Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings: Day 17 – Walter Martineck and pathologist testify for defense



Friend of Drew’s stepbrother to testify
February 17, 2010

By JOE HOSEY
JOLIET — The hearsay hearing set to start back up today will likely feature the testimony of a man who says Drew Peterson’s stepbrother shared details of covering up a murder.

Walter Martineck, the neighbor and long-time friend of Peterson’s stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, was subpoenaed by the defense to testify at this morning’s session of the ongoing hearsay hearing, two sources said Tuesday.

Martineck has already publicly told of Morphey showing up at his door and spilling a story of helping Peterson carry a blue barrel downstairs to Peterson’s waiting sport utility vehicle.

Morphey, who testified on Day 2 of what is now a 17-day hearing, went into great detail about helping Peterson allegedly move the body of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

One of Peterson’s attorneys, George Lenard, tried to cast doubt on Morphey’s tale by pointing out that his account differed from the one Martineck gave police.

Lenard said Martineck told police that Morphey helped carry a square container down the stairs of Peterson’s house and to the SUV. Morphey was adamant that he and Peterson carried a blue barrel.

Morphey was the only source of all of Martineck’s information about Morphey supposedly helping Peterson carry a barrel containing Stacy’s body down the stairs and to the truck.

Peterson faces a murder charge for allegedly drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio. During the hearsay hearing, prosecutors are trying to prove he also killed fourth wife Stacy to keep her from testifying against him.

The state called 68 witnesses ranging from a minister to a mistress in hopes of getting 15 hearsay statements against Peterson allowed at his murder trial. Peterson’s attorneys have about 20 witnesses on tap, but may call one or possibly none if they can hammer out a written deal with prosecutors about what their testimony would entail if they took the stand.

That lone defense witness to actually appear might end up being Martineck. When contacted Tuesday, Martineck would neither confirm nor deny if he was subpoenaed by the defense to testify today.

Joel Brodsky, the longest serving of Peterson’s four attorneys, whose role in the case appears to have shrunk as the hearing progresses, failed to return calls for comment on whether Martineck would testify today. Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, declined to comment.

The hearing is expected to conclude this afternoon with both the state and Peterson’s defense team expected to present their closing arguments.

Read the story at the Plainfield Sun

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~ Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

229 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings: Day 17 – Walter Martineck and pathologist testify for defense

  1. Joel Brodsky, the longest serving of Peterson’s four attorneys, whose role in the case appears to have shrunk as the hearing progresses…

    Joel Brodsky at SYM:
    “Drew got alot of inquires. He interviewed a dozen attorneys. He picked me to be lead counsel and Andrew Abood as second chair, and John Carroll will add his special knowledge if there is a trial…He picked me because he trusts me and believes in my ability. The attorney client relationship is a special one, especially in criminal cases. You have to be comfortable with and trust each other. Its more than just a legal services relationship, the lawyer is an attorney, advisor, psychiatrist, counselor, coach, etc.”

  2. Good morning! I find this confusing….the defense is countering all the other testimony with this? but they don’t really want him to testify (so he can’t be cross-examined)? Wot? Can he not remember that there is actually a blue cable box missing as well as a barrel?

    Oh, well. He’s got nothing to work with!

  3. Perhaps Walter Martinek needs to clarify if the container was light blue, medium blue, powder blue, sky blue, baby blue, dark blue or midnight blue and if it was spelled blue:

    b – l – u – e

  4. Boy, this is going to be interesting. Whooda thunk that the case could possibly pivot on whether the container used was round or square.

    Sheesh….

  5. I think I’ve misunderstood…the defensde witness isn’t to counter the other hearsay evidence, but to submit Martinek’s “hearsay”? I am still confused! :(

  6. …except it isn’t hearsay because Martinek is reporting a conversation he was party to? (see what I mean? more tea, James!)

  7. @ TAI
    You are stronger even than you look! LOL Peace and growth for Lent for you and AtlG :) (Looks like the Easter Bunny is bringing you back this year!)(bring chocolate!)

  8. Peterson’s attorneys have about 20 witnesses on tap, but may call one or possibly none if they can hammer out a written deal with prosecutors about what their testimony would entail if they took the stand.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I don’t really understand this part, but I suppose time will tell.

  9. bucketoftea :I think I’ve misunderstood…the defensde witness isn’t to counter the other hearsay evidence, but to submit Martinek’s “hearsay”? I am still confused!

    Bucket, it is confusing, so I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but it sounds like the defense wants to use him to try to discredit Morphey’s testimony for the judge’s benefit, since he’s the one making the decisions about whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that Drew killed Stacy so she couldn’t testify against him in Kathleen’s murder. Last night it was reported to be a pathologist testifying today, so there’s no telling who’s actually going to be on the stand today. Regardless, the “written deal” mentioned in Joe’s article is what intrigues me.

  10. “…but may call one or possibly none if they can hammer out a written deal with prosecutors about what their testimony would entail if they took the stand…”
    Deals. LOL. Isn’t this why we’re here in the first place?
    And I have to ask why the defense is asking for special considerations when the prosecution didn’t have to.

  11. It sounds like not a very good deal. The judge can take Brodsky’s word for what the witness would say, but conveniently avoid cross-examination….unless that would be allowed in writing, too, LOL!

  12. Good Morning Everyone!

    Interesting Joel calling Martineck to the stand this morning. I can’t possibly see why Joel would call him to the stand? If it is to say the barrel was square, and not round etc, that is ridiculous. All kinds of stories were flying around in the beginning whether it was a barrel, plastic container, tub, cable box, big tuppermaid tub. What’s his point? If I remember correctly, which I am pretty sure Morphey always kept the same story it was a blue barrel. So go for it Joel chalk another one up lol

  13. bucketoftea :It sounds like not a very good deal. The judge can take Brodsky’s word for what the witness would say, but conveniently avoid cross-examination….unless that would be allowed in writing, too, LOL!

    My faith is in Glasgow to do what’s best for his case. :D

  14. Peterson attorney to call 2 witnesses at hearing

    Associated Press – February 17, 2010 10:24 AM ET

    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) – Drew Peterson’s attorney says he plans to call two witnesses at a hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge might allow during the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s murder trial.

    Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky says a pathologist will testify Wednesday that he believes the 2004 death of Peterson’s third wife was an accident as originally determined before it was ruled a homicide. Brodsky also says a neighbor of Peterson’s stepbrother will dispute some testimony from stepbrother Thomas Morphey.

    Brodsky had originally said he’d call 20 witnesses. But he now says he believes that’s no longer necessary. Brodsky says he expects closing arguments Wednesday afternoon.

    http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11997949

  15. Walter a defense witness? I never would have guessed that.

    Should be interesting to see what Rescue has to report.

  16. Sounds like the big issue the defense is going to question Martineck about is “Tote” versus “Barrel”. Martineck told Fox Chicago that Morphey described to him a blue tote that he helped Drew Peterson carry.

    Not sure why Martineck’s version would be very important, since he can only testify to what he remembers Morphey saying. Martineck wasn’t present and never saw what I believe Morphey has called “an air-tight container”.

  17. joehosey Drew Peterson’s defense team called their first witness, forensic pathologist Jeff Jentzen. Jentzen testified that Kathleen Savio may

    Have accidentally drowned in her bathtub. He speculated that she may have slipped and hit her head, fainted and hit her head, or possibly

    Suffered a heart attack and died before falling and inhaling water after she was dead. Peterson’s “lead” attorney, Joel Brodsky, kept dozing off during the testimony of the defense expert witness.
    2 minutes ago from txt

    http://twitter.com/joehosey

  18. facsmiley :

    joehosey Drew Peterson’s defense team called their first witness, forensic pathologist Jeff Jentzen. Jentzen testified that Kathleen Savio may2 minutes ago from txt

    Have accidentally drowned in her bathtub. He speculated that she may have slipped and hit her head, fainted and hit her head, or possiblyless than a minute ago from txt

    … or possibly BEEN MURDERED BY HER SOON TO BE EX-HUSBAND!

  19. If she had “suffered a heart attack” there would have been damage to her heart and the autopsy would have shown that. Next.

    BTW, WAKE UP JOEL!! YOU AREN’T GETTING PAID TO SLEEP IN COURT!!

  20. facsmiley :If she had “suffered a heart attack” there would have been damage to her heart and the autopsy would have shown that. Next.
    BTW, WAKE UP JOEL!! YOU AREN’T GETTING PAID TO SLEEP IN COURT!!

    Ain’t that the truth! On both counts!

  21. It’s beyond me why they would put someone on the stand to dispute an autopsy report, when that’s all they have to go by….a report. The defense should have done their own autopsy while they had the chance. His testimony probably won’t carry much weight with a jury, or possibly any weight, IMO. Not when there will be three other pathlogolists testifying who’ve actually done an autopsy, of which two ruled a homicide. Typical Drew Crew.

  22. Here’s Karen Conti from this morning. She thinks the judge will be persuaded that Drew did in fact kill Kathy and Stacy and that the hearsay statements will be admitted.

  23. Defense Calls First Witness in Peterson Hearing

    Updated: Wednesday, 17 Feb 2010, 12:34 PM CST
    Published : Wednesday, 17 Feb 2010, 4:05 AM CST

    FOX Chicago News

    Joliet, Ill. – The defense called its first witness in the Drew Peterson hearsay hearing Wednesday, a forensic expert who testified Savio’s death was accidental.

    Peterson faces a murder charge for allegedly drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio. During the hearsay hearing, prosecutors are trying to prove he also killed fourth wife Stacy to keep her from testifying against him.

    University of Michigan Pathologist Jeffrey Jentzen says his review of Savio’s death points to accidental drowning. He attributed her death to fall in the tub.

    The prosecution pressed Jensen on how he came up with his conclusion, asking if all of Savio’s many injuries could have been sustained in one fall. They did get Jensen to concede that it is possible it was a homicide, but he said it’s unlikely.

    Judge Steven White told both sides his ruling on what evidence he will allow for the trial will be sealed.

    Testimony was also expected from a man who says Drew Peterson’s stepbrother shared details of covering up a murder.

    Walter Martineck, the neighbor and long-time friend of Peterson’s stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, was subpoenaed by the defense to testify at this session of the ongoing hearsay hearing, two sources said Tuesday.

    Martineck has already publicly told of Morphey showing up at his door and spilling a story of helping Peterson carry a blue barrel downstairs to Peterson’s waiting sport-utility vehicle.

    Morphey, who testified on Day 2 of what is now a 17-day hearing, went into great detail about helping Peterson allegedly move the body of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, George Lenard, tried to cast doubt on Morphey’s tale by pointing out that his account differed from the one Martineck gave police.

    Lenard said Martineck told police that Morphey helped carry a square container down the stairs of Peterson’s house and to the SUV. Morphey was adamant that he and Peterson carried a blue barrel.

    Morphey was the only source of all of Martineck’s information about Morphey supposedly helping Peterson carry a barrel containing Stacy’s body down the stairs and to the truck…

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/Friend-Of-Step-Brother-May-Testify

  24. cfs7360 :It’s beyond me why they would put someone on the stand to dispute an autopsy report, when that’s all they have to go by….a report. The defense should have done their own autopsy while they had the chance. His testimony probably won’t carry much weight with a jury, or possibly any weight, IMO. Not when there will be three other pathlogolists testifying who’ve actually done an autopsy, of which two ruled a homicide. Typical Drew Crew.

    I didn’t realize that they didn’t have their own autopsy done. Idiocy. (Or arrogance.)

  25. cfs7360 :It’s beyond me why they would put someone on the stand to dispute an autopsy report, when that’s all they have to go by….a report. The defense should have done their own autopsy while they had the chance. His testimony probably won’t carry much weight with a jury, or possibly any weight, IMO. Not when there will be three other pathlogolists testifying who’ve actually done an autopsy, of which two ruled a homicide. Typical Drew Crew.

