Drew Peterson trial – day eleven. Dr. Larry Blum back on the stand. “Manner of death — homicide”

UPDATE 04:49:

Jury back in courtroom.
A little bit of re-cross ensues regarding the blood cells in the tissue slides, but it is all objected to and objections sustained.
Blum steps down from the stand, jury is dismissed until tomorrow morning
Attorneys continue to argue motions.
Defense wants to bar testimony from Stacy’s Uncle, Kyle Toutges.
Prosecution says “let them prove it” is an implied admission because an innocent person would have denied it.
Judge calls Toutges statement “rank hearsay.”
Toutges will be allowed to take the stand, but cannot bring up “let them prove it” comment. Brodsky now arguing against the blue towel testimony.
Judge will not allow prosecutors to suggest to jury that Drew planted towel at death scene to make it look like accident.
Prosecution now arguing to include alleged hit man testimony.
Judge will allow if it’s relevant.
Judge says the state didn’t give proper notice about alleged hitman, but will consider allowing them to offer it anyway.

UPDATE 04:10:

Court back in session, Meczyk passes witness back to Glasgow for re-direct
Judge tells defense and prosecution to “stop editorializing” after Glasgow mocks “dramatic slide show” during Meczyk’s cross.
Blum explains again for Glasgow why the iron test for the simple tissue would be pointless.
Glasgow asks if Blum, while peer reviewing the other pathologists findings, also reviewed Dr. Baden’s findings.
The sidebar ends. “Getting back to the article you referred to. You indicated it’s not the key factor, but the evidence?” “That’s correct.” “And in this case, you’ve been able to determine that the wound to the head of Kathleen Savio was not caused by a fall in that bathroom?” Objection. The attorneys approach for another sidebar.
The sidebar ends. “My opinion is that it was not caused by a fall to that bathtub. Or in that bathtub.”
Blum says Will Co. deputy coroner VanOver was wrong to say Savio’s buttocks bruise wasn’t fresh (VanOver’s report said it was healing).
Glasgow: Did you see a single area (in bathtub) that would cause those bruises? Blum: “No I did not”
Glasgow: It’s your opinion that, that abrasion did not come from a fall in that tub. Blum: “That is correct.”
At the second autopsy, that you performed, you made a significant effort to determine if there were any significant bruising to the back and arms? “Yes. I found no bruises in those locations. All the bruises were to the front of her body.”
Blum: “Under her face, there was no water in that bathtub. At the time that injury was bleeding onto her face, there was no water in that bathtub.”
Blum reiterates that if Savio had fallen in the tub, her body would have landed in a different position, instead of a semi-fetal one.
Blum says his clients, including the Drew Peterson prosecution, pay for his time, but his opinion is free.
Blum: “I am called by the prosecution most of the time because I am the one who does the autopsies most of the time”
Re-direct is finished. Jury taken out of courtroom while both sides argue over the admission of a slide during defense re-cross

UPDATE 03:47:

“You don’t know if she banged into a door do you”-defense Blum: “No I do not”
Meczyk also asks Blum if Savio had “aggressive” sex before she died. Blum: “I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility.”
Blum is asked about an article from the International Forensic Science Journal that he referred to in his report.
(He’s given a copy of it to refer to) In every case, there is a key factor, in all the ten cases he studies, a key factor? “Yes, that’s how he lists it here in the summary.”
A key factor is something that takes it over the top? “I think that’s a fair assessment.”
In your autopsy report, you don’t list a key factor, do you? “It’s not the word ‘key that distinguishes an accident from a homicide. It’s the evidence.”
Jury is being taken out of courtroom, brief recess

UPDATE 03:21:

Peterson trial about to resume after a break.
Meczyk back on cross with Dr. Blum
Meczyk “Your honor, I kind of feel like Pinocchio and Geppetto.”
They continue to go over Blum’s report and testimony from today.
Blum testifies that the DNA test that is part of the sexual assault kit showed no male DNA on Savio’s body.
Blum says he didn’t test for iron in the tissues because the age of the tissue would mean that the cells had broken down and would normally have released iron. Test would only determine what was already certain. Meczyk calls Blum’s reason for not testing iron in Savio tissue a “lame” excuse. Judge quickly strikes remark from record
You know that Ms. Savio had a cat? “Yes.”
And that could very easily have caused the scratches that were seen? “It depends on the condition of the claws; some cats are de-clawed. But the scratches could have been caused by a cat.”
Blum is shown an exhibit This is one of the thousands of documents you reviewed. This is Ms. Savio’s medical history concerning a dermatological or skin problem? “Yes.”
She visited a skin doctor, a dermatologist? “Yes.”
And on the form she filled out, she informs her physician, ‘I have very sensitive skin. I’m allergic to grass. And I have been breaking out since I have been a kid, mainly on my face and arms. Now my body has been affected, and because of my age I’m beginning to scar. My buttocks are all scared up, along with acne/face.’ Did I read that correctly? “Yes.”
Now we know that she suffered from some scarring in the buttock area, according to her? “Yes.”
Blum is asked about Savio taking Yasmin and about deaths relating to Yasmin.

