Drew Peterson trial – day ten. Mistrial motion withdrawn. Trial resumes

UPDATE 05:00:

Savio did not have the three main contributing factors that most commonly result in death in a bathtub according to Dr. Blum. The three D’s: drugs, drinking and disease, could cause an otherwise healthy person to slip and fall in the bathtub Blum said. Savio had none of those issues at the time of her death. When drowning is the cause of death “in an otherwise healthy female at age 40, one looks for risk factors.”
Blum is wrapping up his testimony explaining how he considers circumstances, the autopsy and the scene to make a determination. “So, based on the injuries and the circumstances…”
The judge interrupts, calls the parties to a sidebar.
Glasgow says he probably has 30 min left with witness; judge will advise jury to disregard part of testimony, reconvene in the morning.
Court is adjourned for the day.

UPDATE 04:11:

Dr. Blum is shown a chart of the injuries he just described. Defense objects three times as the prosecution asks him about the “demonstrative aid”. Sustained.
Blum: “The overall distribution [of injuries] shows anterior, or what we call front of the body, bruising.”
Blum on Savio’s head wound “The laceration did not go through to the bone, it was a partial tear.”
Blum says the wound was made by a blunt edge, he didn’t find any blunt edges near bathtub that would cause wound.
Savio had two abrasions on her left elbow that were roughly an hour old, Blum said.
Savio also had fresh abrasions on her right hand/wrist, Blum said.
Right hand “Round oval abrasion where the top layer of skin is abraded off…again within an hour of death”Blum describes abrasions on both hands around knuckles that were “fresh, within 24 hours”
Blum describes hemorrhaging and bruises on right side of collar-bone “less than 24 hours”
Meczyk objects. “I’m sorry to interrupt the witness, your honor, I blurted out objection, and I don’t have one.”

UPDATE 03:31:

Direct examination resumes.
Blum points out “a red substance” on Savio’s nose and cheek. “It’s blood.”
“We call these post-mortem wounds. If a wound occurs after death, and is in a position that gravity will drain blood from it, blood will continue to drip from that wound. It can drip for quite some time.
“This gravity flow pattern of blood, would be impossible to occur if her face were down in the water at that time.” “When blood hits the water it disperses, it would not create that sort of trickle that you see here.”
Once the heart stops, how long would the blood continue to flow out of that wound? “Minutes. Just a matter of minutes.”
So if her face was in water during that time, we would not see the dried blood on her face? “Absolutely not.”
Blum discusses bruises and how you can tell by color if they are fresh.
Defense objection – overruled.
Blum says contusion on body is less than 24 hours old
Blum says contusions on both shins less than 24 hours old.
Blum: a “great amount” of force needed to produce bruises as deep as Savio’s.
Defense objects to state’s request to publish a photo, asks to approach the bench.

UPDATE 03:00:

Judge gave prior instruction to NOT let witness get into that he actually climbed into the tub.
At least this time the witness actually blurted it out rather than the state asking about it.
Judge asked Glasgow “Didn’t you tell the doctor not to talk about getting into the tub?” Glasgow: “I told him that”
Court in recess.
Peterson is standing up behind the defense table, watching people milling around the courtroom.
Now attorneys arguing to judge.
Defense: This was an innocent blurting out, I accept that representation. However, the harm has been done.
Attorney Meczyk asks judge to ban entire Blum testimony. “This can’t go on and on and on,” Meczyk says as he pounds table.
Glasgow: He’s simply looking at the bathtub. He’s not going to stand up and do a slip and fall. We wouldn’t do that.
Glasgow: ” These are the facts. That last line about getting into the bathtub happened quickly. But we were not getting into a reenactment”
Request to strike entire testimony is denied, Judge gives stern instructions to state to better prep their witnesses.

