Drew Peterson trial – day twenty. State calls Dr. Michael Baden as rebuttal witness

UPDATE 02:33:

State now addressing possible impeachment statements made yesterday by Savio’s son Tom Peterson. Judge: “Are you impeaching his memory?”
Prosecutors will call no more rebuttal witnesses.
Judge: Closings for Tuesday?
The judge sends for the jury.
The jurors return to the courtroom. Prosecutor Glasgow: “Judge, we have no further witnesses. Respectfully, the People would rest.
Closing arguments will be Tuesday.
The jurors have now left the courtroom. Judge Burmila is engaged with the attorneys in a sidebar.
Judge Burmila has left the bench. The jury has been sent home, but the attorneys remain. The trial is in a recess.
The judge has returned to the courtroom. The trial is in recess until Friday morning at 10:15 CT/11:15 ET. At that time, the judge and the attorneys will hold a charge conference in open court.

UPDATE 01:37:

Trial back in session after lunch recess. Court business before jurors return.
Goldberg motioning to keep state pathology expert Mary Case off stand.
Judge allows pathology expert Dr. Case to testify on rebuttal
State calls Dr. Mary Case to the stand. SA Glasgow to examine.
Dr. Case will probably rebut defense expert assertion that she primarily deals with shaken children’s brains.
Dr. Case says that defense expert represented her testimony as being that every loss of consciousness results in injury to the brain, which is not true.
Dr. Mary Case says people don’t sustain Savio’s kind of injuries in bathtub fall.
Dr. Case answers a few questions about diffuse axonal injuries. Glasgow concludes his testimony of the witness.
Atty Goldberg now crossing Dr. Case.
Dr. Case charges the state $350 per hour. Already charged more than $8,000 thru 2011. That’s a govt discount. Usually charges $650/hour.
Dr. Case testified that in order for s/o to sustain a brain injury it would require a fall from more than 15 ft not the 49 inches in the tub.
The witness repeats that she disagrees with Dr. Jentzen’s opinion. “And you know that he vehemently disagrees with your opinion?” “I understand that. We obviously disagree with one another.” The cross-examination of Dr. Case is now concluded.
Under re-direct by SA Glasgow once again, Dr. Case says that it takes roughly two hours to microscopically view signs of axonal injury. She saw no sign of that in this case.
Goldberg on re-cross. The witness says there may be “markers” of DAI on the brain. “I did not ever tell this jury that there would be large collections of blood.” “In all the publications you’ve written, you have not written one word about these kinds of markers?” “Every paper I’ve ever written about DAI talks about thin smears [of blood] . . . I’m not quite sure how else to say it.”
Dr. Case steps down.

UPDATE 11:45:

Brief recess.
Atty Meczyk ends cross by asking Baden if he was a paid expert for OJ Simpson and accused Chicago torture cop John Burge. He was.
Court in lunch recess until 1:15 p.m. CDT.

UPDATE 11:05:

Defense attorney Meczyk begins cross-examination: “You know I have to ask you some questions. Is that all right with you?”
Meczyk quizzes Dr. Baden about the blood on Savio’s diaphragm and how the other pathologists did not note it in their autopsy reports. He asks if the blood could have been transferred from the organs when diaphragm was placed in a viscera bag. Dr. Baden thinks that would not be likely. Believes that he paid more attention to the diaphragm than the other pathologists did.
Baden agrees he’d expect to see external injuries in area around Savio’s diaphragm. Miraculously, Meczyk says, there are none. “I agree with everything you say, Sir, except for the ‘miraculously.’”
Prosecution objects to Baden questioning — “I don’t understand how this is impeachment.” Meczyk: “I’ll make counsel understand.”
Baden says that the autopsy he performed [on Savio] “had nothing to do with” his consulting job on FOX news.

Steph Watts

Meczyk asks about Baden’s assistant at autopsy, Steph Watts. Baden says family asked that a producer for Fox News be present.
Baden says he had a contract with Fox to educate people about forensic pathology but did the autopsy pro bono.
Baden tells jury autopsy was videotaped. He is unaware of defense claim FOX assistant tried to sell tape to makers of Girls Gone Wild videos.
Greenberg: “It’s a series of interviews on spring break locations . . . they get very drunk women to do embarrassing things.
Greenberg goes on — Fox producer said call was unrelated to Savio autopsy, but admits Girls Gone Wild owner’s number was on his notes.
Judge says he will admonish jury to ignore defense question about “Girls Gone Wild.”

UPDATE 10:30:

Defense didn’t like phrase “could have been.” Prosecution to follow-up and ask Baden if he believes Savio’s wounds ARE defensive injuries.
Brief recess
Dr.Baden’s autopsy report on Kathleen Savio.
Baden says Savio’s injuries could have been defensive or non-defensive. “People sometimes scratch themselves.”
Dr. Baden: “In my experience, and in my opinion you can’t get all of those injuries from a single fall.”
Once again, Dr. Baden says the pattern of hemorrhage in the diaphragm area is indicative of injury. That concludes the direct examination of this witness.

UPDATE 09:37:

Judge on the bench. Some court business before jurors brought in.
Jury all wearing suits today. “Sartorial splendor,” the judge declares.

Pathologist, Michael Baden

Prosecutors call forensic pathologist Michael Baden as their first rebuttal witness.
Defense tries to stipulate Baden is “uncategorically qualified” as an expert. State wants to go thru his resume anyway.
State going through Baden’s extensive background.
Dr. Baden is testifying as an expert witness with no objection from the defense.
Baden said he was not paid to do autopsy in 2007. He was paid $5,000 by Glasgow’s office to attend a hearing two years later.
Baden says he disagrees with opinions reached by doctors Jentzen and DiMaio.
Baden says Savio’s injuries were consistent with a struggle. “I disagree with that opinion..the injury pattern..in my opinion could not be caused by a fall.”
Baden disagrees with defense expert who said Savio had a blood pressure condition that made her dizzy. “Interesting speculation,” he says.
Baden disputes defense experts’ claim that mark on Savio’s buttock was a “drying artifact.” “That’s an abrasion… and is not a post-mortem artifact.” he says.
Baden says the pattern of injuries to Savio’s left side had to be from a ‘series of falls’ not just one.
Baden said he disagrees with another opinion that Savio’s hair would have wiped away blood. It would have left distinct pattern, he says.
Dr Baden said injury to Savio’s diaphragm could have been caused “by a very strong bear hug” said her other injuries consistent with struggle.
(Baden’s testimony frequently interrupted by objections/sidebars)
Baden tells jury that injuries on Savio’s hands and wrists “could have been sustained while she was trying to defend herself.”