UPDATE 02:39:

Meczyk asks if Blum’s determination of homicide is related to the age of the bruises. Blum: “The distribution of injury, yes.”
“Yes, a fall back to split the head open would not cause the front injuries, in the same fall.”
It’s not logical, based on your triangle of how you approach these types of cases? “That’s correct.”
Blum denies offer for a break. Meczyk: “I know I’m not making you sweat.” Blum: “Not now.”
Blum is shown a tissue slide from the large bruise area on Savio’s midsection. Meczyk pushes him to determine how old the bruise is. Blum pushes back saying that it “represents what a three and a half year old bruise looks like after decomposition and embalming.”
Meczyk asks if the dark pigment is from an old bruise or just an artifact from the embalming process. Blum maintains that it is not hemosiderin (old bruise) but also admits that he did not send the tissue sample out for iron testing.
Meczyk asks for brief recess, jury taken out.

UPDATE 01:27:

Court back in session.
Defense goes outside of courtroom to show Dr. Blum tissue slides for upcoming questioning
The judge is back on the bench. He sends for the jury.
Meczyk continues on cross.
Blum says deputy coroner VanOver noted that the buttocks “wound was not scabbed and appeared to be healing”
Meczyk asks about Savio’s manner of death. Glasgow yells: “Objection!”
Meczyk to Glasgow: “You don’t have to scream at me.”
Glasgow thought Meczyk was about to go into other doctors’ reports about Savio’s death.
Atty Meczyk begins arguing after jury leaves. Atty Goldberg grabs him by coat, pulls him away from bench.
Prosecution objection overruled
Meczyk: “You are to be commended for attending lectures.” Blum: “We’re required.”
Meczyk says he’s going to approach his “adversary’s” table. Glasgow objects. Burmila tells them again to stop sparring.
Meczyk gets Blum to confirm that there are three respected pathologists (paid by defense) who disagree with his findings.

UPDATE 11:15:

Defense begins cross examination
There did come a time when you spoke to Mr. Glasgow about this case? “That’s correct.”
And he told you that he wanted you to reexamine the death of Kathleen Savio.
Objection from the State
Meczyk produces a transcript from the hearsay hearing, and points out a specific passage to the prosecution.
Judge: “State, do you have the information now?” Glasgow: “We’re ready, Judge, all I asked for is foundation.” Judge: “That portion of the objection is overruled.
Judge tells defense and prosecution not to argue objections with each other in front of the jury. Says he won’t warn again.
Defense is saying that Blum lied about speaking directly to SA Glasgow.
Defense points out that Blum has helped Glasgow out with other cases. He’s working on another case right now with him.
Defense asks if Glasgow contacted him because he “knew in the past you’d given him biased opinions, what he wanted to hear” Blum: “I cannot read his mind.”
“I don’t recall what Mr. Glasgow said or didn’t say prior to the examination. It was the coroner, however, who called me to do this autopsy, not the State’s Attorney.”
Blum says the pathologist, the late Dr. Mitchell, did a thorough, orthodox job “for the most part.”
Defense asks if body of Savio, and any injuries would be more “fresh” when Dr. Mitchell conducted his autopsy. Witness agrees.
Attorney Meczyk points out that Mitchell’s report says laceration on Savio scalp may have been from fall.
Meczyk started to ask Dr. Blum if he had read any of the reports compiled by Peterson’s experts while writing his own but the judge stopped him.
He says if they can establish that Blum relied on them then he’ll be able to ask about them.
Break for lunch until 1:15.

UPDATE 10:17:

Defense objection. Court in recess.
Defense objection withdrawn.
Blum is looking over his 11-page report on Savio.
Blum: “The lungs were very light for a drowning.”
Jurors and Blum leaving again after prosecution wants to enter report into evidence. Defense objected.
Brodsky telling judge he doesn’t want jurors to have Blum’s written report.
Glasgow says he’s not trying to send the report back with the jury – just submitting report into evidence.
Attorneys arguing over what is in report and can be seen by jury. Judge says Mitchell’s complete report should be submitted but that only the parts of Dr.Blum’s that he actually testified about should be submitted to the jury. He sees no relevance in things like “when he first saw the body she had rosary beads in her hand”. etc.
Defense needs to set up some sort of equipment used for cross of Dr. Blum. Short delay.
Def. atty Steve Greenberg says the equipment is a “projection microscope.”