UPDATE 02:45:

Blum is asked if anything appears to be knocked over in the photos of the Kathleen’s bathroom. He indicates that only “this little duck appears to be on its side”.
Dr. Blum on photo of Savio’s body in tub: “The right foot is crossed over into the sole of the left foot. The heel is up here, on the right foot. What stands out in the photograph is the very sharp angle the toes are in in relation to the rest of her foot. These are virtually 90 degree angles. These toes on her right foot are extremely extended, or bent back, even causing prevention of lividity in this area of the body.”
Does that indicate anything to you? “It does, yes. In the context of this case, for a foot to just float down after loss of consciousness in the drowning process, I don’t believe it could physically do that.”
“The fingers were up against the breast, giving rise to those fingertip marks. The breast is bluish in color, because of blood settling in the body.”
“The walls of the tub are smooth, and they are narrow .”
“I felt the two biggest pieces of evidence in this case were the body and the tub. So I felt it was extremely important to examine the scene.”
What did you determine? “Smooth, slippery. I did not put any water in the tub myself, I didn’t take a bath or anything, but I crawled in with my regular clothes.”
Defense objects/Sustained.
The judge calls the attorneys to a sidebar.
Prosecution is in trouble again for drawing out barred testimony from a witness.

UPDATE 02:10:

Mitchell’s report essentially details a healthy, normal female who drowned.
Could you review what diagnosis Dr. Mitchell made? “The diagnosis included cerebral edema; that’s the brain swelling we just talked about some moderate pulmonary edema. Water in the sinuses.” Objection/Overruled. “Congestion is seen in virtually all deaths. Again, a very non-specific, general finding. The laceration to the scalp, the back of the head. The mild mitral valve thickening and toxicology is negative.”
Larry Blum performed the second at a Will County facility in 2007. “Body was still in the casket when it was brought in”
Blum: there was a lot of water in the casket and marked deterioration of the tissues of Savio’s body
Blum obtained Savio’s 10 fingernails right away, and sent them to the Illinois State CSI, hairs as well.
Blum on bruising to the lower right quadrant of Savio’s body: “it was large in size, and it went all the way down to the bone, it was a deep contusion.”
Jury told again that Savio had no drugs, alcohol in system when she drowned in tub.
Blum went to Savio’s death scene a week after the second autopsy was completed in 2007.
Dr, Blum looks at photographs of Savio’s bathroom and IDs it as such.

UPDATE 01:28:

Judge is back in the courtroom
State to call Forensic pathologist Larry Blum to the witness stand.
SA James Glasgow begins direct examination.
“I’m a medical doctor specializing in forensic pathology.” He briefly goes over his educational and professional background.
Since becoming a doctor, he’s performed over 10,000 autopsies. “Not counting today,” he’s been qualified as an expert 587 times. The witness is now qualified as an expert, without defense objection.
Blum reviewed Dr. Mitchell’s 2004 autopsy report. State asks Blum to walk through it.
Based on Dr. Mitchell’s report, Savio appeared to be in good physical condition.
Mitchell noted in the autopsy report that Savio’s “tongue was partially clenched in the teeth”
Mitchell examined both Savio’s fingers and toe nails as being “short and clean.”
Blum on Mitchel report: Body cavities were seeming to be normal, no excess fluid in the organs.
Mitchell’s report shows Savio’s neck was without injury
(You can read the report at the ink above)
Mitchell’s report showed Savio’s lung was “a little on the heavy side” compared to the average lung
Mitchell’s report showed “less than a teaspoon of fluid was present in the stomach during the autopsy”
Mitchell’s report concluded that there was brain swelling, water in lungs, fluid in sinus, and congestion.

UPDATE 11:51:

Prosecutions objection overruled.
Prosecutor James Glasgow gets up to say something about judge’s hearsay ruling and judge tells him to sit down.
Back on cross again.
Kernc confirms that Savio made it sound like DP wasn’t angry but tired and upset.
Kernc says she spoke to Peterson. He didn’t deny going over to the home that day (Savio had told Kernc that Drew said he would deny being there).
Greenberg: “Do you recall that Savio told Mary Pontarelli that her and Drew Peterson had a ‘nice conversation?'”
Kernc: “When I talked to Kathleen, she did not tell me the exact contents of her conversation with Mary Pontarelli.”
(Objections by prosecution to just about all of this – all overruled)
Kernc denies that Savio “went back and forth” about Drew’s having had a knife. “She did not vacillate about the knife. Not in conversation. She vacillated by scribbling it out [of the written statement]. But not in conversation about it.”
Defense just read a report, Kernc said that Savio was vacillating about the knife portion of the police report.
Greenberg concludes his cross-examination.
Court in recess until 1:15 p.m.