UPDATE 09:00:

State’s rebuttal witnesses we can expect today include Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Mary Case.
At this point prosecution is not planning to call Dr. Blum; although, he’s in the next courtroom testifying in the Vaughn case.

Yesterday the defense called Kathleen Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith and eldest son, Tom Peterson to the stand and the defense rested their case. Today we expect to hear from two rebuttal witnesses for the prosecution.

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

~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.~


145 thoughts on “Drew Peterson trial – day twenty. State calls Dr. Michael Baden as rebuttal witness

  1. 🙄 Lopez has some surprises for Harry Smith in his closing. Oh, and he will have some tweets!

    Is Harry Smith on trial and nobody told me? These brainiacs are so pissed off at Harry, acting like a bunch of little kids that are going to get back at him.

    Pot meet kettle – They are belittling him for going on TV to do interviews this weekend. 🙄

    Funny how they go on and on and on about Stacy wanting money from Drew. When one reporter asked where she was, they all started walking away. Another OOPS? Seems like yet another huge motive to get rid of her. On national TV Screaming to the rooftops that Stacy wanted money!

    Drew wanted money! That is why 2 of his wives are dead! DUH!

    You just can’t make this stuff up!

    Lopez and the “brains” Brodsky are on IS live right now.

  2. The jury has to know why Stacy didn’t ultimately retain Harry Smith unless they have been living under a rock the last 5 years. Don’t you think? Even though no one can “say” it or talk about it, they have to know.

    I also have to comment on the medical examiners testimony about the “accident”. I have suffered a fall while taking a shower which was in the bathtub. I had had a hip replacement 3 weeks prior. The prosthesis dislocated and I fell straight back and down, hitting the back of my head really hard on a porcelain tub. I did not have a laceration anywhere. I did not lose conciousness. And my contusions were on the posterior parts of my body. Just saying…

  3. I normally don’t like name calling, but I have to say that Mr. Lopez is a PIG! On IS saying that Pastor Schori had to bring a chaperone to his meeting with Stacy because she was trying to seduce him.

    He said that he will have more to say about that in his closing. 🙄

    I really hope he does. This trial is about Kathleen. Way to keep bringing up Stacy! I only hope that resonates with the jury. This angry bunch of bullies belittling 2 of Drew’s wives that can no longer speak for themselves.

    Their brilliance is mind boggling! 🙄

  4. In Session

    Prosecution PIO Chuck Pelkie has just told us that today’s expected rebuttal witnesses are Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Mary Case. At this point, the prosecution is NOT planning to call Dr. Larry Blum.

  5. from todays tribune
    “It’s a gift from God,” State’s Attorney James Glasgow was overheard saying outside the courtroom after Smith finished testifying.

  6. HarleyJoey: I feel the same way, but in their defense, Drew Peterson really didn’t give them much to work with as far as a defense goes. His mouth, actions, and arrogance pretty much signed the confession as far as a defense is concerned.

  7. The defense team is obviously lowering themselves to the level of desparate gutter rats because that is what desparate, unethical people do. Plus, they have to give their client what he wants – Kathy’s and Stacy’s reputations smeared.

    I wish the prosecution could have asked Tom how old he was when his mother was found dead in the bathtub, if Drew had provided them with counseling, and how Drew helped them honor their mother’s memory. Of course, even if they could have asked, I doubt the latter answers would have been truthful.

    Simply asking him how old he was would have discredited a good portion of his testimony in the jurors eyes, simply because he would have been too young to understand the reality of it all.

  8. Judge Burmila has taken the bench. He notes that he has been provided by the defense with some case law. Attorney Greenberg addresses the Court, says the case law he’s just provided is more applicable to this trial than what the prosecution had previously cited. Prosecutor Koch disagrees, says the facts in the State’s case law is close to the Peterson case than what the defense has offered. This is all in relation to an argument about whether or not Kathleen Savio’s death certificate should be admitted into evidence.

    Judge Burmila sides with the defense. “Over the State’s objection, [the death certificate] will be admitted.”

    The prosecution informs the judge that it is no longer planning to call rebuttal witness Nicholas Pontarelli (which eliminates a discovery issue). Prosecutor Connor says that the State will call Dr. Michael Baden as its first witness this morning, and describes the limited scope of Baden’s testimony. With that, the judge sends for the jury.

  9. In Session

    The State calls its first rebuttal witness: Dr. Michael Baden (questioned by prosecutor Connor). “I’m in private practice . . . I’m a physician; my area of expertise is forensic pathology.” The defense offers to stipulate to Dr. Baden’s expertise, but the State rejects that offer. So the witness begins to go over his educational and professional background. He says that he has done special research into the human diaphragm. He worked for the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office (originally as Deputy Chief, and then as Chief Medical Examiner), then because the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the New York State Police (until last year).

  10. In Session

    Dr. Baden continues to go over his professional experience. At one point, the defense objects, and the prosecution asks for a sidebar.

  11. In Session

    The sidebar ends. The witness is qualified as an expert, without defense objection. Over his career, he’s performed more than 20,000 autopsies. “Do you have a contract with the FOX News Agency to provide services?” “Yes, I’ve had a contract with FOX News . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Did you have occasion to be contacted by members of Kathleen Savio’s family in 2007?” “Yes . . . I was contacted by members of the family, and asked . . .” Objection/Sustained. “Were you contacted by members of Kathleen Savio’s family in 2007?” “I was.” “As a result of that contact, did you perform an autopsy here in Will County in 2007?” “I did . . . the autopsy was performed at the Will County Morgue, with the approval of the coroner, Mr. O’Neil. And it was performed two days after a previous exhumation autopsy had been performed by Dr. Blum.” “How much were you paid for that autopsy?” “I was paid nothing. It was pro bono . . . the only payment I received in this matter was two years later, when I was asked by the Will County prosecutor to come to a hearing. I was paid $5,000.”

  12. In Session
    Dr. Baden is next asked about Dr. DiMaio’s opinion of injuries to Savio’s clavicle. He is shown a photograph of that area. “This is the first incision in an autopsy . . . in an autopsy, two incisions are made . . . “ The parties approach the bench for a sidebar.