UPDATE 09:50:

Dr. Larry Blum takes the stand
Blum starts the day by explaining the process of rigor mortis “heat speeds it up while cold slows it down”
“As you fall, you sprawl.” Blum says he looked for bruising on the arms because a person tries to brace themselves when falling. He didn’t find any.
Dr. Blum says in his opinion Savio died from drowning.
He now describes how the coroner’s system works in Illinois.
Blum says most bathtub drownings happen from people with seizures, MS, or other neurological disorders. Also alcohol/drugs/ This was not the case with Kathleen Savio.
In Savio’s case, 2000 grams of water were found in her lungs, which is a very large amount.
“No past suicide attempts were noted.” Blum ruling out that Savio committed suicide.
Blum on Savio’s head wound: “It’s my opinion that it did not occur from a fall.”
Blum ruled the cause of Savio’s death drowning, the manner of death homicide. Court is in brief recess for defense discovery

UPDATE 09:08:

Dr. Blum will be back on the stand for cross-examination soon.
Expected witness list for today: Larry Blum (finish direct and then cross etc.), Scott Rossetto (friend of Stacy Peterson), Jennifer Schoon (girlfriend of Steve Peterson who was living in Drew’s house at the time of Kathleen’s death), Kyle Toutges (Stacy’s Uncle).
Attys have filed a motion to bar Stacy’s uncle Kyle Toutges from testifying.
Just waiting on the judge.
Judge is here now. An accident on the interstate delayed the start of the trial this morning.

Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio continues today. Yesterday Drew Peterson’s defense withdrew their motion for a mistrial and Judge Burmila instead addressed the jury and told them to disregard any mention of an order of protection related to the July 5 domestic incident between Kathleen Savio and Drew Peterson.

Ex-Bolingbrook police sergeant, Teresa Kernc, was allowed to finish her testimony about taking the report and that Savio initially wrote about Peterson wielding a knife but then scratched it out and told Kernc that she was afraid Drew would lose his job if that were in the report.

Forensic pathologist, Dr. Larry Blum testified to Dr. Bryan Mitchell’s 2004 autopsy report and then to his own findings when he autopsied Savio’s exhumed remains in 2007. He should be undergoing cross-examination 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.~


95 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day eleven. Dr. Larry Blum back on the stand. “Manner of death — homicide”

  1. Good morning! Thank you for everything you guys are doing. It is so hard to follow without cameras!

    Is getting in the tub the only part of Dr. Blums’s testimony that the jury was instructed to disregard? That seems unclear to me.

  2. This was the Judge’s instruction to the jury:

    “Ladies and gentlemen, in the doctor’s testimony he mentioned that he had climbed into the bathtub. You are to disregard that totally; it is probative of nothing. And it is stricken.”

    So that appears to be all that was struck.

  3. Dmitrithecat asked this on the last thread:

    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.

    I think the issue isn’t that there is not interest so much as the fact that it’s not being televised. It’s harder to get invested in the trial when you can’t see the drama inside the courtroom. IMO

  4. I’m sick of this can be in but this is out, “I see no relevance” Isn’t that what we have a jury for.

    I think they are worried about the little press that they are getting so they are creating drama and I think the judge is too.

  5. I agree with charmed: I am not there, so I don’t know for sure, but if I was on a jury, and I had to decide what was going to happen to a man or woman, I would want all the facts and information so that I could make an informed decision and truly fulfill my civic duty as a juror.

  6. What the heck is going on in this courtroom? Jury taken out again? Can’t the judge exercise some control over the proceedings?

  7. <—– Lost again! What are they trying to insinuate that Dr. Blum did or didn't talk to Mr. Glasgow? I don't get it. Are they just trying to scumbag him, and say he isn't trustworthy? Anyone have any ideas?

  8. Harley, the only thing they ever try to do is discredit witnesses based on thin (or nonexistent) evidence. Poor guys have nothing else they CAN work with. This has been their M.O. ever since the day Stacey went missing. Smear tactics will only work for so long and then it backfires on you. I suspect the jury is already past that point.

  9. “You were also hired by Mr. Glasgow, besides the coroner of this county?” “I have submitted bills to both.” Objection/Sustained. “You were hired by the State’s Attorney of Will County?” Objection/Overruled. “I don’t know what ‘hired’ means.” “You spoke to Mr. Glasgow before undertaking this task of examining Kathleen Savio’s body?” Objection/Sustained.

    “There did come a time when you spoke to Mr. Glasgow about this case?” “That’s correct. “And he told you that he wanted you to reexamine the death of Kathleen Savio.” Objection/Sustained. The judge asks the jurors to leave the courtroom (even though the defense attorney attempts to withdraw his question).