    Strike this comment. You’ve got a lawyer snoozing in court, while their long shot of a pathologist is on the stand. Unbelievable. They’ll get what they deserve in the long run, so nevermind about what they should have done. I actually don’t even give a damn how inept they are.

  26. I wonder if Tom Morphy ever actually told Mr. Martineck what type of container, only that it was a blue container and his imagination went with a box type container as everyone uses those for storage, not everyone has a blue barrel hanging around. Seems moot though since Morphy has told the police from the beginning it was a barrel.

    I wish the prosecution would have asked the pathologist how much time he spent examining the body.

  27. facsmiley :LOL @ CFS

    Facs, we both knew it was coming, regardless of how stupid it was for them to put a pathologist on the stand who had never even seen the body, but hey…everything they do is transparent and always has been. It’s just plain easy to see though stupid.

  28. and which of these two testimonies was supposed to make me do a 360 and be in shock and amazement by what I have learned?

  29. charmed4sr :I wonder if Tom Morphy ever actually told Mr. Martineck what type of container, only that it was a blue container and his imagination went with a box type container as everyone uses those for storage, not everyone has a blue barrel hanging around. Seems moot though since Morphy has told the police from the beginning it was a barrel.
    I wish the prosecution would have asked the pathologist how much time he spent examining the body.

    They may have. Rescue will know.

  30. In the 7 o’clock hour of Fox News they showed a clip of an old interview with Martineck in which he says that the item was a blue “tote”. But so what? It’s just not very compelling to me. You say “barrel” I say “tote”, you say “turquoise” I say “blue”…

    The video was up on their site a while ago and I grabbed it but couldn’t get it to work when I uploaded to Youtube. Now I can’t find it on the site either…

  31. I didn’t realize that they didn’t have their own autopsy done. Idiocy. (Or arrogance.)

    Probably both atl, plus Drew probably didn’t want to spend the money to have it done because he and his top notch attorney didn’t think he would ever be charged.

  32. Interesting that Conti said that if the hearsay ends up being admitted to Drew’s trial, that it can’t be appealed until and unless Drew is found guilty.

    It really does make sense the the judge seals his decision on the hearsay, as Conti points out, if the hearsay is admitted that means the judge is convinced that Drew did murder these women, and of course you couldn’t have the jury aware of that!

  33. facsmiley :In the 7 o’clock hour of Fox News they showed a clip of an old interview with Matineck in which he says that the item was a blue “tote”. But so what? It’s just not very compelling to me. You say “barrel” I say “tote”, you say “tourquoise” I say “blue”…
    The video was up on their site a while ago and I grabbed it but couldn’t get it to work when I uploaded to Youtube. Now I can’t find it on the site either…

    Here’s one from NBC, and Martienck used the term “blue container.” He also said Morpehy did not used the term blue barrel, but big deal….barrel, container, whatever.

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22039495/ns/today-today_people/

  34. cfs7360 :

    I didn’t realize that they didn’t have their own autopsy done. Idiocy. (Or arrogance.)

    Probably both atl, plus Drew probably didn’t want to spend the money to have it done because he and his top notch attorney didn’t think he would ever be charged.

    I’m not even sure how it works. Could the defense be barred from doing their own autopsy if the the next of kin doesn’t give them permission? There’s a question for Karen…

  35. Karen is so much prettier in the vid than in the still photo I always see of her! Smart and sensible.And agrees with me LOL

  36. Here’s a kinda weird bulleted analysis of the case from the viewpoint of attorney Thomas Glasgow (please note this is not state’s attorney, James Glasgow)

    Legal Expert: Peterson Hearsay Hearing
    Updated at 12:29 PM today

    February 18, 2010 — Attorney Thomas Glasgow discusses the implications of the Drew Peterson pretrial hearsay hearing.

    Facts:

    Pretrial hearing that began on January 19th, regarding hearsay in the Peterson Trial

    The State has the position of proving a murder occurred before the actual trial begins.

    Trial is for the murder of Kathleen Savio and we have gotten to see a preview of what the State’s case may be.

    This is a circumstantial case.

    In Peterson’s defense:

    -Savio’s death first ruled an accident.

    -No forensic evidence collected.

    -No physical evidence in this case. No DNA, no fingerprints.

    -Savio had a heart murmur and complained about vertigo and dizziness to her Dr. before the accident

    -The defense can bring in drinking, sleepwalking, drug use, or dizzy spells to show that she died as a result of an accident.

    -No evidence of a break in. How did someone get in kill Savio and get out without anyone knowing?

    -No one has testified seeing Peterson or anyone else sneak inside Savio’s house that day.

    The evidence against him so far:

    -Subsequent autopsy ruled her death a homicide

    -Witnesses testified about Peterson’s training in subduing suspects knowledge of choke holds and martial arts training.

    -No towels, no robe, and the toiletries were undisturbed in the bathroom.

    -Cleaning fluid found beside the bathtub.

    -Her hair was down when she was found. One witness who lived with Savio said it was always up when she took a bath.

    -Peterson’s second wife testified she saw him with locksmith tools.

    -Peterson’s friend testified he followed Savio once because Peterson said he was going to break into the house to retrieve some papers.

    -Prior to the law changing, the above is all you would likely hear at trial. Now we have the new hearsay law in force and as such, the hearing on the admissibility of the proposed statements is much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.

    -Because the burden of proof is much lower in the hearing phase as opposed to the trial, the Judge is very likely to let in at least some of the statements that we have discussed during the course of the hearing. If he does, then Mr. Peterson is in the unenviable position of having to contest a statement that he cannot cross examine. With these statements, the prosecution’s case is much more powerful and a conviction much more likely.

    -Changing the law to convict one man is a dangerous thing. This law presents a very slippery slope for a state that has convicted an imprisoned innocent people and still has a moratorium on the death penalty.

    -In a related issue, an appeals Court reversed the Circuit Court’s ruling on the dismissal of gun charges against Drew Peterson. The charges have been sent back to the Circuit Court to address his alleged Illegal possession of a SBR or Short Barreled Rifle.

    http://www.glasgowlaw.net

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=resources/lifestyle_community&id=7282551

  37. facsmiley :

    cfs7360 :
    I didn’t realize that they didn’t have their own autopsy done. Idiocy. (Or arrogance.)
    Probably both atl, plus Drew probably didn’t want to spend the money to have it done because he and his top notch attorney didn’t think he would ever be charged.

    I’m not even sure how it works. Could the defense be barred from doing their own autopsy if the the next of kin doesn’t give them permission? There’s a question for Karen…

    Yeah, she should know Facs. I’m not sure, but he may not have even been a suspect at that point, but I remember posting that they should have had their own autposy done while she was unearthed, if they were going to dispute the two new ones. If he had been declared a suspect, he might have been able to, but I don’t know. Maybe Karen can let us know something.

  38. Thomas Glasgow:”-Changing the law to convict one man is a dangerous thing. This law presents a very slippery slope for a state that has convicted an imprisoned innocent people and still has a moratorium on the death penalty.”

    WTF?

  39. The Fox video at the top of the page starts off with Patrick Elwood stating the defense’s pathologist examined the BODY, which I don’t believe is factual. Then it jumps to Craig Wall saying the pathologist examined the “evidence.” Which was what? What evidence was there to examine? So, it must mean that he just read the initial autopsy report and coroner’s reports. I swear…you just can’t put much faith in what you hear on TV and read in the newspaper about this case. So glad Rescue is there today so we can get the straight dope!

  40. Surely she would have. Can’t think of a better day for her to be there. The closing arugments should be really interesting.

  41. Thanks:)

    CFS: So glad Rescue is there today so we can get the straight dope.”

    That’s The Busdriver’s job. um, sorry, no… He’s got to get the dopes straight.

  42. More evidence against him that Thomas Glasgow forgot to mention:

    - Drew and Kathy were involved in a contentious divorce.

    - Drew had just been told by his divorce attorney that he would have to give Kathy the house, half his pension, etc.

    I believe that almost every item that he mentioned “in Peterson’s defense” can easily be overturned on cross-examination.

    Again, if I were a juror on this case, just those items mentioned above as being against Drew Peterson would be enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. He had motive. He had training. He had a temper. He was getting set to lose a good bit of his fortune.

    People have been convicted on far less.

  43. OK, I converted that video clip into three different formats but I can’t get any of them to play in Youtube so I just transcribed the bit with Walter Martinek.

    From an interview with Anita Padilla of Fox Chicago from the Fall of 2007:

    Martineck: Drew had taken him back to his house and asked him, Hey can you help me move something? And Tom, unwittingly, OK, I’ll help you. He had gone upstairs to the master bedroom and brought a tote down, a blue tote, a sealed blue tote and this is where he got really shooken up. He goes, I know she was in there. I go, What do you mean you know she was in there? He goes, it was warm to the touch.

  44. cfs7360 :
    The Fox video at the top of the page starts off with Patrick Elwood stating the defense’s pathologist examined the BODY, which I don’t believe is factual. Then it jumps to Craig Wall saying the pathologist examined the “evidence.” Which was what? What evidence was there to examine? So, it must mean that he just read the initial autopsy report and coroner’s reports. I swear…you just can’t put much faith in what you hear on TV and read in the newspaper about this case. So glad Rescue is there today so we can get the straight dope!

    There may be one or two things that would be regarded as direct evidence that’s probably still available, and that’s histological sections either mounted and prepared or not of various organs/bruised tissue. Not really critical probably, excepting if it was possible to examine the head wound in a way that was informative.

  45. There may be one or two things that would be regarded as direct evidence that’s probably still available, and that’s histological sections either mounted and prepared or not of various organs/bruised tissue. Not really critical probably, excepting if it was possible to examine the head wound in a way that was informative.

    Bucket, you may be right, although I thought I read Dr. Mitchell didn’t collect any sections of bruised tissue. However, Dr. Blum did, although he said the tissue/skin around the head wound was severely deteriorated and he had to use the photos, etc., from the original autopsy. Really need to go back and check all of this to make sure, but I suppose Dr. Jentzen could have gotten access to the samples. Her head wound was not deep enough to cause any brain damage, or to state whether it occured by her head hitting a stationary object, or a moving object hit her stationary head. Dr. Jentzen also stated, according to Joe Hosey, that she could have died from a heart attack, and then inhaled water after she died. Well, the autopsy would have shown a heart attack, and how do you breathe/inhale water if you’re dead? I wasn’t impressed with him, what little we know he said, but at least he conceded that it could have been a homicide. Joel, on the other hand, is still flapping his gums about the state not having anything.

  46. facsmiley :Lordy, how did I miss “inhaled water after she died”? I wonder if that’s an actual quote. How ridiculous!

    Suffered a heart attack and died before falling and inhaling water after she was dead. Peterson’s “lead” attorney, Joel Brodsky, kept dozing
    about 2 hours ago from txt

    From Joe Hosey’s Titter account.

  47. Suffered a heart attack and died before falling and inhaling water after she was dead. Peterson’s “lead” attorney, Joel Brodsky, kept dozing off during the testimony of the defense expert witness.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yeah amazing, where did they get that from ?.

    Kathleen kept breathing after she died, cleaned up the bathroom, hid a head wound and bruises from Robert Deel, hid the will under the floorboards and then conveniently placed herself in the tub to make it look like she died of an accident.

    Good Grief !!

  48. A friend of mine says he saw Joel at the Daley Center yesterday with his new client (Dad who took the baby to church). Joel’s agenda seems to be to find cases that he can hope to boost up to the supreme court (right to confront witnesses, freedom of religion, etc.) Maybe then he will write his book and be famous. It’s a goal, I guess.

  49. justanotherhen :
    Suffered a heart attack and died before falling and inhaling water after she was dead. Peterson’s “lead” attorney, Joel Brodsky, kept dozing off during the testimony of the defense expert witness.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yeah amazing, where did they get that from ?.
    Kathleen kept breathing after she died, cleaned up the bathroom, hid a head wound and bruises from Robert Deel, hid the will under the floorboards and then conveniently placed herself in the tub to make it look like she died of an accident.
    Good Grief !!