UPDATE 11:22:

Court in session – jury still out of courtroom while judge listens to hearsay arguments involving Kernc’s cross-examination.
It’s a bit ironic. Prosecution is objecting to use of hearsay in Kernc’s cross-exam.
Peterson defense wants info to get in because they want jury to know that Savio described stair incident to one friend as “nice conversation.”
Greenberg is trying to get Drew Peterson’s account of the “stair incident” (as written in the police report) as hearsay. Judge is saying “The defendant cannot normally use his self-serving statements to avoid taking the witness stand.” Greenberg says that if the prosecution can use hearsay against the defendant that they should be able to use it too, to impeach.
Judge: “I said it was self-serving.” Greenberg: “We can do it. The rules say we can do it. And I should be able to do it.”
Judge: “If Kathleen Savio was here testifying, and said those things, how would it impeach her testimony if you said, ‘Didn’t the defendant deny saying these things?’ How does that impeach her testimony?” Judge: “I don’t know how it is that that statement impeaches Kathleen Savio’s statement to the officer. I understand the argument the defendant is making. But I don’t find the defendant’s statement to be relevant, because I don’t think it impeaches the statement.”

UPDATE 10:37:

Greenberg attacking witness over credibility, going over Kernc hearsay hearing testimony from 2010.
Kernc says Savio was upset that she had been accused of battery after an incident with Stacy Peterson when she made her own report.
Savio was served with battery complaints the morning she called the police and filed the report.
“I did not know that day that (the battery complaints) had been served that day”
Greenberg keeps bringing up possible discrepancies in hearsay hearing testimony from 2010 and testimony today. What Peterson was wearing, etc.
Judge: “We’re in a brief recess, while the State needs to locate some case-law.”

UPDATE 10:15:

Cross-examination begins by Attorney Greenberg.
Kernc talking about relationship with Drew Peterson “It would be a fair statement that we never were friend but we were co-workers”
Kernc (then a sergeant) says she went with a police lt. to interview Savio about Peterson because “You don’t investigate someone at your own rank.”
Savio didn’t want report filed. Kernc: “I told her I had to file a police report.”
Alleged stair incident happened July 5. Savio spoke with police about child custody issue on July 11, but didn’t mention it then.
Greenberg: Did you tell her these were serious allegations? “I’m sure I did,.”
She was making allegations of very serious criminal conduct, right? “Yes.”
A whole litany of felonies? “Right.”
You can’t have a policeman or any citizen going around and doing this kind of conduct? “No police department can.”
Kernc is asked to look at earlier reports where she mentions rivalries between police teams. She maintains that she had no dislike for Drew Peterson, was speaking generally.
Peterson told Kernc that Savio had been served with a complaint, stemming from incident in the driveway.
Sidebar while attorneys discuss testimony. Previously Kernc told the FBI she wasn’t sure if the knife incident actually happened.
Judge tells defense they can’t ask the question if Kernc was sure if the incident happened.

UPDATE 09:52:

Judge Burmila instructs the jury not to consider, infer or ponder for any purpose whatsoever the issue of an order of protection.
Teresa Kernc is back on the witness stand
Kernc testifies that she watched Savio fill out the report, then scratch out the part about Drew Peterson having a knife.
Patton: Did Kathleen Savio Peterson tell you why she crossed out the word ‘knife’? “After she crossed it out, she said quite a bit. She said specifically that she did not want him to lose his job; she did not want him to be arrested.”
Kernc’s report is admitted into evidence, and published for the jury.
Kernc reads the domestic incident report.
Kernc reading police report: “He warned me if I called anyone he would deny it”

UPDATE 09:25:

Atty Joe Lopez tells judge that Drew wants to keep this jury and will not seek mistrial.
Drew also asks the prosecution to follow the rules. “We’re not giving the state a practice run.”
Atty Joe Lopez ask judge to punish prosecution by banning all hearsay testimony.
Drew Peterson now standing in court, telling judge that he wants to withdraw mistrial motion. Judge says he can’t appeal this issue later.
Judge to ASA Chris Koch: “What sanction would you rather I impose on you? Hold you all in contempt?”
Defense wants it known to the jury that Savio never wanted an order of protection. Judge Burmilla: “That’s denied”
Judge: Defendant’s request to strike all hearsay, denied.
Defendant’s request to strike entire Kernc testimony, denied
Prosecutor Chris Koch is responding about ‘Grace case’ that was argued by the defense in an earlier mistrial motion.
Judge interrupts. “Mr. Koch, stop! My order yesterday was crystal clear. We’re not going to revisit the Court’s order.”
Jury will be told that Kathleen Savio never sought an order of protection and one was never issued.
Court in brief recess so state can type up stipulation request.