    The witness and jurors have returned to the courtroom, and attorney Meczyk resumes his cross-examination. “I’d like you to assist me with the prosecutors in laying what’s known as the foundation . . . did there come a time, Sir, in 2010, do you recall the date you met with the prosecutors?” “I do not recall; my memory’s exhausted on the date.” “Is it fair to say you did, in fact, meet with the coroner and Mr. Glasgow at some point, asking you to revisit the Savio matter?’ “I was asked by the coroner to perform an autopsy, a second autopsy, on Miss Savio . . . I do not recall specifically any conversations with Mr. Glasgow prior to the autopsy. I’m not saying that I didn’t talk to him; I’m just saying I can’t recall any conversations I may have had with him.”

    Meczyk shows the witness a document. “While you were in this very courthouse, the subject came up about when you were contacted to handle, to revisit the Savio matter?” “Yes.” In that previous testimony, the witness said that he was contacted by the coroner and the State’s Attorney. “Did I read that correctly?” “Correct.” “Those are your words, and not mine?” “Why would you testify to two different things under oath?” Objection/Sustained. “Mr. Glasgow asked you to review everything, correct?” “I don’t recall any specific, because of the time lapse. I don’t recall what Mr. Glasgow said or didn’t say prior to the examination. It was the coroner, however, who called me to do this autopsy, not the State’s Attorney.” “Mr. Glasgow told you he wanted you to examine everything, and come to an unbiased opinion?” “Yes . . . that is correct.” “Because Mr. Glasgow knew that in the past you’d given him biased opinions, what he wanted to hear, isn’t that true?” “I cannot read his mind.”

  10. I think they are trying to insinuate that Blum was “hired” by Glasgow specifically because he could be counted on to give him the manner of death that he wanted him to find.

    So, it was important for the defense to try to establish that Glasgow had personally contacted him.

  11. The minutia which constantly bogs down this court has got to be sending the jury into orbit. The judge will toss out important information like Pontarellli being afraid of Drew as “irrelevant” yet let the Defense hang up the jury on whether Blum talked with Glasgow before the autopsy. Why not shut THAT down as irrelevant? The Defense can only grasp at straws and the judge is letting them.

    Pretty pathetic.

  12. Thanks Facs and Atl Granny! I get it now.

    Sheesh Facs, I’m shocked that there are “issues” with Scott! 🙄


  13. did anyne here what beth karas said this morning , when she was talking about kathleen body, her opinion was that she thinks from those laserations she was DRAGGED ,,, but what are those idiots doing again objection ,. and what about scott dude.. also judge said keep the objections out i think was said

  14. I don’t see why there should be any issue about Dr. Mitchell’s original autopsy report. It’s not like he determined a manner of death for her – that was the finding of the coroner’s jury.

    The only negative thing (for the prosecution) in his report is that he says he head injury was “possibly” the result of a fall.

  15. Lug, the attorneys can object all the want, and they’ll continue to do so.

    The judge did warn them about arguing in front of the jury. They are supposed to wait until the jury has been excused.

    It is interesting that most of Savio’s injuries are on the front of her body.

    I’ve always wondered if she was struck with a billy club, or maybe even kicked in the midsection (although I think Drew would have been too smart to risk leaving a shoe print).

  16. Facs, do you know if the witnesses have been released by the Prosecution when they’re done?

    I keep thinking about the testimony of Drew’s girlfriend — the one he dated after Kathleen’s death. (Wait…..wasn’t he married to Stacey then? never mind…)

    If Drew told the girlfriend that the police said Kathy had been drinking and taking Xanax at the time of her death and no evidence was found (either a wine glass in the tub or alcohol/drugs in her system), couldn’t the Prosecution use that to show how Peterson lies in order to make himself look good?

    Wouldn’t that be pertinent considering the only thing the Defense keeps harping on is that everyone else is a liar? I would hope the Prosecution could call this witness back in order to delve more deeply into that question.

  17. From IS Facebook (Facs… I forgot how to do quotes… can you refresh me so you don’t have to keep fixing for me? TIA)

    Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Judge: “There’s one thing I have to comment on . . . during the lunch recess and yesterday, I have gotten so many e-mails from people I know about media reports about me blowing my brains out. . . I didn’t say I wanted to blow my brains out; I said that Judge Pistilli said he wanted to blow his brains out. So to my family and friends, I just want them to know that I am not going to blow my brains out.”

  18. This trial is turning into a 3 ring circus. I am close to walking away from following it, and just wait until the verdict.

  19. Really? Are these unprofessional theatrics necessary? (btw.. Thanks Facs! ;))

    Meczyk says he’s going to approach his “adversary’s” table. Glasgow objects. Burmila tells them again to stop sparring.

  20. If Dr. Werner Spitz is going to take the stand for the defense, you might want to change your mind about watching. He may have once been a top pathologist but his testimony was downright laughable in the Casey Anthony trial (if one can laugh at that).

    Sheaffer said Spitz offered a ”ridiculous hypothesis” that duct tape was put on the dead Caylee Anthony. Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee.

