Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[Shelby1]

In Session The jurors are now in the courtroom, and the State calls its first witness: Christopher Long (questioned by prosecutor Connor). “I work for St. Louis University School of Medicine…I direct the Toxicology Laboratory.” He has two masters degrees and a doctorate in Toxicology. “I’m a forensic toxicologist; we study the drugs and substances that people use and abuse, so that the manner of the data may be introduced into a court of law.” He is board certified in forensic toxicology. He has a PhD, and is NOT a medical doctor.

In Session Long says he routinely testifies in court. “I testify in court somewhere between once and twice a month. In depositions, it’s more than that. And I’ve done that once or twice a month for probably the last 10 or 15 years.” Whenever he’s testified, he’d been accepted as an expert witness (as he is again in this case). In 2004, his lab studied tissue samples from Kathleen Savio’s body.

Katie--it's right here-- https://www.facebook.com/InSession You have to click on the comments section. IS will put their updates there among the other comments from Facebook users.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The witness identifies a copy of the air bill associated with the submission of Savio’s samples in 2004. “We note the condition; we want the package sealed and undamaged when we receive it…and then we place it in refrigerated storage.” The witness is then handed another document. “This is the test request. When we receive samples, we need to know who it’s from, and some sort of background information, so we’ll have an idea of what to test for.” “That is not prepared by your office, but it is maintained by your office?” “Yes.”

 

[katydid23]

: Dr. Long takes stand, questioned by prosecutor Connor. Long is not a med. doctor but studies drug/substance intake of people.

Dr. Long studied tissue samples from Savio.witness is asked about protocol when assigned tissue analysis-

 

[Cubby]

I know that we are all in agreement that we want to see justice for Stacy too--and it is fitting and proper that the family/friends of Stacy have a vested interest in this trial, but I have been quite concerned that their daily outspoken messages to the media about the trial and how it related to Stacy actually might hurt the trial for Kathleen.
I don't know how or when they are going to prosecute Drew for the disappearance/murder of Stacy, but I do feel very strongly that this time is about Kathleen. (though the spirit of Stacy is present in that courtroom)
Who knows --maybe the door way will be opened and it can be handled properly, but just offhand, I would say that I can't imagine that under most circumstances that if the issue of Stacy becomes too loud it will cause a mistrial and DP will WALK.:banghead:

I have to respectfully disagree. What Pam B or anyone says outside of the courtroom is free speech. Pam's now the hot topic of the defense because they have nothing else to whine and temper tantrum about this morning. They're pathetic.

 

[LaLaw2000]

((((Shelby1))))

Thank you!!

 

[WindyCityGirl]

there could be something that will cause this trial to become derailed . I do feel strongly that this is about Kathleen now. That was my point. However, I completely disagree that the prosecution is in ANY way using Pam Bosco. I have wondered if the prosecution has similar concerns.
We are on the same team,Cubby (you and I)....I am just a worrier.

I have to respectfully disagree. What Pam B or anyone says outside of the courtroom is free speech. Pam's now the hot topic of the defense because they have nothing else to whine and temper tantrum about this morning. They're pathetic.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I have to respectfully disagree. What Pam B or anyone says outside of the courtroom is free speech. Pam's now the hot topic of the defense because they have nothing else to whine and temper tantrum about this morning. They're pathetic.

I agree, Cubby.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The witness is handed yet another document. “This is our work sheet. This shows basically what we received, the identification of the case . . . and a summation of our test results.” “Is there a name attached to that case on that document?” “Kathleen Savio . . . from March 4, 2004.” He identifies the next document as “our toxicology report; it’s got my signature on the bottom. It shows the testing that we did, and it’s all negative . . . we do a shotgun approach as far as testing. First, we’ll test for alcohol and other volatile compounds . . . then we test for drugs, in a two prong approach. One prong is for amino acids, which has an allergic reaction in a test tube . . . part two is gas chromatography. If it comes up possible on the amino acids, it goes on for further testing. If it comes up positive on the chromatography, it may or may not go on, depending on what it tested positive for.” “So the results reflected indicate that nothing was indicated present in the tissue of Kathleen Savio?” “Well, it indicated positive for an opiate, and that was taken on for further testing. Then it tested negative in further testing . . . while the first test will allow anything in that’s close, the further test will define it, and say, ‘No, that’s not correct.’” “So the second test eliminated the possibility of anything in Kathleen Savio’s system?” “Yes.”

In Session The tissue that was examined in his lab was from Savio’s liver. “Why do you test the liver?” “The drugs are concentrated in your liver . . . that is where you’ll find your greatest concentration for a drug.” “Did you also perform testing on sample from Kathleen Savio’s tissues in 2007?” “Yes, Sir.

 

[katydid23]

there could be something that will cause this trial to become derailed . I do feel strongly that this is about Kathleen now. That was my point.

You are correct, that it is about Kathleen now. But Stacey is totally linked to Kathleen's murder. I think the main reason he disposed of Stacey was because she knew the truth and could have testified against him.

And it was not until Stacey went missing that people began to question Kathleen's 'accident.'

 

[LaLaw2000]

there could be something that will cause this trial to become derailed . I do feel strongly that this is about Kathleen now. That was my point.

Respectfully, I am just not seeing how that could happen. What the defense says outside of the courtroom has been pretty darn bad, IMO, and it apparently has no effect on the trial.

Whatever Pam B. states should not have an effect. She is not saying anything in the courtroom.