  13. In Session
    The sidebar ends. “The hand is up by the chin . . . the first incision made in an autopsy is a Y-shaped incision . . . one reason to do this is to show the Adam’s apple, in the center . . .there’s no evidence of hemorrhage, of strangulation.” The defense objects, and asks for a sidebar.

  14. In Session

    The sidebar ends. The jurors are excused from the courtroom. Attorney Meczyk objects to this testimony, claiming that this is not proper rebuttal evidence because it actually agrees with what Dr. DiMaio said. Judge: “That’s how I recollect his [DiMaio’s] testimony.” Prosecutor Connor asks for a moment.

  15. In Session

    Connor responds, says that the transcript he has of Dr. DiMaio’s testimony does not reflect that DiMaio’s and Baden’s testimony are saying the same thing. Judge Burmila questions the prosecutor, grilling him on the relevance of Baden’s testimony in this area. Ultimately, the judge says he will allow the testimony. However, before the witness can retake the stand, the State concedes that no report from Baden to that effect was ever made available to the defense. The judge then sends for the jury.

  16. In Session

    The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. “Can you explain how many separate areas of injuries are reflected in those four areas?” “Two areas of injury: one just below the right collar bone that matches up to that area of hemorrhage. And another one in this area here, just below the collar bone here, is the second area . . . the tissue overlying the clavicles are cut through, to permit the lifting of the area . . . so there are two areas of hemorrhage into the soft tissues overlying the collar bones.” “Can you explain how you know those aren’t artifacts?” “Because this is typically what hemorrhage is, a rupture of blood vessels at a point of trauma . . .these pictures were taken the day after the remains of Kathleen Savio were found; she was in a fresh state, back in 2004 . . . this area is a little pooling of blood; that’s an artifact. But these two areas are bruising, bruising of a body.”

  17. In Session

    The witness says that injuries to Savio’s hands and wrists “could have been incurred while she was trying to defend herself.”

    The defense objects to the last answer, and the parties go to a sidebar. A moment later, the jurors are excused from the courtroom.

  18. Hey, y’all. What’s going on over there? I’m having a hard time keeping up. Is this correct? Baden is testifying that the clavicle bruises are from autopsy? And that the injuries were sustained by a series of falls? And that she did have defensive wounds on her hands and arms? And that the diaphragm injury was a result of a big bear hug from behind? Am I getting it all? Are they only letting this guy get about one sentence out and then sidebars are called?

  19. Hi Dmitri- Baden’s not saying that the clavicle bruises are from the autopsy. There’s no blood pressure after death to create bruising. He’s just saying they weren’t caused by choking and also that they aren’t artifacts of decomposition, if I’m following correctly.

    I think you are right on all the other bits. It’s VERY hard to follow with so many interruptions. I wonder if the jury is getting much out of the testimony?

  20. In Session

    Connor is questioned by the judge about Baden’s testimony that Savio’s hand and wrist injuries “could be” signs of a struggle. Judge: “You said ‘might there be?’ and he said, ‘yeah, there could be’ . . . what is that? . . . are you going to ask him for a definitive opinion?” “Yes, I would ask him if these are consistent with defense injuries.” With that, the judge sends for the jury.

    Before the jurors come back, the judge decides to take a brief recess. He leaves the bench.

  21. In Session
    The witness and jurors are backing the courtroom. Prosecutor Connor continues his direct examination by showing Dr. Baden two photographs. “Dr. Jentzen said these injuries are not defensive . . . do you agree?’ “Well, he may be right . . . the second one is more indicative . . . it’s consistent with that [self-defense] and it’s also consistent with other things.” The witness is then asked about the bruising in the clavicle. “That would be caused by some blunt force injury. It could be a fist, it could be falling against a hard object . . . it’s a blunt force injury, localized . . . a blunt impact against a solid object can cause right and left hemorrhages [in the clavicles].” “If someone were pressed against a solid object, could that cause those injuries as well?” “It could.”

  22. In Session

    Dr. Baden disagrees with Dr. Jentzen’s opinion that all of Kathleen Savio’s injuries could have caused by a single fall. “In my opinion, you can’t get all those injuries from a single fall.”

    Once again, Dr. Baden says the pattern of hemorrhage in the diaphragm area is indicative of injury. That concludes the direct examination of this witness.

  23. Attorney Ralph Meczyk begins his cross of Dr. Baden

    In Session
    “Your position is that you saw hemorrhage or blood on the diaphragm of Ms. Savio’s body?” “Yes.” “You know that diaphragm was removed by Dr. Mitchell, and was placed along with other organs in a viscera bag?” “Yes.” “That muscle then ca
    me into contact with other organs?” “Yes.” “When other organs are co-mingled in that viscera bag, there can be a transference of blood?” “It’s possible. Unlikely, but possible . . . by the time they’re place in a viscera bag, the blood has been drained out.” “It is not a remote possibility?” “It’s very small . . . and the blood I’m looking at is not lying on the diaphragm; it’s embedded in the muscle.” “You were the pathologist who first discovered the blood on the diaphragm?” “I believe so, yes.” “Dr. Mitchell missed it?” “He didn’t describe it.” “And Dr. Blum missed it, too?” “That’s correct.” “And Dr. Mitchell would have been in a better position to see that first than you?” “Yes. If he were looking for it.” “You knew he was a competent pathologist, with many years of experience?” “Yes.” “And to get to other organs, you have to remove the diaphragm?” “Well, they’re moved simultaneously.” “And a competent pathologist would be looking at something like that?” “They would see the diaphragm as they were removing it.” “And Dr. Blum missed it?” “Yeah . . . this is a very slight detail . . . as far as I know, he did not include it in his report. I did research on the diaphragm; I spend more time looking at diaphragms than other forensic pathologist. So I may have looked longer at it.”

  24. In Session
    “You saw evidence of hemorrhage in that diaphragm?” “I did.” “And you saw some red blood cells there?” “Yes.” “Indicating to you that it was a rather new or fresh wound?’ “At the time of death, in 2004.” “Yesterday, when we met, I asked you about the apparatus that slices the tissue very thinly . . . is it an artifact of the microtome, an old wound with some dragged out some red blood cells . . . sort of like slicing into a walnut cake, and the knife dragging out one of the walnuts. Isn’t that more than likely what happened here?” “If I agreed with you on that, then I didn’t understand the question . . . what if that happened with cancer cells? That would be medical malpractice.” “But isn’t it true that when I met with you you told us there’s a possibility that the microtone could drag out red blood cells?” “We spoke about microtome . . . if you have the impression from me that that’s what happened, then I misspoke.”