UPDATE 09:11:

Source says defense to withdraw motion for a mistrial.
Jim Glasgow and prosecutors are in the courtroom
The defendant and his attorneys are now in the courtroom.

UPDATE 08:30:

First spectators arrived at courthouse at 3:45 a.m this morning to get seats inside the courtroom.

Today’s potential witnesses include Teresa Kernc (Former BBPD sergeant), Larry Blum (Forensic pathologist), Scott Rossetto (friend of Stacy Peterson), Vinod Motiani (Doctor of Internal medicine).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. Yesterday Forensic toxicologist Dr. Christopher Long testified that Kathleen Savio had no alcohol or drugs in her system at the time of death. Also, ex-Bolingbrook police sergeant, Teresa Kernc, was called to the stand to testify about Savio’s report regarding the July 5, 2002 domestic incident in which Peterson entered her home using a garage door opener and then terrorized her for three hours. Assistant State’s Attorney Kathy Patton began to ask if an order of protection was discussed, when the defense objected. In an earlier discussion, Judge Burmila had barred mention of an order of protection and its mention now prompted Peterson’s defense team to ask for a mistrial. This is the third time they have asked for a mistrial in as many weeks.

Judge Burmila is expected to give his decision this morning.

As always, I’ll have my eyes and ears open and will be posting updates. Check back throughout the day for the latest news and don’t forget to check the comments thread.

We’re following:
Jon Seidel
Stacy St. Clair
In Session
Glenn Marshall
Diane Pathieu
Kara Oko
Dan Rozek

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

About these ads

94 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day ten. Mistrial motion withdrawn. Trial resumes

  1. wow, but still the judge is not being fair to the PROC, he is more towards the defense and yes brodsky is arrogent his hole team is,.. all i see is it was a mistake…. I wish insession would keep peterson trial showing and not that other trial I saw it on the weekend from dateline , but it was on ID channel LOL… but me still says judge and defense are in cahoots .. you can te4ll. though.. it was a mistake . no big deal cannt they change judges for being bias or anything….

  2. What the hell? This is really a waste of court time and taxpayer dollars! They keep crying they want a mistrial, court ends for the day…. then they withdraw? It is really getting old.

  3. UPDATE 09:25:

    Atty Joe Lopez ask judge to punish prosecution by banning all hearsay testimony.

    :roll: Oh brother!

  4. lost, thanks I have a few of them up on twitter, but I did not see what ya saw if ya following someone else that why i was asking :)0

  5. I think that they should use Mondays as the day to go over do any motions on which testimony should be heard rather that doing this all as they go. I realize things like what happened yesterday would still have to be handled mid-week like this is but think that it is unfair to the jury to keep making them sit in a room while they decide which people can testify for that day.

  6. I am confused on why they keep saying on InSession that there was no Order of Protection. There WAS one but there was one at a later point in time. Are they going to allow that one into evidence?

  7. Court in brief recess so state can type up stipulation request. ok so what does that mean what type of stipulation

  8. TAI, the only OOP I’ve actually seen is one prior to the July incident. It’s from March 11, 2002:

  9. Lug, the Judge hasn’t decided yet what he’ll tell the jury about the order of protection. One the State gives him their idea of what the stipulation will be, he’ll decide and tell the jury.

  10. There is just way too much showboating and drama in this trial about evidence and testimony minutia. The jury must have lost complete track of what this case is about.

    We all knew there would never be a mistrial. Did the judge really need another delay while everyone went off and pretended to think about it?

  11. “Kathleen Savio did not seek an order of protection regarding the July 5, 2002 incident.”

    Good lord. Isn’t this what the witness was about to say yesterday when all hell broke lose? :roll:

  12. I think all this showboating and drama is actually going to come back to haunt the defense team. the jury will see how transparent they are in their attempt to interrupt the flow, trying to paint DP as a saint, demeaning the witnesses. etc. Would certainly make me think if they aren’t trying to hide someones guilt

  13. Kathleen’s letter and the police report being testified about is at this link:

  14. At this point, how many times has the jury been sent out of the room? It seems as though it’s been at least twice an hour, every day.

    If I was on the jury, I’d be furious. How can they possibly keep track of the testimony, especially since it’s not videotaped.

    At this point, the jury will receive their instructions Thanksgiving week.

    Pathetic.