    And she left the can of cleaning fluid there just for a laugh.

  50. -No evidence of a break in. How did someone get in kill Savio and get out without anyone knowing?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Is it unusual for people not to witness a murder ??

  51. bucketoftea :cfs“From Joe Hosey’s Titter account.”
    LOL!

    Lol Bucket. Told you guys I needed to proof before I hit the submit button, but Iust hate to read back over stuff. Please overlook all future typos, puncuation, grammatical errors, spelling, and misnomers. :D

  52. facsmiley :
    A friend of mine says he saw Joel at the Daley Center yesterday with his new client (Dad who took the baby to church). Joel’s agenda seems to be to find cases that he can hope to boost up to the supreme court (right to confront witnesses, freedom of religion, etc.) Maybe then he will write his book and be famous. It’s a goal, I guess.

    I’ve been wondering about that too !

    Why would a lead Council in the beginning of the major trial, take on any other cases in the first place AND handle them himself ??

  53. justanotherhen :

    facsmiley :A friend of mine says he saw Joel at the Daley Center yesterday with his new client (Dad who took the baby to church). Joel’s agenda seems to be to find cases that he can hope to boost up to the supreme court (right to confront witnesses, freedom of religion, etc.) Maybe then he will write his book and be famous. It’s a goal, I guess.

    I’ve been wondering about that too !
    Why would a lead Council in the beginning of the major trial, take on any other cases in the first place AND handle them himself ??

    He’s gotta eat, Jah. :D

  54. Joel in the video at approx 1.14 mins

    “Preponderance of evidence still requires evidence”

    Oh My God !!

  55. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/17/homicides-in-a-bathtub-are-very-rare/?test=latestnews

    ‘Homicides In A Bathtub Are Very Rare’
    February 17, 2010 – 2:22 PM | by: Marla Cichowski

    A three week pretrial hearing in the case of Drew Peterson, accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, could wrap up later today. The evidentiary hearing is being held to determine what – if any – hearsay testimony regarding statements Kathleen Savio made to friends or relatives about Peterson can be used at Peterson’s upcoming trial. Nearly 70 witnesses have testified for the prosecution. Today Peterson’s defense team’s called its first witness.

    Forensic pathologist, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, from University of Michigan, testified for more than two hours about the medical examiner’s report related to Kathleen Savio’s death in 2004. Dr. Jentzen maintains Savio died from blunt head trauma, by slipping and falling in her bathtub. Savio’s death was originally ruled an accidental drowning in 2004. Savio’s body was exhumed in 2007 after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared. Police named Peterson the main suspect in Stacy’s disappearance.

    Today Dr. Jentzen also testified Savio had an irregular heart beat that could have caused heart failure, but there was no evidence of cardiac arrest in the autopsy performed after her death. During cross examination, Dr. Jentzen said, “Homicides in a bathtub are very rare. It’s extremely rare.”In my opinion it’s an accidental death,” referring to how Savio died.

    Defense attorneys plan to call one more witness this afternoon. His name is Walter Martinek. He is a Neighbor of a witness in the case.

    After court broke for lunch, Drew Peterson’s attorney, Andrew Abood, spoke about Dr. Jentzen’s testimony. “Everything he (Jentzen) said was convincing. He examined the case objectively. The prosecutor (John Connor) tried to beat him up and in end he (Jentzen) walked away standing. They (prosecutors) don’t have any evidence she (Savio) didn’t die by accidental cause. We are stuck in this case with accidental death.” Abood believes the hearsay ruling by the judge in this hearing will not be an endorsement for either side in this case. Once the judge issues a ruling regarding hearsay testimony, it’s likely it will be placed under seal – meaning only the judge and the attorneys in the case will know the ruling.

    Even though closing arguments could last more than two hours this afternoon, Peterson’s defense attorneys still expect to wrap up their case today.

  56. I just heard from Rescue and she gave me some details but I’m sure she’ll have plenty to relate when she gets back home so…bullet points!

    - Martinek did testify but only for a few minutes and it was about the dimensions of the container as told to him by Thomas Morphey. Hardly any time spent on this at all.

    - The pathologist, Dr. Jentzen was not particularly strong in his arguments for the defense. You’ve already read the news reports with his four suggestions as to how she may have passed away.

    - Pathologist did not examine Kathy’s body but relied on records from first autopsy.

    - pathologist reckoned that the bruises on Kathleen’s breast were the result of falling on a bar of soap

    - he did actually say that she could have had a heart attack, died and then fell into the water where she then breathed water up into her sinuses.

    - He based some of his opinion of an accidental death on the fact that there was a towel on the side of the tub. He did not realize the towel was not there initially.

    - Pathologist has written a study about how deaths in bathtubs are often wrongly determined to be accidents when they are actually homicides

    - under cross examination the pathologist admitted that if he were aware of certain things like, the investigation had been bungled or that the scene had been tampered with, he might change his determination to one of homicide

    - No closing arguments today

    - No hearing tomorrow

    - Dr. Baden will testify Friday in rebuttal to Dr. Jantzen’s testimony and then closing arguments.

    Sounds like Rescue did the rounds and talked to lots of reporters and even Dave Turvey, the young filmmaker. That’s my girl!!

  57. During cross examination, Dr. Jentzen said, “Homicides in a bathtub are very rare. It’s extremely rare.”In my opinion it’s an accidental death,” referring to how Savio died.

    After court broke for lunch, Drew Peterson’s attorney, Andrew Abood, spoke about Dr. Jentzen’s testimony. “Everything he (Jentzen) said was convincing.
    ============================
    Yeah, like inhaling water after you’re dead.

  58. pathologist reckoned that the brusies on Kathleen’s breast were the result of falling on a bar of soap

    - he did actually say that she could have had a heart attack, died and then fell into the water where she then breathed water up into her sinuses.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It is more likely a bar of killer soap attacked Kathleen.

    It’s not called a bar for nothing (!!)

    And the heart attack theory is even more interesting ………

    Where does the Defense find these people ?????

  59. In a tub full of water, the amazing hand-shaped bar of soap defied the laws of soap and water and managed to not float benignly as normal soap does, but to rise up against Savio, striking her savagely in the breast…

  60. I never liked Baden after his antics at the Phil Spector trial #1, but at least he examined Kathleen’s body this time. I will be glad to hear his testimony.

    Jentzen’s testimony wouldn’t have meant much to me as a juror (if this were a real trial) because he only reviewed paperwork and pics…. sheesh!

  61. joehosey
    Thomas Morphey’s friend Walter Martineck testified this afternoon. Martineck recounted his meeting with Morphey soon after Stacy Peterson
    about 1 hour ago from txt

    joehosey
    Disappeared. Brodsky managed to stay awake this time.
    about 1 hour ago from txt

  62. I hope Baden does his homework before testifying. Last time I heard him talk (I think it was on Steph Watts blogtalk radio show) he seemed pretty fuzzy on the details.

  63. Was there even a bar of soap in the tub? (Or was that keen observation similar to his “there was a towel there in the picture” deductive reasoning?)

  64. jurorthirteen :
    I never liked Baden after his antics at the Phil Spector trial #1, but at least he examined Kathleen’s body this time. I will be glad to hear his testimony.
    Jentzen’s testimony wouldn’t have meant much to me as a juror (if this were a real trial) because he only reviewed paperwork and pics…. sheesh!

    If someone only had paperwork and pictures but had compelling (and logical!) arguments they could support with them, well, that would be different, wouldn’t it?

  65. Dr. Jentzen maintains Savio died from blunt head trauma, by slipping and falling in her bathtub.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Is that the same blunt head trauma Bob Deel didn’t see and – if he did – it didn’t matter anyway as no matter how Kathleen died it was an accident.

    So this time Kathleen died from the same blunt head trauma that nobody saw and didn’t matter anyway.

    That’s confusing !!

  66. IMO From his observations it appears Dr Jentzen is another to compromise his reputation and credibility with statements he possibly can’t believe himself.

  67. Rescue: “- he did actually say that she could have had a heart attack, died and then fell into the water where she then breathed water up into her sinuses.”
    =================================================

    That is such an absurd statement. I sure hope it caused the Prosecution to point out that dead bodies can’t breathe.

    Can’t wait to hear Rescue tell about the reaction in the courtroom when he said that. If we were all in the room, I dare say there would have been an audible gasp!

  68. justanotherhen :

    IMO From his observations it appears Dr Jentzen is another to compromise his reputation and credibility with statements he possibly can’t believe himself.

    Rescue will have to confirm this but from what she told me it seemed like Jentzen had based his opinion on ceratin factors, but did admit that he was open to changing his opinion if he were to know certain things…like the towel arriving on the scene after Kathleen’s death, etc.

  69. coffeeocity :Was there even a bar of soap in the tub? (Or was that keen observation similar to his “there was a towel there in the picture” deductive reasoning?)

    Thomas Pnntareelli testified there was no soap scum in the tub. If there had been soap in a full tub of water, it would have partially or completely melted and left noticable scum on the bottom and possibly the sides. Since details are missing from some of the testimonies, there could have been soap somewhere, but it doesn’t sound to me like there was evidence of any in the tub that should have slipped on. Another of Dr. Jentzen’s theories that he may want to reconsider. But, I mean really, what can you expect from someone who wasn’t there, but most of all, who never even examined the body? I’d say the defense pretty much proved their ineptness today, but that’s about all they proved.

  70. Okay, I absolutely promise to start proofing my posts and not make you all suffer through my typos. Yes, I know how to spell, but I have a brace on my right wrist & hand, and it’s very difficult to type these days. Be glad to get it off.

  71. Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen – University of Michigan, PHD & MD with a 60 page CV (according to Joel that is) states bruising on Kathleens chest were caused by falling onto a bar of soap, her death caused by blunt head trauma as a result of a possible heart attack by slipping and falling in her miniscule bath tub with post mortum ingestion of fluid into her sinuses, simultaneously conceding her death could have also been caused by homicide but doesn’t appear likely.

  72. and in the 2nd video Joel does another round of proclaiming Judge White’s “Preponderance of evidence still requires evidence”, so what does Joel think they have been doing in Court in the past three weeks ??

  73. Hi everyone. I’ll add to what you’ve already gotten via the news today as I think of things that stood out for me. You should be aware that Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen recently wrote a book, Death Investigation in America. The Assistant SA quoted from the book extensively. Because I have no knowledge of the book itself, I can’t say much at this point. What I did write down in my notes is that, in his book, he does discuss how many homicides are missed, and incorrectly ruled as accidents.

    FYI:

    Death Investigation in America
    Coroners, Medical Examiners, and the Pursuit of Medical Certainty
    Jeffrey M. Jentzen

    A death occurs at home, in a hospital, on a street: why? As Jeffrey Jentzen reveals, we often never know. Why is the American system of death investigation so inconsistent and inadequate? What can the events of the assassination of President Kennedy, killing of Bobby Kennedy, and Chappaquiddick reveal about the state of death investigation?

    If communities in early America had a coroner at all, he was politically appointed and poorly trained. As medicine became more sophisticated and the medical profession more confident, physicians struggled to establish a professionalized, physician-led system of death investigation. The conflict between them and the coroners, as well as politicians and law enforcement agencies, led to the patchwork of local laws and practices that persist to this day.

    In this unique political and cultural history, Jentzen draws on archives, interviews, and his own career as a medical examiner to look at the way that a long-standing professional and political rivalry controls public medical knowledge and public health.

    http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/JENDEA.html

    In his report, Dr. Jentzen actually refers to a towel being on or near the tub. He notes that as part of his report/determination, I presume, that KS was in the midst of a bath, a routine that was not out of the ordinary. Yet, it was pointed out to him that that towel was not there at the time of her death, and only got there afterwards. He was asked if his opinion might change based on this information. Honestly when he was asked questions like this, he’d answer with a non-answer. Like, he “wouldn’t know how that towel got there.” He did conclude that a towel would be there if she were bathing. (I think. He had so many non-answers to avoid answers he should have given, it’s mind boggling.)