MOO

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The witness is handed the airbill in which he received Savio’s tissue samples for the 2007 testing. The next two documents he identifies are the test request form, and then the letter from the coroner “telling us what he sent.” Another document is “our work sheet, with a summation of the testing that had been done in 2007.” The witness is now handed “our toxicology report, with my signature on the bottom . . . this was actually from November 13, 2007; we received it December 12, and it was sent out February 15 . . . there was a screening for methadone, and it came back negative . . . in decomposition, you get a lot of things coming through, so you have to be far more careful in doing the analysis . . . what happened in this case was the body was decomposed, and gave us a false positive . . . this is most likely an artifact in a decomposed liver.”

 

[WindyCityGirl]

between revealing some information and not revealing too much to prejudice the jury. Of course it was Stacy having gone missing that brought about the investigation into Kathleen. The two are connected, but for legal purposes it is a very difficult road to tread. I hope that the prosecution comes out strong!

You are correct, that it is about Kathleen now. But Stacey is totally linked to Kathleen's murder. I think the main reason he disposed of Stacey was because she knew the truth and could have testified against him.

And it was not until Stacey went missing that people began to question Kathleen's 'accident.'

 

[Shelby1]

In Session “Can you explain some of the chemistry about why there are issues with decomposed tissue?” “Say you have hamburger in your refrigerator, and you leave it there too long . . . it didn’t smell before, but it does smell now. That’s due to decomposition . . . proteins break down, and generate cyanide and PPA . . . this is a decomposition product. And we’ll see anything that contains nitrogen, and it will jump up and bite us. When it’s fresh, you don’t have any of those compounds, which can only give false positives. With a decomposed tissue, you have to be more cautious, and make sure what you’re finding is truly present.” “In this particular case, what would the false positive have been?’ “The three things we find in decomposed tissue are amphetamines, methadone…

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Using a graph produced through the gas chromatography process, the witness attempts to explain the results of Kathleen Savio’s toxicology testing. “When we start the test, we put known substances in there, and we want to see them come out at the end; that’s how we know that everything worked . . . as you can see, there’s a very clean chromatogram . . . this one is from 2004.” Again, the witness insists that there was nothing present in the liver sample from Kathleen Savio’s body in 2004. The witness is then handed the chromatogram from 2007. “These are all decomposition . . . if you notice, a lot of the peaks here are very tiny . . . it’s just decomposition; that’s all it is.” “The decomposition of the tissue over three years caused some chemical breakdowns that are evident on that chromatogram?” “Yes.”

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The witness is asked about a long list of compounds that are occasionally found during toxicology exams. “Is it your testimony that these listed compounds were not contained in the liver tissue of Kathleen Savio in 2004?” “Yes, Sir . . . because we do a shotgun approach on screening, we would pick up a lot of compounds, too much to put on a single page.” “But none of these compounds were present in the tissue of Kathleen Savio in 2004?’ “Yes, Sir, that’s correct.” “And none of those compounds were present in the tissue of Kathleen Savio when examined in 2007?” “That is correct.” “Had those compounds been present, they would have shown up in this report?” “Yes.” “So a negative result would not be listed?” “That is correct.” “Based on both these results, were there any anti-depressants contained in the tissue of Kathleen Savio?” “No, Sir . . . not in any kind of concentration to produce any kind of effect.” Objection/Sustained. “The tests that you ran in both 2004 and 2007, did those test for the presence of anti-depressant medications?” “Yes.” “And were they found in any kind of quantity that would cause a positive finding in the tests that you ran?” “No, Sir.” That ends the direct examination of this witness.

In Session After a long pause, the defense begins its cross-examination. “You told the members of the jury that you’ve always been qualified as an expert?” “As far as I know, yes, Sir.” “Well, that’s not exactly true . . .” Objection. The prosecution asks for a sidebar.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The sidebar ends. Goldberg continues his cross. “Would it refresh your recollection that I told you in [one] case … you were specifically excluded as a witness . . . does that ring a bell?” “No, Sir.” “Well, that case involved tasers.” “Oh, tasers . . . I’ve been qualified as a witness every time I’ve testified as an expert in toxicology. I’m not an expert in tasers . . . as a toxicologist, I’ve always been accepted. On something else, no.” The witness then acknowledges that most of his testimony is done on behalf of the prosecution. “You’ve worked as a consultant for the Kansas City Police Department?” “Yes, Sir.” “And the St. Louis Police Department?” “Yes.” “And the Illinois State Police, which is the investigating agency in this case you’re testifying in?” “Yes, Sir.” “And you reviewed police reports?” “No, Sir.” “Well, you’ve had conversations with Mr. Connor about this particular case?” “Yes, Sir . . . to explain the test results, yes, Sir.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The sidebar ends. Goldberg continues his cross. “Would it refresh your recollection that I told you in [one] case … you were specifically excluded as a witness . . . does that ring a bell?” “No, Sir.” “Well, that case involved tasers.” “Oh, tasers . . . I’ve been qualified as a witness every time I’ve testified as an expert in toxicology. I’m not an expert in tasers . . . as a toxicologist, I’ve always been accepted. On something else, no.” The witness then acknowledges that most of his testimony is done on behalf of the prosecution. “You’ve worked as a consultant for the Kansas City Police Department?” “Yes, Sir.” “And the St. Louis Police Department?” “Yes.” “And the Illinois State Police, which is the investigating agency in this case you’re testifying in?” “Yes, Sir.” “And you reviewed police reports?” “No, Sir.” “Well, you’ve had conversations with Mr. Connor about this particular case?” “Yes, Sir . . . to explain the test results, yes, Sir.”

If I was on the jury, this would annoy me. jmo Defense wasting time.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The jurors and witness are now gone. Judge: “OK, we’ll take a minute. Let me know when you find the document.” The judge leaves the bench, and the trial is in a short recess.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The judge is back on the bench. He sends for the witness and the jurors.

 

[ohiogirl]

SOP for this defense. Ask questions, but don't have your references handy. This judge is way to patient with this boloney, imo!