  15. ATl granny, I agree. Without seeing what is going on in court, it almost seems that this judge has no regard for the jury.

  16. Pretty funny that the defense thinks that Drew Peterson’s version of events as written on that report can possibly impeach the witness.

    If he wants to say something contrary to what Kathleen said, let him take the stand. He’s neither dead nor missing…unlike some other people I can think of.

  17. Facs – You are right… I just meant at a “different” time. It seemed like they kept implying that she had never had one against him. I feel for this poor jury – a lot of sitting and waiting time and I agree with Pam Bosco – let’s move this case along! :)

  18. I have learned from a trial regarding a personal family member that there are many things that are not able to be brought in as evidence and that it really is frustrating if you are the family of a deceased victim. It seems very unfair how many protections are provided to the defendant yet so many bad things can be said about the victim. I will never understand this. And for some time in spite of my gut feeling that he is guilty, I have long believed that he will not be convicted by a jury due to the general challenges of a circumstantial case, the fact that many jurors now want absolute CSI evidence, and due to what often gets rejected as evidence.

  19. The guy on In Session just said that as a prosecutor he feels that the case is won in closing argument and his reputation. He feels that all the mistakes or missteps by the prosecution could cost them, since they are supposed to be the “good guys.” I am parapharsing a bit, I can’t remember exactaly what was said, but that was close. In my opinon, the prosuction comes off as needing to defend itself from not only the defense but the judge. The defense comes off insulting and sarcastic, and the judge comes off as mean spirited not just toward counsel but to witnesses as well. I think even with the mistakes made by the prosecution they still appear to be the good guys.

  20. Coroner’s Report on the Death of Kathleen Savio: March 20, 2004

    Toxicology report – March 16, 2004
    Necropsy report – March 20, 2004
    Autopsy report – March 20, 2004
    Death certificate – May 7, 2004

  21. What is it with this Judge???
    At this point i’d say throw DP in a lion pit with no weapons, if he manages win the battle against the large cats, let him walk. If he doesn’t, well then no one will ever have to worry about him again

  22. Why would the judge want to withhold the fact that the doctor stepped into the tub? I am not sure I understand that reasoning, or does he throw these things in to see if he has control of his courtroom? Not sure i understand anything about this judge anymore, as far as what he allows and doesn’t allow

  23. yes I guess that demonstrating goes along with the Tub not being allowed in the courtroom, maybe someone needs to remind the judge of that? Count me confused

  24. I don’t understand half of what is barred. I honestly don’t.

    I know it was a problem in the Scott Peterson trial when jurors were shown his boat and some of them opted to get on it and see if they could tip it.

    Maybe the issue is that he isn’t a specialist in tub safety and not qualified to testify about it, just as the jurors weren’t qualified to ascertain whether Scott Peterson’s boat was tippy. ?

  25. Well, the defense knows that pretty much the only way their client is going to get off is with a technicality so they are making huge mountains out of molehills. They are playing a game, that is all, and they wanna win

  26. Its not about justice here, that is very clear, this is waiting for the opponent to make a mistake, so they can move in for the win. Sad really

  27. The judge heard you, LA! :)

    I only wish he had been this sensible yesterday.

    And I totally agree. The defense is looking for any opportunity to get the case tossed out. It’s a lot easier than actually arguing and winning a case.

  28. Dr. Blum was describing how he came to his conclusion. I think the whole freaking jury should be allowed to climb in the tub.

  29. Just a quick observation about Judge Burmila. While he seems to come on strong and blusters initially, after sleeping on it and giving it thought, and in rendering a judgement the next day, he seems to rule fairly.

    The call for mistrial has come up repeatedly during this trial, beginning on the first day. But, Judge Burmila has denied each call for mistrial.

    Unless it’s a blatant violation, I don’t think he’s going to allow a mistrial. He just reacts negatively on an initial basis.