    It is his opinion, and he concluded, that the four “finger prints” on KS’s breast are “consistent with a bar of soap.” So, I guess he doesn’t agree with the “finger prints” theory.

    A scenario of KS’s death that I just couldn’t comprehend is that the doctor said she died suddenly, heart related, fell backward, hit her head, then launches forward, twisting in the process, to get the bruises that are on her left side. The Assistant SA pointed out that she had water in her sinuses, so, as I wrote in my notes, apparently, she lived without a heartbeat in order to breath in water (I was being sarcastic). Still, if someone can figure out this scenario, I’d like to hear it. Heart attack, death, aspirate water? How does that happen?

    The doctor mentioned that KS had a delicate necklace on that apparently he assumed would have been broken off or damaged if a struggle were involved. He was told that KS never took a bath with her jewelry on, but, when questioned about that, he didn’t think it was significant enough to factor into the investigation. Yet, he did in his report and used it to make his point. Assistant SA said there were not injuries noted to the neck area.

    The doctor claims he saw no defensive wounds to KS.

    I have a notation in my notes that the doctor said, in an accident, it would be common to find the presence of drugs or alcohol involved (there were not).

    Dr. Baden is going to be a rebuttal witness.
    :-)

  74. It is his opinion, and he concluded, that the four “finger prints” on KS’s breast are “consistent with a bar of soap.” So, I guess he doesn’t agree with the “finger prints” theory.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Providing a bar of soap has fingers that makes a lot of sense.

  75. Did anyone ever ask if Kathleen was in the habit of taking a bath between the hours of 2 am and 6 am or is that a normal thing to do for people in Bolingbrook on a dark February night ???

  76. JAH – Time of death, I believe, is going to be a significant issue. The doctor testified, if I wrote this down correctly, that KS died a minimum of 36 hours prior to being found.

    Also, I did find in my notes that I wrote an entry about bruises that were on Kathleen, other than the ones he says were part of her fall in the tub.

    He mentioned that the “fresh” bruises could have been sustained earlier in the day. (That explains the other wayward bruises, heh?)

  77. justanotherhen :
    It is his opinion, and he concluded, that the four “finger prints” on KS’s breast are “consistent with a bar of soap.” So, I guess he doesn’t agree with the “finger prints” theory.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Providing a bar of soap has fingers that makes a lot of sense.

    Creepeh. go to pick up the soap and find yourself shaking hands with it.
    BTW Thanks Rescue!

  78. Rescue, after hearing the Defense’s experts opinion I am no more convinced about the validity of his statements than I am of any statements made by the initial investigators as they all sound exactly the same – professional people willing to compromise themselves by making statements too ridiculous for even a 2 year old to contemplate.

    The question remains – WHY are they doing this ?????

  79. Rescue, thanks for being there all day and sharing your report. Dr. Jentzen has impressive credentials, but (and I quote from an article specifically about him in The Ann Arbor News dated March 3, 2008) “They (pathologists) must be able to compare witness statements to death scenes and wounds to find witnesses credible – or not.

    Wonder if he compared any witness statements at all to the autopsy findings? Really didn’t sound like it (except amybe Drew) since he mentioned the towel on the tub, or he would have known it wasn’t there to begin with…not to mention that there was no soap scum in the tub, so therefore no soap…nor a heart attack, nor probably dead inhaling of water. Actually, I’d really love to read his entire testimony at some point, but Abood seems pleased with it, so that’s what really matters, huh? Non answers are their style.

  80. bucketoftea :
    Money. Expert winessing is quite an industry, and there’s something there for everyone.

    Yeah but how much does a professional want to compromise themselves by deliberately making really stupid and laughable statements for the whole world to see.

    These people are not even offering an expert opinion of any kind that makes any sense.

    They’re just publicly making an a.. of themselves and how much is that worth ??

  81. Hey, Bucket!

    You know, it should not be so complicated to see that Kathleen was in the process of taking a bath, had a terrible slip and fall, and drowned. You would expect to find a circumstance like this to have all of the usual components for a bath around; soap, clean clothes, discarded clothes, towels, hair up. Since she should have been in the tub when this happened, as Dr. Jentzen says, this is very strange that none of these components were there. Also, according to his description of her fall in the tub, she conked the back of her head, lunged forward and twisted on her left side.

    Why does her “accident” have to be explained in such a manner as to defy common sense? See, that’s the trouble with these “experts.” To conform their findings in a way that make their decisions the right ones, sometimes they, IMO, concoct a theory that is so off-the-wall, you’d’ have to be 100% positively sure that this is exactly what you want to hear to exonerate the defendant. Because if KS died the way Dr. Jentzen says she did, you have to reach way, way down, into the untouched depths of your mind to believe that this is the way he says it was. So complicated, so extreme. Bruises that one expert says are finger print bruises, one that says soap bruises. Which one sounds more logical? Bruises that are fresh, but may have occurred earlier in the day says one; the other says they’re bruises from an attack. One says there were defense bruises, one says no. One takes into consideration the victim never wore her jewelry in the tub and finding jewelry on her is not usual. The other says the jewelry on her shows that an attack would have damaged the piece.

    None of us have ever, that I know of, heard of a person having a heart attack, dying suddenly but still able to take a breath of water.

    Heavens knows, sometimes common sense has to be applied. What else is there to do?

  82. BTW, Dr. Jentzen said nothing in that bathroom was out of the ordinary, in his opinion.

    My question is, what does that mean? Does he mean there was no haphazard mess of a violent attack that absolutely would prove her death was a homicide? Then, yes, he’s right. The bathroom was pristine and didn’t indicate a violent attack.

    On the other hand, logic would dictate that the pristine scene could be the act of a murderer who cleaned the bathroom after a violent attack, to cover-up the fact that it was a murder. It is not illogical to believe that there should have been the usual bath toiletries, etc., around if KS was already in the bath tub. Why should we leap to the conclusion that her accidental death is so intricate, that we must believe the unbelievable?

  83. IMO The good thing that will come out of all this bizarreness by the Defense and their “experts” is that it will cement the case for the Prosecution.

  84. Rescue @ #114: “BTW, Dr. Jentzen said nothing in that bathroom was out of the ordinary, in his opinion.”

    So, we can surmise Dr. Jentzen wears his hair down & doesn’t remove his jewelry before bathing?… ;-)

  85. Here’s a pretty good description of today’s proceedings:

    Drew Peterson Trial: Pathologist Claims Savio’s Death Was Accidental

    DON BABWIN | 02/17/10 04:08 PM |

    JOLIET, Ill. — A pathologist hired by a former suburban Chicago police sergeant’s attorneys testified Wednesday that the death of Drew Peterson’s third wife was accidental and not a homicide as ruled three years later after her body was exhumed.

    In the clearest signal yet of the battle attorneys will engage in over the death of Kathleen Savio, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen said “it is my opinion that it was an accident.”

    Jentzen, a former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee who teaches at the University of Michigan, said he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio’s body but relied on previous autopsies, crime scene photographs, police reports and other information. Savio’s death was ruled accidental after her body was found in a dry bathtub in 2004.

    Jentzen said the evidence clearly points to an accident – from the absence of any defensive wounds on Savio’s body to the condition of the bathroom when her body was found. He said the bathroom appeared normal, saying Savio’s glasses were folded and there was no sign of an intruder.

    The pathologist said he believes Savio may have simply slipped or fainted in the tub. He also pointed to medical records that show she had a heart murmur, suggesting her heart may have stopped and caused her to slam the back of her head against a hard object and then fall into the tub and drown.

    Whatever happened, “she suffered a blunt force injury and that could have rendered her unconscious,” Jentzen said.

    Other witnesses have testified that Savio would never have bathed wearing jewelry. Jentzen said the fact that she was wearing what he called a “delicate” necklace strongly suggested to him that she didn’t struggle with an attacker.

    Jentzen, who has conducted thousands of autopsies, said he would have expected such a necklace to have somehow been damaged in an attack.

    “I’ve seen it numerous times,” he said.

    Jentzen also said he believes many of the other bruises on Savio’s body could have happened when she fell.

    Defense attorneys had planned to call 20 witnesses in the pretrial hearing to determine what hearsay evidence a judge might allow during Peterson’s murder trial. Defense attorney Joel Brodsky said Wednesday that was not necessary because testimony from those witnesses, including police officers, was already in reports accepted by prosecutors.

    Prosecutors plan to call a third pathologist Friday, then closing arguments will follow.

    Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio’s death. Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007. Peterson has not been charged in the disappearance but police say he is a suspect. It was after Stacy Peterson went missing that investigators exhumed Savio’s body and determined her death was a homicide.

    Before the hearing began Wednesday, Brodsky said he didn’t know exactly when Judge Stephen White would decide if any of the prosecution’s 15 hearsay statements would be allowed. Brodsky said the judge plans to seal his decision to protect the jury pool from pretrial publicity.

    Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, is usually not admissible in court. Illinois judges can however allow it in murder trials if prosecutors prove a defendant may have killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying.

    There’s little available forensic evidence in Savio’s case, so prosecutors are expected to rely on statements Savio allegedly made to others saying she feared Peterson could kill her.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/drew-peterson-trial-patho_0_n_466124.html

  86. coffeeocity :

    Rescue @ #114: “BTW, Dr. Jentzen said nothing in that bathroom was out of the ordinary, in his opinion.”

    So, we can surmise Dr. Jentzen wears his hair down & doesn’t remove his jewelry before bathing?… ;-)

    And her glasses were off and folded.

    Seals the deal, heh?

  87. rescueapet :BTW, Dr. Jentzen said nothing in that bathroom was out of the ordinary, in his opinion.
    My question is, what does that mean? Does he mean there was no haphazard mess of a violent attack that absolutely would prove her death was a homicide? Then, yes, he’s right. The bathroom was pristine and didn’t indicate a violent attack.
    On the other hand, logic would dictate that the pristine scene could be the act of a murderer who cleaned the bathroom after a violent attack, to cover-up the fact that it was a murder. It is not illogical to believe that there should have been the usual bath toiletries, etc., around if KS was already in the bath tub. Why should we leap to the conclusion that her accidental death is so intricate, that we must believe the unbelievable?

    You hit the nail on the head Lady. It’s almost as if Jentzen has Cassandra Syndrome, in that he believes he speaks the truth, but he’s unbelievable when he does so. It was very obvious to me, from what I’ve been able to read and hear, that he only took into account what the defense shared with him, and he otherwise was not up on all of the other witness accounts of the crime scene, etc., etc.

  88. Jentzen, a former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee who teaches at the University of Michigan, said he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio’s body but relied on previous autopsies, crime scene photographs, police reports and other information.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Looks like the POlice reports (initial investigation) and “other” information must have been what made this man say funny things he didn’t really mean – LOL !

  89. justanotherhen :Jentzen, a former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee who teaches at the University of Michigan, said he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio’s body but relied on previous autopsies, crime scene photographs, police reports and other information.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Looks like the POlice reports (initial investigation) and “other” information must have been what made this man say funny things he didn’t really mean – LOL !

    Yeah JAH. We know all about the autopsy and police reports that said Kathleen’s death was an ACCIDENT!!!! The man should have done some real research!

  90. 1) Would a jury find it unusual that a woman who lived alone, with an alarm and multiple door locks on her front entrance, did not activate the alarm and double lock the door, especially while upstairs, presumably at night, taking a bath?

    2) Would a jury think it also unusual that a woman who had a routine that even others knew about, i.e., hair pinned up and jewelry off, would change that routine that night, the same night she didn’t alarm up the house and double lock the door?

    3) And then, would they have a hard time wondering why her crime-scene trained ex husband cop called in neighbors instead of calling 911 for a well being check? Wonder why he would do the extreme opposite of what he was trained to do as a law enforcement officer and allow an unexpected death scene to be compromised? Especially, as he admitted himself, if it would make him the focus of attention as the spouse if her death was suspicious?