  25. In Session
    Dr. Baden says that “more often than not” internal injury is accompanied by signs of external injury. “Miraculously, in this case, we have no evidence in that area of external injury?” “I agree with everything you say, Sir, except for the ‘miraculously.’” “If she had been clothed, there wouldn’t be an external or internal injuries?’ “It would be less likely.” “Are you opinion that you thought that this injury could have come from a bear hug?” “Yes.” “Sure about that?” “”Yes, from a squeezing injury.” “Not a blunt force injury?” “Well, it’s blunt . . .not a trauma from another object.” “It wouldn’t be from a punch or a kick?” “A bear hug would not be a punch or kick, no . . . the thing about the diaphragm is that it’s constantly moving. It would just depend on how it’s caught by the trauma.”

  26. In Session

    “Today, your opinion is that more likely this was a bear hug type injury?” “No, it could be a bear hug, could be a blow. I don’t know which one it is.” The witness is then asked about his Feb. 19, 2010 hearing testimony, and confronted with a copy of that transcript. In that testimony, the witness said that there would “not necessarily” be accompanying internal and external injuries. “You’re an honorable person, I accept what you say.” Objection. The parties go to a sidebar.

  27. In Session
    The sidebar ends. Attorney Meczyk continues to read from Dr. Baden’s hearsay hearing testimony, “Nowhere did you opine that this was caused by a bear hug?” “I will accept what you said.”

  28. In Session
    According to Dr. Baden, the two injuries to the clavicle were “pretty much” symmetrical. “You disagree with Drs. Jentzen and DiMaio as to their opinions whether there was a struggle or not?” “Yes.” “But you’d agree they’re eminent forensic pathologist, and have many, many years of experience, just like you?” “Yes.” “And in the pathology community, pathologists will come to different opinions?” “Yes. Most of the times, we agree. But sometimes we disagree.” “You do respect Dr. Jentzen?” “I don’t really know him, but I respect him. I know the book that he wrote . . . [and] I’ve known Dr. DiMaio since he was a medical student; his father was my boss.” “And you no doubt respect his opinion?” “Yes.”

  29. In Session
    “You did not perform this autopsy pro bono, did you?” “I did.” “But you were paid by FOX News?” “I had a contract with FOX News that was irrelevant to the autopsy . . . I’m a consultant to speak, to educate people about forensic pathology . . . I heard the family may be have been referred to me by somebody at FOX. But my autopsy had nothing to do with FOX.” “Would you tell us who your assistant was at that autopsy?” “Yes . . . the family asked me to do the autopsy, and they asked that Steph Watts, a producer for FOX, be present.” “Steph Watts is a producer for FOX News?’ “Was a producer for the Greta Van Susterin show.” “Does he have any medical training?” “No.” “He does have experience as one of the producers of Girls Gone Wild?” Objection/Overruled. “I Have no knowledge of that.” “You journeyed to Chicago for this particular case, isn’t that true?” “No . . .” Objection. The question is withdrawn, but the State asks for a sidebar.

  30. In Session
    The sidebar ends. The witness confirms that producer Steph Watts videotaped the Savio autopsy. “Didn’t Mr. Watts try to peddle that video to Girls Gone Wild?” “That’s the first time I’ve heard that. Obviously, that would be totally improper, if that were done.” The attorneys go to a sidebar.

  31. One reason why Drew Peterson defense does not like Steph Watts: He outed Brodsky/Peterson’s plan to “peddle” a videotape package of Drew and Chrissy for $200k.

  32. In Session
    The sidebar ends. The jurors are excused. Prosecutor Connor confirms that a phone number for Girls Gone Wild was on a note pad belonging to Steph Watts, but asks the defense if there is any evidence that the video was ever peddled. Judge; “I think it’s a very good thing to expose my ignorance of what Girls Gone Wild is.” Greenberg: “It’s a series of interviews on spring break locations . . . they get very drunk women to do embarrassing things . . . I believe Mr. Watts admitted to calling during the autopsy . . .” Connor: “He spoke to him, yes . . . but I don’t think there’s been any evidence that it had anything to do with what he was doing at the time.”

  33. In Session

    Greenberg: “Mr. Watts previously testified that he was checking voice mail messages during the autopsy. While he was checking messages, he got a phone call from… the creator of Girls Gone Wild, who was in jail for tax problems . . . he claims it was unrelated.” Judge: “Then I’m going to sustain the State’s objection, and instruct the jury to ignore this evidence.” He sends for the jurors

  34. In Session
    The witness and the jurors return to the courtroom. The judge instructs the jury to disregard the references to Girls Gone Wild. Meczyk continues: “When you performed the autopsy, Mr. Steph Watts from FOX was there, and he was very helpful to you?” “He was helpful; he took notes primarily.” “And he videotaped the autopsy?” “Not the body.” “Know where that videotape is now?” “I assume it’s with FOX News.” “It’s not with the Savio family, is it?” “Not that I’m aware of.”

  35. wow thus far, hope the jury convices him , me think if he does not get convicted he may do this again to some woman .. sounds like boden did great ,, but the DEF is ignorant regarding side bars every 5 mins .. that is a wast of time i think i never heard of that many at one time

  36. In Session
    Although Baden has treated people with orthostatic hypotension. It is not, however, his field of expertise. “Did you read the letters or the medical records from Dr. Neri or Dr. Motiani?” “I saw some records that she was dizzy.” “They both opined that she suffered from this condition . . . did you take that into consideration?” Objection. The parties go to a sidebar.

    The sidebar ends. But almost immediately, the attorneys go to another one.

  37. In Session The sidebar ends. Judge Burmila: “We’re going to take a very brief recess, so that they can have a conference.” He leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess.

  38. Thank you Harley for all the In Session updates!

    At one point Steph Watts explained exactly what he was doing in regards to Baden’s autopsy. (whole story at the link)

    I was already in Chicago covering the case, and accompanied Dr. Baden on every endeavor while he was in town. I asked permission of the family to be in the room with Dr. Baden while the autopsy was performed, and they agreed. I agreed with the Savio family that I would only film Dr. Baden, and no images of the body would ever be filmed or aired. The family knew Dr. Baden would be reporting his findings, whichever way they concluded. During the autopsy, which lasted approximately 3 hours, I took extensive notes and shot video.