  30. SERIOUSLY!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH A REANACTMENT…. PPL DO IT ALL THE TIME.. THIS IS THE CRAZIEST TRIAL EVER!! I MEAN COME ON EVEN THE BOTTLED UP SCENT OF CASEY ANTHONEY’S CAR WAS ALLOWED(JUNK SCIENCE) AND THEY PASSED IT AROUND TO THE JURY….I AM GLAD THE JUDGE IS ALEAST NOT THROWING OUT THE TESTIMONY EVERYTIME THE DEFENSE WHINES…..DOES ANYONE FIND IT ODD THAT “DREW” DIDN’T WANT A MISTRIAL OR EVEN A NEW JURY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN ARGUING THIS ENTIRE TIME THAT HE IS NOT GETTING A FAIR TRIAL…….???? IS HE THIS COCKY…OR IS THERE A RUNAWAY JUROR….{SMH}

  31. “This gravity flow pattern of blood, would be impossible to occur if her face were down in the water at that time.” “When blood hits the water it disperses, it would not create that sort of trickle that you see here.”
    ***
    Oh, YES!!! Thank you, Larry Blum! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  32. I found it odd also, but I do believe Drew is that cocky. I think he believes that by that decision, he has shown the jurors that he completely believes in his innocence, and maybe put away any doubt they may have. He is playing his normal games of manipulating and control. He is a narcissist

  33. Just clarifying my above statement. I realize that the defense withdrew their motion for a mistrial, but at the same time, I’m observing that Judge Burmila is reactionary on issues on an immediate basis, but then backs off and renders a fair decision. He denied a lot of the Defense motions today.

  34. I think Drew does not want a mistrial because he figures it will be without prejudice and they will have to start from scratch and he goes back to jail to wait it all out again or he know he will still have the stigma of being a murderer, a mistrial doesn’t mean innocence.

  35. Some powerful testimony from Dr. Blum! As a lay person I never thought the photo of her in that tub looked like an accident. To see Dr. Blum explain it REALLY tells me this was no accident! :)

  36. I agree with charmed and Harley. He wants out NOW, preferably sooner then that. And this is some powerful testimony by Dr Blum. Next thing we hear is, okay okay so it was a homicide, but DP didn’t do it

  37. Posted by lostacres……………..

    lostacres
    August 15, 2012 at 9:59 am

    I think all this showboating and drama is actually going to come back to haunt the defense team. the jury will see how transparent they are in their attempt to interrupt the flow, trying to paint DP as a saint, demeaning the witnesses. etc. Would certainly make me think if they aren’t trying to hide someones guilt

    My comment…………………
    I agree! The defense is causing lengthy disruptions in this trial by attempting to disallow any statement that portrays the defendant in a bad light.

    If I was a juror, at this point I think I’d be reacting to each defense objection by thinking to myself……..”Damn, not again!” I’d resent the interruption to the flow of testimony and in the end wonder what important information wasn’t allowed that would help me determine guilty or not guilty.

    A trial is supposed to determine the truth, but in this case, the truth is being suppressed as it’s too prejudicial to the defendant. But the truth is what matters when rendering a decision.

    The truth is that Drew Peterson uttered the words, “I could kill you and make it look like an accident.” The truth is that Drew Peterson stood to gain financially if Kathleen died, yet the jury isn’t supposed to know the value of the marital assets that would be the subject of the property settlement if Kathleen had lived to see that property settlement hearing. It would show Drew Peterson had a motive.

    There are way too many protections given a defendant, and this makes it extremely difficult to get justice for the victims and their families.

  38. Blum says Savio’s wound was “blunt force trauma”

    I guess this means someone bashed her over the head. I really really hope the jury is paying great attention

  39. to let her suffer so much, in order to make it look like an accident. He is vile, as vile as they come

  40. I will never forget that interview, where he drove a reporter past Kathleens house, and the Reporter asked him “how does this feel, your exwife died here” and his flippant answer was ” Ah, things happen you know”. That did it for me

  41. This Dude has lost it, LMAO
    Brodsky objects “I’m sorry to interupt the witness, your honor, I blurted out objection, and I don’t have one.” #DrewPeterson

  42. He probably did it on purpose to interrupt the flow of this testimony. It is pretty damning for his client! :)

  43. Blunt force trauma to the BACK of her head, yet she ends up curled up in a fetal position in the bathtub with her toes pressed up against the side of the tub rigidly at a 90 degree angle.

    How does someone slip and fall in a small tub, and hit the back of their head on something and not land on their backside and knocking things off the sides of the bathtub in the process?

    What object was large enough to cause a two inch gash in the back of Kathleen’s head?

    If there was water in the tub, why wasn’t the blood dispersed in the water and drained away with the rest of the water? Instead it was a trickle of undiluted blood in the the dry tub.

    Blum did an excellent job on the witness stand and brought up important observations that clearly show it wasn’t an accident.

