Yes . . . and Dr. Mitchell . . . the body was brought in . . . we opened the casket, and observed the body lying in there . . . we at that point took some pictures, and started taking samples from the area. There was a lot of water in the casket as well, which marked the deterioration of the tissues of her body.” “Did you remove any fingernails?” “Yes, those were obtained right away, before they were subject to being lost. I took ten fingernails, and submitted them to the Illinois State Police. And head hairs, also . . . once the body had been removed from the casket, we had it X-rayed fro head to toe.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Some of Savio’s remains were “skeletonized.” Other portions were “mummified.” “The X-rays were largely unremarkable; we noted some funeral embalming techniques had been done, with some wires in the mouth . . . but this was all done by the funeral home, to prepare her for visitation. Other than that, the X-rays were pretty unremarkable. In the spine, there was no evidence or fracture or dislocation . . . the sternum had been removed during the first autopsy, but it was back in place, so we got a good look at that . . . no fractures.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness stands, and demonstrates the location of the “right lower quadrant” of the body. Objection/Sustained. “Did you make an incision in that area?” “Yes, I did.” “What did you find?” “A deep bruise . .. hemorrhage into the tissues, which we call a bruise or a contusion.” “Could you tell how severe the bruise was?” “It went all the way down to the bone, so it was classified as a deep contusion . . . I saw one large area. The original photographs, showed three separate bruises . . . it had more or less coalesced into one large one. The tongue was examined under a microscope, and it appeared normal.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session No bruising was located in Savio’s arms. “Did you have a chance to also make similar incisions into the upper back area?” “Yes, looking for deep bruises.” “And what did you find?” “Nothing, of a bruise nature . . . I made my incisions down to the bone, deep incisions, looking for deep bruises.” ‘Do you feel you made the appropriate number of incisions to find any bruising that might have been there?” “Yes.” ‘And did you find any?” “No.”