    4) Can a jury be convinced that bruises they might see as finger prints are actually from a bar of soap, because the defense expert says so?

    5) Can a jury believe that her life ended, but she was still able to suck in water as if alive?

    6) Can a jury believe that a doctor would still rule a death an accident, even if he was told that a towel appeared after the discovery of her body, the crime scene technician said that the bruises on her body were not significant, that the lead investigator said he screwed up, and not even consider changing his opinion?

    7) Can a jury believe that the only way a death scene can be seen as a homicide scene is if it is in disarray?

  91. cfs7360 :

    justanotherhen :Jentzen, a former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee who teaches at the University of Michigan, said he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio’s body but relied on previous autopsies, crime scene photographs, police reports and other information.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Looks like the POlice reports (initial investigation) and “other” information must have been what made this man say funny things he didn’t really mean – LOL !

    Yeah JAH. We know all about the autopsy and police reports that said Kathleen’s death was an ACCIDENT!!!! The man should have done some real research!

    But then again, Brodsky even said Jentzen didn’t have a dog in this fight, so he only testified to what he was probably paid to testify to. Why bother with any real research?

  92. Thanks CFS. Sometimes I wonder if these “experts” can really see through all the smoke they conjure up what lies beyond.

    Laypeople with common sense. I think they tend to forget that! Their scientific theories may be logical to them, but, damn, a Saturday night bath shouldn’t have to take into consideration a heart attack, sudden death, drug withdrawal, slip and fall, lunging forward, twisting body scenario, without giving it thoughtful consideration.

    Bah!

  93. But then again, Brodsky even said Jentzen didn’t have a dog in this fight, so he only testified to what he was probably paid to testify to. Why bother with any real research?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    True Joel Brodsky did say that, but Jentzen has a PHD/MD, a 60 page CV (so Joel says), teaches at University of Michigan, yet he ends up saying really bizarre and off the wall things about a death scene because he is paid to do so.

    Wouldn’t you think for the sake of his own reputation he wouldn’t want to touch this one ??

  94. Rescue, Don Babwin’s article was pretty much pro defense, and I saw nothing about the prosecution’s cross. How well do you think they (since you were there) handled Jentzen’s testimony? I read where he conceded that it could have been homicide, but not likely. Guess what I want to know, is how strongly/capably did they cross examine him, and were you pleased with how they did? It’s just hard not knowing all the details.

  95. justanotherhen :

    grandam :Keeping it all in the familyConnection: Camille Abood was Andrew Abood’s uncle, who was in practice with Andrew’s father at his law firm. So, Andrew’s cousin Dr. Chris Abood was married to Ruth Otto Abood, and her sister is married to Jeff Jentzen.

    Oh Oke, now it all becomes clear – LOL !!

    Okay, so maybe they didn’t have to pay him.

  96. Joel Brodsky is missing his television appearance tonight on CNN for his other case in the news involving the religious custody issue. Lisa Bloom was on, however, as well as the wife’s attorney. CNN state Joel was invited to appear, but was busy with another case. No mention of the case that was keeping him off of the show.

  97. cfs7360 :

    justanotherhen :

    grandam :Keeping it all in the familyConnection: Camille Abood was Andrew Abood’s uncle, who was in practice with Andrew’s father at his law firm. So, Andrew’s cousin Dr. Chris Abood was married to Ruth Otto Abood, and her sister is married to Jeff Jentzen.

    Oh Oke, now it all becomes clear – LOL !!

    Okay, so maybe they didn’t have to pay him.

    And maybe he doesn’t care about his reputation then either – LOL !

  98. Rescue…maybe someone ought to urgently send this information to Glasgow’s office so he can tell it to the judge.

    Even tho Dr. Baden’s testimony can refute what this fraud [mod edit]said, Judge White should be aware that this is what the defense is doing.

    This is outrageous! Fraud!

    Another parrot mimicing DP’s words!

    More servings from JB’s Poo Poo Platter!

  99. grandam :Keeping it all in the familyConnection: Camille Abood was Andrew Abood’s uncle, who was in practice with Andrew’s father at his law firm. So, Andrew’s cousin Dr. Chris Abood was married to Ruth Otto Abood, and her sister is married to Jeff Jentzen.

    OMG, Thank you for finding and posting this!

    ‘Exposing Andrew Abood and Joel Brodsky!’ for the frauds they are!

    Joe Hosey would like to know this too!

  100. CFS @ #130. In all honestly, I thought the State did a great job, but the problem was, the doctor would not concede to the State if it required him to contradict the defense. Not unusual, but it gets frustrating.

    The majority of the doctor’s time on the stand was because the State questioned him so extensively. As I said, the doctor recently wrote a book, and the State used it to point out how differently he viewed this particular case as opposed to things he described in his book, and cases he even used as examples.

    The State pointed out there were various discrepancies in what was presented to the original pathologist and how that may have influenced his ruling. Dr. Jentzen used police reports, evidence tech and deputy coroner information. The State tried to point out to him that those reports may not be accurate, so to speak, and tried to get him to concede that he might want to take this into consideration in order to change his accidental death decision. The Assistant SA was very animated, for lack of a different term, in how he tried to describe back to Dr. Jentzen of how his theory of a fatal heart attack/fall would have occurred, almost to a point of trying to show how absurd it sounded to repeat back to him.

    Again, Dr. Jentzen used KS’s necklace, folded glasses, clean bathroom, towel on tub as factors in drawing conclusions in his report. Yet, as we’ve discussed before, all of these (except for the glasses) have issues. He was asked “what if” questions, in other words, what if we told you the towel wasn’t there, if that would change his opinion. At one point in the cross, he did concede that it was always possible that her death was a homicide, but not likely.

  101. grandam :

    Keeping it all in the family
    Connection: Camille Abood was Andrew Abood’s uncle, who was in practice with Andrew’s father at his law firm. So, Andrew’s cousin Dr. Chris Abood was married to Ruth Otto Abood, and her sister is married to Jeff Jentzen.

    http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio/?action=view&current=aboodJentzen.jpg

    Grandam, isn’t that Amandareckonwith’s photobucket? Credit where credit is due. ;)

  102. Guys, I know you think this is a bad thing with the doctor/Abood, but I really don’t think it’s more than what it is. A forensic pathologist in the family.

    He is still an expert in his field, and he’s a paid member of the defense team. Whether he’s related to someone on the defense or not, he’s still going to say what the defense wants him to say, within reason of his expertise. If it was an unrelated forensic pathologist, he’s still being paid to see the evidence as slanted towards the defense.

    Unless someone can research and find accurate information that makes this a conflict of interest or “fraud,” I think we need to take this for what it is.

  103. facsmiley :

    grandam :
    Keeping it all in the familyConnection: Camille Abood was Andrew Abood’s uncle, who was in practice with Andrew’s father at his law firm. So, Andrew’s cousin Dr. Chris Abood was married to Ruth Otto Abood, and her sister is married to Jeff Jentzen.
    http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Stacy%20Peterson%20-%20Kathleen%20Savio/?action=view&current=aboodJentzen.jpg

    Grandam, isn’t that Amandareckonwith’s photobucket? Credit where credit is due.

    Yes,it is that’s why I included the link to her site.

  104. judgin :

    Rescue…maybe someone ought to urgently send this information to Glasgow’s office so he can tell it to the judge.

    Even tho Dr. Baden’s testimony can refute what this fraud[mod edit] said, Judge White should be aware that this is what the defense is doing.

    This is outrageous! Fraud!

    Another parrot mimicing DP’s words!

    More servings from JB’s Poo Poo Platter!

    BTW, Judgin, James Glasgow has a brother who is a defense attorney. In fact, he represents Jennifer Schoon, and accompanied her to the Grand Jury early in the investigation. Defense lawyers, prosecutors, have many friends, even family, in various fields, and using them for expert testimony doesn’t make it fraud.

    Can we just move on?

  105. I have to agree with Rescue. It isn’t exactly a conflict of interest to be related by marriage to the family of the lawyer who is paying you to testify on behalf of his client.

    Maybe Brodsky is going to puff up and describe him as an “independent” forensic pathologist but that’s just Joel being Joel. No one really buys that and it’s certainly no secret who he’s working for. Expert witness for the defense.

  106. Grandam, isn’t that Amandareckonwith’s photobucket? Credit where credit is due.

    Yes,it is that’s why I included the link to her site.

    Thanks for doing that; you know how we do like links to sources! Of course, not everyone knows that it her archive, however, so I’m just making sure she is named.

  107. Yeah, what happened to Wecht? Are they saving him for the trial? He looked at the same evidence and came up with the same ‘accidental death’ conclusion. Maybe too expensive.

  108. Oh well, he talked a lot of rubbish no matter who he is related to.

    Having a cake of soap leave bruising on ones chest and inhaling water up ones nostrils after death is a pretty ridiculous statement for any expert in their chosen field regardless if you’re related to Andrew Aboot or not – LOL

  109. facsmiley :Yeah, what happened to Wecht? Are they saving him for the trial? He looked at the same evidence and came up with the same ‘accidental death’ conclusion. Maybe too expensive.

    Yeah, but we don’t know whether they had planned on calling Dr. Wecht, and the delay until today was maybe because he factored in some of the previous testimony, changed him opinion and backed out several days ago, leaving them scrambling for another pathologist. I mean, how long would it really take to read over a few reports and then testify to what the defense tells you to? Yes, I know it’s speculation, but it’s feasible since they clung to his opinion in the past.

  110. facsmiley :
    Yeah, what happened to Wecht? Are they saving him for the trial? He looked at the same evidence and came up with the same ‘accidental death’ conclusion. Maybe too expensive.

    I’d find it hard to believe Cyril Wecht would go for the dangerous cake of soap and water-up-the-nostrils-after-death scenario.

    How much money would be needed to have someone say something so crazy like that ??

  111. There is another thing I remember about an abrasion or bruise that was noted in the autopsy on the buttock. Dr. Jentzen testified that that injury is an artifact, which I believe means is a postmortem injury.

    So, add that to the soap bruises on the breast, and the earlier-in-day bruises that don’t fit in with the bruises cause by the death fall.

  112. Rescue, please tell us that the Prosecution directly asked Jentzen to explain how a dead person could breathe in water. From reading all your notes, I’m not seeing any direct comments about that one glaring issue.

  113. Altgranny – Nope. There’s no explanation that I heard. But, for one thing, it is very difficult to hear all of the testimony at times because of the lack of sound system. Dr. Jentzen was very soft spoken. I was waiting for an answer to that explanation too, but other than me recalling the Assistant SA elaborating and repeating his version of possible scenarios, I did not hear the explanation for how water go into her sinus passages after she died suddenly.

    I just don’t know, I just don’t get it.

  114. rescueapet :
    The majority of the doctor’s time on the stand was because the State questioned him so extensively. As I said, the doctor recently wrote a book, and the State used it to point out how differently he viewed this particular case as opposed to things he described in his book, and cases he even used as examples.

    I find this fascinating. Of ALL the forensic pathologists they choose, this one happens to write a book wherin his testimony is easily shown to contradict his own methods for viewing a death scene?

    Whazzup with that?

  115. Pathologist: Savio’s death an accident
    Defense witness testifies on death of Drew Peterson’s third wife in hearsay hearing

    By Erika Slife and Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporters

    8:02 PM CST, February 17, 2010

    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School, testified Wednesday that he believed Kathleen Savio’s death was an accident likely due to a fall.

    After prosecutors spent a month presenting testimony from 68 witnesses, Drew Peterson’s legal team put its case on in a day by calling two witnesses Wednesday, one of them a pathologist who testified that the drowning death of Peterson’s third wife was an accident.

    The testimony came during a unique pretrial hearing on whether certain hearsay evidence against Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant charged with the 2004 death of Kathleen Savio, can be heard at trial.