  39. You are welcome Facs. 😉

    Is it wrong that I am somewhat amused watching In Session right now? They are all completely befuddled at the brilliant move that Brodsky pulled yesterday with Harry Smith.

    It is kind of funny. 🙂

    Judge White thought he was in the twilight zone yesterday! He can’t believe they did it! He says they rolled the dice and it came up snake eyes. The defense put Drew in the house, and gave Stacy the last word! 🙂

  40. Thx for all the updates Harleyjoey.

    Occurs to me that it might have been better for the Pros to quit while they ahead…ie at the end of yesterday shortly after their star witness Harry Smith testified.

    To me all this latest testimony does is underline for the jury that there are many disagreements among the pathologist. In other words at the end of the day, I bet no juror will in any better position to confirm this was no accident. OTOH every juror would have been blown away by testimony that Stacy’s lawyer warned her not to conceal a homicide!

  41. In Session
    The witness and the jurors return to the courtroom. The judge instructs the jurors, “You’re to ignore the references to any prior diagnosis of Ms. Savio as to orthostatic hypotension.” Dr. Baden is then asked about his testimony for the defense in the O.J. Simpson case, as well as the case of U.S. v. Jon Burge. “I’m just trying to give my opinion as to what the science is, no matter who it helps or who it hurts.” That ends the defense cross-examination of this witness. The State has only one question, establishing that Savio’s injuries were consistent with having been pushed down on a hard surface. That ends Dr. Baden’s testimony, and the witness is excused.

    Judge Burmila calls the lunch recess at this time. He leaves the bench, and the trial is in recess until 1:15 CT/2:15 ET.

  42. Love that they argue that Stacy apparently used Schori and Smith to take everything away from Drew yet also want people to believe she ran away with only her bikini. Derrr!

  43. Well…I think Dr. Baden gave the jury quite a lot to think about, and so I call good on Baden. Bear hug my sweet patootie! She was subdued by force and pushed to keep her immobile. I’m sure the jury can see that!

  44. Hard to believe the defense would be dumb enough to bring up OJ Simpson…Hopefully this triggered the jurors to reflect how similar were the M.Os.of both Drew Peterson and OJ Simpson in trailing their wives every move, and how dangerous these two wife-beating, controlling men were ultimately to their ex-wives.

  45. Right, TAI!?

    The plotting and scheming evil vixen, Stacy Peterson, intent on divorcing and extorting all the cash she could from that poor honorable police sergeant, suddenly just said, “Awww, screw it!” and took off with her pretend boyfriend to some undisclosed tropical vacation.

    Of course, the jury isn’t hearing the part about her being missing, so presumably they are left to wonder what came of this “Stacy”..

  46. According to a blogger on Websleuth who’s been maintaining an unaudited daily running total here are the stats for the Peterson case up to the end of last night day 19

    Grand total for trial: 189 Sidebars
    Defense – 81 / Prosecutors – 60 / Judge – 48
    Jurors out 96 times

    Presumably with this morning’s flurry of disputes, the jurors achieved their 100th removal from the courtroom.

    If i was a juror, i would not be a happy camper. Just saying.

  47. I agree the State should have ended with yesterday’s testimony. It was strong. Not knowing as much as some of you do about this case to hear that autopsy had camera crews and a reporter in the room just does not seem right to me. I wonder if there are any juror’s who feel like I do about hearing this for the first time.

  48. That was at least a couple of days ago. I heard somewhere else that Judge Stephen White was going to represent him for this. Either that – or my brain is jumbling this around as I have only been able to watch the case with 1/8 of an eye…

  49. Heartland, At this point, the jury has heard from a lot of pathologists. I think the sad truth is that since their opinions differ so greatly, that they could very well cancel each other out.

    I think that the footage from Baden’s autopsy was aired on Greta Van Susteren’s show but it’s been so long now that I can’t even recall if I saw it. I do know that the camera was never aimed at her body. The autopsy was done on behalf of the Savios, but of course it was a bit of a coup for FOX to have access to her remains. I don’t think it was about money at all (unless you consider that ratings – $)

    That may make Baden’s autopsy seem a little sketchy to the jurors, but they will also consider that he actually did an autopsy, unlike all the defense specialists who relied on photographs and other people’s reports.

    We shall see…

  50. Kathleen Savio couldn’t have suffered a cut on the back of her head and bruises across the front of her body from a fall in her bathtub, celebrity pathologist Michael Baden testified.

    “They wouldn’t all come from a single fall,” Baden said Thursday at Drew Peterson’s murder trial.

    Baden instead testified the injuries he saw on Savio’s body following a 2007 autopsy more likely were inflicted by a struggle or assault


  51. In Session

    Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Attorney Goldberg addresses the Court about the fact that the prosecution wants to recall Dr. Mary Case at this time.

    Goldberg says the he’s reviewed Case’s direct examination, and she’s already discussed the possibility of axonal shearing in this case, “which is exactly what she’s supposed to talk about this afternoon. . . . it’s just not appropriate rebuttal-type evidence.” Prosecutor Glasgow responds: “There are only two issues we’re recalling Dr. Case on. One is where Dr. Jentzen testified about her specialty being shaken babies . . . that’s just flat-out incorrect; it’s simply a falsehood. And with regard to the issue that Mr. Goldberg just raised . . . that’s a misstatement of what she said . . . they completely altered what she said, and I think that’s something she has a right to address. Her testimony will be brief.” Judge Burmila makes his ruling, says the State will be allowed to call Dr. Case. He then calls for the jury.

    Before the jury enters, the attorneys ask for a moment.

    The jurors enter the courtroom, and the prosecution calls its next rebuttal witness: forensic pathologist Dr. Mary Case. She is questioned by prosecutor Glasgow. “When it comes to brains, most of my autopsies are run of the mill people. Of the 11,000 autopsies I’ve done, the great majority are adults.” “You’ve had a chance to read Dr. Jentzen’s testimony in this case?” “I did.” Prosecutor Glasgow tries to ask Dr. Case about Dr. Jentzen’s statement about Savio’s brain injury. But before he can finish it, the parties go to a sidebar.

