Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[katydid23]

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.”

Oh oh. That is problematic.

ETA; I just saw this tweet;

atty Meczyk gets Blum to confirm that there are three respected pathologist (paid by defense) who disagree with his findings.

 

[ohiogirl]

Well. I don't know Dr. Jentzen, but Demaio and Spitz are both untrustworthy, imo, they will say whatever they are paid to say. Also, I am of the opinion that Baden will do the same. All of their opinions mean **** to me. But, that is just me.

 

[Wishbone]

Well. I don't know Dr. Jentzen, but Demaio and Spitz are both untrustworthy, imo, they will say whatever they are paid to say. Also, I am of the opinion that Baden will do the same. All of their opinions mean **** to me. But, that is just me.

Not just you. And they all seem to go to the highest bidder.

 

[katydid23]

Not just you. And they all seem to go to the highest bidder.

I hope the state can make that case to the jurors in re-direct.

 

[katydid23]

Dr. Blum submitted his autopsy report to 3 other doctors for peer review. All 3 doctors found it to be accidental. Blum disagreed. #Peterson

I wonder if these three doctors are different than the three earlier mentioned. I think they are. That might be problematic.

 

[Wishbone]

I hope the state can make that case to the jurors in re-direct.

Not is Baden is on their witness list, lol

 

[ohiogirl]

I give up for today folks, sorry. This is taking a ridiculous amount of time to get any info.. Will be offline tomorrow. Have a good one.

 

[Bravo]

Well. I don't know Dr. Jentzen, but Demaio and Spitz are both untrustworthy, imo, they will say whatever they are paid to say. Also, I am of the opinion that Baden will do the same. All of their opinions mean **** to me. But, that is just me.

Baden agrees with Blum

 

[Wishbone]

Baden agrees with Blum

the state hired him, lol

 

[panthera]

Dr. Blum submitted his autopsy report to 3 other doctors for peer review. All 3 doctors found it to be accidental. Blum disagreed. #Peterson

I wonder if these three doctors are different than the three earlier mentioned. I think they are. That might be problematic.

That is my question also. If the report was submitted to three other, independent doctors who were at the time not "defense related" is does appear problematic.

:waitasec:

 

[katydid23]

Blum denies offer for a break. Meczyk: "I know I'm not making you sweat." Blum: "Not now." #DrewPeterson

 

[katydid23]

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness is then asked about the bruising that was noted on Savio’s body, and how they could be dated. “I want to talk to you about signs of healing . . . but not about the gross examination, looking at the body, but the sort of box of chocolates analogy, the wonderful one that you use. But before we talk about that, your conclusion that you stuck with is that the manner of death is homicide?” “Right.” “And one of the reasons that you come to this opinion is because of the pattern of bruising?” “The distribution of injury, yes.” “And in your view, you can’t have these types of injuries . . .” “Yes, a fall back to split the head open would not cause the front injuries, in the same fall.” “It’s not logical, based on your triangle of how you approach these types of cases?” “That’s correct.”

 

[katydid23]

In Session “Once a person dies, he or she stops bleeding?” “Once the heart stops beating, the blood will cease flowing. And the bleeding stops.” “You took tissue samples?” “Yes, that is my routine, to take tissues from the autopsy . . . in formaldehyde, the tissues won’t deteriorate.” “And then they’re put in a plastic container?” “Yes, Sir.” “And at some point, alcohol is also applied, to dry out the tissue?” “Not yet.” The witness explains how tissue samples are prepared. “You took a tissue sample from the lower left quadrant, which looked to you like a fresh bruise, nice and fresh?” “It was fresh, yes.” “You made an incision, and you went down very, very deep?” “To the bone.” “But this is the hip bone . . . there’s not a lot of distance between the flesh and the skin?” “It’s fairly close to the skin.”

 

[katydid23]

In Session The witness is now asked about “the healing process . . . the history of a bruise. If a bruise is new or recent, you’d expect to see red blood cells?” “Yes, that’s what a bruise is.” “That means upon trauma or impact you have a bursting of whatever vessel carries blood?” “Yes.” And the blood would spill out?” “Yes.” “In a slide, you’d expect to see a sea of red blood cells?’ “Yes, blood cells that were outside their vessels. If they’re inside their vessels, that’s not a bruise . . . it’s loose blood cells within the tissue.” He is then questioned about the structure of a red blood cell. “It looks like a red lozenge, if you will?” “Yes, a round one.”'