    My thoughts………………we know from what Pastor Neil Schori will testify to, if he’s allowed to testify to what he knows, that Drew Peterson came home in the wee hours of the morning and stuffed woman’s clothing in the washing machine.

    I think there was some sort of violent confrontation in Kathleen’s bedroom, a surprise attack, and Drew hit Kathleen in the back of the head with a heavy object causing the blunt force injury. Kathleen may have been dazed or unconscious and Drew dragged her into the bathroom and pushed her head into the toilet to drown her. He then dragged her body to the bathtub and put her in the tub.

    Drew probably cleaned up any signs of a struggle in the bedroom and bathroom. He used a carpet spot cleaner in the bedroom and that’s why that carpet cleaner (Spotshot) was observed.

    He cleaned the bathroom and gathered up Kathleen’s soiled clothing which he had removed from her body. When a person dies, their bowels and bladder often eliminate. So her clothing was likely soiled in addition to any blood that was on them. Had her clothing been left at the house, the soiled, bloodied clothing would have been proof that she didn’t die in the bathtub,

  44. Dr Bllum testified to all the bruises on the front of her body, and the abrasions on her backside. Some 1 hour old, some 24 hours old.
    I want to know what happened in court when Drew shot his mouth off (again).

  45. In session facebook updates for the day are gathered here:

  46. Molly, great observations. and you are correct in all you state. I hope the Jury feels the same.
    I do want to thank Facs for weeding through the twitters, and posting information that can be followed for those that depend on this site for updates. I have been reading all the twitters myself, and some are out of sequence, and late, and confusing. Thanks Facs

  47. Yes, the casual and flippant reaction to the mother of his children found dead in a tub and the fact he continued to degrade her after death, eg by telling his friend McCauley that Kathleen was “crazy”, “been drinking” and a “wine glass was found in the tub” ; as evidence has shown none of which was true, can only make one wonder about his mindset ……..

  48. Wondering what makes Lopez thinks it was a great day for his team? Because the Pros had a blunder with a witness? The testimony this afternoon pretty much proved it was murder. Silly boys!

  49. They’ll have tomorrow to poke and tear at Dr. Blum, but as for today, I think Blum did very well and introduced some very damaging testimony.

    I’m assuming they’ve lined up experts to testify that Kathy’s slight mitral valve thickening made her fall and beat herself up (without disturbing anything but a rubber duck), give herself a superficial head wound and then fall beneath her tub water, where, although she was passed out, she braced her toes against the side of the tub and bit her tongue. Oh, and bled underwater in a tidy stream.

    Yep.

  50. He says wait until the “Criss”. He really needs to stop tweeting. He makes them all look like a bunch of boys with law degrees in a sandbox. Even if I was new to this, that defense team would have lost all credibility a long time ago

  51. Interesting that the injuries Dr. Blum described were also noted by Dr. Mitchell when he did his original autopsy. So, how did the coroner’s jury not think that they needed more explanation than a slip and a fall?

    EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF INJURY:

    1. On the left parieto-occipital scalp, there is a 1-in. blunt laceration.

    2. On the left buttocks, there is an irregularly shaped, red abrasian measuring 3 in. x 1 in. in greatest dimensiona.

    3. On the left lower quadrant of the abdomen, there are 3, oval-shaped purple contusions ranging from 1 in. to 2 in. in the greatest dimension.

    4. On the left anterior thigh, there is a faint, 1 in. x 3/4 in., purple contusion.

    5. On the mid shins, there is a 3/8 in.. circular-shaped, purple contusion.

    6. On the right outer wrist, there are 1/2 in. and 3/4 in. linear, red abrasions.

    7. On the dorsum of the right 1st finger, there is a circular-shaped, 1/8 in. abrasion.

    8. On the left elbow, there is a circular-shaped, 3/8 in., red abrasion.

  52. Oh yeah, maybe the jury didn’t question those bruises because coroner O’Neil TOLD the jury that the bruises were ALL OLD.

    MR. O’NEIL: (referring to Bryan Mitchell’s report) There are six — or there are seven other bruises noted to the decedent, all of which are old. There are no new bruises to the decedent.

    Interestingly enough, nowhere in Dr. Mitchell’s report does he say that the bruises are old or that there are no new bruises (and O’Neil was presenting the findings of the report when he made that statement)

    All he says about the bruises are what I stated up above.