  52. In Session

    The sidebar ends. “Doctor, could you explain diffuse axonal injury?” “Yes, it’s created by inertial brain motion; the brain is caused to move separately from the head . . . the container is more rigid. If very forceful motion is applied, your brain can move separately . . . when that kind of motion is made of the brain, there is also a type of hemorrhage created in the brain called subdural hemorrhage.” Objection/Sustained. “What types of falls would create a diffuse axonal injury?” “Usually it’s from a motor vehicle accident . .. very few falls, unless they’re from a great height. A regular fall would not generate sufficient force to cause a diffuse axonal injury.” “Do you have an opinion, based on the scene in this case, whether or not a person of her height could fall and sustain a diffuse axonal injury?” Objection/Sustained. “We do not see diffuse axonal injury outside of very specific types of trauma.” That concludes the direct examination.

    Attorney Goldberg begins his cross. “Last week, when we spoke, I asked you about Mary Case, Inc.?” “Yes.” Objection/Sustained. The defense asks for a sidebar.

  53. In Session

    The sidebar ends. The witness is asked about the amount of money she’s billed the prosecutor’s office in this case. “I don’t charge for preparation. Any work that I do is charged at the rate of $350 an hour. That’s half the rate I normally charge; any government employee gets that price.” “But you are billing roughly $8,000?” “Yes.” “You told the jury that if Ms. Savio had suffered DAI you would never see that at autopsy?” “You would not be able to see it unless she survived for about two and a half hours.” “In your opinion, when Ms. Savio drowned it was well less than two and a half hours?” “She didn’t linger for two hours.” “So you wouldn’t expect to see DAI, even if it was there?’ “I would not expect to see the torn axons. But I would expect to see is a thin layer of blood, however . . . it takes two hours of survival to actually be able to see the torn axons.”

    “You told the jury that a fall, you would need a significant fall, from 15 to 20 feet, to produce DAI?” “Correct,” “But you’ve written simply about forces where the head is abruptly accelerated and decelerated?” “Correct.” The State objects, and asks for a sidebar.

    The sidebar ends. “In this chapter that you wrote, you say that DAI is seen in falls?” “Yes . . . from falls greater than the height of an individual . . . that’s where your head is crushed.”

  54. In Session

    The sidebar ends. The jurors are then excused from the courtroom. Glasgow puts his objection on the record, says that questions about a child’s brain are irrelevant and beyond the scope of direct. The judge overrules the objection, and says that he will allow the question. He sends for the jury.

    The witness and jurors are now back in the courtroom. “I want to talk about a paper you wrote, which was published in 2007?” “I remember it.” “You talk about a study you reference that involved adult primates?” “Adult primates, yes . . . you would have to kill an individual to study it.” Goldberg reads from this article. “According to your paper, primates have suffered DAI from hitting even soft surfaces?” “That statement was intended to reference injuries to an infant.” “Did I read it correctly, though, before?” “Yes, you did.” The witness is then asked about another article that she wrote. “Did I read that correctly, Doctor?” “Yes, you did.”

    The witness repeats that she lowers her rate for any governmental agency. “That’s a very small percentage of the cases that you do?” “That’s correct.” “But the State Attorney received a discount for your services?” “That’s correct.”

    The witness repeats that she disagrees with Dr. Jentzen’s opinion. “And you know that he vehemently disagrees with your opinion?” “I understand that. We obviously disagree with one another.” The cross-examination of Dr. Case is now concluded.

    Once again, Dr. Case says that it takes roughly two hours to microscopically view signs of axonal injury. She saw no sign of that in this case.

  55. Sorry to be today’s broken record…but why didn’t they just take yesterdays “Gift from God” and quit while they were ahead

    The rebuttal by.Mary Case
    Is a Waste of Space

    Oxy breaks into rap…

  56. In Session

    The redirect is over, and Goldberg begins his recross. Once again, the witness is challenged by something that she’s written before. “DAI is diffuse, so it’s not a local injury?” “Correct.” The witness says there may be “markers” of DAI on the brain. “I did not ever tell this jury that there would be large collections of blood.” “In all the publications you’ve written, you have not written one word about these kinds of markers?” “Every paper I’ve ever written about DAI talks about thin smears [of blood] . . . I’m not quite sure how else to say it.”

    The witness identifies some notes from a seminar she has given. “I don’t know if I say that [thin smears] in my notes . . . Sir, that is not a paper. That is a lecture note. I lecture, and then I say additional things, and I show photographs.” The witness is finished and excused, and leaves the bench. The prosecution asks for a sidebar.

    The sidebar ends. The jurors have been excused. There will be a stipulation pertaining to the testimony of Thomas Peterson, but that is likely the end of the State’s evidence. Greenberg objects to the proposed stipulation, says it’s not proper witness impeachment. It is confirmed that the prosecution will officially rest as soon as the jury comes back. The judge says that jury instructions will be hammered out later this afternoon and tomorrow; closing arguments will be Tuesday.

  57. In Session
    Goldberg asks for a sur-rebuttal case, for the sole purpose of admitting a document. Koch objects to this sur-rebuttal, which pertains to “scarring” on Kathleen Savio’s buttocks. Judge: “The defendant’s request for sur-rebuttal is denied.”

    The judge sends for the jury.

    The jurors return to the courtroom. Prosecutor Glasgow: “Judge, we have no further witnesses. Respectfully, the People would rest.”

    Closing arguements will be Tuesday.

    The jurors have now left the courtroom. Judge Burmila is engaged with the attorneys in a sidebar.

  58. Regarding impeaching Tom Peterson’s testimony, the Pros had the opportunity yesterday. All they had to do was ask how old he was during that time and most jurors would agree that a child’s ability to understand adult relationships and manipulations is very limited.

  59. According to Beth and Judge White, from in session, Harry Smith’s testimony now places Drew in the house. Didn’t have that until Joel put him on stand.

  60. Thanks for all the updates Fac

    Question: Is it customary in Illinois for juries to deliberate on Saturdays, assuming closing arguments finish early pm on Friday?

  61. Pearlsgirl, I think you are absolutely correct. They could have done so much more without aanyone thinking they were badgering him. Why didn’t they? Was it a pre-arranged questioning? Made me sick. They had him wrapped up in their hip pocket and let him just sit there. I swear I don’t know what the prosecution was thinking. The defense? For once, they stayed right on the mark. UGH!