 

[Livingthedream]

Hello, all, this is my first post at WS.

As someone who has attended the trial a few times and also being a local resident, I must say I do not like how it's going for the prosecution.

For one, they have a judge with a pretty obvious dislike for them. I can't help but think that the jury is going to feed off that.

Secondly, they have made some pretty big mistakes that will hurt what is already an uphill battle.

I must say I got chills when DP turned to the gallery during a recess and looked at me for a second. I looked the other way as it was very un-nerving to think that a possible murderer is looking at you.

 

[katydid23]

In Session The topic has turned to hemosiderin, one of the components of red blood cells. “Hemosiderin is a sure sign that a bruise is starting to heal?” “I would agree with that.” “And hemosiderin has no distinct shape?” “No.”
4 minutes ago · Like · 1

In Session At one point, Meczyk asks Dr. Blum if he needs to take a break (which Blum declines). Meczyk: “I know it’s hot in here. I’m not making you sweat . . . not yet.”

 

[katydid23]

In Session The witness is asked about a notation in his autopsy report. “That’s what you wrote in your report, at the request of the coroner and Mr. Glasgow?” “At the request of the coroner.” “You did not discuss dark pigmentation in that report?” “I did . . . it wasn’t very dark.” The State asks for a sidebar.

 

[katydid23]

Hello, all, this is my first post at WS.

As someone who has attended the trial a few times and also being a local resident, I must say I do not like how it's going for the prosecution.

For one, they have a judge with a pretty obvious dislike for them. I can't help but think that the jury is going to feed off that.

Secondly, they have made some pretty big mistakes that will hurt what is already an uphill battle.

I must say I got chills when DP turned to the gallery during a recess and looked at me for a second. I looked the other way as it was very un-nerving to think that a possible murderer is looking at you.

:welcome::fireworks:


We love hearing from people who saw the trial live!

 

[fifteen89]

Haven't caught up with all of today's posts yet, so someone may have already mentioned this. Someone on IS said earlier (it might have been a caller or a facebook post, don't remember) that it was curious that Kathleen was fearful enough to put the deadbolt on her bedroom door but yet it wasn't found locked when they found her body in the tub. Especially when there were previous incidents when she was surprised by DP appearing in her home.

 

[katydid23]

Remember, too, that Brodsky and the past defense team hired an expert from Wisconsin to review the autopsy, and he DID NOT agree with the defense! That's the doctor who Brodsky stiffed on the bill.

ME: Peterson’s attorney owes me money
April 30, 2010

By JOE HOSEY [email protected]

JOLIET – A medical examiner is accusing Drew Peterson defense attorney Joel Brodsky of shafting him on his fee.

Dr. Brian L. Peterson, the medical examiner for Milwaukee County, Wis., said Brodsky is holding out on paying him for reviewing the autopsy of Drew Peterson’s slain third wife.

“For the first time in my forensic pathology career, now over 21 years, I have been stiffed for the fee ‹ a whole $4,000, by the way,” Dr. Peterson wrote in an e-mail.



body was exhumed and two more autopsies were performed. One was conducted at the behest of State’s Attorney James Glasgow and the other after her family asked celebrity medical examiner Michael Baden to step in. Both of these autopsies determined Savio was the victim of a homicide.

Confidentiality

During a pivotal hearing held earlier this year to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s murder trial, defense attorneys presented testimony from a forensic pathologist of their own, Jeffrey Jentzen of Michigan, who insisted Savio may have accidentally died in her bathtub.



“They wanted an independent review of the Savio case,” Dr. Peterson wrote in an e-mail. “Joel (Brodsky) even, for the first time in my career, asked that I sign a confidentiality agreement regarding my work. I did. And being an honorable guy, I will not tell you what my opinions were – note, however, that I was not called to testify recently.”

Dr. Peterson went on to elaborate on his findings, saying, “What I can tell you, which doesn’t violate confidentiality, is I disagree with Jeff (Jentzen).”

Dr. Peterson said the attorneys told him not to write a report and to simply submit his bill. He said he followed these instructions in December but is still waiting to get paid.

Brodsky blamed the lack of payment on his former colleague, attorney Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich., who left Drew’s crew earlier this month.

“Abood went to consult with Dr. Peterson all by himself, without first consulting me or the client,” said Brodsky, who answered questions via e-mail and provided an invoice billing Abood for the service.


Read the story at Suburban Chicago News