    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School, testified that he believed Savio’s death was an accident likely due to a fall.

    “I think she probably slipped,” he said.

    Authorities initially ruled Savio’s death an accident after she was found drowned in an empty tub. But after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, vanished in 2007, Savio’s body was exhumed, and a second autopsy determined she had been killed.

    Jentzen said he came to his conclusion after reviewing the initial autopsy report, photos and other documents, including a police report that said officials at Savio’s autopsy had reached a “consensus” her death was likely an accident.

    A pathologist called by the prosecution had testified that the pattern of Savio’s injuries ruled out the possibility she died from an accidental fall in the tub, but Jentzen disagreed.

    “I believe all the injuries she sustained could have been sustained with a simple fall,” he said.

    Other factors in his decision include a lack of defensive wounds and a “delicate” necklace found around her neck undamaged, he said.

    Jentzen, who served as Milwaukee’s chief medical examiner when officials were investigating the case against serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, said it also was possible that Savio suffered cardiac arrest and fell.

    No signs of a heart attack would have been detected at the autopsy, he said. Savio’s physician had previously testified Savio was diagnosed with a medically insignificant heart murmur in the mid-1990s.

    Assistant Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jentzen if his opinion would change knowing that the police investigation was flawed. Illinois State Police investigators have testified they bungled the Savio case.

    Jentzen said it was a factor he would take into consideration.

    Also testifying Wednesday was Wally Martineck, a neighbor of Peterson’s stepbrother, Thomas Morphey. Morphey has told the court that he confided in Martineck the night he helped Peterson move a barrel that he believed contained Stacy’s body.

    Peterson is the sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance but has not been charged.

    Martineck testified that Morphey was intoxicated, and that he had told him that the body had been moved in a “tote,” rather than a barrel.

    Prosecutors on Friday will call Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by Savio’s family in 2007 to conduct an independent autopsy on her. Also Friday, both sides are expected to make closing arguments.

    eslife@tribune.com

    sschmadeke@tribune.com

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0218-drew-peterson-hearing-20100217,0,6278810,full.story

  116. atlgranny, I believe they felt that would make him seem more credible. He has written on the subject, therefore he must know the difference between an accidental drowning and a homicide… know what I mean?

  117. charmed4sr :
    atlgranny, I believe they felt that would make him seem more credible. He has written on the subject, therefore he must know the difference between an accidental drowning and a homicide… know what I mean?

    Yeah but on the stand he completely contradicted what he wrote in his books about accidental drowning in bath tubs and homicide (!!)

  118. Charmed — that’s what common sense would dictate. But if I understand Rescue’s comment, it sure appeared that Jentzen gave testimony that flew in the face of procedures he recommended in his own book.

    Maybe Brodsky just thought that the Prosecution wouldn’t bother reading the book? :-) (Or, better yet, Brodsky et al never bothered reading the book?)

  119. I also find it fascinating that the Defense team — out of TWENTY WITNESSES — chose to bring in Martineck to contradict Morphey’s testimony that it was a blue barrel and, instead, was a blue tote.

    Did they REALLY think that would make Morphey’s testimony useless?

  120. “I think she probably slipped,” he said.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    And this man has a PHD/MD, teaches at a University, has a CV of 60 pages, writes books about homicide and accidents in bath tubs and this is the best he can do:

    “I-think-she-probably-slipped”

    That is about as vague as you can get – LOL !

  121. Yeah, but I am wondering something else. Besides Walter’s account of what his friend, Morphey told him and his interpretation, there’s many newspaper reports from the early days after Stacy’s disappearance that a neighbor saw Peterson and another man carrying out a container too. Nothing has been mentioned about that neighbor in court. Maybe it’ll be in the trial portion.

  122. Crazy…….just crazy. While I never expected the Defense team to blow me out of the water, I at least expected they’d have a few things that would give them SOME credence. Instead, it was a big yawn.

    Night all!

  123. Considering Joel was pestering Dr. Baden about a thousand ways to slip in the tub and die and if Kathleen could have slipped on the soap, it is not surprising the relative and MD has now come up with this exact scenario !!

  124. justanotherhen :
    Considering Joel was pestering Dr. Baden about a thousand ways to slip in the tub and die and if Kathleen could have slipped on the soap, it is not surprising the relative and MD has now come up with this exact scenario !!

    Sorry it was Dr. BLUM at the end of Joels interrogation how Kathleen could have fallen over and died and the “fall on the soap” trick, see below:

    Both Blum and Baden determined Savio was the victim of a homicide.

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky tried for hours without success to get Blum to concede that Savio’s death might have been a suicide or an accident. He also pieced together various speculative scenarios, such as Savio slipping on a bar of soap, striking her head and drowning.

    “The ugly facts of the injuries destroy that beautiful theory,” Blum said.

    Blum also pointed out that there was no sign of blood or hair on the walls or tub, which led him to believe Savio’s head had been struck by something else.

  125. Ok…so they obviously could not afford to buy Wecht, or Lee. So they bought someone else who just read about it. I see.

    This is soo grossly sick it is pathetic.

    I really pray for justice for both Kathleen and Stacy!

  126. rescueapet :Pathologist: Savio’s death an accidentDefense witness testifies on death of Drew Peterson’s third wife in hearsay hearing
    By Erika Slife and Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporters
    8:02 PM CST, February 17, 2010
    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School, testified Wednesday that he believed Kathleen Savio’s death was an accident likely due to a fall.
    [snipped]
    Prosecutors on Friday will call Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by Savio’s family in 2007 to conduct an independent autopsy on her. Also Friday, both sides are expected to make closing arguments.
    eslife@tribune.com
    sschmadeke@tribune.com
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0218-drew-peterson-hearing-20100217,0,6278810,full.story

    ~~~~~
    I anticipate that on Friday, SA Glasgow will have Dr. Baden’s complete Savio Autopsy Report entered into evidence.

    SA Glasgow will ask questions and Dr. Baden will blow them away with his concise expert testimony.

    On more than one of the news chanels, Dr. Baden stated that he believes within 99 plus percent accuracy that Kathleen Savio was beaten up and murdered.

    Dr. Baden will support the findings and testimony of Dr. Blum.

    IMO, Dr. Baden does not see things that are not there. One of the defense attorneys will try to discredit Dr. Baden’s findings and testimony, but will not be successful.

  127. Pathologist: Kathleen Savio died accidentally

    February 18, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s defense team trotted out a doctor of their own to provide several theories on how Kathleen Savio might have accidentally died in her bathtub.

    Jeffrey Jentzen, a forensic pathologist and professor at the University of Michigan, took the stand Wednesday as the first defense witness and testified that he concluded Savio was not the victim of a homicide.

    “It’s my opinion that it’s an accidental death,” Jentzen said. He made this decision after reviewing reports from three autopsies conducted on Savio’s remains, police and coroner reports, and crime scene and postmortem photographs.

    Ruling to be sealed

    Jentzen’s testimony came on the 17th day of the pivotal hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial. Peterson is charged with killing Savio, who was his third wife, in March 2004.

    The state police insisted Savio’s death was accidental and clung to this notion until Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007.

    State police suspect Peterson may have killed Stacy as well but have not charged him with harming her. Prosecutors are still trying to prove he did do her in to keep her from testifying against him.

    When the hearing finally ends, Judge Stephen White will determine if any of 15 hearsay statements can be used against Peterson during his murder trial. State’s Attorney James Glasgow on Wednesday confirmed that White will keep his decision under seal until the start of the trial.

    Prosecutors called 68 witnesses to make their case, and have another in store for Friday, when celebrity medical examiner Michael Baden is scheduled to take the stand.

    Baden performed the second of two autopsies on Savio’s body after it was exhumed from Hillside’s Queen of Heaven Cemetery in November 2007. The autopsy was broadcast on the Fox News Channel, a network Baden frequently appears on.

    Accident theories

    On Wednesday, Jentzen concurred with the findings of three other forensic pathologists — including Baden — in figuring that Savio drowned.

    But Jentzen then unveiled a theory in which he said Savio might actually have suffered a heart attack and inhaled bathwater into her sinuses after she was already dead.

    He also speculated that she may have slipped, fallen, hit her head, passed out and drowned, or possibly fainted before falling and hitting her head.

    Drew Peterson’s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, also had trouble maintaining consciousness during Wednesday’s hearing, as he repeatedly nodded off while Jentzen testified.

    Morphey’s friend

    After Jentzen, defense attorney George Lenard called Walter Martineck to the witness stand. Martineck is a long-time friend of Peterson’s stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, the man who claims to have helped Peterson dispose of Stacy’s body.

    Morphey testified on the second day of the hearing that he gave Peterson a hand carrying a blue barrel containing Stacy’s body out of the Peterson home and to a waiting sport utility vehicle.

    On Wednesday, Martineck said he remembered Morphey telling him he carried a rectangular “tote” and not a barrel.

    Martineck also said Morphey was intoxicated and upset the night he told of supposedly carrying a container with Stacy inside and called his friend “a damn good person.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2054927,Peterson-hearing-pathologist_SCN021710.article

  128. I see now why defense just wanted to shove his testimony through without cross. They didn’t even want to reveal who it was in advance,so the SAs couldn’t look up his book, but they were too sharp. (doctor’s services cheaper if he doesn’t have to appear, too.) I agree it doesn’t matter if he’s related to the attorney.

    What does matter is if one falls backwards to hit one’s head on the tub edge it’s physically impossible (as in the laws of physics) to bounce or be flung the opposite way around unless perhaps one’s head is actually placed at or below one’s centre of gravity. I look forward to the tub demonstrations in court.

  129. bucketoftea :Money. Expert winessing is quite an industry, and there’s something there for everyone.

    I never realized how many companies actually offered this service until I googled “paid expert witnesses.” It is quite an industry, and there definitely is something for everyone, for the right price. Scary.

  130. Drew Peterson’s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, also had trouble maintaining consciousness during Wednesday’s hearing, as he repeatedly nodded off while Jentzen testified.
    ———————-
    This still cracks me up. Wonder how many times Andrew had to elbow him or kick his shoe. Too funny.

  131. Rescue, I can’t thank you enough for being our eyes and ears in this. I know it wasn’t easy getting up and parking in the north forty, having to walk, not to mention the excellent notes.
    Are you for hire? (LOL Just kidding, Rescue!This was a labor of love, I’m sure.)
    Thanks bunches!

  132. CFS – I may be going for Friday’s hearing, yes, although not sure yet. ;-)

    Cheryljones – thank you for your nice comments. I appreciate that. I wish everyone had the opportunity to see in court such a high profile case for themselves. What an experience!

    The jury will surely have a monumental task. There is so much technical and scientific information that has and will come out that can be intimidating. I think that it gets lost on the folks that may be the ones that have to sort this all out, but, my instinct tells me that the aspects that stand out that are easy to understand, i.e., like yesterday’s pathologist saying Kathleen still was able to suck in water after death, will be what the jury takes in and remembers. Or maybe there will be a “CSI moment” that will make them sit up and pay attention, that puts Drew in the trick bag. Who knows. So far, we haven’t heard much in the way of showing Drew wasn’t able to carry out this killing.

    As it is now, to me, the defense is trying to make a complicated scenario of unusual and non-routine events seem plausible in order to believe that Kathleen died by an accident, and I just don’t see it. However, that still doesn’t prove Peterson is the murderer.

    Which gets you to the next step, and that will be his time line and availability during the hours of Kathleen’s death. Of course, the money gain, the motive, the knowledge of crime scenes, etc., will also factor in. As we’ve heard, it appears that Tom Peterson is going to speak up, as a 10 year old boy at the time, and be his father’s alibi. If he doesn’t come across as being genuinely knowledgeable about his father’s whereabouts, and even admit that he was aware of his parents having a difficult, sometimes violent relationship, then it may backfire for the defense, and people might just find that intolerable using him as the back-up alibi.

    We’ll see.