  62. @ grandam …My guess is Glasgow v Brodsky ….cant see the big egos missing out on this opportunity to hog the limelight

  63. I think Lopez is closing for the def. I wish someone a bit more passionate sounding then Glasgow would for the state
    And closing arguments arent until Tuesday, tomorrow Jury instructions, then a long weekend, tuesday closing, then the case goes to the jury. Gonna be a long weekend

  64. @ Cheryl…i for one was advocating not being too hard on Thomas for fear of upsetting the jury.

    OTOH, i was surprised that the pros didn’t at least ask the Thomas the following:

    How old were you when your mother passed? 11
    Remind how old were you the last time you were in the bath with your mom? 5 or 6

    No further questions

    The saving grace is that with the absence of Prosc objections and cross-exam, Tom’s testimony would surely have stood in contrast to all the other witnesses and probably came across as overly stilted and rehearsed. I seriously doubt the jury would be swayed by the testimony of an 11 year old son who simply could not conceive of his dad killing his mom.

  65. Lopez has said, he’ll be doing closing, but I guess that could change. Like everything else in this trial did. Hope Glaskow has warrant for Stacy ready just in case Drew walks.

  66. I would guess that closing arguments would take no longer than 2 days even at the rate this trial goes. Jurors should have the case by Thursday morning at the latest.

    The question will be whether the jurors can come to an agreement on whether they believe hearsay testimony or not (and that can be swayed by the jury’s life exeriences).

    I must say, I am not all that confident in the prosecutions case, now that I have experience the Casey Anthony jury, which, by the way, was made up of young and old, professionals and non-professionals.

  67. So the Shark is going to knock Joel out of his spot as lead attorney. Very interesting….maybe in a moment of weakness last night after Joel’s debacle, he felt obliged to cede his prime position….but it will be interesting after the dust settles this weekend whether Joel changes his mind and tries to reclaim top spot…i can imagine those two pushing and shoving all the way to the podium!

  68. @ Pearl —for all her obvious lies and reckless behavior i never saw her as an evil sociopath…more of a immature narcissist.
    I suspect Jurors tend be less forgiving of evil sociopaths …they know that they or someone they love could be next in line.

    Strikes me that Peterson has the charm of Ted Bundy and OJ Simpson combined….and iI’m hoping our experienced jury can see through his charades.

  69. (I stand corrected in my comments about Joel…seems he specifically chose the Shark for his closing oratory

    PR NewsChannel) / April 23, 2012 / CHICAGO
    The criminal defense attorney who will deliver the closing argument when Drew Peterson goes on trial is on a roll, having won all three of his most his most recent jury trials, including two where his clients were charged with murder.

    Attorney Joseph R. Lopez is best known for representing members of the Chicago Outfit. When Lopez was growing up in Chicago’s Little Italy neighborhood, he was given the nickname “the Shark.”

    Lead Peterson defense attorney Joel Brodsky tapped Lopez to join the defense team because of his skills and success at delivering closing arguments.

    “I chose Joe because he is good at what he does,” says Brodsky. “It wasn’t a stroke of genius. It is about assembling a winning team and Joe’s track record reinforces to me that I made the right decision in giving him the closing argument.”

    Two of Lopez’s recent cases were murder trials. The third involved accusations of armed robbery and extortion. Lopez delivered closing arguments in all three cases and all three defendants were found not guilty.

  70. Oxy: I have heard that the wife of the pastor Casey was initially staying with came out and stated just that. It was all about Casey. She is a selfish user. No big surprise there! Some people have to learn the hard way, I guess.

    Just hope the Prosecution’s closing statements keep it simple and hit the important parts to help the jury see the big picture. Don’t want to overload them on controversarial info where they miss the big picture.

    I would love to hear what the defense is going to say. Even though we have been updated about the trial, our great reporters can’t catch every word and inflection and mannerisms are very important. I would love to have been able to watch the jury during the testimony.

  71. Not so sure that I would consider DP charming. I have known too many people with his behaviour traits, None of them are murderers thank god. There is something about DP that even if I had ever met him personally, before all this happened, every Red flag that I know of would have been triggered. He prays on the young and inexperienced, and the so called streetrats. With his badge, he felt like god. But, I guess, some people cannot see it and fall for it. Especially the young and inexperienced. And should he walk, he will never change. I think it will just bolster him and he might become more dangerous. His rantings with his online lovers, and real lovers show actually a very very inmature and insecure man, to me. And a very manipulating one. He is nothing but street smart, the wisdom which his chosen profession provided him. He is, quite frankly, scary!

  72. @ lost…whether you call it charm or not…he certainly has something which gives him a great deal more success at pulling “hot babes” than other men in their mid to late fifties!

    @ Pearl ..agree about the need for simplicity…I believe there is an overwhelming case that Peterson is guilty of murder and in my opinion the prosecution would be best served by limiting their closing remarks to 20 minutes either side of the Shark. Fat chance! We all know the attorneys will rabbit on for hours and be continually interrupted by the defense…and in the end the jury will be left to use its common sense to figure out the obvious.

  73. I missed an update from In Session:

    The judge has returned to the courtroom. The trial is in recess until Friday morning at 10:15 CT/11:15 ET. At that time, the judge and the attorneys will hold a charge conference in open court.

  74. Charge Conference: A meeting between a judge and the parties’ lawyers, after the parties have closed their cases and before the jury is charged, to determine the content of the instructions to the jury and to note any objections the lawyers may have to the instructions proposed by the judge.

  75. It may be inappropriate to post this here on this classy site, and Facs, do please delete if so, My feelings will not be hurt but I want to respond to Oxy:

    @Oxy, a lot of men in their 50’s can pull young hot babes. DP had an advantage, The Badge and the Uniform. There is something I remember growing up in Germany, where we had uniformed soldiers all around due to army bases, from different countries. I remember the one thing that was always important to the uniformed ones was to have a wife, a young one if possible, and as many offspring as you can, and make that wife stay home, taking care of that offspring and the uniformed one, when he got home, after doing his duties, or non duties. Infidelity on the part of the uniformed one? everyone shrugged their shoulders…..stress and all that, you know, but if wifey acted up, all hell broke loose. Its a mind set I saw at a very early age, and it seems like it hasn’t changed much. And tell me that young females are not drawn to a Uniform. Hey he is a cop, it must be ok to trust.