    Sheaffer decried Spitz’s implication that the medical examiner or her office had staged a photo of the remains. “A couple of jurors laughed and smirked” at Spitz’s comments, Sheaffer noted, a bad sign for the defense.

    Richard Hornsby, offering analysis for WESH-Channel 2, was equally frank. “Dr. Spitz did not come across as very well versed in the facts of this case, which is what’s important,” Hornsby said. “They might have been better off with not even putting him on” because “the jury is probably looking at the defense theory and finds it completely incredible.”


  21. OMG I remember him, He is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past any prime he may have had. I actually wondered about senility when I watched him in the CA Fiasco.

  22. According to Beth Karas, Blum testified that lividity was found on the front of Kathleen’s body, meaning that after she died, she was face down with all of her blood being pulled toward the front of her body by gravity. That means that the defense wants the jury to believe that Kathleen fell face forward, got a large gash on the back of her head, went unconscious, drowned face down, and turned on to her left side several hours after she died.

    Let’s also put this “no signs of a struggle” that Joe “Mudshark” Lopez has been constantly talking about. Anyone who has been in the military knows how to render someone unconscious in seconds by putting them into a choke hold in a particular way. Peterson would have been able to do this since he was in the military, and in addition, it was something he would be required to know as a policeman.

    Last year, In Session broadcast the case of MI v. Stewart in which Doug Stewart was charged with the murder of his wife. Stewart was in the military and knew how to apply this kind of choke hold to not just render his victim unconscious but to deprive her of oxygen long enough to kill her. Even though the body of Stewart’s wife was never found, we know this is how he murdered her because he told his accomplice that this was, in fact, how he murdered her.

    Blum’s testimony brought all this together for me. Peterson sneaked into Kathleen’s house, grabbed her from behind, put her into a choke hold that rendered her unconscious, dragged her body to the bathroom, and drowned her in the toilet. Being submerged in water will cause an unconscious person to become conscious, she began fighting, so he hit her very hard on the back of the head with a flashlight or some other blunt object to finish drowning her. He then left her body on the floor face down for some time to clean and stage the scene. Lastly, he put her into the tub on her side.

  23. If the prosecution offered to pay those same 3 pathologists slight more than the defense, they would agree with the prosecution.

  24. Atty Meczyk begins arguing after jury leaves. Atty Goldberg grabs him by coat, pulls him away from bench.
    WTH? Now it’s getting physical, and they’re both on the same side. I’d be finding some lawyers in contempt. Talk about no respect for the court!
    What was Meczyk saying that had Goldberg react so quickly? I’d sure like to know!

  25. Hemosiderin – Hemosiderin often forms after bleeding (hemorrhage).[1] When blood leaves a ruptured blood vessel, the red blood cell dies, and the hemoglobin of the cell is released into the extracellular space. White blood cells called macrophages engulf (phagocytose) the hemoglobin to degrade it, producing hemosiderin and biliverdin.

  26. Wasn’t there something stated in the past that Kathleen did not wear her fingernails clipped short? And it was speculated that the killer clipped and cleaned them?

  27. I’m really amazed at the lack of professionalism….

    “Meczyk: You don’t do that staining, and then you come up with that lame excuse?” Objection/Sustained.

  28. What??
    Meczyk brings up 10,000 wrongful death suits against birth control pill yasmin that Savio was taking at the time of her death.

  29. Wasn’t there something stated in the past that Kathleen did not wear her fingernails clipped short? And it was speculated that the killer clipped and cleaned them?

    Yes. Her family said she always kept her nails long.

  30. It’s not just you LA. It sounds to me like they are throwing tons of spaghetti at a wall in hopes that just one piece will stick!

  31. Even if she did have a skin condition and rough sex, it still doesn’t explain how she ended up in the position she was found in that tub!

  32. It would be hard to confuse a fresh three-inch abrasion with an acne scar.

    As for not knowing if she bumped into a drawer, sure. But what is more likely? For that matter whose to say she didn’t bump into a drawer and then Drew Peterson drowned her in the bathtub? It’s also within the realm of possibility.

  33. I think it’s very clear that the defense is trying to undermine Blum’s testimony by suggesting that he and Glascow have an understanding that Blum is to reach the homicide conclusion that Glasgow wants. The defense is suggesting bias and collusion.

    It would appear that the defense has no counter explanations for events or counter evidence in this case, so their only means of defense is to try to smear witnesses
    As I stated yesterday, I believe that there was a struggle in the bedroom and that Drew hit Kathleen in the back of the head there. There was Hotshot carpet cleaner in the bedroom and I think Drew used that to clean up a few drops of blood on the carpet.

    I think he dragged her dazed or unconscious body into the bathroom where he held her head down in the toilet to drown her.