  133. Resue — also, ditto. Wish I could be there, but sure glad that you were! Hopefully you can make it tomorrow.

    Regarding the confusion of hearing all that data. Thankfully, juries are now able to take notes during the trial. I pray that there will be several different types of “learning styles” in that group who can disseminate the information collectively to make sense of it all.

  134. When Dr. Jentzen is back on the stand during the trial, here’s what I would want to hear him answer.

    If a murderer had found an inconspicuous way into Kathleen’s house, confronted her while she was upstairs laying on her bed reading, murdered her, which presumably created a chaotic mess in the bedroom and/or adjoining bathroom, placed her body in the tub, then wanted her to be discovered as having had an accident, what should the bedroom and/or adjoining bathroom have looked like if the killer intended to cover-up the murder and chaotic crime scene? Should the answer be nothing out of place, clean floors and walls, no water spots anywhere from water splashing out of the tub onto the floor?

    If the good doctor decided to use a towel in his report as part of his observations, why didn’t the defense fill him in on this?

    Emergency medical technician Louis Oleszkiewicz testified that a towel shown in crime scene photos alongside the tub was not there when he arrived. Under questioning from a defense attorney, he said he did not see a bathrobe and two towels shown in a photo, hung on the inside of the bathroom door, which were not visible when the door was open.

    Three towels must have been hung on that door, and one leaped itself out and alongside the bath tub so that it could be in the photo shots. But, assuming that it was there all along and everyone apparently missed it, even though Ms. Pontarelli & family specifically said to “look around” because there was no bath mat or towels at the time of the discovery of Kathleen, the doctor still uses that towel in his observation that it was part of a routine that shows Kathleen was in the midst of a bath.

    Get the hook and get this guy outta here.

  135. Rescue, if it just weren’t such a commute from Texas to Joliet…
    ***
    I know we’re all waiting for the REAL trial! Wonder if the defense is still anxious to get started. Sounds like the prosecution is in good shape.

  136. Okay, now we have a puzzling aspect here. A forensic doctor has testified that a towel alongside the bat tub was used by him in his observations as part of a routine of an accidental drowning victim. That is, she had a towel alongside the bath tub. Yet, it can reasonably be shown that the first people at the discovery of the body saw no towel(s), and/or clothes and specifically called that out. The emergency medical responder also said there was no towel.

    If there was no towel there and one amazingly appeared, the logical conclusion is that someone at the scene put it there. Why would the Pontarelli’s put it there or the paramedics? Who would be the logical choice? Hmmmm. Who was in the bathroom alone with the body after shooing everyone out to preserve a potential “crime scene.”

  137. When Dr. Jentzen does an autopsy on a person that has died suddenly, possibly from a heart attack, what kind of tests does he perform to detect that? In his testimony, he said: No signs of a heart attack would have been detected at the autopsy.

    If he’s ever done an autopsy where he ruled the decedent had a heart attack, I’d sure like to hear how he came to that conclusion, if, as in Kathleen’s case, “no signs of a heart attack would have been detected at the autopsy.”

    I want to have him apply his heart attack discovery technique to Kathleen’s findings, so he can detect whether she did, by his ways, have a heart attack, or prove she didn’t.

  138. cheryljones :

    Rescue, if it just weren’t such a commute from Texas to Joliet…
    ***
    I know we’re all waiting for the REAL trial! Wonder if the defense is still anxious to get started. Sounds like the prosecution is in good shape.

    Hey Cheryl, I wish you could make it, LOL.

    Just saw the news about the plane going into an office building in Texas. Wow!

  139. Rescue: “If there was no towel there and one amazingly appeared, the logical conclusion is that someone at the scene put it there. Why would the Pontarelli’s put it there or the paramedics? Who would be the logical choice? Hmmmm. Who was in the bathroom alone with the body after shooing everyone out to preserve a potential ‘crime scene.’”

    Precisely! I was wondering why someone hasn’t come forward to say they put the towel there — especially since the Pontarelli’s specifically said there were no towels.

    The other reall ODD thing is that there was a container of cleaning fluid near the tub. Why would such a thing be there and why didn’t that raise suspicions with the first responders at the scene?

  140. Well, the thing about the cleaning fluid is, maybe Kathleen wasn’t really taking a bath. Maybe she was cleaning up the bathroom, filled up the tub with a little water, got in, and started wiping the walls and tub. The doctor was asked how much water was needed to drown in, and he answered that, although I wasn’t quite able to hear his answer. The only problem with that is, the cleaning cloths vaporized and went down the drain. Or, she was using her bare hands to scrub down the tub and surrounding walls. She didn’t put a bath mat alongside the tub to get out on because she was going to wipe up the floor anyway. With the cleaning cloths that vaporized down the drain, managing to bypass the closed stopper because they disintegrated, mind you, or her bare hands.

  141. Rescue, TOTALLY agree. I said yesterday that he evidently didn’t do any reasearch and obviously only testified to that which the defense hired/instructed him. The towel is no different than the soap he said caused Kathleen’s fingerprint bruises. There was no soap from what I’ve read and heard, and even if there had been, falling in a full tub of water would have buffered her fall somewhat. But beyond that, who puts the soap in the tub before they get in it? Seriously, how many people throw a bar of soap in the water first? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just place it on the side of the tub, if it wasn’t already there in the first place, if for nothing else, to PREVENT yourself from slipping on it? If this wasn’t so serious, it would be comical. What has been written and said about Jentzen’s nonsensical testimony basically proves, to me anyway, that it’s a paid/coached effort by the defense to try to fulfill their need for an expert testimony to dispute the expert testimony of the State. If the defense intends to use Dr. Jentzen’s same testimony at trial (and it will HAVE to be the same exact testimony, or he perjures himself) I can’t help but think a jury will clearly see through his more ridiculous statements as merely being a paid mouthpiece by and for the defense. Nothing more, nothing less. Seriously, who’s going to really believe someone can still breathe after they’re dead? He pretty much discredited the defense’s argument of accident yesterday, regardless of what Abood said.

  142. rescueapet :Well, the thing about the cleaning fluid is, maybe Kathleen wasn’t really taking a bath. Maybe she was cleaning up the bathroom, filled up the tub with a little water, got in, and started wiping the walls and tub. The doctor was asked how much water was needed to drown in, and he answered that, although I wasn’t quite able to hear his answer. The only problem with that is, the cleaning cloths vaporized and went down the drain. Or, she was using her bare hands to scrub down the tub and surrounding walls. She didn’t put a bath mat alongside the tub to get out on because she was going to wipe up the floor anyway. With the cleaning cloths that vaporized down the drain, managing to bypass the closed stopper because they disintegrated, mind you, or her bare hands.

    Yeah, and everyone washes/cleans their bathroom down at 2/3 in the morning…

  143. Oh, didn’t know that!!! That’s interesting. This particular forensic pathologist, however, wouldn’t find that troublesome, even though he used minute details like a fragile necklace and bath towel in coming to certain conclusions.

    Guess he doesn’t think cleaning fluid on a dresser of a naked dead woman in a waterless tub is unusual either.

    I think Dr. Jentzen has come to show us how absurd coming to a conclusion such as his really is. The State couldn’t have used a better guy themselves to show a jury what an opposite, bizarre conclusion of Kathleen’s death would be.

  144. facsmiley :The cleaning fluid was actually on her dresser. I think they described it as being “near the bathroom”.

    Some of the articles did say it was on her dresser, and even that was strange to me.

  145. cfs7360 :

    rescueapet :Well, the thing about the cleaning fluid is, maybe Kathleen wasn’t really taking a bath. Maybe she was cleaning up the bathroom, filled up the tub with a little water, got in, and started wiping the walls and tub. The doctor was asked how much water was needed to drown in, and he answered that, although I wasn’t quite able to hear his answer. The only problem with that is, the cleaning cloths vaporized and went down the drain. Or, she was using her bare hands to scrub down the tub and surrounding walls. She didn’t put a bath mat alongside the tub to get out on because she was going to wipe up the floor anyway. With the cleaning cloths that vaporized down the drain, managing to bypass the closed stopper because they disintegrated, mind you, or her bare hands.

    Yeah, and everyone washes/cleans their bathroom down at 2/3 in the morning…

    It was reported he said adults can drown in a inch or less. Hell, most noses are wider than an inch, and that would at least keep you mouth out of the water, lol. Not only that, if she was taking a bath and got in the tub, then it would have been full, or at least high enough for her satisfaction. Otherwise, when she got in, the water would still have been running, which it wasn’t when she was found. I don’t think they’re going to try to argue that she was taking a one inch bath, do you?

  146. A jury wants to hear credible information that might help to exonerate a defendant, but this is far from achieving that goal.

    I do recall now that the Assistant State’s Attorney did point out to the doctor that the crime scene technician, who’s information he used in his report/conclusion, said he didn’t see bruising on Kathleen and said that would not be significant to him. That was to ask the doctor if that would cause him to reconsider his conclusion. I recall that he answered with a non-answer. In other words, I do not recall an admission that it was problematic to him.

  147. All of this is just so far-fetched that I can’t imagine being in a courtroom and not busting out laughing.

    Rescue — in listening to the back and forth, did you get the impression that the Prosecution trounced the Defense or is it just our arm-chair quarterbacking that makes it seem so obvious? (i.e., in questioning Martineck, did it come off as pretty ridiculous that the Defense was harping on whether the container was a “tote” or a “barrel”?)

  148. rescueapet :A jury wants to hear credible information that might help to exonerate a defendant, but this is far from achieving that goal.
    I do recall now that the Assistant State’s Attorney did point out to the doctor that the crime scene technician, who’s information he used in his report/conclusion, said he didn’t see bruising on Kathleen and said that would not be significant to him. That was to ask the doctor if that would cause him to reconsider his conclusion. I recall that he answered with a non-answer. In other words, I do not recall an admission that it was problematic to him.

    It’s just painfully obvious that Dr. Jentzen does not want to stray whatsoever from the original findings in this case. No surprise there.

  149. atlgranny :

    All of this is just so far-fetched that I can’t imagine being in a courtroom and not busting out laughing.

    Rescue — in listening to the back and forth, did you get the impression that the Prosecution trounced the Defense or is it just our arm-chair quarterbacking that makes it seem so obvious? (i.e., in questioning Martineck, did it come off as pretty ridiculous that the Defense was harping on whether the container was a “tote” or a “barrel”?)

    Think about this. You’re on this blog reading what I observed, and looking at and reading what the reporters heard and noted.

    You know what you’ve learned from life experiences. Say, taking a bath and how you prepare for one, maybe even slipping yourself; you’ve heard about autopsies being done on sudden death victims and learning that the heart was damaged from an attack; you’ve never ever before heard a scientific explanation for a dead woman still able to breath in water. If I am not mistaken, you’ve never, ever heard a doctor admit that an autopsy would not show evidence of a heart attack.

    The State pointed out to the doctor that KS had deep bruising on her body, yet, in his scenario, she fell into water, which should have cushioned her fall. He said it’s possible she had three separate impacts. So, visualize that scenario in your mind–falling backward, hitting head, lunging forward, twisting body, hitting something (side of tub?), a couple of times, then hitting the water, and getting bruised on the breast by soap. You tell me if the State “trounced” the defense, just by these points.

    As to Mr. Martineck, the defense wanted him to say that the description he gave was what Morphey told him, so they could prove that Morphey’s description has changed over time. Instead, I believe Mr. Martineck wanted to say that he interpreted what he was hearing that awful night and conveyed it in his own terms/perception. In other words, if you take it for what it’s worth, it is just the defense trying to make a big issue out of the name you’d call a container, and what size it absolutely was. Mr. Martineck meant to explain, I believe, that the container was large enough in which to have held a body. In anyone’s life experiences, try to imagine a sudden chaotic event you’ve been through, and imagine trying to go back and remember the absolute facts of it. Relaying it back incorrectly doesn’t make you a liar, does it? When calmness returns, you try and reconstruct what you went through, but it might not always come out as absolutely accurate.