  76. A big thank you to all of you are bringing the updates over here for all of us interested parties. A site totally devoted to this case was so awesome to find. A member from VH turned me on to this site and I am so grateful. We listed you as 1 or our favorite sites on VH.

  77. I guess this says it all:
    Joseph R. Lopez ‏@josharrk
    in the US it does not matter if an accused commits the crime its whether the state can prove it beyond a reasonable

  78. LostAcres – Don’t forget that Drew does seem to favor girls who came from difficult pasts. I think it is pretty common for someone who may not have had much or was mistreated to quickly fall for someone who showers her with attention, compliments, and gifts on top of it. I think that some men also can get their new younger girlfriends to think their ex’s were crazy and the problem. Sadly – most of those younger women become the new older women and see that once babies arrive they are no longer wanting/able to just be spontaneous as they had been.

  79. LostAcres – Sadly that is the truth. The system is setup to protect the innocent from being wrongly accused but that unfortunately means that probably even more guilty defendants go free. It frustrates me to see how many things cannot be brought in against the defendant yet he/she can rip apart the victim to their heart’s content. I say let the jury hear EVERYTHING and let them sort it out.

  80. The cheating behavior is not unusual at all. The lies that Drew tells, about how he never strayed until his wives stopped being “romantic” with him and the marriage was over, are downright hackneyed and trite. Lots of men (and women) cheat on their spouses.

    It’s the control and the greed that are the issue here. The fact that the only way to get out of the marriage with him is to either cede everything to him or be in danger of losing your life, is what is terrifying and unusual. Kathleen was killed because she was a fighter, who wouldn’t just roll over and give up the assets from 9 years of marriage, and Stacy was killed because what she knew about “how he killed Kathleen” could have cost him not only a lot of money, but his kids and his freedom.

    That’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill creep and Drew Peterson.


  81. I also think that when the Defense asked Harry Smith why Stacy didn’t hire him he should have been able to answer with the truth. She went missing. The Defense asked the question and now they are going to try to paint Smith as trying to only answer the way the Prosecution wanted but in reality I think he was probably nervous about saying something that is barred and could cause the Defense to ask for a mistrial again. And I agree that the Prosecution really didn’t need to put on the Dr. about the brain injury. I don’t even know if they needed to put Baden on. They had better have a really good closing argument that puts the circumstantial evidence together. Still frustrated that some things like the overhears didn’t make it in – Paula was on InSession today so why couldn’t they call her to testify for any overhears that they made? What was the point of doing them if they didn’t use them?? I am still perplexed by that. And why do I not recall many of the transcripts of the many interview and media appearances by Drew. Just don’t get it.

  82. I think Lopez should stick to his “weed” cases, or as he refers to them, the “Kilo” cases, depending on the poundage. After all He told Ruby he was not a ‘Reefer” Gosh, my head is spinning, it just all seems so juvenile

  83. It’s endlessly frustrating that the truth is too “prejudicial’ to be heard in court. It’s a circumstantial case and the jury should have heard everything that initially made the authorities suspect Drew of having killed Kathleen, including the fact that Stacy suddenly went “poof”!

  84. LA, I think he said, “Beefer” which I had never heard of either, but hey, if a lawyer wants to pick up the lingo of the slimy milieu he represents it only reflects on himself.

  85. I am with you Facs, I agree, the whole thing just brought up memories and I am trying to wrap my head around this case after all these years of following it. Cannot even believe its been yrs of followiing

  86. Lopez has often mentioned the ratting comment, so that is what he is referring to. So basically he does not consider himself as a rat. So there you go….

  87. As far as young Thomas’s testimony how terribly sad his father was about Kathleens demise, didn’t Drew at one time say “he should have had the bitch cremated, so he wouldn’t be in the trouble he’s in now”

  88. I don’t blame Thomas on doing what he did. It was hard to listen to Lopez say that Tom insisted on testifying and demanded to be a witness because he was tired of people casting nasty aspersions against his father and family. Why is Tom OK with all of the nasty aspersions his own Dad has said against both his mom and Stacy time after time after time and has had his lawyers do for this trial as well?

  89. I have to say – it was kind of funny to hear Paula talk about when Lenny got into a scuffle with Drew and that it was the best $100 he ever spent.! Just wish she had been on the stand with the overhears.

  90. Tom is nothing but a vessel of his fathers. I am more interested in Kris, once he gets over his juvenile years

  91. Kris is 18. He went to court the day he was old enough to sign his name off of the wrongful death awsuit papers that Kathleen’s family did on the boys’ behalf.

  92. The whole “beefer” reference was due to the fact that Ruby initially thought it was Joe Lopez who had called the bailiff over and gotten him tossed out. It was actually Joel Brodsky who did that. Lopez was letting him know that he wasn’t the guy responsible for it.

  93. Thanks everyone for keeping everything up to date. You always know you cn come to Justice Cafe for the latest. Facs, you do an amazing job.
    I don’t even know how to respond to this trial anymore.

  94. Do we know what that last stipulation was? The one that would impeach Tom? Maybe that’s where his age at the time will be mentioned.

    BTW it made me very sad to hear Tom charcterise the time with Stacy as having a “good time”, and she was “fun”. That’s all DP values. I feel very sorry for Tom, and I wish him the best, but he’s not in Med School yet. They tend to select for other quailities as well as academic ability and hard work. I’m not suggesting that his testimony would have any bearing on his future career, but if he is burdened with more of his father’s attitudes, he might like to sort that out before he completes his first degree.

    Just what is up with Lopez getting away with publicly taunting a witness on twitter? Did that really happen?

  95. Bucket, I think the stipulation may pertain to when Tom told the Grand Jury that on three-day weekends, his dad normally kept the kids all three days. That differed from what he told the court this time around.

    Thanks, Stilllearning! I’m glad to see you here from time to time. 🙂

  96. For prosecutors, perhaps the most crucial testimony of the day came from Case, who testified that evidence to support a defense theory of how Savio may have suffered a severe head injury was lacking.

    Case, a specialist in neuropathology, testified that diffuse axonal injury could not have happened in Savio’s death because not enough force was generated in her fall and telltale “markers” of intracranial bleeding were missing.


  97. steph watts‏@stephwatts

    To clear up Drew Peterson’s defense teams lies to judge & jury. I did not attempt to sell Kathleen Savios autopsy tape to Girls Gone Wild.

Comments are closed.