    Drew then removed Kathleen’s clothes as they were bloody, perhaps torn, and were likely dirty with fecal matter and urine. When a person dies, most often the bowels and bladder eliminate as the muscles relax.

    No doubt many of the bruises on Kathleen’s body occurred during the initial struggle with Drew. Other bruises and abrasions may have occurred when he was holding her head in the toilet, and further abrasions and bruises may have occurred as he removed her clothes and dumped her body in the bathtub.

    I’m sure many of us have fallen at one time or another in our lifetime. I know I can relate to what Blum stated about the bruises. Whenever I’ve fallen, I get bruises on my body where my body made contact with the floor or ground. I don’t have bruises on any other parts of my body.

    How could Kathleen Savio have hit the back of her head and fallen, and ended up with bruises all over her body – on her front, on her knees, on her buttocks, on her arms? It defies logic. Her bruises are more consistent with a beating or struggle.

    And of course, there’s a missing piece to the puzzle. What object was there in the bathroom that Kathleen could have hit her head on that would have caused a two-inch gash in the back of her head?

    If the professionals who investigated this case can’t find any object that could have caused Kathleen’s head injury, then that object was removed from the bathroom………right along with Kathleen’s clothes.

  34. 😉 Facs!

    Molly – Beth Karas mentioned your scenario on IS today. I thought hmmm… did she read Molly’s theory here? Specifically the toilet drowning. 🙂

  35. could he have hit her head off the sink vanity. I don’t even know if she had one. I think they said it happened after she was in the tub though, but wasn’t that assuming the tub had at one time had water in it.

  36. Here are the in session updates from today:

  37. Prosecution now arguing to include alleged hit man testimony.
    Judge will allow if it’s relevant.

    Well I would say its relevant? Don’t you?

  38. Judge Burmila will allow “hit man” evidence if it is proven to be relevant!

    I don’t know if that just means mentioning Peterson’s attempt to hire Jeffrey Pachter, or if it means the testimony of Pachter.

    This is HUGE, though! So important.

  39. Not sure what to make of this:

    Peterson jurors show signs of solidarity

    JOLIET — The panel of men and women chosen to decide Drew Peterson’s fate have provided a subtle indication of their solidarity.

    On Thursday, the members of the Peterson jury — old, young, black, white — filed into the jury box, each wearing blue clothing.

    On Wednesday, they all wore red, Will County Court Administrator Kurt Sangmeister said.

    “I take that as a sign that they’re all getting along,” he said, adding that the disagreement among jurors often starts when juries reach the deliberation stage.


  40. Defense wants to bar testimony from Stacy’s Uncle, Kyle Toutges.
    Prosecution says “let them prove it” is an implied admission because an innocent person would have denied it.
    Judge calls Toutges statement “rank hearsay.”

    Can someone tell me why that statement is considered “rank hearsay” ?

    Didn’t Drew himself say that to Kyle Toutges and Drew is neither dead nor missing ……

  41. I know, JAH. Obviously if it’s a statement of Drew’s he could called to confirm or deny it. If he wants to take the fifth, that’s his choice.

    I don’t think it is hearsay.

  42. Here is how Toutges’ testimony went down in 2010:

    Another of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky, accused Toutges, Stacy’s uncle, of coming forward with his story for the sake of publicity.

    “Kyle never came forward until he was getting limo rides to Larry King and such,” Brodsky said.

    Toutges explained that he told his sister about Peterson’s suspicious statements, but since the state police had initially decided Savio died accidentally — and because Peterson made her out to be a mad woman — he did not go to the authorities.

    “We were told Kathleen was crazy, on drugs, heavily medicated,” Toutges said. “That’s what Drew told us.”

    Toutges also failed to see the point of reporting Peterson to the police since “he is a police.”


  43. Why is Joel going on and on and on about the blue towel ?

    So far nobody’s implied Drew put it there.

    Witnesses only stated they did not put it there and Kathleen certainly did not put it there, considering she was dead when the towel appeared on the edge of her tub.

    Aren’t Jurors allowed to draw their own conclusion how it may have got there or aren’t they allowed to think for themselves ?

  44. We’re hearing that the defense wants to have pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio testify about the “many” cases of healthy adults drowning in bathtubs. The prosecution asked Judge Burmila to compel him to identify even once instance of this, as he would not do it. The State has their own witness they would like to testify about statistics showing that virtually no healthy adults drown in bathtubs without some sort of drug or alcohol component but the judge decided it was too late to add another witness. (BTW, DiMaio’s own book would seem to counter what he would testify to).


  45. JAH, I go round in circles with the towel stuff.

    I mean, I understand that Drew can’t be forced to testify and by excluding everyone else from the scene he’s kind of backed into having to say that he left it or didn’t. BUT isn’t that the whole purpose of the prosecution in a circumstantial case — to show the circumstances and create doubt and let the jurors decide?