    My take on the defense’s Martineck testimony is worthless to me. Too many other factors come into play that make it more than they want it to be. In fact, the defense has nothing to work with, and it shows.

  150. It is still the Drew and Joel Show and a pretty sorry state of affairs if someone with credentials as Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen openly backs the nonsense from the first investigation, in which the investigators themselves have said they didn’t investigate anything and try pass such testimony as credible in a Courtroom.

    In doing so they are only making the case for the Prosecution stronger !!

  151. What do you think about this?

    Assistant Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jentzen if his opinion would change knowing that the police investigation was flawed. Illinois State Police investigators have testified they bungled the Savio case.

    Jentzen said it was a factor he would take into consideration.

  152. rescueapet :
    What do you think about this?

    Assistant Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jentzen if his opinion would change knowing that the police investigation was flawed. Illinois State Police investigators have testified they bungled the Savio case.
    Jentzen said it was a factor he would take into consideration.

    Jentzen said it was a factor he would take into consideration but nowhere does he say he did and his testimony is just a repeat and an addition of more nonsense than what was already out there (such as the killer soap for example).

  153. rescueapet :What do you think about this?

    Assistant Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jentzen if his opinion would change knowing that the police investigation was flawed. Illinois State Police investigators have testified they bungled the Savio case.
    Jentzen said it was a factor he would take into consideration.

    I saw that yesterday and commented that he would have been wise to have done some research before he testified. At least he would have known a whole hell of a lot more than he appeared to about this case, and maybe more of his “expert” testimony would have been more credible. Maybe. There were just too many things he didn’t know that overshadowed what he did know, you know?? :)

    At any rate, to answer your question Rescue, it was just a rhetorical answer to me. What else could he say? My gripe is his committment (paid or otherwise) to testify as an “expert” pathologist in this case, and coming into it with virtually no knowledge of anything except the original reports. Naturally his testimony was going to be a reflection of those, which all state ACCIDENT! I mean GEEZ, has the man been living with the corpses in his morgue while an extended family member has been defending one of the most high profile cases in the country? Give me a break. He’s just a mouthpiece for the defense, and I seriously doubt they would encourage him to take anything into consideration, other than what they want him to, which is to believe everything in the original investigation. They really have no chance otherwise, not that they have much a chance at acquittal anyway.

    Of course, Jentzen could still research on his own, listen to the testimonies of Blum and Baden, change his opinion, and subsequently withdraw as a defense witness, but then again, he did say the dead could breathe, so maybe not.

  154. I have no doubt that Dr. Jentzen is an esteemed forensic pathologist, and I don’t question his credentials or opinions. I just take his testimony at face value – as that of a paid expert witness for the defense.

    That said, it does seem a little funny that his bios all proudly state that he handled the Jeffrey Dahmer case. That’s not exactly a nod to his skill as a pathologist. I mean, you see a head in a refrigerator — it’s a pretty safe bet someone cut it off and put it there. Not very likely the victim had a heart attack, slipped, fell, and decapitated himself on a bar of soap. Even Jentzen said, “It was more like dismantling a museum than a death investigation.”

  155. rescueapet :

    Yeah, laughing. That’s it. One guy couldn’t stop laughing. The other guy fell asleep from boredom.

    Me? They had me in cuffs, see? They slapped me around, see? and then I said, “Hey fellas, I’m more than just a pretty face.” and that’s all it took. They wept from shame at their oversight and their stupidity. They unlocked the cuffs and vowed to friend me on Facebook. Will I accept? I don’t know. The young one was kind of cute…

  156. IMO Jentzen made a bad situation for the Defense considerably worse with his testimony.

    If his statements had shown some form of dignified relevance to the mans expertise in his field (which is supposedly quite considerable) he would have given the Defense some credibility, but he joined the Circus and entered the realm of nonsense with the soap scenario, heart attack, a fall in all directions and post mortem breathing.

    Who was he trying to fool ?

  157. facsmiley :

    ruger44 :
    Wow, I think this really speaks volumes. Only 1 week after Stacy went missing, listen to what Mike Mike Puccinelli says at 2:40 into this Fox video. I can’t even imagine my adult son feeling this way about me.
    http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=37030@wbbm.dayport.com

    Eric did testify for the prosection at the hearsay hearings. Maybe he’ll have even more to say wehn teh case goes to trial.

    Yep, hopefully now (that Dads behind bars) he can lay his fears to rest…

  158. rescueapet February 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm | #197

    The prosecution has the death scene pics AND the actual bathtub in which Kathleen was found dead when she allegedly was taking a bath.

    IMO, at Trial we will see that bathtub in a mockup bathroom and possibly a computerized program showing a female model who would be playing the role of Kathleen. She will be demonstrating each of the different theories presented by prosecution and the defense. The jury won’t have to use their imagination, they will be able to see which ‘theory’ fits.

    Maybe at Trial we will also see an identical blue ‘barrel’ and/or blue ‘tote’ as described by Tom Morphey. Prosecution may even have a computerized program showing exactly how he helped DP carry out the warm container from the master bedroom and place it in the back of the vehicle.

  159. facsmiley :

    rescueapet :
    Yeah, laughing. That’s it. One guy couldn’t stop laughing. The other guy fell asleep from boredom.

    Me? They had me in cuffs, see? They slapped me around, see? and then I said, “Hey fellas, I’m more than just a pretty face.” and that’s all it took. They wept from shame at their oversight and their stupidity. They unlocked the cuffs and vowed to friend me on Facebook. Will I accept? I don’t know. The young one was kind of cute…

    We’re just glad they let you both go and get the site back up. You never know with feds and wiseguys how it’s gonna work out for you. You two were really lucky. L)

  160. judgin :rescueapet February 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm | #197
    The prosecution has the death scene pics AND the actual bathtub in which Kathleen was found dead when she allegedly was taking a bath.
    IMO, at Trial we will see that bathtub in a mockup bathroom and possibly a computerized program showing a female model who would be playing the role of Kathleen. She will be demonstrating each of the different theories presented by prosecution and the defense. The jury won’t have to use their imagination, they will be able to see which ‘theory’ fits.
    Maybe at Trial we will also see an identical blue ‘barrel’ and/or blue ‘tote’ as described by Tom Morphey. Prosecution may even have a computerized program showing exactly how he helped DP carry out the warm container from the master bedroom and place it in the back of the vehicle.

    Yeah Judgin. That’s a far cry from the original mucked up reports, huh? Like Facs, I agree Dr. Jentzen has excellent credentials. What he didn’t have was the case background past those first reports, and what’s happened past those reports is the reason why he was testifying in court to begin with.

  161. I’m wondering (it’s too obious) if he isn’t just doing Abood a favor helping him present his client’s ‘theory’ because the defense couldn’t get anyone else to do it.

    We all know DP is driving that bus from ditch to ditch and is heading straight for the edge of the cliff.

  162. I don’t know Judgin. Quite possibly. Regardless, his testimony seemed to create more problems for the defense than it solved, mostly due to his being uninformed about crime scene witness statements and a shoddy, incompetent investigation. However, he claimed to have used crime scene photos and reports, so why would he not have been aware of the statements? Just doesn’t make sense if he read the reports why he claims he wasn’t aware the towel wasn’t there at first, unless he deliberately overlooked a lot of stuff. Aren’t the statements just as crucial as the photos? My gosh, Drew is about to stand trial for murder. If anything, Jentzen probably should have devoted his testimony to the reasons why there was no way it could be a homicide since he “believes” it was an accident, but I guess that would have been almost impossible to do, as he even conceded in his testimony that it could be a homicide, although not likely. IDK. It was just another poor decision to add to a long, long, LONG list of them.

  163. Rescue in #197: “As to Mr. Martineck, the defense wanted him to say that the description he gave was what Morphey told him, so they could prove that Morphey’s description has changed over time. Instead, I believe Mr. Martineck wanted to say that he interpreted what he was hearing that awful night and conveyed it in his own terms/perception. In other words, if you take it for what it’s worth, it is just the defense trying to make a big issue out of the name you’d call a container, and what size it absolutely was.”

    cfs @ #207: “I saw that yesterday and commented that he would have been wise to have done some research before he testified. At least he would have known a whole hell of a lot more than he appeared to about this case, and maybe more of his “expert” testimony would have been more credible. Maybe. There were just too many things he didn’t know that overshadowed what he did know, you know??”

    jah @ #214: “IMO Jentzen made a bad situation for the Defense considerably worse with his testimony.”
    ===================================================

    What still makes me laugh is that the Defense Team thinks they have this locked up, yet the only two witnesses they put forth gave testimony that really hurt their case rather than help it. This testimony was in front of a judge — someone not easily swayed by emotional or vague responses.

    They’re TOAST! (IMHO, of course :-))

  164. It was a brilliant move by the Prosecution to put Sgt. Collins on the stand almost immediately, then Bob Deel, the locksmith etc as their testimonies put the Defense in such a awkward position there is almost no escape.

    Anybody testifying for the Defense in any professional capacity, well and truly puts their reputation on the line by having to back up and support a totally flawed, totally messed up or pretty much non existent investigation, the above professionals all without fail already attested to themselves.

    By reaping significant benefits from the results of this flawed investigation, Drew simultaneously painted himself into a corner, which of course nearly five years ago he had no idea it was going to bite him on the a.. one day.

    This day has now arrived and it is all starting to unravel (!!)

  165. altgranny, I’m looking forward to hearing what Dr. Baden has to say tomorrow, as well as the closing arguments. Wonder who will be making them for the defense? Brodsky stammers and stutters through nearly every sentence, and never completes a thought, so one of the other defense attorneys may do the honors. Besides, he dozed through their most crucial testimony, so he probably missed some stuff that he needed to know. :D

  166. @JAH: Anybody testifying for the Defense in any professional capacity, well and truly puts their reputation on the line by having to back up and support a totally flawed, totally messed up or pretty much non existent investigation, the above professionals all without fail already attested to themselves
    ======================================
    Exactly! Well said.

  167. Besides, he dozed through their most crucial testimony, so he probably missed some stuff that he needed to know.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Joel Brodsky stayed awake through 68 witnesses for the Prosecution but when his own 2 witnesses took the stand he was asleep.

    You can’t make this stuff up – LOL !

  168. justanotherhen :
    Joel Brodsky stayed awake through 68 witnesses for the Prosecution but when his own 2 witnesses took the stand he was asleep.
    You can’t make this stuff up – LOL !

    I know! It’s really pitiful.

    Rescue, do you know if you’ll be able to go tomorrow? I have no idea where Joliet is in relation to where you are, but I’m sure it’s no picnic!

  169. Alt – No, I think I’m going to pass on going tomorrow. The courthouse is about 35 miles away from where I am. To get a seat in that small courtroom, it requires getting there in line for the doors to open at 8:30. If it’s particularly busy on a given day, the line moves slowly to get everyone through the security check.

    There were many reporters and tv crew people there Wednesday, so I would anticipate they’ll be as many, if not more, on Friday. Dr. Baden is a well-known forensic scientist, and closing arguments are coming, so it’ll be a full courtroom. I am wondering which of the defense attorneys is going to give the closing argument. I really don’t care what the defense’s closing argument is, since they don’t have many points to expound on. I would like to hear the State’s closing argument to hear how they’ll pull the testimony all together.

  170. Perhaps in closing arguments the prosecution (I keep wanting to shorten that to the “pros” which is appropriate, don’t you think?) will play hay with the attack of the avenging soap and the breathing after death. I can honestly say that I don’t believe I’ve ever heard more balderdash in my life. MOO, again.
    ***
    “Me? They had me in cuffs, see? They slapped me around, see? and then I said, “Hey fellas, I’m more than just a pretty face.” and that’s all it took. They wept from shame at their oversight and their stupidity. They unlocked the cuffs and vowed to friend me on Facebook. Will I accept? I don’t know. The young one was kind of cute…”
    Maybe they’ll help you raise that barn in Farmville! LOL

Comments are closed.