  53. Good day of testimony. Dr, did a good job explaining his findings, and showing it couldn’t of been an accident. All those fresh bruises within 24 hours of them finding her is damning for Peterson. No drugs, no alcohol, and a gash to head that wouldn’t of rendered her unconscious. Very powerful testimony for the jury to hear today.

  54. Also,IMO Drew and the gang knew that the judge wouldn’t give a mistrial with prejudice. Instead, if anything it would of been a mistrial and the State would of been able to start all over again. They didn’t want to risk that because they would of had to start all over with fresh jury, and the State being able to introduce the hitman, among other things that were told to be kept out because of error. They would rather risk going on with the trial, than to start all over and the State getting everything in.

  55. I’m bothered that Drew is so adamant about keeping this jury. I sure hope the prosecution did their homework, or has an investigator team and/or intern looking for connections in the panel and Drew. Maybe he’s just playing his millionth joker card, but I’m beginning to think there’s something we don’t know. God, I hope not.

  56. Cheryl, I remember one recent story where I think it was Brodsky who said something about how Drew had been able to fill them in with information about everyone on the jury. It was a little startling.

    Really? Everyone?

  57. OMG
    Have all the witnesses just decided to say whatever they want, regardless of the judge’s rulings?

    I’m afraid one of these times, it’s really going to work against the prosecution.

    Is it that important that we know he got in the tub? What did getting in the tub show him?

  58. The best part in this is that is the last thing the jury heard before heading home for the day. This woman was in the fight for her life and lost and it wasn’t the water she was fighting with.

  59. After reading what Dr Blum testified to, I am thoroughly disgusted that this was ever ruled an accident in the first place. What sort of clowns are working in that town? Freaking disgraceful!

  60. Cheryl, you’ve got to remember that we’re talking about a bunch of narcissists here. The Three Stooges really believe they have given a great performance so far. In their fantasy world, they’ve effectively eviscerated each witness’ testimony. Peterson falls into the same category, which is why he’s apparently quite jovial in the courtroom. Why would they want a new jury? I honestly believe they feel this jury is on their side.

    Facs, if I remember correctly, Brodsky was saying they felt Drew was good at being able to “read” people and they were going to go with his gut instinct regarding the jurors.

  61. Wasn’t it Brodsky or Lopez who said that Kathy had a glass of wine in the tub? Was a wine glass ever found? Obviously, even if one was there, Kathy hadn’t had any alcohol.

  62. It was Susan McCauley who testified that Drew told her there was a wine glass on the side of the tub and that Kathleen had mixed wine with Xanax. Her body was free of both alcohol and Xanax.

    There was no wine glass seen or collected from the bathroom.

  63. Prosecutors believe Peterson used a chokehold to render Savio unconscious, held her head underwater until she drowned and then struck her on the back of her head, perhaps with his police baton.

    But they have no physical evidence tying him to the bathroom where Savio died.

    Blum’s testimony, however, did not escape the courtroom drama that has come to define the trial thus far.

    The latest donnybrook came when Blum testified that he climbed into the Bolingbrook tub where Savio died. Burmila had previously barred any reference to a re-creation of the drowning.

    That led defense attorney Ralph Meczyk to ask that Blum’s testimony be stricken, arguing that prosecutors have treated Burmila like “a potted plant.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-trial-0816-20120816,0,1214073.story

  64. Just a note to thank facsmiley and everyone else for the updates! The facebook updates are REALLY helpful to piece all of the testimony together.

    It really does sound like Savio was horribly beaten before she died. I can’t imagine how she must have suffered. It was definitely not a freak household accident. I agree with another post (can’t remember who wrote it) that the defense will concede that this was a homicide, but the prosecution still has no evidence that puts DP there at the time of death since the initial investigation determined that it was a household accident. So, I agree that the defense will say it was a homicide, but that their client wasn’t the perpetrator.

    Further, I have to wonder about the news coverage of this trial in the States. I see maybe one news story per week on the US CNN.com, and I haven’t seen anything on the TV CNN International channel. I was happy to find this site because I had such a hard time finding out any info during the first few days of the trial. So, my question is, has the American public forgotten about this due to other more recent and heinous crimes? Is this trial no longer considered to be newsworthy in the States? I am overseas, so I really don’t know. Additionally, when I describe this case to my friends over here, they are fascinated with it, but don’t understand how such a huge case didn’t make international news.

Comments are closed.