  46. Fact, state should bring up …..Drew knows Martial arts, and can hurt somebody with a quickness with leaving minimal damage. His training and skills of being on the force for umpteen years, and undercover work. This woman was of no match to fend this guy off.

  47. The blue towel is damning because Drew was at the scene, and everyone is testifying it wasn’t there on the tub. But then there is a photo taken and there is a towel on the tub. If nobody else did it, then why is there a towel there? Thus helping the State prove their case of staging the scene to look like an accident.

  48. Maybe the judge is being crabby again and will reconsider in the morning. Toutges testimony doesn’t seem like it would be hearsay to me. Let Drew take the stand and say he never said that.

    I think everyone in that courtroom is getting too pre-occupied with hearsay. Not everything is hearsay.

  49. If Drew doesn’t want to take the stand/not answer anything that would be his prerogative, but how can conversations witnesses had with him become hearsay as a result of it ?

    I don’t get that bit ……

  50. I find it funny how Brodsky got all ticked off that Pam Bosco sits behind Glasgow and gets all “dressed up” and she has nothing to do with the Kathleen Savio case. Brodsky commented on how “they” (the prosecution) put her in front of a microphone to speak for “them.” “Are they afraid to get in front of the microphone themselves” Two things wrong with Mr. Brodsky and his team, they act like children on a playground and they have to object with every sentence and calls for a mistrial every day because they are afraid of the truth. I hope that this jury realizes how arrogant the defense team is and that they are trying to hide the truth and not let the jury have all the facts.

  51. The issue Lorie, is that Judge Burmila won’t let the jurors hear that everyone else says they did not place the blue towel, nor the deduction that only Drew could have placed it there.

  52. Judge will not allow prosecutors to suggest to jury that Drew planted towel at death scene to make it look like accident.

    I can totally understand this bit as earlier on the Judge already made it clear the Prosecution could not ask every man and his dog if they put that towel on the edge of the tub, thereby forcing Drew to say that he didn’t, but if Drew is not obliged to say anything/doesn’t want to take the stand then the answer is left up in the air for Jurors to make up their own mind – isn’t that how it is supposed to go ?

  53. Not only that Dottie, but the defense team doesn’t think Pam Bosco should dress nicely or be made-up for the media, meanwhile they coordinate their outfits the night before, like school girls, and make sure to don the sunglasses rain or shine as if there’s something “cool” about a woman dying in a bathtub.

    Joel’s intern was tweeting today that someone in the media had commented on his flashy suits. Oh boy…

  54. AP story:

    Blum said he cut into parts of Savio’s body, including on her hip, to discover that some bruises went almost to the bone, suggesting a major force caused the injuries. Blum also looked at photographs from the original autopsy and crime scene to make his determination.

    Meczyk also repeatedly challenged Blum about how he could be sure Savio’s bruises were freshly made before she died, suggesting a struggle or beating preceded her death. The defense attorney suggested there were other indications the bruises were at least days old.

    Blum also conceded that no skin or blood was found under Savio’s fingernails, which could have been an indication that she had been involved in a desperate fight for her life.
    “You would expect that during a struggle, there would be … DNA or tissue underneath the fingernails?” Meczyk asked.

    “If the victim scratched the assailant, there may be. Correct,” Blum responded.


  55. Posted by harleyjoey……………
    August 16, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    😉 Facs!

    Molly – Beth Karas mentioned your scenario on IS today. I thought hmmm… did she read Molly’s theory here? Specifically the toilet drowning. 🙂

    Posted by me……………

    Wow! That would be something if Beth Karas read my theory and found it plausible! I’d consider it an honor. 🙂

  56. All this talk of a struggle is nothing more than smoke and mirrors by the defense. They want people to believe that there must have been a struggle when in reality, Drew, with his military, police, and martial arts (as Lorie pointed out) background, was perfectly capable of surprising her and taking her down without a struggle. He was well-equipped to take her by surprise without much of a struggle at all.

  57. “Kyle never came forward until he was getting limo rides to Larry King and such,” Brodsky said.

    Wasn’t that the exact reason Joel Brodsky wanted to represent Drew, to get limo rides and be on Larry King or anyone else wanting to hear him talk and fumble …..

  58. I think it’s huge that Judge Burmilo will allow the prosecution to present the hit man testimony if it’s relevant!

    I hope the judge will allow the hit man testimony, and that Jeffrey Pachter will be allowed to testify.

    I’m sure the defense will have a cow over this and object to every sentence, but this is very important and key evidence that shows Drew Peterson was seriously planning Kathleen’s death in the months prior to her death.

