Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[ohiogirl]

In Session The examination of Savio’s spine revealed no deep bruising. “The original autopsy showed bruising to the left buttocks; that was not apparent at the second autopsy. I made incisions, looking for deep bruises.” “And did you find any?” “No.” “You had a chance to look at the original organs?” “Yes, those organs were preserved in a viscera bag within the body cavity . . . I removed the bag in one swoop and set it aside. And later on in the day, I went and opened the bag, and each organ came out. Those were in remarkable condition, and could be examined even three years later . . . they all looked very normal . . . they were unremarkable, other than the effects of being interred for that amount of time.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Dr. Blum continues to go over the portions of Kathleen Savio’s body that he examined during his 2007 autopsy. He found nothing that didn’t appear to be normal. “You made slides during that process?” “Yes.” “Did you look at those under the microscope?” “Yes . . . there was no evidence of hemorrhage. I thought possibly there was something in there, but when I looked under the microscope there was not.” Dr. Mitchell was present during the autopsy, and helped make some tissue slides. “He had his hospital, or lab prepare all the slides . . . they appeared to be as he described them: no disease or injuries.” Congestion was found, but Dr. Blum says that is normal. “It’s just a packing of blood in the blood vessels.” “The next morning, on November 14, 2007, did you conduct a sexual assault examination?” “Yes, I did . . .vaginal, rectal, oral [swabs] . . . that had not been done on the 13th. I felt it wise to do that on the following day, so I did.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Samples from the second autopsy were also sent out for toxicological testing. “You just take a block of liver, package it, and send it to the lab.” The witness then goes over the drug screenings that were done in 2007. The results are all negative for drugs, except for salicylates . . . this is an artifact in a decomposed liver.” “What does that tell you?” “Very simply, that there was no indication that she had any drugs or alcohol on board at the time this happened.”

 

[panthera]

In Session Samples from the second autopsy were also sent out for toxicological testing. “You just take a block of liver, package it, and send it to the lab.” The witness then goes over the drug screenings that were done in 2007. The results are all negative for drugs, except for salicylates . . . this is an artifact in a decomposed liver.” “What does that tell you?” “Very simply, that there was no indication that she had any drugs or alcohol on board at the time this happened.”

In essence she wasn't impaired in any fashion that should she have slipped in the bathtub she could not have tried to get out?

MOO

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “Did you have occasion to go to the scene of Kathleen Savio’s passing . . . in her master bathroom?” “Yes, a week after the autopsy.” He then identifies a photograph of the Savio bedroom and bathroom. “Did it look a little different than this?” “The structure looked the same… what looked different were some of the items on the walls and on the shelves . . . and, obviously, no body in the tub.” Objection/Overruled. “This photograph is from 2004 . . . you’re indicating the structure of the bathroom was substantially similar to what it is here?” “That’s correct.” “In your review of the original autopsy protocol by Dr. Mitchell, you got to review photographs?” “There were a few. And I did review them, yes.” He then identifies one of the 2004 photos. “This is a picture of the bathtub and some of the surrounding items . . . the primary focus for me was the body lying face down on her left side, in this position you see in the photograph.” “Does the tub appear substantially similar as it did in 2007?” “Yes

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The next photograph shows “the head end of the tub . . . again, showing her position in the tub.” “These toiletries that appear . . . none of them appear to be knocked over?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you observe any items knocked over?” “This little duck is on its side. But the other items appear to be upright and standing.” “Does that give any indication whether there might have been a struggle in that area?” Objection/Sustained. “In this photograph, do you see any items knocked down?” “Once again, this little duck. The other items are upright . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Do you see the abrasion on the buttocks in this photograph?” “Barely, but I’ll point it out. It was on the left side.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness points out “a red substance” in the bottom of the tub. “It’s making at least three streams . . . that blood is coming down from the head wound she sustained to the back of her head. There may be some added fluid; the fluid from the lungs could be missed in there . . . and there is a little circle of blood around the drain.” “What was Dr,. Mitchell’s opinion of the cause of the death?” “Dr. Mitchell signed the cause of death out as drowning . . . immersion into a fluid, with aspiration, which causes asphyxia. If you’re under too long, death will result.”

 

[Lera213]

If someone falls in a tub they would reach out to grab hold of something, therefore something would have been knocked over, the towel if there, would have been in the water.....not only that with a few bruises, she literally would have had to bounce around in the tub. Another point, when taking a bath, I don't know anyone that gets in an empty tub, sits down and then turns the water on. The water is filling or already filled when I person gets in. If she fell getting in, items would be knocked over and she wouldn't have had those bruises because the water would cushion some of that fall.

I hope the jury see's this like I do, I mean it is elementary my dear Watson.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “The right foot is crossed over into the sole of the left foot . . . the heel is up here, on the right foot. What stands out in the photograph is the very sharp angle the toes are in in relation to the rest of her foot. These are virtually 90 degree angles . . . these toes on her right foot are extremely extended, or bent back . .. even causing prevention of lividity in this area of the body.” “Does that indicate anything to you?” “It does, yes . . . in the context of this case, for a foot to just float down after loss of consciousness in the drowning process, I don’t believe it could physically do that.”

 

[wishinuall]

I guess this questioning is to show KS lied and made the whole thing up due to being served :banghead:

Precisely! Yet she must have come up with this fabricated story days in advance, AND called her attorney, bf, sister & Mary prior to reporting it?!:maddening: This poor jury must be sooooo exhausted & frustrated!

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “The fingers were up against the breast, giving rise to those fingertip marks. The breast is bluish in color, because of blood settling in the body . . . the hair is puffed up, not all water soaked or anything.” “With regards to the walls of the tub, did you have any observations?” “Yes, the walls of the tub are smooth, and they are narrow . . . there’s no concentrated blunt edge on this; they’re all smooth contours . . . that’s for a safety’s sake; you don’t want a sharp edge in a bathtub. So a very narrow, very small tub . . . you can see she barely fits.” Objection/Sustained.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “I felt the two biggest pieces of evidence in this case were the body and the tub . . . so I felt it was extremely important to examine the scene.” “What did you determine?” “Smooth, slippery . . . I did not put any water in the tub myself, I didn’t take a bath or anything, but I crawled in with my regular clothes.” Objection/Sustained. The judge calls the attorneys to a sidebar.

Dang, we were moving along so good.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness and jurors are now out of the courtroom. The judge says that he denied a State request to have the witness do a demonstration of how he climbed into the tub, and yet it was elicited during the testimony of this witness. Judge: “It doesn’t appear that any of the orders that I’ve made in this case does the State mention with its witnesses prior to testifying.” Brodsky: “Can I have two minutes?” The judge decides to take the afternoon recess at this point.

 

[ohiogirl]

Omg, not again.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Omg, not again.

If you are on Twitter, it gets better. Or worse.

 

[ohiogirl]

Do you have a link?

 

[Angelonline]

I just dont understand why so many things were barred. Why would a demonstration done as part of his investigation be barred? I have watched many trials and understand prejudicial, but a lot of the things that weren't allowed in this trial are ridiculious, IMO.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Judge Burmila has left the bench. The court is in a recess for an undetermined length.

Sorry, missed that one.

 

[Patty G]

If the witness was warned by the State, and the witness went there anyway, it's not the State's fault, IMO. :crazy:

 

[Patty G]

Just use #drewpeterson and you get all the tweets from a variety of sources.