  59. I’ve been here, following along with all of you today, and I can promise I’ll be glued to my computer tomorrow.
    This (if allowed) will include that same $25,000 that Drew alludes to all the time, won’t it? It’s like he’s stuck on that figure.
    Thank all of you for your intelligent questions and answers, your attention to what really matters, and your thoughtful comments.
    Facs, WOW! You’re unmatched and unbeatable!

  60. Jurors looked weary by the time it ended, but Meczyk managed to get Blum to admit to the jury that three doctors disagree with his conclusion. Later, Glasgow said he and Meczyk shook hands outside the courtroom, and Glasgow said there are “no personal hard feelings whatsoever.”

    “We had a real strong day today,” Glasgow said when asked about Blum’s testimony. “Some very important forensic evidence came in. I think it’s a real turning point.”

    But Peterson’s attorneys said Blum’s testimony is just an opinion that other experts will disagree with.

    “There’s other opinions,” defense attorney Steve Greenberg said. “The contradiction in opinions raises a reasonable doubt right there.”


  61. Oh-and I forgot. Welcome to the names we haven’t seen before, and to those we haven’t seen in too long! I’m glad you’re here, and interested in what you have to say.

  62. Blum, who spent two days on the witness stand being questioned by State’s Attorney James Glasgow, is a crucial witness for prosecutors in the high-profile murder case built on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. A defense attorney attacked Blum’s interpretation of the evidence, and the pathologist acknowledged that DNA supporting the prosecution’s theory was never found.

    Glasgow said outside the courthouse that the testimony was “a real turning point.”

    “We had a real strong day today — very important forensic evidence came in,” he said.

    But prosecutors also suffered a potential blow to their case when the judge barred them from implying that Peterson tried to stage the death scene by placing a blue bath towel on the tub shortly after her body was discovered.

    The neighbors who discovered Savio’s body testified that it was odd there were no towels in the bathroom, but a blue towel was later photographed on the edge of the tub. Judge Edward Burmila barred prosecutors from implying that Peterson must have left the towel because every other witness called denied placing it there.

    Burmila said it would violate Peterson’s constitutional right to remain silent by allowing prosecutors to place blame on him for not testifying about the towel. The ruling lopped off an argument prosecutors have spent days laying the groundwork for — that Peterson tried to correct mistakes he made in staging the scene.


  63. Burmila said it would violate Peterson’s constitutional right to remain silent by allowing prosecutors to place blame on him for not testifying about the towel.

    Horsecrap. What’s next for this judge? It’s wrong for the prosecution to imply that Peterson murdered his wife because it violates his Constitutional rights? This guy is as bad as Judge Perry. Perry kept someone from testifying to a conversation that she had had with Casey Anthony because it was “too prejudicial” when it really just made her look guilty. This was the same type of testimony as this testimony by this Kyle guy the judge barred.

  64. Molly made a good point about the bowels and bladder emptying when someone dies. Why isn’t there any evidence of that in the photos taken of Kathy? Seems to me that this would be good evidence that she died outside the tub.

  65. But Peterson’s attorneys said Blum’s testimony is just an opinion that other experts will disagree with.

    “There’s other opinions,” defense attorney Steve Greenberg said. “The contradiction in opinions raises a reasonable doubt right there.”

    What experts? The ones they paid to tell their version of the story? It is no secret they have paid others to say what they wanted them to say. These “others” also didn’t examine Kathleen’s body, nor where they there during the autopsy. So IMO if I were a jury that would stick in mind, that this is just opinion and nothing more than that. How can they say what happened to her, without examining her? Or seeing first hand? I don’t think the jury is going to listen to opinion over facts!

  66. It is all over with for Drew if the judge allows the hitman to testify, along with Neil Schori. This all depends on the judge and what he allows them to say. We also need Ric Mims to testify that Drew had him following her around, and watching her while he was in her house. That would prove he was able to get in there with or without a key. But, the judge probably won’t allow it!

  67. One of the defense’s experts, Vincent DiMaio, wrote:

    “Adults who drown in bathtubs are usually found to have contributing factors such as natural disease (cardiad, seizure disorders) or toxicological abnormalities (alchohol/drug intoxication)”

    While another of their experts contributed to a National Enquirer story:

    Forensic pathologist Dr. Daniel Spitz, medical examiner in Macomb County, Mich., examined the autopsy and inquest transcript for The ENQUIRER – and was stunned by the ruling.

    “People don’t drown in bathtubs.I would have told the police I think this is a homicide. You need to go and investigate this like a homicide.”


    And these are two of the guys who are going to testify now that Kathleen Savio’s death was an accident??

  68. Very good point Lorie! Dr. Larry Blum actually examined the body himself and was in the house (to see the tub in context) shortly after Savio’s death. NONE of the defense’s experts can say the same.

  69. I looked around a little on the web and read that people don’t necessarily evacuate their bowels and bladder upon death. If they were empty at the time of death then nothing will be released.

Comments are closed.